An article in today’s Oregonian outlines the debate at the Federal level on using transit funding as a tool for economic development versus just transportation (in my opinion not instead of transportation, but in addition to it).
The article suggests that this may be an issue for the Streetcar Loop project. I don’t think that’s the case. While we do still have FTA hoops to jump through, the project appears like it will score a ‘Medium’ on the cost effectiveness metric (TSUB, for those of you who follow the details). That coupled with a ‘High’ the economic development stuff should see us through. The real fear was that if we scored ‘low’ on that scale, we’d be in trouble.
But the debate is still important, because it’s all about the difference between access and mobility. Urban circulators (whether bus or Streetcar or whatever) provide lots of access, but since they don’t move people long distances don’t score high on mobility. But when they let people live in high-access environments they avoid lots of long trips which has tremendous environmental benefits (and transportation benefits, as fewer cars are added to highway congestion).
So this is a vital conversation and I hope Congressman DeFazio keeps the heat on FTA to have a broader view of their mission.
69 responses to “Bump Bump Bump”
Trasportation systems aren’t supposed to be a tool for economic development? I’m shocked, shocked, shocked. I thought we were just building a new bridge over the Columbia cause it would look pretty, but apparently it has a hidden agenda of “helping our economy” too.
The issue is “bang for the buck.”
I’ve yet to hear who is served by transit that –slowly– takes folks from the Pearl to Lloyd Center to the marble retailers on MLK…oh, yeah, and OMSI.
Meanwhile TriMet can’t afford to put a bench at my bus stop downtown, PDOT can’t afford to build sidewalks, or put marked crosswalks where they’re needed…it’s a challenge, I think, to make a streetcar loop such a high priority for Portland.
“Why should the government be in the business of promoting density downtown as opposed to some other part of the city?” asks Randal O’Toole.
Wow, what an O’Toole. Ummm, it’s not density in one place vs. density another. It’s density one place vs. sprawl in the other. While I don’t oppose offering people a place in the burbs, I also oppose forcing the burbs against people who want to live in an urban area.
I’ve lived in the suburbs of Portland, as a renter it’s been much cheaper. But it’s also not what I want. I recently moved to a close-in neighborhood, and it’s so much better than a far out suburban neighborhood was.
The streetcar is something I already will take a bus to, just because they move at similar speeds, yet the streetcar is a much easier to remember path. Maybe it’s the tracks in the road.
The East-Side Streetcar isn’t in a neighborhood I’ll regularly use it as it stands, but I’d prefer 3500 extra homes there than near Sherwood or Damascus. I’m more likely to go to the East Side than Sherwood or Damascus anyway, especially since the streetcar is convenient to me.
I’m more likely to go to the East Side than Sherwood or Damascus anyway, especially since the streetcar is convenient to me.
I think this is something suburban folks who complain about poor transit service forget. One reason people in densely developed neighborhoods with mixed use have good transit is that their neighborhoods are destinations for a lot of other people. The flip side is true as well. If a business is located near residential areas it is likely going to have better transit.
but I’d prefer 3500 extra homes there than near Sherwood or Damascus. I’m more likely to go to the East Side than Sherwood or Damascus anyway, especially since the streetcar is convenient to me.
I don’t have much need to go to Sherwood but I still support public transportation to it.
If you don’t like it, appear before TriMet’s Board of Directors and the Metro Council, and ask for them to remove Sherwood and Damascus from their service boundaries. Until then, both have a legal responsibility to serve ALL residents, which includes those communities.
But the debate is still important, because it’s all about the difference between access and mobility.
Sadly, what still fails to materialize as part of the debate is how this project changes the regional transportation system. My argument is that it has relatively little to no impact in terms of total transit capacity because it simply replaces existing service along most of its route.
In fact, if TriMet terminates the 6 bus at Broadway (as was their plan last I heard, I could be behind though), residents of inner North and Northeast Portland will lose single-seat service to PSU, which last I checked is the largest trip generator downtown. How is that a smart decision?
Aaron –
What I understand about the Line 6 termination is that it is a placeholder in the budget to make the operating costs work given identified funding, but that there is a commitment (how much remains to be seen, of course) to include full Line 6 operation in the final system.
Regarding one-seat access from N. and NE. Portland to PSU, and I know this isn’t a replacement for the #6, there will be improvement for some riders when light rail service opens on the Transit Mall in the fall of 2009. At that point, the Yellow Line and Green Line trains will provide direct service to PSU.
If nothing else, riders on any line going to Rose Quarter will have the option of transferring to a frequently-arriving train which serves PSU.
– Bob R.
It is clear to me that all this rail building is basically for economic development and not really for transit riders. Using those criteria it’s all a big success.
I rode the airport max back to my home late the other day around 10pm, and let me tell you, I could have been riding the NYC subways and wouldn’t have noticed the difference. (Except the max is a hell of a lot slower)
ERIK-I sent you a report via your web site e-mail that might be of interest to you.
And then we have the folks responsible for all this:
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/119078255727430.xml&coll=7
Yesterday we had the report that the governor is giving his (I’ll be nice) directors and managers a 24% raise in some cases now today the news the commissioners hardly work…
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/119078255727430.xml&coll=7
Is it any wonder Portland is so completely dysfunctional and such an unlivable place to live?
Sadly, what still fails to materialize as part of the debate is how this project changes the regional transportation system. My argument is that it has relatively little to no impact in terms of total transit capacity because it simply replaces existing service along most of its route.
I would not under-estimate the impact of getting to OMSI either. That area is going to sprout a lot of development soon, and the Streetcar and MAX will be a strong enabler.
While everyone agrees that transportation and land use planning are linked, there’s a chicken and egg question involved. I’ve come to the belief that in general transportation should drive land use rather than respond to it. I think that gets us to a 2040-type region faster.
I’ve come to the belief that in general transportation should drive land use rather than respond to it.
I agree. But if the Central Eastside is supposed to remain an industrial area then does the streetcar get it there? It seems that having more direct connections to the regional transit system – i.e. MAX – would make more sense than was is really a local people mover providing connections within the district and to downtown.
Of course that’s Jim Howell’s argument and I think he’s got some good data. But the political consensus isn’t there. But I think the case for the Streetcar Loop as a distributor of regional MAX traffic (four points of intersection with MAX) is pretty strong as well.
This is now on TreeHugger.
Chris –
If transportation drives land use, then it seems to me the inevitable result will be the eastside becoming an extension of downtown, rather than an industrial area. There seems to be a disconnect between the explicitly stated goals for the area and what will likely result from the current political consensus.
You can’t keep cramming everyone into tight spaces and at the same time clamp down on growth. What’s going to happen when a major employer leaves town or there’s a sudden downturn in the economy? People aren’t going to be able to afford their hoity toity Pearl shopping or restaunts and the whole thing comes to a screeching halt. In fact, doesn’t the Portland economy fare poorer during downturns than other areas?
If transportation drives land use, then it seems to me the inevitable result will be the eastside becoming an extension of downtown, rather than an industrial area.
But zoning still has a role. Streetcar will definitely increase the pressure on Council to rezone the sanctuary, but I think it’s good policy to have non-office jobs in the central city and if Council has some backbone, the eastside doesn’t have to become a mirror of the westside.
I don’t have much need to go to Sherwood but I still support public transportation to it. … Until then, both have a legal responsibility to serve ALL residents, which includes those communities.
Yes, I agree. I lived in Tualatin for nearly a year, and loved the neighborhood. The transit offered was utterly useless to me, and I’ll still be a supporter of expansion of their transit system, as well as other suburban areas, even though I moved to a more transit-friendly neighborhood because the extra costs save me a lot of money in the longer term.
I still don’t oppose taking federal funds to expand the Portland Streetcar. Just because the burbs have bad transit does not mean I’ll oppose a useful expansion of what we have.
If this works maybe Tualatin can someday do a streetcar from the upcoming rail station, down Boones Ferry, across Avery, up Martinazzi, and back on Boones Ferry for economic development. With a bunch of federal dollars and a better region for us all, why not?
if Council has some backbone
Like they had on the New Season’s parking lot next to the light rail station on interstate? I think expecting political leaders to resist economic development that doesn’t fit into the plan is unrealistic. Right now the Central Eastside is not a particularly desirable place for office buildings and condos. The streetcar will change that while providing no real benefit for the current industrial users. The streetcar only really makes sense as part of a long range plan to encourage downtown-style development.
Hmmm… I just came from the Centers vs. Corridors debate where one point of view was that Streetcar was better at enabling corridors, rather than centers :-)
What “corridor” does Streetcar serve?
NW 10th and 11th Avenue? That is NOT a corridor.
Lovejoy? Still not a corridor.
Here’s a corridor: BARBUR BOULEVARD.
Here’s another corridor: TV HIGHWAY.
And another: MCLOUGHLIN BOULEVARD.
Another: MACADAM BOULEVARD.
Another: POWELL BOULEVARD.
Another: HALL BOULEVARD.
And I’ve already discussed the dead zone along Macadam Boulevard that doesn’t make it much of a corridor south of Taylors Ferry Road, so where is our Federal Representatives, TriMet, Metro, etc., clamoring for transit growth in those other corridors?
By the way – there were 50 people waiting for the 12-Barbur Blvd. bus at PSU at 6:30 PM this afternoon – after rush hour, at one stop, with no major event causing a spike in ridership. Obiviously there was a lot of transit demand in the corridor from PSU to Tigard, but where is Metro and TriMet?? Pandering to developers and bribes?
If this works maybe Tualatin can someday do a streetcar from the upcoming rail station, down Boones Ferry, across Avery, up Martinazzi, and back on Boones Ferry for economic development. With a bunch of federal dollars and a better region for us all, why not?
How about Metro fund the purchase of 10 busses (preferably CNG or hybrid-electric), 100 bus shelters, and the associated overhead, for a Tualatin bus service – with routes along Boones Ferry Road, Tualatin-Sherwood Road, Tualatin Road, a loop to serve Bridgeport and the area east of I-5, a loop to serve the neighborhoods and Meridian Park Hospital, and a commuter route to Portland?
Providing adequate, reliable, and frequent service throughout Tualatin to the Commons and the business district, and connecting service to Portland, Tigard and Beaverton would not only encourage further transit use (and decrease auto use, especially on 99W and I-5), but would also be well within TriMet and Metro’s mission. And not just for Tualatin, but for every other community in Metro’s service district and within TriMet’s service district – Forest Grove, Cornelius, King City, Sherwood, West Linn, Oregon City, Troutdale, Gladstone would ALL benefit from improved bus services – and they would all receive it, for just the cost of the Eastside Streetcar Loop.
Amen, Erik. Amen.
I just came from the Centers vs. Corridors debate where one point of view was that Streetcar was better at enabling corridors, rather than centers :-)
That is probably true. And the commercial development along Grand/MLK will likely be helped by the streetcar loop. The question I have is not center vs corridor, but commercial/retail/residential versus industrial development.
How about Metro fund the purchase of 10 busses (preferably CNG or hybrid-electric), 100 bus shelters, and the associated overhead, for a Tualatin bus service – with routes along Boones Ferry Road, Tualatin-Sherwood Road, Tualatin Road, a loop to serve Bridgeport and the area east of I-5, a loop to serve the neighborhoods and Meridian Park Hospital, and a commuter route to Portland?
That’s a good idea if the ridership projections support it. How about you get the Mayor of Tualatin to suggest that instead of the Tualatin-Sherwood connector.
But zoning still has a role. Streetcar will definitely increase the pressure on Council to rezone the sanctuary…
And we just so happen to be “revisiting” –or is that “revisioning”?– the Comp Plan which I recently heard described as “out of gas.” The streetcar is the new Trojan horse for massive redevelopment.
And we just so happen to be “revisiting” –or is that “revisioning”?– the Comp Plan which I recently heard described as “out of gas.” The streetcar is the new Trojan horse for massive redevelopment.
But keep in mind that the sentiment in the local area is very much to retain the industrial zoning. If Streetcar were really a trojan horse, it would be on 7th, not MLK.
But keep in mind that the sentiment in the local area is very much to retain the industrial zoning.
That is generally true now. But sentiment is “flexible”. It doesn’t seem to me the streetcar serves industrial zoning very well. And business people ultimately put land to its highest economic purpose. If adding streetcar shifts the highest value to housing/commercial/retail development, then its doubtful zoning will stand in the way.
And there is little doubt some people want to redevelop the area. Just look at some of the more visionary Riverfront for People designs. And the industrial sanctuary isn’t universally supported even within the area.
If the consensus changes, Streetcar can serve a different usage. But the important point is that the Streetcar service (including the LID structure and interface with CURRENT zoning) has been carefully designed so that Street doesn’t FORCE that change.
he important point is that the Streetcar service (including the LID structure and interface with CURRENT zoning) has been carefully designed so that Street doesn’t FORCE that change.
But isn’t the real question, how does it serve the purpose of promoting the industrial development the area is zoned for?
But isn’t the real question, how does it serve the purpose of promoting the industrial development the area is zoned for?
Well, I think it will help deliver employees and some customers. Keep in mind that industrial doesn’t necessarily mean ‘bending metal’ or the like. A lot of ‘creative’ industries are populating the area.
And more to the point, the MLK/Grand corridor is zoned EXd from 3rd to 6th (that happened long before Streetcar) and there is an enormous amount of FAR potential in existing zoning that Streetcar can help catalyze.
Does someone have some data on the kinds of jobs in CEID? Didn’t a software company and a architecture firm just move into the Hoffman building? Where is the line between commercial and industrial? Wherever it is, it is probably 20 years behind the times.
But not to fear…change will be gradual in CEID until the freeway is removed and the UPRR mainline buried. Then we will not recognize the place…cities either grow or die. Take your pick. Streetcar will help Lloyd to develop…now parking lots at three corners of NE 7th & Multnomah, and will enhance the main street feel of SE Grand, but it is not much a a threat to the industrial sanctuary.
cities either grow or die
Isn’t the question whether downtown Portland grows up or out and across the river? There is an argument for maintaining areas in the central city where businesses that require industrial type processes can locate. That makes a more diverse business environment. I am not sure a sprawling downtown is any better than a sprawling city. And the desire of property owners on the eastside to attract downtown style development is no different than farmers who want suburban housing developments on their fields.
That makes a more diverse business environment. I am not sure a sprawling downtown is any better than a sprawling city.
It’s too bad that Downtown Portland “sprawled” to the Pearl District and to SoWa, when there is PLENTY of developable property downtown – especially since the Moyers put up a lot of blocks (parking lots) for sale. I know one across the street from my building is being redeveloped; there are two more blocks on the other side of the street with redevelopment potential, another kitty-corner that had a building torn down with nothing to replace it.
Oh, and I’m on the north/east edge of the PSU campus.
If Metro is anti-sprawl, why did it locate to the Lloyd District, instead of downtown? That seems, well, contradictory to their message.
The Port of Portland is moving out of downtown. The State Office Building (which also houses a number of federal offices) isn’t downtown; neither is the BPA. Or Kaiser Permanente. Or PacifiCorp.
The tallest building (by stories) in Portland is only 41 stores (the Wells Fargo Tower). In Seattle it’s the 76 story Columbia Center.
On the other hand, the tallest building in Vancouver, BC is only 48 stories – however two buildings are planned that will be 60 and 61 stories (one is a hotel, the other will be mixed-use.)
It seems that sprawl is OK, except when it’s not OK, and the defintion of which is subjective only by those who seem to want to demand how other people live and work, but want others to yield to them. (“It’s OK that housing should be expensive because I can afford it and that I have to have a Streetcar take me to work because I have to live on an old railroad yard, but I don’t think you should have inexpensive housing further away.”)
That’s a good idea if the ridership projections support it. How about you get the Mayor of Tualatin to suggest that instead of the Tualatin-Sherwood connector.
I’ll do that, when the City of Portland puts off downtown street improvements in favor of MAX and Streetcar projects.
Why should Tualatin (and other communities) have to pick and choose their projects, and why should Tualatin have to assume the legal responsibility of another governmental body?
I don’t see Multnomah County taking over Portland’s fire department at will, or the City of Beaverton deciding that it’s going to add public schools. Tualatin shouldn’t be doing TriMet’s job either. If TriMet doesn’t want to do it’s job, it needs to pull back its service boundaries and stop collecting taxes from residents it doesn’t want to serve.
“I’ll do that, when the City of Portland puts off downtown street improvements in favor of MAX and Streetcar projects.”
If your definition of “downtown street improvements” includes building new freeways, (which is basically what the Tualatin-Sherwood connector is,) then it looks like we have…
“Why should Tualatin (and other communities) have to pick and choose their projects”
The exact same reason you can’t live in the pearl and get a limo to drive you to work every day. Because you can’t have everything all the time. Because you have to set priorities in life.
“and why should Tualatin have to assume the legal responsibility of another governmental body?”
I don’t know why they are trying to do cheer-lead ODOT’s project, it seems really dumb to me too. If you read ODOT’s summary about the Tualatin-Sherwood connector, they even say that it isn’t going to benefit local traffic, that it is for regional and statewide traffic to bypass congestion in Tualatin. Maybe they should find some project that will actually benefit them instead.
Why should Tualatin (and other communities) have to pick and choose their projects,
Because regional funds are limited. Every community has to set priorities.
and why should Tualatin have to assume the legal responsibility of another governmental body?
Until you have the support of your local leaders for your proposal you can hardly expect the rest of the region to put its limited funds into paying for it.
assume the legal responsibility of another governmental body?
Metro has zero “legal responsibility” to make transit in Tualatin a priority for regional transportation dollars. Those are political decisions and transit has not been a priority for political leaders Tualatin residents have elected.
If your definition of “downtown street improvements” includes building new freeways, (which is basically what the Tualatin-Sherwood connector is,) then it looks like we have…
Name one freeway that is under City of Portland jurisdiction.
(I’m humming the Jeopardy theme song now.)
Name one freeway that is under City of Portland jurisdiction.
Well, since we’re talking about locally-maintained roads with freeway-like qualities, 82nd Ave. from Webster St. to Alderwood Rd. qualifies as a limited-access expressway, with on ramps, exit signs, and everything.
A good stretch of Airport Way functions as a freeway — just try it on any normal business travel morning.
Portland funds are going into the Delta Park widening project for I-5, which includes a replacement of the Denver Ave. viaduct.
Portions of MLK/Grand and McLoughlin are freeway-like, especially from Tacoma to Milwaukie Ave. and from Holgate to Stephens St. The MLK viaduct is currently being replaced.
These aren’t huge stretches of road, although a couple of those are contiguous, uninterrupted expressway for distances greater than a mile, which is comparable to some proposals for the Tualatin-Sherwood connector.
But of course, it is now well-known that a high percentage of Portland residents do not want more freeways within the city. The reason we have vibrant and thriving neighborhoods along SE Division, for example, is because the area wasn’t wiped out to build the Mt. Hood Freeway.
Still humming?
– Bob R.
You have named not ONE single City of Portland owned/funded project.
Airport Way is maintained by the Port of Portland, and is NOT a freeway (it has only one interchange for Cascade Station, the rest are at grade/traffic signalized, does not have 55 MPH speed limit).
Denver Avenue is not a freeway, it’s a two lane road. Is PDOT paying for the actual widening of I-5, or is PDOT paying for improvements to streets in the same area that are local access streets?
McLoughlin Boulevard is not a freeway (similar is not the same), and even if, it’s still ODOT maintained, not City of Portland. And ODOT is paying for the bridge to be replaced, not Portland.
Just because a street is designed as a limited-access route doesn’t make it a freeway.
Unfortunately I’ve stopped humming, because time is up and your screen is bright, blue, and not correct.
Name one freeway that is under City of Portland jurisdiction.
What difference does that make? We are talking about regional funds. Tualatin is not going to build either a transit service or the Tualatin-Sherwood connector. But the reality is that when the region sets priority for how funds are spent in the Tualatin area they listen closely to the people you elect. If you can’t persuade them that it is a priority, how do you expect to persuade people outside your own community that it is?
The reality is you are preaching to the choir here. If Tualatin’ electged leaders said “the priority for regional transportation funds in our community is to make transit improvements”, most people here would be inclined to support that. They didn’t say that. They said the priority is for the Tualatin-Sherwood connector and a new freeway interchange. They made commuter rail a priority – although mostly they went along with Washington County’s other jurisdictions. I think you need to find out what is going on in your own backyard.
TriMet’s job is to provide transit, PERIOD.
It is not required to listen to city councils, mayors, county commissioners, etc. It’s job is to provide public transit where it’s needed.
It has the full legal capacity to do whatever it takes to identify that – including customer surveys, mapping, monitoring development, etc. Yes, it CAN listen to local governments, but it is not the sole method of identifying where transit is needed.
If TriMet is only to listen to local governments, then I implore you to contact the State Capitol, and change the method by which TriMet’s Board of Directors is seated – right now it is political appointees of the Governor, and change it to a representation of interested representatives of the cities. And those cities that choose not to be representated, won’t get a vote.
By the way, the City of Tualatin did ask its residents about what Tualatin should be like, it was called the Tualatin Tomorrow visioning process. And within it, was very strong support for additional public transit (in addition to other transportation projects), and one of the outcomes was better local transit, including transit between Sherwood and Tualatin – and even to the point of Tualatin providing its own transit service (a la Wilsonville – and even a possible joint transit system with Wilsonville).
What’s TriMet’s response? It sounds like there is plenty of community interest in public transit to me. (Certainly, TriMet is aware of that since TriMet is building a commuter rail station in Tualatin – and Tualatin was hardly a lead participant in that process, so your logic is once again flawed. When “rail” is spoken, TriMet and Metro have no problem with it. When “bus” is spoken, TriMet could care less.)
When considering the role of streetcars, people need to truly ask themselves why should taxpayers subsidize discounted and/or free transportation along with upscale housing for the wealthy? Why should taxpayers directly or indirectly subsidize Homer Williams, other affluent developers and a downtown bookstore owner so they can craft themselves high end profits? Why should taxpayers subsidize neighborhoods that are so densely built the neighborhoods are anything but family friendly thereby driving families to live in the suburbs and reducing inner city school enrollment? And why should taxpayers subsidize a snail rail system that continually creates more congestion on city streets for both motorists and motor freight carriers that contributes to higher fuel consumption?
The same basic answer applies to all of these questions – taxpayers should not be providing any of these subsidies. Taxpayers are being fleeced by Earl Blumenauer, his propaganda, his brainwashing and followers who believe the rhetoric – all so they can have a full sized Lionel train layout on the streets of Portland where they can ring the bell and create a legacy for themselves.
And yes, there is a romance that pertains to the vintage wooden streetcars of yesteryear that once rumbled along in the streets carrying passengers to and from Portland’s one and only town center. However this romance of yesterday is blurring the vision of those who want everybody to wear rose colored glasses when it comes to promoting what once was, such as in the 1920s. Portland now has multiple town centers that could never all be served by such a slow and outdated mode of transport without literally financially raping taxpayers to build and operate such a web of financial indebtedness and impracticality. The administration is right on this one. The Portland streetcar system is an extravagance, a frill, carrying too small of a percentage of all regional trips at too slow of a pace for to high of a price tag.
Terry: “why should taxpayers subsidize discounted and/or free transportation along with upscale housing for the wealthy?”
So are you suggesting that tax payers should never pay for services that go to the wealthy? Do you have a certain income cut off in mind? Are you also suggesting that we not subsidize (which we do) the construction of streets?
Terry: “anything but family friendly thereby driving families to live in the suburbs and reducing inner city school enrollment?”
You might be interested to know that less that 25% of Americans live in nuclear families. Or that 42% of all Americans over the age of 25 are single? Speaking of rose colored glasses, you might want to adjust your tint. Ozzie and Harriet are dead.
Terry; “Taxpayers are being fleeced by Earl Blumenauer, his propaganda, his brainwashing ”
You’ve just suggested that our US congressman is corrupt and uses techniques common to cult leaders. Really? Got some evidence to back that up?
Terry; “Portland now has multiple town centers that could never all be served by such a slow and outdated mode of transport ”
This is why we need transportation options. I don’t hear any streetcar advocates on this board suggesting that it is the only option that should be there.
Terry; “literally financially raping”
Many happen to disagree with you. Do I need to explain why your word choice, however, is offensive?
Terry; “The administration is right on this one.”
In my opinion this administration hasn’t been right about very much. Their ability to predict the future has proven poor in multiple arenas. I wouldn’t start listening to them now.
“And yes, there is a romance that pertains to the vintage wooden streetcars of yesteryear that once rumbled along in the streets carrying passengers to and from Portland’s one and only town center.”
>>>> That’s why we should have built a couple of “heritage trolley” lines that have a lot of attraction to tourists and others. And you could CHARGE FARES to ride them, not giving the service away like the current situation.
Instead of trying to rationalize trolleys as a “modern” form of transit, we could be creating BRT lanes and busways.
If they’re gonna shake the federal money tree they should use the money for statewide projects like commuter rail to Salem and McMinnville. The Portlanders can get off their rears and walk a few blocks. They don’t need to import more Skodas from 3rd world countries.
This is why we need transportation options. I don’t hear any streetcar advocates on this board suggesting that it is the only option that should be there.
OK, then I’m sure that the streetcar advocates won’t mind giving up a few years of funding so that those dollars can go back towards ordering new busses, articulated busses, hybrid busses, and enhance bus stops, reinstall the “transit tracker” signs at bus stops, improve schedule reliability, and improve bus frequency.
You know, those things that were supposed to have been funded, until TriMet took that money, and diverted it strictly to rail-based projects; and that Metro provides virtually zero funding to bus projects.
And then bus funding is caught up, future transit spending shall be allocated among the modes – including buses.
TriMet’s job is to provide transit, PERIOD.
You are changing the subject. One minute you whine about Metro, the next minute its Trimet.
dollars can go back towards ordering new busses, articulated busses, hybrid busses,
It does not appear that Trimet lacks enough buses, it lacks the funds to operate the ones it has.
There is a need for better bus service. But if the region is going to invest in bus service it needs to put money into things that are real barriers to people using transit. Not new buses for more empty suburban runs.
Ross – prove to me that TriMet lacks the funds to operate the busses that it has.
And prove it using TriMet’s audited financial statements.
Also, prove to me that TriMet lacks busses. Since I have started working 8 AM-5 PM, I have seen at least a half dozen 12-B busses that changed its destination sign to “DROP OFF ONLY” because of over-crowding conditions.
IN BOTH DIRECTIONS DURING THE PM RUSH HOUR.
Obiviously you have no idea how successful those “empty suburban runs” are, so unless you are willing to back up your statements with proven facts, I cannot find your posts to hold any merit. This is not to suggest that all suburban runs are successful (I know of many routes that could be described as “under-performing”, but even a recent Oregonian article would include all MAX reverse-commute runs in the same category), but to group all busses as “empty” is a flat out LIE.
Portland now has multiple town centers that could never all be served by such a slow and outdated mode of transport…
Actually, I think that’s exactly what should happen. While we needed to prove the value of Streetcar downtown where it had the best chance of success, we should be getting Street to all of our town and regional centers to spur their development and more equitably distribute the investment and service.
OK, then I’m sure that the streetcar advocates won’t mind giving up a few years of funding so that those dollars can go back towards ordering new busses, articulated busses, hybrid busses, and enhance bus stops, reinstall the “transit tracker” signs at bus stops, improve schedule reliability, and improve bus frequency.
Except that Streetcar took no capital funds from TriMet so did not impact any of those services. Erik, you’re mixing the funding sources for LRT and Streetcar.
Erik,
You got the bureaucracies mixed up. I used to think they were the same, too. TriMet reports to the governor and Metro is an extension of COP to dominate the surrounding burbs.
“and Metro is an extension of COP to dominate the surrounding burbs.”
How does that account for the fact that Metro is divided into 6 districts, each elected? Interestingly, if the districts were just divided by population your assertion might be correct. But they are not.
As Colbert might say, better know a district http://www.metro-region.org/article.cfm?articleID=778
Ross – prove to me that TriMet lacks the funds to operate the busses that it has.
You are the one claiming that the barrier to more bus service is an investment in buses, I doubt that is true. There are buses that aren’t on the street 24/7 – what more proof do you need?
You keep trying to make the case that the investment in rail transit has resulted in reduced service for people who don’t have direct access to MAX. I don’t think that is the case. To the contrary, the investment in MAX, with its lower operating costs has allowed Trimet to add bus service on other routes. As the link I posted shows, each time MAX has expanded service the total hours of transit service has expanded. And that doesn’t even consider that one service hour of MAX provides for many more trips than a service hour of bus.
Streetcar, as currently used, is a development tool. It helps create additional transit use by encouraging transit-oriented development and extending the pedestrian environment. But I don’t think it has really served existing transit users who previously used the bus.
If you could convince me that streetcar was having a significant negative impact on bus service, I would agree with you its a problem. But there isn’t much evidence of that. My concern with streetcar is more that it is starting to spread downtown out over a much larger area. It seems to me encouraging higher densities downtown makes more sense. Connecting Lloyd Center, the Pearl and even south Waterfront to downtown made sense. But extending downtown into the Central Eastside or along Hawthorne or out Broadway is not a good idea. And that is really the role streetcar does best – extending the pedestrian environment.
And yes, Lake Oswego is a different, and unique, story.
you have no idea how successful those “empty suburban runs” are
I didn’t say anything about current suburban runs. I was referring explicitly to your demand for a massive investment in new transit in Tualatin. As someone who commuted to King City on the 12, I have a pretty good idea of how crowded some 12 buses can get at certain times of the day.
There are lot of crowded buses throughout the region at those times of the day. We need more and better bus service, but your proposals don’t get us closer to that. To the contrary, you seem to be proposing draining transit from heavily used areas for the benefit of making sure suburban commuters don’t have to stand up too long.
I would like to address one key issue that is frequently, if not always omitted in the Bus vs. Rail debate, and that is mandated ADA complementary paratransit. At nearly $33.00 per boarding, it is by far the largest problem with funding for transit overall. If you’re concerned about lack of bus service, you should also very concerned about ADA paratransit services.
Every time you add a bus line, you add more mandated paratransit. Every time you add hours, you add more mandated paratransit.
The easiest way to solve the problem is to make the (accessible) bus and rail system more appealing to passengers who qualify for ADA paratransit services.
I can speak from experience, it is a heck of a lot easier to convince a senior or person with a disability to use Light Rail than it is to convince them to use the bus. Even though the passengers on LRT and the bus are the exactly the same, the assumptions are different. We call it bus snobbery…but it’s real. The process of boarding and alighting on any rail system, LRT or Streetcar is much less cumbersome on than maneuvering on a lift/bus.
Chris, I would also like to appeal to you to keep this in mind when working with future streetcar planning. My world would be 100% better if there was a streetcar or MAX running by every major medical facility, preferably with stops at their front door. For example, I definitely favor streetcar service on Williams/Vancouver over MLK for exactly that reason.
Chris, I would also like to appeal to you to keep this in mind when working with future streetcar planning. My world would be 100% better if there was a streetcar or MAX running by every major medical facility, preferably with stops at their front door. For example, I definitely favor streetcar service on Williams/Vancouver over MLK for exactly that reason.
Indeed! One suggestion has been made that a line out Broadway/Weidler to Hollywood should terminate at Providence.
Instead of expensive means of transporting elderly and disabled people why not deeply subsidize them to build Pearl Like Condos attached to hospitals? Why carve up Portland and make it look like Disneyland with ugly Skodas crisscrossing every neighborhood?
Ah yes, right in front of the 5050 NE Hoyt entrance, please.
Psymonetta,
They could put a new highrise at 3030 SW Moody Ave and take the tram to OHSU, too.
Greg,
If you look at the plans for the South Waterfront, that has always been the intention. There will be high rises and OHSU facilities from Riverplace to the Spaghetti Factory. Any developable frontage on Moody (and probably more added streets east of Moody) is a candidate for a high rise. There’s even a plan for a tower at the Zidell site cheekily called “the Crane Tower”. So, I fail to see why the 3030 building and property would get any special consideration either.
I should also add that OHSU is partnering with Mirabella to develop senior housing with easy access to the new Health and Healing Center. Their sales office is actually on the first floor of the 3030 building, complete with model apartment.
But, why put skodas everywhere? Because it costs less and keeps communities more stable, and schools are more evenly funded when seniors own their own homes and age in place. And, seniors do a heck of a lot more than go to the doctor.
I still would like to see a Salem – Riverplace and McMinnville – Riverplace commuter line in place. Are there any exploratory committees looking into this possibility?
Except that Streetcar took no capital funds from TriMet so did not impact any of those services. Erik, you’re mixing the funding sources for LRT and Streetcar.
According to PortlandStreetcar.org, Portland Streetcar (Gibbs Extension) received $10 million in regional transportation funds.
Surely, you will equally support Metro allocate $10 million dollars to improve service on the 12-Barbur Line, a truly regional transit service that covers 16 miles, serves five cities in two counties.
That $10M was specifically allocated for transportation infrastructure to develop the South Waterfront area. Would improvements to the 12-Barbur meeting that goal?
Hawthorne said” You’ve just suggested that our US congressman is corrupt and uses techniques common to cult leaders. Really? Got some evidence to back that up?
Let’s review: a wealthy US Congressman (Blumenauer) manages to hoodwink congress into passing the Small Starts Program that expends Federal Transportation Dollars and tends to favor spending those funds in Portland over any other US City. Legal? Probably. Morally correct? Probably not, but definitely pork barrel spending that is no different than building a bridge to no where. In Portland and on the streetcar board there are no less than three wealthy members that own property along proposed routes – one of whom wants streetcars on all four sides of his business and all stand to benefit financially from the federal subsidy. Furthermore, local match money is patched together by taking away dollars from other projects including in urban renewal districts, and possibly the profits of some people who are less affluent. Additionally the streetcars need a revenue source to subsidize their operations since fares are set below market value to inflate ridership numbers. One of the likely sources is to poach the dollars from parking meter revenues paid by motorists and therefore should be used for roads. And finally, there has been NO public vote on this entire con job. The whole scenario demonstrates that a “Transportation Mafia” with roots in Portland does exist that attempts to socially control and manipulate the lives of others, and why taxpayers are being fleeced. Even with the present makeup in congress – the rich continue to get richer and on the backs of the middle class and disadvantaged taxpayers.
Chris said ”While we needed to prove the value of Streetcar downtown where it had the best chance of success, we should be getting Street to all of our town and regional centers to spur their development and more equitably distribute the investment and service.”
First, the value of the streetcar has not been proved since it is not financially self-sustainable. Iit does not pay for it self by those who use it. Second, the fact that busses coupled with existing light rail service has less of an impact on gumming up high volume traffic streets streets, creating more congestion and increasing motorist fuel consumption; and can provide the transport of people not only faster but with a much smaller price tag in that there is no requirement to build an entirely different infrastructure system is a far better choice for hub to hub and town center to town center transit service. Third, busses are more flexible and can be rerouted without massive infrastructure costs as transport patterns change.
As for spurring development; Al said “It is clear to me that all this rail building is basically for economic development and not really for transit riders. Using those criteria it’s all a big success.”
If the streetcar was truly spurring development, all those property tax abatements handed out like free candy, all the other taxpayer subsidies and all the below market value land supplied by PDC to developers that took place along the existing streetcar line would not have occurred. The streetcar has merely been used catalyst to spend even more taxpayer dollars to subsidize big development. If those subsidies were offered without the streetcar, development would still occur. Therefore it is the taxpayer subsidies directly going to developers and property owners and not the streetcar that spurs new development.
Would improvements to the 12-Barbur meeting that goal?
No, and improving it isn’t a priority for the cities it serves largely because there is nothing wrong with the current 12-Barbur service. If you wanted to make capital investments to improve transit service in Tigard, for instance, you would start by improving the pedestrian connections to the transit center there. That would serve people using several bus lines and commuter rail once it starts.
The streetcar has merely been used catalyst to spend even more taxpayer dollars to subsidize big development.
So, when my landlord mentions how much easier it is to find tenants (like myself) since the streetcar opened, he’s a liar? More likely, people like myself would find another neighborhood to live in.
I’m a bus or walk away from the streetcar, it’s not right next door. I still love it, and wish it would be expanded sooner than later. Sorry.
First, the value of the streetcar has not been proved since it is not financially self-sustainable.
Oh, I forgot. I love having buses convenient, and I love my car, but are either of those financially self-sustainable?
I love the idea of improving I-5, but not if we’re going to fail to invest in transit.
because there is nothing wrong with the current 12-Barbur service
OK, then will you accept the equal level of service on MAX or Streetcar that 12-B is afforded?
Let’s see what we will have to do to get the two on an equal playing field:
1. 3/4s of all shelters on MAX/Streetcar will have to be removed.
2. Every NextBus/Transit Tracker sign must be removed.
3. All MAX trains must operate as single car trains.
4. Frequent Service will only exist Willow Creek-Gateway (on MAX) and on 10th/11th Avenues on Streetcar. 30 minute service will suffice outside of those areas.
5. Every other train will not have A/C.
6. On average, 20% of trains will be late. 5% of trains will simply not show up.
7. If a train is full, it simply will not stop.
8. Only two bicycles will be permitted on a train. If the two racks are already used up, the train cannot permit another bicyclist to board.
9. The operator must also act as a fare inspector; there is no fare inspector or transit police officer to handle customer issues.
10. Some stations will be removed completely, replaced with nothing more than a sign next to the ballast (or on side of the street, even if it is a parking space and a car is parked there.)
Yeah, “nothing is wrong with the current 12-Barbur” service. Maybe if TriMet properly invested in bus service, and Metro properly allocated funds to bus service, that bus ridership would actually grow? Corridor growth (i.e. high density growth along existing corridors) could be encouraged, and the use of park-and-ride lots to stimulate bus ridership could be replaced with pedestrian-friendly growth near bus stops (like the new condo development built at 35th & Barbur?)
The riders are already there. Just ride a 12 bus sometime. Look at all the housing, the jobs, the condos, the apartments. It’s ALREADY there. We don’t need more development, we need more transit. When busses pass by with a headsign reading “DROP OFF ONLY” – is that “good” transit? When busses are parking on the side of the road, four-way flashers on, and a crowd of people standing beside it and the engine hatch open – is that “good” transit? When it’s 100 degrees outside and the bus lacks A/C – is that “good” transit? When it’s pouring down rain, and there isn’t a shelter – is that “good” transit?
It seems that you (Ross) seem to have no consideration for the bus passenger. The line 12 is not good transit service. If it is, then I implore that in the interest of fairness to all people and equality, that you demand the same level of service on MAX and Streetcar. I’m sure that if MAX or Streetcar operated the way the 12 would, you’d be demanding answers from TriMet, and you’ll call for Metro to boost capital funding to improve transit.
Why can’t you do the same for bus service? Or are bus passengers just second-class citizens?
Don’t forget:
11. The lack of turnstiles at the bus stops…
If we really wanted to show bus riders that we cared, we’d outfit every bus stop with a turnstile, and an operator to open the gate for ADA people too. Why should bus riders settle for being equal to MAX, they should strive to be better, after all, there are more of them…
then will you accept the equal level of service on MAX or Streetcar that 12-B is afforded?
So your argument is that any bus route that lacks the same service as MAX is inadequate? I don’t buy that.
What you appear to be suggesting is that unless a comparable level of service can be provided everywhere at once, it is unfair to improve anyone’s service anywhere – except the #12 bus that you happen to ride. I don’t buy that argument either.