An article on TheAtlantic.com, found by way of Planetizen, goes into great detail explaining the current pattern of housing demand across America, and how this will lead to a great exodus from suburbia and back into the central cities – and even into suburban cities and towns – so long as they are dense, walkable, and have access to good public transportation networks. At the moment, much of the lack of housing demand in the suburbs can be attributed to the subprime mortgage crisis, which has lead to a downturn in every housing market in the USA except for Portland, Seattle, and Charlotte. However, the roots of this shift in demand reach deeper than the current financial crisis and what we are seeing now is only the tip of the iceberg.
The decline of places like Windy Ridge (Charlotte) and Franklin Reserve (Elk Grove, Calif.) is usually attributed to the subprime-mortgage crisis, with its wave of foreclosures. And the crisis has indeed catalyzed or intensified social problems in many communities. But the story of vacant suburban homes and declining suburban neighborhoods did not begin with the crisis, and will not end with it. A structural change is under way in the housing market—a major shift in the way many Americans want to live and work. It has shaped the current downturn, steering some of the worst problems away from the cities and toward the suburban fringes. And its effects will be felt more strongly, and more broadly, as the years pass. Its ultimate impact on the suburbs, and the cities, will be profound.
Arthur C. Nelson, director of the Metropolitan Institute at Virginia Tech, has looked carefully at trends in American demographics, construction, house prices, and consumer preferences. In 2006, using recent consumer research, housing supply data, and population growth rates, he modeled future demand for various types of housing. The results were bracing: Nelson forecasts a likely surplus of 22 million large-lot homes (houses built on a sixth of an acre or more) by 2025—that’s roughly 40 percent of the large-lot homes in existence today.
[snip]
Pent-up demand for urban living is evident in housing prices. Twenty years ago, urban housing was a bargain in most central cities. Today, it carries an enormous price premium. Per square foot, urban residential neighborhood space goes for 40 percent to 200 percent more than traditional suburban space in areas as diverse as New York City; Portland, Oregon; Seattle; and Washington, D.C.
[snip]
Sprawling, large-lot suburbs become less attractive as they become more densely built, but urban areas—especially those well served by public transit—become more appealing as they are filled in and built up. Crowded sidewalks tend to be safe and lively, and bigger crowds can support more shops, restaurants, art galleries.
But developers are also starting to find ways to bring the city to newer suburbs—and provide an alternative to conventional, car-based suburban life.
[snip]
Demographic changes in the United States also are working against conventional suburban growth, and are likely to further weaken preferences for car-based suburban living. When the Baby Boomers were young, families with children made up more than half of all households; by 2000, they were only a third of households; and by 2025, they will be closer to a quarter. Young people are starting families later than earlier generations did, and having fewer children. The Boomers themselves are becoming empty-nesters, and many have voiced a preference for urban living. By 2025, the U.S. will contain about as many single-person households as families with children.
While this information is not news to many regular readers of this blog, this serves as further evidence that the car-dominated cityscape and associated suburban lifestyle is on a downturn. This forecast is certainly not bulletproof, as nobody is perfect at predicting future events, but it suggests that the “old way” of doing things is no longer perceived by the majority as being in the best interests of our society. This, while we continue to endure having the largest public works project in Pacific Northwest history forced upon us, a project whose goal is to further the agenda of the old guard, the old way of doing things. If the forecast described above comes to fruition and nearly half of those large-lot homes in Clark County are abandoned come 2025, a scant ten years or so after the CRC is opened to the public, will we look back upon our $6B+ investment as a smart one? Will that much capacity even be necessary at that point? In the face of this possibility, how else could we spend $6B – on transportation infrastructure serving both states – that would be consistent with serving the needs of future residents?
Additionally, how do we address the looming challenge of ensuring mobility for our aging – and now retiring – baby-boomer population? Many of our suburban households are occupied by boomers who will either need to relocate to walkable, transit-oriented communities or have additional transportation options brought to within walking distance of their suburban homes. The latter of which is not exactly an inexpensive proposal given the low densities of modern suburban communities. At present, we don’t have the urban housing capacity to accommodate thousands of boomers electing to relocate to central city neighborhoods, nor do we have the resources to provide dial-a-ride services for those who elect to stay in the suburbs. What suggestions do you have for improving mobility options for the increasing number of elderly without breaking the bank and / or neglecting other required services and infrastructure maintenance and construction?
59 responses to “Slumburbs?”
Why do these people always assume frail old people will need to walk (or wheelchair) 1/4 mile to the toy train stop instead of simply getting in their car near their front door? Sure some small percentage will be unable to drive, but most that are able to walk a are also able to drive.
PS: This was covered by the Antiplanner back on Mar 3:
ti.org/antiplanner/?p=374
Thanks
JK
Jim,
I work with all of those “frail old people” that can not drive, or do not want to drive anymore. Believe me, the demand for accessible transit and door-to-door paratransit services is significant and will only increase as the population ages. I don’t assume that “frail old people”, who I prefer to call “older adults”, need accessible tranportation options that do not include private cars; I know that the need exists.
For suggestions (some of them are a bit out there):
1. Coordinate access to major medical centers with transit infrastructure development. Example: if given the choice of putting streecar on MLK north of Broadway or on the Williams/Vancouver couplet, preference should be given to Williams/Vancouver because it will drastically improve transit access to the hospital for people who can not ambulate/travel more than a couple of blocks.
2. Locate housing for older adults and people with disabilities near major medical centers or along transit corridors with access to major medical centers.
3. Revive the idea of house-calls and local store grocery deliveries.
4. Develop community service co-ops where volunteers can trade transportation service or help with household maintenance for other types of assistance.
5. Develop co-housing programs that provide services/mechanisms/funding for older adults to sub-divide large urban homes into 2 or more units and rent out a family sized unit (for additional income) at a subsidized rate in exchange for care services, including transportation and help with daily activities that allow that older adult to age in place.
6. Don’t silo services for older adults. Try to weave them in to other programs to provide more opportunity for older adults to develop and maintain natural support systems.
7. Make regular transit free for anyone who is eligible (conditionally or unconditionally) for ADA paratransit.
8. County agencies should act as retail outlets for transit fare and apply county funding to develop sliding scale prices. (I’m working on this one).
9. Any and every service, employment center or retail outlet who serves older adults and people with disabilities should make transit access the number one priority when they select a site for their business/non-profit/program. There are far to many supported employment sites, mobility equipment repair and support agencies located in far-flung inaccessible office parks on the edges of the suburbs.
“Additionally, how do we address the looming challenge of ensuring mobility for our aging – and now retiring – baby-boomer population? Many of our suburban households are occupied by boomers who will either need to relocate to walkable, transit-oriented communities or have additional transportation options brought to within walking distance of their suburban homes.”
What poppycock! Such a statement is offensive, shows a lack of respect for maturity and personal choice, and demonstrates how age discrimination is creeping into decision making politics from younger generations. If boomers need additional transportation options, it is because they can no longer walk, have become severely mobility impaired, or because inflation and unwarranted excessive taxation has eroded their personal income. Moving them to so-called walkable transit-oriented communities that has transit within walking distance is the typical wrong answer associated with self-prescribed authoritarians that want to control the lifestyles of others through mandates, assert to treat individuals like cattle and no longer exhibit respect for lifestyles contrary to their own ideals. Just the personal trauma of moving a senior citizen from a place in a community they have called home for the better part of a lifetime can prove fatal.
For people on low fixed incomes that have had their income eroded due to inflation and high taxes; additional tax breaks are needed, no matter where they live, maybe offset by additional taxes on new high density urban heat island development. For people who are mobility impaired; door-to-door transportation services are required that can be paid for by the fittest of the fit who claim to ride bicycles everywhere. Additionally, the door-to-door service must be far better than the current TriMet lift service. Knowing somebody who is 90 plus, mobility impaired, and for the most part independent in daily life using a scooter in dry weather to get around, having to call ahead 24 hours in advance for lift service when it rains is totally unacceptable, especially when the service itself from the way this person describes it, but my word: “sucks”.
Cora, while I agree with you in principle on #1, Vancouver/Williams is actually a fair distance from the main doors of that hospital, the streetcar would really need to go into the hospital parking lot and loop around, (much like the #33 does now,) which might make it less appealing for everyone that isn’t going to/from the hospital in the first place.
If the hospital could at extend a heated (and therefor covered) tunnel or bridge or something all the way over to Williams, then I think Vancouver/Williams would be a great place for a streetcar.
Alternatively, they could run the streetcar into the parking lot, and out past the emergency room and out through the back of the hospital, going under the Kerby-405 ramp, and then up Mississippi; basically following the 4F bus line except going through hospital instead of taking Fremont.
Also, that hospital could make it a little more obvious where the bicycle parking is. Most old people aren’t going to ride a bicycle to the hospital, but that doesn’t mean their friends/relatives won’t…
All that said, Vancouver/Williams to Killingsworth is full of vacant lots/boarded up buildings that would develop nicely with the right catalyst, (like the streetcar.)
While this information is not news to many regular readers of this blog, this serves as further evidence that the car-dominated cityscape and associated suburban lifestyle is on a downturn.
Not necessarily. This appears to be a slanted article designed to attract a particular point of view, without showing objective data.
The best data it provides is the cost per square footage. But it doesn’t show vacancy rates, turnover, tenure at the home (to indicate “flipping”), or other meaningful data.
If the public is revolting from suburbia, then wouldn’t there be negative housing growth in the suburbs while every downtown building would have a waiting list? There have been numerous articles in The Oregonian about downtown housing projects that are essentially stalled – condos turned to apartments, condos whose original owners are selling (flipping) while the developer is still trying to sell vacant units, potential condo buyers backing out leaving the developer with a condo they can’t sell at a profit, etc. Just a few days ago in the Portland Tribune was an article about families leaving the Pearl District due to a lack of family amenities (namely schools).
I will agree that there is increased demand towards “urban” housing (urban can describe suburbia, but it seems that certain people have redefined “urban” to mean central city only) but there is little to no proof of decreased demand in the ‘burbs. In fact there likely evidence of increased demand beyond the suburbs, in towns like Battle Ground, Yacolt, Sandy, Estacada, Molalla, Woodburn, Aurora, Donald, Newberg/Dundee, McMinnville, Lafayette, Dayton, Carlton, Yamhill, Gaston, Scappoose and St. Helens – towns that surround the Portland metro area, are still within a one hour drive, but are beyond the “suburbs”. Between most housing flexibility, access to all of the necessary services, and lower housing costs – there are many neighborhoods that are still growing despite the “housing crunch”.
As for providing services designed for groups of people who cannot drive (namely senior centers) – my grandmother lives in one such facility in Sherwood that has ZERO TriMet access (without a VERY long walk, about eight blocks). Another such facility is located across the street from my home – yet the access to public transit involves crossing two streets (one of which is a five lane state highway with no crosswalk nearby) and a steep hill. Both of these facilities are either new or have expanded significantly in the last two years – and they both rely on their own busses (not LIFT busses) to help their residents access necessary services like shopping, medical care, etc.
The fact is that every human being in the US will eventually get too old and either
A) die
B) Get too old and frail to drive
Better accept the fact now before its your old pile ‘o bones that won’t be driving in a car.
PS, in case anyone hasn’t figured it out, losing your eyesight is a very common cause of having your drivers license revoked.
“PS, in case anyone hasn’t figured it out, losing your eyesight is a very common cause of having your drivers license revoked.”
Losing your mind is the #2 reason.
The fact is that every human being in the US will eventually get too old and either
A) die
B) Get too old and frail to drive
Better accept the fact now before its your old pile ‘o bones that won’t be driving in a car.
OK, you’ve proven the need for advanced life-stage housing/support systems.
Exactly what does that have to do with housing choices whether in the suburbs or in the central city? Frankly as long as the facility is relatively self-sufficient it doesn’t matter where it is, as long as either the needs can be met at the facility or that there is transportation available. And most every nursing home I’ve seen has their own bus – thus entirely negating the need to be located next to an existing public transit route.
And how many of you would actually let your 90 year old grandmother ride TriMet unaccompanied, unattended, on her own? Would you trust her to wait for a bus or train on her own, be able to figure out her way using TriMet’s existing route maps and schedules (keep in mind she probably doesn’t know how to use the internet, and likely is not familiar with using a system like Transit Tracker), board the bus/train on her own, get off the bus/train on her own, make the necessary transfers, etc.? I’m sure some can. Just like some 90 year olds can drive perfectly fine. Some can’t. That’s why when they get around they’re always in a taxi (sometimes paid for by TriMet, too!) or in a nursing home bus.
I don’t see many nursing homes being built in downtown Portland (it would seem like SoWa would be a GREAT location – easy access to OHSU!!). I see a bunch of them being built in outlying areas. And the people that work in these facilities typically do not get paid very well so they can’t afford to live in the central city – thus you create an instant need for transportation to the suburbs where housing is more readily available.
If a nursing home employee makes $13/hour and works 40 hours a week, they are bringing home $27,000 pre-tax income. Therefore the housing costs should be less than $780/month, assuming 1/3rd of income goes to housing.
“And how many of you would actually let your 90 year old grandmother ride TriMet unaccompanied, unattended, on her own?”
I’ve had a few of them Erik!
“If a nursing home employee makes $13/hour and works 40 hours a week, they are bringing home $27,000 pre-tax income. ”
And they wonder why nursing homes suck and give horrible care.
In AMERIKA the most important jobs pay the least and the least important jobs pay the most.
Erik,
Being 90 years of age doesn’t automatically mean that a person would not have the physical or cognitive ability to use the bus. You have to look at the person’s actual situation and abilities and not just assume that public transportation isn’t an option because of their age. It’s true that a greater percentage of 85+ year olds may lack the physical endurance or cognitive skills to use public transportation, but even that can be evaluated within a spectrum of abilities. For example, a person may be able to easily complete a trip that requires no transfers, but may need a different service if a transfer would occur using public transit for a longer trip. Many octogenarians do well traveling with a companion or a group on transit, even if they could not travel alone.
What I have found, in my professional experience, is that there is a segment of the older population that simply has never attempted to use public transit, or has assigned some sort of social stigma to using public transit. And, unfortunately, their children perpetuate those attitudes. I honestly don’t think that society is responsible for subsidizing casual or even willful ignorance and fear. There are programs that can, and do, help people overcome those fears and use the most appropriate transportation mode. Those are the most appropriate direction of funding. Door-to-door services can then be used more effectively by those who truly rely on that type of service.
And, there is an assisted living tower being built just across the park from the new OHSU building in SoWa. It’s called the Mirabella, and their sales office is just downstairs from my office, with a swanky model unit complete with fake skyline view. One of their marketing angles is the access to OHSU.
Matthew,
I’m glad we agree on principle. I never asserted that there wouldn’t be logistics issues. But, you can’t deny that Vancouver/Williams is still much closer than MLK.
Terry,
TriMet Lift is ADA paratransit. They are not door-to-door. The ADA only requires that public transit agencies provide curb-to-curb transportation to individuals that live within 3/4 of a mile from public transit and who are prevented (and that word is key) from using public transit because of a physical or cognitive barrier. And, BTW, 24 hours is very reasonable. Many volunteer door-to-door services need more notice than that. And, while taxi cabs may work for those who have more than a fixed income, it really isn’t an option for daily travel for most retirees.
While TriMet Lift will often go beyond the ADA, they are not required to do so. Door-to-door service is generally provided by community agencies (usually working with state STF grants and other small funding sources) and much of it is facilitated by volunteers. So, as you can imagine, resources are limited. In the long run, door-to-door service is meant to be accessed with discretion and by those who have difficulty using public transit due to physical or cognitive barriers, lack of access to transit or other significant barriers. While most programs will enroll those over 60, because of the Older Americans Act, door-to-door service really shouldn’t be viewed as an entitlement program or appropriate just because of a person’s age. Other services, like public transit familiarization, are often a better fit for older adults. And, public transit allows people to travel with more spontaneity, and it is (despite the media) safe and dependable.
My grandfather became legally blind when he was about 70, and therefor couldn’t drive. But is still mentally there, and rides the bus a couple times a week, (and walks about half a mile to do it.) He can handle transfers and finding bus stops and everything that a normal transit rider needs to do just fine, since (like most people,) he tends to make the same trips over and over again anyways. He is 94 right now.
I think part of the answer is that, as discussed here in the past, we are going to need to make a major effort to retrofit and urbanize the suburbs, to make them more transit-accessible, walkable and bike-able. All of those suburban strip-malls are going to need to be eventually knocked down and replaced with buildings that touch the sidewalk, have walkable retail and housing upstairs. Some of that housing can be for seniors. We just can’t afford to let our suburbs turn into slums permanently.
Luckily, a lot of those suburban buildings are built like crap and only have a 15-25 year predicted lifespan. So, it won’t be long before they’ll need to be replaced anyways. And when they do, it can be by something denser and move live-able. Look at the Round at Beaverton Central… nevermind the financial troubles, it’s a great example of how a suburb can take some steps to turn itself around by adding density to create a sense of place.
It’s going to be a lot of work to make all this happen, but Portland (and Metro) are already pretty far down this path — a lot further than most places. This article is just documenting the trend that will make this effort successful, as demographics and the market continue their shift in this direction.
I do expect some Jim Karlock/Terry Parker-style resistance to this process, as many suburban denizens will kick and scream and pout and moan because they want their suburban ranch developments, strip malls and free parking to last forever. But it ain’t gonna happen.
Garlynn said: “All of those suburban strip-malls are going to need to be eventually knocked down and replaced with buildings that touch the sidewalk, have walkable retail and housing upstairs. Some of that housing can be for seniors.”
And just who is going to pay for all this speculative rebuilding consumption and the construction of more high density heat islands? It is this type of mindset that attempts to control how people live and move about that is driving up taxes, adding to inflation and increasing the costs of living for everybody which also eventually becomes the fuel that feeds recession. The personal motor vehicle may be powered by a product other than oil, but it is simply NOT going to disappear and go away. Nearly ten percent of the nation’s jobs are tied to the automobile industry and people are not going to give up their personal freedom of mobility. Parking may be reconfigured, but it will remain. New buildings will be setback so permeable landscaped buffers can be created between the structures and the pavement – be it a sidewalk or a street. Furthermore – housing upstairs for seniors – I think NOT. One level on the ground floor with access to the outdoors is far more palatable for most – exactly what a ranch house offers.
“Look at the Round at Beaverton Central”
Yes look at it. They could not even find tenants for that boondoggle and that’s why the financial troubles. Look who paid for it – the taxpayers through excessive subsidies to the developers. Additionally, who wants to live that close to a railroad anyway – with light rail trains screeching through every five minutes or so!
“they want their suburban ranch developments, strip malls and free parking to last forever.”
And a good portion of it will remain, even to a later point in time when some of the current and newer high density heat island tenement buildings (such as in the Pearl District) become crime ridden due to their compactness and meet their demise from the wrecking ball. And on the other hand; bicyclists who expect someone other than themselves will continue to forever pay for bicycle infrastructure have yet to see a fiscal reality check because that’s what ain’t going to happen. When dictator politicians can not find any other resources to poach from, bicycles and bicyclists will be directly taxed.
When dictator politicians can not find any other resources to poach from
Who are the local dictator politicians? Perhaps we should hold local elections someday so that the dictator politicians can be turned out.
Look at the Round at Beaverton Central… nevermind the financial troubles, it’s a great example of how a suburb can take some steps to turn itself around by adding density to create a sense of place.
I have to agree with Mr. Parker here, using The Round at Beaverton Central isn’t exactly a good example to prop up. Vacancies, an uninviting plaza near the MAX station, underdeveloped adjacent properties (that have had many years to develop), a lack of any anchor, and the need for multiple parking lots (including a parking garage)…
Meanwhile a few blocks away the Cedar Hills Crossing project is clearly far more popular and in demand by taking an old, obsolete shopping mall and turning it into a combination shopping center with multiple anchor tenants.
True, Cedar Hills Crossing isn’t a great example of “planning” (I despise its parking lot and entrances; I’ve been there exactly four times since I’ve moved back to Oregon in 2002) but the apparent visitor counts clearly show that it is a far, far greater success in just the last few years than The Round has had since 1999. (However I wish Powell’s remained at their former location, it was much closer to my home. The new location just reminds me of another Barnes & Noble/Borders big box store.)
Who are the local dictator politicians? Perhaps we should hold local elections someday so that the dictator politicians can be turned out.
Not directly linked to the quote, but I haven’t seen an election for TriMet’s Board of Directors or its General Manager. I, for one, would sure love the opportunity to vote for a pro-bus candidate if I had the option.
there is a segment of the older population that simply has never attempted to use public transit, or has assigned some sort of social stigma to using public transit. And, unfortunately, their children perpetuate those attitudes.
Cora, I believe this is an excellent opportunity for TriMet to showcase how easy it is to use TriMet.
Unfortunately as I have often cited, TriMet has zero desire to promote its bus service. This “stigma” you talk about is very well perpetuated within TriMet’s own halls. The best that TriMet has done lately to promote itself is to promote downtown – not every TriMet rider wants to go downtown. I don’t see ODOT or PDOT advertising how great the roads are downtown, or that ODOT is rebuilding the Naito Parkway entrance off of I-5. That’s what TriMet does, though.
Whether one likes it or not the suburbs are here to stay; at least for the foreseeable future. TriMet’s job is to provide regional transportation. Until such time that the suburbs revert to farmland, wetlands or forests – TriMet (and Metro) need to improve transit throughout the region.
…a lot of those suburban buildings are built like crap and only have a 15-25 year predicted lifespan. So, it won’t be long before they’ll need to be replaced anyways. And when they do…
I’m going to guess a lot of the buildings will be standing for quite some time, and then the future citizens of the city will have to put up with being able to do nothing with them because they’ve been designated “historic artifacts of late 20th century architecture,” like a lot of other things from previous eras.
Look at the Round at Beaverton Central…
I used to, everyday to/from work for several years, from 2000 to 2002. Much of the time, weeds grew in the desolate, fenced-off wasteland. Previous passers-by scrawled “When?” and “Where?” as reaction on a statement on a sign that said “Coming Soon. Right Here.”
BTW, I used to call Cascade Station “Beaverton Central at the Airport,” and remember the Sept. 11, 2001 Portland Tribune article questioning if it was going to work out the way it was planned. They now have a fairly nice Staples and Best Buy, which is more than I can say for Beaverton Central proper.
What I have found, in my professional experience, is that there is a segment of the older population that simply has never attempted to use public transit, or has assigned some sort of social stigma to using public transit.
Unfortunately, the first thing that comes to mind when I think of TriMet and the older population is the Holocaust survivor who was “helped” off the bus that time, and later won the lawsuit or settlement or whatever.
And, public transit allows people to travel with more spontaneity, and it is (despite the media) safe and dependable.
This is my overall personal experience with transit as well.
re The Round, downtown Milwaukie, et.al., no one said transforming first tier suburbs from auto dominated places to ones that balance the needs of all travelers would be easy or quick.
Planning is great, but ultimately you have to get bankers, investors and customers on board. Remember that the Brewery Blocks in the Pearl could not get conventional financing; few anticipated the transformation that would occur at NW 11th and Couch from light industrial to thriving pedestrian district. Even the Pearl is/was an experiment with a lot of risk, hence the public subsidies.
I travel on occasion to The Round and am frustrated by the fact that the Red Line only goes to Beaverton TC…one stop short, and there is no walking path (thanks to the Ford dealership) between the two nearby stations.
Getting all the pieces in place…transit, bike/walk…as well as auto access is a long, sometimes painful process. $4 a gallon gas will help.
Lenny, there is a walking path between Beaverton TC and the Round on the North side of the tracks, although it tends to turn into a swamp in heavy rain. You can ride a mountain bike on it too, (you can ride a road bike on it too, but not if you like the bike.) There is a (probably illegal since it crosses private property, but everyone rides it anyways,) bike path on the south side that is a much smaller swamp if it has rained in the last week that connects up with the Millikan Way bike route, although it is blocked off right now because of WES construction, so lately I’ve taken to riding north on Lombard to Center and then south on Hall to get around it.
“And just who is going to pay for all this speculative rebuilding consumption and the construction of more high density heat islands?”
1) its already all paved over with roads and parking lots. The suburbs have just as much asphalt coverage as a city does
2) private developers: “by 2035 “three quarters of the built environment in the U.S. will be either new or renovated.”
http://www.architecture2030.org/current_situation/stop_coal.html
Salem is more “walkable” than Portland – most sidewalks and streets are 3x wider, yet where are the people? You would expect since its so much more “walkable” than Portland there would be more people here. The sidewalks in Portland are only wide enough for 2 people side by side. Sidewalks in downtown Salem are so wide that two cars could drive side by side down them. I wonder why they platted the cities out so inconsistently back in the 1880’s?
OK, GTinSalem, but what about the sidewalks at places where everyone actually is, like Lancaster Dr.? I’m going to guess just as narrow as most of NE/SE 82nd. Ave., made worse due to the fact of lackluster bus service on 2-Jan Ree (seems two or three buses are running ‘deadhead express’ to try to get back on schedule, causing the next one to run late with huge loads, starting the process over again), or the less-than-hourly 11-Lancaster Dr.
This is during the week, as you mentioned quite some time ago forget the weekends. And, as I’ve pointed out, forget their entire bus system. The naysayers have it down there anyways.
re The Round, downtown Milwaukie, et.al., no one said transforming first tier suburbs from auto dominated places to ones that balance the needs of all travelers would be easy or quick.
The problem is that we have spent millions on MAX lines and yet we have more auto dominated places.
Let’s take a look at some of those investments in MAX, shall we?
Cleveland Avenue MAX Station: 392 automobile parking spaces. No transit oriented commercial development in the immediate area.
Gresham Central TC: 540 automobile parking spaces. No transit oriented commercial development in the immediate area; downtown Gresham is five blocks away.
Gresham City Hall: 417 automobile parking spaces. City Hall is near MAX. An automobile-centric strip mall is nearby within walking distance; the back of the mall faces MAX while the front faces Division Street.
Rockwood TC: A Fred Meyer store was recently demolished with nothing to replace it.
Along Burnside: No major developments that are MAX specific; the same type of development can be found on any other parallelling street such as Halsey, Glisan, Division, Powell.
E 122nd/Menlo Park TC: 612 automobile parking spaces.
Gateway TC: 444 automobile parking spaces, substantial auto-centric development to the east (including Fred Meyer). Development in the area, including new development, tends to face Halsey & 102nd.
Sunset TC: 630 automobile parking spaces. No development within walking distance. Major employer in area (St. Vincent Medical Center) requires shuttle bus or TriMet #20 bus to access; despite TriMet having had a better station location across the street from the hospital (now developed with non-MAX accessible office space).
Beaverton TC: Lots of empty fields. Nearby commercial development offers little access to MAX.
Round at Beaverton Central: Building D is a multi-story parking garage.
Millikan Way: 400 automobile parking spaces. Little development within walking distance.
Beaverton Creek: 417 automobile parking spaces. No bus access. Nike is accessed by a shuttle bus. Vast open field in front of the station; land to north is tied up and virtually undevelopable due to land use regulations. “Strip-Mall” style retail in apartment complex has largely floundered due to poor visibility and long walk from transit stop.
Elmonica/170th: 436 automobile parking spaces. Finally developed with dense housing but very little commercial development; located north of Baseline and poor walking conditions from MAX. Most major retail is located well to northwest or northeast and inaccessible by other transit from this stop. No bus service.
Willow Creek/185th: 595 automobile parking spaces. Little commercial development in area, however bus service is available to Tanasbourne. Unfortunately TriMet has not invested in quality bus stops in Tanasbourne (i.e. a Tanasbourne “bus station” so passengers experience very long, dangerous walks from 185th.)
Quatama/205th: 310 automobile parking spaces. No bus service. No commercial development. Substantial undeveloped land to east.
Orenco/231st: 180 automobile parking spaces. Most commercial development several blocks to north along Cornell Road. Further commercial development located beyond walking distance to northeast (including banking, groceries, apparel).
Fair Complex/Airport: 396 automobile parking spaces. No commercial development within walking distance.
Hillsboro (Hatfield Government Center): 250 automobile parking spaces within a shared-use parking garage.
And the cream of the crop, Cascade Station – a massive, auto-centric shopping complex designed to cater to Washington residents desiring tax-free shopping, plus Portland’s favorite BIG BOX store, the Swedish version of Wal-Mart, where most everything is still made in China – IKEA.
Meanwhile, Portland is developing vibrant, walking-friendly neighborhoods in OTHER areas – Sellwood, Eastmoreland, Hawthorne, Belmont, Mississippi/Albina, Multnomah Village. Lake Oswego, downtown Troutdale and Gresham, downtown Hillsboro and Forest Grove. The Tualatin Commons. Downtown Tigard is expected to get a major facelift. None – not ONE – of these projects are currently touched by fixed-guideway transit investment. (Tualatin and Tigard will get WES, which is a WEEKDAY RUSH HOUR ONLY service. Too bad if you want to go on Saturday.)
Yet MAX has a reliance on automobile parking spaces to attract riders. Meanwhile I’m WALKING to my bus stop from my house (never mind the unsafe crosswalk across Barbur Blvd. and the lack of a sidewalk on Capitol Highway); WALKING to my work downtown, and using a bus to do it. And frankly I would not shed a tear if the Barbur Boulevard TC were ripped up and developed, because it exists solely as a parking lot for OHSU/VA Hospital commuters and for #94 Express riders for which I have to subsidize their free parking for.
This is during the week, as you mentioned quite some time ago forget the weekends. And, as I’ve pointed out, forget their entire bus system. The naysayers have it down there anyways
Yeah nobody rides the bus, kind of like Portland slightly worse, buses and trains run mostly empty except during 2 hours in the A.M. and 2 hours in the P.M. I only ride the bus if its raining and I don’t want to get wet. Otherwise I walk back and forth to work and take the Amtrak to Portland every weekend. I hope I can get a transfer and move back. I miss it.
automobile parking spaces… automobile parking spaces… automobile parking spaces…
Sounds like there are a lot of great places for redevelopment when the market is ready!
Rome wasn’t built in a day, nor shall Portland, Oregon be built instantaneously. I think it is asking too much to expect development to pop up overnight along the MAX lines. Give it another 20, 50, 100 years and we’ll see.
Thanks for this insight. In general, construction quality has declined severely. In the NW, in the suburbs, that means even expensive homes crumbling to water-related damage in less than 50 years, if not sooner. Contrast that to homes holding up well after 200 years on the East Coast.
Baring extremely inexpensive repair and restoration contractors, we will find slumberb rentals, and eventual teardowns to vacant lots. A perfectly bad storm will strand the poor to affordable slumberbs in an era of expensive petroleum-fueled commutes. Some population projections, propose world and US population peaking in 2050, with declines and increasing migration to cities reducing population in outlying areas.
The suburban dream is recent in America (Levittown?), and even more so in world civilization. That is not to say that America may yet invent some new decentralized local farming net connected information working or Etsy economy.
I found an interesting article in an East Portland neighborhood newspaper I picked up last night at a public meeting where I was a visitor. To my knowledge it is not on line, so I can not provide a link. One of the articles is about a middle income single family home neighborhood within the boundaries of the City of Portland “known for its manicured yards and well kept homes on large lots”. The “highly desirable” neighborhood has paved streets, sidewalks and street lighting. And yes, this is a very accurate description of this particular neighborhood.
The single problem area that exists in the neighborhood according to the author of the story, a neighborhood resident, is that “slum conditions have occurred within 5 years of construction of high-density affordable housing”. The slum conditions specifically relate to deteriorating conditions associated with the upkeep and appearance of the high-density housing, and the trash on the streets that continually surrounds this housing. These conditions have forced some long time residents of the neighborhood to move out.
Furthermore, one of the issues discussed at the meeting was large single family home lots that are being carved up creating flag lots that are being built to the max – either with lavish single family homes that are out of scale and take up the entire lot, or multi-story high density structures that are out of scale and take up the whole lot – neither with room for yards or children to play. Comments were made several times that the people who move into this unfriendly type of housing usually see it as a stepping stone to other housing locations that have more on site amenities, move out within a few months or years, and the zoning that allows this of construction is having a negative impact on the stability of neighborhoods and neighborhood livability.
In that the City policy is forcing high-density housing and zoning into these outlying neighborhoods, but not accepting any reality check responsibility for its maintenance, upkeep and/or appearance makes the City of Portland, Metro and its leadership all directly responsible for creating slumburbs!
I think it is asking too much to expect development to pop up overnight along the MAX lines. Give it another 20, 50, 100 years and we’ll see.
If that’s the case then maybe we need to establish the disconnect between MAX and “development”. MAX was built in part to espouse its developmental benefit and now it seems there are some that are backpedaling from that argument.
Just as there is development occuring near MAX, there’s also developing occurring AWAY from MAX and Streetcar, too. (Tualatin, Wilsonville, Kruse Way, Clackamas, Tanasbourne, Troutdale, much of Clark County…) Further it’s been established that much of the development along the MAX lines would have happened with or without MAX, so that makes the value of light rail that much less – those people could have been moved using existing bus facilities at lower capital cost; and it’s known that busses that are well-invested upon and well-used can run “at a profit”.
If these parking spaces are simply there to “redevelop” at a later time, those parking spaces represents a huge subsidy (mostly towards MAX riders) that I, as a door-to-bus-to-door bus rider who doesn’t have to use a parking lot to access transit, am paying an unfair subsidy to. Much as many people decry subsidizing roads because it is not environmentally friendly, I am forced by TriMet to subsidize those who expect a free parking place AND use a very capital intensive mode of transport, while watching my inexpensive mode of transport get nickel-and-dimed by Fred Hansen.
And if those parking lots are just there to “redevelop” now, I don’t want to maintain them today. Let’s rip them up – starting with the parking lot at Orenco Station. After all, it’s a “Transit-Oriented Development”; they do not need a parking lot.
Erik brings up an interesting point when he said: “it’s been established that much of the development along the MAX lines would have happened with or without MAX” This is my feeling too. However what Erik didn’t say was that much of this development that occurred adjacent to Max was also either taxpayer subsidized or received a property tax abatement (not having to pay property taxes on the improvements) for as many as ten years, or both.
Erik also said: “so that makes the value of light rail that much less – those people could have been moved using existing bus facilities at lower capital cost” This I find interesting too especially when that reasoning is applied to the eastside Streetcar Loop. According to table 3.1-1 on page 3-2 of the Environmental Assessment the Eastside Streetcar only adds 0.1 percent to originating transit Work trips as compared to a no build option while reducing travel time by only 2 minutes, The total number of all week day trips would be increased by 745 by the year 2025. With a capital cost of almost 147M, and an annual operating expense of 3.77M, for such a small increase in transit ridership even after bus routes have been manipulated to feed into it, the streetcar is simply NOT cost effective especially if the same taxpayer subsidies and tax abatement principals used with Max are applied to developing the adjacent properties. Furthermore, with many of the intersections still rated F, adding the streetcar appears to do nothing to reduce traffic congestion – probably doing just the opposite and adding to it.
As for developing the park and ride lots at Max stops, if they were not there, Max ridership would probably drop by as much as 50 percent. I think that is self explanatory.
As for developing the park and ride lots at Max stops, if they were not there, Max ridership would probably drop by as much as 50 percent.
Nope.
There are under 10,000 spaces in the Park & Ride system, including those spaces provided by community partners, and those lots which are NOT adjacent to MAX.
Even if you assume that every single space is utilized by a commuter every single day, and that those commuters would not find other ways to use transit if the park & rides completely went away (as opposed to relocation), that would account for 20,000 boardings, or less than 20% of MAX ridership.
(I’m sure there are a few Park & Ride users who arrive with a vehicle occupancy greater than 1, and a few short trips which equate to multiple turnovers of a stall in one day, but that’s more than cancelled out by the fact that not every space in every lot is utilized every day, and not every lot is adjacent to MAX.)
Terry wrote: As for developing the park and ride lots at Max stops, if they were not there, Max ridership would probably drop by as much as 50 percent. I think that is self explanatory.
Bob wrote: There are under 10,000 spaces in the Park & Ride system, including those spaces provided by community partners, and those lots which are NOT adjacent to MAX.
I seem to have read a report somewhere that showed that on the westside MAX line, that a huge percentage (I want to say 40-50%) of MAX riders drive to a Park & Ride, ride MAX to downtown, and return. So removing the park & ride lots along the western end of the Blue Line would have a significant impact towards MAX ridership. A number of the parking lots are known to fill to capacity each weekday (Sunset TC is a good example; Millikan Way and Elmonica, IIRC, also fill up daily).
As for the 10,000 P&R spots that TriMet claims, a large number of them no longer serve “commuter” bus lines and are seldom used by more than a few cars. Or they are often a good walk from a transit stop (an example is the church located on Bull Mountain – it requires a downhill and uphill walk to reach 99W; the outbound stop is extremely inadequate, and the inbound stop has no shelter and is located next to a landslide that has a major drainage problem. – it is so bad that when I used to ride out there that the busses would often ‘stop short’, or pass the designated stop to board away from the unsuitable area – albeit now on the side of the road with no sidewalk.)
I also know several “designated” P&R lots along the 36 route. I have no idea why anyone would need to “park and ride” on this particular route…so those P&R spaces are worthless.
If that’s the case then maybe we need to establish the disconnect between MAX and “development”. MAX was built in part to espouse its developmental benefit and now it seems there are some that are backpedaling from that argument.
Absolutely not. I’m only arguing the *speed* at which transit-friendly development occurs along the line is perhaps not as quick as expected/hoped for/promised. I agree with you that the P&Rs are not ideal uses of near-station land. I would argue they are okay as a temporary stopgap until the market permits appropriate development to occur. In the meantime I would support a parking fee, particularly in popular lots such as Sunset TC.
Just as there is development occuring near MAX, there’s also developing occurring AWAY from MAX and Streetcar, too.
Did anyone expect all development not along MAX lines to come to a screeching halt? I don’t think any reasonable person could come to that conclusion, even the most ardent rail supporters.
The relevant concept with regards to park & ride lots taking up space near transit (MAX) stations is this:
Land banking.
That is, the land is being held and used as a park & ride lot until that time when market conditions dictate that this is no longer the best & highest use of that property. At that time, this land will be developed into some form of higher-density TOD.
The important thing is to make sure that Tri-Met is not silly enough to have a one-for-one replacement policy. That is, they should not require that any parking spaces lost to development must be replaced by structure parking within that development.
Rather, the idea is that the development should be built densely enough such that, if 30% of the residents/employees of the development take transit for their commute, the development will provide at least as many riders for the transit system as were provided by spaces in the park & ride lot.
Therefore, “No Net Loss of Riders” should be the mantra when cashing in land-banked property for development.
Garlynn: There is not one “TOD” or medium to high density development in the entire region [including Seattle] that achieves a 30% transit market share. Not one.
In fact, the only place in the entire country that even gets close to that number is New York, and they are having all kinds of problems with the density that they have.
Even with gas prices at an all time high, there has been no measurable reduction in traffic congestion, and an ever-so-slight increase in transit usage. People are giving up more of their disposable income so that they can maintain their higher standard of living [driving], and shopping more at places you would also despise [big box walmart et al].
Much of Trimet’s ridership is due to the FREE parking lots along the light rail line. All it is doing is moving parking problems east of I-205, and west of Sylvan, so that planners can brag about how car-free and utopianly euro downtown Portland is. I propose charging the same rate for parking in these lots as the average rate downtown and we will see how euro we really are.
“Garlynn: There is not one “TOD” or medium to high density development in the entire region [including Seattle] that achieves a 30% transit market share. Not one.”
Uhmm, Downtown Portland has that mode split.
http://www.portlandonline.com/shared/cfm/image.cfm?id=65158
30.65% of Downtown work based trips are via transit. Non-work based trips are not as high, not because more people are driving, but because 20% of the people are walking…
And keep in mind that those surveys are done in March, not exactly ideal walking weather…
I propose charging the same rate for parking in these lots as the average rate downtown and we will see how euro we really are.
While I wouldn’t mind if TriMet charged for use of the lots, especially ones that routinely fill to capacity, I don’t see the point in charging the same rate to park on a lot which is sitting on cheaper land as a lot sitting on valuable land in downtown Portland. You may think that free park & rides and subsidized transit is an affront to market forces, but overcharging for the parking is also not market-oriented.
By the way, the transit commute share for New York City (all boros, not just Manhattan) was approx. 44% in 2000, while the automobile share was approx. 33%. The region also saw double-digit growth in non-commute transit ridership in the 1990’s.
See:
http://www.schallerconsult.com/pub/commute.htm
I agree that 30% is a tough target to meet here in this region, but high share numbers are not unattainable. Further, the numbers for our region do not necessarily reflect the numbers for projects immediately adjacent to transit infrastructure. So I think Garlynn is setting the bar very high, but not way too high.
(Also, let’s not forget the increase in walk trips which come with the right kinds of density.)
That statistic states that 30% of the people WORKING downtown are commuting from other areas via transit, and considering the fact that almost all downtown employers give their employees a free bus pass, and almost every transit route starts, ends, or goes through downtown, I think that number is kind of low.
If you are talking about TOD or high density housing, the transit share is much lower [the kind of subsidized junk popping up along outdated “main” streets and transit “hubs”]. An educated guess is somewhere less then 10% with bikes and other alternative modes included. What you end up with is about 9 out of 10 households driving to work, shop, or etc, regardless of density.
30% on transit downtown is nice, but most of the region’s employers are located outside downtown, and that number keeps getting larger. The downtown-main-street-hub-n-spoke-free-park-n-ride model has been obsolete for 25+ years, and it makes no sense to keep throwing money at it.
As far as the park and ride lots go, I wouldn’t dare propose to charge the same rate as downtown, I was just making an extreme example. I would, however, propose a charge on spaces that covers the security, lighting, and maintenance required, and ideally charge the market rate for those spots.
That 30% figure is actually a reasonable expectation for projects that are immediately adjacent to a rail mass transit station. It might not be often found within a 1/2 mile radius neighborhood around a transit station (unless that neighborhood is downtown), but for those specific projects which are TOD and which are oriented towards transit, it is reasonable. This (peer-reviewed) study by Cervero found transit ridership levels as high as 44% in some TODs:
http://www.bart.gov/docs/planning/Travel_of_TOD.pdf
80% of the residents of Orenco station said that their transit usage had gone up since moving into the development (not sure how that translates into daily trips):
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_102.pdf
My point was that 30% would be one way to achieve no net loss of riders. It is not itself a target, but rather an estimate of effects based on available data. If a developer (or local jurisdiction) thought that, for whatever reason, they could not achieve 30%… then they might need to increase the size of the units, or add units to the development, to achieve the no net loss of riders objective.
If anybody has better available data on transit ridership characteristics of TOD residents immediately adjacent to MAX stations, please share it!
…watching my inexpensive mode of transport get nickel-and-dimed by Fred Hansen.
Hilarious. Who gave Fred unchecked control of our regional transit system, anyway??? I can totally picture him sitting alone in the basement of the TriMet building, scheming about how to starve the bus system – probably the #12, specifically.
Thank you Anthony for acknowledging that there are indeed areas with 30% mode split in the northwest…
And if you want to talk about “affront to market forces” what do you call the $30B that the US Government gave to some bank last night? Sure, that is only $75/person in this country, but if the US Government is interfering with the markets for the sake of huge banks that have research staff to worry about the sort of problems they got themselves into, then why would you expect the government to not interfere with smaller sections of the market? Or is this one of those cases where you are opposed to only the interference that you don’t agree with?
Before things get out of hand, I should point out that the phrase “affront to market forces” was my characterization of Anthony’s devil’s-advocate parking proposal, not his own exact words.
Land banking.
That is, the land is being held and used as a park & ride lot until that time when market conditions dictate that this is no longer the best & highest use of that property. At that time, this land will be developed into some form of higher-density TOD.
But those parking lots come at a cost that is being bourne by a particular group of riders, but is being paid by all riders as a whole.
So while I WALK to my bus stop (in a non-subsidized, non-dense neighborhood) from one road that was built in the 1920s to another road built in the 1930s onto a bus that has a relatively low operating cost (and practically zero capital cost, given my bus stop’s “capital expense” is to maintain a sign – after all TriMet isn’t buying many new busses), I am paying a fare that goes to support park-and-ride lots for commuters who are getting a free parking space, using up asphalt, decreasing our quality of ground water and wetlands, increasing need for sewerage systems, requires additional electricity use, so on and so forth. And that’s just the Barbur Blvd. Transit Center – now let’s add up all the costs of the MAX Park & Rides.
If the “slumburgs” are so bad and require such great expense, then the MAX related Park & Ride lots are contributing to this by creating an incentive to own a car and drive to a free parking lot, rather than a solution that consolidates mass transit usage with minimal private auto use. Right now my household already has one car (which is far less than the Portland average household) yet I’m paying to subsidize Hummer and Prius owners alike. (Meanwhile I can count out numerous dense neighborhoods such as Multnomah Village that encourage walking (and have low amounts of parking available) that have been livable communities without any form of Light Rail or Streetcar built to encourage it.)
Step one is to charge market rate for the TriMet owned parking lots, $10/day is not unreasonable (given the ultimate destination is downtown, the market rates should be based upon downtown). Express busses and MAX should assume the costs of any transit facilities associated with those routes, while lines like the 12 line which I ride should not be forced to subsidize routes/facilities/services for which it receives zero benefit from.
When that is done, TriMet could institute a base fare of $1.00 or $1.50 per ride (variable to distance and time of day) – the more services you use, the higher the fare is.
And getting back to those parking lots, they need to be sold ASAP (unless there is enough ridership that will support the parking lots) at market rate for redevelopment. Surely given Portland’s “hot real estate market” for the “creative class”, there ought to be a huge demand for transit oriented development on those former parking lots – with a secondary benefit of providing decent, affordable housing for all Portlanders as well as new jobs to support us through the slowing economy. Not to mention reclaiming taxes on land that has been taken off of the tax rolls.
Erik, like Bob said in his comment above, the market price for land on which the commuters park is not the same as downtown.
If I understand correctly your suggestion above, you seem to think that each line that builds unique infrastructure should self finance the project, whether bus or MAX. How does this work for commuters not served by a busy bus line, which would therefore have to be subsidized, and have nowhere to park at MAX stop either?
I would suggest that thinking of the individual transit lines as distinct business enterprises is a dead end to begin with. TriMet provides transit to the whole region. If you think we should privatize individual transit lines I think that is also a dead end, but I doubt that is what you had in mind.
I do wholly agree with you, however, when you say we should not sacrifice our bus service in favor of MAX. Better bus feeder lines could also help reduce the need for park and rides, but we don’t currently have that.
I would suggest that thinking of the individual transit lines as distinct business enterprises is a dead end to begin with. TriMet provides transit to the whole region.
You’re absolutely right, in theory.
If TriMet provides transit to the whole region, does it invest in transit for the whole region, or just in selected routes that it chooses to invest in?
If your argument is that we should invest in the system and not individual routes, I agree with you. The problem is that TriMet has 110% invested in “individual routes” (namely anything that is a MAX line). Where is the investment in the bus system? Telling us bus riders that it’s no problem that our busses can be eight years older than the FTA guideline (try telling that to me while I’m on side of the road with a broken down bus!) while TriMet signs a new order for light rail vehicles doesn’t convince me that TriMet is investing in “the regional system”. Telling me that I’m receiving investment while standing in the rain at a poorly engineered bus stop does nothing when I can see Light Rail stops that have massive shelters and multiple TVMS – and few riders. Telling me that we need to be a “green community” means squat when I see TriMet bowing to the single-occupant-vehicle crowd when I walk to my bus stop (and get the privilege of subsidizing those drivers’ parking spaces).
If we as a community decide we need to support the “total transit system” (to use TriMet’s phrase of choice) – that’s fine. Then let’s start (retroactively) investing in the bus system too. That means we should have 200 brand new busses and 600 new bus shelters before the end of 2008 – just to keep up with TriMet’s previously stated plans which don’t include any expansions of service.
I wholeheartedly agree with you that bus service should not be sacrificed, and I personally wish that they would add more frequent service lines and upgrade the bus fleet. Perhaps Trimet should take a couple of years and focus on upgrading only the bus fleet. But if we are going to have light rail at all, which I also think is necessary, isn’t it inevitable that the communities that are reached by light rail first are going to subsidized?
If I remember correctly you live along the 12-Barbur, and I’m also relatively sure that they plan either a street car or light rail extension through that corridor in the future. In which case, it will be time for the rest of region to pay for light rail in your neighborhood.
And just as disclosure, I live near SE Holgate and 39th so there’s no light rail in my future, but I still support all the projects.
Residential and employment density are really the keys to having both light rail and bus transit.
In North Portland when Interstate MAX opened all the old 5 bus service hours were transfered to bus lines. The 85 Swan Island went from 9 to 27 service hours per day…since cut back to 24. The 75 Lombard went Frequent Service, joining the 4, 6, 8 and 72 with that level of service.
No lines were cut, even ones that run parallel to MAX; both the 85 and 35 run along Interstate Avenue in Lower Albina rather than dumping riders at the Prescott MAX station.
MAX stations have the potential to bring higher density land uses, both residential and commercial.
Susan,
Light rail is in your future. The Green Line will have a station at 94th and Holgate and will be open in September of next near. In the fall of 2015, the Portland to Milwaukie line will open with a station at SE 17th and Holgate.
True, you will have to take the bus and transfer, but the #17 Holgate bus will continue to run the length of Holgate even after both light rail lines are complete. Buses will run every 15 minutes throughout the day and will provide direct connections to both MAX lines.
“The 85 Swan Island went from 9 to 27 service hours per day…since cut back to 24. The 75 Lombard went Frequent Service, joining the 4, 6, 8 and 72 with that level of service.
No lines were cut, even ones that run parallel to MAX; both the 85 and 35 run along Interstate Avenue in Lower Albina rather than dumping riders at the Prescott MAX station.”
BOB-CAN YOU VERIFY THIS!
What do you mean the swan island went to 27 service hours a day?
They had no choice but increase some of those bus routes to the misnamed “frequent service” (which terminology should not be used if only 15 minute service)
I clearly remember when the blue line opened everything else got chopped to [expletive deleted]
In North Portland when Interstate MAX opened all the old 5 bus service hours were transfered to bus lines. The 85 Swan Island went from 9 to 27 service hours per day…since cut back to 24. The 75 Lombard went Frequent Service, joining the 4, 6, 8 and 72 with that level of service.
No lines were cut, even ones that run parallel to MAX; both the 85 and 35 run along Interstate Avenue in Lower Albina rather than dumping riders at the Prescott MAX station.
If MAX is a regional system and TriMet is a regional system, then where are the service INCREASES elsewhere? Where is the service investment elsewhere?
If the only rationale is to improve transit along MAX lines and nowhere else, then I’m sure that Lenny will have no problem with a “MAX Tax” on his Swan Island employers, so that I am not unfairly subsidizing Swan Island and North Interstate residents while getting service cutbacks. I would love to see a 15% property tax slapped on any property within 1,000 feet of the Interstate MAX line as well as any property that receives service from a MAX feeder bus (like the 85s) to cover the costs of this service expansion; or else there needs to be a REGIONAL system update that provides more service to the REGION and not just a specific area.
Again, 600 bus shelters, 200 busses, end of 2008, just to maintain the service level of 2001. 10% increase per year atop that so that’s an additional 60-100 shelters and 80-100 busses a year atop that. (And then we can talk about more MAX service on top of that as well.)
MAX stations have the potential to bring higher density land uses, both residential and commercial.
And where does MAX go? To the “slumburgs” like Hillsboro, Beaverton, Gresham, and soon to Milwaukee.
Interesting…so we complain about the suburbs, but we want to extend more light rail to the suburbs. I think “streetcar suburbs” rings strong here. Meanwhile all of those attributes that are espoused over dense development, like walkable neighborhoods and such, can be found in non-transit oriented, City of Portland neighborhoods like Multnomah Village, Hillsdale, Sellwood, Hawthorne, Belmont, and Mississippi.
Erik,
In a way, there has been about a 15% increase in property tax along the yellow line. Property values have gone up, lots of land has changed hands. My guess is that if you track the local property rates it might exceed that 15% figure since the yellow line opened.
Also, I am a little confused about your “streetcar suburbs” argument. All the neighborhoods you listed were developed around street cars.
George beat me to the punch, but all the neighborhoods Erik listed are classic streetcar neighborhoods.
Here’s a link to the streetcar network in 1912:
http://www.portlandonline.com/transportation/index.cfm?c=36416&a=65720
I believe more lines were added before the system was dismantled around mid-century.
Also, I am a little confused about your “streetcar suburbs” argument. All the neighborhoods you listed were developed around street cars.
You’re absolutely right – they WERE suburbs. The streetcar created them. Now they lack streetcars, yet have developed (not as “auto-centric neighborhoods” but as urban centers with walkable amenities.
Multnomah Village is a perfect example – when the Oregon Electric was ripped out and replaced with Multnomah Boulevard, did development center itself around the new street? No, it remained in its historic location, along Capitol Highway, where it remains today – as a pedestrian friendly neighborhood.
Yet despite the loss of the trolley, it has maintained its character.
Meanwhile, we are in this thread simultaneously decrying the spread of suburbs – and at the same time demanding the growth of MAX, which serves the suburbs – and ignoring the historical aspect that the streetcars were meant to SPREAD growth to the suburbs, not contain it.
If the argument is strictly to maintain a dense center for both housing and employment, I would seem to think that MAX is part of the problem by encouraging growth outside of downtown Portland, and a better solution is to fully develop all underused/underdeveloped blocks downtown, by restricting automobile access (even to the point of removing streets or at least significantly narrowing streets), and ensuring that housing and employment are available for all persons regardless of education or income level – that means building housing that is affordable for all residents who want to live in downtown Portland and not just “affordable housing” (read: subsidized housing for those making
Not sure if that is an argument that people make for MAX.
People make that argument for the current streetcar alignment though.
No one is saying that ALL development should occur within downtown Portland. The regional plan calls for revitalizing those outlying suburbs, converting them from auto-centric to people-centric places. Planning lingo calls them “Region 2040 Centers.” Growth will occur in the existing suburbs, though, not a bunch of further-flung ones. So Gresham starts looking more like Multnomah Village or Belmont. More density. It’s already starting to happen out there.
But people will still need to more about the region. MAX is the way to connect the centers. Streetcars and buses move people within the centers.
No one here is dissing the suburbs. I disagree with the premise that suburbs will be abandoned – rather I think that their relative value will decline somewhat compared to inner cities. The idea is making the whole region (city AND suburbs) accessible to transit, peds, and bikes, not just autos. Support growth that supports this concept, wherever it is in the region. Fixed guideway transit is a necessary component to this end.
Fixed guideway transit is a necessary component to this end.
Again, as already established this is not true. Many established Portland neighborhoods/suburbs have become urban centers, connected to other areas of the region without any need for “fixed guideway transit”. Fixed guideway transit has, however, opened up undeveloped areas for development (including Orenco Station and Quatama – which were previously farmland).
Let’s see, we’ve established that these urban centers were all developed with fixed guideway transit (streetcars). A comparison of what they were then (with streetcars) compared to what they are now (50+ years after streetcar removal) reveals that the majority of development occurred with streetcar. In fact, most are less dense now than they were then, with buildings removed for parking areas in many cases. Reliable bus systems are important, but on their own cannot adequately serve – nor do they appear to generate – dense centers.
Lack of high-capacity transit leads to increased reliance on autos and more need for parking structures. Recent history shows us that the provision of high-capacity transit leads to increased transit use (including buses) and therefore less reliance on the automobile.
So you’re now saying that these former Streetcar Suburbs, that are now urban centers minus Streetcar, are less dense and less successful today than they were 50 years ago?
Meanwhile, we built (from scratch, removing productive farmland in the process) Orenco Village and that’s a success (despite the large parking lots that surround the MAX station, and that the commercial development exists not near the MAX station but well to the north along Cornell Road)?
All of those mixed-use apartment/retail buildings in Sellwood – that isn’t dense?
Where are all of those parking lots in Multnomah Village?
Yet you take MAX to that transit-oriented development called Orenco Village, and there’s a PARKING LOT right as soon as you get off the train. And no “mixed use”, “urban lifestyle”, whatever you want to call it, anywhere near MAX.
This doesn’t make sense…
Just to follow up on this, in spite of a major market correction in 2008, we are now starting to see very large, “luxury” single-family houses being rented to section 8 qualified tenants in south Florida. Provided that the market reflected actual buyer-preferences – and was not distorted by policy, popular culture, or the fact that predominantly just one type of housing option was available – a correction of this magnitude should have incentivized buyers and investors to stock up on these newish, large houses on large lots and live in them or rent them out. But we still have historic numbers of foreclosed (and soon-to-be-foreclosed) homes sitting idle in shadow inventory, artificially boosting home values (by being held off the market). And even with easy lending to qualified borrowers, and a very tight rental market (< 5% in Miami, not quite as tight as it is here), in order to cash in on these “investments” the owners are having to consider HUD subsidized tenants instead of culling over waiting lists of interested, highly-qualified prospective renters.
At the moment, all of this is fine by me, because if we have available houses, and if we have presently homeless households, we should pair them up whenever possible. In the intermediate- to long-term, however, perhaps a residence should meet a minimum walkscore/transitscore threshold (or something along those lines) to qualify for housing subsidies. We don’t want to pay 2/3 of somebody’s rent for them and then have them pay 1/2 that subsidy amount on transportation costs out of their pocket. I’d much rather pay the 2/3 of their rent and have them save – or have the option to spend locally – the amount they would instead be spending on transportation in the former scenario. Also, on the surface, I’m certainly not thrilled about 2/3 of $3,300/mo rentals being paid for by taxpayers; in the long term we need a zip-code or metro-based cap (perhaps 125%-150% of median rent for minimum number of bedrooms to support household size).
Outside of any actual housing policy objectives, it is tremendously embarrassing that members of the HOA in question would seek to prevent future section 8 residents and even look to evict existing subsidized residents simply because they need government assistance to be able to afford a roof over their heads. I understand that not all section 8 qualified tenants are model neighbors, but neither or all renters, nor are all homeowners. I also realize that’s a big part of the reason HOA’s exist: to be able to force out undesirable residents in a way that you can’t in a traditional municipality. Regardless of this “perk” of being in the majority in a small enough quasi-legislative body for an individual to exert a substantial amount of control, it is very bad policy to codify a preference for vacant properties (for which no taxes or dues are collected) over a legitimately occupied property (for which taxes and dues can be collected).
Sources:
Florida Sun Sentinel
High-end HUD Rentals
Bloomberg c/o zerohedge.com
Housing has bottomed out?
Oregonlive.com
Portland still second tightest rental market in USA
And the “tenement housing” in the Pearl District is as desirable as ever, with rents shooting through the roof.