Lucky 13!


That’s how many streetcars Oregon Iron Works now has orders for.

In addition to six vehicles for Portland’s Streetcar Loop, OIW has just received an order for seven streetcars from Tuscon!


21 responses to “Lucky 13!”

  1. I didn’t know the Tucson streetcar project had been finally approved. Local 3d graphic video producer Newlands and Company did visualizations for the Tucson system. They’re better known for the California high-speed rail and Portland transit mall visualizations. http://www.nc3d.com

  2. When we toured OIW a month or two ago, they indicated that despite the economy, they were expending production in a variety of areas (not just streetcars) and were hiring. So I imagine that this streetcar order will result in the hiring of more people, simply because they were already a bit short on workers.

  3. I hear OIW looked at the Daimler truck plant…which is on the market, but it did not fit their needs. Too big? Maybe the orders start to pour in, and they reconsider.

  4. Finally a little bit of good news for the Oregon economy. Having the nation’s only streetcar manufacturer could really be a boon to the area.

  5. the nation’s only streetcar manufacturer could really be a boon to the area

    Especially if entities are able to get Federal funding to do streetcars, since the money can require products to come from the United States (and lets not start the whole debate on transit funding, since the Feds induced, at the very least, highway building well before they made money available for transit projects).

  6. Has OIW stated new prices on this new order? Is Tuscon paying 3 Million per car also?

    I’d really like to see some honest competition out there with this, get that price lower. But then of course that would mean we’d have to have a real market driven streetcar boom, and that hasn’t happened yet. I guess when gas hist $3.00+ a gallon again we might see a more interested public.

  7. Adron,

    If the market for streetcars takes off, you can count on Siemens and Bombardier to jump in and provide some competition.

  8. Three million dollars sure sounds like too much. It wasn’t that long ago, full-size MAX trains were $2.5 million. And the original MAX trains were closer to $1 million. This is what we get with a market economy. Seller market, cutthroat competition and buyer beware. Oh yeah, capitalism is what Jesus believes is best. Saving the world from destruction however is just too expensive.

  9. Wells,
    Please explain how building systems that cost $200 million per mile—like Tri-Met’s MAX for instance— is “saving the world from destruction.” Did you ever figure out how much fuel the AVERAGE American is using to go to work to make enough money to pay the taxes that these systems suck up? Perhaps we do get a good investment off the streetcar, though—which is why I would rather see that system used before any more MAX lines. It does seem to promote some high density development.

    Incidentally, I rode the MAX back from PDX two nights ago and found that it was just as bouncy as a bus. So the argument that it is a vastly smoother ride than a bus is nil. An express bus on a decently paved highway would be just as fast and smooth. If electric buses catch on they will be vastly quieter too—the MAX periodically screeched and its’ sound also bounced off the concrete walls. Not very quiet at all. Of course with its dedicated rail line it did get me to my stop pretty fast, but there are other ways to accomplish this.

    If you had to pony up the actual cost of a MAX ride each time you used it (as opposed to what blue state politicians can extort from the federal treasury to subsidize each passenger) I don’t think you would be so enamored of this means of transportation. I am not opposed to some sort of commuter rail. The German diesel powered railbus, running on existing track, seems like a cost effective solution. MAX needs to be sent back to the drawing board.

  10. While this subject gets tiring, it should be noted that any business that does not invest in order to offer better products at less cost is doomed. MAX offers a more reliable, and in many cases faster, smoother and quieter, trip at less cost per ride than other transit options.
    Of course to get people to and from Swan Island to MAX we need a bus…so everything has its place in the system. What is lacking is a complete high capacity transit network, but another leg opens this year with the next soon to be under construction. Fortunately, there is no turning back on light rail in Portland.

  11. About the only form of transit that can compete with a dedicated rail line–would be a dedicated busway. Not an “express bus” (a bus with few stops operating on standard roads); not various other flavors of BRT-line (such as EmX down in Eugene); I’m talking about a busway reserved exclusively for busses, which do not need to stop and wait for traffic.

    Unless you have an existing roadway which you want to convert to exclusive-bus use (which is what happened down in Brazil), construction of a new busway is just as expensive as construction of a new rail line. You might as well build a train at that point–trains are far better optimized for fixed-route operations.

    MAX as currently implemented, has lots of issues. Too many tight turns on the route (west of Sunset TC, and several downtown), too many stops downtown, etc.

    But bus service on existing roads (shared with auto traffic) is not going to offer the same level of service as a dedicated rail line can offer. It simply won’t.

  12. Lenny says,
    “it should be noted that any business that does not invest in order to offer better products at less cost is doomed.”

    Yes, and that is especially true if it has to “borrow” ten times as much as what it can possibly sell its product for. And that is what is happening when you include the capital cost of the LRT system….the “borrowing” being a grant from the federal treasury, in his case. If you are tired of the discussion you are welcome to propose a better solution.

  13. Why are we discussing Tri-Met as a “business”, anyway? We don’t discuss ODOT as a business, or expect that it should fund its operations and expansion solely from its “customers”.

  14. EngineerScotty Says:
    “Why are we discussing Tri-Met as a “business”, anyway? We don’t discuss ODOT as a business, or expect that it should fund its operations and expansion solely from its “customers”.”

    “Business” “enterprise” “endeavor” “public service” “whatever.” Let’s not play semantic games. The public has a right to demand that the books balance. And I believe that ODOT comes under a lot of scrutiny. It’s the same way when we question illegitimate military expenditures, disastrous trade policies, rising officials’ salaries…we have a right to question. And, unlike a business, we do not have the option of choosing whether to pay for it or forgo it. Funding it is required by the coercive power of the State—-thus, even more reason to subject it to critical evaluation.

  15. I agree, Tri-Met’s books ought to balance–and they do. That’s one reason we’re seeing service cuts–payroll tax receipts are down due to the recession, so expenses must be cut to match.

    The “business” analogy I’m referring to is the belief that some advocate, that transit ought to be self sustaining–i.e. pay for itself at the farebox. (Let alone, make a profit). It doesn’t, of course. I’m not suggesting that it Tri-Met management should not be held accountable or given a blank check. Nor is Tri-Met immune from market forces–transit in this country suffers greatly from heavily subsidized competition.

    But to address your specific point–there isn’t any reason Tri-Met, as a public entity, can’t raise revenue for capital projects from the usual sources for such things–bond revenue, the federal trough, etc; you seem to be suggesting that Tri-Met only undertake those capital projects that can be paid for from its operating budget. In that way, the “business” analogy breaks down–as a governmental agency, Tri-Met is perfectly entitled to do publicly-funded capital projects. And as such, we can restrain it at the ballot box should the need arise.

  16. Ron, you’re trying to hold TriMet to a different standard than the highway dept, the Port, the airport, and the railroads are held to. All are subsidized by the government. Good transportation drives the economy – it makes sense to support it.

    I’m having difficulty understanding why you’re singling out TriMet here. I’m also at a loss how we got so far off topic.

    Great news for OIW, can’t wait to see the new streetcars in service!

  17. Lenny Anderson wrote: it should be noted that any business that does not invest in order to offer better products at less cost is doomed. MAX offers a more reliable, and in many cases faster, smoother and quieter, trip at less cost per ride than other transit options.
    Of course to get people to and from Swan Island to MAX we need a bus…so everything has its place in the system. What is lacking is a complete high capacity transit network, but another leg opens this year with the next soon to be under construction. Fortunately, there is no turning back on light rail in Portland.

    Then written: And yes, a good product needs to be made better.

    So, let me understand this:

    MAX is great because it’s invested upon, over and over again.

    Buses suck, because TriMet refuses to invest in it.

    We need to invest in our bus system.

    But since there is so much bias against the bus system, let’s NOT invest in it, take the money, pour it into the much more limited light rail system, even though we know we need a bus system, and then accept our third-world country bus system that is underfunded, underinvested, unreliable…because nobody cares except for the people who need it.

    But, hey, we’re going to build more streetcars and that’s a great thing. Too bad that the millions upon millions poured in the streetcar system equate to the virtually zero dollars spent on bus systems that already carry the same passengers (and bus would certainly carry more, if much of the bus system were fare free – a fare is a natural barrier towards ridership.)

    As for “light rail isn’t going away”…one need only look at history to show that light rail is not forever. The Red Electric system only lasted from 1914 to 1929 – 15 years. Fortunately much of the physical infrastructure lasted much longer, but hardly for the purpose of the Red Electric trains. Who is to say that MAX will last forever?

Leave a Reply to EngineerScotty Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *