Dear Friends,
This morning, I joined Federal Transportation Administration (FTA) Administrator Peter Rogoff to sign the construction grant agreement and finalize the Portland Streetcar expansion, unleashing $75 million in federal funds to extend Portland’s existing downtown streetcar line across the Willamette River and into the East side of the city.
This final step in funding the Portland Streetcar expansion has great symbolism. Small Starts, a program I passed through Congress in 2003, is being put to work and funding the first-ever streetcar project right here in Portland. The $75 million released today is a down-payment on Portland’s future that will create 1,300 high-wage jobs, spur development, and jumpstart Oregon’s economy.
Streetcars not only improve quality of life, giving people more transportation options, but they have real economic and environmental benefits. While the Small Starts program languished under President Bush, the Obama administration – under the leadership of Administrator Rogoff and Secretary LaHood – acted quickly to get this project moving.
With more than 80 streetcar projects underway across the nation, Small Starts provides a federal funding source for communities working to provide more commuting options and reduce their dependence on oil. Today’s announcement should make clear that the new administration is committed to rebuilding America, investing in our infrastructure, and recovering the nation’s economy.
Today is a great day for the streetcar! Thanks for everything that you did along the way to help make this possible.
Best,
Earl Blumenauer
Member of Congress
35 responses to “Streetcar Loop Funds now In the Bank!”
OK..fine. “Jumpstart the economy” with the $75 million infusion. But do we also need the $10 billion plus for other projects out in the suburbs?
When I think of 1-2 million more people moving here I also think of more crowding throughout the entire region…which will also take place in Washington and California…rising costs for everything…busier highways and more construction projects…rising housing costs…and more rules everywhere.
Blumeanuer says “The small starts program languished under President Bush.” Is this really bad? During the Bush administration Oak Ridge Laboratories designed the low floor electrically powered transit bus. What’s wrong with that?
I am not opposed to limited “creation of jobs” if it is something we really need. However, I see no need for an amount of stimulus that ultimately results in a requirement to import more labor into the US. With the $100 Billion we already send overseas yearly in private philanthropy–plus our federal foreign aid–we are already doing plenty to stimulate “job creation” elsewhere in the world.
Incidentally the Fifth UN World Urban Forum (Rio De Janeiro, March 22-26, 2010) has begun its preliminary online forums. If so inclined, you can register and add your comments here:
http://www.unhabitat.org/categories.asp?catid=584
I have already piped up for Portland on a thread “The Urban-Rural Transportation Divide.”
Congrats! This is great news!
Fie on all the haters.
Streetcars are good for cities.
I’m not saying they should be put everywhere (nor could they ever be), but they should be a robust option, just one of the colors in the transportation planning palette. Streetcars should be put in place WHERE APPROPRIATE.
Congrats Portland, I will have to come up from L.A. and ride it.
P.S., Here in LA we are also working on our own streetcar, in addition to a new subway and lots more light rail. Dig it.
when does it start running?
“This morning, I joined Federal Transportation Administration (FTA) Administrator Peter Rogoff”
Earl, really? FTA stands for Federal TRANSIT Administration.
Operating in 2012
It’s a good thing they have the funds, given that construction has been going on for a few weeks now!
BAH HUMBUG!
Oh yea, where is the operating revenue going to come from?
Oh yea, where is the operating revenue going to come from?
The operations budget, I assume. I’d also wager that more people using the system would mean more money for operations.
Yippie, we get to ride on a streetcar that’s subjected to bumper-to-bumper traffic on Highway 99E!
I thought it was bad that MAX was slow in downtown, but the alignment on Highway 99E is going to be a new low for Portland transit. Alternatives are there, nobody wants to do the dirty political work to build it right.
Chris F: The streetcar will have a dedicated lane on parts of 99E (or at least the last version of the plans I saw had them, anyone?).
I suggested delaying the route on Hwy 99E MLK-Grand to learn first from rebuilding Weidler/Broadway to accommodate the streetcar line along those wide, fast boulevards. I still think it better for the streetcar to reach the central Lloyd District than to turn south at NE 7th. Then I suggested running the line south just to Burnside where it could tie into the Burnside/Couch Bridgehead development and leave the southern stretch to consider relocating the UPRR line below Grand Ave; (it’s the RR line, not I-5 preventing investment in the Central Eastside Industrial District, in my book). Reaching OMSI certainly is a good idea, as is tying into the new Milwaukie MAX line from there. Some ‘infill’ development will surely follow the streetcar line along MLK/Grand. It’s a fair tradeoff. The line will eventually extend further into Lloyd District. Moving the RR line under Grand can still happen one day.
THIS IS AWESOME!
I think it’s important that Portland not celebrate just yet, however. We’ve got a long way to go in improving the perception of the Streetcar as one that is inclusive of all Portlanders.
Chris F: The streetcar will have a dedicated lane on parts of 99E (or at least the last version of the plans I saw had them, anyone?).
Very limited parts, yes, such as along the Convention Center, south over I-84 (almost?) to Burnside.
I find it somewhat surprising that people who have been relatively silent on the topic of bus operations on 99E for decades are vocally opposed to a streetcar which would be affected by traffic similarly to a bus.
(The streetcars planned role through here is to complete a circulator loop, rather than to act as a commuter operation.)
But that’s OK — let’s lobby as many as we can to promote dedicating the right lane to streetcars, buses and right-turning vehicles. A little signal preemption here and there, an voila, free-flowing transit.
Hopefully they wont remove any general purpose lanes for this, as the current ones are maxed out during the day.
FWIW – I haven’t said too much negative about buses on crowded streets because it’s the status quo and wouldn’t suck up lots of capital costs to keep. Streetcar development would.
There’s also an operational thing with streetcars. They cost 50% more than buses on a vehicle hour basis. So unless there is some combination of a 50% surge in ridership attributable solely to the mode or a 33 1/3% reduction in trip times, we end up having to increase fares and/or reduce service throughout the system.
I just don’t see that happening with some of the streetcar projects. The base Portland Streetcar was right on, especially with its 100% subsidized fare in the geographical area about to be formerly known as Fareless Square. But the extensions seem to be more and more problematic. Eastside has a hill to climb, but has a chance to be worthwhile. Lake Oswego will be both slower for most riders and have no chance of gaining enough patronage to even approach reasonable cost/benefit ratios. Some of the four lane+ Portland arterials have good possibilities – Sandy & 82nd, for example. But the two lane ones: I don’t think so. As said before on the site, Streetcar on the Sellwood Bridge and Tacoma all the way to Milwaukie MAX is like Russian Roulette with a Derringer.
Hopefully they wont remove any general purpose lanes for this
And here we have an illustration of the crux of the problem. There is a strong contingency for the upgrading and/or expansion transit service in the region, but there is also a strong resistance to the reduction of (real or perceived) capacity for the automobile.
A similar thing recently happened on Stark and Oak where one automobile lane was converted into an extra-wide bike lane. At peak hour, traffic is often so light that I can count fewer than 5 cars per minute, and yet it was met with many loud complaints about the “taking” of an “auto” lane.
And so, we wind up with transit expansion without dedicated lanes, and people from both perspectives object.
100% subsidized fare
Really? I live near 23rd, and no, it’s not fareless there.
Having buses on Highway 99E is different, because the route and stops are *flexible*. A bus can switch to a different lane to get around the long line of cars waiting to get on the I-84 on-ramp. A bus can drop off/pick up passengers if it is 5 or 10 feet away from the designated bus stop. A streetcar is forced to wait until it pulls completely up to the platform area to load/unload.
The platform is usually not an issue unless the streetcar is forced to stay behind a line of cars waiting to turn right when a pedestrian crosses the street. I know I’m going to be on one of those streetcars and will shake my head when we repeatedly stop for traffic like the current situation with Burnside near Powell’s Books.
Running the streetcar on a street one block east or west of Highway 99E would allow the streetcars to operate quicker, provide as an alternative to the gridlock that frequently occur on 99E.
A bus can switch to a different lane to get around the long line of cars waiting to get on the I-84 on-ramp.
The route for the eastside loop is not in the far-right lane in the block preceding or adjacent to the I-84 on-ramp. The route diverts a lane to the left N. of Burnside, and then back again further north.
A bus can drop off/pick up passengers if it is 5 or 10 feet away from the designated bus stop.
Perhaps, but from what I understand that would be in violation of ADA rules.
A streetcar is forced to wait until it pulls completely up to the platform area to load/unload.
Again, it is my understanding that, strictly speaking, buses must stop in a consistent and marked location at platforms. This is part of the reason for the revised bus operating rules on the remodeled Transit Mall.
I know I’m going to be on one of those streetcars and will shake my head when we repeatedly stop for traffic like the current situation with Burnside near Powell’s Books.
The proposed Burnside-Couch couplet would solve a lot of the flow problems like crossing Burnside on 11th.
Running the streetcar on a street one block east or west of Highway 99E would allow the streetcars to operate quicker
On this point we completely agree. I once proposed running streetcars bidirectionally on 6th, making 6th a transit/bike/ped street on the south side of I-84, and 7th on the north side. (Coupled with the creation of a 7th Ave. overpass over I-84, for all modes, with transit diverting to 6th.)
But there was a long and involved process with many stakeholders, including industrial property owners in the SE industrial areas, who were concerned about development spreading too far off the Grand/MLK corridor, and these and other factors led to the decision to support Grand/MLK as the principal streetcar street.
The current zoning supports it, and being a 4+ lane street, there is room for a shared transit/auto lane.
I would like to add that I think the eastside loop is going to provide the proof (or disproof) for a lot of what city planners believe about streetcars, transportation, and land use.
Purely looking at the variables of speed, capacity, cost, etc., it is difficult to see the worthiness of streetcars over buses.
But on the west side, in the central city, pearl district, and south waterfront, we’ve seen a lot of development, and many new residents, business owners, developers, and planners, cite the subjective as well as substantive qualities of streetcars as being part of that growth.
It is believed by promoters (and to a large extend, believed by me) that streetcars offer a unique set of qualities. Those qualities, deployed in the right areas, represent a nexus between land use and transportation that facilitates the kind if growth we’d like to see: Walkable neighborhoods with good transit access and a sustainable mix of residential and commercial activity.
It has been argued that the real underlying story of the growth along the current streetcar alignment comes not from the streetcar at all but from a mix of other large subsidies to development and to homebuyers, as well as the close proximity to the amenities of downtown. It has been argued that the same mix of subsidies, without a streetcar, would have resulted in the same development pattern and the same perceptions of success.
On the eastside, we don’t have the same level of subsidies available (as far as I know), and it is further from downtown in some respects (you have to cross a body of water, at least). The 5 or so year period after the line opens will go a long way toward indicating if the process is really worth it as a city-wide concept — before we get too far along in the Streetcar System Plan process.
(Remember, it took well over a decade for the “first” streetcar line to get going, and the Eastside Loop stakeholders have been holding public meetings since at least early 2003 — these projects don’t exactly happen suddenly.)
There is no question that Streetcar would have preferred to be slightly to the east (a lot of folks argued for Grand/7th as the couplet) but neighborhood wishes and City policy were clear about not wanting to violate the boundaries of the industrial sanctuary with mixed-used development.
So the alignment is within the envelope of mixed-used zoning on MLK/Grand and we’re working hard to make the traffic issues work. We will have a brief stretch of exclusive lane on Grand before the freeway ramp (created by removing a little bit of parking, not by reducing traffic lanes) to deal with the issue identified above.
Again, it is my understanding that, strictly speaking, buses must stop in a consistent and marked location at platforms.
I thought operators have some discretion on whether to allow passengers to disembark between stations. They certainly exercise it. Al, any insight?
TriMet has a program that allows riders to request being let out between stops after sunset. I don’t think drivers have the option to NOT stop at a designated stop, more to Bob’s point.
I stop most anywhere somebody wants to get off if its safe, anytime.
And I let people on at red lights.
I won’t stop for people trying to flag me down unless its 100% safe or if its a regular rider that I know.
Regular riders get extra special service.
Before the hysteria, my regulars even could call me on my cell and “hold” the bus just for them.
Those days are gone, too bad, I even used to text other buses and have them hold for transfers.
The cell phone thing wasn’t all bad, too bad that a few idiots had to ruin it for everyone.
Remember I drive suburban routes, the so called “non productive” routes where you can actually give people real service.
You can’t do any of that with the heavy use routes, no such thing as service when you treat people like cattle and just herd them on and off or just look at them as a profit center.
Pretty soon there won’t be any human contact left in transit, all gonna be drivers hidden in little boxes and standard stops on rail lines.
Adios to the human factor.
FYI , Although I was on a streetcar that went by the stop I wanted. I did not get to the bell request in time as it was a bit crowded , no big deal ,I walked back , but I did not know the Streetcar went by empty/unrequested stops.
but I did not know the Streetcar went by empty/unrequested stops.
Hehehehehe……
Lots of people learn the lesson about stop requests the hard way, boo hoo. :^)
The funding approval sure makes Rose Quarter master plan a little brighter. Traffic speeds must be reduced/controlled on Weidler and Broadway.
I think the I-5 south/I-84 on-ramp could be removed. Access to I-84 redirected to the Grand Ave entrance ramp. And for I-5 south, a new ramp off a redesigned Morrison/Belmont interchange. Whoa, that’s a big project. Still, removing the I-5 South/I-84 on-ramp would reduce traffic on Weidler/Broadway.
I once proposed running streetcars bidirectionally on 6th, making 6th a transit/bike/ped street on the south side of I-84, and 7th on the north side. (Coupled with the creation of a 7th Ave. overpass over I-84, for all modes, with transit diverting to 6th.)
But there was a long and involved process with many stakeholders, including industrial property owners in the SE industrial areas, who were concerned about development spreading too far off the Grand/MLK corridor, and these and other factors led to the decision to support Grand/MLK as the principal streetcar street.
That’s a shame, because your proposal sounds like a good one.
While I’m not yet totally sold on the Eastside loop, I was also somewhat skeptical of the current streetcar line before it opened. Since I work downtown and get a chance to observe it on a regular basis, as well as ride it occasionally, it looks like ridership is robust (tourists seem to love it as much as commuters). Now if only they’d do a better job of collecting fares for riders outside Fareless Square…
Still, removing the I-5 South/I-84 on-ramp would reduce traffic on Weidler/Broadway.
Not to mention getting rid of one of my least favorite merge/weave situations in the metro area :P
Since Bob R.’s comments are a summation of the streetcars vs auto-lanes debate I might suggest that each neighborhood streetcar proposal be examined on a case-by-case basis. Connecting the Lloyd District to the Central Line doesn’t seem so far fetched. That neighborhood has had a high (for Portland) density level for some time–although I would point out that Gresham MAX already goes over there, just not via the Broadway Bridge. But apparently there are willing developers ready to take a risk on the area.
A lot of the other proposals lead me to question: Is it really a beneficial strategy that deserves federal taxpayer support—or just a “Me-Too” desire to not be left out of the excitement.
I know that densification around streetcar lines is a workable scenario in many cases. I wonder if we will really like the ultimate result. Is there some underlying value in Portland wanting to grow up to be like east coast big cities? Unless the newcomers enjoy hanging around in their condos all the time, I’m assuming that other facets of our infrastructure and natural resources will experience far greater use, too. The streetcar has a much better development-to-subsidy ratio than the MAX proposals.
A streetcar is forced to wait until it pulls completely up to the platform area to load/unload.
The real issue is that most of the platforms are right up against the intersection, leaving zero room for traffic waiting to turn or having just got onto the street (and not yet in the flow/progression of traffic). Stopping away from the platform can be problematic because many ones have parked cars next to them and because the operator isn’t involved with the passengers to oversee deboarding like on a bus, possibly only using the front door. Lastly, Burnside is a barrier/problem for ALL modes wishing to get across it, not just the streetcar.
Lastly, Burnside is a barrier/problem for ALL modes wishing to get across it, not just the streetcar.
Indeed… something the couplet project aspires to address.
It is my sincere hope that the eastside Burnside-Couch couplet, now in the early stages of construction, and which faced much less community opposition, will serve as an example and will inspire support of the proposed (and oft-delayed) coupled on the west side.
Before I get to the “but”, let me say that I am very much impressed with the existing streetcar and hope more routes actually get built.
BUT (there it is), crossing the Willamette on the Broadway Bridge is going to be a nightmare. You must know how bad the congestion on the bridge is already and yet you persist in this plan.
I understand that there is no way to squeeze the streetcars in among the Max trains on the Steel Bridge, but I honestly don’t understand what you expect to accomplish with this route. Anyone within walking distance of a Max station in the Rose Quarter or Lloyd District destined for downtown is going to make that walk because of the more frequent service. So most of the people riding the streetcar across the bridge will be folks destined to the Pearl district from Lloyd/Rose or the eastside.
There may be folks heading downtown from the central eastside, but won’t more of them just walk? Especially if they’re bound to anywhere within a three or four blocks of the river and it’s not raining it would probably be quicker. If someone is going from MLK to 2nd Avenue she or he would have to walk nearly half as far from the streetcar couplet as just crossing the bridge. And, if one is by one of the bridges, there’ll be a bus within five or six minutes.
I just don’t see that this is going to have anywhere near the payoff that the original line did. It may tarnish the image of the cars and make the rest of the system you envision harder to build.