Updated: Portland Streetcar Awarded $23M in TIGER Funds


Update: 3/9/10

In the comments to this post I was asked if the grant was for the entire Innovation Quadrant program, or if it applied to the Moody component only.

I learned last week that in fact the grant amount awarded is only for Moody. We’ll need to keep looking for funding for the Sustainability Center and OMSI pieces of this puzzle.

Original Post: 2/17/10

The “Innovation Quadrant” TIGER grant application was successful and will receive $23,203,988 (I want those last eight dollars!) in funding.

This will go a long way toward “closing the Loop” and connecting the service to OMSI back across the Willamette to South Waterfront and back up to PSU.

Sadly, it appears that no other Oregon projects were funded. I was rooting for the Metro proposal that would have funded a large chunk of the desired bike network in N/NE Portland.

The full list of recipients is here (PDF). The Oregon award is on page 51 of the PDF.

On a further Streetcar note, Tuscon received $63M for their project, and that will mean jobs at Oregon Ironworks, building their seven vehicles.

,

37 responses to “Updated: Portland Streetcar Awarded $23M in TIGER Funds”

  1. Has anyone seen an estimate of trip time difference with the new alignment? Going from (even single track) exclusive alignment to shared ROW with an added stop has got to increase trips by at least a minute.

  2. The history of this is the inconvenient fact that the ‘middle’ of South Waterfront developed before the northern end, and in order to serve the new development we needed to make some routing choices with incomplete information – information like how Moody would be configured and what the (then and now non-existent) return street for the streetcar couplet would be.

    So PSI opted to go for the cheap and temporary, building the least-expensive-possible single-track, ballast-and-ties configuration alongside Moody.

    Now that the development planning for the north end of the district has caught up, we can build the final configuration (and in fact, Moody is going to be raised by 15 feet!).

    I have not seen travel time estimates, but I can tell you that the priority will be providing access to the new sections of the neighborhood.

    We should pick up some gains in travel time up by PSU when we replace the awkward and slow single-track with a double-track segment diagonally through the new sustainability center block (aka the Jasmine Tree block).

  3. So are the other two projects that were part of the TIGER proposal not going to happen? The messed up thing around PSU will have to stay?

  4. Yeah, I realize it’s part of the overall project. What I’m curious about, is over here, they’re showing three distinct projects, and the stuff described being funded only sounds like #2 — are the other two projects, one to fix the “messed up thing”, the SW 4th Avenue Streetcar Realignment, and the SE Water Avenue Realignment project — not approved or not funded?

  5. Yeah, I realize it’s part of the overall project. What I’m curious about, is over here, they’re showing three distinct projects, and the stuff described being funded only sounds like #2 — are the other two projects, one to fix the “messed up thing”, the SW 4th Avenue Streetcar Realignment, and the SE Water Avenue Realignment project — not approved or not funded?

  6. Chris Smith:“So PSI opted to go for the cheap and temporary, building the least-expensive-possible single-track, ballast-and-ties configuration alongside Moody.”

    ws:And how much did the “cheap” segment along Moody cost? I’m not sure why it can’t have a separated ROW right there, just add some crazy long ADA ramp, stairs, and a crosswalk to a station across from the proposed new development, and you’re good to go.

    I realize there’s some brownfield remediation going on, and I’m not privy to every last detail of the project.

    It seems like it was terrible oversight. Why spend so much money and not be positive that’s the alignment you wanted?

    It’s like putting in a cheap highway, tearing it out, and then starting again a few feet over.

  7. Streetcar can’t stay where it is along Moody because TriMet is going to put the MAX tracks there! (also not known at the time we had to figure out how to get to South Waterfront)

  8. I got this version from in insider.
    The streetcar is already there, it cost $35 million, some borrowed UR/TIF, but it will be torn up and rebuilt.
    The excuse is “The project will allow construction of new residential and commercial buildings without disturbing capped hazardous materials”.
    The truth is the entire site has to be raised 5 feet for the flood zone just like the previous sites.
    The hazardous materials issue is a useful exaggeration and excuse to cover up the real scheme behind the scenes.
    The 14 feet is NOT needed to cap the brownfield.
    Relatively speaking the brownfield is insignificant and could be remidiated at a proportianate cost.
    The site also has springs and fill issues that are not resolved with a 14 foot capping but are also conveniently ignored.
    The 14 feet is needed to accommodate the elevation of the future light rail.
    Moody Street is also being moved 100 feet to the west to accommodate the preferences of OHSU and Zidell land development.

    In short this is more Portland scandal now with fed aid.

  9. Am I understanding the reason to raise Moody is so that new construction can be built elevated over the brownfield areas and not need to dig in? It makes sense to do it that way, if it’ll work, just want to make sure I’m not misunderstanding.

  10. Chris –

    Looking at both the TIGER link and the Innovation Quadrant website, it looks like the Feds only funded the Moody reconstruction, not the Water Ave. realignment or the 4th Ave. project. My basis for this is the cost numbers on both sites. The Innovation Quadrant website lists separate costs for each project:

    SW 4th Ave.: $4,001,314
    Moody Ave.: $66,532,551
    Water Ave.: $7,108,162

    On the feds’ page, they only list the $66,532,551 figure. Please correct me if I’m reading this wrong.

  11. Chris:“Streetcar can’t stay where it is along Moody because TriMet is going to put the MAX tracks there! (also not known at the time we had to figure out how to get to South Waterfront)”

    ws:Then why install a streetcar line for a few years at millions of dollars cost only to have it torn up again?

    In a city full of planners, can you tell me how that is considered good planning?

    And I’m not an anti-transit, anti-planning person, either.

  12. In a city full of planners, can you tell me how that is considered good planning?

    I’d like to know why they were so insistent in getting it down to SoWa if they were just going to need to spend $65 million later on to replace something that’s fairly new. I’d guess it had to do with getting the Tram and SoWa going ASAP, but it does seem like a terrible decision in hindsight.

  13. Then why install a streetcar line for a few years at millions of dollars cost only to have it torn up again?

    Indeed, it was very much about getting SoWa going.

    It was fully understood at the time that the single-track was a temporary alignment.

  14. It was fully understood at the time that the single-track was a temporary alignment.

    Was that actual public knowledge? Is there anyplace I can go to find out what all the actual plans for things are, and long-term intents?

    I love transit and streetcars, but I hate how mysterious these processes are.

    [Moderator: Commenter’s last name reduced to initial in this thread per commenter’s request.]

  15. Was that actual public knowledge?

    So little trust :-)

    From discussion in the very first month of this blog:

    Bob, we would definitely like to be double-track in South Waterfront, there’s this small problem with a working barge plant where we would like to put the second track :-)

    Zidell will eventually move their plant, and we’ll reexamine that area then (including whether to locate some stops there, depending on the development plans). Meanwhile, on the next segment under consideration (Gibbs to Lowell) we are definitely looking at double track.

  16. OK, so it looks like if you read this blog carefully and the right questions get asked, someone is likely to come around with an answer.

    Now just reveal all the juicy questions I don’t know about! :)

    By the way, it looks like I have a double post up near the top.

  17. It was definitely clear that this streetcar track between the Marquam and RI Bridge was going to be temporary. It was mentioned in the Oregonian articles about it around 2005-2006. But I think this trackage was going to be replaced when the OHSU property was platted out with new streets and Zidell had moved (probably another 10 years from now). The new MAX Bridge routing via SoWa changed the schedule and plans. Remember the plan was for the MAX bridge to cross under the Marquam Bridge next to the Marriott Residence Inn in RiverPlace.

    I’m just surprised that the MAX line isnt going to use any of the off-street streetcar track, you’d think they’d add a second track to it and call it a light rail track. I sure hope ties, track and poles will be recycled and reused, this is ‘green’ Portland afterall.

    I still wish they’d add a connection from SoWa streetcar track to the MAX track so that the future LO Streetcar could potentially be routed via the transit mall alignment into downtown.

  18. Some of you should start attending some Streetcar CAC meetings. All this stuff was discussed at great length by a very capable group with representatives of neighborhoods, the disabled, as well as local businesses. The pity is that Streetcar will not serve the heart of the Zidell/OHSU properties, but be out on Moody a few blocks away. Zidell still bars the way, so Moody it is.

  19. Lenny: Moody is four blocks from the river itself, and three blocks from the furthest building. That hardly seems like a barrier to all but the frailest of folks. My 90 year old grandmother walks further to go grocery shopping.

  20. TIGER grant application was successful and will receive $23,203,988

    This is the real beauty of living in this great and free country of ours.

    $23 million for this and nothing for THIS!

    So enlighten me, the enlightened minds of PortlandTransport.com.

    Why is this ok to fund one but not the other?

    And don’t give me the old and tired “pockets” speech.

    This money can only be used for building and the other has to come from payroll tax.

    I don’t want to hear that nonsense anymore!
    Cause the feds can fund any damn thing they want!

  21. I’m all for the feds making up operational shortfalls in local transit budgets. Doing so would require more cajones than Congress currently possesses–far too many members of that august institution are convinced that transit–including the simple bus–is a communist plot, the work of the devil, or some combination of both.

  22. Your on the right track Scotty, the bottom line however is that these lucrative construction contracts put money into corporate hands!

    (oh yea, and it creates a few jobs for a few lucky people with connections)

    I have not met even one unemployed person who uses our transit system who has got one job because of any of this F***ING S**T

  23. For the first time the other night I went around the entire streetcar loop with my pal Fred Wallace.

    We stopped for a little break down at the waterfront area.

    That is why the streetcar exists, so developers will construct fancy buildings for the wealthy of this country to reside in.

    When other cities point to the Portland streetcar they point to the pearl and the waterfront.

    Its got nothing to do with transit, the big money boys love it.

    And so the world spins.

  24. That is why the streetcar exists, so developers will construct fancy buildings for the wealthy of this country to reside in.

    As counterpoint to that assertion, please consider that about one-third of the housing units in the Pearl are affordable housing for people earning well below median income.

  25. Chris: 1/3 of the housing in the Pearl is “affordable?” By who’s measure? Is it “affordable” because the land value, materials cost, and maintenance are affordable, or is it because of heavy tax subsidies?

    I live in a two bedroom house 1400 sq foot house with a back yard on the border of Gresham and Portland, rent is in the $600s/ month range. I consider this affordable. Could you find me the same arrangement in the Pearl? Anything close?

    The cheapest rent I found in the Pearl district was a small studio apartment with no yard and no parking for $800 a month, and you have to prove your income and assets in order to live there every two years. But hey, at least they have a streetcar.

  26. The affordable housing in the Pearl is subsidized.

    Al’s point was about how the benefits of the Streetcar are distributed across different income groups. My point was that in fact lower income groups do benefit. Indeed, in part the subsidies to develop the affordable housing come from the property taxes paid by the higher-income housing.

    Whether or not you think such subsidies are appropriate or not is a different question.

    And to say “at least they have a streetcar” is pretty dismissive. They have a very affordable transportation alternative.

  27. Anthony:

    Why would a renter in the city have a private yard? A lot of the rental units have nice common space and access to green space.

    I would like you to show me examples (anywhere in Portland) where someone can afford to rent a place “next door” to someone who owns a unit worth in excess of a million dollars?

    I believe units in the Pearl are “subsidized” moreso because of public/private partnership that the PDC required in order for them to develop, not so much because of tax reasons. But it may be a combo of both, even your typical rental apartments get the same tax considerations w/ Section 8 and what not.

    You can find rental apartments for less than 800 dollars.

    http://www.portlandtribune.com/news/graphic.php?file_name=070313_pearl_map.jpg

    http://www.portlandtribune.com/news/story.php?story_id=117373388024001500

    The Pearl’s not for everyone, but it’s not the elitist playground that it’s portrayed as. I don’t hear renters complaining about not being able to find a decent place to live in a gated community in Lake Oswego.

    At least I as a denizen of the Portland area can walk around and enjoy the amenities of the Pearl. I do that in a Lake-O gated community and I get arrested.

  28. There is very little “affordable” housing in the Pearl. There is quite a bit of heavily subsidized housing reserved for people who can demonstrate they are below certain income thresholds. We used to call those “projects” but “affordable,” inaccurate as it may be, is a lot sexier.

  29. One dumb question about the name “Innovation quadrant”.

    What innovation occurs at OMSI? Maybe I’m being an academic snob (my kids love the place, and I’ve got no complaints about its function as a museum), but it isn’t, as far I can tell, a research facility. It has an important educational mission, but to compare it to PSU or OHSU is just plain silly. The Oregon Historical Society (which does actual historical research and is an archive for much primary source material) is more “innovative” than OMSI is–OMSI seems to only be part of the “innovation quadrant” because it deals in science–and because it’s gonna get a transit line past its front door in the near future.

  30. WAY TO GO PORTLAND!!! I wish other cities in the USA had a tenth the common sense your city had. You are the example for other cities to look at. We are thankful for your leadership!!!

  31. Chris. I’m wondering if the old red apartment building on the sustainability center block’s SW corner will be preserved, torn down or moved? I’m also wondering if there are scary monsters in my closet who’ll jump out and demand I pay taxes?

  32. I know the answer to that because we just voted on the rezoning today at Planning Commission. The lot on the SW corner was NOT rezoned, so it’s not coming down (at least not for this project).

Leave a Reply to Chris Smith Cancel reply

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