Disclaimer: Zef Wagner is currently a Service Planning and Scheduling Intern at TriMet. The views expressed on this website are his own and do not necessarily reflect the views, plans, or policies of TriMet.
On this opening week of the new Portland Streetcar Central Loop comes news from Seattle, where their South Lake Union Streetcar just announced an agreement with Amazon worth an astonishing $5.5 million over 10 years in capital and operating assistance.
Amazon, already a major employer occupying several buildings in the newly-developed South Lake Union neighborhood north of downtown Seattle, is planning to build 3 new skyscraper office buildings in the area to expand their operations. This massive investment in land use (on lots occupied by surface parking lots for the last several decades) is matched by a massive investment in transportation. In addition to sidewalk and bike improvements in the area, Amazon has agreed to buy an additional streetcar vehicle and pay for operating expenses to allow for 10-minute all-day frequency, up from a paltry 15-minute frequency today.
For those unfamiliar, Seattle Streetcar is very similar to Portland Streetcar, which makes sense since they used our line as a model. They use the same vehicles, both run mostly in mixed traffic, both go very slowly over short distances, and both have been controversial due to concerns about bike safety and cost efficiency. More importantly, both have been used as an explicit way to encourage development. In the case of Portland, the streetcar is often touted as being the main investment that brought about the Pearl District. In Seattle, the streetcar was sold as a way to stimulate development in South Lake Union.
While I am skeptical that the Pearl would not have developed without the streetcar (considering the whole area is within easy walking distance of downtown and the transit mall), in the case of Seattle I am more convinced that it had a role. Most of the development in South Lake Union has taken the form of major employment like the Amazon campus, the Fred Hutch cancer center, and a plethora of biotech companies. There has been some mixed-use development as well, but the cluster of large employers is what really may have depended on a high-quality and high-capacity transit link with downtown to get their employees to work. There was already a bus line to South Lake Union, but streetcars are able to hold more people (mostly because they have fewer seats) and I’m willing to buy that Amazon and biotech employees might have a touch of rail bias.
It seems to me that South Lake Union may be a more compelling guide for what the Central Loop could accomplish in the Central Eastside, as opposed to looking at the Pearl District. The Central Loop and Seattle Streetcar have many similarities, after all. When Seattle Streetcar started, it was derided as a streetcar to nowhere, and lack of operational funding has led to disappointing frequency for such a short transit line. The Central Loop is somewhat similar–while it doesn’t really go “nowhere,” it does spend much of its time in the Central Eastside along sparsely developed parcels and running on a high-speed, traffic-heavy highway. Not only that, but it takes the most circuitous possible route between downtown and Central Eastside, duplicates a couple bus lines (the 6 and 17) for some segments, and there are many more direct bus alternatives across the river. Frequency is especially disappointing–due to a lack of funding and delays in new vehicle production, we will be stuck with 18-minute frequency for awhile, and probably can only hope for 15-minute frequency in the near future.
However, with all these similarities, Seattle Streetcar may represent a glimmer of hope for the Central Loop. If Portland can put its energy into attracting some major employers to develop new headquarters and operations on the Central Eastside along Grand and MLK, we can probably expect higher ridership on the streetcar and eventually, hopefully, we will get our own Amazon that is willing to pay for better service that we can all benefit from.
My worry with the Central Eastside is that the city will just assume the streetcar will do all the work, without doing all the other things needed to create a new commercial district. This effort will require more upzoning (we should be allowing skyscrapers, not the piddly 5 to 8 story buildings allowed under current zoning), an expansion of developable area (currently limited to the blocks immediately adjacent to MLK and Grand), major parking reform (metered parking, parking management, parking limits, etc), more signals and better pedestrian crossings, and more development incentives. We should also work toward getting an exclusive lane for the streetcar in the future. Most highways in Portland are 4 or 6 lanes wide, so why does 99E through the Central Eastside need 8 lanes?
In general, the point is that this should be an aggressive effort to expand downtown across the river, not a modest attempt to get a few mixed-use apartment buildings built right along the streetcar. We need to focus on major employment right along the line, perhaps with some mix of affordable housing and smaller businesses on the outlying parcels. If we don’t get this right, we are going to be stuck with a shiny new streetcar line (the most expensive ever built, in fact) that runs infrequently and carries few passengers.
Yonah Freemark at the Transport Politic recently wrote an article on this very subject. I agree with the general sentiment of the article, although I think he is off the mark in assuming that the current zoning here is adequate, or that Portland is making enough of an effort to really attract development to the Central Eastside. He even acknowledges that our streetcar is “absurdly slow,” yet still assumes it will have some kind of dramatic impact on development. If we see major redevelopment in the area, it will be because of an increase in zoned FAR, development incentives, major investments in streetscape and traffic improvements beyond just a mixed-traffic streetcar, and increased bus service across the river.
One response to my call for major employment to be the focus may be that we need to nurture the small, artisan industries sprouting up on the Central Eastside. That is entirely appropriate, and it makes sense to keep certain areas protected for light industrial use. Everything west of 3rd Ave, for example, makes sense as light industrial since it has the UP rail line and is stuck underneath viaducts and the freeway. The area south of Hawthorne also makes sense, since it is outside the core of the area. However, we should recognize that much of the Central Eastside is underutilized and car-oriented, filled with empty buildings, vacant lots, drive-through fast food restaurants, auto shops, and parking. We should also recognize that if we spent $100 million to build a streetcar line to promote redevelopment, we can’t also say that existing uses have to be wholly protected.
There is a larger question here of what we think the highest and best use of prime central city land should be. The area from 6th to 12th contains many fine businesses, but preserving it as low-density industrial when there is so much redevelopment potential in that area is a waste. Keeping it industrial condemns the Grand/MLK corridor to feeling like a small, isolated swath of urbanity rather than a cohesive part of the rest of inner SE. Take a walk from Stark &12th to Stark & Grand and you will see how disconnected the neighborhoods feel and how unpleasant it is to travel by foot. We should seize this opportunity to connect our residential neighborhoods to the river.
There is also a question of balance between small and large businesses. Many Portlanders I talk to are very proud of how we nurture and support small businesses and start-ups, but it seems like few people in this city recognize the value that large companies can bring. They obviously help to form a solid economic foundation in terms of jobs and income (after all, those small businesses need customers with disposable income), but what people often forget about are the direct public benefits like the Amazon deal. Large employers have a major stake in the city and can actually see direct financial benefit to making investments in the city in terms of attracting a quality workforce. They not only make transportation and land use investments and pay taxes, they also tend to be philanthropic, sponsoring city events and projects. I for one hope that Portland can use the Central Loop as an opportunity to attract some similarly deep-pocketed company that can be a partner in making this city a better place.
118 responses to “A Tale of Two Streetcars”
The northeast end of the new line is expected to see some major densification within the next couple years, with one of the cities tallest buildings being planned on what is now a parking lot – along with the rest of the “mega-block” being developed. All mixes use, but including a TON of residential.
The central east-side needs to stay a little bit moderately light-industrial in some ways, mainly because it is the last area that *can* stay that way. But there are places which we can do some major building and whatnot.
I know the idea of the convention center hotel was widely panned – but we do need something like that. Too many of the blocks around the convention center are single story non-tourism oriented use – and the business which are there (such as a bank and a starbucks) can go inside other mixed use buildings.
Towards the southern end some employment and tourism oriented development along the river would be really helpful as well. A riverfront restaurant, etnertainment and hotel district around OMSI and the Portland Opera building area would be a good fit with the new bridge and SoWa / OHSU right on the other side.
In my opinion, we should keep the skyscraper development towards the north end around the convention center and Lloyd district – as that’s the best fit.
There are also too many undeveloped surface plots and one story single use buildings along Broadway between the bridge and 7th. I like Broadway Toyota – but thats a terrible use of that property. We also don’t need three gas stations in 1.5 blocks there…
Wait, I am ranting…
I think that you’re missing the point of what Central Eastside offers in the broader context of the city. It’s really the last significant light industrial area near the city core, and it serves an important function to the city economically. One factor to remember with “Highest and Best Use” is the overall function of a district within a city: if Central Eastside goes commercial/residential mixed use, the city loses a unique industrial resource, without a specific or unique upside, especially considering that this land use mix already exists in and is better suited for the Lloyd or Pearl Districts, SoWa, or elsewhere. Could we get higher buildings and more attractive streetscapes? Perhaps, but we could also lose an important economic asset at the same time.
Is there a way to do both? Maybe, but we also have to acknowledge that, as a light industrial district, it might not be realistic to expect the same level of pedestrian and bike amenities in Central Eastside as other districts in the City. Bikes+peds+trucks+trains sounds cool, but in reality coordinating this sort of mix isn’t so simple, or perhaps even possible.
As a planner myself, I know that light industrial isn’t nearly as sexy as multimodal res/com mixed use, but it’s just as important. You cannot have a healthy mix of land uses without both. We have a bunch of mixed use — not so with city-oriented light industrial… so shouldn’t we do our best to keep what we have?
Good point, Aaron. Although what’s considered “light industry” has evolved over time and will continue to evolve, in the interest of keeping the local economy as diverse as possible, I’d hate to see industry pushed out of Central Eastside altogether. After all, art galleries and other businesses such as Le Bistro Montage have already co-existed with forklifts and warehouses in this neighborhood for years. Plus, the closer you get to the river, unless I-5 and the UPRR/Amtrak mainline were to be put underground or something, the less appeal the area has for redevelopment.
If Pearl-style redevelopment were to happen anywhere along the new line, it should be in the Lloyd District (now there’s an area with exciting possibilities).
I think you guys are misunderstanding my point, so maybe I will edit the post if it wasn’t clear. I am specifically saying that we should NOT push for Pearl-style mixed-use development on the Central Eastside. I am advocating for the zoning to be changed to allow for a much higher intensity of employment in the Central Eastside. Sure, some residential and retail is bound to be developed as well, but that should not be the focus. I also agree that the area around the train tracks and Water Ave under the viaducts is very appropriate for continued light industrial, as is the area south of Hawthorne. However, I think we need more than an FAR limit of 8 around the streetcar line, and I think we need it to at least stretch farther east. It baffles me why the area around 6th and 7th is being protected as an industrial reserve. Doing so will contribute to the Central Eastside being an isolated swath of urbanity in an industrial wasteland. Yes, I know industry is important, but there is a reason most of it has moved to places like the industrial NW and Swan Island. The center of town is just not the right place for it, especially if we want the streetcar to make Grand and MLK more urban.
Zef, the areas along the 99 couplet and around the bridgeheads allow for 9:1 FAR (plus bonuses) and a 200′ height limit. This is PLENTY to achieve “skyscrapers,” as far as there is demand for them in Portland, and it’s pretty clear that demand for that product in the Central Eastside does not exist. Nothing over 6 stories has been built since that zoning went into place over a decade ago.
Not to start a rumor, but if Nike offered to build a huge design center on the new Streetcar line in the CEID, everyone would jump to figure out how to make it fit existing zoning, ie. get the necessary variances.
The best shot for higher density, both residential and commercial lie north of Sullivan’s Gulch and around OMSI across the River from OHSU. That could keep Portland’s developers busy for a decade or two. Meanwhile the heart of CEI can evolve more slowly with lots of small and interesting moves below the radar of economic development experts. To make things really happen there, I-5, the incredibly ugly Marquam Bridge and the UPRR mainline have to be dealt with.
Nolan is correct that there is plenty of FAR along the corridor. I would not be surprised if the Central City Plan process recommended some tweaks to height limits (they did in the N/NE quadrant plan, which is in front of the Planning and Sustainability Commission).
But I think the strategy of developing primarily on MLK/Grand is sound. Maintaining the industrial sanctuary was a key reason for putting the streetcar on those two streets.
If some business (even the unethical businesses such as Amazon) want to pay for streetcars or anything else why not?
But robbing precious transit funds to people build stuff, no way.
I’m sick of tax payer dollars being used to make profit for all these companies. Tax payer dollars should go to taxpayers and transit funds should be used to fund transit, NOT DEVELOPMENT!
Our entire government has been hijacked by special interests, including the special interests behind these street cars that have stolen transit funds leaving riders unable to get to work!
It disgusts me.
As far as AMAZON is concerned read this:
http://stallman.org/amazon.html
How would a potential Buckman Historic District play into this?
Why are we concerned about the Eastside when Downtown has so many surface parking lots? Why aren’t we building more downtown, it’s been forever since a new apartment or building went up, and there’s plenty of new construction in other neighborhoods — just not downtown.
It is a shame MLK/Grand/Weidler and Broadway were not significantly tamed when the streetcar tracks went in, the tracks were pretty much shoehorned into the 1950s traffic patterns. These are not pedestrian friendly streets, they are not streets one wants to walk along or hang around as is the case on the westside streetcar. The viaducts at Hawthorne and Morrison are miserable. While there are definitely some bright spots along the new line like the Lloyd District, the streetcar is all about placemaking and walkability so its a shame to see it fighting an uphill battle with a mostly flawed built environment.
Given that Nike threw a rather public temper tantrum at the idea that Beaverton might annex their main campus a while back, I suspect they won’t be locating downtown any time soon. (Having to deal with Beaverton’s planning department was cited as the main objection, IIRC, moreso than any increase in property taxes).
Beefing up lloyd between broadway and the convention center is a great idea. I like that area and today i was able to hop on the new line to get across the broadway bridge. HOWEVER before any of that happens frequency must be addressed. I stood in front of Walgreens for 23 minutes waiting for a streetcar after missing one. Roll out those new cars, then lets develop lloyd district and keep our streetcar model one to be followed. Seriously I geeked out when I went over the broadway bridge! I loved crossing a new bridge!
Building off of what Jon said, it would have been great if the streetcar had been implemented by taking over the right or left lane, making it a dedicated transit lane, and then removing curb parking on the curb side to build a cycle track. We would have faster transit service, fewer conflicts, and a fast, safe route for bikes on the east side.
Oh well…
“it’s been forever since a new apartment or building went up [downtown]”
Really? I have friends and family living in a couple different buildings which have been built within the past 3 or 4 years. What is the definition of “Forever”?
Lenny,
Phil is NOT coming to Portland. He has already threatened to write off the 500 million plus investment in the Nike campus and take the company elsewhere if Beaverton annexes his square mile of heaven.
So, though your hypothetical might conceivably come to pass with Columbia or Adidas (although they just spent a bundle on their new buildings), it won’t be with Nike.
A final fix for excessive traffic speeds between Weidler & Clay is close with streetcar lines considered a traffic calming devise. Curb extensions & street trees subconsciously signal motorists to slow down. South of Burnside, an additional stoplight is probably necessary. Similarly, north of Burnside, signal light timing should slow traffic about 5mph, enough to manage safer pedestrian crossing at key intersections. Congratulations to Portland Streetcar.
I only suggested a design center, not HQ, as most designers live in Portland these days. But I am sure that neither the big N, nor Columbia for that matter could be persuaded to relocate into the heart of the city. New, risk taking ventures are the ones that do stuff like that, not established tax dodging monoliths. Their loss.
A bunch of honest responses and questions for the audience…
First, a 9:1 FAR is not very high compared to downtown or the Lloyd District zoning. Someone mentioned a 200′ height limit, but to reach that with a 9:1 FAR would require huge setbacks to the point where it wouldn’t make any sense. Do we really want towers in the park (or the parking lot), or do we want real density?
Second, how are people so confident that the zoning is not what has suppressed demand to build? If the land is expensive and the current use generates a lot of income (as is the case with fast-food, gas stations, and parking), it means a lot of FAR is required to make the project pencil out. How do we know the FAR is not too low?
Third, does anyone really think many developers want to put in projects along a corridor that has heavy traffic that is always either too fast or too congested, with few safe crossings, just because there is now a streetcar mixed in? And do developers want to build in a narrow strip of zoned area sandwiched between industrial? It seems like the city is signaling that this will never be a full neighborhood, but rather a disconnected strip of car-oriented commercial like it has always been.
Fourth, will someone for the love of god explain this nonsensical statement to me?!: “Maintaining the industrial sanctuary was a key reason for putting the streetcar on those two streets.” What? I’ve never heard anyone claim that streetcars are tools for maintaining low-density industrial use. On the contrary, it is always defended as a way to jumpstart high-density mixed-use or office development.
Fifth, once again, why is this such an important place for light industrial? I understand locating it along natural edges (train tracks, freeways, viaducts, even the river), but why in the center of the city in between neighborhoods on high-value land? What is the rationale of using land to employ, say, 10 people, when it could employ 100 people?
Sixth, what do people think of the main premise of the post, which had to do with what is needed to actually attract private investment so that we can expect a public-private partnership along the lines of the Amazon deal?
Added thought: the project director for the adidas compus told me once that had he known what the city would put them through, they would never have done what they did! Ouch!
re Central Eastside…its already a pretty happening place…Rejuvenation (with the its cafe), Alta Planning, Andy & Bax, Next Adventure, my wife’s pharmacy and more, so give it some time. The big moves need to come in Lloyd where they have been threatening to develop their parking lots for years. If Streetcar and zero interest rates doesn’t make them pull the trigger, nothing will. The Rose Quarter is probably a lost cause as long as its cut off from both Lloyd and the River. Broadway/Weidler could be the big surprise. Who owns all those vacant lots?
To Lenny’s point, he is right on in thinking beyond just corporate headquarters. Seattle is another example on that front. Microsoft’s HQ and main campus is in Redmond, but they found that a lot of their young workers wanted to live and work in Seattle, so they opened satellite locations in the city. Google and Facebook have also opened offices in Seattle. Portland really lags behind in attracting these companies even though we have a young, educated population. I know there are probably statewide and regional taxation and economic development issues at play here, but perhaps the city could focus on this issue more.
Fourth, will someone for the love of god explain this nonsensical statement to me?!: “Maintaining the industrial sanctuary was a key reason for putting the streetcar on those two streets.”
The project agreed after literally years of discussion in the project advisory committee to pick MLK/Grand for the alignment because there was no opportunity for a consensus to put it anywhere else (e.g., on 7th Ave with a bridge from the Lloyd District). Protection of the industrial sanctuary was absolutely the reason no other consensus was possible.
From a blank slate point of view were there streets with more development potential? Absolutely. Was it going to happen – No.
And speaking from my Planning and Sustainability Commission perspective, I still think what we compromised on is the right answer. The Central Eastside provides an extraordinarily valuable role as incubator space. It would be easy to replace some of that with what would be a great mixed used neighborhood. But it would be bad for the city as a whole.
Thanks, Chris, for the explanation. I guess I misunderstood your meaning. “A key reason for putting the streetcar…” sounds like the streetcar was put on those streets specifically as a tool to preserve the industrial area. So you’re actually saying that maintaining the industrial sanctuary was a key reason why the streetcar had to go on a sub-optimal alignment.
Fair enough. We all have to compromise. At that point, however, I would have considered what else $100 million and millions more in annual operating costs could buy than a sub-standard line. I suppose the momentum would have been hard to reverse at that point.
Much like a lot of projects, now that it’s open it will be nice to have around. It actually makes it slightly easier for me to get to the Pearl, for example, as well as OMSI. Over time, the opportunity cost will be forgotten and I will learn to accept it, more or less. I hope we don’t forget about it when it comes time for new projects, though.
Zef, the question really was “do we wait 10 or fifteen years to see if there is a new concept of the Central Eastside, or do we build now and get the benefits of streetcar for the Lloyd District and OMSI district (which really don’t have compromises)?”
I admit to being extremely skeptical about the impact the streetcar may have on the Central Eastside. As has been pointed out, the bus service is vastly superior and faster. Besides, most of the residential part of the neighborhood really starts at 12th avenue with bits and pieces as you go towards the river. There is also the strip along MLK/Grand. It is otherwise a lot of industrial boxes.
I have often wondered if there isn’t away to make those boxes more attractive as well as able to accommodate more business. Industrial could occupy lower spaces and offices could be upstairs. The vacant lot on Belmont between 11th and 12th is perfect for a real grocery store (by “real,” I mean a Fred Meyer, Safeway, even a Zupan’s, New Seasons, maybe Trader Joe’s; certainly not Whole Foods because it is a rich people grocery store or a convenience store).
The real problem is near the river. Who wants to live next to all those loud trains blaring at three in the morning? Who wants to live right next to a freeway with all the noise and higher levels of asthma and lung problems? There is a reason I live off 15th and not MLK. Doing something about the rail lines and freeways would be wonderful. Imagine having the river really connected to the neighborhood? I’d love that! I think of Brooklyn Height’s promenade in NYC. There is a promenade of sorts, but it is isolated and next to all that noise and bad air. I can’t say I have enjoyed using it and so have only been there once or twice. There are also the undersides of the viaducts which are hideous to behold. Let’s not forget the huge amount of winos and other people sleeping on the pedestrian underpasses for the Morrison bridge that allows a pedestrian route under the part that branches off for the freeway). It’s all dirty, mucky, littered with garbage and a discarded liquor bottles and cans, and often dark. It’s not a pretty area to hang around. The blocks east of 7th are much better but are otherwise ugly-ass buildings. I’m pretty sure industrial buildings do not need to be that ugly.
For redevelopment of the area (apart from the Lloyd District, which is better but not tip-top), I think a great deal of aesthetic work will be in order. I think MLK has the best chance with those cool old buildings. They are reasonably attractive, and with renovations could be beautiful. Things will have to radiate from that, and redevelopment, for whatever purpose, will have to take into account a higher standard for appearances. I sometimes wonder if they were holding an ugly contest for design in the area (I’ve also wondered that about MAX stations from the Rose Quarter all the way to 82nd).
Getting back to the streetcar, I think it’s only hope, apart from a speed up, a boost in frequencies, and some serious signal prioritization, is to extend it along the length of the 6 route. That would make far more sense. At least it would serve a full corridor, though for downtown travel, I think most people will probably make a connection at MAX so they don’t have such a circuitous route if they need the central part of downtown. Maybe they’ll just stay on the 6.
You know, the only reason I can fathom for the streetcar in its current shape is for redevelopment of the Central Eastside. The problem is, once it happens, how many will actually use the streetcar as it’s fairly worthless for a lot of possible trips? Furthermore, I don’t want to see any more Pearl-like development. This neighborhood is largely a poor to working-class area. It’s mostly a rental neighborhood. I don’t want to be priced out of the area, and I don’t think thousands of others do either. If you think I’m saying this streetcar was a lousy idea, you’d be right.
That’s my opinion as a resident of the neighborhood, for what it’s worth.
The Central Eastside provides an extraordinarily valuable role as incubator space.
incubator space?
HUH?
“it’s been forever since a new apartment or building went up [downtown]”
Really? I have friends and family living in a couple different buildings which have been built within the past 3 or 4 years. What is the definition of “Forever”
Which ones? Ladd Tower and Indigo are all I know of. I’d consider downtown’s construction very weak compared to neighborhoods on the eastside.
The CEID “industrial sanctuary” has changed a lot in recent years. It really used to be industrial with lots of warehouses, small factories, printing plants, etc. Those buildings are being converted to “light industrial,” commercial and even retail uses. The only thing that is really verboten is residential; most anything else that means jobs is permitted. Note the software and design firms in the old Hoffman building next to the Hawthorne Bridge…not very “industrial.” As long as the eastbank freeway, UPRR and bridge viaducts are there, nothing too dramatic is likely even with Streetcar. A pity, but I’ve come to like the grit of the area as much as I dislike the Marquam and Eastbank monsters.
One last thought. How many of you ever walked along NW Lovejoy under the ramp in the old days? Things can change, and change fast. Watch out!
I’ve used the new streetcar line several times since opening day traveling from inner SE to NW/Pearl, the new streetcar is a great option for this route. I think it might even make sense to look at running it from OMSI to NW until 2015 which is a rather direct straightforward L-shaped route unlike the current long U-shaped route.
I also think with bikeshare this streetcar line could be hugely valuable, using bikeshare bikes to travel to the streetcar line then bikeshare bikes to finish the trip, especially say NW or Pearl to Hawthorne/Belmont commercial districts. The area around the river is actually kind of a mess for stress free riding with poor bridge conditions, lots of traffic, busy street crossings, poor access to the riverfront… the streetcar bridges the gap between the stress-free eastside and westside bike boulevards.
The vacant lot on Belmont between 11th and 12th is perfect for a real grocery store (by “real,” I mean a Fred Meyer, Safeway, even a Zupan’s, New Seasons, maybe Trader Joe’s; certainly not Whole Foods because it is a rich people grocery store or a convenience store).
Getting back to the streetcar, I think it’s only hope, apart from a speed up, a boost in frequencies, and some serious signal prioritization, is to extend it along the length of the 6 route. That would make far more sense. At least it would serve a full corridor, though for downtown travel, I think most people will probably make a connection at MAX so they don’t have such a circuitous route if they need the central part of downtown. Maybe they’ll just stay on the 6.
Thats exactly the plan/in the works for both of these items.
re:downtown apartments, actually that is very true, yes there are those few buildings built in the last 5 years but really compared with most other close-in urban neighborhoods its nothing, its especially remarkable the fact that its downtown afterall. This should be analyzed to understand why more apartment activity is not taking place downtown while it most certainly is in the Pearl, NW, Lloyd, and eastside commercial streets. Downtown actually needs more residents, activity and people out at night, its quite dead at night. Theres is almost no market rate residential to speak of downtown away from the South Park Blocks and PSU, no historic office building conversions, almost no condo towers.
Speaking for myself who lives car-free along the westside streetcar route, I would not want to live along the eastside streetcar line except maybe NE 7th because of the noisy, dangerous and inhospitable traffic sewer conditions of the streets it runs along. These street/drag strip conditions are really a big problem countering the very walkable urbanism that streetcar attracts. Its hard to create a desirable ‘place’ for human beings with any streetlife with 4-5 lanes of one way traffic roaring through in platoons at 50 mph with difficult crossings and widely spaced timed lights. Its very tragic in this highly urban area that auto speed and throughput trumps and is allowed to stymie growth of urbanity and the full potential of the streetcar investment.
Why are we concerned about the Eastside when Downtown has so many surface parking lots?
Right here is the most brilliant comment from ws – when light rail was supposed to spur dense development along its corridor, why are there so many vacant, developable spaces along it – and why do we need another development-oriented transit line, when there is at this point a nearly infinite development potential just along the existing Blue Line – not to mention the other MAX routes?
Just a quick glance in the Lloyd District by itself shows three complete city blocks north of the Convention Center that are so ripe for development the real question ought to be why hasn’t it been yet (one of the buildings seems to only find use for project management offices for TriMet’s rail projects); to the north is the old Holladay Park Hospital, whose current use is offices for Legacy and a Portland ward of the Oregon State Hospital on a couple of its floors. And that development potential is just at ONE station (Convention Center!)
A couple blocks to the east we have the 700 Multnomah Building, with a lot of parking lots (including one infamous parking lot used by none other than TriMet’s internal motor pool, sitting right next to a MAX station because apparently TriMet’s own employees can’t use MAX but have a wide range of gas-guzzling sport-utility vehicles and pickup trucks at their single-occupant disposal). A parking garage to the northwest; a series of low-rise office buildings to the south. More development potential that is low-hanging fruit.
Just a short walking distance to the east, another massive parking lot, which sits empty most days and on weekends acts as no more than a park-and-ride lot filled with people who parked for free and rode (until the start of this month) MAX for free downtown. Is that the “highest and best” use?
At least the Hollywood District is – after 25 years – seeing the land near the Hollywood Transit Center being developed. Why did it take 25 years?
The 60th Avenue MAX station is surrounded by…light industrial warehouses??? Hardly fitting for a transit station neighborhood…
I could certainly continue with more transit/development failures along MAX but the point is that we blew another $150 million or whatever on another rail line in the name of redevelopment – for what? That money was desperately needed to improve the existing transit network. Instead, popular bus lines have been chopped and diced; riders now get the convenience of making multiple transfers to get from point ‘A’ to point ‘B’; fares are hiked up and Portland is continuing its policy of bus disinvestment and having the oldest, least reliable, least fuel efficient, most polluting bus fleet in all of North America. All for a three mile streetcar to connect another series of warehouses and parking lots in the hope of redevelopment. Something that the original MAX line, after 25 years, has truly yet to accomplish.
And there’s always the development wasteland around Sunset TC, the field of weeds around Beaverton TC, the “Round” project, the sea of parking lots known as Millikan Way, the fenced off forests and the office park-turned-dog park at Beaverton Creek, the Resers Loading Dock/TriMet parking lot/PGE Substation station (Merlo/158th), or the quaint farming (and some apartment) community of Quatama.
Erik,
Your anecdote about the NE 60th Ave MAX is a great example of a zoning mistakes made by the city. The land north of that overpass should be zoned for more dense developments. Just look south of the overpass, and you will see several large apartment buildings (you ignore these, for some reason). These were all built after the line went in.
People act like all this is just a simple matter of changing zoning, or saying “we should build something there”. In the real world there actually has to be $$$ to pay for the development, which usually means there has to be demand in some way. I am not sure if you guys have noticed but a lot of development plans got crap-canned when the economy took a nose dive a few years back…
We can’t just say “develop all surface lots into buildings” and make it happen. The owners have to come up with a business plan and secure funding of some sort.
However, things are looking up (almost literally).
That’s mostly all being developed:
http://djcoregon.com/news/2012/03/06/4-tower-superblock-planned-for-portlands-lloyd-district/
Construction starts soon, and the lot by the Lloyd Center MAX stop to the east of the park is already started with some construction although I am not sure what is going in there.
I found it, sadly they are just updating the parking lot – it will stay a parking lot, just be a nicer version of a parking lot…
http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2012/08/lloyd_center_movie_parking_lot.html
Let’s see: Duplication of streetcar route with #77 bus route for .8 mile was in NW was removed, but now streetcar and #6 bus duplicate each each for 1.5 miles on the Eastside.. Doesn’t make sense to me.
Nothing wrong with duplicating transit, provided the go different places on either end.
Nothing wrong with duplicating transit, provided the go different places on either end.
~~> that makes sense in an area of very high ridership where people have multiple destinations.
That section of Grand hardly qualifies.
I would turn the 6 around at the Rose Quarter and split the savings between giving the 6 more trips and increasing Eastside Streetcar frequency. My guess is that will happen eventually when things sort themselves out just as the 77 is now on the Everett/Glisan couplet instead of Lovejoy/Northrup. That took 10 years.
While we’ve seen some new construction starts in town, overall, the building construction industry is still in the toilet:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/09/26/private_fixed_investment_we_re_not_building_buildings_like_we_used_to_.html
Regarding the duplication of the Streetcar and the 6–I agree that if done right, this is a feature and not a bug. When the Caruthers bridge/MLR opens, I think it would be useful to route the 6 down to OMSI (via Clay and Water, assuming it’s not possible for a bus to drive down the streetcar viaduct), ‘cross the Caruthers bridge, and ending at PSU, and extend the 14 to Goose Hollow. This would give the 14 a direct connection to the Blue and Red lines, the 6 a more direct connection to MLR, the 9, and other SE routes, and further Stregthen The Grid some.
“re:downtown apartments, actually that is very true, yes there are those few buildings built in the last 5 years but really compared with most other close-in urban neighborhoods its nothing, its especially remarkable the fact that its downtown afterall. This should be analyzed to understand why more apartment activity is not taking place downtown while it most certainly is in the Pearl, NW, Lloyd, and eastside commercial streets.”
You don’t need a study to find out why. People cannot be asking themselves this — it’s about as obvious as ever.
You get panhandled 3 times getting coffee, 2 times when you go to the store, and 1 time on your way back. Then you see the same people doing drugs, smoking, drinking, etc. openly in the park. Meanwhile you’re trying to go to school, stay employed/find employment and it just adds up after a while. You’re doing the right things in life and other people aren’t being held accountable for their poor choices.
Other neighborhoods are adding density and businesses because you don’t have to deal with these problems.
Downtown would add residential density and employment density in a heartbeat if it addressed these ongoing issues.
This is not meant to be callous, the truth hurts sometimes.
Scotty, if you did that you would just have MORE duplication of the 6 and the streetcar, not less. I think it is very confusing to have bus and streetcar on the same street, going to slightly different places. It also could reinforce the bus vs rail divide. Let’s say a large group of people is waiting at a shared stop. A streetcar comes along, and all the white, affluent people get on. Then the 6 bus comes along and all the minority and low-income people get on. I would not blame the latter group for being pretty pissed off that the former group is the one that gets the shiny streetcar, despite the fact that the 6 gets more ridership than almost any other line in the system. The problem of streetcar-bus divide is even worse on Broadway, where the “streetcar people” will be waiting on one side of the street, while the “bus people” have to wait on the other side, even though they both go downtown! God forbid anyone would want to take whichever comes first…
All that said, there is huge demand from MLK to downtown and the current route of the 6 is fairly logical from a geometric transit planning perspective (the only alternative would be a pure 99E line from MLK to McLoughlin, but it just goes too close to downtown to not go downtown). I don’t think this is a good candidate for terminating at the Rose Quarter for that reason and because both MAX and streetcar will be too crowded by that point for a forced transfer during peak times.
Some people have thrown out running the 6 across the Broadway Bridge, but that would also be duplicative and would continue the problem with having bus and streetcar stops on opposite sides of NE Broadway as with the 17 now (which should be changed ASAP by sending the 17 to the Steel Bridge). Others have proposed combining the 6 and the 70, but now we have already created a new line 70 and should let that settle in. Plus I really do think an MLK-Downtown route makes more sense than an MLK crosstown.
My view is that the 6 should stay in its current routing at least until the streetcar can reach 10-12 minute frequency. Until then, moving the 6 would mean a huge drop in frequency for the central eastside, which actually gets a ton of stop activity. Once the streetcar gets more frequent, the 6 should cross the Burnside Bridge and then interline with a transit mall route like the 54/56. This would give MLK even more mobility, allowing travel through downtown like with the 12. It would also facilitate easy transfers with the streetcar along MLK/Grand between Burnside and Broadway on the east side.
I can see the streetcar getting extended up MLK someday, and I have to say that I think that makes far more sense than a line on Sandy to Hollywood (we already have MAX, and what would happen to the 12?). I hope by that time we could get over our fear of taking away car lanes and would be willing to give lanes to the streetcar even in the 4-lane northern part of MLK. It’s interesting to think about how this future streetcar would operate. The best I can think of is to have streetcar lines be like an “X” of sorts. One line would be South Waterfront-Downtown-Pearl-Broadway-NE MLK. The other would be South Waterfront-OMSI-Central Eastside-Pearl-NW. That would cut NW off from downtown though, which might be a hard sell after losing the 17. I’m not sure anything else would really work, though.
Whatever happens, I hope they are not planning on actually doing a loop when the new bridge opens! Loops pretty much never work out operationally, since you need layovers somewhere, and people also don’t actually like to go around in small circles. The map on board the new streetcars shows the Central Loop extension across the new bridge terminating at the new OHSU campus just across the river, but that might not be the actual plan. Can anyone shed light on the subject?
We are absolutely planning to complete the loop when the new bridge opens, going from SoWa back up to PSU and round and round :-)
Seems like a pretty big circle to me, with world class precedents like the Ringstrasse in Vienna and the Circle Line in London.
Chris, you’re killing me, seriously!
Loops generally do not work operationally. You can’t ensure reliability without layover and recovery time, having the driver just drive in circles for the whole shift. That will be a huge issue with this line in particular. How are you planning to address this?
You two examples are not actually loops anymore, because both of them had such major problems that they had to break the loops. That’s right, the Circle Line is not actually a continuous circle anymore! The Ringstrasse is actually two lines that together form a circle. In short, they were not “world class” until they stopped being loops. Jarrett Walker has written extensively about this issue, and your two examples in particular:
http://www.humantransit.org/2009/11/london-the-circle-line-reaches-an-end.html
http://www.humantransit.org/2009/09/vienna-life-without-loops.html
I would love to talk to whoever does the transit planning at Portland Streetcar, because stuff like this keeps coming up. Also, by the way, the London Circle Line is 17 miles long–way bigger circle (but not a loop!) than our streetcar.
Zef, sounds like you should buy lunch for Rick Gustafson. This line was conceptualized as a loop since we starting looking at it about a week after the first line opened. It fulfills the vision of the “central city circulator” from the 1980’s Central City Plan.
September 26, 2012 6:22 PM
ws Says:
“You get panhandled 3 times getting coffee, 2 times when you go to the store, and 1 time on your way back. Then you see the same people doing drugs, smoking, drinking, etc. openly in the park. Meanwhile you’re trying to go to school, stay employed/find employment and it just adds up after a while. You’re doing the right things in life and other people aren’t being held accountable for their poor choices.
Other neighborhoods are adding density and businesses because you don’t have to deal with these problems.
Downtown would add residential density and employment density in a heartbeat if it addressed these ongoing issues.
This is not meant to be callous, the truth hurts sometimes.”
Amen, brother! That is precisely one of the things I do not like about going Downtown. Every single I go (and I mean every time), I get panhandled or bugged to sign some petition or make donations, sometimes both. You get tired of trying to dodge people with clipboards and acting like you don’t hear them, which makes you feel bad. The same goes for bums and panhandlers, some of whom are now displaying signs expressing their irritation at being ignored. I would like to be able to go somewhere without being bugged for something or other. It even happens on trains. Once in a while is one thing, but when it happens every time you go Downtown (and sometimes on trains), it gets to be too much. You start wanting to find ways to avoid going there so you can be left in peace. I’m glad someone brought that up.
I just rode the Ringstrasse in June, and I definitely wish that it had been a complete loop. However, I can see how a true loop is really only useful for tourists. Although, until more lines are added, I don’t see how we can have two lines that would overlap to form a loop similar to the Ringstrasse.
FYI, Helsinki does have a true loop line, the 7:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helsinki_tram
It was a great way to get out of the rain and see the city.
It was a great way to get out of the rain and see the city.
hahahaaaaaaa!!!!
Great use of scarce tax dollars!
“The land north of that overpass should be zoned for more dense developments.”
Why? So we can prop up the corporate climbers with more worker bees?
So we can enable the free market to develop land as it sees fit. Here’s a question for you: why should we use zoning to limit that land to low-density industrial use?
“It even happens on trains.”
This has actually never happened to me, much to my surprise. Did on BART in SF, and it was annoying.
If downtown fixed this “problem,” it will grow. Period. It’s the only thing holding it back from wary developers and potential renters. I’ve said it before, Portland has the greatest potential to be great, if not elite, of any city in the US. Hands down.
But right now, it’s just for lease signs which is sad. But every single neighborhood from NW 23rd to Montavilla is adding businesses, restaurants and housing. The situation is beyond nonsensical. Downtown is for density and tourism, but it’s barely dense, and I don’t take visitors or family there. Too much to explain and it’s too embarrassing to witness people’s poor behavior.
This isn’t about seeing someone mentally ill and a victim of our insane federal policies and inaction; they’re not the problem, they don’t even panhandle in the first place.
It’s the burn-outs and junkies that are getting away with open-air drug use and panhandling like they’re going to use it for food and are starving when the non-profit Portland Rescue Mission does a great job of feeding people in our area. It’s insulting to them, to me, and to everyone else. We should demand more from the city.
Transit also won’t expand either until downtown’s residential density and employment density grow. Another cannot avoid facts.
People want urbanism — even people living in bland Beaverton. They want to take transit. They want to walk. They want to live car-free, but given the dysfunction they see, and the dysfunction that’s not being addressed, they are left with few options especially if they work on the westside.
We need to address this problem. It’s hurting our city and our economy.
IIRC, there was discussion of a layover point at OMSI for the loop. But yes, uninterrupted loops can and do have reliability issues.
Zef–why do you suppose that two different vehicle types, with similar fares (assuming eventual fare equity) and similar schedules, operating on the same street, would racially self-segregate? I can understand some upper-class reluctance to ride the bus, given longstanding social prejudice about bus riders in North America (though this seems to be less of an issue in Portland–I hear lots of complaints that MAX is unsafe compared to specific bus lines, for instance); but why would someone refuse to board a Streetcar and wait for a following bus, if there’s room on board, there’s no policy (official or unofficial) discouraging his boarding, and both vehicles go the same place? Are you thinking that a hostile environment (for blacks) will come to exist on the Streetcar?
Redundancy isn’t necessary a bad thing, as it means frequency. TriMet views the multiplex of the 54 and 56 between Raleigh Hills and downtown as a good thing–neither bus by itself is frequent, but the combination is Frequent Service. The combined frequency of the 6 and eastside Streetcar is about 6-7 vph, depending on time of day; I don’t think anyone would argue that this is an extravagant level of service.
Loops generally do not work operationally. You can’t ensure reliability without layover and recovery time,
I’ve wondered about this myself.
My initial reaction is to put enough leeway into the schedule (which means more operator hours and therefore a higher cost of operations) so that either of the two are possible:
1. At the layover point, an operator deboards and another operator just coming off break boards… the transit vehicle is not delayed much at all.
2. Less preferable… a waiting transit vehicle just about to depart is across the platform from one arriving at the layover point. Passengers who want to continue without much wait need to cross the platform between vehicles.
But if either of those scenarios can be made to work (and can be funded), where to put the layover point?
I hesitate to compare the streetcar with a theme park attraction because I know the reaction it might bring from some quarters :-) , but Disney has successfully operated a loop line at their California park for decades. But their loop has a clear layover point: The main entrance. Passengers arriving at the park can board there, and people leaving the park and deboard. Very, very few people intend to ride around that point, and even those riders are at least entertained by the spectacle and don’t have a set schedule or deadline to maintain.
So where on the Central Loop do we put the layover… the place where operators either swap out (costing a minute or two), or riders need on occasion to change vehicles?
OMSI seems like an obvious spot, simply because the initial CL line terminates there.
But when there is a true loop, an OMSI layover would be inconvenient for South Waterfront passengers wishing to visit inner SE, the Convention Center, or the Lloyd District.
Instead, I propose the stop on 7th, closest to the Lloyd Center as a layover.
People from the Pearl and nearby areas will be able to visit the Lloyd Center, and people from South Waterfront will similarly have access to the whole of SE without delay. And there will be plenty of things to do near the layover point assuming the proposed developments come to fruition by the time the full Loop opens.
A layover near Lloyd Center would delay people riding the CL from NW to the Convention Center, but those trips could be better served by existing MAX lines … all four lines pass very close to the Convention Center and connect with both the NS and CL streetcar lines. If you want to go from the Pearl, you’ve got two streetcar lines with sub-10min frequency plus all the TriMet bus and MAX service on the Mall to connect with.
As an aside, to those who think overlapping service on a portion of MLK and Grand is a problem, there is actually a higher density of transit use along that corridor than in many suburban areas where multiple lines overlap for a portion. I doubt that this issue would even come to the forefront if it were two bus lines instead of part of the rail-bus debate (note I didn’t say “vs.”) that seems to dominate transit discussions lately.
Every single I go (and I mean every time), I get panhandled or bugged to sign some petition or make donations, sometimes both.
If it’s happening on sidewalks or on platforms, this is Constitutionally-protected free speech activity. Not much the City, TriMet, or Portland Streetcar can do about that. The petitioners are there because it’s a “target rich environment” — if they can’t get signatures (may petition gatherers are paid hand have quasi-quota rules), they’ll go somewhere else.
But if it’s happening on transit vehicles, I believe there is a solution. TriMet (and Portland Streetcar?) currently allow such behavior, but I believe that a moving transit vehicle is an enclosed, “captive” environment and not necessarily subject to the rules that apply in a public space or on a public thoroughfare. Narrowly-crafted behavioral regulations not related to speech, but rather to approaching strangers and moving through a transit vehicle, could deter various on-board behaviors. But I’m not a lawyer.
Personally, I’ve found that when I’m approached by on-board petitioners, if I loudly but politely state that I’d listen to their pitch if they weren’t on-board an enclosed, moving transit vehicle, interrupting my journey, that it causes those around to do the same and the petitioner must move on. Free speech in action?
Regarding panhandling: The problem is, if you outlaw the practice of persons asking for money, you also outlaw any direct business solicitation outside the doors of a business — no more people holding advertising signs. You might think that’s a good thing, I don’t know, but I suspect local businesses, even those who don’t like panhandling, would suddenly think differently if their “Sale Now!” or “Half price oil change!” signboard holders were suddenly subject to ticketing or arrest if caught on a public sidewalk.
Bob R:
Most people know panhandling is protected free speech. What’s being discussed is it’s out of control and it’s putting a crimp on growth in downtown for business, residential development, and most of all public transportation (i.e., our economy). You can’t make a comment about panhandlers in the city without being accused of some anti-homeless agenda by the local activists.
Do you think an Amazon-type business would want to develop in Downtown given the level of uncertainty in front of them? I’d choose Pearl any day over Downtown.
On to something positive to say: I noticed the streetcar zips along quite fast across the Broadway Bridge. That was very nice to see.
Chris I says:
“The land north of that overpass should be zoned for more dense developments.”
Ron Swaren
“Why? So we can prop up the corporate climbers with more worker bees?”
Chris I says: “So we can enable the free market to develop land as it sees fit. ”
I’m more concerned with livability—at least my understanding of it, which includes protections against rampant local inflation. Certain people who have a vested interest might benefit from inflation caused by population pressure but it leaves a lot of other people out. For example, people from small towns in Oregon, people on fixed incomes, disabled persons and those who rent have often a hard time dealing with the rising costs brought about by population growth.
I think it’s a little disingenuous to laud 10-minute frequency while describing the 15-minute headways as “paltry” – the average wait time for someone showing up at a stop goes from 7.5 minutes to 5 minutes. Better than nothing, but a meaningful difference? No.
Perhaps an advertising campaign encouraging people not to give to panhandlers? It could be framed as: “Donate to organizations, not people.” This is the problem, and this is why we see so many downtown and at freeway exits. You stop the cash flow, you stop the problem.
Re: 17 and CL Line on Broadway
Funny, that’s the one place where active transportation advocates generally agree the new line was built properly (in the left-hand curbside lane, not interfering with cyclists traveling in the bike lane). This is unlike MLK/Grand, where the new streetcar in the right-hand lane has generally made the street even more unpleasant for cycling than it was before.
And furthermore…
The 17 and CL Streetcar don’t go to the same place! Why is it so important to reroute it to the Steel Bridge when one is headed to 5th Ave downtown while the other is headed to 11th in the Pearl? If you know where you’re going, you generally know which one to take, so this is not really a case of taking the first vehicle that comes.
Well I guess that’s the other issue I have about the original statement that panhandling is a deterrent to people living “downtown” … especially when tossing the Pearl in there as an example of something which works and which is NOT downtown.
I’ve been panhandled in the Pearl, and I’ve yet to make a freeway drive to the Gateway area without being panhandled at off-ramps in both directions. Panhandlers are also very frequent at a couple of busy Hollywood automobile-oriented intersections but less so near MAX.
(But then, so are sign-wavers for mattress stores and oil change service shops.)
So, to the extent that you may regard non-aggressive panhandling (not “in your face” or preventing your free motion along the sidewalk) and signature gathering as livability problems, what do you propose which would be a narrowly-crafted constitutional solution?
I’ve already stated I think something can be crafted for use of transit vehicles, but what about public sidewalks and public ROW where it is legal for pedestrians to stand?
Ron, I think you’ve got it backwards. Creating more housing creates more supply for the people who want to live here, holding overall prices down.
Our region has done great things for livability and preventing sprawl by instituting an Urban Growth Boundary, but the other side of that coin is that you need to not have too many constraints on the ability to build within the boundary, especially in central areas were there’s clearly a market for denser housing.
For me, I don’t think we need to be as concerned with how tall or how dense people can go, but rather how does the “built environment” function — how do buildings relate to the street and to the public. Functional considerations rather than arbitrary height/density/setback requirements.
Panhandling is out of control in other neighborhoods too, but not as bad as downtown.
Panhandling is only part of it. The drug use in core parks is downright absurd and in your face.
Not to mention illegal camping in private doorways. At the end of the day, what does downtown offer that other places don’t?
I have come across 10 needles in the city this year. Enough is enough.
Portland needs to challenge sit lie. San Francisco just passed a law in their city spurred on by fed up people in the Haight neighborhood, the epicenter of America’s counter culture movement ironically. Berkeley is having a vote on this in coming months. Everything in life has a tipping point, it just depends which way the scale will go.
All I’m asking, WS, specifically related to panhandling, which you brought up, is just what policy you propose the city enact which will survive constitutional challenges and actually work to your satisfaction?
Public drug use is another matter entirely, there are laws already on the books. But in combination with that we need alternatives… you can’t just lock up addicts in overcrowded jails. There needs to be treatment, harm reduction programs, etc.
So you’ve identified what you think the problems are… if you were mayor or chief of police, what would you propose?
(And will we enforce sit-lie against people blocking the sidewalk to buy the latest phone or get into the latest blockbuster movie? If not, how does sit-lie pass a constitutional challenge? These are important questions and it’s why these matters are difficult to address.)
Bob. R,
In the 1950’s Cannon Beach OR, was one more cheap Oregon Coastal town, where it would probably be as cheap to live as in Portland. And the rest of the Coast was even cheaper. Cannon Beach prices are astronomical now. The only inexpensive places on the Oregon Coast are Astoria and the Coos Bay area. Everywhere else you go it costs a lot of money. Even former podunk areas like Sandy or Hood River are expensive. Portland rental costs are ten times what they were in the 1970’s—but is the population ten times bigger?
I don’t even buy your argument that more housing stock drives the prices down. You can go on a rental property site—I use HotPads—-and rent for a one bedroom apartments in the Pearl District is two or three times that of other Metro areas and considerably more than something in that area would have been before the urban renewal. But if you want to isolate a small area, as in the above example—it may be cheap… for a reason.
Prices on R.E. in NW towns have fallen in the past—but only when accompanied by severe–or even devastating economic collapses. But prices in Oregon are significantly influenced by population pressures.
One way to limit pressure on prices in the Portland area would be to support economic improvement in the smaller communities so that people don’t flee to the big city looking for employment. Eliminating onerous burdens, like the statewide Climate Action plan, would be one step.Also stop discriminatory attitudes towards people who work with their hands.
Portland rental costs are ten times what they were in the 1970’s
Source? Adjusted for inflation?
Metro area population has more than doubled since the 1970s:
http://mkn.research.pdx.edu/2010/05/population-dynamics/
(Scroll down to the appendix).
Population growth is over a million for the MSA, while units added in close-in urbanized areas (whether Pearl district or main street Sandy) number in the lower tens of thousands. Of course they’re going to be expensive, they’re in short supply. If people didn’t want them, they couldn’t command the prices they’re getting. (And for a brief time, they didn’t — South Waterfront was in trouble, but demand has caught up.)
New rentals are going up all over town because rental prices are higher than typical … that will even itself out, provided those properties are actually allowed to be built. Developers trying to make the sorts of apartment buildings you could find all over Portland a century ago (multistory, no setbacks, limited or no parking) are meeting very vocal resistance from neighborhood groups.
Can you link to one scholarly study that supports your assertion that merely allowing new residences to be built drives up prices for everyone else?
The idea that increasing supply increases prices flies in the face of Econ 101, Ron.
Portland real estate is expensive because a) people desire to live here (there are plenty of jobs and amenities within reach); and b) the supply of housing is limited.
There are many small towns in the country where you can own a nice two-story home for under $100k, and $250k will get you some pretty luxurious property–but in said places, there’s little economic prospects.
You might check out Matt Yglesias’ e-book, The Rent Is Too Damn High. It’s only $3.99 at Amazon.
Bob:
The city cannot enact anything that violates free speech. It can inform citizens and tourists to donate to non profits instead. Maybe work with CCC and get panhandling intervention. It chooses not to do anything.
There are programs for drug addicts. We’d have even more if we stopped giving to panhandlers and donated to non profits. Harm reduction is mostly a failure imo. At the end of the day, it doesn’t matter who you are: we cannot be turning our parks into drug spots. It doesn’t matter if jails are overcrowded. We also can’t let people start camps in parks or on private property either, the rules aren’t being enforced.
Regarding sit lie, Apple and other companies need to get permits. Any activity like that needs to be accounted for with appropriate city documentation in accordance with codes and laws.
Kind of like beer festivals in parks. Drinking in parks is banned, but with permits they work fine because they have insurance and security.
See the difference?
The city cannot enact anything that violates free speech.
Yes, agreed! That’s why I asked you for your alternatives. I wish it didn’t take this long to get there.
It can inform citizens and tourists to donate to non profits instead. Maybe work with CCC and get panhandling intervention.
Those are suggestions worth exploring.
It doesn’t matter if jails are overcrowded.
Here’s where we differ. It very much matters. Jails cost a lot to run. (It’s why we have a large jail in east county sitting mostly empty.) Finding ways to deal with problems in a way that doesn’t require jail time is economically beneficial. Right now we just don’t have the staffed jail facilities to house everyone who commits a jailable offense, even if it were wise to do so.
Regarding sit lie, Apple and other companies need to get permits.
Yes but then we’d be adding a layer of bureaucracy against businesses (large and small), which is supposed to be bad, and we’d also be running up against that “right of the people to peaceably assemble” issue. Don’t citizens have the right to sit down while waiting for a nice parade slot or a shiny new phone? And if they do, don’t people with not much else to do have the same right? It’s a sticky problem.
Bob:
I actually never said anything about locking people up in jails. Most drug offenses of small amounts don’t even garner jail in Mult. Co., so your point was moot.
My point was it doesn’t matter if jails are full; we cannot let people get away with abusing our parks. Have police go around and take their drugs and give park exclusions.. They won’t come back especially if their drugs are confiscated.
This really is not a tricky situation. SF has a sit lie as well as Seattle. It’s not a free speech infraction, only some people’s interpretation of Oregon law. It needs to be challenged.
Zef, you definitely should do lunch with Rick, for he planned all this when he was president of Metro.
“New rentals are going up all over town because rental prices are higher than typical … that will even itself out, provided those properties are actually allowed to be built. Developers trying to make the sorts of apartment buildings you could find all over Portland a century ago (multistory, no setbacks, limited or no parking) are meeting very vocal resistance from neighborhood groups.”
This is unbelievably juvenile. If you would read what I wrote I am referring to prices all over Oregon, not just the Portland area. (Note to moderator: “Local” denotes a confined geographical area, not something necessarily “Portland-centric.”
“Can you link to one scholarly study that supports your assertion that merely allowing new residences to be built drives up prices for everyone else?”
Not right now. If I think it is worthwhile I will check into the UN Habitat database and give you information from Timbuktu, if you actually need it. You can’t argue that the rise in coastal property can’t be attributed at least in signficant part to demand from a growing greater Portland area.
In the same way that once out of the way Brookings has been bolstered by its proximity to the California population.
“The idea that increasing supply increases prices flies in the face of Econ 101, Ron.”
Try to take the macro-economic view, please. What then has caused prices around the state to rise? Lack of supply, locally—-or increasing demand from population growth, congregating in the urban areas, but affecting prices in the outlying areas?
Basically I am stating that I don’t like to go to non-Portland areas and find higher prices. However, I do think that some of the factors you guys are mentioning may put somewhat more money in my pocket.
Want a good real estate investment? Find a soon to be rediscovered little coastal village near to a growing metropolis.
And you need to read the Central City Plan of 1986 or so. Rick knows the story as well as any one, but he is one of many.
If half a loop works, why not a whole one? Most riders would only use a portion of the whole thing at any one time. PSU would be an obvious layover or operator switch location as it is the busiest transit denstination around.
I think Streetcar carries more riders than the 6, but I could be mistaken. Easy to check. Streetcar is 12K or so; what does the 6 carry per day?
Not right now. If I think it is worthwhile I will check into the UN Habitat database and give you information from Timbuktu, if you actually need it. You can’t argue that the rise in coastal property can’t be attributed at least in signficant part to demand from a growing greater Portland area.
A. Short answer: No, you do not have reference to a scholarly study backing up your assertion.
B. You are now suggesting that “demand from a growing greater Portland” drives up the price of property in nearby coastal towns.
Argument “B” is something I completely agree with, as I’ve maintained all along.
Your argument “A” is that allowing supply to be created somehow drives up prices. For this you’ve offered zero evidence, and it directly contradicts argument “B”.
Please provide clarification and evidence, not just anecdotes and mutually-contradictory assertions.
It will be OK when we all get phones from the government:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpAOwJvTOio&feature=share
Oh, Ron, that took less than 5 seconds to debunk on Snopes:
Have you heard this one? The OBAMAPHONE
Now how about a scholarly article backing up your contrarian assertion that merely allowing homes to be built drives up housing costs?
Yes I definitely agree panhandling, drug use and anarchist behavior is out of control but do you really think that is the reason for no residences downtown? Nevermind the lowest office vacancy in the region being downtown (so it is desirable) and this lawless behavior also occuring in neighborhoods with apartment construction like the Pearl, inner eastside, NW, etc.
Panhandling and drug use have nothing to do with specifically downtown. You can find this behavior all over the city. It just so happens that there are more downtown because there are more people downtown. Its simple math, more people = more people.
What is keeping me from living downtown (and it is one of the places I would LOVE to live) is prices. Not the alleged “problems with people” that some posters her claim.
My problem is self-inflicted. I have 5 vehicles (mostly all hobby vehicles) so in order to live downtown I have to rent garages somewhere. So I have to tack on about $400 to my rent if I want to live in a highrise without parking room for 2 Motorcycles, a convertible, and a camper. Considering the already higher price of downtown rentals – that simply puts it out of my price range. However, we are still looking for ways to solve this self-inflicted problem.
My point is that all this supposed terribleness of the plague of evil downtown in parks and doorways – I don’t think I have ever really seen what you guys all claim are terrible. My family and I have enjoyed downtown – with our children and all – for over a decade. It is a wonderful place, and we go at all hours of the day. We walk around, ride transit, and hang out in these scary scary parks. I have friends and family who live downtown and we visit them regularly. I even spent a month or two living with one while I was in transition between two houses… Never experienced all this terrible stuff you folks keep talking about.
My biggest annoyance is the activists on street corners. But they are easily avoided. Also, I seem to have more problem with them in the Pearl than downtown…
There is a simple fact that people often ignore. Real-estate is expensive because people WANT TO LIVE THERE.
I can find really really cheap property in House, New Mexico. Mainly because no one wants to live there. Real-estate would not be expensive if it were not desirable. So people can talk all they want about how terrible downtown PDX may be – but you are flat out wrong. Terrible places do not command $2000 a month rents on two bedroom rentals and $800,000 price tags on 1200 square foot condos.
Sure – I can get a house cheaper in Burns than in Portland. But the jobs, entertainment, and services are in Portland.
“SF has a sit lie as well as Seattle. It’s not a free speech infraction, only some people’s interpretation of Oregon law. ”
Oregon has a different state constitution than Washington or California. Oregon’s constitution has some of the most rigorous free-speech protections of all the US states constitutions.
http://www.aclu-or.org/content/free-speech
If people do not believe that conditions downtown aren’t annoying to say the least, why are there so many for lease signs up and other neighborhoods you barely see anything available to lease?
People don’t know how to identify drug activity. Someone sees a nitrous oxide cartridge on the ground and thinks a pastry chef dropped his or her equipment, whereas that’s not the case. I found a needle at the Saturday Market amongst throngs of people a few weeks ago. I’ve also come across an outdoor “heroin den,” if I ever saw one, just last week with needles and condoms right along the Eastbank Esplande.
People smoke pot routinely in the open too. Just go along the northern waterfront. Rules aren’t being enforced and until residences and businesses are given certainty, areas of downtown will struggle, especially in a tough economy.
Wake up. Portland is safe as ever, but this “other stuff” is the biggest livability problem our city faces.
“What is keeping me from living downtown (and it is one of the places I would LOVE to live) is prices.’
What? So possibly the increasing inventory didn’t drop prices. Oh my!! ( Not directed at you John H.)
“Sure – I can get a house cheaper in Burns than in Portland. But the jobs, entertainment, and services are in Portland.”
As well as the politicians and voters who feed the Beast, and the only super (regional) government in the nation.
What? So possibly the increasing inventory didn’t drop prices. Oh my!!
Nope. As someone else already stated the office vacancy rate downtown is among the lowest in the region. Therefore, inventory has not been increasing beyond demand.
Once again, please provide a source backing up your alternative economic theory that increased real estate supply causes increased prices. Thank you.
“Oh, Ron, that took less than 5 seconds to debunk on Snopes:
Have you heard this one? The OBAMAPHONE”
Thanks for pointing out that this lady’s perception was wrong then. And as snopes reveals the present administation did merely continue the program. Undeniable however is her attitude and her vulgar comment.
Now how about a scholarly article backing up your contrarian assertion that merely allowing homes to be built drives up housing costs?
Bob, your paradigm could work, I suppose, if people stayed put in their little house around the clock, 24/7 and didn’t go anywhere. Next question. Population pressures do contribute to inflation, even when there is no direct effect between housing supply and demand.
Here’s another fun political commentary, helping Obama, or at least trying:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0yv-nFheug&feature=related
Bob, your paradigm could work, I suppose, if people stayed put in their little house around the clock, 24/7 and didn’t go anywhere. Next question.
I have zero idea what that’s even supposed to mean.
Population pressures do contribute to inflation
At least on those six words we are in total agreement.
Here’s another fun political commentary,
Speaking as a moderator, I’m afraid I must point out that the pattern of your links to Drudge-induced shiny objects combined with your past anti-immigration rants strongly hints at racist motivations. Drop it. This blog is not a repository for your garbage links.
[Moderator: Duplicate comment (reposted from open thread) removed. – Bob R.]
Scotty: People will self-segregate because the 6 goes up MLK and the Streetcar goes to the Pearl. I’m not talking about the vehicles, I’m talking about destinations. I’m speculating that the scenario I described will happen and people living up on MLK may wonder why the Pearl got a second streetcar while they still ride the bus.
People can talk about the central city circulator concept all they want, but the reality is that Portland continues to pour its resources disproportionately to the center city and neglect other parts of town. Even if a streetcar is not feasible (and I’m not even sure it would be a good idea) on MLK or 82nd or down on Foster, the city has the ability to buy bus service from TriMet! The city seems uninterested in improving the transit system we have and improving crosstown travel, instead building expensive projects to help an already-thriving downtown. Many people will argue we should focus on the central city, but I disagree given the major inequity involved in that focus.
Regarding the 17 and the streetcar running on opposite sides of the street, someone said it doesn’t matter because they go different places. Sorry, but 5th/6th and 10th/11th do not count as different places. It is a 5 minute walk between those two parallel couplets, which both go through downtown, so…same place. Most people will be agnostic as to which one they want to get to, so it will be really obnoxious (and dangerous!) to have stops on opposite sides of the street. We don’t want people running across 4 lanes of traffic.
Chris S.: Please do not answer an honest operational question with a non-answer statement about how this fulfills a long-standing plan and circulator concept. Just because something is in a plan, does not mean it is a good idea or will actually work in practice. The new line already has problems with its design not taking into account operational needs or using best practices. For example, at OMSI the tracks go to a single track. This means you can’t have a car waiting for layover and recovery–instead each car has to leave by the time the next one arrives. This is quite simply poor planning (though I’m sure it will be defended as “value engineering”), and it doesn’t inspire confidence in this loop concept.
So how will it work? Will drivers swap out on the fly, at enormous labor expense? Will riders be told they have to sit at a stop while the driver goes to the bathroom? Will there be a tail track somewhere? Answers, please!
Another question. How will signage work? Will the overhead just say “clockwise” or “counterclockwise?” If it says “OMSI via city center,” how will people know which one is which? Again, the current system is already messed up, so it doesn’t inspire confidence. The CL Line still says “city center via Lloyd” even after it is in the city center! That is confusing for anyone unfamiliar with the system, and is another mistake that should have been caught well before opening day.
All respect to Rick (I know he has been doing this for decades), but these seem like real problems, and Portland Streetcar is getting a bad reputation for these and so many other reasons. Pretty much everyone I know in inner SE and downtown makes fun of the new streetcar line precisely because it is (almost) a big loop, thus being the longest way to get from anywhere to anywhere. That in addition to the extreme slowness and the chronic over-crowding, which is what happens when you give something away for cheap or for free–I’m told people are still not getting tickets, so it is essentially still free. It was a terrible idea to price streetcar $1.50 less than MAX. It means you have two closely parallel lines through downtown and over to Lloyd Center, but you are charging less for the vehicles with less capacity! This makes not one bit of sense, and would never happen if streetcar was not run by a separate agency.
Sorry for the ranting, but this is an extremely aggravating topic for anyone who cares about using public transit (and our precious transportation dollars) to solve actual mobility needs in a clear and efficient manner.
Give Eastside Streetcar some time! Its been open for one week. It moves pretty fast, is not yet overcrowded (aren’t crowds good?), and makes connections that are otherwise not there.
How many TriMet bus lines have higher ridership than Streetcar; not many.
If, and this is a big, big if, development follows Streetcar on the Eastside like it did on the West, then people can complain about too much development, gentrification, blah, blah, blah, but there will be plenty of riders with plenty of destinations. Add to this the link between inner SE and SW when the MAX bridge is done, and we all might be surprised. I hope so.
Just watched shots from Wurzburg, Germany at Costello’s (back open!!) on Broadway. Streetcars, bikes, & peds all mixing very nicely.
In Frankfurt the citizens demanded that the transit agency NOT shut down streetcar lines when new U-bahn (MAX in a tunnel) lines open. They have their place and can be a much more powerful influence on how a city builds/rebuilds than either bus lines or MAX lines, for that matter.
[Moderator: Claims of economic acumen and silly threat of a lawsuit removed. Ron, you are now on Comment Vacation for the rest of Sept/Oct. – Bob R.]
The comments here about the shortcomings of the new streetcar line just reinforce my assertion that anything rail which is done in Portland area will be done wrong.
Whoa Bob R!
I Ron Swaren gets a vacation, just like I did a few years ago?
I WANNA SEE WHAT HE SAID!
http://bojack.org/2012/09/eastside_streetcar_ridership_s.html
Apropos of Zef’s remark about single trackage on the new terminal viaduct, it also would have been useful to have built a pedestrian way on that overpass, so one could walk directly from Grand/MLK over the UP ROW and the new tracks for the Railway Museum down to OMSI, Opera, et. c.
The new side path goes only down to Division/7th, so one must hike all the way over to Clay and back (nearly a kilometer) or over the 99E viaduct to points south and back.
I have walked this city for more decades than I care to recall, and this was an opportunity for civic improvement gravely missed.
Zef, I apologize if I was less than informative. I was somewhat bemused that after literally 10 years of community conversations about planning this line, the week after it opens, any number of people are ready to tell us we blew it!
A few points:
1) This is streetcar – it’s not for commuting long distances. People at Lloyd district will take it to catch an exhibit at OMSI at lunch. We don’t expect anyone to ride from OMSI to PSU. If you’re in the Lloyd, you’ll take streetcar to get to the Pearl (or maybe Powells). You’ll take MAX to get downtown. It’s the richness of the choices that will shift the Lloyd from being an office/retail center to a true mixed-use neighborhood.
2) Because it’s designed for short trips, the $1 fare is appropriate. $2.50 on MAX will get you to Hillsboro. $1 on Streetcar will get you across the river. Charging $2.50 to get across the river would not be a reasonable economic proposition for riders.
3) The single track terminus at OMSI is temporary until we close the loop at which point we’ll replace it with a permanent platform.
4) For those who decry the lack of commuters using the new line, keep in mind that the original line had virtually no commuter traffic for four or five years. The commuters will come from residential units that get build along the line – as happened in the Pearl. Even today the peak period on the NS line is lunch to early evening – commuter traffic is not the majority component.
Give it a chance!
While I am not a streetcar advocate, the $1 fare is nice to have considering TriMet’s new fare structure that is fairly punitive to short trips on Bus and MAX.
That right there is at least a positive everyone can embrace. Now enforcing fares will be another thing.
As Chris pointed out on another string, the viaduct…with double tracks…is too steep for an ADA sidewalk; hence no sidewalk. Safety and budget precluded a wider facility that could have accommodated bikes.
Well, “we blew it” criticism is par for the course. I’m sure if and when the CRC opens, someone will point to the (flawed) public process and make the suggestion that opponents failed to participate in that.
The political problem that the CL Streetcar (and the Green/Orange lines and WES) all have–they have opened (or are being designed and built) during a time of much upheaval. They were planned, of course, long before the recession hit and a few other turds hit the fan; but as they are contemporaneous with some severe service cuts (and seen as mainly benefitting those who are less dependent on transit), the backlash is there. In ten years, we may have a much improved situation with regard to bus service and opportunities to expand–but nothing in the pipe.
The single track at OMSI is fine as a temporary issue.
As far as the fare issue goes, here I think the criticism of the Streetcar is fair: My home to my office is about 2 miles on the 62; why can’t I go buy an annual pass–good only for the 62–for $150?
“The comments here about the shortcomings of the new streetcar line just reinforce my assertion that anything rail which is done in Portland area will be done wrong.”
Wow, I am surprised how mad people are about trains in this town. There amazing! I never thought once in my life I would be able to take light rail every day to college from beaverton. That if I wanted to go shopping I could take the new streetcar over to the lloyd district. What you guys got here is some of the best transit in the country! So why are some so angry? Not pointing out the person who commented above me, there are people all over the internet angered about new rails. Why? I haven’t seen any flaws in the three years I have ridden. When the orange line opens up, and that new bridge to Vancouver your talking about being able to ride every day the best light rail in the country and the best streetcar! So can’t we all just enjoy it? I take the 58 bus line a ton as well, and its darn good bus service. Sure there are always room for improvements on the bus side of things and the rail side of things. But at the end of the day, if I and so many other live without cars here, there isn’t much to be mad over. You might say that portland is a better place because instead of skyscrapers and a billion freeways, we built transit. :) Also I am loving the transit blog here guys you really know your stuff here!
When I was riding the Streetcar (NS line) yesterday afternoon, the driver started announcing that the CL line was not running on 10th and 11th, but was just looping back to the Broadway Bridge in the Pearl District. That seemed to me a sensible way to deal with the current shortage of streetcars. But I thought there should have been signs posted.
Automated lines do fine with loops, but lines with drivers need recovery time.
Rather than a loop, I’d suggest a single “knot” service. NW, downtown, new bridge, Eastside, Broadway Bridge, downtown again, South Waterfront. And return.
Recovery time can be placed at the ends of the line — and there’s still a one-seat ride from *anywhere* on the loop to *anywhere* on the loop, even though it’s not a loop! Further, the frequencies on each section of line end up being the same as the “loop plus N-S line” option.
This does require that operators change their signage repeatedly during the trip, since the very same streetcar would be going downtown with two different destinations at different times!
It also requires having enough streetcars, obviously.
Rather than a loop, I’d suggest a single “knot” service. NW, downtown, new bridge, Eastside, Broadway Bridge, downtown again, South Waterfront. And return.
This isn’t a bad idea, but the only layover point can be SoWa–the NW 23rd end of the line isn’t really set up for layover–there’s no place to park a train that isn’t blocking a rather busy street, and given the two-block separation between Northrup and Lovejoy, riders heading downtown from north of Northrup will frequently board a westbound Streetcar, ride it to 23rd and around, and then back into downtown, rather than walk two more blocks to Lovejoy.
And of course, there’s no one-seat ride from SoWa to 23rd anymore (unless one wants to ride around the entire loop)–though it’s a short walk to the bridgehead for those who don’t want to transfer somewhere.
The entire circuit might be too long.
Another possibility–the “modified knot”, would be this: Half the trains leaving SOWA head to NW 23rd, then back down to the bridghead, then across to OMSI, north through the eastside, then across the Broadway and back south to SoWA for layover. The other half do the reverse course–SoWA to PSU Pearl to Lloyd Center to OMSI to PSU to Pearl to 23rd to Pearl to PSU to SOWA. This reduces the round-trip time for a single vehicle (though it may still be too long), gives a one-seat ride to/from anywhere on the trunk between the new bridge and the Pearl, and keeps the direct one-seat ride for people travelling betweeen SoWA and Pearl.
I love the knot proposal! That would solve most of the operational problems with a loop, and would have the added benefit of removing the need for two separately-branded lines. This NS and CL nonsense could end and we could go back to just having just one Portland Streetcar. The whole thing would also have consistent headways without the danger of streetcar bunching. The map would be a little crazy, and potentially confusing, but it would be better than what we have now.
Scotty, there is layover streetcar space underneath I-405 in the NW, so at certain points a streetcar could take people to NW 23rd, but not let anyone on, then head back to the yard. Another streetcar would then go from the yard to NW 23rd to pick people up. The modified knot sounds way too complicated in terms of customer legibility, and seems unnecessary.
I sure do have a hard time telling at a glance which line a streetcar is. Is there anything that could be done to improve the contrast or more easily differentiate the headsigns?
I agree. It would help if the signs were different colors. Right now they are all yellow, with the only differentiation being the NS or CL designation. Since it is not obvious what NS or CL mean, colors or letters (A, B, etc) would have been a better choice. If you can’t go specific, go symbolic, and if you’re going to go symbolic, don’t get too specific. Thus NS and CL were poor choices. Anyway, how about symbols? The CL line could have a horseshoe symbol, and the NS line could have an upside-down “L” symbol. That way each one would have a visual representation of the line to go along with the letters. Another obvious solution is to change it from “CL – Line” to “Central Loop.” Why is the word Line necessary anyway, and what’s with the weird hyphen? “NS – Line” could also become “North-South,” although I would prefer “NW-South” so that people don’t think they are headed to North Portland!
Whatever happened to the Amber Line and the Aqua Line, anyway?
Bob can probably give a more thorough answer, since he’s on the CAC. But my understanding is that the CAC thought that secondary colors were very problematic and encouraged letters rather than colors.
[and I doubt we could get the headsigns to display in those :-)]
I noticed some trains actually had the route just printed out on an 8.5×11″ sheet of paper and taped to the side windows the other, was quite effective.
Looking through Google Images, I notice most trains have lit lettering on black, others apparently can light the whole display. Is that a per-train thing or representative of the displays’ fidelity?
Is there a predefined character set, it might be interesting to see what glyphs are available to see if anything fancy could be done as zef suggests. Can you swap out bitmap fonts? When dealing with short designators like “NS” and “CL”, a wider front could be appreciated. ?????????????Any chance there’s a framebuffer or something you could write to directly? Animation and pictograms!
Unfortunately the problem is not just the content being displayed, but their brightness and the glare from the curved glass:
Photo
… to the side windows the other day,
Why didn’t the Streetcars just use a single-letter designation like “L” for “Loop” and “N” for “Northwest” (or maybe “W” for “Westside”)? Does a two-letter designation really add anything in terms of helping riders identify the line?
While I’m complaining about stuff that is all too late to do anything about:
Here’s just a short summary of how the CAC got around to endorsing two-letter names. The actual discussions took place off-and-on over the course of a year, so I’m losing a bit of the subtlety and I’m sure I’m leaving something out.
Initially, single-letters seems like an obvious choice.
However, there was concern that letters which corresponded to colors could confuse visitors who were unfamiliar with the difference between a streetcar and a MAX light rail vehicle. B could mean “Blue”, R could mean “Red”, for example. There are other cities that display letters inside of color fields for clarity, and we wanted to leave open the possibility that TriMet might do that with signage someday. (Colorblind people can have difficulty distinguishing signs that merely have colored shapes.)
I had two suggestions which were discussed…
1. Use single letters but limit ourselves to letters that couldn’t be confused with primary colors likely to be used by TriMet. (Suggested lists of these letters varied.)
2. Use numbers but put an “S” in front for “Streetcar”. Rationale: The streetcar is more of a local service than a regional one, and could fit into the bus network with numbers just like people are used to. In the past, express routes have been designated with an “X” to indicate a different type of service, so we could use an “S”. This would also make it easy to swap out buses when necessary as the number could be displayed.
Additional context: The Streetcar System Concept plan envisions, over the very long term, a network of streetcar lines in various corridors throughout the city. That may or may not happen, but any route designation scheme should be future-proof in that regard.
A number of committee members, some representing various neighborhoods, wanted to use designations which were more descriptive and reflective of neighborhood character. Using symbols and names was discussed, but these can introduce problems with signage, mapping, data export, marketing, describing in other languages, etc.
Historically, Portland’s original streetcar lines did have two-letter designations. So the committee (including me) eventually came around to supporting the nod to history. The advantages of this include the ability to name multiple lines without running out of letters, it’s not boring, it can’t be confused with MAX, and by using standard letters substitute vehicles (with digital headsigns at least) can be used.
I think it was the nod to history that was the unifying concept for people on the committee.
There’s advantages and disadvantages to every scheme I mentioned and there were others too. A few comment threads here at Portland Transport dived into it as well, and you’re welcome to conclude that the wrong decision was made. But I hope this at least answers the rhetorical reactions of “what were they thinking?” and “did anyone give any thought to this?” :-)
Aaron – Agreed that signs are needed that are visible from the sides of the streetcars.
I believe there are now placards in the side windows of the vehicles that say either CL or NS, aren’t there?
I second the idea of lowering the readerboards a bit so they can be read from across the street.
Well, two letters is certainly a “future-proof” system, albeit a supremely optimistic one. Even the city’s most ambitious streetcar concept plan wouldn’t need more than a dozen routes when fully built out.
But I can appreciate the nod to history, even if it’s not as clean as a single-letter system.
Why didn’t the Streetcars just use a single-letter designation like “L” for “Loop” and “N” for “Northwest” (or maybe “W” for “Westside”)?
Oh and I should have addressed this in my earlier comment. Like I said, I was an early proponent of a single-letter system.
But what became apparent through the meetings is that people really wanted the designations to mean something and not be arbitrary. Just as you have done here by suggesting “L” for Loop. Everything you listed came up as well as others.
But if the letters have meaning, rather than being purely abstract designations, what happens if the Lake Oswego line ever gets built? “L” would already be a loop, and “O” could be confused for “Orange” or even “Zero” and is ineligible for reasons I mentioned earlier.
So once people got bogged down in picking single letters with meaning, the single letter scheme seemed less and less desirable.
Silly to worry about a naming conflict so many decades out. If we really run out of colors and letters, they’ll come up with something. Add a second letter like on a periodic table or something. Nobody says the letters even have to be meaningful. But you can find some way to associate each letter currently.
Looks like Bob devoted a lot of energy to this and I’m sure this is a better result than we would have gotten otherwise. I salute you.
My list, for fun:
N: NW 23rd to SW Lowell St
C: Central Loop
L: Lake Oswego to Portland
H: Broadway/Weidler: E 7th to Hollywood
K: MLK: Broadway to Killingsworth
E: Burnside/Couch: NW 19th to E 14th
W: NW 18th/19th: Burnside to Savier/Thurman
S: Sandy Blvd: E 14th to Hollywood
T: Tacoma St: Sellwood Br to Tacoma LRT station
M: Morrison/Belmont: SW Collins Cr to SE 50th/Hawthorne
P: Gateway Circulator: Gateway TC (Pacific/99th) to 102nd, to Main/99th
“Need to mean something” seems a bit silly to me. Yeah, it’s a nice conceit to begin with, but what really matters is that route designations are simple, efficient, understandable, minimize possible confusion, and are easy to pick out on a map. Neither bus lines nor MAX colors “mean something” in terms of destinations served. Why should “meaning” be any kind of priority for Streetcar letters?
“Need to mean something” seems a bit silly to me.
Maybe we’re talking past each other here… it depends on what the definition of “mean” means. :-)
You brought it up yourself, with ‘like “L” for “Loop” and “N” for “Northwest” (or maybe “W” for “Westside”)’
Once you create an expectation that the single letter stands for something, then there is temptation/confusion/debate about what letters to use and which to reserve for the future, which might conflict, etc. I’m not saying that’s an insurmountable problem, it’s just one of the many small issues which influenced the CAC’s conclusions.
Neither bus lines nor MAX colors “mean something” in terms of destinations served.
You might be surprised! Back in the planning stages, the N-S max line (now the Yellow/Interstate line) was to be the “Red” line, not the airport line which is designated “Red” today. But concern was voiced about the history and demographics of the neighborhoods along the route and the past practice of “redlining”, so a different route color was chosen.
Well, I brought up the letters with “meaning” because of the NS and CL designations. Personally, I would have just gone with A and C, and then added letters alphabetically from a pre-selected list as additional lines opened. In addition to avoiding letters than could stand for a MAX line (B, G, R, O, Y, and P for purple), I’d want to avoid using multiple “soundalike” letters (like both D and T, or both M and N, or both F and S) to avoid confusion when getting directions over the phone, letters that looked like numbers (I and O), and X because TriMet uses it for express buses. But that leaves A C D E F H J K L M Q U V W — fourteen lines, which is likely more than the system will ever need.
“And of course, there’s no one-seat ride from SoWa to 23rd anymore (unless one wants to ride around the entire loop)–”
True, going around the loop would not be the fastest one-seat ride! Of course, you could transfer at any stop from Johnson St. through OHSU, which should be fairly efficient as long as delays don’t propagate through the system and shut down the loop.
The main problem with my “knot” proposal is that there would have to be a very carefully planned out system of signage, and the operators would have to change the signs consistently at the exactly correct points, so that people riding on the center section could tell which “part of the run” they were riding on.
I’ve had several tries at thinking of a decent system of signage for the “knot” route. Perhaps the simplest would involve naming the new bridge. I’ll use the name “New Bridge” as a placeholder. The signs would be changed when crossing one of the river bridges.
The signs on a ‘northbound’ starting at the S Waterfront would then read:
“Broadway Bridge” going north through downtown.
“New Bridge” going south on the eastside
“NW 23rd” going north through downtown again
Then on a southbound, the signs would read:
“New Bridge” going south through downtown
“Broadway Bridge” going north on the eastside
“S Waterfront” going south through downtown again
This would require a total of four headsign settings.
In case of rerouting due to congestion, construction, or other trouble, the headsigns would accomodate the current “two routes” plan as well.