The Burnside Blog
The Reverse Logic of PDX Transportation Planning
I love the Portland Streetcar and I ride it nearly everyday. Yes, its detractors are correct to point out that if one walks briskly, it’s actually quicker to go by foot than go by streetcar, but for downtown residents, shoppers and workers who have to maneuver through Downtown Portland during our wet winter months, the streetcar is a godsend.
The inaugural loop, which stretched from PSU to NW 23rd, has been extended twice, first to River Place and and next to South Waterfront, where it connects to the aerial tram and OHSU’s thousands of employees and patients. The Portland Streetcar is successful for a variety of reasons, not least of which, it connects riders to places they want to go. The Portland Streetcar is a link from high-density neighborhood to high-density neighborhood. It passes through the Pearl District, Downtown, the Park Blocks, and NW Portland. Today the Portland Tribune gives an update on city plans to update the streetcar city-wide. This a great idea. Let’s hope they don’t screw it up.
In Portland, and in many US cities, transport is used as a planning tool. Build it, and they will come. In post flight USA, this simple logic is often effective. But it also means rail is built where planners and city leaders feel people ought to go, not where they want or need to go. This is flawed.
Immediate plans for the streetcar call for an extension across the Broadway Bridge and through the Central Eastside Industrial Area. Another proposal calls for an extension along Macadam to Lake Oswego. Presumably, the reasoning is to support neighborhood building. But first, why not support neighborhoods that most need them?
Why aren’t the next streetcar lines being planned where they’re most needed: along high-density mixed-used corridors like Hawthorne, Sandy, NE Broadway, Powell, and Foster Road? (Thanks to “Stephen” for making this point on Burnside Blog yesterday.)
I don’t to be that jerkoff who constantly compares everything here stateside to what’s in Europe, but on a recent trip to Basel, I noticed that the most heavily travelled tram and streetcar lines were a bit more intuitive than our own. They went exactly where you wanted to go, connecting high-density neighborhood to high-density neighborhood.
Here, the logic is backwards.
The best example is the MAX Yellow line, which buzzes down Interstate Avenue, connecting Downtown with the Expo Center. I understand that the long-term goal is to extend the line to Vancouver, Washington, but that isn’t going to happen for years. It seems that light rail on Powell Boulevard or I-5 South would have been a more pressing concern.
That’s not to say that Interstate hasn’t benefited from light rail, and won’t in the long-run. But I would argue that development that’s occurred along Vancouver Ave., Williams Ave. and Mississippi Ave. has had very little to do with the MAX.
The old streetcar lines that used to criss-cross Portland until mid-century car culture sealed their doom had an integral part in shaping the way Portland looks. The long-term plan is to restore these streetcar lines. If this is going to happen, let’s put the first lines where they’re needed most.
By Mike Thelin on Tuesday, March 18, 2008 at 02:38PM PDT
Hi Jesse,
I agree.
But the initial lines seem to be proposed in areas where the city would like to see revitalization…like the Central Eastside. No one lives there. That rail transport in America is more about moving development projects than moving people is part of a huge debate in the planning world. Private businesses (from coffee shops to bikes shops to bars) follow people. Once in a while, shouldn’t infrastructure? I for one would love to have the option to take the streetcar from my downtown home to the Baghdad Theater on a Sunday. I can take the train to that hideous logger statue in Kenton, but not to Hawthorne.
By Stuart on Tuesday, March 18, 2008 at 03:06PM PDT
I’m with Mike on this one. It seems that planner types are always visioning, but barely pay any attention to what’s actually happening on the ground. Case in point: remember the Columbia Sportswear debacle with Mayor Katz? They wanted to build their corporate headquarters in a place that was slated for a future MAX station, which hadn’t even been approved. The result? Five years later there’s no MAX station and Columbia Sportswear has moved to the burbs.
I’m a huge supporter of light rail but I have to admit that I don’t use it because it doesn’t go to my neighborhood (Belmont, Sunnyside, etc.) or anywhere I want to go. Sometimes I take the 75 to the light rail when I need to go to the airport, but it’s sort of a pain in the ass. Simply put, the bus sucks. Wouldn’t a streetcar down 39th be better than one down MLK?
By GLV on Tuesday, March 18, 2008 at 03:50PM PDT
The eastside loop, Burnside/Couch, and Lake O streetcar proposals were conceived completely independent of the streetcar system plan. Once those 3, Milwaukie and CRC are built, it’s 20 years from now. Kinda makes you wonder why we are bothering to do a master plan, doesn’t it?
By eileen on Tuesday, March 18, 2008 at 04:11PM PDT
I believe the street car planning/strategy is driven by areas of least resistance. The NIMBY reflex in Portland is strong, quick, and blind. Lets try to connect, say, Montgomery Park (where the city has identified a growth area) to SE Belmont. Good luck. The neighbors in NW Portland feel, um, empowered. I bet Belmont is similar. Does anyone recall the hub-bub over Belmont lofts?
The first phases in the light rail, in my opinion, were chosen based on expedience. Listen to the NW Neighborhood and their rhetoric on this very log. Look at how they are able to commandeer this city’s new papers for their purposes. Tri-Met knows its constituents. And they know to stay away from whiny, empowered, white folks. The neighborhoods along the I-205 corridor, East Burnside, and Interstate Avenue are much less inclined to bunker themselves in for a long fight.
I don’t doubt that Basel’s rail lines go where you want them to go…40 and 50 years later. http://www.tundria.com/trams/CHE/Basel-1955.shtml
By intheknow on Tuesday, March 18, 2008 at 11:29PM PDT
Even though it may not be visible to the naked eye, the MLK and Grand area is actually zoned for all the residential use that Mike mentioned above and there is even a little more area tagged in the comprehensive plan that will allow for a that desired mix of uses. RIght now that section of town is full of businesses that could benefit from increased transportation options and also happens to be full of the potential increases in density that Jesse states is necessary for funding.
It’s an opportunity to encourage a dramatic increase in density, right at the (other>>>eastside) heart of the city.
By Randall on Thursday, March 20, 2008 at 05:14PM PDT
Right…but zoning means nothing here. I think what’s being challenged is our conventional way of using transport. A lot of areas are zoned residential or commercial, but I tend to agree that the best place to put transit is where people already live and will use it.
By The Doctor on Thursday, March 20, 2008 at 03:40AM PDT
The CEID is NOT the “heart of the city.” Downtown and Southeast are. I think some people really have no clue that 80% of the city’s population lives on the eastside…
And yes, I am a proponent of mass transit. Unfortunately, in all 15 different places in Portland I have lived in the past 10 years, only once did I have the opportunity to ride the rails – when I lived on the streetcar line in NW Portland.
The MAX is designed purely for suburban riders, and the streetcar is a development tool. All the rest of the city’s residents get to ride the bus, bucko. Yet Trimet hasn’t bought any new buses in years… d’oh!
By Stephen on Thursday, March 20, 2008 at 01:54PM PDT
You might be confused where the CEID is. It is located from the Willamette east to 12th. It is considered part of the central city planning area by the City of Portland.
I believe the title suggests that the streetcar might/should be used to serve densely populated regions of the city in addition to/or instead of, serving as strictly a development tool.
By Mike Thelin on Friday, March 21, 2008 at 08:15AM PDT
Thanks for the clarification on geography. The CEID is indeed in the heart of the city, and wouldn’t be the worst choice for a new street car line. Still, I don’t think it’s the best choice.
By Jesse Beason on Tuesday, March 18, 2008 at 10:58AM PDT
Mike,
Isn’t the purpose of the Streetcar System Plan to do just what you propose?
It seems that the current streetcar system was built where it was for two reasons 1) significant redevelopment and increased density potential and 2) the ability to create the Federally-required local match from within the streetcar impact area itself through TIF dollars and local improvement districts.
In heading outside the central city, that ability is seriously hindered.
Just a thought.