Announcing my Recommendation for Burnside Improvements

JK wrote (again) "I seem to have a lot of trouble getting cost data out of Portland etc" ... "What is the cost per passenger-mile for the streetcar."

JK, you've written this perhaps a dozen times over on the PortlandTransport blog, and you have been told at least twice, directly from a member of the streetcar CAC, that this data is not collected by the streetcar organization. The streetcar data that is available is boarding counts, not trip-lengths.

This data is not being kept from you... this data does not actually exist. Yesterday, I gave you a detailed way to get a ballpark estimate, and Chris told you that he would press for automated people counters to be put on a future streetcar so that this kind of data could be collected for you and the rest of the public.

Obviously, for a circulator type system, the cost per passenger mile is going to be fairly high. But on the converse, the cost per boarding is relatively low.

I gave you my own personal estimate in the range of $1.80 per passenger mile including capital costs over 30 years (in current dollars.)

- Bob R.

Thanks, Bob. I first asked Sam to ask for the cost of the most productive bus lines about a week ago at the Columbia Crossing Task Force meeting. My goal was for Trimet to give him the real numbers, which I think will show bus to be less expensive than rail to operate, contrary to the answer given at the meeting. If I caught it right, it was a classic case of distortion by answering a closely related question, instead of the one actually asked (or intended by the context of the question.) The costs given was system wide, but system wide includes lost of low ridership and thus high cost bus lines. All MAX lines are high ridership, so they should be compared to high ridership bus lines. For instance, the Interstate ave. MAX line should be compared with the Interstate bus line that it replaced. Or MAX should be compared to the top few bus lines.

As to the streetcar, I am trying to get them to cough up data that they probably already have as a result of their model that Chris mentioned. My suspicion is that they are intentionally not producing this data, especially since any good model would have this data.

One further item: A friend of mine, that used to work in the planning department of a government agency, said that he routinely saw the staff deceiving the elected officials. Add that to the pretty certain staff deceptions about the tram and it is reasonable to suspect that this is another case of deceiving the elected official ( although, admittedly not by his own staff.)

As to your ballpark estimate of streetcar cost - thanks (that was good thinking) - I somehow missed that approach that puts the streetcar cost at about the same level as taxi fare.

Thanks
JK

While new/additional bus service may or may not be cheaper to construct and operate than a streetcar line, buses do not attract the development or riders, especially ones who have a choice and can afford a vehicle and parking, that a streetcar does. Like it or not (and I'm not saying I do), one of the reasons for a streetcar line is development.

And I do not see how a streetcar ride can be as expensive as a taxi ride, unless you are requiring the construction costs to be paid for in a short amount of time. This is unfair considering that the infrastructure of tracks, stations and power can last a long time. Also, electric-powered vehicles generally outlast diesel ones and the same should go for rail-based vehicles over road-based ones.

Sam:

No matter the cost, I hope the mentally ill, the addicted, the homeless, and the street families appreciate these improvements as much as the counseling, the jail beds, the addiction treatment, homeless shelters, and other community services that receive inadequate funding and political support.

But that's somebody else's job, right?

I have an idea: now that the City has their own "Streetcar Development Office" maybe you could persuade Tri-Met to establish a "Drug/Alcohol Treatment Program" in the back of every bus?

If we're getting into their business, they might as well return the favor.

Cheers!

JK,
I think the idea of turning burnside and Couch into one way streets are a good idea. But where would the city get the funds to be able to afford the redevelop ment?

But I think connecting the East and West Burnside streets with a street car line is good. Together with the tracks they are placing in the bus mall is going to do wonders.

In other large cities, the five o'clock traffic is going to be lasting 12 hours a day. Now I understand Portland is not that large right now, but it is growing. This is a great way to get it going and/or treat the growth.

A couple of points:

Yes, SE 82nd has more accidents than East Burnside. It doesn't have more than WEST Burnside, however, which is the project this blog comments on.

Also, we just asked for -and received- a package of over $6 million from One-Time General Funds to address a host of projects, most of which are in East Portland, specifically on SE 82nd and SE 122nd, which -while their crashes are spread out over a larger span, as opposed the very concentrated crashes on Burnside- are very dangerous streets.

You can take a look at our requests here- note that SE and NE 82nd, as well as SE 122nd are on multiple lists and will soon be getting new crosswalk lights, pedestrian islands, and other safety improvements.
Project List

You can also take a look at the data on where most crashes occur and also look at a map that shows what specific intersections we proposing projects for. You'll see that East Portland, long neglected, is getting far more projects than any other part of the city.
One-time Blog link with documents
One-time fund project map

Lastly, if this post wasn't clear about it, this project is going to have to pay for itself. We expect that most of these funds will be raised via Urban Renewal dollars and Local Improvement Dollars that are collected from property owners adjacent to the project.

When does the city plan to re-stripe 122nd and Division to include 3 traffic lanes in each direction?

122nd and Division Street were designed to be 7 lane roads. They are both striped for 5 lanes plus a large empty space followed by an rarely used bike lane.

Also, there are many patches of missing sidewalk on both streets.

Most, if not all, of the residents in this area drive. What works on Hawthorne doesn't work out here.

"...Lastly, if this post wasn't clear about it, this project is going to have to pay for itself."

You're kidding right? LIDs, URDs and TIF don't pay their fair share of the services they use. Their taxes (above a low-level valuation) pay only for the small district in which they reside over a period of many years. Meanwhile, non-LIDs pay for the majority of basic services. The district may be paying for itself in theory, but it gets a free ride as far as all other gummint services are concerned.

Funny how such a Liberal town like Portland excuses the lining of rich developers pockets and the removal of all risk from their investments.

"we just asked for -and received- a package of over $6 million from One-Time General Funds to address a host of projects, most of which are in East Portland, specifically on SE 82nd and SE 122nd"

OK, but somehow you are going to find $80M to fix a 1.5 mile stretch of Burnside (or $6M for every 0.1 miles or 55 ft of Burnside). I think you are missing the point. For areas you like, a la downtown Portland, there seems to be a limtless amount of money to throw at stuff like the transit mall, tram, SoWa development, PGE park, condo tax breaks, etc. The rest of town gets scraps.

My point being, every 5-10 years we have a new plan to re-develop downtown. Now we want to re-design the transit mall to make it an impassable (at least for cars) grid of transit rails. Yet most of the growth areas are outside of downtown, this is what I meant by priorities and getting distracted by big projects.

Sorry

"or $6M for every 0.1 miles or 55 ft of Burnside"

Should read

"or $6M for every 0.1 miles or 550 ft of Burnside"

I guess you're right that not much media covered this.

While we have to go through a competitive bidding process on projects, we are expecting that we'll buy many, if not most, of our future streetcars from Oregon IronWorks.

We blogged about this some time ago - you can read it here:

Oregon IronWorks Streetcar Blog

Adron Only because for the last 30-50 years Cities and the Fed Government have encouraged and pushed people from downtown by subsidizing suburban growth post Streetcar.
JK: Whoa! European cities grew their suburbs too in that period. People choose to live in low density when they can afford it - that is why NYC etc are far less dense than they were 100 years ago. Look at where the rich live: Dunthorpe, LO. Look at where the rich used to live: the country home. All that happened is the middle class was enabled to live like the rich used to. That is called increased standard of living, something that the planners are trying to turn around.

Adron Take similar size cities as Portland that has a more "road building" and "road subsidizing" mentality and you find utter chaos and hours of sitting traffic a day WITHOUT another option to get around.
JK: You just described Portland! The basic problem is that we add capacity to our water, sewer, phone and electric systems as our population increases, but not to our roads as population increases.

Adron But in Portland we do have other choices about how to live, get around,
JK: Only if you destination in downtown, otherwise mass transit is failure. Its market share of area trips is a low single digit number. Too low to have any effect on congestion. I can even make a plausible argument that it has actually increased traffic congestion, be diverting funds from road building and buses blocking traffic. Then there is the congestion increase on Interstate avenue absolutely due to MAX.

Adron and a far better quality of life. I don't always agree with the funding priorities and the way it is done but the fact is it's the only way to rebalance various lifestyles after 50 years of Social Engineering and City Planners pushing suburban growth styles.
JK: Better quality of live in the dense city? Most people prefer the lower crime, less crowded, better schools of the burbs. People also tend to prefer a back yard to a court yard.

Thanks
JK

JK: All that happened is the middle class was enabled to live like the rich used to. That is called increased standard of living, something that the planners are trying to turn around.

JK: Better quality of live in the dense city? Most people prefer the lower crime, less crowded, better schools of the burbs. People also tend to prefer a back yard to a court yard.

Dan: I read your posts JK. You talk about standard of living all the time. The unfortunate fallacy in all of your arguments is that you seem incapable of understanding that other people have different definitions what constitutes standard of living or quality of life. I DON'T WANT to live like the rich. I don't want a big house with a big yard. I don't need or want a personal car. I don't want the anonymity and safe sterility of living in the burbs. In many ways, the vision you promote as a quality standard of living is nearly the exact oppposite of what I call a quality standard of life. I live in Portland because it has exactly what I look for when I think about the standard of living and quality of life that I envision myself enjoying. I would venture to gather that the majority of Portlander's would agree with me, considering the type of elected officials we have democratically put into place.

You and your cronies on this site should stop being so authoritarian in your statements regarding what constitutes quality of life and standard of living. Think maybe, just for a minute, that other people have different opinions and thoughtsin regards to the quality standard of living. Maybe other people don't want what you want. Maybe other people don't want to live like you want to live. As for me, I've found exactly what I'm looking for, am content with the quality of life my city provides me, and am optimistic for it's future based on the plans I've seen. Maybe its time you find the place that gives you the quality of life that YOU are looking for! Just please stop laying claim to standard of living as a concrete term that you've defined for everyone else.

JK: Only if you destination in downtown, otherwise mass transit is failure. Its market share of area trips is a low single digit number. Too low to have any effect on congestion. I can even make a plausible argument that it has actually increased traffic congestion, be diverting funds from road building and buses blocking traffic. Then there is the congestion increase on Interstate avenue absolutely due to MAX."

My destination is always downtown. I don't intend to live any further than 40th or 60th street at the furthest from downtown. I build my life around the idea, because that's one of the primary reason I live in Portland. As I've said, I'd rather a free-market transportation industry, but the country as a whole is a LONG LONG way from that.

As for the increase in traffic, even the cities with road specific policy (Atlanta, Jacksonville, LA, etc) have horrid traffic, worse or as bad as Portland's. The fact is, you can't build out of the demand until you put a price on the product - i.e. the roadway. Right now most road users pay vastly less for roads than the minority of road users. With that funding schema it isn't reflective of real market demand because prices aren't associated with usage, aren't reflected in people's choices, and thus road usage has an infinite demand - especially in rush hour. Thus the problem is - being the Government management of roadways won't work to meet demand even under market situations, is that there is no way to truly build to demand unless the interstates, highways, and to some degree even local roads are privatized.

re: Street Smart by Roth and printed by Independant Institute is a great reference for these issues.

As for the literal increase in traffic caused by MAX, maybe that could be true if one where to stretch the influx of people who want to live and commute here because of the MAX. It's not a huge number of people, but it could lend credence to the argument that MAX increased congestion. The problem is that is a stretch, and most likely with all arguments in the hat MAX either decreased traffic or does nothing much to it.

As for Interstate Ave, it seems that the heavy traffic just went to other streets and the traffic on Interstate Ave flows rather well even during rush hour. But then of course, I haven't done a study on it...

As for such and such Guv'ment entity funding such and such roadway or light rail, that I've covered in a million other write ups. I doubt it will ever be as fair or balanced as it could or would be under a market based system. I'd suggest you propose the feds and states stop Guv'ment funding of roadways and let the market (and thus users) truly bear the real cost of such things. I honestly can say there would be room for all services (road, rail, and other) - and not just room for the services, but an outright NEED for those services - but unfortunately we don't have that equalizer.

Anyway, as always I love your retorts, makes me research even more things!

1. There was once a time where few transportation choices made it almost impossible for most people to live outside of walking distance from their jobs.

2. The original streetcar system was designed to get people out of the city. People didn't like living in close quarters, and the streetcar provided a cheap link to the suburbs, thus earning the nickname "streetcar suburbs."

3. With the advent of the personal automobile, many more people escaped the crowded city (by choice) to live in the low density suburbs.

4. Because the automobile was cheaper and more flexible, and because buses were also cheaper and more flexible, streetcar demand diminished. All lines went out of business.

5. Businesses started moving out of downtown core and closer to where people lived (the suburbs).

6. Buses started losing money as well, so the government decided to bail them out (the beginning of social engineering in Oregon).

7. Government comes up with junk theories such as "peak oil" to justify the lack of roadway expansion, lack of suburban expansion, and the expansion of a failing transit system and highly subsidized condo farms. METRO is created.

8. People and business escape to Clark County, the only place in the metro area that Portland has no control over.

"6. Buses started losing money as well, so the government decided to bail them out (the beginning of social engineering in Oregon)."

Uhhh nope. That started in revolt to the fact that social engineering (the minority of upper middle class and such) that wanted roads EVERYWHERE. So what did they do? They ran to the cities and such to get them to start building them. They can't afford them now. Without a price association you have 8-15% of communities using cars on the shoulders of the top 10% of taxpayers. So yeah, the simple fact is, it isn't a balanced market industry anymore. It hasn't been since about 193x or so. It's been highly imbalanced since 1950 something. Regardless, as another person pointed out.

Transit isn't built to market demand, it's built to pull politics. But remember, it's done that way because unfortunately we gave up our market based transportation economy with the introduction of Government controlled and built right of way, also known as "highways", "interstates", and other such names.

So if we want a fair battle, we ALL need to stop asking for hand outs and Government involvement. The fact is, that won't happen. So now the choice is to make sure the various Governments are acting and implementing as fair as possible. The majority of taxes collected are from Corporations, and the top 10% of taxpayers, that makes up at least 90+% of taxes. So convince those entities that Portland is doing the wrong thing and you'll get something else. But being that those entities - the ones paying for this transit stuff - are rather happy with their choices then it won't change.

Until then, learn, find stuff out, and see how you can get what you want in transportation. I want valid usage paid for by its valid users. So far - it aint happening so I'm going to help out best I can.

Just one little detail:

Roads are built with fees and taxes on road users, not the general public

OK, maybe 5% came from general taxes, but most people use roads (unlike transit)

Thanks
JK

Peak oil isn't just a "Government Theory" btw. The oil companies charts show the same info. Thus is the reason they have reported they'll most likely have decreased production of crude within the next 20-30 years, possibly farther out considering some of the reserves recently found, but also see an increase in many of the alternative fuels. That's directly from the oil companies (who aren't really evil, they're just doing what they're supposed to do, supply oil and make money).

Feel free to check out David O'Rielly's words "Most of the debate about whether peak oil is imminent, however, misses the point. Oil will peak - that is a geologic fact. But the new energy equation is not static. It is dynamic and variable."

Also George Kirkland's Statements "This view is based on the fact that technology will deliver conventional resources from new frontiers, like the Arctic, in addition to unconventional sources of energy - liquefied natural gas, gas-to-liquids, extra heavy oil, oil sands, among others - that will step in to fill the gap. In fact, by 2025 estimates are that nonconventional sources will account for roughly 10 percent of the global oil supply."

Other links are available at Chevron's site. Lots of links that actually have good legitimate information. If one chooses there are also sources that are available beyond Chevron's site that have 3rd party scientific research that backs up many of their views.

The real facet though isn't not using oil, it's a good energy source. They key is to make its usage CLEAN. I.E. Like the increase of ULEV type vehicles that basically produce no carbon waste; Prius, Insight, Sentra, Civic, and others.

Actually there is a, minority view that oil is of geologic, not biological origin. This is buttressed by the finding of methane on some of the outter planets.

Thanks
JK

We're working on it- the graphics are the problem, not the posting, so I am working on getting clearer photos. Hopefully, I can get those today or tomorrow.

Cuz I'd really dig checking them out too. Some of them are hard to read and even zoomed in are fuzzy stuff.

Actually the cause of asthma is unknown.

It tends to be inversely correlated with pollution, suggesting that reducing pollution is increasing asthma.

Thanks
JK

This is a ridiculous, misleading statement.

While there is some debate as to the causality of asthma (like you state), it has been undisputably proven that some types of air pollution are directly related to in increase in the prevalence of asthma attacks.

Yes, there has been a reduction in levels of some air pollution, for example lead, while the prevalance of individuals with asthma have increased. Yet, what you purposefully ignore (and intentionally mislead) is that numerous epidemiological studies have demonstrated that hospital admissions, emergency department visits, and decreases in lung function in asthmatic children are correlated with levels of outdoor air pollutants such as NO2, SO2, ozone and black smoke. Furthermore, poor ambient air quality has been associated with asthma mortality.

Yes, what you have written can technically be called true, however you intentionally leave out important facts that do not support your cause. This style of debate and communication is misleading at best, but more accurately is a form of dishonesty. Quite frankly, I think you lie to support your causes.

give me a credable source and your real name.

Which pollutents correlate with asthma and which inversely correlate?

Thanks
JK

I am not the poster above, so I don't know what his or her name is or why that would be relevant to you, as I have no reason to believe that there is a real person named Jim Karlock or if there is that you are that person posting under your real name. Facts, however, are relevant. Here are just a few:

http://getasthmahelp.com/outdoor_pollution.asp
http://www.asthmansw.org.au/content.cfm?id=447&menulink=215&subid=31&x=1&menuid=215
http://www.sciencenews.org/pages/sn_arc99/11_20_99/fob4.htm
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=526385

JK, your way of life is making it hard for many of us to breathe.

you have no credability when you hide your name.
JK

Asthma's Friend I am not the poster above, so I don't know what his or her name is or why that would be relevant to you, as I have no reason to believe that there is a real person named Jim Karlock or if there is that you are that person posting under your real name. Facts, however, are relevant. Here are just a few:

JK: First, none of those are proof, only statements by organizations that may or may have it right. Proof usually come with data reporting the results of a study or summary of many studies. However lets look at your first link:

http://getasthmahelp.com/outdoor_pollution.asp

getasthmahelp.com: Of these six compounds, ozone and particulate matter are most commonly linked with triggering asthma symptoms.
JK: Here is what Joel Schwartz says about ozone levels:
For instance, the prevalence of asthma nearly doubled during the past 25 years--but at the same time, levels of ozone and other air pollutants sharply declined. Emergency room visits for asthma are at their lowest in July and August--when ozone levels are at their highest.
From: http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=19113
If you find his factual statement “levels of ozone and other air pollutants sharply declined”, incorrect BE SURE TO LET ME KNOW, as I am about to work with him on a project.

JK: Particulate matter is not typically associated with autos, but instead is emitted by diesel engines like those used in transit buses. (As I say: save the air, don’t use transit - drive a small car instead.)

Your first source did not demonstrate what you claimed, so I won’t waste more time on your other sources.

Asthma's Friend JK, your way of life is making it hard for many of us to breathe
JK: You failed to support that claim. I don’t want to hear from you gain unless you can prove Joel wrong, or you use a real name. (I have this tendency to think people hiding their names are really BTA, PDOT, PDC employees with a religious, not logical, agenda.)

Thanks
JK

Asthmatic You're being dishonest
JK: I am getting a little tired of being called dishonest by ignoramuses. See below.
Asthmatic Yet, what you purposefully ignore (and intentionally mislead) is that numerous epidemiological studies have demonstrated that hospital admissions, emergency department visits, and decreases in lung function in asthmatic children are correlated with levels of outdoor air pollutants such as NO2, SO2, ozone and black smoke.

jk: Another poster’s reference provided this:
Outdoor air pollutants can be separated into two main groups, criteria pollutants and hazardous air pollutants. The criteria pollutants include six compounds: ozone, particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide and lead. Of these six compounds, ozone and particulate matter are most commonly linked with triggering asthma symptoms. At high levels, nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide may also be asthma triggers.
from: http://getasthmahelp.com/outdoor_pollution.asp

JK: Note: ..ozone and particulate matter are most commonly linked with triggering asthma symptoms, Most of your pollutants are missing from the list. You accused me of being dishonest, yet you are ignorant on the subject. Please learn a little before accusing me of being dishonest.

Thanks
JK
Here is some more info:
Ozone: Unrealistic Scenarios

bold off(again)

Jim,

Once again I find you using terms like "ignoramuses" re: other posters.

Not only are you again overdoing it with the number of posts you make (6 out of the last 10 have been yours), but you are also dragging down the tone of the overall discourse.

Please be judicious in your postings and refrain from name calling.

This blog is supposed to provide folks who are otherwise not very involved in city policy issues a forum, and I am afraid that you are turning many off to that option.

Please help us keep the discourse open and free from ad hominem attacks.

Thanks.

Roland Chlapowski Once again I find you using terms like "ignoramuses" re: other posters.
JK: It was in response to: “You're being dishonest” Should I have thanked him for attacking my honesty? Especially since he was wrong on his facts? And hiding his identity?(I know that’s withing the rules)

Roland Chlapowski Not only are you again overdoing it with the number of posts you make (6 out of the last 10 have been yours)
JK: Sorry, two of those were to turn off bold. (Any chance of getting a preview option before posting?)

Thanks
JK

Roland,

I cannot find the exchange between myself and Scott Batson. Did it get deleted?

If so, why?

If not, why does a search in your search window for Batson not turn up anything?

Thanks
JK

We never really delete postings- if someone uses bad language, we might edit that, and of course spam gets deleted, too.

So I dont know what to tell you...

The other thing is that I don't think when you search the site the names of the posters get listed in the results- only the CONTENT of the posts are searched, not the "submitted by."

Hi Jim,

Not too sure what you're trying to argue here, but thought I'd fill you in:

N02 = Nitrogen Dioxide
S02 = Sulfur Dioxide
Black smoke = particulate matter

You might not want to call people ignorant on a subject until you get your molecular formulas down!!

Dan

You mean that you expected me to explain such elemetary stuff?

Thanks
JK

No Jim, I'm just trying to help some potentially confused readers better understand your claim that the rise and fall of various types of air pollution is correlated with asthma!

P.S. I know that some people here may find it a bit suspect that your fact sources (for example Joel Shwartz's article at http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=19113 ) come from some dude who writes articles for a conservative organization with an idelogical agenda. People might be especially suspect when they realize that all the claims he makes in his article aren't supported by any bibliography what-so-ever. Soooo.... I've decided to help you. I googled "ozone levels and asthma." and came up with a ton of articles/studies from (real!) universities that show that as ozone levels increase, so does asthma. The fact that cumulative ozone levels have decreased in the U.S. is irrelevent (but great news!), what's more important is understanding this positive correlation and taking action to reduce ozone pollution even more!

Anyways, here you go bud:

Temporal and Spatial Relationship of Ozone and Asthma, www.utc.edu/Faculty/Gary-Litchford/Main/360/PPTs/Ozone and Asthma.pdf

Primate research shows link between ozone pollution, asthma, http://www-dateline.ucdavis.edu/101300/DL_asthma.html

Relationship between Summertime Ambient Ozone Levels and Emergency Department Visits for Asthma in Central New Jersey, http://www.ehponline.org/realfiles/members/1995/Suppl-2/weisel-full.html

Effects of urban air pollutants on emergency visits for childhood asthma in Mexico City, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?itool=abstractplus&db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=abstractplus&list_uids=7900722

Ozone: a trigger for hospital pediatric asthma emergency room visits, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?itool=abstractplus&db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=abstractplus&list_uids=10862161

Snoo”ZZZ”ing and hiding behind another fictitious name - I suppose you are one of those people who blame SUVs for the end of the ice age too. A SUV is nothing more than a pickup truck with extra seats and a covered bed, thereby it can be used for hauling people in addition to payloads. Are you also condemning pickup trucks? What about vans? How about Gov Ted’s state owned big Lincoln that he travel’s around in often accompanied by a full sized SUV. Better yet, what about freight trucks and TriMet busses that get only FIVE miles per gallon of fuel? Next time you want to move a large piece of furniture, a piano or twenty large boxes of merchandise, do it on your bicycle. Next time you call a plumber or a maintenance worker, make sure that person doesn't have a truck. And next time you put your garbage out, don’t expect a truck to pick it up, haul it yourself to an approved dumping location on your bicycle so it won’t stink up a bus. If you can not do all this, then don’t criticize the motor vehicle choices other people make. Also, since bicycle infrastructure and transit are both subsided by SUV drivers, just make sure that when you are doing all these things, that you also use only infrastructure and services where you pay your own way to use.

As for going back to the 70’s: there was less government intrusion into people’s lives, there were less government subsidies lining the pockets of wealthy developers, property tax abatements were a rarity, more people had yards and were not expected to be housed in stacked boxes like sardines, transit fares covered 33% percent of the operational costs instead of today’s 20%, transit busses pulled over to the curb and let other traffic pass when stopping for passengers, the middle class was strong and paid less of a share of their income to taxes than they do today, there was less traffic congestion, bicycle lanes and specialized infrastructure did not exist and therefore there was no need for a bicycle tax; all this sounds better than today.

Terry Parker: " I suppose you are one of those people who blame SUVs for the end of the ice age too."

I wonder if you can name ONE person who claims that.

I suspect that if you do, it's a straw man. They are always the easiest to win a debate with.

When faced with the realities of tax increment financing, Sam and Roland symbolically stick their fingers in their ears and yell, "La,la,,la,la...." They obviously don't care how detrimental their schemes are to Portland's tax base, just as long as their New Urbanist visions are seen to fruition.

And, BTW Oregon's federal tax "contributions" are on a one to one ratio. Meaning, for every dollar we sent to DC, we get a dollar back.

Basically, Oregon is paying for this boondoggle themselves.

Actually, Chris, it's not true that Oregon receives 1 federal tax dollar for every 1 it pays.

For most of recent history, we have gotten less than one dollar from the federal government for every 1 that we've paid.

This changed last fiscal year, when Oregon for the first time in recent memory received *more* than 1 dollar for every one it paid the federal government.

Also, to suggest that Sam and I are blind to the costs associated with TIF is simply false. We understand the costs, but also the benefits- the maximization of Portland's tax base over the long term.

Just because we have a long-term view of Portland's tax base doesn't mean we are unaware of the short-term effects.

All it means is that we are not short-sighted.

“Also, to suggest that Sam and I are blind to the costs associated with TIF is simply false. We understand the costs, but also the benefits- the maximization of Portland's tax base over the long term.”

Long term? 40 years, 50 years, a lifetime before many properties are added to the tax base. Keep extending the times and indebtedness for UR districts and no one here today paying high taxes to make up the difference and fill the void will be around to see the benefits. For retirees, people on fixed incomes and those just getting by from pay check to pay check, the future is NOW, not a tomorrow that never comes. The developers however just keep getting richer and richer on the taxpayer's dollar.

Terry Parker Long term? 40 years, 50 years, a lifetime before many properties are added to the tax base. Keep extending the times and indebtedness for UR districts and no one here today paying high taxes to make up the difference and fill the void will be around to see the benefits.
JK: Actually it is even worse than that: adjust that money tree that starts in FIFTY years into today’s dollars and it’s present value is cents on the dollar. I think it unlikely that any amount of taxes beginning fifty years out will ever make up the costs paid up front in today’s dollars. Rolland, why not talk to someone in the city budget department about this question. Just look at the next 100 years in net present value and see when the cash stream turn positive. Don’t let them forget to add in the cost of city services consumed by the residents of the district. Ask for an honest, unbiased, analysis (unlike those coming from PDC). Please let us know what you find.

Thanks
JK

Actually you're wrong, Roland. Oregon hasn't received less than $0.90 on the dollar from the feds since 1981. In the past 10 years we've averaged around $0.97 on the dollar. OTOH, Connecticut has averaged around $0.68 on the dollar for the past 10 years. I'd say Oregon gets about a 1:1 ratio and a pretty good deal.

From here (gleaned from US Census data):

http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/ftsbs-timeseries-20060316.pdf

Sounds like you need to do your homework, Roland. That, or you're intentionally trying to mislead the public.

Also, since when is 10-20 years "short term?" That's a whole generation of kids receiving an underfunded education and basic services.

When did I say we got less than $.90 on the dollar?

We got less than a dollar per dollar for the past ten years (yes, 97 cents on the dollar is less than a one-to-one ratio, and when you are talking about millions and billions of dollars, that 3 cents does make a big difference) - whereas this past year we got more from the federal government than we paid - something that hasn't happenned in a very, very long time.

I'm not misleading anyone; your numbers support my original (truthful) claim!!

whatever Roland. You want to split hairs, go ahead. The fact remains, Oregon *basically* gets back a dollar for every dollar in federal taxes. All these 'federal funds' Portland has received over the last 10 years for MAX and the streetcar ARE Oregonians local tax dollars -- the financial burden these boondoggles carry are Oregonian's and Oregonian's alone.

So please quit with the federal funds canard. These Urban Renewal projects not only siphon off local property taxes, but spend our federal fund contributions as well.

But Roland was correct and truthful. You're arguing over degrees, not correctness. First you wrote "Actually you're wrong, Roland", and when he challenged you on that, you moved on to "whatever Roland. You want to split hairs, go ahead."

Classy.

- Bob R.

is the fact Sam, Roland and Co. try to pull the wool over the taxpayers' eyes by continually bringing up the federal funds subject. They obfuscate the painful reality that Oregon alone is paying for these projects, not Oregon AND the rest of the country.

Lenny A couplet by itself is an urban freeway that nobody wants
JK: Speak for yourself, mobility hater. I like freeways, urban or not - they improve our standard of living by making transportation more efficient. Why is Portland into efficient land use, but not efficient transportation?

Lenny add the streetcar and you have a beautiful boulevard fit for a civilized city.
JK: You mean like the typical LOW INCOME European city with a lower standard of living then we have?

Thanks
JK

Jim,

You lose absolutely all of any credibility you *might* have when you throw those sorts of names out.

Mobility hater??? C'mon. Give me a break! Aren't you always saying that you are being attacked pn this blog and that people are not talking in the language of facts? What do you call that type of name calling you just engaged in?

Let's keep the tone of this site at least somewhat decent.

Just because Lenny isnt as auto-centric as you doesn't mean he hates mobility.

Hi, Roland!
Any chance of getting meaningful cost figures for the streetcar, ie: cost per passenger-mile with and without construction cost. And annual passenger-miles so that we can check the calculations. Or average trip length, since the # of tips is published.

Did Trimet come up with the lowst cost bus line cost vs. MAX costs yet?

Thanks
JK

JK -

You use the phrase "standard of living" a lot without defining it... this can be quite subjective and can vary from organization to organization. What does the term mean to you?

To me, standard of living encompasses as mix of:

* Buying power of net personal income (this is used in a lot of definitions, but should not be the sole definition in my opinion)
* Cost of medical care and medical insurance.
* Lifespan.
* Infant Mortality.
* Cost of housing.
* Cost of necessary transportation. (To work, to acquire necessary goods and services.)
* Air and water quality.
* Job security / ability to redress grievances.
* Basic human rights issues - free press - equality - access to court representation, etc.

On some of those measures, the USA scores well, but not always #1 and not well for all measures. Depending on the mix of factors in a definition of "quality of life", western European countries can score higher than the USA.

- Bob R.

Lyle -

West Burnside, except for a couple of blocks at the foot of the bridge, _currently_ has two westbound lanes and no room for bus pullouts. Buses in the right lane stop in front of traffic today.

Shifting the traffic to two lanes on couch does not decrease the overall lane capacity (for most of the proposal), and putting a streetcar into the mix doesn't change the situation of transit stopping in the travel lane. Streetcars, however, board faster than buses because of multiple boarding doors and a fare payment system that does not involved the driver. Now, I'm not sold on the need for a streetcar on Burnside, but I don't believe that having one would make the situation worse for cars.

Further, by switching to a couplet AND by adding timed signals at every intersection, speeding is reduced _but_ overall throughput is _increased_ because you face fewer red lights on a one-way grid than on a two-way street. The recent study of the couple idea showed that the end-to-end travel time for autos will be reduced by up to 5 minutes, even though overall vehicle speeds when moving will be slightly slower.

Thus, Burnside gets a LOT better for pedestrians, while Couch gets moderately worse, but not nearly as bad as Burnside today. It is a NET GAIN for all users, including autos. And, if you've ever wanted to make LEFT TURNS from Burnside instead of three right turns, you'll be a lot happier. If your auto trips frequently take you in the N-S direction across Burnside, wait times for a green light will be dramatically reduced.

- Bob R.

“West Burnside, except for a couple of blocks at the foot of the bridge, _currently_ has two westbound lanes and no room for bus pullouts. Buses in the right lane stop in front of traffic today”

This is why busses should be rerouted and removed from Burnside. The City promotes walking. but apparently it doesn’t apply downtown when transit must stop at just about everybody’s doorstep, and where Fareless Square makes the ride totally subsidized. It is like there are two Portlands - downtown and the rest of the City. Furthermore, sidewalks scaled to the size of a pedestrian freeway designed to meet total demand at rush hour are not needed on Burnside. There is no parking on the upper under any plan and therefore no real demand. There is however plenty of extra pedestrian capacity on Couch Street to fill and and all future pedestrian needs including enough for all through pedestrian traffic.

Bob R.-

You are misinterpreting my point. I am not arguing whether overall vehicle trips now using Burnside would not be improved by spreading the load on to other streets (Couch). I also don't argue that the streetcar is an excellent means of moving people.

What I do find problematic is that we are willing to consider a solution that will come at the expense of a very successful mixed-use district which offers a high functioning pedestrian environment. Even if what you say, "while Couch gets moderately worse, but not nearly as bad as Burnside today" is true (and I believe it will be significantly worse) that is not good enough. It is hard to establish good pedestrian-friendly mixed use environments like this one and I am sad to see that this project threatens to take away this success for the sake of through traffic.

Lovejoy was completely reconfigured for the streetcar with the removal of the viaduct, plus the addition of thousands of new residents in a short period of time, which both have an impact on traffic. Lovejoy also has only one lane per direction... and because Lovejoy is a two-way street, signal timing cannot be set to move smoothly with the grid.

My point is that streetcar service on Burnside would have less of an impact on traffic, because Burnside today is essentially configured today with buses the same way it would be configured with streetcars. Today, buses do not pull out of the way of cares - they can't, there is no room. Thus, converting to streetcar will not cause additional delay, and in fact may improve the situation due to faster boarding.

- Bob R.

NW Portland has dozens of through streets in which you (surprise!) don't have to follow the streetcar from stop sign to stop sign. Anyone who is dumb enough to poke along eastbound on Lovejoy behind the streetcar deserves to be stuck in traffic. Particularly when you can take Kearney and Johnson, which don't have as many stops, to travel the same route at a faster speed!

Do you think the folks living on Kearney and Johnson appreciate becoming your streetcar bypass?

Maybe the property owners of SE Ankeny, SE Ash, and SE Pine Streets should be compensated for the additional traffic from all those "smart enough" people using their streets to avoid the Burnside Bottleneck.

Zook, I agree with Bruce, I thought PDOT tries to discourage secondary/non arterial streets from becoming arterial streets. You must not be a Portland Planner who looks out for those who live on "neighborhood streets"-tongue in cheek. They like to spend millions of dollars on "traffic calming" while actually contributing to the cause for need for "traffic calming"

The theory of PDOT is to spread the massive traffic congestion occuring and to increase traffic to other streets, including "neighborhood streets" such as they are doing with NW Couch and SW Corbett. We won't notice, will we? They are hoping to delay the "rebellion" that will come some day soon.

Rail transit does not attract private investment; urban renewal/tax breaks/back room land giveaways/and other schemes attracts private investment.