BLOG: Fixed Costs on Tram Contracts and More Funding for Affordable Housing, Parks and Transportation Are Reasons Why I Voted t

Fixed price contract. Cool. Too bad nobody thought of that earlier in the negotiations.

Does that include a money back guarantee if it doesn't fly?

Thank you Sam for making the hard choices and doing the right thing. There certainly will be people on here screaming at you, and now probably me, however I don't believe the city had a cheaper option even without weighing in the economic hit the city would have had to take because of failing to complete the tram and lawsuits that would follow. Past councils, mayors, and PDC staff should have demanded more, and I appreciate that you have introduced new safeguards to prevent this kind of embarrassing mishap from happening again.

I also appreciate your more open look at all aspects of the deal. Lord knows the Oregonian didn't give us that much insight. I can support this deal, having fixed cost so no additional surprises should be expected in the last 7 or 8 months of construction, is a relief. I am also pleased to see additional district improvements including the greenway and affordable housing.

Hopefully Portland can put this behind us as we watch an incredible new district rise, our economic prospects raise, and our higher education system grow stronger. I have full confidence that the vote I cast for you in 2004 was the right one. Thanks!

Sam, it has been over six months since the NMURAC requested a "true life cycle costing" for the tram. You and your staff promised these costs many months ago.

The costs would have been valuable to the Council's "deliberations" yesterday. The numbers still will be important for the future deliberations of the NMURAC, PDC Commission, and your council concerning the 5 year NM budget still under consideration; plus the longer term budget for NM.

The projected $250M+ life cycle cost (it keeps going up as the hard costs go up) is important in trying to manage the NM budget which is totally under/not funded in many of it's identified projects.

I think your bureau has a responsibility to get this cost out. It should have been provided many months ago.

Thanks Sam. For all my fans on this blog, here are my comments to Council...

Three reasons to build the Portland Aerial Tram

1. The

Sam, we don't need more jobs in Portland. We need better jobs; less hours, more pay, more fun, more beauty, less products of better character and quality that last longer. This will happen when less money flows out of the community and the majority of workers and when we focus on restoring, not destroying, our local environment. The construction of the towers on what you call SOWA (a market-driven, faux-intimate diminutive) will provide only dollar benefit to a small minority of already wealthy investors and builders. The rest of us would be better off financially, socially, and psychologically if that area were restored to wetlands. We will not see more funding of schools as a result of those buildings and more residents and businesses. We will not see more parkland per person as a result. We will not see more forests and farmland. We will not experience more solitude and quiet. We will not enjoy more of the creative arts. We will only get more traffic, more pollution, more poverty, higher costs of living, and more public expenditure. You don't compromise with the future.

The investment you tout as providing solution is only more of the same problem. What does it take for you and the rest our elected leaders to realize this? How much more human expansion and destruction must Oregon bear before we wake up?

Sam,

Personally, on this issue I have to agree with Commissioner Sten and believe the citizens of Portland could have received a better deal. Homer and his buddies, call it the Homer factor, are still on the City

In this case I don't hate to say - "Told ya so" cause I did and I knew that the tram would be built come hell or high water. I've been saying that ever since the city first agreed to it, even when 90% of those with a brain said that the price was too low. I said it when the price continued to grow, and guess what it's true.

Now for my next two predictions:
First, anyone living within the city limits will experience a rise in taxes. It may come in the form of fees, but it really will be more taxes. The cost of living in the city just went up (with the building of the tram). Second, more jobs will leave Portland (with more businesses leaving Portland) and more companies will be leaving Oregon. Let's see how long before these predictions come true (actually we won't have to wait all that long, folks).

Finally, I get a kick out of Mayor Taliban Tommy talking about how the tram will be an icon; an attraction that will bring folks far and wide to see this "attraction". What is the tram? A Disneyland ride? I really don't think a 90 second ride on a stupid tram that goes over a freeway is going to be the reason that someone will make sure that they vacation in Oregon (Portland in particular). This project was and is pork for developers and all the wishing, best intentions and assurances in the world will NOT make this deal a good thing for the average working Joe in Portland. It was and is a rich mans way to get to the hospital from a rich mans living quarters. Anyone who really believes differently needs a serious wakeup call.

Sam writes: "The bottom line is that we can either spend additional dollars to fund this package of neighborhood improvements, or we can spend additional dollars to fight in court. The choice is clear."

The choice is indeed clear, and it appears to me like you're making the right one. Thanks for making the tough choice.

Terry writes: "Is there any agreement with OHSU as to who will receive the good jobs? There should be!"

What is that - regional affirative action? When it comes to my health care, no thank you - the most qualified individual gets the job, regardless of where they come from.

Though I think the last thing we need is more advertising, I do agree with Terry that pursuing private sector ad revenue to help pay for the City's portion of the tram is a good idea.

Stephen:

Because the Tram crosses federal airspace (I-5), The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) prohibits all advertising that is not related to the owner/operator of the tram.

Commish Adams:

How is that airspace lease coming along: has it been submitted to FHWA yet?

It would be a crying shame to see the completion date delayed (not to mention all those specialists from Doppelmeyer standing around with nothing to do) because the Feds haven't signed off on the cable pulling plan or airspace lease.

I'm beginning to feel like PDOT doesn't want the public to know they've let the airspace lease slide until very recently.

^I'm sure Alice if they had somehow forgot a huge step in the process they appreciate your diligence in making sure this project gets completed smoothly and on time.

However, since you've mentioned it about 50 times on Portland blogs, I think they get the picture and have made the calls. Maybe they will even send you a complimentary ticket for a tram ride, saving the project and all...

As a low paid support position holder at OHSU and a crumb picker-upper, I'd like to say the crumbs OHSU gives to locals with little experience are enough to support a family of four on one income and include the best medical benefits in the state. The well paid research jobs will go to the most qualified applicants, as they should. If Portlanders want those jobs, they should get the education and experience they need and apply. Regardless, these highly paid professionals will bring tax revenue and this development will help launch Oregon's biotech industry. Personnaly, I am looking forward to only commuting 45 minutes instead of my current hour and a half bus ride. Thank you Commissioner Adams!

This was a tough decision that took political courage. It was the right decision for Portland. Thanks.

Could you please clarify your statement:

"...the private sector partners have guaranteed the tax-increment finance dollars needed to pay for these investments."

Does this mean that the LID that is already in place is going to increase?

Does this mean the future residents of South Waterfront are solely going to pay for the remaining tram funding?

From what I understood, the residents of South Waterfront will be paying for 14% of the tram through the LID. Has that percentage now increased?

Sam,

One more comment that just needs to be noted. The spending spree plan attached with the entire SoWa district demonstrates to me and many other Portlanders exactly what the top priorities of the City, the Mayor and the City Council are:

Mark: if you think I'm wrong about the airspace lease being delayed, perhaps you can persuade PDOT to provide a chronology of events.

When the public's business is conducted in private, the public is reduced to asking the same questions over and over again.

As for repeating the same comments in multiple blogs, you ought to look in the mirror.

Terry,

I appreciate the clarification. But still, those jobs - directly related to health care or not - should go to the most qualified individual. If that person is already a Portlander, great. If not - well, I think Evan said it best: "If Portlanders want those jobs, they should get the education and experience they need and apply."

Sam, it would be nice if you had explained in your voting speech that the funding for housing, parks, and transportation came from an increase in public dollars beyond the current $288M TIF maximum for NM.

But most importantly, the $38M increase is accomplished by issueing a second tax payers credit card-borrowing the money from the taxpayers GENERAL FUND. The city will have to borrow money on the open financial market and/or take money from other general fund requirements like police, fire, parks, street maintenance, etc.

This extra borrowing beyond the TIF is because North Macadam URD cannot generate enough tax dollars to pay for this Amendment 8 give-away (besides being $127M underfunded for all the other identified NM projects).

Secondly, as explained at the URAC meeting calling this a "fixed contract" is not exactly what the industry calls a "fixed contract". If there are "design changes" requested by the city then the cost can go up. The amendment 8 doesn't specify in good legal terms what constitutes
"design changes" and how and who determines if the "design changes" are caused/created by the city. In any project of this magnitude and complexity there will be "changes". Who's the arbritrator?

Plus, you have not mentioned all the prior "design changes" that have bare-boned the tram project to terminals without weather protection roofs, bathrooms, waiting areas, landscaping, etc.(value engineering). Now when these are maybe added back into the project, will these be counted as "design changes" and the public pays, but you can claim "we kept the price at $57.5M?

The Tram in all it's fiscal glory has become a smokescreen for the greater problem. SoWa is broke.
All of the infrastructure, transportation and public improvement projects are way over the amount budgeted in the approved SoWa plan.

http://www.pdc.us/pdf/dev_serv/pubs/dev_macadam_report.pdf

According to the PDC the TIF borrowing capacity has already been exceeded and the money spent. The PDC estimated that more TIF borrowing capacity would not arrive until FY 08/09.

They had no money to pick up the lagging far behind projects and deliver the Development Agreement improvements the city promised.

While everyone was distracted by the Tram the developers were threatening legal action if the city didn't deliver the other more costly projects.

The banner story here is how much the city promised in addition to the Tram, how far over budget all those projects are and they lack TIF capacity to pay for them. And there never will be enough.

http://www.pdc.us/pdf/about/commission_meeting/2006/0411/report-06-38.pdf
From Page 3
""""Failure to execute an Eighth Amendment as proposed will result in a delay in the development of affordable housing, parks, greenway, and economic development initiatives until additional tax increment financing
is developed in the Urban Renewal Area"""".

The so-called "new" TIF capacity is future speculation which does not increase today's TIF borrowing capacity.
So the city must borrow against the general fund.
From Page 2,
""""The Office of Management and Finance will be requested to provide resources (likely in the form of General Fund-secured lines of credit) to fund the projects and programs identified in the Eighth Amendment in advance of generation of North Macadam urban Renewal Area tax increment debt capacity.""""

also from page 2
"""The Eighth Amendment will significantly increase PDC's financial commitment to the South Waterfront Central District project and the Urban renewal district""""

No kidding.
The city is traveling way out on a limb again without telling the council or the public. The so-called "funding commitments secured by gap payment obligations" by NMI (North Macadam Investors) is a charade to create an illusion of increased TIF borrowing capacity and additional revenue. There is no security (real estate) behind these promises of future property tax revenues.
There is no new TIF revenue to provide added borrowing capacity or the increased debt service which is also soaring.

Within the public-private partnership called SoWa the city made reckless promises it could not afford or keep. They are now engaged in a two pronged effort of pyramid borrowing and suppression of the fiscal quagmire they have wrought.

If the city council believes there is "new" money, or new guarantees of added TIF sources they are victims of the same deceptions and misrepresentations they got with $15.5 million Tram price.

Where are the lessons learned?

Further troubling are the mounting unanswered questions regarding the federal I-5 airspace approval, a full life cycle cost estimate for the Tram, updated budgets for the South Waterfront plan, yearly reports on Urban Renewal impacts to basic services and other components rarely addressed by the PDC commissioners, URAC's or city council members.

More often than not these oversight entities are handed vague reports just prior to their voting on the content and meaning which has yet to be fully discussed or considered.

Long View and Now - Portland already has a much higher than normal number of "upper middle class" jobs.

If Portland wasn't so advantaged the Tram and other LRV, etc. projects wouldn't be getting done. It is tax money that pays for this stuff. Those "upper middle class" jobs are the ones who realy end up paying for this stuff.

Other than that, I'm glad someone finally noticed the development that occurs with streetcar development. :) That is awesome. I still think someone should have learned 120+ years ago with the fact that almost every city development was spreading right along with streetcar development.

With interstates and bus lines they all just shriveled up... and sprawled. :)

...needless to say,

Good Job Sam!!! Keep up the good work.

Adron, developments followed streetcars 120 years ago because there were no cars and streetcars were the only transport beyond horse and buggy. To compare that to today is as silly as the claim made above.

I suspect Sam counts everything within two blocks of the Streetcar line as "fostered" by the Streetcar.

We'd have to know whether development would have occurred without the Streetcar--which we could probably figure out by comparing most similar areas which are farther away.

I suspect the Streetcar, like the Tram, is not a linchpin at all.

Read today's story in the O about Beaverton. That is the much more likely path of development, even as the powers that be in Portland resist (and lost middle class residents as a result).

john-

when streetcar goes in, development follows. Businesses sprout up around the line where they didn't exist before. This is not some antiquated horse & buggy historical argument- it is happening now - in SoWa, the Pearl, and along lightrail lines, as well, like Interstate, Beaverton, etc.

John is correct that in the heyday of streetcars and interurbans new lines promoted development. In those days, the systems were privately owned and often the railway companies owned property to where the tracks were extended. The companies made a profit on both the transit service and selling the land for development.

Things have changed a lot in the last 100 years. Instead of the private sector taking the risk for development, today it is done with taxpayer funds. The linchpin to developments in the South Waterfront, the Pearl District and along both Max corridors and the street car line are do to the tax breaks, tax abatements and publicly subsidized land. The tram only plays a roll with the new (property tax free) OHSU facilitates Taxpayers not only subsidize both the construction and operations for people movers such as the tram, Max and the trolley, but also heavily subsidize the majority of development that occurs supposedly due to their existence. Politicians way too often leave out the public subsidy to development when they attempt to claim it is the infrastructure that supports the development. It is public tax dollars that support and subsidize the development, period.

Jacob, maybe you are not aware of the mass transit tax abatement programs that are provided for mass transit development that occurs along and even several blocks away from mass transit.

This doesn't include all the other tax abatements, tax subsidies, loan programs through PDC or Trimet that "induces" these projects along mass transit. Even with these inducements, there are several URDs and whole segments along mass transit that seem to ignore the incentives-like Cascade, Beaverton Round, Martin Luther King, N. Portland, etc.

Terry-

I understand your line of reasoning, but I think that you are wrong on the facts. The tram and streetcar played a huge -and essential- role in stimulating the investment in housing, retail, and office/research space in the South Waterfront.

That is why OHSU ate the vast majority of the cost overruns and overall cost of the tram, and why NMI and the other private interests involved were so adamant that it be completed; the investment community knew that these public transit investments were essential to the vitality of the nascent district.

And it is important to note that the $2 billion in private investment was secured a long time ago when the tram cost estimates were still very low and the amount that the city was on the hook for was just $3.5 million.

The point here is that relatively small amount of the city's future property tax dollars (TIF funds) were able to leverage over $2 billion in private investment. While the city has had to put more money into the pot recently to complete the public works (which as a package include greenway, parks, roadways, transit, and affordable housing), the investors were there from the get-go when the price tag of those things were still small.

The investment speaks for itself; while I understand the upset that people have about the foregone property tax revenue that is entailed by the city picking up more of the cost of the tram, those were dollars that we wouldn't have had were it not for the development. The process has indeed been flawed, but to say that an $8.5 million dollar city contribution for parks, affordable housing, transit, roads and a greenway is somehow a huge public subsidy to $2 billion in private investment on a formerly contaminated and vacant industrial site (which is something like 4% of the total project cost), I think is a stretch.

And denying the role transit plays in this and other urban development projects is hard to do, as well.

- Roland

And touching on the concerns of a few other bloggers -

Bob - tax increment financing (TIF) is basically a way to dedicate future property taxes to today's projects. Local improvement district (LID) funds come from a levy that property owners agree to pay for a specific public project that benefits them. So the short answer is: no, there will not be an increase in the LID. It is capped, and is not moving.

Jerry-

We are working on a life cycle analysis; unfortunately, our limited staff has been tied up in solving near-term problems, such as funding, negotiating new agreements with the contractors, auditing the construction of the project, and actually building the darned thing. I apologize that we don't have that; rest assured that as soon as we can perform and release such an analysis, we will.

Long View -

I agree with you - Americans on the whole need to work a shorter work week and take longer vacations; all too often we work to the detriment of our personal and familial wellbeing. Physical health, mental health, and family time should not take a back seat to keep up with the Jones'. That said, there are still a lot of unemployed, underemployed, and impoverished people who could definitely benefit from more economic opportunities. As a city commissioner, Sam can do a lot more to foster the latter than he can the former.

Roland,

As I understand the concept of urban renewal districts, not a dime of property tax dollars on this 2 billion dollar investment will go to police and fire services or to our schools for years to come. It won

Terry-

To be fair, I think one needs to admit that paying for development today with that development's future taxes cannot be construed as "siphoning off public funds" - for the simple reason that those funds wouldn't even exist in the future if they weren't put towards the economic development/urban renewal goals you criticize.

While the City of Portland will be waiting a bit longer to collect those taxes, we are growing the tax base and will reap new revenue that would not have existed otherwise. It is fair to question the length of time we defer collecting those taxes, but to say that we are taking money away from vital public services is a stretch.

And yes - we do have a lot of needs today that need to be attended to. But the reality is that the SoWa development is not exacerbating the problem since, again, those are tax dollars that aren't in city coffers right now (so they aren't being "diverted").

And at risk of sounding like a broken record, LID funds are contributions agreed to by property owners in particular neighborhoods for specific infrastructure projects; by law and design, they cannot go to schools, police or other social services.

"The process has indeed been flawed, but to say that an $8.5 million dollar city contribution for parks, affordable housing, transit, roads and a greenway is somehow a huge public subsidy to $2 billion in private investment on a formerly contaminated and vacant industrial site (which is something like 4% of the total project cost), I think is a stretch."

Well said, Roland!

"...While the City of Portland will be waiting a bit longer to collect those taxes, we are growing the tax base and will reap new revenue that would not have existed otherwise."

Problem is Roland, you -don't- have concrete evidence of this. Urban Renewal proponents keep uttering this mantra with no facts to back it up. Where's the required yearly impact report from the PDC? The City Club study, the most comprehensive and unbiased to date, could not quantify the financial benefits of urban renewal. There's absolutely no quantifiable evidence that NM would not have been developed without subsidy.

NM could have been privately funded and developed. Properties would be contributing to tax rolls right now, instead of 10 to 20 years.

I think it's misleading for Sam Adams and Co. to keep pushing UR tax benefits when it's really nothing more than a theory.

Only $8.5 million (city contribution) for parks, affordable housing, transit, roads, a greenway and $2 billion in private investment.

Good deal!

Roland: you're beginning to sound like the Kool-Aid Man.

The existing businesses within the district (like Zidell Marine) are being asked to pay for the LID, despite the fact their employees are unlikely to use the Tram. Is that fair? It sounds to me like they're trying to force a "down zoning" of the industrial property by making it too expensive to build anything but condos on that property.

Plus, all of their future increases in property taxes (due to inflation, or if Zidell decided to improve the property) would be diverted to TIF financing, rather than going into the general fund.

Roland, sorry to have to say this like you said to Terry: "but I think that you are wrong on the facts."

Your quote-"the tram and street car played a huge-and essential-role in stimulating the investment in housing, retail and office/research space in South Watefront".

Maybe you have your "tenses" wrong concerning "played". There has not been any research or retail space that has come to NM. As PDC's Larry Brown admitted today at the NM URAC Budget Subcommittee meeting, there has not been one research/bio-tech company that has come to PDC with interest in NM, nor has there been one such company in the doctor's funded OHSU Health Club building nearing completion.

"OHSU ate the vast majority of the cost overruns and overll cost of the tram..."

Even your boss Adams stated two months ago that there were over $11M in direct taxpayer cost for the tram (Oregonian Commentary). Now, add in the $5M that Council added last week-$16M. That is 30% of the tram cost per Adam's calculations. But the real calculations of taxpayer's cost as I and others have posted is much higher. Taxpayer costs is at least $36M: land, financing, design competition, permit fee reductions, LID subsidy, etc. Sorry to have to write it again.

"2 billion in private investment was secured a long time ago when the tram costs...was just $3.5M."

Another "tense" problem. $2 billion has not been "secured a long time ago"-its not even close. What is factual is that the total TIF dollars (taxpayer dollars) allowed for NM is $288M. That has been increased by an additional $35M by City Council last week by a taxpayer loan to NM URD-see Amendment 8. (This isn't even including the additional $2M from the Parks Department general budget for the park)

The City (taxpayers) are having to borrow the $35M from commercial banks to continue NM URD because it is broke-not enough TIF dollars coming in to even pay part of the NM identified projects. As PDC staff said today, the taxpayers borrowing will be maybe for five years, and staff didn't know what the interest rate we will be paying. And that is an additional cost to the $35M-that could be $8.5M plus for just a five year loan out of the taxpayer's pocket.

This gets to your quote "relatively small amount of the citys future property tax dollars (TIF funds) were able to leverage over $2 billion in private investment."

I don't think most taxpayers find $288M in TIF (NM Agreement) plus the interest/financing costs over just a 20 year (likely more)period of approx. $300M totaling at least $600M of taxpayers dollars to leverage "$2 billion" or even $6 billion is a "relatively small amount".

And I am not even including all the federal, state, ODOT, etc. tax dollars spent and coming into NM-and those are taxpayer dollars too.

"...an 8.5M dollar city contribution for parks, affordable housing, transit, roads and a greenway is somehow a huge public subsidy to $2B in private investment...I think is a stretch."

Your numbers are wrong. Approximate taxpayer investments according to the NM recent budget is: Parks-$21M; affordable housing-$26M; transit (tram/trolley)-$77M; roads-$10M; and greenway-$36M. Grand Total: $170M-not $8.5M as you state. And that isn't even adding in the financing costs, inflation factors, etc. PDC doesn't even list the financing costs in the budget.

"short answer is:no, there will not be an increase in the LID. It is capped and is not moving."

LIDs can be increased. Also what is not said is that in the latest Amendment 7 OHSU will be forming another LID just to build their parking garage with subsidized taxpayer's low interest rate- bonded by the taxpayers. Plus, there has been talk of possibly needing to form additional LID(s) consisting of future condo, property owners in NM to pay for the NM Agreement projects that are unfunded or underfunded.

Roland, I hope that our public officials/staff will present both sides of issues with fairness, and not present only one side of the issues. The other point of view from yours of NM URD and the tram issue has been presented fairly and should be at least acknowledged and not misconstrued.

And I apologize for any numbers that I might have misquoted because I didn't have time to pull out every single data on this issue, plus it is late.

Some guarantee.
From the O today it appears the loop hole, (low market value threshold)in the Amendment 8 NMI guarantee of future property taxes, is so big that there is no possible way for the city to either get a check cut or take any land should the TIF projection not be realized.
The guarantee that guarantees nothing.

What exactly is the observing public supposed to think of such an agreement?

Or, better yet, did PDC staff withhold this loop hole from PDC commissioners, URAC and City Council?

That's reminiscent of the $15.5 million Tram price fiasco.

Among other concerns is the inability
of URAC members and taxpaying bloggers to get answers to simple yet germane questions.

There are many unasnwered budget questions endlessly floundering but I find it amazing that the simple inquiries about the Federal approval of the Tram over I-5 are met with silence.

It is unfathomable that the PDC, PDOT and transportation commissioner Adams do not know the status of this approval.

What is the public supposed to think of that status being withheld from the public?

Yes, LID's can be raised, but this one is capped, and it is not going to be raised.

The Oregonian article commenting on the possibility that original TIF projections may be missed points out that if the target isn't reached, it will only be by a small amount - $546,719 over 2 years.

Will Portland's Aerial Tram include a "rescue gondola" like the NYPD used (yesterday) to save 69 people stuck on the Roosevelt Tram?

^From my understanding Alice, this was the first accident involving the Roosevelt Island Aerial Tram since it opened in 1976. Pretty good record I'd say, especially for a 30 year old system.

Comparing car, flight, bus and boat safety data with the Roosevelt Island Aerial Tram might actually provide you with insight into how safe that operation has actually been.

Portland's tram will have 2 back-up power sources (3 total, and 1 more than NY's). These are the normal power, an OHSU generator in Building 1, and a deisel powered generator on the car itself.

There are additional rescue contigency plans, as well. There is an emergency exit that would allow the Fire Dept to get everyone out of any stalled car, - something which would be highly unlikely.

Think about it in simple terms, all the new property taxes assessed on the new upscale condominiums in the South Waterfront pay only for infrastructure within that urban renewal district. All the people that will be living in those new condominiums require additional City services, but don

80 know how tram jam feels

BY CARRIE MELAGO
DAILY NEWS POLICE BUREAU

The high-altitude ordeal on the Roosevelt Island Tramway last night was unimaginable for most New Yorkers -but not for more than 80 who went through the same thing last year.
Two gondolas were similarly trapped above the East River on September 2, 2005 when a power outage shut down the system.

December 2001
American Tramways, under contract by RIOC, lays off Tramway staff after cutting a replacement haul cable eight feet too short. It is the start of a long shutdown that will extend well into 2002. The Tramway operator, American Tramways, asks the State Department of Labor to allow use of the shortened cable with a different attachment system, but DOL refuses to act. In late February, 2002, American Tramways President Red Blomer tells a RIOC Board meeting that he has already ordered a replacement cable, ending the crisis.

February 1998
A construction crane working on the Queensboro Bridge hits a Tram cabin.

Roosevelt Tram to Stay Shut While Mishap Is Investigated
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: July 26, 1989
The tramway linking Roosevelt Island to Manhattan will remain shut for a few days while officials investigate whether an electrical failure caused two cabins to ram their berths on Sunday, causing minor injuries.

Sam, I am totally disappointed in you for going along with this boondoggle that should have been laughed out of the room the first time the NM mafia proposed it. Note in coverage of the Roosevelt Island tram failure today that it is described as the only one in the US. If it is such a good idea, why aren't others doing it? How much is it going to cost to rescue the riders everytime this thing hiccups. One in NYC is reported to hiccup about once a year. What will it cost to equip and train the Fire Bureau to extract people from this thing on those festive occasions when it shuts down?

I have no doubt whatsoever that the life cycle cost numbers are still "draft" because the annual operating costs, especially all the electric power this thing is going to suck up, and all the fancy maintenance that nobody else in the US but those Roosevelt Island mechanics know how to do, are going to be totally off the charts. There's going to be a WOW factor on this alright.

Buckle your seatbelts everyone. The ride has hardly begun on this one!!

Roland: on a formerly contaminated and vacant industrial site

Roland: - for the simple reason that those funds wouldn't even exist in the future if they weren't put towards the economic development/urban renewal goals you criticize.

Chris McMullen | : NM could have been privately funded and developed. Properties would be contributing to tax rolls right now, instead of 10 to 20 years.

Here is the data, guys (Brainstorm, March 2002):
Vera's Portland The City That Shrinks:

Ken Novack, CEO of the Schnitzer Group, has been trying since 1993 to get the city

Roland:

I suggest you check your facts: it would be very unusual if the diesel generator mounted on the tram itself was intended to provide transit power; rather, it is simply designed to power the tram's lighting and climate control systems.

That said, triple redundancy on the power supply (two distinct electric service trunks, plus a back-up generator) is a fine idea. Unless, of course, the cause of a future tram stranding has nothing to do with the power supply.

For example: what happens if the gearbox fails, or something causes the cable to "jam"? That's not a problem that can be fixed with back-up power.

I have a real hard time believing that PFD is going to use ropes to lower a couple of dozen people down through the tree tops. Call me a skeptic.

I certainly hope the Tram never suffers anything like what the Roosevelt Island Tram experienced yesterday. That said, contingency planning usually requires that we plan for the unexpected; rather than expecting what we planned.

Here is another one (Tribune, Tue, Feb 24, 2004):
Zidell tries to stay the course:

Long before the Portland Development Commission and Homer Williams cast their eyes on the waterfront parcel just off Southwest Gibbs Street, the Zidells and the Schnitzer family had their own development plans. They wanted to build residential housing on 47 acres -- 17 of them owned by the Schnitzers. But the city rejected the plan, saying the proposed density levels were insufficient.
Then Williams arrived on the scene.
Williams worked with Oregon Health & Science University and the development agency to craft the ambitious plan that's now in place, projecting a neighborhood of expensive condominiums, shops and medical laboratory buildings.

Thanks
JK

MarkDeMan: Is everything that Alice posted true? If it is, what was your source that this was the first accident?

From the April 20th New York Times article written by ANDREW JACOBS:

By the time the cage reached the first tram car

Page 7 of NORTH MACADAM URBAN RENEWAL AREA RETURN ON INVESTMENT (ROI)ANALYSIS UPDATE , prepared for the PDC, compares the present scheme to a base case. I have no idea if it is the one referenced in the two news articles, but it does show just how costly high density really is.
From the document, except as noted:

Base case
Public money: $3,342,000
Private money: $345,765,000
Multiplier: 103 times (JK Calculation)

Ongoing Public Revenue less Expenses:
Net positive due to combination of property and other tax revenues

2003 development Program
Public money: $219,020,000
Private money: $1,689,080,000
Multiplier: 7.7 times (JK calculation)

Ongoing Public Revenue less Expenses :
Net negative due to combination of significant institutional use and higher residential density

OOPS, for the second document listed, that is page 14 & 15 for the revenues and expenditures by year (cash flow.)

Page 17 lists the tax revenues diverted away from schools, Portland, Multnomah county and Metro.

Thanks
JK

And just to add insult to injury, people are fleeing big cities for the suburbs:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/F/FLEEING_BIG_CITIES?SITE=7219&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2006-04-20-00-15-40

How about when the cable ices up? Note how often MAX is closed for this. Then multiply by 3 to account for the colder microclimate on the shady side of Pill Hill.
-----------------
More detail on Roosevelt Island tram's hiccup.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-tram20apr20,1,1890531.story?coll=la-headlines-nation
From the Los Angeles Times
N.Y. Trams Investigated After Outage
From Newsday

April 20, 2006

NEW YORK

If we can't get a full life cycle cost, can we get one number? What is the consumed electric power cost of one, one way, SOWA to Pill Hill trip, at today's PGE rate? Thanks in advance.

Chris McMullen, Apr 20, 10:52:52 AM And just to add insult to injury, people are fleeing big cities for the suburbs:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/F/FLEEING_BIG_CITIES?SITE=7219&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2006-04-20-00-15-40

JK: Of curse this has been going on for about a century.

As soon as people could afford it, they got out of the overcrowded, diseased, polluted big cities for the suburbs. The limit has been cost of transportation. Horses were very expensive and few had them, so only the nobles had country homes. Later the streetcar allowed the riff raff (us!) to live a small distance outside the city. The advent of the private car finally gave us the freedom to live almost anywhere.

That is the history that Oregon is trying to stop and eventually turn around with its little Berlin wall around each city. Keeping the riff raff (us!!) out is why a winery put up most of the money against measure 37 (another big chunk of money came from out of state

Thank you Sam -- This is a great moving forward for our city!

Much like China's GREAT LEAP forward.

cut and paste:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward

Airspace Lease?

Not all research benefits the public. This develpment includes more animal-based research at a time when its usefullness is increasingly in question. It's bad enough that public money on the federal and state level is wasted on white coat welfare, now the city is subsidizing useless animal research.