ISSUE UPDATE: Portland's Tram
Sam Adams
The Portland tram is over budget.
No one likes to deliver this kind of news. I recognize that many Portlanders struggle to meet their monthly household budgets. I seek to be frugal and value each public dollar under my oversight. I know that when the stated budget for any public project increases as much as this project has it undermines the trust you all place in city government.
As the newest Commissioner-in-Charge of the tram project, I am determined to be very open-book about why the costs are going up again, what we are doing about it and ask for your feedback and suggestions.
What led up to this problem?
I asked the Portland Office of Transportation to come up with a general history of the project.
In April 2005, City Council approved the contracts with an estimated project cost of $40 million. The City had an independent cost estimator under contract at the time of this City Council action. I am investigating whether or not they should have better predicted the cost overruns we are now facing.
The Architectural Team completed final design in August, 2005 and the contractor, Kiewit Pacific Company, sent out request for bids on the steel and other key items in late August/early September.
The bid prices we received were significantly higher than the estimates contained in the April, 2005 contract with Kiewit Pacific.
The increased costs were primarily associated with line item costs for structural steel, drilled shafts, site excavation and structural concrete – the four items that are the most critical structurally, and the most difficult to construct.
Why did these cost overruns happen?
What we have been told by our contractors: Upward cost pressures come from China’s ongoing voracious appetite for steel, a “hotly competitive” local construction market, and since April, oil price spikes caused by world events and 3 hurricanes.
We do know from our own surveys that we are not alone feeling construction price spikes; Bids on other city, county, and state transportation projects between 15 and 30 percent over the project estimates.
What we are doing to control costs.
This project must move forward. Without the Portland tram, we risk losing hundreds of family wage jobs at Oregon Health Sciences University. Without the tram City government, will be liable for potential damages.
I do not want this tram to look like a ugly ski lift at a bad ski resort, but I believe we can cut up to
$800,000 from the Overall Tram Budget while maintaining architectural design integrity.
As you can see from the attached budget summary, that leaves an estimated $2.1 Million shortfall to complete the project.
Given the difficulty of this project, I cannot guarantee against more surprises. Trams do not come off assembly conveyor lines. So, I want to keep $3.4 Million in contingency.
Having said that, I do not want to pay one penny more than we have to for this project. We will publicly account for each dollar, and if we do not use the contingency, we will return it.
I am working with the City Commission, City staff and the Portland Aerial Tram Inc (PATI) Board to manage the cost increases, as well as to seek additional funds.
One small bright note, as you can read from the attached history of the project's funding; the taxpayers costs have thus far DECREASED even though the cost of the project has increased. Oregon Health Sciences University has picked up the bulk of the tram cost increases to date.
- Sam
Posted by Sam Adams on October 28, 2005
(35) Comments | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Filed Under Downtown Portland, Economic Dashboard, Front Page, Southwest Portland, Tram, Transportation
Comments by site visitors
In the case of the Tram, OHSU's Kohler , Mayor Katz and others mistakenly and deceptively cast it as vital to OHSU's expansion and job creation.
That vitality and the forecast of biotech expansion and job creation is barely more than fabrication.
This we know.
Not only is OHSU far behind many locales in the national competition for biosciences dollars and jobs but a growing international biosciences sector is shifting much of the research overseas.
The remaining build for the sake of building panic at OHSU and the City will be hindering our local economy and revenue sources far more than helping.
The Tram and other boondoggles (Burnisde grid, and CC Hotel)MUST be reigned in.
Now more than ever Leadership is in high demand.
Posted by: Steve Schopp | Oct 28, 2005 8:32:04 AM
Sam,
I hope some of this new awareness can be applied to the only true Mega-project on the horizon...the Columbia River Crossing. Now that will burn up a lot of public money, dump more cars onto already crowded Portland streets and maybe save Clark county commuters five minutes.
Posted by: Lenny Anderson | Oct 28, 2005 9:04:48 AM
The "already crowded public streets" is a product of the status quo Lenny Represents.
The biggest waste of money with no public benefit would be to continue light rail and the transit mall.
The needs of commerce, freight, goods and services, along with commuters demands sound investments in real vehicular and freight rail transportation improvements.
The irrational and blind pretense that roads, thoroughfares and freeways serve only self centered SUV drivers and lazy commuters has spawned a steady stream of poor investments and a crippled region wide transportation system.
Not to mention the far better bus system we could have if wise spending and sound policies were the norm.
Dump the TOD's, smart growth, traffic calming, bubble curbs, streetscapes on structions on thoroughfares, and light rail.
Get back to basics and genuine "traffic' engineering.
Cut the PDC in half and get rid of Metro.
Their failing to plan for growth needs is effectivley planning to fail.
Who needs that?
Posted by: Steve Schopp | Oct 28, 2005 10:11:30 AM
Let's keep in mind that 2/3s of the cost of the Tram is covered by OHSU, with a lot of the balance from Tax Increment Funds generated by OHSU's and other's investment in the South Waterfront URA. Don't know the precise breakdown. What is it?
I don't know of any other transportation/development project where those who can expect to gain the most are putting up so much of the money.
And bottom line is the entire region gains when its largest employer succeeds and grows; I would think everyone would want this. Investments in knowledge based endeavors are the best an individual or a community can make to insure their economic wellbeing.
Not to mention that OHSU is the provider of health care to a large segment of our community, especially the uninsured. Let's cut them a little slack on this project.
PS While OHSU does not pay property taxes, its employees sure do.
Posted by: Lenny Anderson | Oct 28, 2005 10:58:04 AM
Lenny Anderson | Oct 28, 2005 9:04:48 AM
Sam,
I hope some of this new awareness can be applied to the only true Mega-project on the horizon...the Columbia River Crossing. Now that will burn up a lot of public money, dump more cars onto already crowded Portland streets and maybe save Clark county commuters five minutes.
JK:
As to burning up money on the Columbia crossing: as a member of the I-5 task force Lenny voted in favor of spending over a billion dollars to build light rail to Vancouver, even though, according to Metro and consultants estimates, 82% of the rail riders would ride a bus system. The incremental cost of the rail option, over bus, was almost $500,000 per evening rush hour rider across the river.. This can be found at www.I-5partnership.com/reports/q3.html (You have to do the math from their data.)
(I hope this bit of history is not considered personal, it is all public record and official actions and gives a background on the present argument.)
As to dumping cars into crowded Portland streets:
1. That shows that we need more road capacity in Portland, not less.
2. The number of cars probably will not change much, they will just waste less time getting to Portland.
3. Many of these cars are going THROUGH Portland and those could be routed away form Portland with a new route from Washington to the Beaverton area.
Thanks
JK
(Who is not paid by anyone in the field of transportation, planning or any related field.)
Posted by: jim karlock | Oct 28, 2005 4:17:57 PM
Lenny Anderson | Oct 28, 2005 10:58:04 AM
Let's keep in mind that 2/3s of the cost of the Tram is covered by OHSU,
JK:
Much of which is tax money
Lenny Anderson | Oct 28, 2005 10:58:04 AM
with a lot of the balance from Tax Increment Funds generated by OHSU's and other's investment in the South Waterfront URA. Don't know the precise breakdown. What is it?
JK:
TIF denies the tax money to the rest of the city. IT IS NOT SUDDENLY FOUND MONEY. The rest of the city has to pay for the services to the TIF areas, with tax increases or less services.
Lenny Anderson | Oct 28, 2005 10:58:04 AM
I don't know of any other transportation/development project where those who can expect to gain the most are putting up so much of the money.
JK:
Roads.
Roads are well over 90% paid for by the users in the form of user fees. (Unlike transit which is overwhelmingly paid for by non-users.)
Lenny Anderson | Oct 28, 2005 10:58:04 AM
And bottom line is the entire region gains when its largest employer succeeds and grows; I would think everyone would want this. Investments in knowledge based endeavors are the best an individual or a community can make to insure their economic wellbeing.
Not to mention that OHSU is the provider of health care to a large segment of our community, especially the uninsured. Let's cut them a little slack on this project.
PS While OHSU does not pay property taxes, its employees sure do.
JK:
Are you saying that we should give special support to the big guys?
Do you include Enron and Halaberton on you list of big guys worthy of special treatment?
Thanks
JK
(Who is not paid by anyone in the field of transportation, planning or any related field.)
Posted by: jim karlock | Oct 28, 2005 4:29:15 PM
I appreciate your diligence, but a lot of this is explaining how the hole got so deep. There is nothing on how we plan on filling the hole or preventing new money sinks (CC Hotel, PGE Park) in the future.
Do you plan on telling which parties were responsible for mis-representing this project from $15M to $45M (please spare us the expensive steel stories which cannot cost $30M.)
Posted by: Steve | Oct 28, 2005 5:09:00 PM
Sam, why don't you post (in a pdf file) a copy of the contract that requires the city to deliver the tram or else pay penalties? It would be interesting to read the precise language that your former employer signed when she gave away the candy store to Neil and Homer.
As for "OHSU will move to Hillsboro," you guys are some lousy poker players. Anyone who thinks the rich West Hills docs of OHSU are going to fight their way out the Sunset Highway and back four or five days a week is a poor student of human nature. The city should have called their bluff. Instead you went all-in.
This thing will cost $50 or $60 million. And who will pay to operate it? Two-thirds Tri-Met, one-third the city -- like the streetcar? The insurance alone on this beast is going to be enough to suck the city's pothole funds dry.
Posted by: Jack Bog | Oct 29, 2005 4:59:34 AM
Sam,
re: Jack Bog's comment -- DITTO!
We need to know how much it will cost us to kill this stupid idea once and for all.
Thanks
JK
Posted by: jim karlock | Oct 29, 2005 6:09:11 AM
Lenny and others are horribly mistaken if they believe the Tram and OHSU current expansion is a sound venture.
This is where the rub is and they don't see it.
This is no time to "cut OHSU (or city leadership) some slack".
Yes, Lenny, "the entire region gains when its largest employer succeeds and grows".
Unfortunately there is little or nothing to show OHSU will benefit, succeed or grow because of the TRAM or SoWa.
In fact it may have been better for them to downsize, stabilize their cost structure and bolster their core missions before expanding. Let alone the crap shooting risky endeavor they have launched themselves into.
They may build another building or two but that does not translate into new preservation, new jobs, new revenue and successful growth.
At this point that is pure fantasy. Or as OHSU's own expert said "delusions of grandeur".
Yes, "Let's keep in mind that 2/3s of the cost of the Tram is covered by OHSU."
Yes, OHSU, who pays zero property taxes and all of their employees are on PERS.
Sounds like the public is paying to me.
How does any of OHSU's investment contribute to the TIF?
OHSU is exempt from property taxes.
Something which has been beaten into the debate by people like me over and over and over again. Only to have the Lenny's pop off as if they do.
OHSU is contributing to the LID (local improvement district) which may have been what Lenny meant, but so what.
The South Waterfront URA is 409 acres and was created in 1999.
That 409 acres is not just the SoWa planned development area.
It includes many existing properties long ago developed and paying property taxes. However, since 1999 part of their taxes have been diverted to pay for the new development.
That's how Urban Renewal Districts work. The districts are always much bigger than the identified development getting the tax dollars.
The city diverts, or skims, property taxes from existing homes and businesses which were included in the UR district just for that purposes.
And of course city officials deliberately complicate the act so the public has little awareness of the blatant spending of tax dollars for private development.
Tax dollars which, if not diverted, would be the very "general fund" dollars
Officials are forever claiming are not being spent.
An Ariel Tram and prime riverside high rises are NOT wise "Investments in knowledge based endeavors".
AND ARE NOT "the best an individual or a community can make to insure their economic well-being".
Where did that claim come from?
It's the kind of lecherous claims a con man would make as he is about to make off with an unknowing victim's life savings.
Cut them a little slack?
Why? They are recklessly risking the health care and taxpaying jobs they currently provide.
A strong case could be made that OHSU should have indeed expanded, to some degree, out in Hillsboro where land and infrastructure costs were cheaper. Saving other monies to fund actual research instead of expensive towers and Trams. Thereby strengthening OHSU and the jobs and services they currently provide.
If allowed to continue, and this TRAM eats through $45 to $60 million, only to have the obvious no show in return on investment, there should be hell to pay for those who promoted and enabled this boondoggle.
And not be a parade of excuses and demands for more waste like the convention center story.
Posted by: Steve Schopp | Oct 30, 2005 8:05:11 AM
classic...not only does Steve Schopp and the likes always know what's best for the city, they also now know what is best for OHSU.
Posted by: MarkDaMan | Oct 31, 2005 9:52:13 AM
I think the OHSU expansion and Tram development is one of the lesser wastes that have been envisioned in this city. While I agree that the entire "creative class" investment strategy is overblown, nobody in the world wants to be sick or dead so there should be some growth room, albeit in a crowded field. Peter Kohler, so far, has done an admirable job of raising OHSU's rank in NIH funding so many would like to see the new (hoped-for) bioscience industry consolidated in one location, thus reducing our other urban planning concerns. As a member of the Carpenters Local I will be glad to get my piece of the work stemming from this development and other projects springing up in Portland.
Is the overall "density" strategy good?--Go ask the millions of other people around the world who have moved into similar developments. A downside could be seismic safety--yet this is also true in shorter buildings that are poorly reinforced.
I do agree with Lenny that the Columbia Crossing has the makings of another boondoggle, but how would he propose to accomodate the increased traffic through and into Portland, especially projecting several decades ahead? At the Clark College open house last week I met someone who was also favorable to developing another crossing, at the heavy rail bridge. This could take truck traffic off I5--that portion headed to Term. 5 and 6--and could provide a shorter route to Hwy. 30. Vancouver would also have to be agreeable...not such an easy goal.
There were other people raising the issue of alternative crossings--but there are some suggestions that are not feasible. One important concern on the present bridge(s) is that in the major earthquake, which will someday hit, the I5's counterweights are not stable. But, in a Richter 9, how would we know that any structure would, necessarily, survive? Perhaps a new bridge could break apart,too, although seismic engineering has made great progress. The recent Pakistan quake took out a lot of reinforced concrete buildings, but they probably skimped on the steel.
I am afraid that light rail is getting too expensive and have been advocating for TOD with less costly alternatives. Light rail is more cost-effective aither in large cities or cities with big ghettos--but those people would be riding the bus anyway. But growth in Portland--taking us from a big town to a real city --is simply inevitable and we need to plan for it.
Posted by: Ron Swaren | Oct 31, 2005 1:24:43 PM
Sam.
I agree, the Tram must happen for the future economic health of our City - partially tied to OHSU's continued expansion and success. It also must keep its architectural integrity - it will be a hugely prominent piece of civic architecture in our City.
Best,
Stuart Emmons
Posted by: Stuart Emmons | Nov 2, 2005 7:53:28 AM
A lesson from poker is apropos here: Never throw good money after bad.
In other words, don’t become so invested in a project that you don’t have the good sense to know when to walk away from it; to cut your losses.
At triple the original cost estimates, the rational approach would be to start over from square one. Re-evalutate the project anew and see if a tram option still looks to make the most sense, given what we now know.
My guess is the tram won’t stand up to that test.
Even if OHSU did move this facility to a neighboring community, that isn’t a loss to Portlanders. Many folks already commute from or to neighboring communities. Think regionally!
One might argue would be a loss of tax revenue to Portland. Perhaps so, but at what cost? Portland has more immediate needs for the money this tram would suck up. Seems to me the tram is an ill advised “investment” which we can’t afford right now. Government needs to act more like a profitable business and stop throwing money around wastefully on speculative ventures. This is the kind of responsible governance Portlanders need and want.
Sam, if you truly want to “shake-up city hall,” then “think outside the box” and treat Portland like a business which makes wise investments.
Just my 2¢ worth.
Posted by: Michael K. | Nov 2, 2005 9:38:15 AM
Here is my price of a postcard, more than two cents worth on the issue: When the City Council said yes to the McTram, it demonstrated it’s arrogance to the public in that city government only uses the term “neighborhood support” (referring to the neighborhoods over which the McTram passes) when it is convenient to do so. A simple less costly solution would be a tunnel from the South Macadam district to an elevator under OHSU, lay tracks and run an extension of the trolley through the tunnel. The bottom line is the cost of this McTram is totally out of control, nearly three times the projected dollar menu costs. I doubt postcard sales will make up the difference, nor should taxpayers be burdened with the additional costs. If OHSU wants prime rib, they alone must pay for prime rib. If the City wants a postcard, there are plenty of other subjects already in place.
Posted by: Tewrry Parker | Nov 2, 2005 10:28:14 AM
It's too bad no one in our city government has the guts to pull the plug on this absurd wasteful project. $43 million (and rising, no doubt) would pave a hella of a lot of streets, build a homeless shelter, and so on.... But of course, these projects aren't going to make any developers even more rich, so they are put on the back burner. Or ignored completely.
Sam, I voted for you because I beleieved you would be the voice in city government who would make a difference. Your backkground led me to think that you would root for the little guy. The tram ain't nothin' but a scam.
Posted by: Lily Witham | Nov 2, 2005 10:31:20 AM
I agree that Tram cost over-runs and related issues, from re-locating OHSU to re-determining better routes for thru I-5 traffic, are options to look at.
A serious detriment to promoting higher MAX use is the tendancy of folks to want to shop or shop and eat or whatever before work, at lunchtime, or after work...which might mean longer transfer times...and should probably mean greater subsidies for mass transit...
It makes sense to route some I-5 traffic from the north to Washington County, and perhaps a 4th bypass route for those wanting to avoid the already over-burdened I-5 and I-205 routes...I remember how I cried with relief when I-205 opened! And now it's crying for more lanes!
As for the tram, perhaps other solutions are worth exploring: tunnel for an elevator and have OHSU run a bus line to the river "outbuildings"? Find a parking lot/garage site nearby and have direct OHSU streetcar access?
Create a new OHSU center with plenty of excess land for future expansion? Doesn't even need to be near Downtown! Think of it: a new, modern hospital with lots of clinic space, research space, and apartments for staff & patient families...maybe near
Canby or Wilsonville, someplace that's now wide, open space! And run a high-speed train to it from downtown Portland, with easy transfer access
from both east and west portland areas.
Time to start thinking big, with eco-friendly and low-cost parameters at the forefront. Gotta look at all the related issues: population centers and the demographics of each, how to allow folks to stay in their now-efficient cars yet map out mass-transit routes that are efficient, how to link existing cities and link-in new ones, etc.
Can we actively solicit the idea of brain-storming forums, for the purpose of encouraging our best minds: those of everyday, plain, ordinary citizens, to develop a comprehensive plan for the Portland Metro Region? Should take several years, and be very informal and include neighborhood work groups, internet weblogs, and after a year or so, some public updates of the main ideas.
This shouldn't take much staff, just one or two people to look at all the stuff and summerize, maybe monthly, to keep it going...and maybe it wouldn't go anywhere, but I'll bet it would...and would end up involving lots of citizens from bus drivers and ditch-diggers to corporate types and politicians (who would do well to restrain themselves as they track the thinking).
This goes far beyond The Tram, and might make decision-making easier and more palatable to we who are going to be paying the taxes that support change!
Posted by: Heather Hess | Nov 2, 2005 1:24:38 PM
One item mentioned in an earlier comment was to dump bubble curbs. I TOTALLY AGREE! Also known as curb extensions, these bubble curbs waste taxpayer paid transportation dollars and are harmful to the environment. When busses stop in travel lanes for passengers at these extended curbs, they create artificial congestion and require motorists to use more fuel with longer engine idle times that adds to global warming. That makes Tri-Met one of the responsible parties for global warming. The curb extensions are also unsafe. I have personally observed an accident take place where a car was trapped under a semi-truck trailer because the truck had to make a right turn from the left turn lane to clear the curb extension.
Posted by: Terry Parker | Nov 3, 2005 10:08:37 AM
Sam;
Several comments:
1. You were Vera's right hand person when she and Peter Koller cooked up the tram idea. You need to take some personal responsibility for the current situation -- and not blame it on the cost of steel.
2. This is the third time the City has gone with an architectural design competition. The first time we ended up with the Portland Building -- which subjects employees to a perpetually grey working environment. The second ended up with an unaffordable design solution for covering the Mt. Tabor reservoirs. The tram design is the third attempt using a design competition approach. When will the City staff learn that it should not separate "design" from a rigerous process that also includes community input, goal setting, use programming, budgeting, construction feasibility, and finally cost containment?
3. Both the OHSU Marquam Hill site and the South Waterfront site are "transportation constrained" (ie., there are only limited street connections available due to topographic and other constraints). The tram does nothing to help alleviate congestion -- it should connect with Tri-Met's eight bus routes on Barbur Blvd. so employees would have access to public transit rather than have to drive to the already congested OHSU hill site and the soon to be congested SOWA site in order to use the tram. This connection was considered early in the tram design process, but was eliminated as being "too Costly."
4. The tram is sucking public money away from improvements needed to make the SOWA area successful. Where is the money going to come from for the greenway, for needed parks, and for transportation improvements?
Posted by: Wayne Stewart | Nov 3, 2005 11:14:35 AM
What should be done about it? It should be killed and laid to rest immediately.
Bad enough it's obvious the design firm for the project was chosen so that the selection committee could get to travel to Switzerland, I believe it was? instead of hiring an Oregon firm to do it and maybe, you know, keeping money local and creating some jobs in our Still In Recession economy, but to waste $45 million on a project that benefits OHSU because they don't have enough parking (which is the reality of it...) and developers like Homer is simply just Bad Government.
Well, I needn't say more, Michael K's comment about poker and throwing good money after bad sums it up. If OHSU wants a tram, let them go to a bank, get a loan, and build it themselves. We said no, via ballot measure, to the Oregon Convention Center expansion to be paid with our tax dollars, and golly gee, look what just happned to get built anyway (and is already underutilized.)
The city should drop it, and OHSU will figure out some other parking solution or will build it without public funds. Where's a good ballot measure when we need one? Cheers, Rob
Posted by: Rob Vaughn | Nov 3, 2005 5:07:33 PM
The tram idea was a bad idea from the start. OHSU is a private entity and should help pay the majority of the costs of this project.
Posted by: Kathy | Nov 4, 2005 2:54:22 PM
In principal, the tram was a good idea, and an interesting solution to the problem of moving from the hill to the river.
My problem with it is that it was not exploited for its larger potential....Had it extended over the river to a station in the Brooklyn neighborhood, it would have tied the city together and offered more affordable housing options than will be availible in the S. Waterfront district towers.
The cost estimate was a joke from the start. Anyone with experience in construction should have seen the falicy of the initial cost estimates. For one thing, a structure such as this places incredible forces on the towers and the end structures...much like a suspension bridge...From my experience as a project architect on the BICC, the hillside is very unstable with bedrock many feet down under a mantle of moving soil. Thus the foundations and structural supports need to be ingeniously designed (and expensive).
Rather than approach the design from a rational standpoint, the architects proposed a structure of wood, gathered in a haphazard fashion like bundled chopsticks. Hardly a strucutre designed in response to the forces it is intended to resist. The design as it currently stands could be simplified, and thereby be more elegant and affordable.
A skilift would have been a valid place to start to understand the costs involved and the engineering required. And I believe that many modern ski lifts will look better than this tram.
Posted by: Rick Potestio | Nov 5, 2005 11:02:24 AM
Not only are the South Waterfront Condos the most expensive real property in the city, but the city is subsidizing the "doctors in heaven" tram for at least 15 million. OHSU doesn't pay property taxes. And your rationale is this: " This project must move forward. Without the Portland tram we risk losing hundreds of family wage jobs at Oregon Health Sciences University. Without the tram City government will be liable for potential damages." Family wage jobs? Give me a break. Liable for potential damages? Whose fault is that, dude? Explain again why we are building an inconceivably expensive Disney ride for millionaire doctors. You won't find many nurses in Condoland. How about $15 million to fight property crimes in SE Portland? Not wasteful enough, I guess.
Posted by: IVAN ZACKHEIM | Nov 7, 2005 7:42:53 PM
Sam-
First time checking out your blog.
I voted for you because I thought you would fight to contain these Tram-sized boondogles. You are showing a little more Mayor Katz than fiscal conservative on this issue.
Why are you fighting to keep this project alive?
Also, why did the city Council decide to move the tram off to a private company? (Please don't tell me this nonprofit is actually public, we've seen how that goes with even the PDC's operations which actually are public).
Lately its seemed that the city of Portland wants to own anything it can (PGE, Street Cars, etc...), this doesn't jive with what a regular news reader has come to expect.
Posted by: Mark Fitz | Nov 8, 2005 7:02:43 PM
Sam,
build the tram with the money saved by dropping the foolish Burnside/Couch couplet.
Posted by: Lenny Anderson | Nov 9, 2005 11:28:58 AM
Posted by: MarkDaMan | Oct 31, 2005 9:52:13 AM
"classic...not only does Steve Schopp and the likes always know what's best for the city, they also now know what is best for OHSU."
Bone up Mark.
As you read this piece of good journalism from WW's Jaquiss add to it tha OHSU Medical Group pay no TriMet payroll tax either.
www.wweek.com/story.php?story=6926
Posted by: Steve Schopp | Nov 12, 2005 9:35:27 PM
SAM,
Thank you for visting our business in the Multnomah Village. I enjoyed meeting you again at the neighborhood meeting. But, I am in dismay that like the very scattered and overly indulgient Vera Katz you continue to keep this tram idea open. I live on the street they are building this mass project on and my property value has become dismal if not falling as we speak. For a city that is so close to its own bankruptcy why are you still supporting this fiscal nightmare.
again thanks,
tamara marshall
Posted by: tamara marshall | Nov 15, 2005 1:05:34 PM
The tram didn't just happen.
The tram was approved because, politically, Council WANTED it.
The tram was approved because, legally, Council COULD do it.
Ethically, Council IGNORED WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN done to protect the public weal.
Council ignored our own city transportation and planning departmental studies. Their studies report the tram does not solve traffic problems. It adds additional traffic problems.
Additionally, OHSU ignored their own various tram study findings.
Too bad. The public will now suffer the costly consequences for a "postcard attraction."
Martin Slapikas
North Portland
Posted by: Martin G. Slapikas | Nov 17, 2005 8:38:20 PM
Sam,
Looking over the budget you posted, the only place I can see to get more money to pay for the tram is the So.Wa. LID. That comes from developers and property owners who have not offered up a single additional penny to cover cost over-runs. They are the ones who have been so gung-ho about the tram from the start and who stand to make bundles developing the area. If the tram gives value to their projects, why were they not tapped last April on the occasion of the last cost over run, and how long are they going to be playing OHSU and the city for suckers every time the price goes up? Originally they were paying 29% of the budget, then 24.6%, and only 17.5% as of the last cost over run. If they paid 25% of the cost thru the So.Wa. LID you would have enough to pay for the lastest budget.
If you can't cover the additional costs of the tram without raising the So.Wa. LID then you need to pull the plug, Dude. There is no way in heck that you can justify spending more TIF money on the tram. That money is for public improvements in the URD, including the greenway, parks, and streets and we can't wait years for those improvements to happen. The greenway needs to be happening now! Many local improvements were promised as part of the tram project and the city needs to make those happen soon to keep faith with neighbors impacted by the tram, OHSU expansion on the hill, and So.Wa. development. And I am sure you have already heard an earful from people who don't want the tram project to take money from other transportation projects throughout the city. The city can not afford to spend any more money on this project. It may well be cheaper to cancel the project and pay the penalties than to push on at all costs. Time to play hardball, Sam. You're The Commish: make them an offer they can't refuse.
Posted by: Anton Vetterlein | Nov 18, 2005 2:11:28 PM
The information of the cost increase appears less than complete:
1] what happened from the initial numbers of $15.5 and $28.5 million?
2] previous posts and public conversation appear to focus on steel and China etc. While these are of course relevant, my guess is structural engineering and other issues have been equally important (as is mentioned but not quantified in the introduction (quote: "The increased costs were primarily associated with line item costs for structural steel, drilled shafts, site excavation and structural concrete – the four items that are the most critical structurally, and the most difficult to construct.").Can we see a breakdown from the beginning of all costs and the changes?
And when/if the project proceeds,what protection will have against further 'change orders'? Will we have a fixed price contract on most if not all line items (including "drilled shafts, site excavation and structural concrete")? My experience is that most construction over-runs occur with foundations, ie, below the ground. My fear is that we will continue to bear this risk, even after the 'final contract' is signed.
Posted by: R B Murray | Dec 5, 2005 4:28:18 PM
Whew, can someone explain to JK how to quote other's comments so that they're readable?
I'd like to point out the difference between the Marquam Bridgeand Freemont Bridges. The former cost $14 million and looks like ass, the later opened seven years later and cost $82 million. Both'll get you across the river but you don't see many people taking photos of the Marquam Bridge.
The tram is sure starting to look like a big waste o' money. If OHSU wants it they need to be responsible for any additional cost over-runs. But in 15 years we'll be stuck with somethign and no one will remember how much it cost. Let's hope it's attractive.
Posted by: andrew morton | Dec 17, 2005 12:17:34 PM
Has anyone considered the recreational uses for the Tram?
-- Downhill skateboard races from the top to the bottom.
-- Bicycle downhill runs.
Q: Will the Tram be accessible for these purposes?
Posted by: Pat Chewning | Apr 4, 2006 11:22:39 AM
Or on a snow day...taking it up with your X-country skiis for a nice run down to the river.
But seriously, when a city's largest employer wants to expand, it only makes sense for the city to lend a hand...finish the Tram!
Posted by: Lenny Anderson | Apr 5, 2006 9:21:33 AM
More Trams? More light rail??
How about fixing some of the horrible roads?
How about making all the 1 lane roads TWO lane roads!!!
How about getting into the 1990s with better timing of stop lights??
This city is a disaster.
Posted by: mo | Apr 12, 2006 9:57:35 AM
Post your comment
Please note: your email address, although required to post, will not be visible. We remove inappropriate or offensive content, and content deemed improper by State and City election and ethics law. The comments posted do not necessarily reflect the views of the office or the City of Portland.
I read OF a book on the subject of cost over-runs on public works projects, so I did a google search:
From http://www.innobriefs.com/editor/20030723megaprojects.html :
MegaProjects
(Innovation Briefs, Vol. 14, No. 4, July/August 2003)
After nearly twenty years of planning and construction, significant segments of Boston's Central Artery project (" The Big Dig") finally opened this year. Coinciding with the opening has been a publication of two groundbreaking new books discussing complex multi-billion dollar transportation projects. They are "Mega-projects: The Changing Politics of Urban Investment by Harvard University's Alan Altshuler and David Luberoff (Brooking Institution Press, 2003) and "Megaprojects and Risk: An Anatomy of Ambition" by Bent Flyvbjerg, Professor at Denmark's Aalborg University (Cambridge University Press, 2003). The books provide fresh perspectives and new insights into the forces that are shaping contemporary public works projects.
.. .
"Contractors and other project promoters who stand to gain from the mere construction of projects -- and who are often powerful movers in the early stages of project development -- may have a self serving interest in underestimating costs and overestimating demand," the author states. "They are happy to go ahead with highly risky projects as long as they themselves do not carry the risks involved and will not be held accountable for lack of performance."
(See link above for the rest of this article)
Also:
http://assets.cambridge.org/0521804205/sample/0521804205WS.pdf
There were a lot of other interesting documents turned up by google using the following search term: cost over-runs government projects international book
Thanks
JK
Posted by: jim karlock | Oct 28, 2005 6:07:01 AM