UPDATE: Stop the Tram Project? The Implications
Sam Adams
Here is a copy of the original tram contracts. I have also included a copy of the termination clause. I also later will post a copy of those sections of the SoWa Development Agreement that are pertinent to the tram project.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Dear Portlanders,
“Stop the Tram project.”
“Instead of the tram, save money and use shuttle buses to get from the OHSU Hill campus and South Waterfront.”
In response to these suggestions, I asked the Portland Office of Transportation to consult with the Office of the City Attorney and provide me, the City Council and the public with a description of the potential legal implications and operation impacts of taking such an actions.
As always, I welcome your feedback and advice.
Sam
>>>>>>>>>>
Termination of contracts: Aerial Tram.
The City has entered into two contracts for the Aerial Tram, one with Kiewit Pacific as the CMGC (Construction Manager, General Contractor) for the stations, and tower, and another with Doppelmayr for the rope system, tramcars, and mechanical. There are also two LIDs or local Improvement Districts that were established that provide 78 percent of the funding for the project. Finally there are City obligations under the development agreement for the completion of the South Waterfront infrastructure. Both construction contracts include the City’s standard specification section 108.13 allowing termination for convenience. This section on termination lays out the City’s obligations, which include payment of all costs incurred by the contractors to date plus profit. All costs include the subcontractor’s costs and claims against the general contractors. While the City would avoid paying the full cost of the improvement, we would be responsible for sizable costs incurred to date plus profit at 10%. The City has never used his termination specification since it was written 10 years ago.
- The Doppelmayr contract is 35% complete, and the cost to date on the contract is $3,581,998.41
- The Kiewit Pacific Contract cost is $2,668,505, plus retain age.
The financial implications of terminating these contracts are significant.
- The City would be obligated to pay all costs incurred to date, plus profit.
- The City would own the materials that have been purchased to date, but could sell, or have the contractor sell the remaining materials and refund the City.
- The City Attorney would need to review our ability to make assessments on the Lids. It is unlikely that a benefit could be defined, and therefore no assessment could be made. Since the LID accounts for 78% of the project funds, PDOT would be the responsible party for paying costs under the City LID code.
- Bond Counsel should also be consulted to determine what if any impact there is on the City’s bond rating and capacity.
The City also has obligations under the Development Agreement to complete the contingent projects. The City Attorney would need to explore the complexities of these agreements to understand the full implications of terminating the Tram contract. There are also a number of other agreements and IGAs that require the CITY - and specifically PDOT - to construct the project. The IGA between PDOT and PDC that assigns the Tram to PDOT, and provides PDC’s funding does not have a termination clause.
Bus Shuttle Alternative vs. Tram Alternative
In 2002, a report was prepared for Council that outlined four options for connecting the South Waterfront District to OHSU. One of the 6 alternatives considered was a shuttle bus option, with various routes considered.
The alternative was dropped because it could not meet the travel time objective set by OHSU of a 10-15 minute travel time between the two areas. The travel time included the walk time to and from the transit stop, the wait time for a vehicle to arrive, and the travel time on the vehicle between the two stations.
4 different routes were examined between the South Waterfront and OHSU. The direct shuttle bus route connected the two areas via Sam Jackson Road to Sheridan/Arthur, then on Hood to Moody. There are several points of congestion at the West End of the Ross Island Bridge that can result in additional travel delays. The other options had neighborhood impacts with minimal timesaving, and therefore were rejected.
The travel times for the recommended route were 10.0 minutes in the AM peak hour, 9:55 minutes in the off peak hours, and 14.06 minutes in the PM Peak Hour. In year 2020 the travel times in the PM Peak could be as high as 27 minutes, and in the off peak would be 19.5 minutes.
A shuttle bus system would have adequate capacity to meet the requirements of ridership demand, but would not meet the travel time requirements, or reliability requirements due to congestion primarily in the PM Peak. In 2002, the cost of the shuttle bus system was estimated to be $710,000 and the operating costs were estimated to be $2,087,176 per year. These costs were very rough estimates.
Posted by Sam Adams on November 27, 2005
(53) Comments | Permalink | TrackBack (1)
Filed Under Front Page, Southwest Portland, Tram, Transportation
Comments by site visitors
Sam - Why didn't you ask these questions when you were MM Katz' Economic Development person? That is the bigger question since the most galling thing is the "nose under the tent" approach of these projects. We commit the first few bucks to something and then, all of a sudden we are too far along to stop.
Do you intend on future projects to be more open before we spend money especially with respect to something like the CC Hotel?
Posted by: Steve | Nov 23, 2005 11:27:36 AM
Dear "Steve,"
The tram project was assigned as transportation project even though it had econmcic development implications. Its planning, design, budgeting and construction were supervised by the Portland Arial Tram Board under the supervision of then City Commissioner Jim Francisconi – he was the transportation commissioner.
I worked for Mayor Vera Katz so I did not staff the tram project. Obviously, now as City transportation commissioner, I do now.
Ironic that you try and tag me for not being open given you are posting anonymously your comments on my blog website on a post I wrote in response to requests for more info from other blog website readers -- one of the only blog websites for an elected official in the nation.
Sam
P.S. You will see all the number I will see on the HQ Hotel. I have posted all the info on that project I have thus far received.
Posted by: Sam Adams | Nov 23, 2005 3:36:47 PM
Paul,
So far, we have $3.5 million in tax increment funds in the tram. From what I can tell the $6+ million sunk costs make it more expensive for the city to walk away from the project. Let me know what you think.
YOU: "One also has to ask if there are traffic abatement measures that can be taken to reduce congestion--I assume the estimates are based on no changes to current intersections, no realignment of the RI Bridge entrance, etc."
ME: They assume some improvements such as the new Harrision Street connector. We have not priced them but I will ask staff for more info.
YOU: "It's also frustrating that the cause of additional traffic in the area is like SoWa, which we were sold as a development that would not increase traffic!"
ME: Traffic in SoWa increases the travel time just to get out of SoWa, which has to be included in the total travel time up the hill. And, you will be adding a lot of traffic going up the hill without a tram.
YOU: "Last comment: can you please summarize for us simply. The cost to the city of cancellation looks to be 6.2 million plus 600,000 profit. (Note that these must be treated as "sunk costs" for the purposes of cost benefit analysis)."
ME: We cannot give you an exact number for addtional costs because we do not know what a Court would assess us for damages for failure to perform on our contract, if any.
YOU: What costs can be recovered by selling the materials?
ME: It's unknown; We would get a good price on the steel for sure.
YOU: What does this mean: The City Attorney would need to review our ability to make assessments on the LID’s.
ME: The LIDs were for costs to build this tram project. A new round a negociations with property owners over asking them to pay for something else would be required.
YOU: Why would saving 10's millions have a negative impact on our bond rating?
ME: I assume its an issue of trustworthiness. The bond rating agencies that assess how much money we have to pay for our debt do not like to see a city breaking any major contract.
Keep asking the questions. I find them very useful.
Posted by: Sam Adams | Nov 23, 2005 4:21:05 PM
"Breaking" ?
If the city fulfills it's responsibility for sizable costs incurred to date plus profit at 10% it would not be "breaking" anything.
It would be a responsible and fair (yet costly) termination.
However far better than continuing such a boondoggle to $50 or 60 million and more.
Especially under the false pretenses touted during the approval process.
Let's not play make believe anymore.
The circumstances and realities are far different from when the Tram was approved. The hype has been steam rolled with facts.
We now know that the Tram is NOT vital to a biotech expansion as the biotech expansion itself is a pipe dream without merit. Immense National and growing foreign competition in the biotech industry constrain OHSU's ability to gain a larger piece of the biotech pie. A smaller piece is far more likely.
It's fairly evident that OHSU knows this and is not pursuing that bigger piece by way of SoWa.
Fully demonstrated by the first OHSU, (or not OHSU) building going up in SoWa which is not a biotech research building at all.
In case you missed it read the last two Willamette Week/Nigel Jaquiss pieces on that first OHSU building.
They should be real eye openers.
http://www.wweek.com/story.php?story=6926
http://www.wweek.com/story.php?story=6965
For a real measure of the growing biotech pie go to www.BIO2005.com
and also note there is no OHSU, Portland or Oregon entity in attendance.
Posted by: Steve Schopp | Nov 23, 2005 6:39:06 PM
Sam what is the probability of the tram being shut down because of winds, or bad weather? If so how often has it been projected that it will be shut down? Then what is the alternative?
And what liability does the city have if there is a weather related accident?
Thanks
Michael Wilson
Posted by: Michael | Nov 23, 2005 7:31:24 PM
Please post the entire contracts in question as pdf files so that others may review them.
When this thing winds up costing more than $60 million, and the city winds up paying more than $1 million a year to operate it, what will happen to the city's credit rating then?
What will the liability insurance cost on the aerial tram, and who will pay it? What will the limits of coverage be?
Posted by: Jack Bogdanski | Nov 23, 2005 11:55:13 PM
(I base the below comments on the revelation in the Willamette Week that $120 million of this project is a private doctor’s non-profit and OHSU’s share is only $25 million. If this was widely known before, I missed it and apologize in advance.)
It seems to me that we have a whole new situation since the recent revelation that this is not really a OHSU project:
1. Why are we talking of spending $40 million for a tram to benefit a building mostly owned by 700 doctors, certainly members of Portland’s wealthy set?
2. Why are we asking Portland’s needy to pay more in city tax to pay for this welfare for the rich?
3. Where is the PDC press release stating that this building was 80% privately owned - why did we hear it from a Willamette Week expose.
4. Is this misrepresentation?
5. If this is misrepresentation, is it yet another PDC screw-up?
In view of the primary benefactor being a group of wealthy individuals, I think that the only just thing to do is to take a firm stand against this (and all) corporate welfare and terminate the project in the most graceful manner possible. If possible, cite misrepresentation as the cause of the withdrawal and try to send the bill to those who misrepresented it, intentionally or by neglect.
Does this case raise to the level of fraud, or is it business as usual? In any case it stinks.
(OK, unleash the PDC staff attack on me!)
Thanks
JK
Who has NO INCOME from any source connected with city spending - can everyone here say the same thing?
Posted by: jim karlock | Nov 24, 2005 7:35:55 AM
Being a normal citizen of Portland, albeit somewhat abreast of development & political issues, I would like to respond to JK's questions:
There will be more than 1 OHSU-science related building constructed down by the waterfront. Not sure how many, but 1 building is pretty short of a campus.
Also, how do the property owners of the South Waterfront area constitute Portland's "needy?" These people are sitting on property whose value will skyrocket once their properties are developed.
Portland's true needy - our children, the homeless bums along Burnside - they probably will never pay a dime towards the aerial tram line.
If wealthy Portlanders want to buy condos in the "SoWa district" and help subsidize a $50 or $60 million aerial tram, then that is well within their right to do so. In lieu of the sales success of the John Ross & Meriweather towers, I would say as long as we can get them to actually pay up... we shouldn't be in much trouble.
Posted by: Justin | Nov 25, 2005 1:32:35 PM
If wealthy Portlanders want to buy condos in the "SoWa district" and help subsidize a $50 or $60 million aerial tram, then that is well within their right to do so.
And while they do so, won't they pay nothing -- nothing! -- toward any of the many other city services they will enjoy?
Still waiting to see the contracts, Sam.
Posted by: Jack Bogdanski | Nov 27, 2005 3:02:53 AM
And why should transit users be allowed to dictate the "travel time"? That's absurd. I freqently travel by bus and I'm just happy we have a halfway decent transit system. Never mind demanding that Tri-met get me somewhere on MY schedule, not theirs. Why does Portland always bend over backwards to facilitate the wealthy?
There is a recent precedent in cutting our losses: the Mt. Tabor reservoir project. I was against that project, but I now have a little more respect for Commissioner Saltzman for (finally) bringing the project to a halt. In the future I certainly won't vote for anyone who continues to back the tram project. It was part of Vera's "glamour scheme" for Portland. And I do believe you were there for 10 of those 12 years. So perhaps you can understand our skepticism.
Quite frankly I'm surprised that you continue to defend the ridiculous tram project as vehemently as you do. I voted for you because I thought that your experience in City Hall would give you an understanding how the city government and agencies work together, that you would understand what the City of Portland AS A WHOLE needs and that you would stand up for the little guy. Yeah, the arts stuff is all well and good, but it's icing on the cake. This City needs to function well for ALL of it's citizens. We need roads, school funding, property tax relief for the poor and middle class, shelters for the homeless. etc. etc. It's extremely frustrating to see the dysfunction in this city while watching the ongoing developer welfare giveaways from funds slated for urban renewal. Not to mention the burden to the taxpayer from luxury condo development tax abatements, and accumulated city debt from PDC projects that supposedly had "solid outside funding" to begin with". These monies could be spent to effect real and positive change in our city. I just don't see how anyone backing the SOWHAT towers, aerial tram, etc. can be seen as someone on the side of the "common people" of Portland. I see them aligned with the developers and therefore facilitating the corporate welfare giveaways.
And what's the problem with people posting anonymously, Sam? It's a fairly standard blogging practice. Are you afraid you're going to read something you don't like? What kind of forum is that?
Posted by: Lily Witham | Nov 27, 2005 11:04:00 AM
And what's the problem with people posting anonymously, Sam? It's a fairly standard blogging practice. Are you afraid you're going to read something you don't like? What kind of forum is that?
As someone who's always posted with my own name, I'll answer this, not that I'm trying to speak for Sam.
Yes...blogging practice includes a lot of anonymous posting. The problem with that is these posters aren't held responsible for their opinions, and often post under numerous alias. Too often, to me, it feels like tossing tomatoes from the back of the crowd.
Sam deserves credit for being here, in this forum, a credit anonymous posters don't earn.
Now, Sam, about that Tram...
Posted by: Frank Dufay | Nov 27, 2005 12:08:09 PM
Lily Witham,
Outstanding bulls eye comments.
The Tram is the most stark example of the public at large nearly unanimously opposed to something moving forward anyway.
It is not a pretty indication when the powers that be fail to grasp such overwhelming opposition while proceeding on what appears to be some planner's condescending grounds that it's for our own good and we just don't understand.
How more insulting can a public policy be?
Sam, mothball the Tram, propose a May non-binding referendum ballot on the Tram and then arm yourself with the 95% NO VOTE to kill the public funding for it.
Posted by: Steve Schopp | Nov 27, 2005 12:42:24 PM
Frank-
I always post under my name as well. But I can envision a scenario where someone might have some valuable input but needs to keep their job, or at the very least not be harrassed. And I htought Sam's response (by putting quotation marks around the word "Steve" came off as a bit petty.
Posted by: Lily Witham | Nov 27, 2005 1:28:10 PM
Thanks for all the blog posts...here are some questions back to you:
STEVE SCHOPP: Regarding you statement that, “"Breaking"? If the city fulfills it's responsibility for sizable costs incurred to date plus profit at 10% it would not be "breaking" anything. It would be a responsible and fair (yet costly) termination.” Your bravado is inspiring. However, the City Attorney sees the potential liability to City government taxpayers if we break the tram contract somewhat differently than you.
LILY WITHAM: Good to hear from you. Regarding your statement: "Quite frankly I'm surprised that you continue to defend the ridiculous tram project as vehemently as you do." I am responsible for the tram project now. Some of you ask good questions. I ask staff and others to respond to them. I post those responses. You all react to them. This back and forth blogging process is not of "defense" of the project. It is my effort to facilitate a new level of citizen/staff/stakeholder dialogue on pending city issues. I want you all to struggle with some of the info I have to deal with. And, believe me, I am at the negotiating table right now on this project and I am fighting for the little “guy and gal.”
Also regarding your statement, “And what's the problem with people posting anonymously, Sam? It's a fairly standard blogging practice. Are you afraid you're going to read something you don't like? What kind of forum is that?” I have no problem with anonymous bloggers. If I had a problem with it, I would not have created this site or I would change a software switch on this site and not allow it. It doesn’t mean I just have to sit silently and let anonymous posters go on without a response.
MICHAEL: You asked, "Sam what is the probability of the tram being shut down because of winds, or bad weather?" Staff tells me it can operate in 50 mile per hour winds, but I'm would be very bumpy. If it has to shut down because of wind a shuttle bus system would be used. I will have to ask the City Attorney about your question, "And what liability does the city have if there is a weather related accident?"
Blogging icon JACK BOGDANSKI: Good write up in the Tribune. Regarding your request to post the entire contract online: I asked staff to do this. I will bug them. Regarding your statement, “When this thing winds up costing more than $60 million, and the city winds up paying more than $1 million a year to operate it, what will happen to the city's credit rating then?” Staff tells me the fact that the City fulfills its obligations is one reason city government has the highest credit rating of any city government in the US. MICHAEL also asked the question, “What will the liability insurance cost on the aerial tram, and who will pay it? What will the limits of coverage be?” I’ll ask.
JIM KARLOCK: Ha! Regarding your line, “OK, unleash the PDC staff attack on me!” I think the PDC staff has more to fear from you than vice versa. You asked, “Why are we asking Portland’s needy to pay more in city tax to pay for this welfare for the rich?” As you know, I voted against the only tax abatement put before me to consider. I will consider future abatement requests on a case by case basis. I do support the SoWa project for job creation and environmental reasons – I know you disagree. BUT, I do not support all aspects of the Development Agreement or all clauses in all contracts; more on that later.
Blogging icon JACK BOGDANSKI #2: You confuse me with your statement, “And while they do so, won't they pay nothing -- nothing! -- toward any of the many other city services they will enjoy?” Through the LID assessments, SoWa District residents/property owners will help pay for the cost of constructing the tram and streetcar. They will then have to pay to use them. I don’t want to miss your point, so what did you mean?
Sam
Posted by: Sam Adams | Nov 27, 2005 7:23:40 PM
Staff tells me the fact that the City fulfills its obligations is one reason city government has the highest credit rating of any city government in the US.
I think they also look at the assets and liabilities. I'm sure they don't like open-ended liabilities.
And while they do so, won't they pay nothing -- nothing! -- toward any of the many other city services they will enjoy?
It was my understanding that in these urban renewal districts, for many years the property taxes all go toward paying for the urban renewal improvements. They're therefore not available to pay the city's ongoing operating costs for police, fire, parks, roads, etc. I don't know the jargon, but I think I mean the TIF, not the LID.
I'd like to be able to designate my property taxes for items that benefit only my neighborhood, too. Where do I sign up for that?
The City also has obligations under the Development Agreement to complete the contingent projects. The City Attorney would need to explore the complexities of these agreements to understand the full implications of terminating the Tram contract. There are also a number of other agreements and IGA’s that require the CITY and specifically PDOT to construct the project.
Please post them all, or e-mail them to me and I'll be glad to do it. Thank you.
Sorry for the multiple trackback "pings." Every time I correct a typo in a post, Movable Type sends out a new ping -- try as I might to stop it.
Posted by: Jack Bogdanski | Nov 27, 2005 8:28:55 PM
I posted the contracts I received from staff. I still need to post the SoWa DA and IGAs.
Fact check: I do not belive it is factual to use the word "nothing" -- these property owners and residents will pay LIDs for the streetcar and tram that other Portland property owners will not pay but can use. Your right, TIF will stay in the district. So far, TIF is paying $3.5 million of the $40 million tram. Though, that might change if the project goes forward.
Posted by: Sam Adams | Nov 27, 2005 9:29:11 PM
I do want to clarify a tiny--but actually important part of TIF and urban renewal districts.
When a district is created, the current level of funding from property taxes going to public services (police, fire, parks, roads, etc.) is still happening, it just remains frozen at that level for the years the district is in place. In other words, there isn't a drop in the dollars received by citywide coffers. Only subsequent rises in property values are captured and put back into that district.
When the district expires, the rise in property values--in theory much greater than without such targeted reinvestment--goes back to citywide coffers.
Posted by: Jesse | Nov 28, 2005 9:55:12 AM
When urban renewal occurs, the amount of city services devoted to the district increases dramatically. And yet the district's contributions to the cost of those services doesn't rise at all. Those California transplants in their overpriced condos pay for their own streets and sewers. But they pay nothing more for police, fire, schools, the Port, mental health, etc., than the old owners did when the lot the condo dwellers now live on was a burned-out dump and the tax assessment was in the toilet.
Posted by: Jack Bogdanski | Nov 28, 2005 10:54:52 AM
Touche, Jack.
The only thing I'd add, of course, is that there are more public revenues generated from urban renewal than property taxes. Namely business license revenue increases and franchise fees. These are an offset, but they in no way constitute a no-net-loss to citywide coffers when the district is in place.
Posted by: Jesse | Nov 28, 2005 11:39:05 AM
Jesse,
Stop what you are doing immediately.
You are misrepresenting Urban Renewal's impact on city services.
If you work for the city you are committing an unethical act by misleading the public.
Commissioner Adams I hope you make clear to the public Jesse is not telling the truth.
With every single UR district there is absolutely a drop in the dollars received by citywide coffers.
Including SCHOOLS.
Jesse,
As you are aware, but not telling the public, every district engulfs large tracks of exiting taxpaying properties through and adjacent to the targeted "development".
North Interstate Urban Renewal District alone is 3744 acres.
Portland now has in excess of 12,000 acres inside UR districts. Most of which was already developed, existing and taxpaying property.
All of which increases in value and tax contribution every year the same as every tax lot OUTSIDE the districts.
At the very least the annual increase is 3% which helps offset the rising city budget costs which have been increasing by an even greater amount.
What Urban Renewal does is divert away, from arriving at "city coffers", ALL of the increases from All of the properties in ALL of the 12,000 acres for at least 20 years.
Not just the targeted development where UR dollars are devoured.
Sam, once and for all this reality must be acknowledged by city staff and public officials.
There is no excuse for the deception Jesse writes to continue.
In addition to that direct drain on "city coffers" UR spending must be paid back with interest. Adding many millions to the cost and decades more to break even.
All of which must be back filled by taxpayers throughout the many years if basic services are to be sustained.
Meanwhile none of the developments, which planners falsely claim would never happen without Urban Renewal, are paying their fair share of the cost of basic services. Instead the bulk of their property taxes are being diverted to pay for improvements to their own property.
Nice deal, but not for the public or basic services including schools.
Sam, if the city and others cannot tell the truth on something as key as the impact of Urban Renewal what is the point of trying to have a community remedy for anything?
There are around 70 UR districts around the State all of which are draining "city coffers", police, fire, parks, libraries, and school funding. The collective impact on all core functions of government is enormous.
Posted by: Steve Schopp | Nov 28, 2005 11:56:10 AM
Stairs. A walkway over I-5 and stairs through Lair Hill. Better crosswalks on Barber. Then up Condor to Veterans or through the Park to OHSU. They're doctors. They're healthy and into that stuff. They can handle it.
And current ped and bike access from the top of the hill to the river stinks.
Posted by: ilovemath | Nov 28, 2005 4:39:41 PM
"Those California transplants in their overpriced condos"
This comment reveals a lot about the author's true feelings - everything was great when I got here, everything has been going to hell ever since the next person to move here after me got here.
What does that have to do with whether or not the city should break a major contract with the biggest employer? Or by doing so, basically signal to any future investment that a contract with the city is subject to the approval of a few people ranting online?
It's funny how I seem to see the save few names popping up here and over at Jack's place -- also funny how they never run for anything to expose themselves as to how they would improve things - come on, how hard is it to get 1000 people to give you 5 bucks if everyone is so mad about this?
I don't know - throw away millions in future investment in infrastructure, jobs and housing and ruin the city's reputation as a bad faith partner vs. listening to a few cranks online who don't like to see tall buildings as they drive by on I-5 and have something against people moving to their precious town. Gee, what a choice!
Jack is from NJ. Let him move back there for all I care.
Posted by: snoopy | Nov 29, 2005 4:42:15 PM
Sam,
It looks like the cost of operations and maintenance for the tram will be paid according to ridership: OHSU is on the hook to pay according to their percentage of the overall tram ridership. So if Biotech doesn't develop in the S. Waterfront or OHSU doesn't develop as planned down there does that leave the city holding the bag? So far S. Waterfront is developing in the same way the Pearl district has: the jobs aren't happening but the housing is exceeding expectations. Will this scenario pay the bills for the tram and all the public improvements and affordable housing needed in the district?
Regarding the shuttle bus option, the cost to get it up and running is much less than the tram, but operations costs are similar. That option was rejected primarily because of travel times. But if the travel times don't become a problem for quite a few years why do we need the tram now? There may be some delays at PM peak hour over the next 10 years but the rest of the day the shuttle will make good time. Moreover, the projected shuttle travel times were based on the exiting street layout. Street improvements such as those adopted in the S. Portland Circulation Plan would improve shuttle travel times and would benefit the surrounding neighborhoods and general traffic in and out of S. Waterfront.
In short, building the tram now is a big gamble. Why not wait until there is a proven need for it, ...when we know Biotech is developing in S. Waterfront and OHSU is truly expanding down there (not health clubs and doctor's offices) and when the traffic gets bad enough that shuttle buses are no longer effective. Shuttle buses can be easily re-deployed to other uses for little cost if they are replaced by a tram or not needed at all. Its all a moot point if there is no OHSU research or teaching going on down there.
Posted by: Anton Vetterlein | Nov 29, 2005 11:19:46 PM
Sam,
Thanks for posting the contracts. Look forward to seeing the relevant portions of the development agreement posted as well.
The tram seems like a great idea. And from what I've read, the developers are paying for most of it, so it's also a good deal for the city. A modest public investment has led to a great deal of private investment in the city.
People have committed to working and living in the South Waterfront. Seems right that the city should keep its commitment to build the tram.
I certainly am looking forward to riding it.
Posted by: Anonymous | Nov 30, 2005 8:32:26 AM
Jack:
I just got the rest of the tram documents. It is 4.5 inches thick. I cannot post. You can come look at it in my office if you want.
Sam
Posted by: Sam Adams | Nov 30, 2005 4:05:59 PM
also funny how they never run for anything to expose themselves as to how they would improve things
At least they sign their real names, "snoopy."
Posted by: Jack Bogdanski | Nov 30, 2005 4:22:20 PM
excellent. we may not like the tram, but, heck, we'll have to pay money if we don't build it. And we have to pay even more money if we do build it. But that's good, right? Because then credit agencies will like us because we meet our obligations. Of course, if we stop the tram and pay off our obligations, we also are meeting our obligations without paying even more money for something the city doesn't necessarily need/want (government insiders and OHSU excluded, of course).
I'm obviously missing the point of continuing the tram if it's based on termination fees. Instead, I'm stuck in this traffic circle.
Posted by: Chris b. | Nov 30, 2005 5:25:09 PM
snoopy | Nov 29, 2005 4:42:15 PM It's funny how I seem to see the save few names popping up here and over at Jack's place -- also funny how they never run for anything to expose themselves as to how they would improve things - come on, how hard is it to get 1000 people to give you 5 bucks if everyone is so mad about this?
JK:
You should inform yourself better. Schopp has run for office and made a good showing against an entrenched icon who outspent him.
BTW, Snoopy, what is your real name and do you have any income dependant on any city projects?
snoopy | Nov 29, 2005 4:42:15 PM
I don't know - throw away millions in future investment in infrastructure, jobs and housing and ruin the city's reputation as a bad faith partner
JK:
BAD FAITH?? How about the bad faith of these deals rushed as fast as possible to get us locked in to Katz’s vision of Los Angeles North (or New York West, take your pick). The developers knew this was going on and should not be surprised if the scheme falls apart.
If you think most people support this trash, lets put it on the ballot and find out if more than a few PDC hacks and campaign contributing developers support towers over police fire and schools.
snoopy | Nov 29, 2005 4:42:15 PM
Jack is from NJ. Let him move back there for all I care.
JK:
Where are you from, Snoopy? Why don’t you go back where YOU came from.
Thanks
JK
Who has NO INCOME from any source connected with city spending - can everyone here say the same thing?
Posted by: jim karlock | Nov 30, 2005 5:50:03 PM
Sam:
I just got the rest of the tram documents. It is 4.5 inches thick. I cannot post. You can come look at it in my office if you want.
JK:
I might be interested in sacanning them for you. Email me if you are interested.
jim@saveportland.com
Thanks
JK
Posted by: jim karlock | Nov 30, 2005 6:52:43 PM
Anonymous said on Nov. 30:
"The tram seems like a great idea. And from what I've read, the developers are paying for most of it, so it's also a good deal for the city."
Actually, from the documents that Sam previously posted it looks like S. Waterfront developers are paying for less than %18 of the tram. OHSU is picking up the lions share of the costs (tho' not in proportion to its expected ridership of the tram.) OHSU money is public money that should be going to statewide health care, indigent care, the Poison Control Center, etc. The bulk of tram costs are coming from public money either directly or indirectly.
Posted by: Anton V. | Dec 1, 2005 9:31:40 AM
Hey Jim,
I love your bright and sunny outlook on life. Your ideas are poor, but you blame everything on a conspiracy to keep you silent. "I got outspent! Waa! Waa!" Um, isn't that what the $5 x 1000 idea was supposed to solve? I don't see people stepping up to the plate.
For the record, my name is for my friends and I don't count you as one of them. I was born and raised in Portland - UNLIKE Mr. Bog - so I think my vote counts like triple or something - at least if you listen to all the self-righteous whining around here about how our beloved Portland is getting ruined.
But I like the "new" Portland just fine, thank you. If you don't like it, run someone for office ($5 x 1000) to change it or leave, or be quiet. Given Jack's incredible page view count, its a wonder he hasn't collected the cash already.
I am a private consultant with an international client base and NO income related to city matters. There goes that trump card for you.
So we're going to put everything on the ballot now? Is that what democracy is? Sam got elected by the people of Portland knowing full well his history with the tram and his position on it. You lost, Jim. Admit it.
Posted by: snoopy | Dec 1, 2005 11:07:35 AM
Sam, as a former OHSU foundation employee, I am by no means obligated to speak supportively of OHSU on the tram topic. Instead, I am speaking from the heart and from what I believe to be good common sense.
First, let me say I'm dismayed to know that continuation of the tram project is even open to debate at this stage. Didn't we embark upon a protracted process through which a final decision was made? I believed then, as I believe now, that the decision to build a tram is not just in the best interest of OHSU, but in the best interest of Oregonians.
Though the history of OHSU's location on Marquam Hill has been explained to me, I still find it baffling that a healthcare institution providing critical healthcare suffers from such poor access. Locating a facility on the waterfront is a major step toward rectifying that folly. But ease of access is only a small part of the picture.
The cost of delivering healthcare is as staggering for OHSU as it is for other healthcare systems. But OHSU, as an academic healthcare center, must meet those costs while incurring the additional costs involved in delivering healthcare education to our future physicians, nurses and dentists. And it also carries more than its share of providing healthcare to indigent, uninsured and underinsured patients.
As an academic health center, OHSU brings stature--not to mention over 11,000 jobs--to our city. OHSU is unique and critically important to the state. The city of Portland should be a willing partner in the tram project.
Posted by: David | Dec 1, 2005 11:15:25 AM
As I commented on JackBlog: the North Macadam Agreement between the City and Parties has been altered several times in just the past year by the City Council. Three of the four Architectural Planning Standards where altered to the determent of the city as a whole. The altered Standards allow for more denser, larger, view blocking, sunlight blocking buidings than what the Agreement provided for less than a year ago. The just started John Ross building is 25% larger in floor plate size than what the original Agreement allowed besides being 32 storys high That is 25% more views, sunlight that is lost. Now times that by 57 times and that is what we could get for just the central part of South Waterfront. The POINT: Agreements are altered, broken all the time. The Tram should join the Standard's alteration in this line of thinking. Please recall all the refinements, alterations, broken Agreements in the Pearl District UR area.The city and ohters alter agreements all the time.Thats why we have attorneys, isn't it?
Snoopy, if you only knew, several of the bloggers have put there hats in the ring in the past and possibly the future. And many serve on committees,etc that address many of the blogger issues.
Posted by: Lee | Dec 1, 2005 11:04:12 PM
Sam,
Thanks for patience in wading through all this static!
Stiffing the largest employer in the region by backing out of the tram deal hardly seems like a smart thing to do. Note that this employer is our closest thing to a research university.
Portland's economic future is much more dependent on knowledge and ideas than on moving commodities. (see Chris Coleman's post)
Build the tram and help OHSU grow; we all benefit.
Posted by: Lenny Anderson | Dec 2, 2005 8:18:13 AM
Interesting juxaposition in this AM's Oregonian Business section...while the new OHSU building in South Waterfront is slated for the highest Green building classification, generating a whole new level of (traded sector) expertise in Portland, the Port is looking to convert part of Terminal 4 into a toxic waste dump. Which institution has a better bead on the our region's economic future? The smart money will on OHSU.
Posted by: Lenny Anderson | Dec 2, 2005 10:34:34 AM
Lenny,
"static"
You need more homework. If the Tram is vital to OHSU they can and should pay for it themselves.
You seem to be stuck in the early rhetoric for the Tram and Sowa.
What are you up to?
Have you learned nothing?
We now know the central premise at the launching of SoWa and the Tram, OHSU biotechnology expansion and 10,000 jobs, was pure baloney.
An exaggeration, fabrication or embellishment.
Something which you appear to be comfortable continuing.
We now know the OHSU building coming out of the ground is NOT a biotech building at all.
We now know the initial estimates of $8.5 million for the Tram have climbed to around $50 million.
Calling this "static" while pretending it all still makes the same sense is foolish, indefensible and disingenuous.
I think you need to do better job of explaining your advocacy.
Right now you appear to be part of an endless and costly snow job.
Sam, steer clear of Lenny's advice. He clearly is not qualified.
First and foremost should be the acknowledgment and consideration that the overwhelming majority of taxpaying Portlanders are opposed to this Tram as it has evolved. That is not "static".
When push comes to shove you should be siding with the masses. At least on those rare occasions such as this when it is abundantly obvious what people want. Or don't want.
If you go the other way, it won't mean much to say you did because Len told you to.
Do the right thing.
Posted by: William | Dec 2, 2005 11:44:58 AM
William said: Sam, steer clear of Lenny's advice. He clearly is not qualified.
-That's pretty rude! He expressed his opinion and you have a right to express yours, but there isn't a single way you can determine whether or not his opinions are qualified. It would be irresponsible of Sam not to pay attention to the views of all of his voting block instead of just the things you specifically think he should hear.
Instead of attacking Lenny, why don't you prove some of your statements from above, such as...
"First and foremost should be the acknowledgment and consideration that the overwhelming majority of taxpaying Portlanders are opposed to this Tram as it has evolved. That is not "static".
When push comes to shove you should be siding with the masses. At least on those rare occasions such as this when it is abundantly obvious what people want. Or don't want."
-Where is the public opinion poll that show a majority of Portlanders (and by Portlander I mean those that live in the city and vote in the city) are against this development? I see people marching against the war, or better school funding. There was an uproar over some of the PDC's actions, but I haven't heard anything outside of maybe 20 names of bloggers here and on BoJack that are against this project. A majority that does not make.
"If you go the other way, it won't mean much to say you did because Len told you to."
-Please show us ONE example where Sam, in public none-the-less, issued a statement blaming a poor decision he made on a blogger, voter, or anyone else for that matter.
"We now know the central premise at the launching of SoWa and the Tram, OHSU biotechnology expansion and 10,000 jobs, was pure baloney.
An exaggeration, fabrication or embellishment.
Something which you appear to be comfortable continuing."
-There was no fabrication of the central agreement. At least nothing as glaring as say, Weapons of Mass Destruction. Look at the promised timetables, the district is supposed to take 10 to 15 years to accomplish its full potential. I think there are some people that are opposed to this project just to be opposed. The district hasn't even been in existance for one full year and we already have 5 or 6 buildings under construction. OHSU has a new campus donated by the Schnitzers where it will continue to focus its future growth. The upper tram terminal connects to OHSU's new BioScience building. There was never a promise that the first OHSU building in SoWa was going to be an OHSU BioScience building. It does have space however for future companies that will want to cluster in the area as OHSU launches into BioScience research.
OHSU was very upfront that they needed the tram for future BioScience and other campus growth or else they would focus their continued growth on land in Hillsboro. It would be foolish of them to build a second BioScience building when their first one isn't even months old.
"I think you need to do better job of explaining your advocacy."
-and you shouldn't have to explain your advocacy against this project?
I'm just saying, this conversation would mean much more if everyone backed up their statements. If you have a good point, it will hold up to the comments that are sure to follow.
Posted by: MarkDaMan | Dec 2, 2005 1:50:04 PM
Mr. Man,
You asked, "Where is the public opinion poll that show a majority of Portlanders (and by Portlander I mean those that live in the city and vote in the city) are against this development?"
I was addressing the opposition to the Tram although the SoWa has many flaws and much opposition as well.
If you have been unable to gage the size of the opposition to tax dollars for the Tram you might be hopeless.
Or you don't read enough.
If you haven't picked up on the lack of potential for biotech expansion and the thousands of jobs promised you have not been paying attention.
Thankfully Commissioner Adams has.
OHSU made the pitch their SoWa expansion was about biotech and biotech jobs. They pushed public support based upon that, not "we have a new biotech building already on the hill so we will be helping our tax exempt doctor's group build a new clinic, health club and offices.
you say
" future companies that will want to cluster in the area as OHSU launches into BioScience research"
You just don't get it do you. Or you are part of the ongoing snow job.
There are no companies coming to "cluster" and OHSU will not be growing it's biotech research by any significant amount.
Look at the industry, competition and reality.
Conversation won't mean anything with chronic misrepresentation coming from your minority side.
Posted by: William | Dec 2, 2005 2:21:13 PM
Any rational, impartial and comprehensive study shows funding for the Tram should be left for OHSU, the LID and fundraising by Mark and Lenny.
Their advocacy for the reckless spending of other peoples (taxpayers) money (against their will) should be rejected by the council.
Posted by: Larry | Dec 2, 2005 3:30:43 PM
"I was addressing the opposition to the Tram although the SoWa has many flaws and much opposition as well.
If you have been unable to gage the size of the opposition to tax dollars for the Tram you might be hopeless.
Or you don't read enough."
I tend to think I'm a little smarter than the BS spoon fed by the Clackamas Tribune. I guess by judging your arguments above, you're not...Show me an opinion poll that show that the public wants the city to pull out of the current tram agreement, and the methods for gathering the opinion. Than your words would be a little more than baseless attacks at the tram, Lenny, myself and whoever else.
"Any rational, impartial and comprehensive study shows funding for the Tram should be left for OHSU, the LID and fundraising by Mark and Lenny."
Don't tell me that, show me it!
Posted by: MarkDaMan | Dec 2, 2005 4:23:48 PM
MarkDaMan Dec 2, 2005 4:23:48 PM
..Show me an opinion poll that show that the public wants the city to pull out of the current tram agreement, and the methods for gathering the opinion. Than your words would be a little more than baseless attacks at the tram, Lenny, myself and whoever else.
jk:
No. You show all of us that the public wants to spend millions for a private doctor’s group which owns 80% of the “OHSU” building. While you are at it, show us where the public even wants to spend over $200 million building a tower condo farm for the rich.
MarkDaMan
Don't tell me that, show me it!
jk:
You are the one asking to spend public money. You show us!
Thanks
JK
Posted by: jim karlock | Dec 2, 2005 4:47:39 PM
If the tram is canceled and whether or not there are OHSU buildings on the south waterfront, what other traffic improvements could/would/will be made for Marquam Hill? Are the tram and shuttle buses really the top two options? Commuters should have easier access to the hill whether driving, taking public transport, walking or biking.
Posted by: Kristina | Dec 2, 2005 5:46:29 PM
I should first say that I work for the City. However, this comment is my personal view as a resident of Portland.
I like the idea of building dense, urban neighborhoods. The Pearl and South Waterfront are really great in a lot of ways. I'm happy that we're on a tragectory as a community where we can support the establishment of these types of neighborhoods.
That said, the robust conversation about the tram and other transportation elements is interesting, but I think that there are some very important points about South Waterfront that are being lost in the debate.
I remain very concerned about the long-term sustainability of the neighborhood model that is moving forward. My concern is centered on the risks being taken due to a lack of a school being in the master plan and lack of units with more than 2 bedrooms.
I'm concerned that the land use and development model we're using in the Pearl and South Waterfront relies too heavily on young professionals and "empty nesters" to support the market. While this has worked so far, markets are cyclical.
Families set roots in their neighborhoods. Kids make families much less mobile, which is a good thing. Stability and a shared sense of history are really important elements of healthy neighborhoods.
I'm concerned that young professionals and empty nesters are too mobile to sustain a healthy neighborhood for decades.
When I've shared these concerns with friends, the most common question they've asked is: "Schools can't afford what they have to pay for now, how can they afford to build a school?"
My thought is that we are living in the now, but can't be blind to our future. Do we really think that we'll never figure out how to fund our schools? Or how to provide top notch public education? I'm hopeful enough to think we'll get there.
We need to plan for that day. If we wait until we build the whole place out, then try to retrofit the schools, we're in trouble. There won't be the space in the neighborhood for the amount of space a school campus requires. We need to at least identify where we would like to build a school.
I recently took a tour put on by one of the major developers in the Pearl. I asked of the 5000 housing units that will be built in South Waterfront, how many would have more than 2 bedrooms? They told me they weren't aware of any.
I asked why there weren't any 3 bedroom units and was told, "People are not demanding a product like that."
They went on to claim that 3 bedroom units could just be built in later, after the "demand for that product was established." This comment was really hard for me to swallow.
A couple of years ago, I had a nice discussion with a developer in the Pearl. I asked why he built with a maximum of 2 bedroom units. He told me essentially that it all came down to price per square feet. Developers start realizing lower $/square feet when they start to plan 3-bedroom units.
If developers are not interested in fitting a portion of 3-bedroom units into any buildings, how could they be taken seriously when they say they will build large stocks of dispersed, 3-bedroom units later?
I wonder if, as a community, we need to make a demand that the giant neighborhood that is about to built not exclude families from living there.
I'm concerned that we're asking for big trouble by building out the largest residential developments in our city's history without even having a school in the master plan. I'm also concerned that we're building huge stocks of housing that excludes the average family (does the average American family still have 2.1 kids?).
Posted by: Greg | Dec 2, 2005 7:51:02 PM
Jim, I gave it to The Oregonian to review but I can retrieve on Monday or Tuesday if you want to barrow it to scan. Sam
Posted by: Sam Adams | Dec 3, 2005 6:58:38 PM
sam:
I can retrieve on Monday or Tuesday if you want to barrow it to scan. Sam
JK:
Great, let me know when I can pick it up. (I use a real email address in postings)
Thanks
JK
Posted by: jim karlock | Dec 5, 2005 9:26:06 AM
jk said "No. You show all of us that the public wants to spend millions for a private doctor’s group which owns 80% of the “OHSU” building. While you are at it, show us where the public even wants to spend over $200 million building a tower condo farm for the rich."
-You are missing the point JK, I didn't claim anything in my above posts about public opinion for or against this project, only that 20 or so commenters on local blogs don't make a majority. In fact, I didn't support the tram nor did I come out attacking it. My point, and as I re-read my above posts, is very clear and that is if you are going to make statement like "the majority of taxpayers/business, is against this" than it's very irresponsible not to back that up, and if you can't back it up, don't say it at all...
If you want to derail the tram, which is already under construction with signed contracts, than the onus is on you or any other detractor to give some numbers that can be proven. Making fabulously misleading statements such as "the city is paying $45 million" when the cost to the city currently is under $10 million, makes me think the arguments against this are so flimsy that detractor are embellishing to try and sway minds. That isn't a fair debate and makes me realize these detractors have an agenda instead of a concern.
By all means though, back up the claims. My mind and even more importantly, the commish's mind, could be changed given useful information and not rhetoric from the peanut gallery.
Posted by: MarkDaMan | Dec 5, 2005 12:26:37 PM
Help me out...why all the heat about a couple of $ million, when the PBA is up at Metro asking for a couple of $ billion?....see "The Cost of Congestion..." by PBA/Metro/Port of Portland.
Now that is scary!
Posted by: Lenny Anderson | Dec 5, 2005 12:29:18 PM
Sam,
Here is a link to the PDC that contains the Development Agreement for South Waterfront (North Macadam):
http://www.pdc.us/pubs/inv_detail.asp?id=236&ty=16
Exhibit 1 of the 7th Amendment to the DA is a spreadsheet showing funding sources, both public and private.
Posted by: Anton V. | Dec 5, 2005 5:10:55 PM
Back in 1998 the Tram was to connect OHSU to a Women's Health Center and office buildings. Somehow it morphed into a promise of 10,000 biotech research jobs during the planning and approval process only to come out the other end (today) exactly how it started. With a health club to boot.
http://www.wweek.com/html/leada082698.html
"Goldschmidt has also offered paid advice to the Schnitzer and Zidell families, who want to develop a 50-acre parcel south of the Marquam Bridge"
"Goldschmidt has also tried to excite Katz about the idea of running a tram from Oregon Health Sciences University--where Goldschmidt serves on the board of directors--down to the North Macadam development, where OHSU wants to build a new Women's Health Center and office buildings."
Posted by: Steve Schopp | Dec 6, 2005 10:42:06 AM
Jim,
What's wrong with aspiring to be like Los Angeles or New York? Last time I looked they were on the list of the world greatests cities. Should we not aspire to great things in Portland? Are we so much better with our high unemployment, homeless youth gangs and meth houses? Our schools are substandard and our rediculous tax structure keep corporate (business,manufacturing)America out.
Are the quaint little shops on Hawthorn going to support the estimated 1,000,000 people population growth over the next 20 years?
This tram offers more to the city of Portland than just randomly picked numbers...it offers a little pazzaz. It helps establish an identity and gives people who visit Portland a chance to say "wow, that's nice".
The city is growing and evolving wether you like it or not, quit with the constant search for ways to keep us in mediocrity.
Posted by: Brett | Dec 20, 2005 12:46:38 PM
Please don't aspire to become more like L.A.
First, Los Angeles is orders of magnitude larger than PDX.
Second, L.A.'s geography and layout is nothing like PDX.
Third, there is no greater example of how the lack of regional planning leads to sprawl and gridlock.
New York is a wonderful city, but c'mon: Portland is never going to be at the crossroads of global fashion/finance/publishing/jewelry/etc. business. Let's aspire to be more like San Diego (we already have the pension and disability fund issues), or Las Vegas (we've already got all the strip clubs and poker parlors, we just need more hotel/casinos).
Seriously though, can't Portland just be like Portland. Can't we follow our own path?
Posted by: Green Scrooge | Dec 20, 2005 2:58:06 PM
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.
Sam,
I'd look very closely at those travel time estimates. They seem high to me. A *doubling* of the travel time in 14 years?
One also has to ask if there are traffic abatement measures that can be taken to reduce congestion--I assume the estimates are based on no changes to current intersections, no realignment of the RI Bridge entrance, etc.
It's also frustrating that the cause of additional traffic in the area is like SoWa, which we were sold as a development that would not increase traffic!
Last comment: can you please summarize for us simply. The cost to the city of cancellation looks to be 6.2 million plus 600,000 profit. (Note that these must be treated as "sunk costs" for the purposes of cost benefit analysis).
I don't understand the rest of the analysis, specifically:
Posted by: paul | Nov 23, 2005 9:23:12 AM