Milwaukie Light Rail
In my free time from teaching high school, I have the honor of representing the citizens of Milwaukie on the City Council. Our hot button issue is bringing light rail south from Portland through Milwaukie. Unfortunately, this has brought out a campaign of misinformation from some of our local residents (and a few folks that don't even live in Milwaukie.) The Oregonian weighed in on the debate in their Clackamas County Weekly section.
So, what do the opponents of light rail want? They have bombarded my email box with a form letter urging the Council and Metro to reconsider the location of the light rail line. Their argument is based on fear and misinformation. They want our residents to believe we will have new crack houses popping up in Milwaukie. They tell local folks they can expect their property values go down. They say no one will ride light rail. They say Metro is pushing the issue down their throats.
Milwaukie is a beautiful City that is changing. Our downtown is growing and we all know Clackamas County continues to expect to see a growth in folks moving into our communities in the years ahead. So, what makes light rail so scary? What is it I can share with my fellow residents of Milwaukie to help them as we move through this issue once again.
|
May 10, 2007 |
Deborah Barnes | Comments (216 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: lestatdelc | May 10, 2007 6:41:19 PM
Is there some huge rise in crack houses and declining property values in Beaverton since the MAX line opened up there that the world failed to notice?
/snark
My only complaint about extending light-rail to Milwaukee is that it doesn't continue on South to Wilsonville and back around to Tigard/Tualatin (where I live) and closing a loop with Beaverton.
Posted by: john | May 10, 2007 7:01:36 PM
Anyone have an actual statistical analysis of crime rates as they are related to light rail? I'd like to see whether it makes a difference one way or the other.
Posted by: Ross Williams | May 10, 2007 7:06:58 PM
Its interesting that Metro removed light rail from the table and it was residents of Milwaukie and Southeast Portland who put it back on again. The crack house argument ought to make it clear that this opposition is at least partially fear mongering by people with a hidden agenda.
I suspect there are two things going on here. One is the ideological crazies who helped kill light rail in the past are back. The other is that there are a bunch of economic interests elsewhere in the region who want to push in front of Milwaukie. They want light rail to boost the value of property in the communities where they have speculated. And the first place to start is by derailing (sorry) the Milwaukie line.
Posted by: Bob R. | May 10, 2007 7:08:21 PM
John -
You could try these two documents (on a Sacramento transit agency web site) as a starting point... the PDFs list other published studies:
http://www.slp2.org/documents/crimefs04.pdf
http://www.slp2.org/documents/propertyvalfs04.pdf
- Bob R.
Posted by: Bob R. | May 10, 2007 7:09:44 PM
I also attempted to post links to the official TriMet and Metro South Corridor pages, but Movable Type intercepted them... perhaps a moderator can usher the comments through?
- Bob R.
Posted by: David English | May 10, 2007 7:34:52 PM
Deb,
I don't know if you remember me, but I have also been involved in Milwaukie Elections in the past. Even though I am not a resident of Milwaukie anymore, I still care deeply about the area and hope to end up back there someday when I return to the US.
It seems like since the light rail measure went down in flames years ago that the light rail to Milwaukie has become the lowest priority. I think that's sad and hope that one of these days it actually gets finished.
Ross has a good point, some issues seem to pull the loonies out of the closet better then others. For Milwaukie, light rail is one of those issues. As long as opponents are screaming as loud as they can pitching the fear angle, light rail will not happen.
Posted by: doretta | May 10, 2007 7:57:17 PM
The argument that the light rail would decrease property values was also used in my neighborhood, now home to the Interstate line.
Even with the rapid appreciation in the rest of the city, my area has consistently outpaced pretty much everywhere else since the light rail was built. There are reasons besides the light rail for that, but it's pretty clear that it hasn't hurt.
Posted by: Janice | May 10, 2007 9:43:44 PM
Yeah Hang in there Deborah,
Just make sure you do your part to help Metro, TriMet and the CoP avoid any public vote.
Posted by: Bob R. | May 10, 2007 9:46:56 PM
Janice -
Deborah is an elected representative in a position which carries the authority to influence these kinds of decisions.
If you are a constituent, I encourage you to present your arguments, as I would encourage any constituent regardless of whether they favor or oppose a particular light rail proposal.
- Bob R.
Posted by: Jennifer | May 10, 2007 9:52:56 PM
Deb. I've lived in Milwaukie for several years although I just moved out of town into unincorporated Clackamas County. I still think of downtown Milwaukie as my local downtown and I love the Milwaukie Farmers Market on Sundays. Everyone in Milwaukie I talk to supports light rail and thinks the angst displayed by the anti-everything crowd is just ridiculous. The region is growing, global warming is real, and the era of cheap oil is over. We'd be fools not to invest now in expanding light rail. I think you and the other councilors deserve an award for leadership and I hope that you dont back down.
Clackamas County is ten years behind the rest of the region in expanding public transit. I am hopeful that we can change this in the next ten years through progressive leadership from people like you. Good luck and don't let a few loud voices mislead you into thinking that the majority of us in Clackamas County dont support light rail. Even my 72 year old republican neighbor supports more transit!
Posted by: lw | May 10, 2007 9:57:09 PM
I encourage Deborah to put the Milwaukie lightrail on the ballot so that all those who pay for it gets to vote. A good idea should have real public support.
Posted by: Hawthorne | May 10, 2007 10:16:54 PM
lw-
Do you think that we should start voting on all significant expenditures? Highway interchanges, lane additions, water pipe replacements- or is it just for things you don't like? Why bother to have representative democracy?
Posted by: Jenni Simonis | May 10, 2007 10:33:51 PM
Deborah--
Part of it might be the news coverage the occasional incident on a MAX line receives. Sure makes it seem like that kind of stuff happens a lot more often.
Lots of luck on the project. I'd really like to see mass transit expanded in the area. A lot of the people willing to use it live in areas that aren't very well served. When the nearest bus is a distance away and only runs once an hour, it sure makes using public transportation early. I always hated it -- I'd get there to the stop early, yet many times I'd still miss the bus. Which meant I was out of luck for another hour... which meant I was driving the car to work.
With gas prices continuing to climb, and no one doing anything about it, we've got to look at other options. There are a lot of people out there who can't afford $60+ per week to fill up their tank to drive back and forth to work. Without transit options, they're going to be in a lot of trouble.
We're lucky, as where we moved is within walking distance of a grocery store (unfortunately it's an expensive Albertsons), a movie theater, a few fast food restaurants, and our favorite Mexican restaurant. So my daughter and I regularly go for walks to these places. But plenty of people don't have that option.
Posted by: Deborah | May 11, 2007 6:59:03 AM
Janice,
I would have responded directly to you via email but your personal information didn't allow me to. Please let me know if you live in Milwaukie so I can chat with you directly. I had a question about your post...what is "CoP"? In addition, I hope you have had the opportunity to go to the information sessions we have held so you can voice your concerns. I would rather have an informed electorate who can explain their position to me so I can better understand your concerns. I would be more than happy to hear from you.
Posted by: Jay Lake | May 11, 2007 7:28:52 AM
I'm a parent of a child at the Portland Waldorf School in Milwaukie, and am currently purchasing a home in Milwaukie. There's a lot of opposition to the current version of the light rail plan from the school's parent body -- who may be "the few folks that don't even live in Milwaukie" you refer to with apparent casual disparagement. That opposition isn't based on an opposition to light rail in principle, or light rail in Milwaukie in specific, but on the fact that one of the most likely sites for a station will severely impair the viability and safety of a school campus that is the educational home to hundreds of children. I think you'd find that with some plan adjustments, the school parents would largely be enthusiastic supporters of the light rail.
This is a legitimate issue of both private and public interest, not some Luddite reaction to public transit issues.
Posted by: Deborah Barnes | May 11, 2007 8:09:09 AM
Jay,
I do understand your concerns regarding Waldorf School. I want you to know I am not taking your concerns lightly. I would love the opportunity to work with you and the other parents through this process. I know our staff and Council will continue to work on developing the right solution for this situation.
I apologize if my comments appeared to be too casual. I believe we all want to work toward a good solution and making sure everyone has all the facts so there are no misunderstandings. Thank you for caring about your new city. We look forward to working with you in the future.
Posted by: nuovorecord | May 11, 2007 8:42:41 AM
Deborah:
CoP = City of Portland.
Keep up the good work!
Posted by: WantAnAnswer | May 11, 2007 8:44:26 AM
On first read, the smug condescension and cartoonish representations in the dismissal of other views by a scripted light rail partisan like Deborah seemed to just be that very common character flaw one encounters in these parts that one learns one has to just to shrug off. However, after her extremely patronizing but factually vacuous answer, to this very reasonable and respectfully made point:
That opposition isn't based on an opposition to light rail in principle, or light rail in Milwaukie in specific, but on the fact that one of the most likely sites for a station will severely impair the viability and safety of a school campus that is the educational home to hundreds of children.
the issue to which I would like to hear someone speak in detail who is more responsible, respectful, and apparently more honest, than Deborah are the specific alignment and station siting decisions being made, including this specific case, and the actual deals that have to be cut in each case.
Also, this argument by another advocate that one frequently hears demonstrates a typical level of meaninglessness:
When the nearest bus is a distance away and only runs once an hour, it sure makes using public transportation early. I always hated it -- I'd get there to the stop early, yet many times I'd still miss the bus. Which meant I was out of luck for another hour... which meant I was driving the car to work.
1) most people are not going to live any closer to a light rail stop than a bus stop because light rail. Light rail, after all, run on a single path just as a bus runs down a single street.
2) - and buses can be made to run more and more busses can be put into service, cheaper than building a single light rail line.
The light rail solution to public transportation is just an expensive life-style choice by a certain group of people in these times, and a business opportunity for a certain market sector. If it were fairly and honestly discussed on that basis, we would actually get good public policy that may or may not include light rail, and perhaps would make for a genuinely more harmonious community. However, that is the last thing a lot of folks want. (And by the way, I too have always preferred to take light rail, the bus, or the streetcar any chance I can instead of drive):
Posted by: Janice | May 11, 2007 8:48:13 AM
Bob R.,
Who the heck are you with your "Deborah is an elected representative in a position which carries the authority to influence these kinds of decisions"?
Could you be a little more condescending?
I mean no kidding? She's elected?
Who are you to "encourage" anything?
What difference does is make if am one of her "constituents"? Her constituents aren't paying for the light rail. And none of them, like anyone else will be voting on it.
What's the point of "presenting arguments" with people like you ambushing the opposition and providing cover for politicians working the anti-voting schemes for more light rail? Presenting opposition arguments in this rigged process, of which you area clearly a part, is a total waste of time. This is all a time tested process launched after light rail was voter defeated and the Airport MAX and Cascade Station Urban Renewal scheme developed.
And you know it. Little good it will do but I would encourage you to keep your transparent insults to yourself.
Deborah,
There is no need to respond directly to one taxpayer.
"CoP" is the City of Portland.
Having been to many "information sessions" I know they are for distribution of propaganda to justify the predetermined policies. Voicing concerns is a not so funny joke and a waste of the taxpayer's and voters time.
I am an exceedingly informed voter/taxpayer who recognizes the familiar rhetoric which signals this deal is done.
With all the usual activists trotting out their handy work our politicians find comfort is avoiding a public vote. It's really quite a slick effort equating the propagandized public support to an actual election and public vote. Me? I say there's nothing quite like the authentic public support signaled by a genuine election. But here at Blue that's just me.
Hawthorne threw in the so very predictable "Do you think that we should start voting on all significant expenditures?" line suggesting our "representative democracy" was preserved once our regional politicians figured out how to get around the voters for more light rail.
I look forward to hearing from you touting a new round of Milwaukee Urban Renewal spending on the heels of this done deal light rail extension. Of course Milwaukee, like other locales in the region, will need to siphon away many millions from basic services to "spur" (that's subsidize to the layperson) the development which Light Rail always fails to "spur".
Having grown up in SE Portland and Milwaukee I know the area.
Having studied all of our light rail and TODs I know that this Light Rail extension you support will not produce any of the traffic relief or private development you wrongly believe will occur because of it. And when you get done diverting countless millions in property taxes meant for basic services you'll be busy dreaming up every money grabbing tax and fees increase possible to backfill the revenue you recklessly spent on private development and light rail schemes. You'll claim no general fund will be spent on Urban Renewal. That's not true with any UR int he region. You'll claim all of the Urban Renewal money will be generated by the new development. That's not true at any UR in the region. With each and every politician touted UR district large swaths of adjacent real estate gets thrown into the district "plan" in order to siphon away and spend more property taxes. For decades this money which would have fed the rising costs of basic services will be used instead to retire the massive debt created by the Urban Renewal subsidized development and light rail.
So yes indeed you are advocating the diverting of Milwaukee's' general fund revenue to be spent on light rail and private development. But with Bob R.'s (et al. help you don't quite say it that way while blocking any chance of a public vote.
Instead you politely invite your constituents to "information sessions" which don't quite say it like it is either.
Out in Rockwood along the first MAX light rail line a massive Urban Renewal spending plan is needed these 20 some years later, in part, to "deal with the crime and blight along the Max Line"
Gresham Station to this day has two Metro owned parcels sitting idle and about to be handed over for a song, along with additional subsidy to "spur" something to be built.
On the heals of 205 MAX approval Clackamas County approved a $25 million Urban Renewal plan to expand Clackamas Town center and to do the same "spurring" along
82nd avenue which County Commissioners had just used to justify light rail.
Posted by: Mel | May 11, 2007 8:56:20 AM
This is the line that was VOTED DOWN twice in Oregon and once inn Clark County.
Concerned politicians and voters should get the McLouglin EIS prepared by ODOT to see what would be a real solution for Milwaukie.
Mel
Posted by: torridjoe | May 11, 2007 9:08:28 AM
"the development which Light Rail always fails to "spur"."
Come again? Do you even LIVE here?
Posted by: Bob Tiernan | May 11, 2007 9:23:04 AM
Do you suppoort having a vote of the people on this,
or to continue the current strategy (pushed by those
who will make money off these projects, including
the family Serena Cruz-Walsh married into) of bypassing
voters?
If there is any misinformation, it cvomes from those
pro-rail project people who stand to gain a great deal
from the construction and post-construction corporate
welfare projects along the line. Ridership figures
mean nothing to them.
How about more buses for a fraction of the money this
line would cost? Oh, that's right -- transit advocates
started to trash buses as part of the campaign to get
light rail lines. Fat Cats get more money from light
rail projects, so they use all light rail supporters
(including those who mean well) to pass on their
propaganda and then they laugh all the way to the bank.
Bob Tiernan
Bob Tiernan
Posted by: torridjoe | May 11, 2007 9:37:21 AM
"Ridership figures mean nothing to them."
On the contrary--ridership figures make the case. Opponents with rational objections to the PSU line showed their concern in part based on OVERCROWDING of trains, not empty ones.
Buses are certainly better than cars, but they've got nothing on light rail for efficiency, speed and environmental soundness.
Posted by: WantAnAnswer | May 11, 2007 9:39:39 AM
"the development which Light Rail always fails to "spur"."
Come again? Do you even LIVE here?
There is little evidence light rail spurred actual causes an increase in the total level of development of a region.
Light rails does, however, radically alter development patterns in the ways we see in Portland.
The best example I've heard is that a diversified and spatially distributed public transportation system is like the capillary system of healthy tissue. Light rail kills that capillary system, and leaves just the larger vein/artery system to the heart (the urban center). As a result, gentrified development happens along the light rail vein/artery, displacing healthier true socio-economic diversity away from the light rail line. The economic health of a particular neighborhood decreases proportional to the distance it is from the light rail line out in territory increasingly underserved by a capillary public transportation systems.
There are economic winners both in business and in the community under that pattern of development, that's why we have it in Portland. Light rail is the transportation component of a certain approach to planning that has all kinds of implications for the distribution of political and social power, there are alternate planning approaches which support equal urban density, and arguably healthier patterns of economic, political, and social development, that rely on alternate, more flexible, public transportation models. The NW just happens to be a place where the self-serving naivete of those who think they are pretty smart, like torridjoe, makes them particularly amenable to the corrupting influences of those who benefit economically from one particular approach to urban planning. Their values of the advocates and the business interests are hardly what anyone would label "progressive", but that is another issue.
Posted by: Scott in Damascus | May 11, 2007 9:53:12 AM
Fat Cats get more money from light
rail projects
Bob Tiernan:
Could you supply a list of elected officials, lobbyist, and others who got rich off the last extentions and those who will get rich via no-bid contracts and the like from the Milwaukee extensions?
Thank you in advance.
Posted by: Deborah Barnes | May 11, 2007 10:00:56 AM
I really do appreciate the dialogue this topic has brought forth. For the record, my being polite should not be construed as being:
"On first read, the smug condescension and cartoonish representations in the dismissal of other views by a scripted light rail partisan like Deborah seemed to just be that very common character flaw one encounters in these parts that one learns one has to just to shrug off.
Because I live in Milwaukie, I would appreciate folks to not confuse my city with that of the one found in Wisconsin.
Posted by: VR | May 11, 2007 10:09:50 AM
We can't vote on every expenditure - because if we did, nothing at all would get done.
A true democracy, where we all vote on every issue - cannot ever be implemented in a real world. Especially not one where we have hundreds of thousands, or millions of "voters".
That is why we have a representative form of government.
If we are going to start demanding a vote on expenditures - I want a public vote on Iraq.
I suspect that the average person would be quite surprised on how much money is spent in various areas. All over the place. Light-Rail is simply an easy target - but government is expensive all over.
More money is spent every year on abstinence only sex education, or faith based government initiatives - than has been spent in Oregon on light-rail. Why didn't I get to vote on those?
There are always objections to any development plan. There were on the red line in Hillsboro, I remember signs in people's back yards "THANKS MAX FOR RUINING OUR LIVES" and things like that.
But those are usually extreme emotional responses that have little basis in reality. I have lived near the Red Line in Hillsboro - in fact purposely bought there because I wanted to be near the MAX. It was great.
Now I live in Southeast PDX, near where the Milwaukie line would come through. I support it fully.
There are people in Forest Grove that claim that if they extend the red line into Forest Grove that the trains will bring crime. Well, busses already go there - and so do roads. Should we get rid of roads if we find out that a criminal might use them?
Get real people.
The things that we should be focusing on is route alignment, station location, and station design. I agree that if a station could harm a school, it should be looked into. However - I am not sure that the claims that the station would harm the Waldorf school are well founded. They may just be knee-jerk reactionary type statements without much reality involved. I just don't know. I would need to see the station designs and hear what about them concerns the parents.
The public should have input. Absolutely.
But we can't vote on everything. It just doesn't work.
In my opinion the biggest criticism of the Milwaukie line is that it doesn't go all the way to Oregon City.
Here is what I would do if I were able to make the future plans:
Yellow line from Vancouver WA to Oregon City - without going through downtown, stay on the east side.
Blue Line - Forest Grove to Sandy. Plan for a station or two in between Gresham and Sandy - but keep it "express" at the current time.
Extend red line service to at least 185th in Beaverton / Hillsboro - and cross the river into Vancouver.
Green line extend from Clackamas to Oregon City, meeting up with Yellow Line.
Switch Washington County commuter rail to regular service - not just peak hours or peak directions.
New light rail line down Barbur / 99W corridor to Sherwood - possible future service to Newberg.
Streetcar to Lake Oswego. Streetcar down Powell / Foster. Streetcar on Hawthorne. Streetcar on Broadway to Sandy blvd, Sandy blvd to Park Rose.
Express bus service in 217 corridor - connecting St Vincents hospital, Sunset transit center, Beaverton Town Center, Washington Square, Tigard Triangle, Kruse Way / Kruse Meadows, Lake Oswego transit center and the streetcar line. 8 to 10 stops maximum. Regular service (not just peak hours).
And I would add several suburb to suburb express routes (cross town). Gresham to Clackamas to Oregon City, to Tualatin, to Hillsboro.
Eventually - we should start planning now - for a regional high speed subway type rail, with larger distances between stops.
Those changes with existing bus service - I think we would do pretty well.
But I am just dreaming...
Posted by: torridjoe | May 11, 2007 10:16:54 AM
Now I've heard it all--light rail is a pernicious power play!
The NW just happens to be a place where the self-serving naivete of those who think they are pretty smart, like torridjoe, makes them particularly amenable to the corrupting influences of those who benefit economically from one particular approach to urban planning.
Self-serving how? I take the bus, and will have to continue to do so without other public options for the next decade, at a minimum. How does backing the Clackamas/PSU or Milwaukie lines serve me??
Just because I am not convinced by the cassandras who repeatedly throw factless absurdities around on this topic, does not make me naive. You'd have to be naive to believe some of the things anti-transit people say, like driving a car is better for congestion than taking a bus, or that TODs have no positive development effect. I've read the reports; I know different.
Posted by: torridjoe | May 11, 2007 10:21:04 AM
VR, I like your thinking! Except that I might run the Lake Oswego line down through West Linn and across to OC that way, rather than down through Milwaukie and Gladstone. (Of course, better still would be to link them both and create a loop).
Posted by: Garlynn - http://undergroundscience.blogspot.com | May 11, 2007 10:32:26 AM
Hi Deborah, and thanks for coming to BlueOregon for counsel on this matter!
I'm not sure where the evidence is that light rail *reduces* property values. All of the evidence in the Portland region suggests that light rail causes property values to rise *significantly* above the natural level of increase for properties with redevelopment potential, and stay flat or rise slightly for existing developed properties (see here: http://www.urban.uiuc.edu/projects/portland/lincoln.html and here: http://www.lgc.org/freepub/land_use/articles/whybuild/page01.html)
and of course the classic:
http://trimet.org/pdfs/publications/beyonddreams.pdf)
I'm not sure what it is about light rail that might be scary. I'd love to have a new light rail line built within a half mile of my house. I'm sure that my land value would go up, that it would cause transit-oriented development that would bring new services and amenities to my neighborhood, and that my ability to get places within the region comfortably would increase.
I wish you all the best with this effort. Light rail could really be the best thing to happen to Milwaukie in a long time.
Posted by: Chris McMullen | May 11, 2007 10:37:38 AM
"Their argument is based on fear and misinformation..."
Oh really? Sounds like a real objective conclusion you've drawn there.
What has light rail done for the area? I'll tell you:
-It has lined the pocket of developers with TOD tax breaks and subsidies.
-It does nothing to ease vehicle congestion. Is HWY-26 or I-84 any less congested then before MAX?
-It sucks up millions of tax dollars and transports a small fraction of the populace.
Light rail has been voted down time and time again, but you Dems still push it on us. Just like M7 and M37 -- we vote it in, you try and usurp the will of the people.
Posted by: Janice | May 11, 2007 10:47:34 AM
Torrid,
"the development which Light Rail always fails to "spur"."
"Come again? Do you even LIVE here?"
For someone who pretends to be at some higher level of awareness your ignorance on light rail, TOD's (Transit Oriented Development) and Urban Renewal is stunning.
You can't even read so it's "come again" from you.
Light rail did not spur anything but the same government agencies and their advocates to then spend countless millions to spur what the light rail did not do, anywhere around here. Every single UR plan and TOD devours millions in tax subsidies for high density experiments which don't deliver the promised accommodations for growth.
Then at the end of the day we get the same car oriented rat race which you all condemn while the working "alternative" you tout never materializes as a legitimate substitute for accommodating growth. And the public is out the countless millions used to subsidize your high density experiments.
Heavily tax subsidized Gresham Station is a car-oriented shopping center not much different from privately built Bridgeport Village. Gresham Station having a MAX stop has meant nothing anywhere near proportionate to the tax expense, if at all. And the subsidy is about to soar these two decades later with Metro handing over millions more in real estate and cash.
But if you don't know this, don't want to know this and are attempting to mislead people well,,,, come again yourself.
Heavily tax subsidized Airport Way Cascade Station is becoming the very car-oriented BIG BOX cluster it was intended to avoid and prohibit. MAX will mean little and the $200 million Urban Renewal Plan for a ped/bike/transit oriented mini-city was a total failure.
Tax subsidized Orenco Station is a car oriented rat race similar to any suburb of LA. Land adjacent to MAX was some of the last to develop.
Hillsboro Transit Oriented Development plans for market rate housing have been canceled and is being replaced with a parking garage.
The Beaverton Round is another MAX stop and it's plans have so changed after millions in tax subsidies that it now hosts Beaverton's tallest building. A 7 story parking garage. In stark contrast to the Round, Beaverton Town Center shopping center, well away from MAX, is always a bustling pedestrian center, most of which arrived by car.
Now those are some kind of transit oriented success stories eh?
Now tell us again the "theory" of what light rail "spurs" and what it will spur in Milwaukie - editor changed spelling.
This is about Milwaukie. - editor changed spelling.
While you're at it go ahead and propagandize how SoWa is a shinning success of biotech jobs or how successful the voter defeated, yet built anyway, convention center expansion has been and how a cc hotel is now needed.
Throw in a lecture on how Washington County commuter rail will serve Washington Square. From the wrong side of 217?????
I could go on and on with the loony tune plans of yesterday today and tomorrow.
But you first Joe, come again.
Come again Joe.
Scott in Damascus,
MAX is always a no bid contract, as was the Tram. Former politicians and bureaucrats find themselves working as lobbyists and consultants for the industry and campaign coffers are forever stuffed with the money from the beneficiaries of these light rail, street car, Tram, TOD and Urban Renewal schemes. Is you are new to these matters you may want to google and bone up yourself and not rely on others to use their non tax funded time walking you by hand through the issues.
I hear Torrid and others are getting paid with tax dollars while they propagandize.
How about you?
Posted by: VR | May 11, 2007 10:58:16 AM
"we vote it in, you try and usurp the will of the people"
The will of the people is not always the best option.
It was once the "will of the people" to own slaves. It was once the "will of the people" to not let women vote.
The majority of people want cheap clothes, new video games, unhealthy snacks, and a good TV show. Throw in beer and a sporting event.
While none of those things are bad - I am simply trying to point out that most people don't ACTIVELY concern themselves with things other than what is comfortable and easy.
Which is why when confronted with questions like "should we raise taxes by 1% to pay for a transit system that you might not even use" they will almost always answer no. Because they have not studied the benefits and downsides, or done research or anything like that. They simply take 30 seconds and mark a box on a form.
I have lived lots of places that did not have light rail, and a couple that didn't even have busses.
Let me tell you why I think light rail is nicer and better than busses for the general population. No numbers, just general observations.
1. Light Rail runs clean and quiet.
2. Light Rail rides smoothly.
3. Light Rail routes are well defined and it is easy to learn where the stops are.
4. Light Rail - in most cases - is not affected by traffic.
5. Light Rail is larger and more convenient to board and ride than busses.
6. Light Rail stations can be more easily "secured" or "patrolled" than endless numbers of stops along a bus line.
7. Light Rail stops can have better amenities - like seating, rain cover, and even vending.
There you go, my complete unscientific analysis on why people like Light rail compared to busses.
But I bet that the operational costs of busses compared to Light Rail is a lot closer than Light Rail opposition thinks. I don't have numbers though.
And finally, one last tidbit of my own thinking. If we have trains that are run by electricity - we can change how we generate that electricity or where we get it from without changing the transportation infrastructure. If we have busses that we want to change their energy source - it may not be possible, and if it is it would take changing thousands of power-trains in thousands of busses. So while electric powered transport may not be the absolute cleanest or most efficient NOW - it is very very upgradable.
Also, while Light Rail trains are expensive, their life-span is much longer than most busses.
So all in all, that is why I, as a taxpayer, and a transit rider - prefer rail systems to bus systems.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | May 11, 2007 11:13:43 AM
It does nothing to ease vehicle congestion. Is HWY-26 or I-84 any less congested then before MAX?
Chris, that's hardly the point. A better question: Are 26 and 84 less congested than they would be without MAX?
Don't forget, we've also added people.
Also, it's worth some time studying and understanding the Law of Triple Displacement. Basically, when there's congestion, people change their time, mode, and route of travel.
If you ponder that, it means that if there's more demand than there is capacity - then the peak time/mode/route (i.e. the Sunset Hwy at 5:30 in a car) will always stay full. When you add or subtract capacity, that peak will stay the same... but you'll see reductions in demand at other times, modes, or routes.
To put it more bluntly, if you were to suddenly double the capacity of light rail, the peak (Sunset/5:30/car) would stay the same... but you'd see less traffic at non-peak times and on alternate routes.
If that doesn't work for you, try the reverse: If you were to suddenly remove a lane of traffic, the peak (Sunset/5:30/car) would still be just as bumper-to-bumper as before. But the traffic would extend earlier and later, you'd get more people spilling onto side streets, and yes, some people would shift to other modes (light rail).
It's really not that complicated. And efforts to pretend otherwise ("But wait! Light rail didn't reduce traffic at 5:30 on the Sunset!") are just plain silly.
Posted by: lestatdelc | May 11, 2007 11:16:40 AM
Posted by: torridjoe | May 11, 2007 10:21:04 AMVR, I like your thinking! Except that I might run the Lake Oswego line down through West Linn and across to OC that way, rather than down through Milwaukie and Gladstone. (Of course, better still would be to link them both and create a loop).
I posted up-thread that continuing south and closing a loop that extended down to Wilsonville and Tualatin/Tigard would make sense as well. Wilsonville is rapidly growing and would serve as the ideal Southern end/loop turn point. In essence making a wide-area bottom half of a clover leaf that tied to a Clackmas Town Center line with one "loop" circuit and another that "loops" west to make a circuit with the west Beaverton line.
Posted by: torridjoe | May 11, 2007 11:23:16 AM
For someone who pretends to be at some higher level of awareness your ignorance on light rail, TOD's (Transit Oriented Development) and Urban Renewal is stunning. You can't even read so it's "come again" from you.
I've done the reading--it doesn't sound like you have:
http://www.urban.uiuc.edu/projects/portland/lincoln.html http://trimet.org/pdfs/publications/beyonddreams.pdf
and a new one I hadn't seen before:
http://www.lgc.org/freepub/land_use/articles/whybuild/page01.html)
I think the sputtering misinformation you provide here is best exemplified by your comment that somehow a MAX station with development finally occuring as intended, now becomes "car-oriented." I wasn't aware that only cars now ran out to that station. And beyond that, it's not called the Cascade Station Line, it's called the AIRPORT line. And yeah, the million people that used the airport station last year must really be thinking what a waste of time THAT project was!
Posted by: lestatdelc | May 11, 2007 11:24:45 AM
Posted by: Chris McMullen | May 11, 2007 at 10:37 AMLight rail did not spur anything but the same government agencies and their advocates to then spend countless millions to spur what the light rail did not do, anywhere around here
Yet in, North Portland along the Interstate line is one of the most upwardly developed areas around and the MAX line has a lot to do with it. I know numerious peopel who work dowtown who have moved into North Portland becuase of the access the MAX gives them to their jobs and because the housing there was more affordable and has resulted in what amounts to a non-predatory style gentrification boom.
MAX had a lot to do with it.
Posted by: Ross Williams | May 11, 2007 11:28:57 AM
Light rail has been voted down time and time again
I believe the west side light rail line was funded with voter approval.
Voters in the region approved funding for south/north, then a statewide measure that included south/north was defeated (although it won support in the Portland region), then the region defeated raising taxes across the region to fund south/north.
The fact is the voters have never "voted down light rail" on any level. In fact they have approved raising their taxes to pay extra for it on two occasions - three if you look just at the Metro region. The fact that they found a way to fund both the Interstate line and the I-205 line without additional taxes may indicate the voters were on to something.
Posted by: lestatdelc | May 11, 2007 11:29:59 AM
Posted by: torridjoe | May 11, 2007 11:23:16 AMAnd yeah, the million people that used the airport station last year must really be thinking what a waste of time THAT project was!
I personally know of hundreds of business travelers (out-of-town) that weekly would love to be able take easy, efficient, hassle free MAX line service type to Wilsonville instead of arranging car rental/shuttle transportation.
Posted by: Scott in Damascus | May 11, 2007 11:45:57 AM
Janice:
Stop spewing your strawman arguement of "lobbyists and consultants for the industry and campaign coffers are forever stuffed with the money" blah blah blah bullcrap. YOU do your homework and if there is corruption - spell it out.
And as far as your "Light rail did not spur anything" all I can add is "BWWWAAHHHHHHH" as I sit in my corner office across from Rasmussen BMW in D/T Portland and watch them putting up another office building and condo complex on in-fill property directly on the Max line. Land that had been a vacant lot for the last 15 years I've been here.
But I guess you would prefer to pave another farm further and further out until we look like Houston or Atlanta with a dry cleaner, yogurt shop, and 7/11 on every corner.
Posted by: Coyote | May 11, 2007 11:54:45 AM
Kari,
Actually a more accurate question would be:
Are I-84 and 26 more congested now than they would be if there had been another lane of traffic or even a bus express lane built. At a fraction of the cost.
Light Rail does not in any study, move more people than does a lane for cars.
Another question one might ask is:
Would all of this mythical development along LR lines have taken place WITHOUT the tax breaks given to those at TODs?
Will the politicians promise that if they build the line south to M there will be no extra use of taxpayer dollars to in essence pay developers to develop in areas they would not develop without said taxpayer dollars.
They won't promise that because development will not follow LR without the giveaways...cough...Beaverton Round...cough...
I am just wondering if Bechtel is one of those companies again who will be on the recieving end of those no-bid contracts. After all Bechtel has done very well with the LR projects in Portland and as most folks may know, has done pretty well under the Bush administration no-bid contracts as well.
Rest assured LR will go down south into the Portland suburbs. Because the Portland metro area politicians have done a fine job at creating a perfect Hydra as it relates to this issue. They can effectively rob money from schools, police and fire (through TIF) and hide that money shift quite well.
However thankfully the city of Spokane Washington caught on to the gig when they realized there would be no development without additional taxpayer dollars. Once the people of Spokane heard that they would be required to not only pay for the line but that they would also have to pay the developers for the "economic development" around the line they killed the project.
Yip Yip
Posted by: Bob Tiernan | May 11, 2007 12:03:24 PM
Bob T: Ridership figures mean nothing to them.
Torrid Joe: On the contrary--ridership figures make the case.
Bob T: People making money off of the projects and subsidized follow-up developments will do well even if the trains carry no one. That's the point. Oh, they'll cite BS
statistics that inflate ridership because they want the line
to be built and must do that, but in the end they don't give a rip -- they just want it built.
Torrid Joe: Buses are certainly better than cars, but they've got nothing on light rail for efficiency, speed and environmental soundness.
Bob T: Their main "flaw", as the establishment see it,
is that they aren't sexy like light rail, and make for poor photo-ops and ribbon-cutting ceremonies -- important things to politicians (remember the dreadful Mark Hatfield with the giant scissors cutting the ribbon for West Side light rail?).
Anyway, please don't demonize buses in order to get more expensive rail projects. You're only helping the Fat Cats.
Jeez, didn't you learn anything from "Roger & Me" ?
Bob Tiernan
Posted by: torridjoe | May 11, 2007 12:03:57 PM
"After all Bechtel has done very well with the LR projects in Portland"
they also provided 25% of the funding for the Airport line, allowing it to be built with no new tax dollars.
Posted by: Coyote | May 11, 2007 12:05:14 PM
Ross,
What?
The voters killed LR in portland in 1998. It was measure 26-74 and they spent over $2 million dollars trying to pass it.
I know, I am looking at a plaque hanging on my wall right now that says "Thank You" and is from our "Don't Buy The Lie" campaign.
The issue is that you can't believe the Raillies even when they have over $2 million dollars to tell you they don't have the money to build it without taxpayer support.
It has lost hard anytime there has been a solid debate. The time is has won is when there was no opposition around to bring to the fore the data that debunks the Rallie argument.
Heck, I remember sitting in the WWeek editorial meeting with three members of the 26-74 campaign. We began confronting the pro campaign with real data that debunked any "trasnportation" value that the north LR was supposed to provide. The three folks began getting more and more frustrated in that the data did not support their argument.
Finally, I think it was Shragg? (was that his name) One of the WWeek editorial board members turned to the pro rail campaign and said something like "so what you are saying is that there is really no transportation value to LR and it is merely an aesthetic and economic development tool?"
After a pregnant silence the answer was "Yes."
A week later WWeek recommended a "NO" vote on the measure.
I just wish the whole debate in that room could have been on video tape. It was classic.
Yip Yip
Posted by: torridjoe | May 11, 2007 12:07:54 PM
"Bob T: Their main "flaw", as the establishment see it, is that they aren't sexy like light rail, and make for poor photo-ops and ribbon-cutting ceremonies -- important things to politicians (remember the dreadful Mark Hatfield with the giant scissors cutting the ribbon for West Side light rail?).Anyway, please don't demonize buses in order to get more expensive rail projects. You're only helping the Fat Cats.
Jeez, didn't you learn anything from "Roger & Me" ?
Actually, their main flaws are that they're noisy and polluting, and don't carry as many people.
Who's demonizing buses? I believe buses are a necessary core for any city's transportation plan, and I use them every day I commute (unless I use the scooter instead). But you do better when buses also feed more efficient rail lines, such as we have here.
Posted by: Brian Newman | May 11, 2007 12:14:01 PM
Hi Debra. As chair of the project steering committee, I have received many of the same emails you received. While there is a vocal minority of people who are opposed to any public transit in Milwaukie, the majority of emails that I have received are thoughtful and constructive from concerned parents at the Waldorf school. Most of them even indicate their support for light rail. I am optimistic that most if not all of their concerns can be addressed though the design process when we evaluate station locations and safety issues.
When the Waldorf community purchased the school site, the alignment behind the school was already selected. The school president at that time indicated their support for light rail, but also made clear their concerns about a station adjacent to the building. This concern is fair and certainly worth evaluating during this phase of the project. Since day one, the Waldorf School has been a positive and thoughful presence in the Milwaukie community.
Thanks for your post Debra and I look forward to working with you and the rest of the city council to resolve these design issues. Have a good weekend.
Brian Newman
Posted by: Bob R. | May 11, 2007 12:15:52 PM
Coyote -
You state that light rail does not move as much as a single vehicle lane. "Studies" which have purported to show this simply divide ridership over the entire 24 hour day.
What matters is peak hour. At peak hour, 11 trains per hour move in one direction Westbound along US26. (4 Red Line + 7 Blue Line).
Fully loaded (check them out at 5PM) each 2-car train carries 300-400+ people. At minimum, that's 3,000 people in one direction at the peak. (Design load of a single MAX Type-I light rail car is 211 people, 256 people "crush" load).
Cars in the Portland area, on average, carry 1.27 people per vehicle (ODOT figures).
Thus, at minimum, peak hour MAX service is providing a level of service similar to at least 2,360 cars. (And how much would it have cost to widen the US26 Vista Ridge tunnels to add a lane?)
That's way more than a single lane of vehicle traffic, possibly 2 lanes depending on the conditions.
Simply added to US-26, 2,360 cars is a new car entering the freeway every 6.5 seconds.
While it would be theoretically possible to build a 3rd automobile tunnel with two flexible peak-direction lanes, the cost wouldn't necessarily be any cheaper than MAX, and you'd also have to upgrade many local roads and parking areas to handle all those additional cars.
- Bob R.
Posted by: Janice | May 11, 2007 12:30:03 PM
"Land that had been a vacant lot for the last 15 years I've been here."
You better study harder Scotty. Your naievity has you hoodwinked.
That land being vacant had nothing to do with a MAX line or streetcar. And there is no new MAX line so why the building now? Likely Urban Renewal subsidies or the free market and nothing to do with MAX. If it's Riverplace there are zoning changes, subsidies and the Streetcar not MAX.
SoWa sat idle for years because the city itself blocked previous private plans which would not have required millions in tax subsidies.
lestatdelt, I can assuure you those 100s of business travelers you personally know, would prefer free limosene service. Why not have the taxpayers provide that?
You defenders don't understand anything do you? You don't understand anything mentioned about Gresham Station or Cascade Station or anything else. Your dodge ball tactics are ridiculous as well.
Andecdotal jibberish and quoting TriMet propaganda. Marvelous.
Ross, you are piece of work.
The ways they found to fund the Airport, Interstate and the I-205 line without additional taxes was by among other things, stealing money from property taxes desdined for basic services. Countless millions. The voters turned down light rail any way you look at it. Your spin is Karl Rove-like propaganda.
Worse, your stuff is right out of Metro's boiler room.
Torrid,
What's wrong with you?
The Max stations haven't development as intended. What planet are you on? As I stated and you know very well.
I can only concude that you are hopelessly dishonest.
Cascade Station is now going to be a BIG BOX cluster.
Here "Ill go slower.
Cascade Station is now going to be a car-oriented or car-dominant BIG BOX cluster.
The opposite of what was intended.
Urban Renewal at it's worst.
What game of yours is this "I wasn't aware that only cars now ran out to that station"
"only"? "now"? Did you add that to make some stupid point? What is it with you?
If you don't think Cascade Station is a complete failure to bring about what is intended, then you have never read the condemnation BIG BOXES got when the plan was hatched. A plan which prohibited BIG BOXES because they were perceived and presented by public officials and planners as auto dominated horrible outcomes.
NOW we are to told by TriMet, who you like to quote, that MAX helped attract the BIG BOXES.
Now can you stay focused, for once, long enough to actually respond to my central point about Cascade Station failure? Or any other failure I mentioned and you dodged around?
Posted by: jim karlock | May 11, 2007 12:37:44 PM
Here are some facts about light rail:
1. Light rail DOE NOT REDUCE CONGESTION because 2/3 or more of the riders would be in a bus and light rial sucks up money that otherwise could have been used to reduce traffic congestion. Bottom line is that MAX on US 26 & I84 relieves about 1/4 of one lane of traffic at a cost greater than building several new lanes. It simply costs too much and does too little see PortlandFacts.com/RailAttractsDrivers2.htm
2. Light raid DID NOT CAUSE DEVELOPMENT along MAX, tax breaks did as this testimony to Portland’s city council shows:
Mr . Saba [planning bureau] said during the 10 years MAX has been in existence, the City has seen no mixed-use developments adjacent to the light rail lines . Most of those that occurred were in the Central City, Lloyd Center and Gresham .
Wayne Rembold, Portland contractor, said tax abatements are essential to getting these projects built as otherwise they do not pencil out
See PortlandFacts.com/Transit/LightRailDevelopment.htm for the full story. Some claim that this is no longer true and development can occur without the tax subsidies. If so, why are they still giving subsidies?
3. Light rail HAS INCREASED TRAFFIC CONGESTION on Interstate avenue. First two lanes of the four were replaced with tracks. Second light rail controls ALL traffic signals, breaking up the smooth flow of traffic.
4. Traffic congestion will get much worse as high density housing puts more cars on the road. Only a small percentage of the new people will be using MAX, the rest will be in cars on the grid locked streets. See PortlandFacts.com/Smart/DensityCongestion.htm
5. Tax abatements and REZONING to high density are the driving force behind the development and increased property values along Interstate Ave. The toy train is merely and excuse. See portlandstreetcar.org/pdf/development.pdf
6. Light rail divides neighborhoods. For safety reasons, they put a fence down the middle of Interstate ave. Crosswalks are now several blocks apart instead of every block.
7. Bus stops used to be every block or so, now they are much further apart (1 mile?). Some people quit using transit because of the longer walking distance.
8. Light rail kills people at about THREE times the rate of buses. see PortlandFacts.com/Transit/MAXSafetyChart.html
9. Light rail is electrically powered which means that it is powered about 50% by coal which emits Uranium, Thorium and Mercury into the air. See ornl.gov/ORNLReview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html
10. Who really profits form light rail? Here is a list.
In 1996, the voters rejected the building of a north-south light rail system.
Here is a list of big contributors ($5000 and over) who were in favor of building light rail. Their contributions totaled $980,000 . All pro-rail contributions totaled over $1,156,340.
The light rail opponents spent about $110,000 and won.
NAME OF CONTRIBUTOR AMOUNT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Portland General Electric............................................$52,500
Pacific Power..............................................................$52,500
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers........$50,640
Fred Meyer..................................................................$50.000
International Union of Operating Engineers...............$44,710
U.S. Bancorp...............................................................$35,000
First Interstate Bank....................................................$30,000
Siemens Duewag Corporation.....................................$30,000
Oregon Public Employees Union................................$27,400
Legacy Health..............................................................$25,000
Portland Trail Blazers..................................................$22,750
Local Union Legal Foundation....................................$20,000
Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Quade & Douglas....................$20,000
Bridge Structural, & Ornamental Iron Workers...........$17,400
Sheet Metal Workers....................................................$16,350
Bank of America..........................................................$15,000
Intel Corporation..........................................................$15,000
Bricklayers & Allied Craftsmen...................................$14,000
LTK Engineering Services...........................................$13,400
BRW Inc.......................................................................$12,500
Middleton & Compauy.................................................$12,000
Greenbriar Company....................................................$10,000
Tom Walsh....................................................................$10,000
Zummer Grinnel Frasca Partnership.............................$10,000
Goldman Sachs & G.)...................................................$10,000
Nike, Inc.......................................................................$10,000
Kiewit Pacific...............................................................$10,000
Morse Brothers.............................................................$10,000
Union Pacific Railroad.................................................$10,000
Hanley Industrial properties.........................................$10,000
Bombardiere Corporation.............................................$10,000
City Center Parking......................................................$10,000
Obie Outdoor Advertising............................................$10,000
OTAK Architects.........................................................$10,000
Standard Insurance.......................................................$10,000
U.S. West Communications.........................................$10,000
United Infrastructure....................................................$10,000
Amalgamated Tran it Union..........................................$8,100
Cement Masons.............................................................$7,650
Hoffman Corporation....................................................$7,500
CH2M Hill....................................................................$6,000
O'Brien Kreizberg.........................................................$5,600
James Furman & Co-....................................................$5,000
Dames & Moore...........................................................$5,000
Providence Health Systems..........................................$5,000
Slayden Construction....................................................$5,000
Kaiser Permanente........................................................$5,000
David Evans & Associates............................................$5,000
Class PAC.....................................................................$5,000
CFI Pro Services...........................................................$5,000
Davis, Wright, Tremaine..............................................$5,000
NW Natural Gas Co-....................................................$5,000
Zidell, Inc-....................................................................$5,000
Stoel, Rives, Boley, Jones, & Gray..............................$5,000
Yeon Properties............................................................$5,000
Pacific Gas Transmission.............................................$5,000
AT & T Wireless..........................................................$5,000
Block 216 Partners.......................................................$5,000
Keylorp Management..................................................$5,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, CONTRIBUTIONS OVER $5,000...........................................$884,800
PERCENTAGE OF ALL CONTRIBUTIONS............................... 76.5%
TOTAL, CONTRIBUTIONS OVER $1,000............................................$980,640
PERCENTAGE OF ALL CONTRIBUTIONS............................... 84.8%
TOTAL, ALL CONTRIBUTIONS.........................................................$1,156,340
Source: Records for Oregonians for Roads and Rails and for Oregonians for Local Control at Secretary of State's Office, Elections Division, Salem, Oregon.
Bottom line: If you want to destroy Milwaukie as you know it, then go for the toy train.
Thanks
JK
Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.
Post a comment
Posted by: Bob R. | May 10, 2007 6:31:16 PM
Hang in there Deborah, you're about to get a wild ride on the Internets! :-)
Personally I'm in favor of LRT to Milwaukie (which should come as no surprise to anyone who has been following the many debates over at PortlandTransport).
I like some of the recently proposed alternatives such as extending all the way south to Park Ave. I'm not fond, however, of the idea of running the system behind the industrial area (Southgate Theater site) rather than along 99E. I'd prefer the more direct highway route remain, along with a stop to serve the industrial area.
- Bob R.