[mpd618]

PS, why do you guys love streetcars so much? You know it's just a city bus on tracks, right?

LOL. Ahem.

What's important is that other people like them so much, and much more than they do city buses. Because those other people are the ones who either use, or do not use transit. And they avoid using buses, while flocking to streetcars. It matters not one bit whether you like streetcars, nor whether I like streetcars for that matter.

But yes, it is just a city bus on tracks. One that is more spacious, easier to get into, does not stink, is vastly quieter, has smoother starts and stops, and has a much smoother ride because it is on tracks. Oh, and it's also visibly permanent and will go only where the tracks go.

---

In these discussions, some people invariably show up who are all free market this, and cheap buses that. And how buses can carry however many people. This paternalism is useless for planning transit that people actually want to use, and do use. And so it is useless for city planning that requires high transit use. You have to put aside ideology and take a look at what kind of transit people are willing to use, and how.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

None of this addresses why so much development has been clustered around the streetcar line. If you look at the maps, it's pretty clear that the "subsidized" districts (I use scare quotes because calling TIF a subsidy is a bit of a stretch, but never mind) extend much farther than three blocks from the streetcar alignment, and yet most of the development is happening near the streetcar.

To everyone except Randall O'Toole, it's pretty clear what's going on in Portland.

While it may have been a factor in making the area seem more exciting for the purpose of neighbourhood branding or marketing condos or generally just grabbing media attention, it's rather clear that the streetcar absolutely cannot be cited as the cause of the development.

First, since it's a one-way loop, sites within even one block of the line actually comprise a zone that is three blocks wide and that covers a large chunk of the entirety of downtown Portland (and it's actually *four* blocks wide in the north).

Second, the line was intentionally routed to hit hospitals and universities and places already targeted for growth, so in no way was the line thrust into virgin territory and left to its own devices to stimulate development. Development is clustered around the streetcar because the streetcar was designed to serve these clusters.

Finally, what's a few blocks west of the streetcar? A highway...and how much development would be expected on top of the highway? There's other spots where going two or more blocks from the streetcar places you in a rail corridor, or in a bunch of detached houses that are much harder to develop, or the CBD that has a mostly stable batch of office towers, or in the Willamette.

 

[smably]

First, since it's a one-way loop, sites within even one block of the line actually comprise a zone that is three blocks wide and that covers a large chunk of the entirety of downtown Portland (and it's actually *four* blocks wide in the north).

I will point again to the numbers I quoted in my first post.

Prior to 1997, land located within one block of the streetcar alignment captured 19% of all development.

Since the streetcar alignment was identified, 55% of all new development within the CBD has occurred within one block of the streetcar.

So this area that you claim comprises most of downtown Portland saw only 19% of all development before the streetcar was built. But then a streetcar line was built, and now more than half the development is in that area -- but this is just a coincidence?

 

[Whoaccio]

In these discussions, some people invariably show up who are all free market this, and cheap buses that. And how buses can carry however many people. This paternalism is useless for planning transit that people actually want to use, and do use. And so it is useless for city planning that requires high transit use. You have to put aside ideology and take a look at what kind of transit people are willing to use, and how.

What? So, we are ideological and paternalistic for pointing out that spending hundreds of millions for a route that can't have vehicles run headways tighter than 15m or even carry a significant amount of people is a waste?

 

[mpd618]

What? So, we are ideological and paternalistic for pointing out that spending hundreds of millions for a route that can't have vehicles run headways tighter than 15m or even carry a significant amount of people is a waste?

Yes. Because neither of those things have any basis in fact. First, Portland's Streetcar carries a significant and rapidly growing number of people. And second, there's no barrier to running at higher frequency; in fact, current operation is sometimes at 7 minute headways. I admit, they can't run more trains than they have -- but they've ordered more.

And of course, the primary point of transit infrastructure is not short-term ridership.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

I will point again to the numbers I quoted in my first post.

So this area that you claim comprises most of downtown Portland saw only 19% of all development before the streetcar was built. But then a streetcar line was built, and now more than half the development is in that area -- but this is just a coincidence?

On their own, yes, it is just a coincidence. When does the prior to 1997 period begin? What's the boundary of the CBD and do the percentages refer to a small CBD or to a larger downtown or to the entire zone within X blocks of the streetcar? Is the percentage based on the number of projects or on square footage or on construction value? Did Portland have an office tower boom in, say, the 1987-1997 period? Such office towers may have been mostly outside the 3-4 block wide streetcar zone. Perhaps the hospital and university saw expansions post-1997. It's not impossible that the streetcar directly triggered developments, but it's nowhere near the top of the list of assumptions I'd make given the available information. The numbers in that report don't mean a thing without a lot more context.

I did not claim it covers most of downtown, I said it covers a large chunk of downtown, which it clearly does; specifically, it covers much of the brownfields and parking lots adjacent to the CBD that were ground zero for the recent condo boom. When a streetcar line is built right at the beginning of a massive real estate cycle, it only makes sense that downtown sites not already occupied by office towers and explicitly targeted for residential redevelopments might receive a higher percentage of whatever is being measured. This is especially so when you factor in brownfield sites that the streetcar was consciously routed through that saw no activity before the recent development boom.

 

[Hipster Duck]

But yes, it is just a city bus on tracks. One that is more spacious, easier to get into, does not stink, is vastly quieter, has smoother starts and stops, and has a much smoother ride because it is on tracks. Oh, and it's also visibly permanent and will go only where the tracks go.

See, unlike streetcar nerds, I really don't care about mode choice. Frankly, I'll take whatever transportation mode comes my way, as long as it is fast, reliable and cost effective to increasingly smaller transit budgets. An on-street streetcar fails all those criteria: it's generally slow, unreliable in mixed traffic and costs an arm and a leg to build and maintain. It costs so much, in fact, that TriMet had to axe bus service in the suburbs but chose to spend money to expand the streetcar line south.

I don't have a problem with any specific mode, and I know of BRT, LRT, bus and heavy rail projects that all had a lot of merit and were good ideas for their time, but I would be hard pressed to understand why anybody would want to resurrect an on-street streetcar line for any reason other than misplaced nostalgia. Streetcars aren't rapid transit, and I don't see why there is a need to use anything beyond buses to provide slow, local surface service to a small neighbourhood.

In these discussions, some people invariably show up who are all free market this, and cheap buses that. And how buses can carry however many people. This paternalism is useless for planning transit that people actually want to use, and do use. And so it is useless for city planning that requires high transit use. You have to put aside ideology and take a look at what kind of transit people are willing to use, and how.

Well, isn't streetcar worship some sort of ideology?

Besides, people who don't see the economic rationale of building fetish trains come from all political stripes. There are free market spokespeople like Randall O'Toole and the Cato Institute, but there are also left-leaning groups that care about social equity like the Los Angeles bus riders union. This group was incensed that local bus routes in South Central LA were cut so that the LACMTA could build the very costly Blue line, which is kind of similar to what we're seeing in Portland right now. You can't just all pigeonhole us all as Milton Friedman types who are pro-car and therefore anti-transit.

 

[mpd618]

I, for one, will be following with great interest the crippling of Portland by its extensive streetcar investments.

 

[smably]

People here keep talking about railfans, "streetcar worship", "streetcar nerds", and that sort of thing. I'm still waiting for these streetcar fanatics to show up in this thread.

What I see are some relatively uncontroversial figures that show with some certainty that streetcars in Portland have been quite successful at attracting ridership, and that they have helped stimulate development. This is a straightforward and logical conclusion, and it's been embraced by all sorts of people with no pre-existing ideology or agenda.

There are places where buses make sense, there are places where subways and light rail make sense, and yes, there are places where streetcars make sense too.

I don't think I have anything further to contribute to this discussion.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

There isn't a shred of evidence that they've helped stimulate development in Portland other than by providing fuel for civic boosterism and condo marketing...nothing a good slogan in a radio ad campaign, a new Starbucks, a cute little parkette, or some trendy gallery couldn't do.

 

[Brandon716]

Having lived in Portland, I think the Streetcar serves a purpose: its a free transit option to ride around the central core. Its not designed to be a 'mass rapid transit' option, its a system to get people around downtown's most urban districts easily and without a fee.

Whats most important is that the Streetcar was designed to integrate the South Waterfront development with downtown, and for those who don't know Portland that well the SoWa development is fairly significant.

Its a novel idea that has worked well, and its a very short line so the ridership numbers aren't bad. When SoWa gets more developed the line will likely have considerably higher ridership in the future.

 

[Brandon716]

For reference, this is what the build-out of South Waterfront is supposed to look like:

 

[Brandon716]

Here is what is actually constructed at present, so they have a way to go before its even remotely built completely out.

 

[doady]

Funny how streetcars and LRT attract so much development and increase density so much yet Portland has half the amount of complete high-rises Mississauga does and half the high-rises under construction.

 

[golodhendil]

Funny how streetcars and LRT attract so much development and increase density so much yet Portland has half the amount of complete high-rises Mississauga does and half the high-rises under construction.

As funny as how Toronto's subway-anchored hubs (like NYCC) have 1/3 to 1/4 of the highrises of small, bus-only suburbs in Hong Kong and maybe 1/5 as dense?