Tampa’s streetcar
This was sent to me by Lizzy Caston, an Ohio native who has worked for years as an urban planner in Portland. (She is also not anti-streetcar, though she takes issue with the inappropriate comparison of Portland being used to make the case for a streetcar in Cincinnati, and with the poor analysis being done by the Cincinnati campaign. Read more in the comments here.) Tampa’s streetcar is bleeding up to $600k a year:
As Tampa’s TECO Line Streetcar System is quietly burning through its original $5 million endowment, city leaders are in discussion on how to keep the line running when the money runs out.
Mayor Pam Iorio told the Tampa Port Authority board of commissioners Tuesday that the city had held discussions exploring the possible use of the county bed tax to fund the streetcar system in the future.
Why didn’t Tampa let a private company (or companies) risk their shirt on a streetcar, instead of shafting taxpayers with a failure?
Filed under: Life
Twenty years ago, before the light rail and the streetcar, Cincinnati’s downtown as far superior to Portland’s.
The rail had a lot to do with it. You had to have been there twenty years ago to understand. Was Lizzy?
I was there last weekend and had dinner with the city’s most successful developer — he was responsible for a third of the Pearl District and half of the South Waterfront, several billion dollars of successful projects. We told him that critics here have been saying the Portland Streetcar really had nothing to do with it, that it was just getting undeserved credit for it. His answer: “No friggin” way.”
Oh, and he and his wife live with one car, and they took the streetcar four miles to our dinner.
John, why are you trying to knock down straw men?
This is what I have asked:
Why should we taxpayers risk our shirts on this streetcar, rather than a private company (or multiple companies)? I have yet to hear a single cogent response to that from anyone, and I have asked MANY times. (My experience this week with the Metro bus system has reminded me just how horrendous a subsidized service with no competition can be.)
Second, Lizzy made the point in the link I gave:
“It is absolutely crucial for Cincinnati to understand both the baseline of economics of Portland within the past 30 years and current ongoing trends that have allowed our streetcar to A) be built and B) continue to work and C) areas along the streetcar line in Portland that are not performing as well as assumed and are requiring additional public subsidies (such as the South Waterfront area in Portland where the streetcar is located that is NOT experiencing the kind of growth and development as projected and where the city is now being asked to provide an additional funds to subsidize transportation and development in the tens-of-millions of dollars for the district due to initial projections being off, a stagnant condo market, lack of employment center growth, and rising steel and construction costs). This is extremely relevant to decision makers in Cincinnati who may run up against the same issues, especially if the whole model is being based on Portland in the first place. The streetcar has been an enhancement to 30 years worth of massive public investment and planning in the downtown Portland area and already successful ROI through 20+ years of Tax Increment Financing, existing private investment, the Metro Urban Growth boundary, strong transportation planning throughout the region (including strong multi-model transportation systems such as our Tri-met bus system and MAX lightrail), and larger economic forces. This is the missing information that is not being discussed in the Portland-Cincinnati comparison.
Once again, my points are not IF the streetcar is a good thing, but given the risks and costs, if it will meet Cincinnati’s goals without these other factors that Portland has had, and the potential risks to your city if they do not.”
Do you have an answer for that?
Thirdly, it is intellectually weak to claim that a person must have seen Cincinnati twenty years ago in order to have a valid opinion here. Please be more respectful of the participants in this discussion.
Jackie; I could understand your argument against government subsidy of stadia or even the zoo, but transport is best organized, regulated, and yes paid for by government. The best system would tie usage directly to the fees and then competition would have a fair chance. But, that is not the case now as car usage is currently subsidized in the US by non-drivers:
http://www.citykin.com/2007/10/walkers-subsidize-drivers.html
In a previous post you asked for more competition with our bus system. I think that is provided now by cars, taxis, and even some buses (shuttles run by hotels and UC to move people to the airport etc.) Perhaps other bus companies would step up to the plate if the true cost of riding Metro was charged? (a political non-starter).
To answer your second question, I am not sure that the Cincinnati Streetcar will meet our goals without the other components, and I think that is a good question. My estimation is that it will succeed, but I can understand the hesitation. Our region could never implement a growth boundary because of the multiple jurisdictions and I think some of the other initiatives are being pursued to mixed results.
John,
It is a huge disservice to make gross misstatements such as, “The rail had a lot to do with it.” in regards to Portland’s success. The streetcar is exciting certainly, but to make the claims that the streetcar is the reason Portland has seen massive redevelopment in the central core and even through the districts it runs through is just plain wrong.
A more reflective reality would be, “The streetcar played a small and recent part in it.”
Once again streetcars can be terrific development tools but an honest assessment of Portland over the past twenty years and the Pearl District and the South Waterfront in particular point to:
1. The developer I think you are referring to has also received large public subsidies on just about every single one of their developments in the form of urban renewal TIFF dollars, lower than market land sales from the city (in the form of DDA agreements) and tax abatements. Many, in fact most, of these projects were in development and financed way before the streetcar went in and started when the City began land banking properties to sell to developers at under market values and then the City rezoned to allow for high density mixed use developments. Did they tell you that part or tell you how much public money they received as well as infrastructure improvements in their districts provided by the city to help make those developments occur? If not, they should have.
2. The area of the Pearl was already seeing real market values increase and actually double between 1995 (around the time the Urban renewal district was formed and the area rezoned) and 2000. This was was before the streetcar was planned for and built.
3. The South Waterfront is not performing as well as expected and City Council was recently approached to approve more public funding, including the streetcar. This has caused funding needs to double more than projected due to cost over-runs and less development than planned in the district. In addition, the largest employer in the district -OHSU hospital is threatening to close shop. Condo sales are also fairly stagnant down there and projections are that it is going to take much longer than planned to repay the public investment.
4. Portland’s success has much to do with 30 years of State, regional and local land use, transportation, economic and community development planning and public investment. This includes the Downtown plan in the 1980s as well as the central city plan. Thus the “20 years ago” certainly rings true, but has nothing to do with the streetcar. Portland began massive and coordinated investment and planning in downtown over 20 years ago and this is what has spurred revitalization. This includes things like a downtown housing plan and earmarked money for housing, the massive growth of Portland State University (fastest growing University in the state), rezoning for height and FAR, investments in parks and street improvements, a moratorium on surface parking lots, public funding to things like hotels and corporations, small businesses etc, etc, etc. Once again, this began 30 years ago and the pay-offs began to occur far before the streetcar was ever even thought of. The streetcar is just one teeny-tiny portion of it.
5. Existing investment in transportation on the City and regional level - MAX lightrail and excellent regional bus systems have been in place for years already - something sorely lacking from the Cincinnati model
6. Fairly tight funding packages in place before the streetcar went in using federal, state, and local funds as well as earmarked Tax Increment Financing in the form of Urban Renewal.
7. Risk assessments for all additional streetcar proposals due to cost overruns and funds not coming in as originally projected.
It is very dangerous to cloud reality when dealing with such large public projects such as this one as it leads to badly made plans and ill-informed information and subsequent decisions on the part of the City and other stakeholders. If you think the streetcar has caused all this development in downtown Portland and revitalization as a whole then I’m sorry but you simply have not done your due diligence and at best have wishful thinking. At worst you are delusional.
Just because some developers in Portland and the streetcar group itself (hey also made up of developers, fancy that) told you the streetcar saved our downtown doesn’t make it so.
Yet once again, and for the record, I don’t think a streetcar in Cincinnati is a bad thing and I ride the one here. I just feel that it is only fair to present a more comprehensive picture of Portland’s streetcar and what it has actually accomplished and the actual investment and ongoing costs and risks involved, especially if Portland’s model is the one Cincinnati is basing theirs one. I’d like to see streetcar planners in Cincinnati do the same so that you can actually have a well thought out and successful project, not a PR based feasibility study that continually uses cherry picked information from Portland as the basis for rationality and a cost model that appears very hazy at best.
But Tampa’s streetcar doesn’t go through their downtown.
“The streetcar’s backers want to run the tracks into … downtown Tampa to get more local passengers on board”
Apples and oranges?
I see were you are coming from though, it would be nice to see some of the bigger companies that will profit put money into a venture along the lines of 3CDC to build and operate the streetcar. Nancy said she wants a trunk line to the uptown area yesterday so maybe UC could handle that end of it.
At least someone is asking the hard questions.
I kind of think the route needs tweaked also, it really need to run past the Square.
I like the quote from Lizzy ” river cities are generally a bit more conservative and set in their ways”
Now is the time to reach for the ring Cincinnati.
And just to illustrate that Portland and the public investment needs, amounts and issues in some of our streetcar districts are more complex and the portraits not as “rosy” as John paints, I would like to point out the following article written by Nigel Jaquiss, a Pulitzer prize winning journalist here in Portland. I would particularly like to point out the following quote regarding the South Waterfront District where the streetcar runs through: “There’s no denying it—the city’s subsidy is BIG. Two weeks ago, the City Council voted to boost investment in public projects at South Waterfront to $195 million, nearly double the amount called for in the original 2003 agreement. About two-thirds of the money will come from public sources.” (Source WW 9-20 2006). You can read the article here as well as look at other information and public investment:
http://wweek.com/editorial/3246/8012/#Sources&UsesOf195MillionForSouthWaterfront
Once again, I’m not saying the streetcar is a bad thing for Cincinnati nor that it should not be built, but it is important to realize that there were huge upfront and continue to be huge ongoing (and sometimes unplanned for) costs and public resources associated with Portland’s public investment in these districts, including the streetcar. If Cincinnati streetcar boosters are going to tout Portland as their model with the streetcar, your city deserves to understand the complete picture, including the difficulties, trade-offs, and complex financing issues we are experiencing. Perhaps you can learn from them and avoid similar problems.
I am however highly recommending that when the streetcar funding issue comes before your city council that funding for the streetcar is contingent on a more solid financing plan than is currently being presented (Portland approved the streetcar only after much of the Federal and private funding was in place) and absolutely, no question, you need an independent (i.e. one that is not guided by developers or done internally at the city) risk assessment to see where there might be problems and the trade-offs involved in public financing so that you can work through them before they become very expensive problems. To me, that’s just solid and rational planning by acting as good stewards of public resources. I haven’t seen much of that in the Cincinnati Streetcar plans or feasibility studies and that seems very risky.
Ok, last post from me on this for a while (I promise). Just today this came out in the paper. It perfectly illustrates the trade offs in shifting public funds from one transportation need to another. Just stuff Portland is having to deal with regarding the streetcar FYI. http://wweek.com/editorial/3415/10418/
Mike, you say “transport is best organized, regulated, and yes paid for by government.” Why do you think that?
Also, would you object if a private company were allowed to set up a competitor to Metro? I bet plenty would like to.
Sorry, couldn’t help myself. Just to prove that the streetcar was only one tiny component in redevelopment in Portland’s Pearl District, please look at this development map produced by the Portland Development Commission in 2007, the agency in charge of economic, housing, and real estate development and revitalization for the City of Portland (this is the type of work I used to do at my old job btw and set up this very database that tracks this info).
Pay special attention to the “dates completed” for the projects. I think it’s quite clear that most of these projects along and near the line were planned for and financed and even completed pre-streetcar given that it takes between 3-8 years on average for a development to occur from planning through financing through permits through construction. And almost every single one of them has had a good chunk of public financing and incentives attached. Including most of the projects the “successful developer” John met with here in Portland (I’m guessing it was Gerding Edlen? Great developers BTW and they do know how to leverage public dollars for private investment and they certainly how how to make money). I can get dollar and funding amounts for you if you want on these projects. Massive public planning and financing revitalized the Pearl district, not the streetcar alone. So just to make it clear, not anti-streetcar, just want everyone to know the whole story of why this district has been able to revitalize.
http://www.pdc.us/pdf/ura/river_district/river-district-projects-map.pdf
Mike,
“transport is best organized, regulated, and yes paid for by government.”
LMAO, you need to read Jackie and my posts from the other day about the ease of use for Cincinnati buses
“the streetcar was only one tiny component in redevelopment in Portland’s Pearl District”
But all Lizzy’s points tell me that Cincinnati is at the crossroads that Portland was 20 years ago. Its funny but it sounds to me like Lizzy is ticking off the reasons why Cincinnati should do the streetcar. And I really like her advice not to be wishy washy about financing. I don’t think the streetcar itself change everything, but its a piece of the puzzle, and it does seem like plans are finally getting hammered out now instead of just tossed around, I’m super excited about what Cincinnati will be like in 5 years.
Personally and after really looking into this issue over the past couple of weeks I think your city is poised to really take off in the next 10 - 20 years. And I completely understand the intention behind your streetcar vision.
But I will say it again and again - make sure you do it right, do it carefully, and let the facts lead not PR spin. Ask the hard questions and demand solid answers and if the answers seem weird, incomplete or don’t make sense, ask again. And if proponents balk or get defensive or call you critics for asking these questions and for pointing out the risks then you know you are doing the right thing. This is especially true regarding large public projects led by developers who will most likely both benefit the most from and need additional public monies from the city for their developments. Also be sure to continually weigh the trade offs and costs for the streetcar. The streetcar is after all, a public project and you are the public. Most of all do not fall into “shiny objects” hypnosis (this is an actual urban planning term btw) with the idea that one little sexy item (streetcar, convention center, or a stadium for example) is enough to turn around 50 years worth of blight and flight in the central core. Nor should Cincinnati say, “well, we built a streetcar and that’s enough” or say, “we built a streetcar why do we need to further invest in buses?” and ignore things like larger land use and public transportation needs overall in the city and region and then wonder 5 years later why revitalization and return on investment didn’t work out as promised.
I’ve always said that growing up in Ohio is one of the reasons I became an urban planner and why I went to grad school. It’s also one of the reasons I care about this issue so much. It was heartbreaking to me to witness Ohio cities decline when I was growing up and in their place massive suburban sprawl instead and watch goofy public projects like Cleveland’s recent lightrail fail. You have a terrific housing stock that is far better than Portland’s, a great river, wonderful amenities such as parks, universities, and a really great group of residents as well as a solid employment core. Lots of potential to do it right, but there is also a lot of potential to mess it up.
I hope to visit Cincinnati soon and I’d love to talk with you all more about it. In the meantime you have inspired me to apply for a research grant from the Urban Land Institute or American Planning Association to further study Portland’s streetcar, so thanks for that. It’s pretty fascinating, albeit (I’ll be the first to admit) wonky stuff.
Cheers,
Lizzy
I am sure that Jackie and I will never see eye to eye on this issue, but my answer to the “why” of why can’t private companies fill this void is to ask you to show me one public transportation system that started out as a private system. They don’t exist. The only organizations willing or even suited to take the massive initial capital expenditure risk on what is essentially a not very profitable operation are governments. Further, in systems that are privatized, there is still strong government oversight (Think UK/Sweden) over routes, and subsidies for so called routes of conscience (but not profit). Further, while the real genius of privatized systems is competition, that competition only is realized in large markets (like London), and the reality in smaller markets (like Cincinnati) are that you trade a public monopoly for a private monopoly. I would prefer that the people running that monopoly were at least marginally accountible to their shareholders, the public, without actually having to buy a share of a corporation, or vote their stake.
Lizzy, I appreciate the insightful comments, and it is useful to have a viewpoint that urges caution, and pragmatism. I think we can look fairly critically at what has been proposed and see what we can do to move forward, but at this point, its really only at the pursuing financing phase of the project. I think all involved do realize that there will be a public cost here, but from my perspective, those costs “may” be justified by the development that will likely be spurred in an area near the downtown core that is more blighted than is tolerable near the core of the city…
Just my 2c, I can see pursuing private funding, but I have strong doubts that we would see any real competition here without ceding public input. There is nothing in the essence of a corporate monopoly that leads me to believe that services would improve, just try to complain to Microsoft about any hated “feature” and see how far you get…
show me one public transportation system that started out as a private system. They don’t exist.
False. For one, see the UK rail system (there was a private and public one running concurrently 100 years ago, and the private one was judged far superior - Google the name “Edwin Pratt” to read his study). See also Japan and, er, the USA. Indeed, the state-owned part of US railway is Amtrak, which is crap.
There is nothing in the essence of a corporate monopoly that leads me to believe that services would improve
Who’s talking about a monopoly? I’ve said several times that what is needed is competition.
just try to complain to Microsoft about any hated “feature” and see how far you get…
Well, for one thing, Microsoft does not have a monopoly on personal computing. For another thing, are you seriously suggesting that the government would produce better technology than Microsoft? For a third thing, if I’m not happy with MS products, I don’t have to shell out money for them. (Indeed, I use Open Office for free rather than MS Office.) With taxpayer-funded projects, there is no choice involved, you pay whether you use the system or not.
And what I am saying is that in a small market like this there is no room for competition. So what we end up with is either a corporate monopoly, or a public monopoly. One accountable to shareholder, most likely shareholders around the world, one accountable to the public, the public as in those people right here. Do you really think that in Cincinnati there is room for competing streetcar lines? The argument that such services are better privatized is premised upon competition and choice. I would argue that neither of would be present in fully privately funded and run streetcar — in this market.
I should have clarified my statement - show me a “modern” public transportation system that has started fully privatized. You have to admit that 100 years ago, the business environment was considerably different. Not only were the relative capital investments smaller, but the regulation of corporations was quite different. Further, at least in this country, the labor markets were such that they could get themselves nearly free work through the exploitation of immigrant workers. Further, those older “private” systems were given great deals of “public” money through the land grants, etc.
As to my comment about Microsoft, they are not an absolute monopoly on personal computing, but about as close as we have seen recently. Perhaps a poor example, but as close as I could come to a situation like what would likely evolve in a small market like Cincinnati — one company running the rails. In an ideal market, there would be competition. This local market is not an ideal market for competition, its too small to support competition (at least for streetcars with dedicated tracks, and a limited number of route options). Buses could well be a different story, but I would still be skeptical that any private company could or would be able to tell their shareholders that they are sinking 100s of millions of capital investment dollars into buses from day 1 with a ROI in the 50 year range if they were to compete on fare price with a public entity. That only worked in the UK because the state gave the fleet to private companies to run.
Anyhow, I just don’t believe that the market solution is the solution to all problems, and this is why we will never see eye to eye on this one. Competition works where the market is broad enough to support the competition, not all markets are capable of this and given the choice between a public monopoly and a corporate monopoly, I choose the public monopoly.
Chris, I’m running out the door on my way to NY, but quickly:
I should have clarified my statement - show me a “modern” public transportation system that has started fully privatized.
I gave you THREE examples.
I’m also wondering why you trust politicians more than entrepreneurs. Granted, business people (especially big business) often act as an extension of the state, wielding its power unfairly. But that is not a case against business, but rather a case against a powerful state. (And by “state” I mean government - some people don’t get that.)
I think Chris’s basic argument is that tram systems don’t make money so the state should build them. For me if tram systems can’t make money then perhaps they shouldn’t be built at all.
I am also a bit baffled about this argument about competition. Everything competes with everything else. Sure, trams may not compete with other trams but there all sorts of things they do compete with. After all if trams/streetcars didn’t compete with cars, cycling, walking and staying put then they wouldn’t be constantly going bust.
Jackie,
I got your examples, and I don’t deny the validity of those examples, but I think they have to be put in the proper context, and one of those contexts is time. My thoughts are that those systems came into existence in a different regulatory system, a much more pro business system, where regulation of those entities that built those systems didn’t impose the same costs or restrictions (some ended up being net positives such as regulation of employment and the exploitation of workes, some ended up being negative, such as increased costs of doing business). This makes the barrier to entry much higher and much riskier for private enterprises — that is, without state subsidies. I especially have problems with the US privatized model of rail development of a century ago because it did create giant monopolies.
As far as trusting politicians more than I trust entrepreneurs, I trust each about equally. I trust each to act in certain ways, and each to be accountable in certain ways. When it comes to public transportation systems, for the most part, I prefer accountability via my vote, and my voice. When business control, while I still have the option of voting with my pocketbook, or through my proxy vote, not everyone has the same quality of a vote (bigger shareholders have a bigger vote, and tend to listen to the smaller votes only when their voices are loud or they affect the bottom line). My problem is that I trust business people to run businesses (make things profitable), but I don’t trust them to listen to their customer base or respond well to changing consumer needs when those needs conflict with the bottom line — I don’t trust business people to take too many risks, even if the possible upside is huge. I don’t trust politicians to run businesses, but I trust them a little bit more to respond to changing consumer needs, and to respond relatively well to their constituency which is slightly more empowered to remove them. In my brain, this balance of trust is only slightly more skewed towards politicians, and maybe its just fantasy that they are more accountable, but thats my perspective.
This is not to say that I don’t support private bids to build a streetcar system or private control of the system, or large private sponsorship, etc. I think those things are essential. Further, when it comes to systems like the bus system, where routes are not fixed by rails, I think that privatization and robust competition can produce marvelous results. But this is mostly because there is a much lower barrier to entry for private competition in the form of capital costs, etc, this can produce excellent results, and the routes themselves can change in response to competition… anyhow… its all good food for thought.
Anyhow, have fun in NYC :)
Hi Patrick,
There is some truth there, in that streetcar systems themselves have a very long route to profitability. Consequently, it will be difficult to bring in private companies willing to fully shoulder that burden. However, my main desire is not the streetcar system itself, but spurring private development around the streetcar line. I know that streetcar lines aren’t any kind of panacea, and that there will be development burdens as well as development gains. After looking at the numbers, I think that the Cincinnati plan does have the possiibilty of bringing in new developers and spurring some of the ongoing development.
True, there is competition between the streetcar lines and these other modes of transportation. I’ll have to think about that and the implications for actually forcing accountability of private operators of such services…
Again, more good food for thought.
While its nice to think of transit as the only mode that is subsidized, i’m tired of people believing in the notion that it has to pay for itself. In fact, transit pays for itself but helps users more than other modes of transport. Transit doesn’t make you shell out $8,000 to operate it (gas, insurance, registration fees, maintenance)in addition to all the taxes to support road infrastructure (parking spaces, highway police, local roads, property taxes etc) It is disingenuous to ask transit to pay for itself if you’re not asking the roads or air traffic to do the same. All are subsidized, so much so that the reason we don’t have streetcars anymore is because they were priced out by subsidies to other modes, mostly the automobile. The interstate highway system was to be tolled, but it wouldn’t have gotten built that way would it? Probably not. Companies are looking for a profit, citizens are looking for a public good.
Why are you bringing Japan in on this? They make most of their money off of the land they develop into high density around their train stations and keep the proceeds to build more transit. That wouldn’t be allowed here with eminent domain rules and people would cry bloody murder over like they are doing in Denver. Denver is trying to build on its stations to recoup some of the costs in a private sector way yet people are hollering about their property being taken for economic development. You can’t have it both ways. The basic premise is good. Build good access to your land and then sell it. That’s how the streetcar systems operated. The transit was a loss leader to get people to the property. It’s not really possible these days though because of rules and regulations and public wanting more service.
Now onto the Portland Streetcar. For those of you who don’t believe it helped, before the alignment was announced in 1997 buildings downtown were built at 50% of FAR. After the alignment was announced, buildings 1 block from the route were built at 90% FAR, 2 blocks at 70% FAR on down to where everywhere else but the streetcar route was at 50%.
There has been $3 billion in development along the line. Sure some of that would have happened, but would it have been as intense? No. Builders weren’t building to the zoning potential. It was also found that the streetcar reduced land consumption and trips. If all 7,200 units built near the streetcar were suburban, they would have taken up over 300 acres of land. If there was no good transit, they would have also traveled 21 miles per day in a vehicle versus the 9.8 in a place with good urbanism and good transit. This is about creating places where people can use transit or their feet. This saves people money and creates affordability for cities.
The question is what kind of a place do you want. Do you want to subsidize sprawl or compact development. That’s your choice.
We don’t ask airborne traffic to pay for itself, Overhead?
I’m pretty sure we do; airlines have this strange idea that they should make money or go bankrupt (which they have, and will, so long as they can’t convince the State to buy them out, which it should not do.). I haven’t looked into it, but I’d be shocked if the airlines didn’t (indirectly via airport fees or directly) pay for ATC services, and I don’t know what else the State provides that they might be freeloading on.
At any rate, I don’t want to subsidize sprawl or compact development. I’d very much like the State to not try and tell anyone how they “should” arrange their business and daily life.
(Full disclosure: I live in Portland, and the MAX system expansion has almost certainly increased the value of my house significantly.
And I’m still at best ambivalent about it if it can’t pay for its own operation; I can’t find any decent numbers, which makes me sure it loses money on every trip, because otherwise a) Tri-Met would be crowing to the skies about it and b) the usual suspects would be demanding it operate dead-even or at a loss For The Poor.)
Sigvald. Good Comments. Yes, the streetcar helped, but my points are that there has been even more public investment along those lines in the districts they run through, (take South Waterfront for example where the TIF investment certainly outweighs the streetcar investment). Almost all of those properties along the lines in the Pearl have had some sort of public investment and the districts continue to as a whole in the form of TIF to developers, infrastructure improvements to streets, etc, and in things like Federal tax credits (i.e. the Portland Armory). While properties along the line have increased in value in higher proportion to properties not along the line, I want Cincinnati residents to understand the larger context that Portland’s NW 23rd, downtown, and Pearl were already seeing dramatic development and increases in values before the streetcar came in, as was the the central city as a whole. The streetcar has merely nudged these numbers up more along the lines. Secondly, I don’t want the streetcar to get lost in the equation of all the other efforts in the 20+ years of state, regional and local planning and investment that have certainly assisted in central city redevelopment, property improvements, additional private investment, and values overall.
There is no question that the streetcar and lightrail have increased property values along the lines in Portland. However, properties far from the lines have also increased substantially (my house right of NE Killingsworth in the lowest income census tract in NE Portland has more than doubled in the 4 years since I bought it). As I’m sure you know and will be the first to echo, rail is just a small part of the Portland equation.
Sorry I missed this discussion for the past 2 days.
I just spent about an hour reading some of the articles that Lizzy Caston linked to, and found them enlightening, and even supportive of pursuing this route in Cincinnati. I thought the Nigel Niquiss article wasa especially illuminating, not only because it laid out some of the costs, but also because it was written 18 months ago when the tram hadn’t opened yet. In the article he says that we won’t know for 10yrs whether the City of Portland was visionary or dumb, but from the sucess I saw there, I don’t think you’ll have to wait that long. What I saw was a packed tram and an unsubsidized Tramel Crow project under construction.
However when he discusses the huge subsidies, it would be nice if he showed it as a percentage of total development. If the subsidy was $195 million, what is the resultant private investment? Also, are things like parks, roadways and streetcar listed as subsidy? It seems so from the article.
The South Waterfront has some similarities to our Banks project. Ask yourself, which one looks more promising now, our dirt pile on the river or your hundred of millions of dollars investment?
First off, yes rail is part of the Portland Equation. And I’m sure the over 10,000 people that ride the streetcar a day prefer it.
Second, yes air transportation has to remain profitable, but who pays for air traffic control, $15 billion bailed out the airlines after 9-11, the airport infrastructure itself is built by cities not the airlines, don’t forget the military training most of the airlines pull from. etc )
I agree completely with your final statement, Lizzy.
I only even included the Full Disclosure to make it clear that my ambivalence about MAX funding is despite my personal benefit from it!
(Though how much benefit that is is hard to quantify, as you say. Prices are up in general, and I’m sure that even without the Yellow Line [I live in North Portland], my home’s value would have risen substantially.)
(On another topic, what I think NW 23rd really needs is a few parking garages, because I, for one, never ever ever go there if I can avoid it because it’s so hellish to deal with.)