6 • The Southwest Portland Post
FEATURES
January 2011
Will a streetcar from Portland to Lake Oswego cost $458 million?
By Lee Perlman
The Southwest Portland Post
Slogging through the suddenly
cost-sensitive alternatives before
them, a Citizen Advisory Committee
studying the proposed Lake Oswego
to Portland transit project seemed
last month to have agreed on one
thing: doing nothing is not a viable
option.
Under study since 2007, and a
focus of debate among the affected
South Portland, Dunthorpe and
Lake Oswego communities, the
proposed transit project suddenly
received wider attention last month
with the publication of the required
Draft Environmental Impact State-
ment.
This showed the construction costs
of the two options now under con-
sideration: an “enhanced bus” route
for $51.1 million, or an extension of
the Portland Streetcar route from
its current terminus on Southwest
Lowell Street for anywhere from
$379.1 to $458 million.
So stated, for many, including
some local editors, the choice was
a no-brainer. Streetcar advocates
claimed this didn’t tell the whole
story.
For one thing, the streetcar price
tag, compiled for the sake of the Fed-
eral Transit Administration (from
whom Metro hopes to obtain 60
percent of project funding), includes
the cost of the old Willamette Shore
Rail Line right of way, valued at
$95 to $97 million, which is already
publicly owned.
The line was acquired in 1988
for $2 million. If the FTA agrees to
provide 60 percent of the funding,
as Metro will request, the cost to
the region will be between $57 and
$86 million.
Further, as consultant Doug Obletz
told the CAC, the streetcar would
cost just $1.25 million more to oper-
ate than current buses, compared
to $2.79 more for the enhanced bus.
“TriMet is strapped for operating
dollars, and here the cost is low com-
pared to many projects,” he said.
For streetcar advocates, the biggest
bonuses are ridership and economic
stimulus. A streetcar on this route is
expected to increase transit ridership
by 1.18 to 1.28 million more trips per
year, depending on the alignment
used, compared to 730,000 for the
enhanced bus.
As Beverly Bookin, a consultant
representing the John’s Landing
Owners Association, said, “In neigh-
borhoods that have streetcar service,
property values are increasing vis-à-
vis those that don’t. People are less
likely to invest in property that has
transit service that can disappear at
the whim of a transit agency.”
Portland Streetcar stops at Gibbs Street in the South Waterfront neighborhood.
(flickr file photo courtesy of pchurch)
For some Lake Os-
wego critics this is
their point: the service
will bring more ur-
banization than they
want. One recent e-
mail claimed comple-
tion of the route would
result in development
“equal to 17 Washing-
ton Squares.”
Obletz said such crit-
ics were using faulty
figures; under existing
zoning the maximum
possible buildout in af-
fected parts of the sub-
urb would be about
11 million square feet,
not 30 million as ad-
vertised.
Metro’s Jamie Snook
commented, “Rarely is
any land developed to
maximum potential.
Obletz added, “The
city of Lake Oswego
gets to decide its de-
velopment potential,
the streetcar doesn’t
dictate it.”
Is Metro safe in as-
suming the feds will
pay for 60 percent of
the project? Critics
pointed to the $1.5 bil-
lion Portland to Mil-
waukie light rail line, where the
FTA is offering only 50 percent and
project backers have had to scramble
to find the rest.
Obletz said the FTA is “moving
toward 50 percent for very large
projects. Streetcars are another mat-
ter. Right now there’s no guidance
this won’t get 50 percent.”
TriMet planner Joe Recker added,
“There are no other (streetcar) proj-
ects that asked for 60 percent fund-
ing and didn’t get it.” Obletz did
concede that until a deal is finalized,
local funds spent on the project in
the expectation of re-imbursement
are “at risk.”
Most of the CAC testimony last
month called for removing the No
Build option, which the FTA re-
quires as part of the evaluation, from
the table. Developer and Streetcar
Board member Vern Rifer said, “No
Build is an attempt to pretend that
the present and the future are not
true. There’s a desire of people and
companies to be near services and
transit. Those cities that are success-
ful are accommodating that need.
Those that don’t, like Las Vegas
and Phoenix, are suffering and will
continue to do so.”
Former Portland transportation
planner Matt Brown, now repre-
senting Lake Oswego interests,
called No Build “the head in the
sand option. It pretends the Mac-
adam corridor works fine today,
and that future demand can be
easily accommodated with existing
service.”
CAC chair Ellie McPeak said, “No
Build serves current bus users just
fine, or they wouldn’t be using it. It
doesn’t speed the journey, so those
seeking faster service won’t ride.”
The streetcar will make the Lake
Oswego to downtown an estimated
10 minutes faster than existing bus
service.
Andrew Franklin said he favored
No Build “because it’s the only
option that supports transit in my
neighborhood.” To this Obletz re-
sponded, “The committee should
keep in mind that if an additional
stop is needed, it should certainly
be brought forward.”
Lydia Lipman argued that the
streetcar route is simply an attempt
to justify the purchase of the Wil-
lamette Shore right of way. “If we
didn’t have the right of way, this is
the last place we’d be looking at a
streetcar route,” she said.
Three citizens spoke, including
newly elected Lake Oswego City
Councilman Jeff Goodman, all criti-
cal of the streetcar route.
The CAC will take up the streetcar
versus enhanced bus issue at its next
meeting, 5 p.m. January 11, at a loca-
tion unavailable at press time. They
are expected to make their final
recommendations on February 8.
For South Portland residents and
businesses the big question is, as-
suming a streetcar is chosen, exactly
what route should it take?
Transportation planners favor us-
ing as much of the Willamette Shore
route as possible, since this would
be the cheapest and fastest.
The South Portland Neighbor-
hood Association and Business
Association would prefer it to use
Southwest Macadam Avenue in
their part of town. This, they argue,
would have the least impact on ex-
isting homes and the most beneficial
economic impact on potential future
development.