I’ve said many times, I’m not opposed to streetcars as such. But…. I am very opposed to creating loops that don’t solve any existing transportation problems.

The major cost of rail is up front, and it’s outrageous to invest in creating new routes to encourage high-end development rather than investing in improving existing mass transit routes, where the real gains in ridership would be.

I will support the Portland Streetcar 100% if and when they start replacing long-standing, heavily-used bus routes, like I mentioned above.

I will not support the Burnside-Couch couplet or the central eastside loop.

We’d be better off just writing checks from the city treasury directly to Homer Williams.

But back to the streetcar, Steve. Doesn’t the streetcar run on rails? Isn’t it powered by electricity? I fail to see a qualitative difference between light rail and streetcars as components of an effective mass transit system for the city of Portland.

Steve, you must begin to decouple your bias against streetcars from your bias against condominium developers. (And Chris Smith.)

BTW, I see that Amanda got the O’s endorsement. I hope that doesn’t sour you on her candidacy. (Heh heh.)

better yet, look at New York, with public transit taken to its conclusion:
http://www.ecohuman.com/transi.....condoms-11

i hear you–public transit sound reasonable. i’m for it. but ultimately, as in New York (and almost all of Europe) public transit can’t handle the load of density and growth. it’s failing. the roads aren’t enough. transit isn’t enough.

and buses, it seems, would be a cheaper, more flexible and responsive solution than monolithic, costly light rail.

From an engineering point of view, it’s the way you move large numbers of humans efficiently and (relatively) cleanly.

You could argue that people prefer their private automobiles and don’t like to ride buses and trains. But with enough discouragement (congestion pricing, high gas prices, etc.) and encouragement (modern vehicle fleets, frequent service, etc.), mass transit could easily become the way we get around this city. Look at Europe.

The problem I see with the Portland streetcar, as currently engineered, is that it is not designed as mass transit. In fact, one of its five main reasons for existence is to promote high-end condo development.

If the streetcar fanatics really wanted to get serious, they’d promote replacing long-standing, high-traffic bus lines, like the 14 and 72, with rail. (I’d be curious to see the comparison between current Interstate Yellow Line ridership vs. the #5 bus it replaced, for example. I suspect ridership went up.)

The fact that they want to put in these little circulator routes (Burnside-Couch couplet, central east-side) tells us they’ve got no real interest in getting people out of their cars for their commutes.

a great, thoughtful post.

i consider myself an “environmentalist”, but i don’t like smart growth. i also don’t think public transit is a long term solution to much, because of human behavior in crisis-less situations.

i do believe that the pop growth figures are likely, but not guaranteed. i’m more interested in who and why than how many. exponential growth, given our way of life, is almost certain, barring planetary disaster. and, growth figures in the last 40 years have been *underestimates.*

most importantly, it’s dangerous to generalize people into black & white “belief groups” like liberal/conservative, pro-environment/pro-business, just because they appropriate the labels. it does nothing but dig a hole and lay blame. “liberals” aren’t any more responsible for the city’s problems than “conservatives” are, because people are much more gray than that, more complex. most people, in fact, want the same basic things.

and i think both candidates for mayor are unworthy of the position. Adams builds monuments and calls it “progress”, Dozono is business uber-alles, Wal-Mart or not. the choices are poor.

keep up the good writing, man.

-james

The housing bubble was fueled largely by speculative buying coupled with exotic, predatory loans to people who otherwise wouldn’t have been able to enter the housing market when they did. Not much city policy can do about that now, and I certainly don’t think the city’s condo policy has anything to do with the value of my N. Portland house.

But…

Certain sectors of our city government continue to push a development model of subsidizing condo development, even though that sector is considerably over-built. These are pro-gentrification policies.

So when a candidate (like Middaugh, for example) talks the good talk about gentrification, you’ve got to stop and ask them what they’ve actually done about it in light of their support for policies that encourage it.

I think there’s some truth to what Greg said in the comment I linked above: “once white people decide something is cool there ain’t no stopping them.”

But that doesn’t mean we should spend public money encouraging them.

Prices didn’t rise because of condos. The condos were being built and continued to go up in price because of easy to get cheap mortgages. Also, the popularity of living downtown drove prices up.

I would love to see more affordable housing too, but pretty much all property values have risen in the region due to many market factors beyond the control of city officials. Being a capitalist society, many owners chose to sell heir property. Would you prevent that, force people to not sell what they own?

I also would love to see greater diversity in the city and my neighborhood, but Portland has historically been very homogeneous.

How would you maintain affordable housing in Portland, or anywhere for that matter? (OK you can maintain it in Detroit because people a fleeing that city)

The truth is, we are significantly over-built in the condo sector right now, yet city policy is to continue subsidizing this kind of development by extending the streetcar loop to the east side.

Even as the bubble bursts, we’re pumping more public money into it.

One thing I agree with Dozono about is questioning the growth figures, and trying to reconcile the growth projection with the reality on the ground.

No, I’m not talking zero growth, but I think we’re far from maximized in our existing housing stock.

The kind of development championed by those who hide behind “sustainability” actually displaces existing affordable housing, and promises of new affordable housing always seem to get lost in the shuffle or significantly ratcheted back.

If I were running for council or mayor, I’d be saying things like Ed Garren, Nick Fish or Amanda Fritz, which I wrote about in today’s post.

Fortunately, there are a few candidates willing to talk about gentrification, and how it affects regular working people in this city.

Unfortunately, none of them is running for mayor.

How would you limit sprawl and preserve neighborhoods and green spaces — Oregon does have Urban Growth Boundaries, thank goodness — without smart growth and increased density?

Surely you’re not a no growth advocate (although I think it may eventually come down to that given the severity of our environmental problems.)

And if some population growth — whether 300,000 or not — is inevitable, isn’t new housing required to accommodate that growth? Condos even?

Pretend that you are running for City Council. What policies would you advocate?

(By the way, I think we pretty much agree on Dozono and Nick Fish, who appears to have a good grasp of housing issues.)