Amanda, the River District number is $17M, not $20M, isn't it?

If you are going to hold Streetcar accountable for question #5, shouldn't every single TIF project be accountable for the same question?

#6 is a fair question, particularly with respect to the River District which my well see a significant expansion in both geographic scope and life, but shouldn't it be asked in the context of the full expansion? It's not clear to me that Streetcar by itself will be responsible for requiring an extension. For example, there is $8M in the River District budget for a parking structure that I understand that the neighborhood actually opposes. Why isn't that project, or the $15M penciled in for a potential future project at the Post Office site just as much responsible for a future extension?

Urban Renewal districts are ALWAYS about portfolios of projects, and I don't see how you ever have all the information available to evaluate all possible future projects?

I realize that the $33M for Streetcar is a significant commitment, but so was the $54M for the original alignment, and that was ALL local funds, and generally is recognized as having paid off handsomely for the City. Building a City that can accommodate the new citizens who are going to be moving here in the next 20 years is going to require some risk-taking. Based on Streetcar history to date in Portland, I think Streetcar is a pretty smart risk.

I thought I heard the number $20 million in the PDC hearing. But yes, $17 million was the number given in the Council worksession this morning.

If you are going to hold Streetcar accountable for question #5, shouldn't every single TIF project be accountable for the same question?

Yes. And usually, PDC and the URA advisory committees work on the package of improvements in the annual budget processes, so competing needs can be weighed against each other. Sometimes the stuff I want funded still loses, like the Greenway in South Waterfront. But major decisions on extending the districts, increasing their indebtedness, and which desired projects to fund, should be made in context. The way it's being set up, the extensions and increased indebtedness will have to happen, because the decision on the Streetcar will already have been made. And likely some of those other projects you mentioned may have to be cut, because the decision to fund the Streetcar has been made without considering the impact on other desires within the districts.

If you take pretty much ANY project with a significant number of advocates in Portland, and ask, "Is this worth doing?", by itself the answer will likely be Yes. One of the reasons I think we're in such dire straights with funding basic infrastructure and maintenance in transportation, parks, and other services is that the Council often does that, and doesn't stop to think or question, "What will NOT be done if we do this?" Except when it comes to the little neighborhood projects which aren't sexy and won't get any politician or advocacy group much if any credit, and then suddenly we have competing needs and those things can't be funded.

In my family's budget, we don't have unlimited resources. While the four of us with jobs may sometimes work extra hours to buy special things, for the most part we have to weigh competing needs (both short and long term) and decide which to prioritize for purchasing. I'd like to see the City Council asking for more complete information before deciding to spend $33 million of Portlanders' money.

I'm also struck that I should have posted a final point:

11. This is clearly a done deal, so the points and questions raised above are moot.

I believe it's important for citizens to know how their City government makes decisions, so I don't regret the hours I've spent researching my Eastside Streetcar posts. For me, though, it's discouraging and disappointing to reach the bottom line and realize this one is being made without all the necessary information.

And if taking the time to 'make the decision in context' means giving up our place in line for a $75M grant to the next city working on a Streetcar project?

PDC literally had two years notice. If they couldn't or didn't use that time to generate the 'context' for making the decision, I have a hard time laying that problem at the feet of the Streetcar project. Instead it appears that PDC simply ignored the fact that this project was coming down the line.

If this project has been coming down the line for two years, why wasn't the accurate cost factored into the expansion and increased indebtedness when the Central Eastside URA was extended last July? Then, the allocation for the Streetcar extension in the Central Eastside was $4 million. That district is now being asked for $6.2 million. Has the Streetcar project budget gone up 50% in the past year? Are you saying the Council knew the cost last year, upped the total indebtedness by $51 million instead of the $35 million recommended by PDC and the Advisory Committee, and that still isn't enough to cover increased costs for the Streetcar?

Not sure about the Central Eastside. I was under the impression that the $51M increment was supposed to cover Streetcar and the Community Center. I don't know why the numbers didn't didn't work out.

It could be that the math in the Convention Center district didn't work out. I actually think that district will see the most benefit from Streetcar, but it is also the most financially constrained (which is part of the reason River District is being asked for such a large chunk - on the other hand the River District URA was too young last time around to contribute to the first Streetcar alignment, we leaned more on downtown - so there's a little bit of Karma here).

But if PDC had been more engaged earlier, we could have worked through the 'how much from each district' questions sooner. They have steadfastly budgeted $9M against a $31M request (now reduced to $27M). That was not very helpful.

A couple of comments:

Your city money committments, Amanda, don't include the amounts the city (and County, and METRO) will be assessed for the Streetcar LID. That's a couple of million dollars additional.

The only part of our community center funded out of the tax-increment financing money is for the land. There's no money --nor plan-- to actually build the center.

Finally, it really feels like back of napkin cost estimates. The project assumes a river crossing paid for by the Milwaukie Light Rail Line. METRO's looking at other options including not sending that light rail line over the river to South Waterfront, and instead keeping it on the east side. The Streetcar's fallback, as I understand it, is a Hawthorne Bridge crossing, but that's an unbudgeted item.

Frank, this project just gets to OMSI. The questions about the river crossing are NOT part of the financial considerations here. That comes later as a separate project and as you say there are alternative options (like coming back on the Hawthorne Brige). The biggest question currently open is where the Milwaukie Light Rail will land at OMSI, since we want to ultimately merge into it. We have several designs for this depending on what Milwaukie does, and the cost estimates for the variations are part of the $147M budget.

When we built the original Streetcar we stopped at PSU, even though we knew we wanted to get to South Waterfront. We got there, but it took three additional project phases :-)

If the city is providing $33M and $99M is coming from outside, then Portland taxpayers are paying 25 cents on the dollar for the project, not 33 cents.

Doh! Thanks, Doretta, I'll change it.

So Chris, how is the River District being assessed such a large amount, when the new Streetcar section won't run through it and at this point won't connect to the existing line? See map (pdf) of the River District boundaries. I thought URA money has to be spent within the URA boundaries?

Amanda, my understanding is that $17M is the calculation of the amount that will be spent within the River District geographic area. So yes, we're asking that URA to pay 100% of its costs from TIF. That's a recognition of the financial limitations of the other districts and the (relatively) deep pockets of the River District.

Just to clarify. It absolutely WILL connect to the existing line. The distinguishing point here is that we have only secured operating funding to run from OMSI to the Pearl (turning around at either Lovejoy or Hoyt, depending on the design chosen) so to make a trip from downtown to OMSI will require a transfer. The goal is to secure funding to operate from OMSI to RiverPlace, and I'll bet a lunch that we figure that out before opening day, but we don't have that committed now, so we can't promise it in the Federal application. But the tracks do indeed physically connect.

Following this discussion reminds me of the early days of the Gateway Urban Renewal District.

There has been precious little TIF money to spend on needed infrastructure in the area, or on new development. That's due in part because, in the early years, the citizen advisory group was pressured to contribute large amounts of money, first, to Multnomah County's Children's Receiving Center (located in the heart of the district) and, second, to the light rail line to Clackamas (which includes a station in the urban renewal area).

The only things we've been able to fund with TIF money, over and above those two projects, is an improvement in the alignment at one key intersection and assistance for the construction of a medical building and parking garage at the Gateway Transit Center. That's it.

The lack of infrastructure has made it difficult to get many projects off the ground. Some of the existing streets aren't paved and others need major improvements. But even more important is the need for new streets to provide better connectivity between the existing streets.

So, to get back to the subject at hand, assessing the urban renewal areas to cover major projects like the street car line, can have significant impact on the ability of the urban renewal areas to accomplish their other objectives!

-- Linda

I'm watching the City Council hearing on the LID. Dan Saltzman just asked if the ordinance can be adjusted to say that if the "low confidence" cost estimates prove too low, property owners can be assessed more of the costs. Yay Dan! Staff replied that the LID already had more "remonstrances" than usual, with property owners complaining about the LID formation. And a lot of detail about how assessments are apportioned, which will probably serve to confuse. Yep, Dan seems to have dropped his point. One interesting fact in the details is that only properties within the Industrial Sanctuary receive a lower assessment, rather than all industrially zoned properties. The first testifier is saying the property owners in the latter group don't see how the Streetcar will benefit them.

More as the hearing progresses, if I notice anything particularly interesting.

The rest of the testifiers were all supportive. Many noted they feel they are getting a great deal - "I'll get it back in six months", says Dick Cooley, property owner and former Planning Commissioner.

Sam responds to the concern of the first testifier on the industrial property - it's good that he held that thought through the rest of the testimony. He says the Streetcar will provide transportation for workers on industrial properties, also that affordable workforce housing will be built at the other end of the line. And that there will be associated traffic improvements on affected streets.

Sam moved an amendment from a memorandum - I have no idea what it was. It passed unanimously. Dan Saltzman left, so no amendment from him. Oh well, it was a good thought. The ordinance passed to Second Reading and will be voted on then.

Did they happen to mention that the streetcar will:
Increase traffic congestion on already congested streets.
Move only slightly faster than walking.
Cost about OVER $1.50 per passenger-mile compared to driving’s $0.25.

BTW, does the term workforce housing vaguely remind anyone of slavehousing?

Thanks
JK

Staff replied that the LID already had more "remonstrances" than usual, with property owners complaining about the LID formation

I think what Vicky said was that the remonstrances amounted to about 2% of the property value while in previous Streetcar projects it had ranged from 0% to 7%.

One interesting fact in the details is that only properties within the Industrial Sanctuary receive a lower assessment, rather than all industrially zoned properties.

I believe most of the industrial properties will benefit from TWO discounts: one for their industrial comp plan designation (not current zoning status, as Amanda points out) and one for their distance from the line (the rates are tiered by how far you are from the tracks - and the tracks are pretty much entirely within EXd zones). I would also point out that owner-occupied residential enjoys a discount.

I had a chance to fill in some of the missing pieces at the Project Advisory Committee meeting for the Loop today.

The original ask for the Central Eastside Urban Renewal Area was $12M. Susan Lindsay, chair of the URAC, testified at the PDC meeting that she was "relieved" that it had been lowered to $6M.

This investment does NOT trigger the need for another extension of the district, although in combination with other projects on the community's wish list, it could.

Much of the motivation to shift much of the burden to River District is cash flow related, based on risk analysis by the Office of Management and Finance. The investment of $12M of Central Eastside dollars would have required the City to finance this up front - the district is currently not producing enough increment to fund it directly. While there is great confidence that Streetcar will increase property values more than enough to generate the payback, that cash comes later. In contrast, property values in the River District have risen so much, that its URA can finance the $17M without much strain.

The eligible expense in the River District boundaries is $17.9M based on the current cost estimates.

Thanks for the additional information, Chris. I'm still not understanding how the River District can contribute to the eastside section of the Streetcar. What is being constructed on the west side, as part of the MLK/Central Eastside line?

What's interesting --at least to my geeky head, I guess-- is that we think of the $15 million as "funding" that's available. But the financing cost of borrowing $15 million at, say, 6% a year is like $900,000 per year. That will be another "cost" to the project while it's getting built on borrowed money.

The "private sector contribution" --i.e. the LID-- also includes some $2.48 million from METRO --just for the convention center and close to $4 million from the public sector overall, depending on how we define that. OMSI's also on the hook for close to a million, which is sorta kinda "public" money in the sense that the state will find SOME way to bail them out from their other debts after the governor vetoed the latest scheme the state legislature came up with.

Thanka, Frank, I'll update the main post on Who pays What, to reflect these subcategory numbers.

The River District will include tracks coming down the ramp from the Broadway Bridge and additional track on some combination of Lovejoy, 11th, and/or Hoyt as we both tie into the existing rails and create a place where the Streetcar can turn around. The rail layout is relatively complex and both designs being considered include multiple crossovers, switches and merges, which are more expensive than straight track.

Thanks. But did I understand your previous post correctly, that the tracks over the Broadway Bridge aren't included in this Eastside project? Is the River District segment more part of the next project or finishing up a previous one, since you don't know yet where the Streetcar crossing from the Eastside project is going to be?

No, we're building the complete connection that allows someone to travel from South Waterfront to OMSI, although the operating plan does not yet call for running a service on that actual configuration (the Federal application will initially call for running from OMSI to the Pearl, so a transfer would be required to go downtown), but we'll probably find the funding sources to run the complete distance before opening day.

We are building ALL the capital pieces required to run the complete service including crossing the Broadway Bridge.

My response started from the ramp coming down from the bridge because I believe that's the boundary for the River District URA (i.e., the bridge itself is not in the URA and the tracks on the bridge are not part of the $17.9M eligible cost in the district). In fact the bridge is not in any of the three districts, or the LID area, so I suspect we'll have to allocate the Federal funds to the costs on the bridge. All these districts and pots of money get very complicated...

but we'll probably find the funding sources to run the complete distance before opening day.

I'm guessing you will, having just taken a look at who is on the Portland Streetcar Board.

Thank you for all the information and clarification, Chris.

Finding the funding is going to consist of three things:

1) Looking at increased TriMet revenues in the out years (they are very constrained in the first few years).

2) Revenue from more intense parking management in some or all of the districts we serve on the east side (likely to be needed as Streetcar brings more development which in turn creates more demand for parking).

3) Re-examination of fare policy for the downtown core. This DOES NOT imply getting rid of fareless square, but might include modifications to it. Fareless square is 30 years old and it's quite reasonable to examine whether it's meeting its original policy goals and whether new goals may be appropriate to consider.

The downtown issue is very appropriate, since if we succeed in funding service all the way from OMSI to RiverPlace, downtown will be a major beneficiary, as Streetcar service will double from every 12 minutes to every 6 minutes since we would then have two lines running through downtown (Lowell to NW 23rd and RiverPlace to OMSI) on the existing tracks.

And I'm more than proud to serve on the Streetcar Board with the rest of the folks there. We have a strong record of delivering the projects on-time and under budget, and in six years of operation we have not had an injury accident.

Revenue from more intense parking management

That phrase made me smile. Aka "more parking meters" to most Portlanders.

Even after all the projected light rail and Streetcar lines are completed, most transit users will still want to go places the Streetcar and MAX don't run. I hope the needs of bus riders will be front and center in discussions about Fareless Square, TriMet revenues and ticket prices, and future service improvements (rather than cutbacks). Some of us are uncomfortable enough now with funding premium service for the fixed rail lines, while people on the 12 and 19 and (fill in multiple other bus routes here) are packed into hot buses like cans of sardines on a desert camping trip.

I would commend to you the book "The High Cost of Free Parking".

http://www.amazon.com/High-Cost-Free-Parking/dp/1884829988/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/105-8002803-0910039?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1187240909&sr=8-1

Beyond a certain level of urban intensity, if you're NOT charging for parking, you're incurring all kinds of hidden costs.

Revenue from more intense parking management in some or all of the districts we serve on the east side (likely to be needed as Streetcar brings more development which in turn creates more demand for parking).

Ah...so development-oriented-transit, in fact, brings more cars. And more demand for parking in an area where there is currently a shortage. And parking meters in the Central Eastside Industrial District where the property owners oppose them. Which, in turn, will bring more commuter parking to our close-in SE neighborhoods where folks can squeeze into our already overcrowded buses.

And to cover anticipated operating losses from all this, well, we'll just have to look at that antiquated "fareless square" nonsense.

$2.2 million per year in operating subsidies, paid for --at least in part-- by parking meter revenues (hey, shouldn't they be used to provide more, uh, parking?) A $250 million bridge to South Waterfront --yet another "linchpin" for that development.
Sounds like a real winning proposition to me! :-)

In the meantime, where's the money in the Urban Renewal District for a community center? Not a dime for construction. Meanwhile we lost our most significant greenspace in Hosford-Abernethy --the Clay Rabbit house-- replaced by a four story monolith of condos and retail with NO guest parking, no bike parking and Transportation System Development Charge payments that will NOT go to improve the capacity of SE Division on which it sits --our Division Street greenscaping project remains unfunded-- but will be used to fund the streetcar that doesn't serve us.

It's hard not to get cynical...

Frank, I think you're starting from a perspective that parking demand should be accommodated, rather than managed. Read Shoup's book.

Some of us are uncomfortable enough now with funding premium service for the fixed rail lines, while people on the 12 and 19 and (fill in multiple other bus routes here) are packed into hot buses like cans of sardines on a desert camping trip.

I think that Amanda hit the nail on the head -- a few times. Her observation about bus riders' plight is spot on, as were her questions about what we're giving up by cancelling other projects in deference to streetcar. One might also ask, "What else could be done with a $75million FTA Small Starts grant to help transit in the region?" or "How long are we going to have to wait for another many-million FTA opportunity to boost transit?"

I work in Central Eastside, and on average, commute via bus 4 out of 5 days of the week. Sure, our transit access here isn't ideal -- but it's a far cry better than a lot of other places in Portland. Moreover, this streetcar will replace a bus that already runs every 15 minutes, and rarely sees crush loads. The Streetcar is relatively slow and will go someplace that few people in Central Eastside are demanding to go (if there's a lot of Central Eastside-Pearl demand, why do I see very few inbound transfers from the 6 to the 9 or the 77 at MLK?). Even worse, it goes through one of the most transit-dense neighborhoods in Portland to get there.

In other words, despite all of Chris' arguments (which are quite good) and all of the projections and charts and other data, I still don't see how the Eastside Streetcar does anything -- absolutely anything -- to improve our region's overall transportation network. It doesn't. It improves our property values, though...

That's what I find so disappointing about this entire streetcar decision. Our decision to use transit dollars as private economic incentive is myopic and irresponsible. In this day and age especially, why are we so willing to help private industry gain by exploiting government resources at the expense of the rest of us?

Aaron, at the risk of repeating myself from comments on other posts on the site, the Streetcar Loop will:

- Create 4,000+ housing units in the center of the region instead of at the edge
- Create a much more vibrant and active district extending through the Lloyd District and Central Eastside
- Create a transit loop around that central city that will facilitate all kinds of transit trips and serve as the base for a much more extensive Streetcar system in the future

I empathize with those who believe that bus service needs an upgrade - I agree. And I'm working with others to look for ways to increase the total revenue available for transit operations, which is really the conflict point (capital is not).

But the basic equation is pretty simple, Streetcars give you mobility AND the kind of environment that lets us achieve our Region 2040 vision while buses just give you mobility.

If the complaint is that this is going to make money for developers, I would suggest that all we're really doing is making sure that developers make their money at the center of the region rather than at the edge. And that's a very good thing. Developers are going to make money as long as people keep moving here because of our livability. I want to make sure that the development improves our livability rather than degrading it.

Streetcars give you mobility AND the kind of environment that lets us achieve our Region 2040 vision while buses just give you mobility.

That is mostly because governments have chosen not to provide the same kinds of concurrent investments on bus routes as they have along the Streetcar. It becomes a self-perpetuating project and self-fulfilling prophecy. Spend millions on this fixed route, spend millions adjacent to it to make the first millions work out, then say how well the whole package worked out. If instead we chose to invest in better bus service AND in making home developments along bus routes pleasant, desirable places to live, we'd achieve more 2040 goals at far less cost.

Try visiting new apartment complexes along Powell and Foster, where children play in the parking lot and there are no community gathering spaces for families to chat on a warm summer evening. It's no wonder their residents can hardly wait to save up enough to move out to Gresham, Vancouver and beyond. Upzoning (increased density) in the Outer Southeast Plan provided capacity for many thousands of new homes, with almost no funding for amenities to make them livable. It's not just bus service that needs an upgrade, Chris, it's a question of figuring out how to make adjacent development desirable. That's done for the Streetcar lines, with millions of additional public investment. It's almost totally ignored for bus transit corridors.

When Metro talks about "inner neighborhoods" in the 2040 Plan, they mean "Portland and older suburbs" such as Lake Oswego and Beaverton. They don't mean Brooklyn and King rather than Foster-Powell and Lents. There isn't an infinite amount of money. Building the eastside Streetcar means $6+ million of improvements in other Portland neighborhoods won't be funded - even improvements needed on Metro-designated Main Streets and Transit Corridors. Without the cost-benefit analysis including what won't get done in the Inner Eastside and elsewhere, due to dedication of public money to the new Streetcar line, it isn't possible to weigh whether the new line is the best choice for investing public dollars to meet 2040 goals.

Amanda, I think if you look at all the development along the Streetcar alignment, you will find many sections that had no additional public investment, yet sprouted a lot of private sector development.

And I would love to get Streetcar to Brooklyn, Kind, Foster-Powell and Lents. The City-wide rail plan process is just about to begin.

I think if you look at all the development along the Streetcar alignment, you will find many sections that had no additional public investment, yet sprouted a lot of private sector development.

Can you direct me to a web site or sites carrying that information? I hope the analysis has been done, so decision-makers know what worked, what didn't, what level of public subsidy was required, and what to expect in other situations in the future. I've seen lots of broad statements about the gazillion dollars in investment stimulated. I'd love to see a breakdown of what was built where, and how much subsidy was or wasn't required in each development adjacent to or near existing Streetcar lines.

Here is one look at the development along the Streetcar route, but it does not identify which projects might have additional subsidy:

http://www.portlandstreetcar.org/commredevelop.php

The River District housing report from 2005 has an interesting exhibit C which shows incentives received for the various projects. You can see that with the exception of two projects that got partial abatements, none of the condo projects got abatements. On the other hand, almost all the rental projects did.

http://www.pdc.us/pdf/ura/river_district/200503_housing_implementation_strategy.pdf

I've been trying to find someone to synthesize this type of information for the whole alignment and come up with a graphic that shows all the new development sites, how many square feet at each site, and which received abatements, but so far I haven't found anyone who wants to take this on.

Right on, Amanda. "It becomes a self-perpetuating project and self-fulfilling prophecy. Spend millions on this fixed route, spend millions adjacent to it to make the first millions work out, then say how well the whole package worked out. If instead we chose to invest in better bus service AND in making home developments along bus routes pleasant, desirable places to live, we'd achieve more 2040 goals at far less cost."

Or -- as we discussed at the Gateway Urban Renewal meeting last night -- if government would spend a modest amount on some basic infrastructure improvements within areas like the Gateway Regional Center (streets, sidewalks and a park and/or cultural attraction), "we'd achieve more 2040 goals at far less cost."

The citizen advisory group at Gateway has been told over and over, the reason development hasn't taken off in the Gateway area despite zoning designed to encourage it, and despite it's favorable geographic location (with excellent access to both N-S and E-W freeways and light rail, the airport, and more), is that THE AREA LACKS BASIC INFRASTRUCTURE AND AMENITIES. The Gateway Regional Center, zoned to have density similar to the Pearl District or Lloyd Center, is struggling to get any significant development at all because there's been no money for these basic infrastructure needs.

"Building the eastside Streetcar means $6+ million of improvements in other Portland neighborhoods won't be funded - even improvements needed on Metro-designated Main Streets and Transit Corridors" -- or the Metro-designated Regional Centers, which are expected to play a critical role in obsorbing new development and population increases!

-- Linda Robinson

Thanks, Chris, it's helpful having those two links up with this post. If/when anyone has the time, it might not take too long to go through the list of projects and figure out which were subsidized/market-driven, and estimate which spurred by the Streetcar versus those that would have been built in the location anyway. PSU facilities, for example, benefit from the Streetcar but it would be a stretch to claim the new buildings wouldn't have been built near the existing campus, but for the Streetcar. And the "linchpin" for OHSU extending their campus to South Waterfront was the tram, rather than the Streetcar, while the condo developments there are likely more thanks to the Streetcar. At any rate, while I don't have time to do that research now, your links make it easier for me or someone else to find the information for a study at a later date. Thank you for all the time you've donated to providing information on my blog this week, in particular.

Linda, thanks for commenting and reminding me and others that Gateway is supposed to be the next highest priority for funding, as a Metro Regional Center. It's in such a great location, with light rail, the freeway, and plenty of connecting surface arterials - it really ought to be the next place to take off for residential and job development. It would be great to see some attention paid to why it hasn't, and how those basic infrastructure needs can be funded there, first before other deserving areas of the city. Getting the Regional Center designation ought to bring some goodies.

hopefully we will never reach that level of "urban intensity"

Thanks
JK

But the basic equation is pretty simple, Streetcars give you mobility AND the kind of environment that lets us achieve our Region 2040 vision while buses just give you mobility.

While all of these might indeed pass, I have a big problem with the "if you build it, they will come" mentality. The Streetcar alone doesn't create vibrant and active districts. It's a metal box that runs on metal rails. Might it facilitate these districts? Sure... but I highly doubt it's the *only* thing that could.

The expectation that Eastside Streetcar will catalyze regional transit ignores the fact that it really creates no new transit service. Eastside Streetcar simply replaces service that we already have, and uses up capital money that might be better invested elsewhere -- why not instead focus on the Caruthers bridge, and then get streetcar on Hawthorne? Streetcar would shine there, and Milwaukie MAX could make some progress. Just one example.

Finally, to your point about operating costs. That is indeed the devil in the details. I don't have all of the details right at my fingertips, but TriMet operations budgets will be affected by more streetcar development, since they subsidize it (as does the City -- get ready for parking meters!).

Not only does streetcar not help solve the operations budget for the mode used by most transit customers (bus), it exacerbates it because now TriMet has something new to further squeeze the budget.

Your motivations are good, Chris, and I'm a big fan of streetcar -- but this plan just doesn't make any sense to me.