Portland Streetcar System

[RED_PDXer]

^ Rent control...

[rsbear]

Originally Posted by RED_PDXer

^ Rent control...

No

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by RED_PDXer

^ Rent control...

not rent control, that is much different that what I am saying. I am referring more to the high cost of construction seems to be the excuse that developers use to call their project luxury apartments. There seems to be very little incentive as well as little desire among developers here to build more moderate rent apartments.

With all this infill going on, having a 12-24 unit apartment building being built with rents under 900 should be happening here as well. Sure, the profit margin would be much lower, but it would be providing a larger variety of units to the market.

Height incentives as well as other incentives and tax credits would be a great way to entice more developers to take part....of course we could do it the Vancouver way and make it a requirement.

[rsbear]

Give developers air rights (additional height allowance) for each less-than-market-rate apartment/condo included in a market-rate development. At the right ratio (height limit increase per unit) the developer could (hopefully) make a bigger return by including "affordable" housing than not. And lower-income citizens would not be limited to buildings with limited desirability.

[JordanL]

Agreed... increase the FAR for acceptable "middle-income" housing options, (that do not necessarily have to be as lavash as the high-income housing options... the lower income housing could have lower ceilings for instance).

of course we could do it the Vancouver way and make it a requirement.

And look at all the great development that's gotten Vancouver.

Legislating or forcing it with no incentive to builders would probably create an instant building boom for Beaverton.

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by JordanL

Agreed... increase the FAR for acceptable "middle-income" housing options, (that do not necessarily have to be as lavash as the high-income housing options... the lower income housing could have lower ceilings for instance).

And look at all the great development that's gotten Vancouver.

Legislating or forcing it with no incentive to builders would probably create an instant building boom for Beaverton.

When I say legislate of "force," there has to be some form of incentive to go along with it. Basically, if you want to build taller, this number of "middle class" and "low income" units are needed.

Developers want to make money and cities want housing units to be affordable to their residents. Might as well make both work together to help each other out.

[Snowden352]

ok. I've never had a ride on the streetcar. Is it part of the fareless square system?

[JordanL]

Originally Posted by Snowden352

ok. I've never had a ride on the streetcar. Is it part of the fareless square system?

It is where it goes through fareless square...



The Streetcar (gold line on the map) is free inside the beige area...

When I say legislate of "force," there has to be some form of incentive to go along with it. Basically, if you want to build taller, this number of "middle class" and "low income" units are needed.

Developers want to make money and cities want housing units to be affordable to their residents. Might as well make both work together to help each other out.

Ah, I see. You meant "why not both". I read that as "or instead we could..."

[RED_PDXer]

Rent control is still a viable option. Most rent control systems don't apply to buildings less than 20 to 30 years old to allow developers to earn their profit. It protects people from gentrification, especially in formerly low income areas like NW, downtown, Mississippi and Alberta. It helps the economy by allowing people to have more disposable income - rather than paying for ever increasing rents. Perhaps we're not in need of it yet, but a time will come where people are clamoring for it, whether you like it or not, because greedy landlords and property management companies are only looking to increase their profits with no regard for impacts on renters. Fortunately, a system can be designed in a such a way to support continued investment in the housing stock and minimize out-of-control rent increases.

There is currently legislation that prohibits cities from requiring builders to provide affordable housing, which is why Portland can't require it. The incentive system we currently have is essentially only utilized by non-profits.

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by RED_PDXer

There is currently legislation that prohibits cities from requiring builders to provide affordable housing, which is why Portland can't require it. The incentive system we currently have is essentially only utilized by non-profits.

thats kind of a dumb law, were they smoking weed when they wrote it or was it a Bill Sizemore law?

[RED_PDXer]

Originally Posted by urbanlife

thats kind of a dumb law, were they smoking weed when they wrote it or was it a Bill Sizemore law?

We (or I) am referring to "inclusionary zoning". This is a requirement for developers to include a percentage of housing units in their developments as "affordable". The building industry lobby keeps close tabs on it, and will continue to. Unfortunately, private industry can be "business as usual" just as much as government at times. The building industry simplifies this issue as a "supply and demand" problem. By allowing developers to build whatever they want wherever they want, they can respond to market demand appropriately. They would argue that, if allowed to develop as much housing as the market demands (wherever they want), "affordable" housing would be provided by the market. I believe this is true, but it totally ignore the complex realities of the world we live in - environmental, traffic, and social issues render this "free market" perspective untenable in my opinion.

[zilfondel]

So I stumbled across this picture showing the construction of Vancouver, BC's first streetcar line (its single tracked). It's an upgrade of their vintage trolley system, similar to the Willamette Shore Trolley we have operating between SOWA and Lake Oswego, except theirs has actual catenary already in place. It's being upgraded, with all an all new roadbed, ties & tracks, stations, and cat.

Originally Posted by fever

Some updates from this afternoon:


By bob1324987134290, shot with DMC-LZ10 at 2009-02-19


By bob1324987134290, shot with DMC-LZ10 at 2009-02-19

[MR. Cosmopolitan]

Originally Posted by RED_PDXer

There is currently legislation that prohibits cities from requiring builders to provide affordable housing, which is why Portland can't require it. The incentive system we currently have is essentially only utilized by non-profits.

I think this law should be removed urgently; the high and increasing income inequalities present in Oregon are creating an enormus risk of creating large ghetos in the least desirable parts of downtown, I think that to impede this catastrophic situation Portland should require builders with incentives to provide affordable housing IN SMALL AREAS ALL AROUND DOWNTOWN or we would end up in the in the near future with awfull ghetos comparable to the ones in LA.

[zilfondel]

no offense, but could we take the affordable housing discussion to another section? This is supposed to be on transit!

[JordanL]

Well Portland can make it an unofficial law by finding some reason to deny a build permit unless there's affordable housing...

If you're really looking, you can always find a reason to deny a build permit.

[RED_PDXer]

Originally Posted by zilfondel

So I stumbled across this picture showing the construction of Vancouver, BC's first streetcar line (its single tracked). I'd just like to note that at least we (Portland) are doing something right.

Yes, those are wood catenary poles.

maybe wood poles are more sustainable? - at the very least, they gotta be cheaper..

but really, what's the point of a single-track streetcar system? talk about a waste... the frequencies are going to be pathetic.

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by RED_PDXer

maybe wood poles are more sustainable? - at the very least, they gotta be cheaper..

but really, what's the point of a single-track streetcar system? talk about a waste... the frequencies are going to be pathetic.

unless it is meant to be a loop...which I am not sure if it is or not, just saying.

[MightyAlweg]

I actually like the look of those wood catenary poles in that area. They blend in perfectly with the naturally landscaped ravine that the trolley line runs through. I can easily imagine that they were much cheaper than custom built steel poles too.

These wood poles would probably look cheap and tacky in sleek downtown Vancouver running in front of The Bay department store. But the overall look and design scheme fits in quite nicely in that suburban area pictured above. Overall, a nice way to slim the budget while still blending in with the natural surroundings.

[zilfondel]

Apparently its a single tracked, 3-station line with passing section, running 2 trams to Granville Island and the Olympic Village. 'Proof-of-concept.'

Wood poles have to be chemically treated, very nasty stuff. At least steel can be recycled, and can last a long time. They don't need to be custom-made, either... just look at the ones along the MAX Blue line along 84.

[deasine]

The Vancouver Streetcar project is paid fully by the City of Vancouver. The Federal Government isn't paying attention to this project and has no interest in it. The Provincial Government as well as TransLink, the regional transportation authority, doesn't have enough money as they are paying for other infrastructure projects throughout the region.

Right now, the City of Vancouver is paying for a many developments like the Olympic Village, and so we don't have enough money to do really anything. The Downtown Streetcar Project has been sitting on the tables for ten years, until previous Mayor Sam Sullivan took the initiative of funding a smaller, pilot project of the line. And thank god for that.

There are provisions for future expansion of course. When it is fully expanded, it is obviously double tracked with a third storage track. In your picture, you can see there is enough room for three tracks (the original plan actually has three tracks for that location).

Going back to the wooden polls, those were all put up by volunteers who were running a historic tram. To start criticizing this is really a slap on everyone's face, who give up their time, expertise, and money for other people to enjoy.

We are looking at Portland as a transportation model, but to start saying we aren't doing things "right" when we have limited funding and limited support isn't fair at all. How about research before you post in two forums next time.