The Portland Streetcar: Transforming Urban Growth
CASE STUDY: PORTLAND
The Portland Streetcar: Transforming Urban Growth Portland is managing to reduce vehicle traffic, develop rundown neighborhoods, and increase local jobs by investing in streetcar development through a combination of creative approaches to funding, institutionalizing local involvement, and securing political support.
The Basics Putting the right context in place. Portland was not always the bustling metropolis it is today. In the 1960s the city suffered from the rise of suburban sprawl. In an effort to reverse this trend, Portland emphasized cooperative planning for transit and land-use. Two illustrative efforts were the creation of TriMet—the regional transit agency—and the decision to invest in regional light rail projects instead of freeways. Portland Streetcar represents another turning point in city planning, and has led to an increase in, and support of, both residential and business growth. Getting underway. The idea of reintroducing streetcars in Portland resulted from the 1988 Central City Plan. Streetcars were seen as a way to encourage infill and catalyze housing development. In the early 1990s, Portland’s downtown was ill-equipped to handle the 54 percent population growth expected by 2030. The City conducted a Central City Trolley Alignment Analysis and established a Streetcar Citizens Advisory Committee in 1990, a process which eventually resulted in the installation of a modern streetcar in the city. Impacts. Portland’s central city has achieved significant levels of development and is capable of not only handling the population increase, but also of fostering additional economic growth. The reintroduction of the streetcar in 2001 has played a large role in these changes. The streetcar, which also services areas surrounding downtown and connects people to the regional light rail and bus systems, has spurred approximately 100 projects worth $2.3 billion in development along the service line. The projects included over 7,000 housing units and 4.6 million square feet of office and retail space. Because this new development is occurring where there is easy streetcar access, developers
can allocate space and resources to more and better quality development instead of additional parking. Ridership is three times greater than projected: 2009 levels are up to 12,000 riders per day, contributing to the decline of vehicle use in Portland, while such use has increased in American cities overall.
The Portland Streetcar has also helped to create a new U.S. industry and brought new jobs to Oregon. In 2008, United Streetcar (a subsidiary of Oregon Iron Works) began manufacturing U.S.built streetcars. Previously, all Portland streetcars were made in the Czech Republic, but thanks to a 2006 exclusive technology transfer agreement between the Czech transportation company, which manufactured the previous Portland streetcars, and Oregon Iron Works, streetcars can now be built in the United States. With help from Oregon Congressman Peter DeFazio, Portland secured a $4 million contract to build a prototype American streetcar. This contract has created over 20 new positions at Oregon Iron Works and will lead to more hires as the company grows and orders increase (one order has already come in from Tucson). American-made streetcars stimulate manufacturing, construction and operation jobs tied to their production and use. Building on success. Portland’s streetcar success in the Pearl District is leading to expansion in other underdeveloped areas of the city. As early as 2001, replication of the successful Pearl District streetcar began to see its way into other district development strategies. In 2003, the Bureau of Case Study: Portland | 2
Transportation conducted a study of extending the streetcar to the Lloyd and Central Eastside Industrial districts. Now the so-called Loop Project is an extension being built to provide transit connections to both light rail (MAX) and bus services, adding 28 streetcar stop locations. Public support for mass transit is on the rise, because it is seen as an attractive way to reduce traffic and revive neighborhoods. Streetcars are also an affordable alternative to the more expensive light rail lines that are typically designed to reach the suburban community, and which often require more physical space. The space efficiency of the Portland Streetcar project, however, allows for more future development of surrounding blocks. Local supporters and businesses see the streetcar as a more attractive alternative to bus routes, and one that will spur development. Resources and financing. Aside from the federal government contract to build the streetcars themselves, the vast majority of funds for the initial phases of the Portland Streetcar were derived from local sources. Some of the funds were generated by increasing parking prices (from $0.75 to $0.95 an hour) and issuing bonds against the future parking revenue. Under the Local Improvement District (LID) program, the city also instituted a local property tax along the proposed streetcar line, and used tax increment financing. This city-level revenue allowed considerable local control and flexibility in planning and implementing the streetcar project. Another innovative approach to raising revenue was the creation of a sponsorship program for vehicles and stops, where advertisers can purchase displays for a minimum of one year, as opposed to the shorter sponsorship periods on the MAX or bus lines. The development cost of the Loop Project is significantly higher than the initial line. Portland is financing the project through a U.S. Department of Transportation allocation, which is matched by Local Improvement District funds, Portland Development Commission urban renewal funds, regional sources, system development charges, and state sources.
Food for Thought Size matters. Each streetcar is 66 feet long, which is 10 to 30 feet shorter than a typical light rail car, and is always operated as a single car. This design allows streetcars to follow regular traffic patterns, without being given priority over vehicle traffic or forcing an adjustment to traffic signals. This minimizes costs and limits disruption to the current traffic or parking set-up. The small size also helps reduce construction costs by allowing stations and stops to be smaller than light rail stations. Turning lack into opportunity. Although the areas in which Portland intended to install the first streetcar initially lacked infrastructure and amenities, officials saw the existence of large, unused tracts of industrial land close to downtown Portland as a significant redevelopment opportunity. Moreover, the opportunity to provide streetcar service presented itself as housing demand was on the rise. Although community buy-in was sought from the beginning, lower population density in the redevelopment area may have contributed to the lack of community opposition.
Case Study: Portland | 3
Gaining buy-in through community involvement. Portland cultivated public support over the life of the pilot streetcar project by actively engaging with the local community. The City’s Bureau of Transportation appointed Citizen Advisory Committees prior to each project to provide feedback on planning, design and operation. For the proposed extension to Lake Oswego, Metro has sought buy-in through the formation of a steering committee, which comprises local officials in the areas of development and Project Advisory Committees made up of citizens and local stakeholders. Coordinated development. The success of the initial project triggered the development of a City-wide Streetcar System Concept Plan (SSCP) that identified potential corridors for future expansions of the system. This planning effort was managed by the Bureau of Transportation, in coordination with the Bureau of Planning & Sustainability, Metro, TriMet, the Portland Development Commission and ODOT. They coordinated the SSCP with the City’s comprehensive land-use plan and the regional High Capacity Transit System Plan. The SSCP effort was governed by a System Advisory Committee appointed by the Commissioner-in-charge of Transportation, and was developed with significant input from citizen-led District Working Groups throughout the City. On September 9, 2009, Portland City Council adopted a resolution to accept the Streetcar System Concept Plan. This truly cooperative effort has led to Portland Streetcar’s success.
For More Information City of Portland, Bureau of Transportation, http://www.portlandonline.com/transportation Portland Streetcar, Inc., http://www.portlandstreetcar.org Metro, http://www.metro-region.org Burgess, Edward and Ashley Rood. Environmental Defense Fund, “Reinventing Transit: American Communities Finding Smarter, Cleaner, Faster Transportation Solutions,” http://www.edf.org/documents/9522_Reinventing_Transit_FINAL.pdf, 2009, pgs. 13-14. Reconnecting America, “Realizing the Potential: Expanding Housing Opportunities near Transit,” May 2007. http://www.reconnectingamerica.org/public/reports/137, April 2007, pg. 136-160.
Case Study: Portland | 4
The Portland Streetcar: Transforming Urban Growth Portland is managing to reduce vehicle traffic, develop rundown neighborhoods, and increase local jobs by investing in streetcar development through a combination of creative approaches to funding, institutionalizing local involvement, and securing political support.
The Basics Putting the right context in place. Portland was not always the bustling metropolis it is today. In the 1960s the city suffered from the rise of suburban sprawl. In an effort to reverse this trend, Portland emphasized cooperative planning for transit and land-use. Two illustrative efforts were the creation of TriMet—the regional transit agency—and the decision to invest in regional light rail projects instead of freeways. Portland Streetcar represents another turning point in city planning, and has led to an increase in, and support of, both residential and business growth. Getting underway. The idea of reintroducing streetcars in Portland resulted from the 1988 Central City Plan. Streetcars were seen as a way to encourage infill and catalyze housing development. In the early 1990s, Portland’s downtown was ill-equipped to handle the 54 percent population growth expected by 2030. The City conducted a Central City Trolley Alignment Analysis and established a Streetcar Citizens Advisory Committee in 1990, a process which eventually resulted in the installation of a modern streetcar in the city. Impacts. Portland’s central city has achieved significant levels of development and is capable of not only handling the population increase, but also of fostering additional economic growth. The reintroduction of the streetcar in 2001 has played a large role in these changes. The streetcar, which also services areas surrounding downtown and connects people to the regional light rail and bus systems, has spurred approximately 100 projects worth $2.3 billion in development along the service line. The projects included over 7,000 housing units and 4.6 million square feet of office and retail space. Because this new development is occurring where there is easy streetcar access, developers
can allocate space and resources to more and better quality development instead of additional parking. Ridership is three times greater than projected: 2009 levels are up to 12,000 riders per day, contributing to the decline of vehicle use in Portland, while such use has increased in American cities overall.
The Portland Streetcar has also helped to create a new U.S. industry and brought new jobs to Oregon. In 2008, United Streetcar (a subsidiary of Oregon Iron Works) began manufacturing U.S.built streetcars. Previously, all Portland streetcars were made in the Czech Republic, but thanks to a 2006 exclusive technology transfer agreement between the Czech transportation company, which manufactured the previous Portland streetcars, and Oregon Iron Works, streetcars can now be built in the United States. With help from Oregon Congressman Peter DeFazio, Portland secured a $4 million contract to build a prototype American streetcar. This contract has created over 20 new positions at Oregon Iron Works and will lead to more hires as the company grows and orders increase (one order has already come in from Tucson). American-made streetcars stimulate manufacturing, construction and operation jobs tied to their production and use. Building on success. Portland’s streetcar success in the Pearl District is leading to expansion in other underdeveloped areas of the city. As early as 2001, replication of the successful Pearl District streetcar began to see its way into other district development strategies. In 2003, the Bureau of Case Study: Portland | 2
Transportation conducted a study of extending the streetcar to the Lloyd and Central Eastside Industrial districts. Now the so-called Loop Project is an extension being built to provide transit connections to both light rail (MAX) and bus services, adding 28 streetcar stop locations. Public support for mass transit is on the rise, because it is seen as an attractive way to reduce traffic and revive neighborhoods. Streetcars are also an affordable alternative to the more expensive light rail lines that are typically designed to reach the suburban community, and which often require more physical space. The space efficiency of the Portland Streetcar project, however, allows for more future development of surrounding blocks. Local supporters and businesses see the streetcar as a more attractive alternative to bus routes, and one that will spur development. Resources and financing. Aside from the federal government contract to build the streetcars themselves, the vast majority of funds for the initial phases of the Portland Streetcar were derived from local sources. Some of the funds were generated by increasing parking prices (from $0.75 to $0.95 an hour) and issuing bonds against the future parking revenue. Under the Local Improvement District (LID) program, the city also instituted a local property tax along the proposed streetcar line, and used tax increment financing. This city-level revenue allowed considerable local control and flexibility in planning and implementing the streetcar project. Another innovative approach to raising revenue was the creation of a sponsorship program for vehicles and stops, where advertisers can purchase displays for a minimum of one year, as opposed to the shorter sponsorship periods on the MAX or bus lines. The development cost of the Loop Project is significantly higher than the initial line. Portland is financing the project through a U.S. Department of Transportation allocation, which is matched by Local Improvement District funds, Portland Development Commission urban renewal funds, regional sources, system development charges, and state sources.
Food for Thought Size matters. Each streetcar is 66 feet long, which is 10 to 30 feet shorter than a typical light rail car, and is always operated as a single car. This design allows streetcars to follow regular traffic patterns, without being given priority over vehicle traffic or forcing an adjustment to traffic signals. This minimizes costs and limits disruption to the current traffic or parking set-up. The small size also helps reduce construction costs by allowing stations and stops to be smaller than light rail stations. Turning lack into opportunity. Although the areas in which Portland intended to install the first streetcar initially lacked infrastructure and amenities, officials saw the existence of large, unused tracts of industrial land close to downtown Portland as a significant redevelopment opportunity. Moreover, the opportunity to provide streetcar service presented itself as housing demand was on the rise. Although community buy-in was sought from the beginning, lower population density in the redevelopment area may have contributed to the lack of community opposition.
Case Study: Portland | 3
Gaining buy-in through community involvement. Portland cultivated public support over the life of the pilot streetcar project by actively engaging with the local community. The City’s Bureau of Transportation appointed Citizen Advisory Committees prior to each project to provide feedback on planning, design and operation. For the proposed extension to Lake Oswego, Metro has sought buy-in through the formation of a steering committee, which comprises local officials in the areas of development and Project Advisory Committees made up of citizens and local stakeholders. Coordinated development. The success of the initial project triggered the development of a City-wide Streetcar System Concept Plan (SSCP) that identified potential corridors for future expansions of the system. This planning effort was managed by the Bureau of Transportation, in coordination with the Bureau of Planning & Sustainability, Metro, TriMet, the Portland Development Commission and ODOT. They coordinated the SSCP with the City’s comprehensive land-use plan and the regional High Capacity Transit System Plan. The SSCP effort was governed by a System Advisory Committee appointed by the Commissioner-in-charge of Transportation, and was developed with significant input from citizen-led District Working Groups throughout the City. On September 9, 2009, Portland City Council adopted a resolution to accept the Streetcar System Concept Plan. This truly cooperative effort has led to Portland Streetcar’s success.
For More Information City of Portland, Bureau of Transportation, http://www.portlandonline.com/transportation Portland Streetcar, Inc., http://www.portlandstreetcar.org Metro, http://www.metro-region.org Burgess, Edward and Ashley Rood. Environmental Defense Fund, “Reinventing Transit: American Communities Finding Smarter, Cleaner, Faster Transportation Solutions,” http://www.edf.org/documents/9522_Reinventing_Transit_FINAL.pdf, 2009, pgs. 13-14. Reconnecting America, “Realizing the Potential: Expanding Housing Opportunities near Transit,” May 2007. http://www.reconnectingamerica.org/public/reports/137, April 2007, pg. 136-160.
Case Study: Portland | 4
