Isaac Laquedem

Washington, D.C.: where one-way streetsigns mark two-way streets

Seattle and other cities have reversible freeway lanes, which run inbound in the morning and outbound in the evening.   Seattle's reversible freeway lanes have gates and flashing lights to deter the inattentive from entering the lanes in the wrong direction.

Washington has carried the reversible-lane concept further: a sign a few blocks from the White House proclaims that the street is one-way for 2-1/2 hours on weekday mornings except holidays, and two-way at all other hours.  The one-way/two-way (does that add up to three-way?) street has no flashing lights and no gates, only some yellow one-way arrows with a bit of text to indicate that most of the time the one-way street is actually a two-way street.  It might be a delightful metaphor for the political logjam in Congress.

Light rail: Clackamas County doesn't want to pay, and Milwaukie can't pay

Last year the voters of Clackamas County passed an initiative which requires the county to seek the voters' approval before providing any money or other resources to light rail.  The county's first election is this May, though some assert that the election results won't affect commitments that the county made before the voters passed the initiative.

The next light rail funding election is likely to be in Milwaukie, but not because of the county initiative, which doesn't apply to cities.  Rather, it's because Milwaukie's councilors and management have discovered that the city can't afford the commitment it already made to the new light rail line.  As told in the Portland Tribune this week:  "In 2008, city officials signed on to paying TriMet $4 million for the light-rail line under construction.... TriMet renegotiated a payment plan with Milwaukie after it became clear that the city wouldn't be able to pay within 90 days of the Federal Transit Administration's 50 percent match to the $1.49 billion total project cost."  The city and TriMet negotiated a 19-year payment plan, with the last payment ($364,875) coming due in 2031.  TriMet is charging interest at 5%, incidentally.

According to the Tribune, Milwaukie's city manager "predicted that the city can make the payment for this year and next year, . . . but the payments would quickly lead to an unsustainable situation in following years."  Translated, that means that the city will have to either raise taxes or cut services in order to pay its bill to TriMet.  The city council plans to ask voters which choice they prefer, and will also possibly put a bond measure on the ballot to support a particular city service, perhaps parks or the city library.

So Milwaukie's situation is different from Clackamas County's: the city won't be asking voters whether they want to pay $5 million for light rail, but whether they want to pay $5 million to keep the city services that the council would otherwise have to cut in order to pay for light rail.  Nothing in the article suggested that anyone's asked the councilors who were serving in 2008, and who committed Milwaukie to pay the $5 million, where they expected to find the money.  I doubt the voters expected that they might look to the parks and libraries to pay for the trains.

The Portland Streetcar's real purpose revealed

One of the ongoing discussions about the Portland Streetcar is whether it is faster to walk or take the streetcar.  When I want to travel along the streetcar's route downtown, I trot briskly along the route until a streetcar catches up with me, or until I catch up with the streetcar, or until I get to my destination.  Usually I beat the streetcar.  Every time I follow the tracks, I notice others also jogging or walking briskly along the route, apparently with the same purpose. 

Twenty years ago I visited the Multnomah Kennel Club and watched the greyhounds run around the circuit, chasing a mechanical rabbit that's pulled along a channel next to the track.  It struck me today as I noticed people trotting along the rail line that the Portland Streetcar is not primarily a means of transportation, nor is it mainly a subsidy to lucky if inept contractors and suppliers.

It's a public health measure, designed to not to move people from Point A to Point B, but to improve the cardiovascular fitness of downtown workers and residents who strive to outpace the trolleycar. 

It's the rabbit, and we're the greyhounds.

The Portland Streetcar: TriMet contracts, but Portland's cost expands

Here's an interesting question about contracts.  TriMet is suing Clackamas County because the county commission is asking the voters to decide whether the county should give TriMet two pieces of property that TriMet says the county promised to give it.  TriMet's position is that a contract is a contract, and Clackamas County needs to honor its promises to TriMet.  At the same time, TriMet is asking Portland to chip in $2.1 million for the eastside streetcar (here's the city's proposed resolution), even though the 2010 contract between the city and TriMet called for the city to pay TriMet only $600,000, increased to $1.25 million in 2011.

Is a contract with TriMet binding?  It depends on who's paying.

Interstate Bridges dilemma solved: span will be 150 feet high and carry light rail

In a joint press conference this morning, the Oregon Department of Transportation, the Washington State Department of Transportation, TriMet, and the Coast Guard announced that they have agreed on a design for the replacement of the Interstate Bridges with a fixed span that will carry light rail without impeding navigation.  Affected upriver users have also signed on to the plan.

The agencies' dilemma was that a large part of the bridge funding will come from federal grants for light rail, but if the bridge is built with the 150-foot clearance necessary to accommodate existing river traffic, its approach grades will be too steep for light rail to climb.  The proposed light rail line also faces active opposition from Clark County residents who fear that it would become a conduit for crime.

TriMet general manager Neil MacFarlane explained the elegant solution.  "ODOT and WSDOT will build a bridge with 150 feet of clearance over the river and with a lower deck for pedestrians and bicycles.  TriMet will construct a light rail line on the middle span of the bridge, about 500 feet long, but not connect it to the mainland.  Once a year we'll run a Lake Oswego trolley car back and forth on the bridge."  MacFarlane added that this will satisfy the federal requirement for matching funds: the bridge must include light rail, but the line on the bridge doesn't need to connect to the existing system. 

Fiscal analysts for TriMet, noting that TriMet loses money on light rail, said that by operating the bridge light rail only one day a year, TriMet will save enough money to restore service on six bus lines.  Capital costs are also reduced by $500 million, as the Yellow Line won't be extended beyond the Expo Center.

Although the trolley car will carry passengers only one day a year, it won't be idle.  The other 364 days of the year, the trolley car will help raise money to pay the cost of building the bridge, snapping pictures of the license plates of solo drivers in the carpool lane and housing a photo radar unit.  TriMet will get half the ticket revenue. 

"We're going to finally make light rail turn a profit," MacFarlane smiled.

TriMet's suing the North Clackamas Park District on a promise that the District didn't make

TriMet has sued Clackamas County and the North Clackamas Park and Recreation District (run by the county commissioners), alleging that the county and the district are breaking a promise to convey two parcels of land to TriMet for the Milwaukie light rail.

Whether or not TriMet is correctly suing the county, it's suing the district for a promise that the district didn't make.  Here's what TriMet says in paragraph 42 of its complaint: 

TriMet has requested that the District enter into an agreement to convey the Trolley Trail Property to TriMet for the [light rail] Project, consistently with the District's duties under the IGA [the Inter-Governmental Agreement among TriMet, the County, and the District] and Trolley Trail IGA [an agreement between TriMet and the district].  In exchange for the transfer, TriMet has offered to convey to the District an adjacent property, to construct a trail on that property at no cost to the District, and to provide the District with additional compensation.  To date, the District has refused to enter into such an agreement.

In other words, TriMet is telling the court that the two inter-governmental agreements require the district to sell TriMet the Trolley Trail Property (a portion of the Trolley Trail that the park district owns and has been using for a bike and pedestrian trail). 

TriMet and its lawyers are putting words in the district's mouth.  The district didn't make that promise. Here's what the district actually promised in the inter-governmental agreement:

Section 1.5(b): "The Parties acknowledge and agree that all roadways, sidewalks, streets, and trails owned by or under the control of the County or District that are improved as part of the Project shall remain under control of the County or District with any ownership rights it has prior to construction of the Project, provided that the portion of the roadway on which trackwork is placed shall be subject to FTA's [the Federal Transportation Administration's] continuing control requirements and shall be operatied and maintained in perpetuity by TriMet as part of TriMet's system." 

In other words, the park district's property remains the park district's property.

Section 6.1:  "By execution of this Agreement, the Parties agree to negotiate in good faith the terms and conditions of all other agreements that may be reasonably required or desired to design, construct, and maintain the Project, which may include * * * right-of-way acquisition and permitting." 

In other words, the county and the park district will negotiate in good faith other agreements that may be reasonably required to build the light rail line.  That's as close as the district comes to promising to give TriMet any property.

What you won't find in the inter-governmental agreement is any promise by the district to sell or give TriMet the Trolley Trail Property. 

You also won't find that promise in the other inter-governmental agreement, the one made by TriMet and the park district in April 2012. All you will find is the district agreeing to allow TriMet access onto the property to build the light rail line, and obligating TriMet to build the Trolley Trail on the property from Park Avenue to River Road.  The district wouldn't need to give TriMet permission to build the trail if TriMet were to be the owner of the property.

In short, TriMet's suing the Park District to enforce a promise that the district didn't make.  Let's hope that the district's lawyers read the contracts more carefully than TriMet did.

More on TriMet's problem in Clackamas County: what if you can't park at Park?

Last month I wrote about an intriguing little problem that TriMet is facing with the Milwaukie light rail line near the proposed Park Avenue Station, the south end of the line.  That station is in an area without dense housing and major employers, and doesn't have a lot of innate demand for transit.  TriMet intends to build a 355-space park and ride across Park Avenue from the station.

A county street, SE 27th Place (classified as a local access road under ORS Chapter 368, I think), runs through the middle of the park and ride site, and TriMet will need to persuade Clackamas County to vacate 27th Place if it is to build the garage.  I had written that because of last year's light rail initiative that prohibits the county from providing resources to light rail without a prior vote of the people, the county won't be able to vacate the street without first holding an election, unless it waits until TriMet acquires title to the adjoining property and then vacates the street on the petition of TriMet, in its capacity as the adjoining landowner.

I've discovered that TriMet's conundrum is even more complicated.  Clackamas County requires people who petition to vacate a street to state why they want to vacate the street.  TriMet will have to say that it wants to vacate the street to construct a park and ride garage for the Park Street Station.  That itself makes the initiative kick in; if TriMet waits to ask to vacate the street until it owns the rest of the property, the county will have to put the street vacation up to a vote of the people.

Could TriMet ask to vacate the street before it buys the adjoining property?  ORS 368.326 and following sections authorize counties to vacate property, with some limitations.  A county has three ways to vacate a road, set out at ORS 368.341.  The county can vacate a road by adopting a resolutoin to vacate the road, but must include in the resolution the reason for vacating the road.  Is the reason to build a light rail facility?  That means that Clackamas County must then hold an election before it vacates the road.

Alternatively, the owner of the underlying property can file a petition (some public roads are actually public easements over private lands), or the owner of adjoining property can file a petition.  In either case the petitions must be signed by the owners of 60% of the property that adjoins the road to be vacated.

And there's the rub.  TriMet doesn't own the adjoining property, and may not own it for six months or a year.  It can't sign a petition to vacate 27th Place, and it can't make the landowners sign a petition.  Once TriMet acquires the rest of the land for the Park Avenue Garage, it will need to get a vote of the people of Clackamas County before it can get the street vacated so that it can build the garage.

Could TriMet build the garage in the public street without having it vacated first?  ORS 267.225 (part of the statutes under which TriMet was formed) gives TriMet the authority to enter into agreements with other governments for the joint use of right of way owned by the other government.  So Clackamas County could let TriMet use SE 27th Place -- as long as Clackamas County (i.e., the public) gets to continue traveling on SE 27th Place, meaning through the middle of the garage.  The same statute lets TriMet condemn the right-of-way, but requires the court that approves the condemnation to let the other government unit (again, Clackamas County, the public) continue to use the right of way also.

It's a pretty pickle for TriMet.  It can build the Park Avenue station, but maybe not the parking garage that gives the station a purpose.   Keep watching.

History note: The Interstate Bridges' humps were a solution, not a problem

The humps in the middle of the Interstate Bridges are two of the reasons that proponents of the Columbia River Crossing point to when explaining why a replacement bridge with a light rail line is the most pressing transportation need that merits $450 million, plus interest, of Oregon's tax dollars.  The interesting thing about the humps is that they were built not as a problem but as a solution.

The original Interstate Bridge (what is now the northbound bridge) had a drawspan, but no humps.  The road was level.  When the southbound bridge was built in the 1950s, the highway department wanted to reduce the number of bridge lifts, and built the southbound bridge with a hump, under which some river traffic could go without requiring a bridge lift.  When the southbound bridge opened, the northbound bridge was closed so that a matching hump could be added.

The basic problem with the project, and a possible solution, occurred to me a few days ago, and I'll share the problem and the solution this week.

No park and ride at Park Avenue? The Clackistanis beat TriMet to the punch

The Knower of All Things passes on this interesting tidbit about TriMet's light rail line through Milwaukie to Oak Grove, now under construction, and how last year's Clackamas County ballot measure might affect it.  (I'd hinted at this a few weeks back.)

First, the background.  In September 2012, Clackamas County voters passed an initiative, Measure 3-401, that prohibits the county from allocating or contributing resources to light rail without a vote of the people.  "Resources" includes, according to the explanatory statement from county counsel, not just money and staff time but also interests in property.

To comply with the voters' mandate, Clackamas County is working on a ballot measure for the May 2013 election that would authorize the county to transfer two small pieces of county land to TriMet for the light rail line.  However, the real challenge for the county, and for TriMet, is not with these two bits of land but with the park-and-ride that TriMet proposes to build at the south end of the line, at Park Avenue and McLoughlin Boulevard.

Why?  The Park Avenue station itself will be on the north side of Park Avenue, but the proposed park-and-ride is a multi-story tower on the south side of Park Avenue, straddling a modest dead-end street called 27th Place, which will be closed and vacated for the project.  And there's the first problem: SE 27th Place is a county street, not a city street.  Under Measure 3-401, the county can't vacate it for light rail without first submitting the question to a vote of the people, and it can't submit the question to a vote of the people unless 60% of the adjoining landowners consent to vacating the street.  There's the second problem: TriMet can't give that consent until it owns the adjoining property, which (given the slow pace of litigation) is about a year away.  The station may open a year or two before TriMet can start building the parking garage - a whimsical and unexpected effect of the Clackistani rebellion.  And if the ballot measure fails, the station may have to get by without any parking at all.

Governor, it's time to kill the bridge, not build it

At today's Oregon Leadership Conference, Governor Kitzhaber said that it's important for Oregon to allocate $450 million (another two Sellwoods) toward the Columbia River Crossing project by March 1.  So reports Willamette Week, which also says that Governor Kitzhaber expects as soon as next month "to resolve the Coast Guard's concerns that the bridge designed will result in a bridge too low for marine traffic" (WW's words, not the Governor's).

As the proposed bridge is too low for existing federal and private marine traffic, there are only two ways to resolve the Coast Guard's concerns.  One is to build a higher bridge, even if that makes light rail on the new bridge impracticable; the other is to scare away the businesses that send ships and equipment under thexisting bridges now.  Put differently, one approach ticks off TriMet (but saves the region about $1 billion); the other costs jobs and blasts a hole in our maritime industry.

I await with great interest the Governor's choice between jobs and trains.  A better choice, and one he's unfortunately just boxed himself out of, is to declare that no more public money should follow the $150 million already wasted on this project.  The $450 million of state funds that Governor Kitzhaber wants to spend on the CRC would be better spent -- if it has to be spent on highways -- on improving the roads we already have.

The fact that $150 million has been spent pursuing the chimera of a perfect replacement bridge is not a reason to spend more.  It's a reason to stop now.

It's time to kill the CRC.