Three Elements of Portland’s Success

Portland's Pearl District is one of the truly unique neighborhoods on the West Coast

I recently returned from a few days up in Portland, a city well-known as being decades ahead of its peers when it comes to urban planning.  While I wont go into as much detail as my examination of innovative urban policies in Colorado, I took away three primary elements of Portland’s planning paradigm which have helped it to earn the title of most sustainable city year after year.

Element #1: The Urban Growth Boundary

Portland's UGB is the single most important policy in understanding the region's successes.

In Portland, land is a limited resource.  For the past 30 years, Portland has protected farmland and open space by limiting the development of sprawling suburbs and exurbs through strict controls over the location of growth.  When done right, an urban growth boundary can be the single most effective policy to create a livable and sustainable city and region.  By containing sprawl, Portland makes the most of its built environment, which mostly resembles a less-congested Berkeley density-wise.  What really blew me away was the sheer number of vibrant neighborhood commercial streets that were often within only blocks of one another–NW 21st and NW 23rd, Hawthorne and Belmont, not to mention the entire Pearl District–something which could not occur in a more heavily suburbanized region with a greater presence of strip malls.

There are a number of misconceptions that result from Portland’s UGB.  Contrary to the claims of libertarian critics, the UGB has not stopped all growth and led to an unaffordable region; Portland is actually one of the most pro-growth cities in the nation and has made it easy (through progressive zoning codes and parking requirements–see below) for developers to construct high-quality yet affordable housing to meet the demand of the market.  As a result, Portland experienced much less of a boom and bust than cities in California, and currently has a median housing price is 40% that of San Francisco, 60% that of LA, and 80% that of Seattle, making it one of the most affordable cities on the West Coast.

Element #2: Smart Parking Management

A village of food carts lining a surface parking lot in Downtown Portland.

In the Bay Area, parking can turn conservatives into progressives and liberals into Teabaggers.  Because land is a limited resource and Portland must make the most of existing space, Portland has pioneered a number of interesting and innovative parking management practices.  The two most noticeable of these practices are the adaptive reuse of surface parking lots with food carts and the parking management policies around transit.

Unbeknownst to me before my visit, Portland is famous for its food carts, second to only New York City (which has about 14 times the population).  The 400+ carts range from Indian to Cambodian to Mexican to Brazilian and boast some of the best food in the entire city for a price of $5-$7 dollars.  What do food carts have to do with parking management? Whereas surface parking lots are traditionally one of the single biggest causes of blight in cities, Portland’s food carts play a vital role in fostering a vibrant street life where there otherwise would be none.  Food carts make surface parking lots work.

Portland is also a leader in smart parking policies around transit.  While many local governments maintain high parking requirements even in transit-rich areas, new developments in Portland near frequent transit (buses, light rail, and streetcars) have no parking requirements whatsoever.  Keep in mind this does not mean developers have stopped building parking altogether; it simply gives the power of determining parking ratios to developers and the housing market rather than local governments.  Since an average parking space adds $40,000 to the cost of a housing unit, allowing for unbundled parking with lower ratios has a huge effect on housing affordability near transit.  Even in booming areas such as the Pearl District, condos and live-work units currently start under $200,000–try and find that in San Francisco.

Element #3: Cost-Effective Transportation Choices

The Portland Streetcar is the epitome of development-oriented transit.

Portland’s transit system is geared toward providing the greatest amount of economic growth and mobility for the lowest price.  Over the past 15 years, Portland has had an extraordinary streak of New Starts-funded projects, having built five major MAX light rail extensions totaling nearly 38 miles (not to mention the 15 mile regionally-funded WES commuter rail and the 4 mile locally funded Portland Streetcar).  Yet, Portland’s still not finished, with the 3.3 mile Small Starts-funded Eastside Loop for the streetcar, and the 7.3 mile Milwaukie light rail extension, set to be completed by 2012 and 2015, respectively, as well as a 5 mile rapid streetcar extension to Lake Oswego (essentially a cheaper alternative to light rail) currently in planning and aiming to open in 2014.  The total cost of the 68 miles of rail that Portland will add between 1995 and 2015 is about 25% less than the cost of the 32.5 miles of BART extensions that the Bay Area will have had in the same time period (keep in mind these are just rough estimates adjusted for inflation).  Portland has also achieved better returns on its investment, with around three times the ridership as BART’s extensions (once again, semi-rough estimates).  Even with the fuzzy math, twice the mileage and three times the ridership for 3/4 the price is outstanding for TriMet and embarrassing for BART. As I’ve written too many times before, this enviable cost effectiveness is nothing new for other metro regions, but back to transit in Portland…

The most interesting aspect of Portland transit is its use of streetcars.  Portland’s streetcar system has a very specific function not as an urban circulator or glorified bus, but as a tool of placemaking.  When coupled with a progressive form-based zoning code and market-based parking requirements, the results of the streetcar have been staggering.  Since opening in 2001, 10,000 housing units and $4 billion in economic development have occurred within three blocks of the four mile streetcar line, and new districts have emerged such as the Pearl District, which I found to be one of the best urban neighborhoods I’ve ever been to.  For anyone who believes that streetcars are just glorified buses, I urge you to travel to Portland and see the clear difference for yourself.

Conclusion

Portland is still by no means perfect–there are still numerous aspects of the city’s urban fabric that could be improved.  Portland still has it’s fair share of surface parking lots, at times comically surrounding a streetcar line or light rail stops, and transit mode share is still rather low (13% within the city) considering the city’s reputation (non-commute trips seems to be a big source of ridership as well).  I would have liked to see some nicer buses–Portland was one of the first cities to invest in low-floor buses in the 1990s, but now they look pretty outdated compared to AC Transit’s Van Hools.  Portland could also use a greater investment in Rapid Bus/BRT for some of its major corridors.

View Larger Map

Above: Portland’s Lloyd District–Surface parking lot heaven, in spite of ample transit access (three light rail lines and a soon-to-be streetcar line)

Nevertheless, Portland has accomplished a feat which few other cities can attest to: creating a compact, affordable region with the right mix of densities and transit modes.  Unlike the Bay Area, Portland doesn’t have “www.trimetrage.com,” “www.trimetsucks.com,” or “www.rescuetrimet.com”–transit just works.  I was not able to spend too much time exploring Portland’s bicycle network, though it’s platinum rating, 8% mode share and ambitious plan for 25% of all trips by 2030 could fill up a number of posts themselves.  Overall, Portland is well on its way to becoming “the best European City in America,” leading other regions (such as the Bay Area) to seek to emulate its success.

More photos on the 21st Century Urban Solutions Flickr.

Reinvigorate Oakland with a Streetcar Network

AUTHOR’S NOTE: This post was a very early iteration of what would later become the Oakland Streetcar Plan.  The final streetcar plan is available at www.oaklandstreetcarplan.com.

–Original Post–

Along with a new Bart Station in the San Antonio district of Oakland, the $522 million appropriated to the Oakland Airport Connector could do wonders to transform Oakland with a streetcar network.  Oakland is the perfect city for a streetcar system–more so than any other city in the Bay Area, Oakland is a collection of individual neighborhoods, each of which with its own clearly-defined center.  The majority of these neighborhoods are within less than three miles of the Downtown transportation hub and hotels, but by and large they remain disconnected from one another.

The idea of a streetcar network in Oakland is not a new one–many of Oakland’s neighborhoods were streetcar suburbs built around the Key System in the first half of the 20th century.  More recently, Bart studied the possibility of a streetcar linking Downtown Oakland with Jack London Square, but it came up inconclusive since many of the options were either too limited, way too complicated, or both.  Within the blogging world, SFCityscape has made a good crack at a more developed streetcar network, but what I propose is a much more comprehensive system that would reshape a diverse array of neighborhoods in Oakland.

Why Streetcars are Perfect for Oakland

The Infrastructurist has a great list of the ways that streetcars are superior to buses.  Here are a few:

-New streetcar lines always, always, get more passengers than the bus routes they replace.

-The upfront costs are higher for streetcars than buses–but that is more than made up over time in lower operating and maintenance costs.

-There is a compelling “coolness” and “newness” factor attached to streetcars.

-Streetcars feel safer from a crime point of view.

-Buses are noisy.  By comparison, streetcars are virtually silent.

-Low floors are standard, for easy-on easy-off curbside boarding. Wide doors allow passengers to enter or exit quickly. So streetcar stops take less time than buses.

-Streetcars create more walkable streets. This is because streetcars, as mentioned above, are more attractive to riders than buses, which in turns prompt to more mass transit usage in general, which in turns prompts to more walking–a virtuous cycle that creates more attractive city streets.

-You know exactly where a streetcar is going – but have you ever tried looking at a bus route map?

-Perhaps the most over looked and significant difference between street cars and buses is permanence. You’ll notice that development will follow a train station, but rarely a bus stop. Rails don’t pick up and move any time soon. Once a trolley system is in place, business and investors can count on them for decades. Buses come and go.

While Human Transit recently questioned the performance benefits of streetcars vs. buses, I’d argue that an improved bus system could never achieve the same transformations as a new streetcar system for Oakland.  Streetcars attract a wide range of people to ride transit–including those who refuse to ride buses in the first place–along with significant reinvestment into the urban core which would otherwise not take place.  A streetcar network is exactly what Oakland needs: a catalyst to create safer, more livable communities through both infill development and reinvestment into the existing framework of the city.  With this proposal, Oakland could finally become an interconnected city rather than a disjointed collection of neighborhoods.

The Concept

I propose a four line, 14-mile streetcar network to tie Oakland together:

View Larger Map

(In case the individual lines are hard to make out, click on the links below)

Blue Line (Estuary-Rockridge)

Green Line (West Oakland-Glenview)

Red Line (Estuary-Grand Lake)

Orange Line (Downtown Circulator)

I also made a few extra modifications to the existing system, such as BRT or Rapid bus corridors for the 1R, 51 (not pictured), 57, and the San Antonio Bart feeder bus (labeled 11R), as well as extending the 40 (AC Transit’s third-highest ridership line) through West Oakland to Emeryville, and adding a limited service for it (giving a much-needed Emeryville-West Oakland-Downtown-East Oakland connection).  In addition, this proposal would allow the elimination of the 18 line, and parts of the 12, 14, 19, and 59 lines (the latter two already slated to be cut).

The streetcar network doesn’t necessarily follow the lines with the highest ridership volume–I’m leaving the San Pablo, Telegraph-International, and Webster/Posey tube lines for BRT/Rapid Buses.  I tried to connect as many neighborhoods as possible within the confines of a good streetcar network–each line is approximately 25 minutes and would have 8-9 minute headways (the Orange Line, which is a one-way clockwise circulator, would run every 10 minutes).  Overlayed with current and future BRT corridors (not to mention Bart lines), the streetcar network would have a diverse ridership base and wide range of uses, connecting (just to name a few):

-Oak to Ninth (Red and Blue Lines, 72R)

-Rockridge (Blue Line, 51R)

-Glenview (Green Line, 57R, NL, 11R)

-San Antonio i.e. Merritt, Cleveland Heights, Ivy Hill (Green Line, 1R BRT, 40/40L, 11R, 57R, NL)

-Chinatown (Red Line, Green Line, Orange Line, 1R BRT, 51R)

-Jack London Square (Blue Line, 72R)

-Waterfront District (Blue Line, Red Line, 72R)

-Lakeside/Gold Coast (Orange Line, 40/40L)

-Uptown (Red Line, Blue Line, Orange Line, 1R BRT, 72R, 51R, NL)

-West Oakland i.e. Oak Center (Green Line, NL, 40/40L)

-Temescal (Blue Line, 1R BRT, 51R)

-Grand Lake/Lakeshore (Red Line, 57R, NL)

And keep in mind other integral neighborhoods, such as Laurel, Dimond, central Temescal, and Fruitvale will be connected with the Rapid Bus/BRT system as well.

Note: one of the essential aspects of the Oakland streetcar network is that the streetcars should be modern low-floor vehicles (i.e. Portland or European style).  San Francisco already has vintage PCC cars, and Oakland needs to forge its own identity.  Modern streetcars provide better service, and would help reshape Oakland’s image into a 21st Century city.

San Francisco's Vintage PCC cars are beautiful, but Oakland needs to redefine its own identity with a more modern image.

Economic Development

A streetcar network can work wonders for revitalizing a city.  Merchants and property owners in Jack London square have been practically begging for a streetcar for years now, since the neighborhood is just barely out of the reach of the Bart system.  This desire for a streetcar system to generate economic activity is not without precedent: Portland’s four mile streetcar has generated a 6,363% return on the initial 55 million dollar investment: approximately $3.5 billion in new investment into 10,000 new housing units and 5,000,000 sq. feet of office and hotel space in just eight years.  At 14 miles, the potential for approximately $10 billion in new investment into 35,000 new units along with substantial office, hotel, and retail space in under 10 years would work wonders for Oakland.  Other cities have experienced similar results–Seattle’s line attracted 2,000 new housing units even before the line opened!

Portland's 4 mile, $55 million streetcar line has generated $3.5 billion in new investment

As streetcar systems expand throughout the country, America is finally getting back into the streetcar manufacturing business.  An American-made fleet of streetcars for Oakland could bring jobs to struggling automobile factories in Fremont or Milpitas, or even a new factory in Oakland or Richmond.

What if streetcars could be manufactured in the East Bay?

The Red Line in the Waterfront/Produce District would have the most similar impact to Portland, creating a thriving transit-oriented neighborhood virtually from scratch.  The Red Line would also provide the impetus for an economic boom in the Grand Lake/Lakeshore/Adams Point area, which in spite of its success has still not achieved the necessary safety and vitality of a good urban neighborhood.  The Blue Line could transform the Broadway corridor into a thriving urban boulevard from Jack London Square to the Auto Row and beyond.  It would also give Rockridge a better connection to the rest of Oakland.  Both the Red and Blue Lines would play a huge role in facilitating the growth at Oak-to-Ninth devleopment (and avert a traffic disaster that would otherwise result).  The Green Line would be more of a revitilization line (except for pockets of TOD by the West Oakland Bart station and Lakeside areas) which could take dense but automobile-dependent neighborhoods in West Oakland and east of Lake Merritt and turn them into safer, transit-oriented neighborhoods.  It would also be great for Glenview, an original streetcar suburb.  The Orange line would tie Downtown together and be a big boost to the Lakeside and Chinatown neighborhoods.  All in all, a streetcar network would spur billions in reinvestment into Oakland and facilitate cross-neighborhood economic activity and an increase in tourism.

Note: in any proposal like this, the potential negative effects on neighborhoods, such as gentrification, must be considered.  Some areas, such as the Park Blvd corridor east of the Lake, are already built out and dense enough to support a streetcar line, so redevelopment shouldn’t be a priority.  Others, such as West Oakland, should have clear growth plans and strict guidelines on the type of housing that could be built, emphasizing mixed-income housing and at least 1/3 of the units under market rate (projects that strengthen the neighborhood framework, such as the Fruitvale Bart station TOD, should be encouraged).  Ensuring that Oakland stays affordable for everyone will need to be a priority as redevelopment occurs, but I think that there is enough potential land to be redeveloped (particularly in Jack London Square, the Produce District/Waterfront, Oak to Ninth, and along Broadway) that supply should keep up with demand and no bubble should occur.

Ridership

Eight years after opening, ridership on Portland’s four mile streetcar line has tripled from 4,000 to 12,000 daily riders.  My conservative estimates for Oakland’s daily ridership are:

Line              2009              2020

Blue              7,000            14,000

Green           3,500             6,500

Red               2,500             7,000

Orange        1,000              2,500

Total          14,000           30,000

A key component of attracting and increasing ridership is making the system easy to use.  Fare machines should be located at stops to pay for tickets in advance, and the system should be fully integrated into AC Transit and have easier Bart transfers.  I also think that a free-fare zone, such as Portland’s, should be explored (or at least make the Orange Line free with no transfer).  The system could also have color-coded streetcars to make riding the streetcar as simple and user-friendly as possible.

Color-coded streetcars would make the system both attractive and easy to use

Cost

At $15-35 million per mile, a 14 mile network (subtracting overlap) would cost $250-450 million.  Parts of the system will be able to piggy-back off of the Telegraph-International BRT, and the option is there to give the Blue Line a dedicated right of way (which would put the cost on the higher end).  In many cities, public-private partnerships able developers to pick up a portion of the cost in exchange for development rights.  The system could also be built in phases.  To break down the costs into individual segments (assuming 25 million/mile, and in order of construction):

Blue Line…..125 million (+$30 to $50 million for dedicated lane if necessary)

Green Line…..136 million

Red Line…..62 million (half of the tracks already built)

Orange Line…..22 million (40% of tracks already built, only one track required)

Total…..345 million

So, for those of you counting, we’ve got (cost, 2020 ridership):

Oakland Airport Connector…..522 million, 4,670 riders

-OR-

RapidBart…..52 million, 6,130 riders

San Antonio Bart Station…..100 million, 10,000 riders

Oakland Streetcar Network…..345 million, 30,000 riders

57/NL MacArthur Rapid Bus…..30 million, 8,000 riders (1,000 new)

51 (Oakland half) Rapid Bus…..5 million, 12,000 riders (1,000 new) (costs shared with streetcar network)

Total…..532 million, 48,000+ riders

Therefore, a complete streetcar system, multiple Rapid Bus lines, and a San Antonio Bart station could be built for the same price as the Oakland Airport Connector while potentially attracting 10 times the riders and completely transforming Oakland.

Conclusion

With this proposal for a 14-mile streetcar system, Oakland would become America’s streetcar capital.  At $345 million, a streetcar network would induce billions of dollars in investment and reduce emissions, oil consumption, and traffic congestion in Oakland.  Most of all, a streetcar network would tie together Oakland into a unified city, reinvigorating Oakland’s economy and creating safer, more livable neighborhoods.

Message to Bart: Build a San Antonio Station

View Larger Map

I’ve discussed before how the Oakland Airport Connector will waste half a billion dollars to serve only 1,000 new riders, but I thought I’d float a more practical alternative to using the money: a new station in the San Antonio district in East Oakland.  Bart stretches nearly three miles between the Lake Merritt and Fruitvale Stations without a stop, passing one of the densest districts in the East Bay–approximately 30,000 people in just a little over one square mile.  The Bart Station Profile Survey shows this gap beautifully:

The Bart Station Profile Study demonstrates the lack of riders in the San Antonio District in Oakland. Courtesy of Transbay Blog

The triangle-looking hole in Bart service stretches from 14th Ave to Fruitvale Ave, suggesting that most people who live in the area either drive or take AC Transit to get around.  Yet, Bart passes over a lot in this stretch, particularly serving the 14th Ave and 23rd Ave business districts and The station could go at either 14th Ave, an at-grade Bart line adjacent to an overbuilt road intersection with plenty of room for redesign:

View Larger Map

Or 23rd Ave, an elevated Bart line along wide but underused boulevard in an industrial area:

View Larger Map

Even though the biggest hole in Bart ridership is along 23rd Ave, 14th Ave station would probably attract more riders, being on a larger corridor with connections to Highland Hospital and Glenview.  It is also likely a more practical option because there is more space around the station (even for some parking?).  But how many riders could a 14th Ave station attract?  Let’s take a look at some similar stations:

Station	Daily Ridership (FY 08)	Estimated Population Density (persons/sq. mile)
Rockridge	5,168	8,118
MacArthur	7,559	13,605
Ashby	4,522	15,877
Fruitvale	7,479	17,622
Glen Park	7,633	19,999
16th St. Mission	10,907	28,035
24th St. Mission	12,500	45,911
San Antonio	???	24,074

I intentionally selected stations that, like San Antonio, are locally-based and would have a low level of outside commuters.  I selected the adjacent census tracts that make up no more than two square miles surrounding the given stations, and tried to be as consistent as possible, but granted, this is a subjective and not scientific method.  It is also important to note that Fruitvale attracts a number of commuters from Alameda, so its ridership numbers are a little inflated.  Nevertheless, this analysis yields significant results.

The San Antionio district is nearly as dense as the 16th St. and Mission station in San Francisco, and more dense than the areas surrounding the Ashby, MacArthur, Fruitvale, Rockridge, and Glen Park stations.  Similar East Bay stations attract a minimum of 4,500 daily riders and a maximum of 7,500 daily riders.  I would argue that, because of the higher density of the district and the potential to reach even farther into Glenview and even Montclair, a San Antionio station would attract between 6,000 and 8,000 daily riders if it were built today, and potentially even more after transit-oriented development and growth in the area (keep in mind, this is my realistic estimate, and a [fantastical] BART estimate would probably be in the 15,000 range by 2020 or something like that).  For an infill station to immediately be in the top 15 stations out of the 43 in the Bart system, that’s pretty damn good.

So how much would all of this cost?  Well, the West-Dublin-Pleasanton station currently under construction costs 80 million dollars, which includes a 1200 space parking garage (probably 20-35 million in itself).  The optional Irvington infill station on the Warm Springs extension would cost about 95 million if built.  I’d say 100 million is a reasonable conservative estimate on the cost of a Bart station, but it could be as low as 70 million since parking structures wouldn’t be necessary.  There is also the option for an additional Amtrak station that would probably cost another 15 million or so (a brand new station in Hercules will be constructed for 45 million, but a simple add-on shouldn’t be nearly that much).  An intermodal station could serve as an important transfer point to Bart while adding more riders as Capitol Corridor expands in the future.

Therefore, for 70-115 million dollars, Bart could immidiately add another 6,000-8,000 riders (and potentially 10,000 by 2020) and provide service to a dense and extremely underserved district in Oakland.  This station would be one of the easiest ways for Bart to reinvest in the urban core and truly promote smart growth, and best of all, it would be just 1/5-1/7 the cost while attracting 6-8 times the initial riders.  The Bart Board needs to face reality: if they’re truly trying to serve East Oakland (as they claimed in the OAC debate) and control sprawl, then fill the three mile gap in San Antonio with a station.

***UPDATE***

1.  I talked to my friend Tom Radulovich, who is on the Bart Board of Directors, and he said that the idea for a station at 8th Ave had been floated in the 1990s with the preliminary estuary planning, but nothing ever became of it.  I added it as a third alternative on the map above.  It has many advantages, including easier access to the Oak to 9th development, and tons of room for TOD (since the Bart and UP facilities there are more or less unnecessary and can be moved).  However, it is currently an industrial area without a whole lot of room for infill and redevelopment, and it’s farther away from the 12th St. and International business corridors.  It also does not have as direct of transit access as the 14th Ave (or 23rd Ave) corridors, and is closer to the Lake Merrit station, so it really would serve new development more than the existing San Antionio area.

2.  Tom also said he requested that studies be completed to analyze the impacts of infill stations at Albany, San Antionio, and 30th & Mission, but nothing ever came of them (bureaucracy at its finest).

3.  I was in the area today, so I made a quick stop to check out the 14th Ave Burger King area again.  The immediate area is primarily industrial, and I had forgotten how poor the pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure is.  Currently, there really isn’t enough of a neighborhood to support a station (compared to Fruitvale) and most users would likely travel to the station by bus.  Still, there’s a lot of potential for a feeder BRT line along 14th Ave., and I think some traffic calming and infill development could strengthen the 14th & International area.

Lots and lots of space for a station...

...But there isn't exactly a thriving neighborhood to back it up.

So the question is, how would you bring much-needed Bart service to an area that has no infrastructure or neighborhood framework to currently support it?  The good news is that at least there’s some sort of neighborhood (and still a very high density to support a station).  After all, Bart has built stations and TOD in much worse locations with much lower ridership.