How LRT changed Oregon
Posted Oct 20, 2010 04:34:12 AM.
This article is more than 5 years old.
Rex Burkholder remembers Portland, Oregon as an American town “on the decline” through the 1970s and early 80s.
The Metro Councillor talks of a decaying downtown that was an employment centre and little more.
Burkholder says old buildings were torn down to make way for parking lots — lots that were needed to serve the employees using the city’s new highways to get into the downtown for work.
It was around the time a new highway was proposed for Portland that Burkholder says the momentum began to shift.
The new highway would cut through an older section of Portland and it met with stiff opposition.
“Okay, that’s enough. We have enough freeways, it’s time to stop,” Burkholder states in recalling the sentiment at the time. “And the freeway was stopped by citizen action.”
That was the signal to then mayor Neil Goldschmidt to try a radically different approach. Rather than build a new highway, he proposed a light rail transit line. The line would be 12 miles long and extend from downtown Portland to one of the suburbs, travelling through areas where there was little in the way of development.
“It was called the ‘Mayor’s Toy Train’ because it was only 12 miles long,” Burkholder remembers.
But that 12 miles of track would truly signal a transformation of Portland, according to Burkholder. By the time the two latest transit projects are completed (construction is just beginning), Portland will boast 90 miles of mostly light rail track, combined with some inner-city streetcar rail.
“What we have seen is that the more you build it (light rail) up over time, the more useful it becomes for helping deal with issues of traffic while guiding development and such,” Burkholder explains.
At the time light rail was first proposed, Portland was a city of about 300,000 people. That number has almost doubled today and the surrounding region is home to about two million people, making it the 23rd most populous area in the United States.
Transit use in the area ranks 8th in the country, with Portland’s system responsible for almost 100-million rides last year.
“At rush hour, about 30% of the people who come into town are on the train,” Burkholder notes. “If even half those people got into their cars by themselves and drove because they didn’t have the option of light rail, our freeway system would stop.”
Burkholder says light rail offers greater reliability at lower cost than buses. He cites figures of about one third to half the cost to operate light rail compared to buses, primarily due to labour. Trains, he says, also carry more passengers and do not encounter traffic jams.
Portland’s system receives between 50-60% of its funding through the federal government on a five-year cycle, so upgrades to transit are made in those intervals.
Burkholder says they’ve been able to stay on time and on budget at each stop along the way.
Despite Portland’s success, Burkholder does issue a word of caution. Light rail is not a magic bullet. It needs to be treated like an investment and the investors — in this case, taxpayers — need to see a return on their investment.
“It’s their money. You’ve got to prove to them that each one of these (transit upgrades) is a good investment and that it’s worth it,” Burkholder insists. “And there are all sorts of ways to measure that but the big one is the money. Are you actually spending the money better than if you chose something else, like widening a highway or not doing anything.”
Burkholder credits light rail with taking Portland from a city in decline to “one of the most liveable communities in North America.”
