U^. Department of Transportation Urban Decision IVIalcing for Transportation Investments: Portland's Light Rail Transit System March 1985 a technology sharing reprint Transportation District of Oregon Portland State University NOTE: This report contains a detailed and candid account of the planning and installation of the light rail system in Portland, Oregon. Part of its content includes descriptions of Federal programs as seen by local officials, and documentation of the perceptions they held of the programs and their administration. Recognizing the local origins of the report, this material may not totally reflect the Federal perceptions or understandings of the same events. The report is published in the interest of information exchange on transportation topics, and to promote constructive dialog on the issues discussed, However, no endorsement of the perceptions noted is either expressed or implied by the U.S. Department of Transportation, or the U.S. Government. Urban Decision Making for Transportation Investments Portland's Light Rail Transit Line Final Report March 1985 Prepared by Sheldon M. Edner, Assistant Director Center for Urban Studies Portland State University Pordand, Oregon 97207 G. B. Arrington, Jr. Senior Planner Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon 4012 S.E. 17th Avenue Portland, Oregon 97202 Prepared with funding from Office of Planning Assistance Urban Mass Transportation Administration U.S. Department of Transportation Washington, D.C. 20590 Distributed by Technology Sharing Program Office of the Secretary of Transportation DOT-I-85-3 The traditional champagne christening ceremony Jor Tn-Met's first Light Rail vehicle. Ruby Junction maintenance facility, Apnl 1984. Photo by Don Zavin, courtesy Fred Glick Associates. Acknowledgments This project started out as a research effort in support of work being done by the San Diego Association of Govern- ments (SANDAG). Under contract to SANDAG we prepared some initial material on the Portland decision- making process for the purpose of comparing it with the San Diego TroUey experience. George Franck of SANDAG was a patient and supportive project monitor who en- couraged us to complete the effon by writing this report. At the time the complete contract was signed, G. B. Arrington was on "loan" from Tri-Met to the Metropolitan Service Distnct (METRO). Tri-Met, METRO and Pordand State University have each provided substantial support for this effort without attempting to direct the outcome. We par- ticularly appreciate the graphic and layout assistance received from Norman Gollub, Libby Rehm and Jeff Frane of Tri-Met. We would also like to thank Don Zavin for the cover photograph and Fred Glick Associates for providing it. The people who made this report substantively possible were those who graciously granted us time for interviews. Widiout exception, each one of our 25 respondents was candid and eager to talk with us about the process which produced the LRT. We sincerely appreciate the generous gift of time and knowledge and acknowledge our respon- sibility for any errors that may have occurred in commit- ting the information to paper. The project took two years to complete through several drafts and much data gathering. A number of people con- tributed to this effort. Rishi Rao, Cathy Clark, Mary Buzak and Larry Conrad contributed to the data gathering and processing. Denise Penner, Sandra Philbrook and Peg Cross transformed ragged copy into finished draft. Peg Cross in particular deserves acknowledgment. She may never be able to ride LRT without having word processing nightmares. In a "high tech" world we take for granted the ability of computers to talk with each other. For the in- itiated, this can be a deadly assumption. Hence, we thank Randy Perrin for his ability to "talk with the animals" and to make them talk with one another. Denise Penner hopefully will be able to return the Center for Urban Studies at Portland State to normalcy now that the inter- mittent need to drop everything and work on this report has passed. Dr. Ken Dueker, Director of the Center, pro- vided moral support, constructive criticism and a positive environment in which to work. iii Table of Contents Introduction 1 Portland and the LRT Transportation Decision Systems Key Factors in Understanding the Banfield Decision Summary Background 5 The Banfield Light Rail Project: A Thumbnail Sketch The Scope of the Transportation Investment The Demographic Setting The Banfield Chronology: A Brief Overview Withdrawing the Mt. Hood and SeUing Transit: 1973-75 13 Background Summary Identification of Alternatives and the Decision to Go 19 Background Preparing the DEIS Two Phases of Preliminary Engineering Preparing the Final Environmental Impact Statement The Changing Political Infrastructure of Metropolitan Decisionmaking 29 Developing the Technical and Political Decision Capacity Policy Changes at Tri-Met New Staff at Tri-Met The Technical/Political Marriage The Transformation of ODOT The Federal/Local Relationship Citizen Participation in the Decisionmaking Process 35 Alternatives Analysis The 1978 DEIS Public Hearing Design and Land Use Construction Conclusions Financing the Light Rail 43 Initial Withdrawal The 1-505 Withdrawal Coldschmidt's Role The Involvement of Metro Beyond Withdrawals Related Activities, Actions and Anxieties 55 Transit and the City The Transit Mall and the Downtown Decision Westside Corridor Summary 9 Building the Banfield 67 Project Design Project Management Final Design Vehicle Procurement Construction Process Implementation of the Construction Process to Date Preparation for LRT Operations Summary 10 Findings and Conclusions 75 The Banfield Decision Process Delays m Decisionmaking Implications Appendix A: Project Alignment 83 Appendix B: Travel Demand Forecasts 85 Appendix C: Chronology of Project Alternatives 87 Appendix D: Interviews 89 Appendix E: Banfield Light Rail Project Chronology 91 Appendix F: Summary of Local and Federal Actions Affecting Funds Allocated to the Banfield Transitway Project 93 Bibliography 97 vi List of Illustrations Light Rail in Skidmore Old Town 1 Hollywood Light Rail Station 5 Banfield Light Rail Project Alignment 6 Tri-Met Light Rail Vehicle 6 Portland Region 8 Transit Station 8 Transit Station 9 Banfield Light Raillmplementation Process 10 The Mt. Hood Freeway Plan and Cross-Section 13 P\TvIATS Regional Freeway Plan 15 Interim Transportation Plan 16 PoUtics and the Mt. Hood Freeway 18 Alternatives for the Banfield Corridor 19 Busway Alternative 22 Light Rail Alternatives 24 Political Road Map 29 Citizen Meeting 35 Summary' of Public Meeting Testimony 37 Aerial View of Bumside Under Construction 39 Site Plans for Bumside Street 40 Light Rail Vehicle Dedication Ceremonies 43 Summary of 1-505 Freeway Withdrawal 45 Laying Cobblestones Downtown 52 Banfield Funding Source 53 Major Spending Categories 53 Fitting Light Rail into the Community 55 Downtown Portland Concept Plan 56 148th Station Area and Final Urban Design Plan 59 148th Station Area Redevelopable Land 59 Development Potential by Station 60 Portland Transit Mali 62 Light Rail on the Transit Mall 63 Downtown Portiand Light RaU Alignment 64 Westside Light Rail Alignment 65 Banfield Construction Photos 67 Portland Light Rail Vehicle 70 Morrison Street Under Construction 71 Banfield Light Rail Project Master Schedule 72 RubyJunction Maintenance Facility 73 Plan View of DouTitownTransitways 75 Banfield Light Rail Project Chronology 82 vii Chapter 1 Introduction Light Rail on First Avenue in Skidmore Old Town SOURCE: Zimmer • Gunsul • Frasca Partnership Investment decisions for large transportation projects Oregon. Known as the Banfield project or Transitway, are complex, multifaceted phenomena. Generally re- this investment provides an excellent, comprehensive quiring many years to bring to fruition, such decisions are example of the complexity of transportation decision- often reduced at crucial junctures to raw poUtical deals or making. While no single case study can fully portray the technical data analysis on limited items. Throughout the range of issues inherent in such investments, this project range of alternatives considered, analyses completed and does exhibit many of the important dimensions. It in- policymaking sessions which contribute to such invest- volves both highway and transit components, capital ments, the imagery of a rational, sequential and wholistic financing from both transit and highway sources, federal, decisionmaking process and substance dominates. Re- state and local agency involvement, major changes in cent debate concerning both the desirabiUty of certain policy, technical and political actors and a significant time transit investments and the extent to which inappropriate span. intrusion into the decisionmaking province of state and Portland and die LRT local government have occurred have highlighted at least some of the less rational and sequential aspects of Light rail technology has recently emerged from a long transportation investments. This study seeks not to hibernation in the United States. With almost the same unravel the most appropriate federal grant process or the vigor that tracks were torn up only three decades ago, best structure for state and local investment decisions. many cities around the country are building or planning Rather, it seeks to accomplish the following: to build new light rail systems. Pordand was among the forerunners in this trend having initiated the decision to • To illustrate and analyze