A D V E R T I S E M E N T
A D V E R T I S E M E N T
ADVERTISEMENTS
TriMet has pulled out of an agreement with the city of Milwaukie to develop the Southgate Theater site as a park-and-ride and bus layover facility, leading city councilors to question their faith in promises and agreements with the regional transit organization.
The developed site would have moved idling busses from the Milwaukie Transportation Center on 21st street in front of the Portland Waldorf School and decreased the number of people parking on neighborhood streets in the area. Councilors said the failure to move forward on the project — after regional funds were allocated for it in the early 2000s and TriMet officials committed to it — could reflect on future TriMet plans in the city, especially light rail.
“This is indicative to a promise TriMet is not going to follow through on again,” said Milwaukie Mayor Jim Bernard. “When we talk about bringing light rail to our community and the safety agreements and then you’re breaking agreements here — [agreements] that aren’t worth the paper they’re written on can’t happen. They can’t happen.”
Councilor Greg Chaimov agreed, saying TriMet had a steep hill to climb in a short period of time to win back the support of the city.
“In a light rail project, TriMet is asking the people to put a great deal of trust in TriMet,” he said. “You do not have that trust now. You have a very small window of time to earn that trust back.”
The transportation center currently in use was initially set up as a temporary layover spot. That was in 1981.
The Southgate site was meant to fix that situation by maintaining bus stops downtown but moving the site at which bus drivers take breaks a few blocks north. The intent was that the transportation impact downtown would be lessened and the related affects, such as people hanging around and reportedly taunting students at the Portland Waldorf School, would be minimized.
But with lawsuits and appeals dogging the process over a five-year period, and with construction costs rising sharply in that time, the projected costs jumped from $3.1 million to more than $5 million, a cost TriMet finally said was too high.
David Unsworth, TriMet’s project development manager, told the City Council that in addition to being too expensive, the layover facility would not be ideal. He said the spot would have required off-route travel, which costs time and money for the busses and can congest traffic with the busses making more turns at intersections on McLoughlin Boulevard.
Unsworth said that TriMet is committed to finding another solution and is still working with city staff to do so. He also said TriMet is making improvements in the meantime.
“We are working diligently with your staff to make these decisions,” Unsworth told the council. “We’ve actually, since 2004, we’ve actually reduced the number of busses laying over by 36 percent.”
He added that TriMet will move more busses from downtown Milwaukie to stops near the new I-205 light rail line and Clackamas Town Center next year, making for a cumulative reduction of 52 percent of the busses laying over.
The project began in the fall of 2003 when TriMet submitted an application to the city. Before Milwaukie could schedule its first public hearing on the project, the STX Corporation, which claimed it had access rights to the Southgate property, filed a lawsuit.
TriMet withdrew the application to sort things out with the corporation, finally settling with them.
With that out of the way, TriMet filed a new application two years after the first, in September 2005, and gained approval for the development from the Milwaukie Planning Commission. But that decision was appealed to City Council and, when the council denied the appeal, to the Land Use Board of Appeals. Though the city finally won the LUBA appeal, the process took eight months and cost TriMet hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees and lost time.
Then TriMet submitted another permit, but failed to include required landscaping elements, forcing them to withdraw and resubmit again. The last permit, filed in November 2007, failed to address stormwater concerns initially outlined in the 2003 permit process. City staff continued to work on storm water run-off mitigation with TriMet through January of this year, learning in March that TriMet would not go through with the project.
No, what I would like to know is what bone-headed citizens of Milwaukie scuttled the whole deal. The city council has been, by and large, willing to go forward. There are just some dinosaurs in town that are afraid of mass transit. NOT THOSE KIND OF PEOPLE.
(email verified)
Wed, May 07, 2008 at 01:24 PM
Tri-Met is a joke. NOT becuase of this deal but in all that they do.
A Gresham Residnet - Milwaukie Buisiness Owner
(email verified)
Wed, May 07, 2008 at 04:22 PM
Now the only thing left to do is light rail from going through downtown Milwaukie...why anyone in their right wants to pay millions of our tax dollars to import all the problems & crime that will come with a tri met managed light rail system is beyond me. As a long time resident of Milwaukie(I am one of those dinasours referred to above) I am so opposed to light rail because of the sheer cost for an inefficient way to move people around). It would be cheaper for us taxpayers if tri met sent riders a "smart car" to use for their transportation needs & improved our roads, etc......
(email verified)
Wed, May 07, 2008 at 10:31 PM
Have you checked the price of gasoline lately? We need light rail and at least half of it is being paid for by the federal government. If we had fewer knuckle draggers (who can't even spell or use spell check) we would have already had the rail line in place by now. Instead we will be last. It won't bring in any more crime than the buses already do and that amounts to very little. It's all about imagined fear. The era of relying on the personal car exclusively for local transportation is over.
(email verified)
Fri, May 09, 2008 at 06:54 AM
Light rail is not less expensive than driving
the fare box only (On light rail and buses) returns
17 % of the cost of operation.
The fare box does not pay for construction or buying the buses or rail cars.
The Interstate light rail Draft Environmental Impact statement stated it would take 172 years to break even on the energy used to just build the line.
light rail does not save energy.
People are no afraid of light rail!
What we want is a solution to congestion and a transit system that is cost effective and deliverers good clean safe fast service.
Light rail moves at a average speed of 17 mph
light rail is very expensive.
Light rail does not reduce existing congestion problems
Light rail does not save energy
Light rail is expensive to police
Light rail is not sustainable
We want solutions not gold plated trains dumping money into the pockets of the builders and Light rail special interests
(email verified)
Sat, May 10, 2008 at 12:05 AM
Light rail is not the economic engine that will revitalize downtwon Milwaukie. The trains should run along I-205, maybe even to Salem one day, but not be used for a "milk run" into every small town along the way. A shuttle bus to CTC or the new Otty road transit center would preserve downtown and allow it to grow into a retail and residential area with easy access, to the transit locations. The trains would have fewer stops and move people more quickly.
Keep light rail along I-205, not McLoughlin and certainly not downtown Milwaukie.
They do need to move the buses layover out of downtown, it has done more harm than good as would light rail.
(email verified)
Sat, May 10, 2008 at 03:35 AM
Actually, yes. I have checked the price of gasoline lately. I just fueled up yesterday, in fact.
I can drive to work in about 15 minutes - as opposed to the hour and a half to two hours that it would take to get there - each way - using TriMet. Don't know about you, but my time is important to me.
Now, I could drive to one of the very few light-rail park and rides, but that would take close to half an hour. And some meth freak would probably relieve my car of its catalytic converter while it was parked there.
Speaking of "knuckle-draggers", has it ever occurred to you that "the federal government" gets its money from taxpayers? I mean, really, how lame an argument can you make?
"They" aren't paying for inefficient and expensive "transportation" - WE are.
Frankly, I don't use a spell-checker because I've seen the output of those who do.
Why is it that you have hair on your hands - but none on your knuckles?
I'm guessing that like so many "do-gooders" who want to decide how everybody else should live, it's just a matter of transference: since you engage in such behavior, you assume that everyone else must do so as well. As usual, you're wrong.
If you want to live in the 19th (or the 3rd) century, help yourself. Just don't demand that I pay for your preference.
Have you checked the price of gasoline lately? We need light rail and at least half of it is being paid for by the federal government. If we had fewer knuckle draggers (who can't even spell or use spell check) we would have already had the rail line in place by now. Instead we will be last. It won't bring in any more crime than the buses already do and that amounts to very little. It's all about imagined fear. The era of relying on the personal car exclusively for local transportation is over.
(email verified)
Sat, May 10, 2008 at 10:04 AM
"at least half of it is being paid for by the federal government."
And where does the federal government get its money, we wonders, yes we wonders.
(email verified)
Sat, May 10, 2008 at 03:23 PM
we need help the people said no in a vote how can they have again the max
(email verified)
Sat, May 10, 2008 at 03:38 PM
And where does the federal government get its money, we wonders, yes we wonders.
"Gollum"
Yes we wonder?
It couldn't be from the auto and truck taxes and money that should be used for roads!!
(email verified)
Sun, May 11, 2008 at 12:05 PM
Let me try one more time. The federal funds for light rail are use it or lose it. If not used for light rail in Oregon, the money goes to light rail in Texas or some other state. It is incredibly stupid and myopic not to use it here. Yesterday there was a story that ridership on Tri-Met is up 4% over the past few months and it's due to gas prices. If you don't like light rail, don't use it, but don't prevent me from using it.
(email verified)
Tue, May 13, 2008 at 02:21 AM
We are all excited that we have big thinkers leading Metro, Tri-Met, Clackamas County and Multnomah County. However, has anyone sat down with these "leaders" and asked them personally how they would vote on where to put the one million people THEY are predicting will want to settle in our sustainable Portland....at least 360,000 in the northern portions of Clackamas County?
Not knowing what these "Leaders" mean by "sustainability" with their attractive photo shots and quotable quotes, someone should be asking the hard questions like define your terms and where are you going to put ONE MILLION NEW RESIDENTS....360,000 in Clackamas County. These "leaders" are asking us to decide for the future of our children and grandchildren over the next 30 to 50 years, and start drawing lines. They support citizen involvement and soliciting public input in the process BEFORE they come to some sort of decision by about the end of 2009 (Rural/Urban Reserves Planning Process--See Metro's program description (should by on the City of Milwaukie's website also).
I applaud our "leaders" for wanting to plan for the future, but define sustainability, draw your lines and let us know your view, rather than just come to some political "compromise" (Let's Just All Get Along).
Has anyone asked the residents of North Clackamas County if they want more residents in their community? If so, how would it look?
You ask, what's this got to do with arguing about Light Rail or more freeways and arterials.
Its called planning for form and function...and how to implement it, including infrastructure (or Capital Improvement Planning). Its not just all about sewer and water and freeways vs. light rail or train or street cars. Oh, don't forget the fish.
From what I am gathering from comments so far is that many oppose more density in Milwaukie (an inner urban community). Light Rail is a controversial proposal because its already been voted down once (for people to tax themselves), but now the Legislature has funded an obligation of at least $250 MILLION in Lottery funds (those poor addicts paying for it again) to jumpstart the project. After all, Washington County has gotten its far share of transportation funding for arterials, freeways, light train, trains, etc. Now its Clackamas County's turn.
I read about people who want more personal mobility and supposed "less congestion" by building more arterials and freeways....(and widening existing roads)just as long as it is NOT IN MY BACKYARD!! People don't want to be boxed in and limited to governmental decisions of how bodies become mobile. They want more sychronized traffic signals on through streets, arterials and expressways that are supposed to be more of a freeway than a strip commercial corridor (yes, I am referring to the Milwaukie Expressay). Yes, we want mobility (personal vehicles), but don't ask us to pay more for the cost of mobility.
We are seeing gas prices sky-high. Of course, its all relative, because high schoolers never drove before this year...so they don't carry any of the old baggage of memories when gas was $1 a gallon and Diesel even cheaper--how the tables on diesel vs. gas have turned in just a few years. The free lunch is now over. I always wondered how we were able to afford the federal highway system for preparation for the invading commies coming after WWII. Of course, back then, most families paid cash for everything. That gave the federal government plenty of political freedom to write blank checks, that we (the baby boomers and grandma and grandpa) are now paying for, even thou those roads are now deteriated. Some much for concrete that is supposed to last for 100s of years. Guess we weren't so smart as the Romans and their road building. Contractors got rich, inspectors just passed the problem along and the current bureaucrats qualify the lasting nature of roadways now to not exceed about 20, maybe 30 years. Sounds like how we build our cars today (programmed failure). Is that infrastructure planning in reality or a reflection of short term political decision-making? Or is it just an effort to spread mobility around at the cheapest cost (regardless of construction technique leading to short lifespans)? We want people to think 30 to 50 years down the road, but make throw-away CIP decisions on project that are warranted for a much shorter term....this is the same for sewer and water infrastructure. Remember that 35 year old sewer plant that just can't handle it anymore and we now need a "new" one, bigger and better!!
Come on, lets not bury our heads in the sand. We know many of us will have kids and kids will continue to want their mobility, just like mom and dad. However, we all know that the world is changing and that if we want to survive a few more generations, then we must think about how to "guarantee" that will happen--that's called planning.
So, come on, draw the line. Assert how many more people we are willing to have living in Milwaukie over the next, say 30 years. Up to 5,000 residents more? Or about 2,500 or more dwellings (assuming married couples on average, but some single parent households with children, etc.)? What does that mean on 7,000 sq. ft. lots. Where are they, now in the city? I don't see too many vacant fields. 2,500 single family, low density, lots will need about 400 acres. Or about one square mile (640 acres/sq. mi.). Hey, that's also about the size of downtown, including the Strip Commercial centers between the Tri-Met Southgate Parcel and Minthorn springs (a former lake district, now occupied by a low density business park--the creek now in pipes dumping into the Mt. Scott Creek and coming back into the downtown "Lake Kellogg", a fish creek being block by another capital improvement that has outlived its time (McLoughlin Blvd., starting about 1930's). Any one explaining to the steelhead why they can't spawn. Of course, who cares anyway. No one is willing to spend $8 to $10 milllion on a new 7 lane bridge (county and ODOT standard--no such thing as a scenic two lane, tree-lined, estuary bridge crossing). Remember, out with the old (like the depression-era Conservation projects that built all those scenic two lane wide bridges on federal highways--Sellwood Bridge, St. John's Bridge, Bridge of the Gods, Newport bridge--just to name a few (although BotG's was not a depression era bridge), all still in use today.
Ok, Milwaukie is just one city. Where are all the remaining 355,000 people going to go? Estacada? Molalla? Woodburn? [and of course, in between]. Sprawl baby, sprawl.
(email verified)
Tue, May 13, 2008 at 07:27 AM
Find a story
Browse archive
Find a paper
Enter a street name
or a 5 digit zip code
The Clackamas Review
News feed
Find a business
Weather Forecasts
Weather Maps
Weather Radar
ADVERTISEMENTS
SPECIAL SECTIONS
AND PROMOTIONS
Mystery/adventure novels with a SciFi twist! Visit www.SeedsOfCivilization.com
Digg
Del.icio.us
Newsvine
Stumbleupon
Reddit
Re: City officials question trust in TriMet
Why did City of Milwaukie keep stalling? So TriMet decided to back it out. Whose is the fault? Mostly the city. I feel the Southgate is unsafe because it is quite deserted especially at nighttime. Downtown is a bit safer.
I think TriMet should ditch the planned MAX line to Milwaukie too. Too expensive... 1.4 billions. oh my god!
milwaukie resident
Milwaukie resident
""
(email verified)
Wed, May 07, 2008 at 09:08 AM