OREGON

TRANSPORTATION

INSTITUTE

OTI is a nonprofit corporation dedicated to providing transportation information.

Main Menu

REASONS WHY SOUTH/NORTH LIGHT RAIL

WAS DEFEATED AGAIN

On November 3, 1998, the funding for south/north light rail from Clackamas Town Center to the Kenton area of North Portland was defeated by 4.2% in a vote with the Portland metropolitan region. In November 1996, the funding for south/north light rail was defeated in a statewide vote.

Here are some of the reasons why south/north was defeated:

• West side light rail opened in September 1998. Studies showed that the new line had removed no cars from the abuting Sunset Highway or from the other major arterials in the corridor. These studies can be found on this web site.

• Area residents realized that the enormous expense of light rail utilized all of the available transportation funds and that there would be no significant added capacity on roads. Road based public transit, which constitutes 88% of all transit in this region, would continue to decline. Carpools and single occupant vehicles would encounter worse congestion (three times worse according to Metro=s 2015 projections).

• Regional residents would have had to pay half of the projected $1.6 Billion cost. There was no regional contribution for east side light rail (we gave up a freeway which would have been carrying ten times the passengers and have relieved Banfield and neighborhood road congestion). The region contributed only 12.5% of west side light rail costs.  Voters were not told exactly what financing form will be used to raise the remaining $325 million or the annual costs.
• The cost to the owner of a median priced house ($162,000) for the entire $800 million repayment over 30 years was estimated at $2,046. Many regional area homeowners did not want to pay $2,046 for a train they would never ride?

• Proponents estimate of alternatives were not believable. They said it would cost $3 billion to build a new freeway along the proposed light-rail line while Th 1995 Regional Transportation Plan showed adding two new lanes of highway to 224 and McLoughlin would only cost $121 million. The proponents oft-quoted $3 billion figure included such costs as completely rebuilding I-405 and the Fremont and Marquam bridges, which don't compete with light rail and which would be done whether or not south/north was built.
• Proponents claims that light rail could replace three lanes of freeway were repudiated by the data for the existing system. The Max light rail only carries about 10 percent as many people as the same length of Banfield freeway.

• People perceived, correctly, that this line, like the other lines would be s-l-o-w: less than 20 miles per hour on average and only 6 miles per hour downtown.
• cost-benefits for the selected corridor did not make sense. The travel corridor between Clackamas and downtown Portland is one of the least used corridors in the Portland area. At its peak point, this corridor carries only 28% of Banfield traffic; 37% of Sunset Hwy traffic; 32% of I-205 traffic; and 44% of 217 which has only four lanes. It makes no sense to build an expensive light-rail line in this corridor.
• Metro admitted that the cost of operating south-north light rail will be so great that it "limits future bus expansion" to a rate slower than the population growth.
• Area residents looked at the existing east and west side lines and recognized that their neighbors weren't using it. Most light-rail supporters only want light rail because they hope someone else will ride it.
• No air quality gains were perceived. It was recognized that light rail has an insignificant effect on air quality. If the ludicrously optimistic projections were achieved, it would reduce air pollution by less than 1/2 of one percent, assuming no further improvements in auto emission control or gasoline. There was no disagreement that compressed natural gas buses offered more air quality improvement.
• Light rail wastes energy. According to USDOT, light rail consumes more energy per passenger than buses or cars http://www.publicpurpose.com/ut-en95.htm.    The Congressional Budget Office stated AIn view of the limited energy conservation potential of rapid rail transit and the enormous capital costs of such systems, expenditure of federal funds on these systems for purposes of energy conservation appears to be misguided and possibly even counterproductive@ (Urban Transportation and Energy, Serial No. 96-8).
• This light rail line would have cost $100 million per mile ($1.6 billion divided by 16 miles). One mile would pay for turning McLoughlin Boulevard into a six lane freeway with an HOV lane plus constructing overpasses on the Milwaukie Expressway to eliminate the lights.
• Operating the light rail would have cost $15 million more per year than operating buses. That's enough money to add significant amount of bus service.

• Contrary to what proponents said, citizens knew that building south-north light rail will not "complete" the system. Published plans show that they want to build to Oregon City, Tigard, Lake Oswego, the airport and along Hwy 217 and the accumulated costs were frightening.

• There was a recognition that light rail does not create more choices and it, in fact, takes away choices. Because it is so expensive, no money would have been available for major improvements to bus service, bikeways, and highways that would offer far more choices than light rail.
• Neighborhoods along the proposed route didn't want light rail because of the density requirements that would be attendant.
• Once again, the financial support for the proponents campaign, about $1 million in a region, came all from individuals that would gain from the building, not use, of the project.