As Sound Transit begins construction on the North Link and East Link light rail lines, it is worth taking a look at our neighbor to the south as they embark on their most expensive and ambitious project to date: the Portland-Milwaukie Light Rail (PMLR) line. TriMet has staked a great deal of time and money on this controversial project, and only time will tell if it was all worth it. In any case, there might be some lessons for the Seattle region as we take a look at the newest addition to MAX.
The PMLR MAX line will run 7.3 miles to the southeast from downtown Portland, beginning at the existing transit mall and heading to downtown Milwaukie. This corridor is currently dominated by McLoughlin Blvd, a state highway that primarily carries commuters from Milwaukie and SE Portland to and from downtown Portland. The transit options currently include 1 frequent bus line, 2 infrequent bus lines, and 1 peak-only express bus. High demand on this corridor demonstrated the need for high capacity transit, so several years ago TriMet started planning for this MAX line. Construction is now underway and the line is planned to open by 2015.
While the PMLR line has gotten strong support from most elected officials and transit advocates, it has also been mired in controversy due to the high cost of $1.4 billion, or about $200 million per mile. The Transport Politic notes that this makes the PMLR project the most expensive surface-running rail project in the country. Many are concerned about this cost, considering the current funding crisis facing TriMet, which forced service cuts in the last couple years. So why is this line so expensive?
One factor is the inclusion of a new $200 million bridge over the Willamette River that will carry light rail, streetcar, bus, pedestrian, and bicycle traffic. Notably, the bridge will be closed to car traffic. This bridge will ensure that transit can bypass the traffic congestion found on most bridges during peak times. It seems unfair to include the full cost of bridge in any criticism of the light rail line, as it will benefit so many other modes of travel and will speed up the light rail line significantly.
Another reason for the high cost is the decision to route this line alongside an existing freight rail line. If TriMet were simply using an abandoned railroad right-of-way, this would be much more cost-effective, but instead they are buying out existing properties along the existing rail line. This property acquisition accounts for a great deal of the line’s cost. Many have praised TriMet for avoiding a freeway alignment (unlike many existing MAX lines), but on the other hand this alignment still runs along a freight track, limiting the potential for redevelopment along the line. Another option might have been to run the line down the center of McLoughlin, similar to the Yellow Line on Interstate or Seattle’s Link as it runs down MLK Blvd. This option would have required removing some car capacity, but would have been much less expensive to build. To get a better view of the route, you can watch this video simulation.
The controversy over cost came to a head with the announcement in Summer 2010 that the line would not receive the 60% federal match TriMet was expecting, but instead would only receive 50%. TriMet was forced to scramble for the remaining $140 million and ultimately had to borrow against future operating revenue to fill the hole. This means there will be less funding for operating service in the future, in order to pay the construct this light rail line now. TriMet could have taken the PMLR line to a public vote in order to get new funding through a general bond measure. Instead, TriMet has taken great pains to avoid a vote that it knew might have difficulty passing.
What can other regions learn from the PMLR line so far? First, it may be prudent to separate out a multi-modal bridge from the other elements of the project, so that people can see it as more than just a part of the light rail line. It could be separately funded by general transportation dollars, not just dedicated transit funds. Second, routing decisions have a huge impact on the cost of a project. On the one hand, it is smart to avoid freeway medians with limited potential for redevelopment or ridership, but on the other hand it can be expensive and disruptive to buy up hundreds of properties. Sometimes the best option is to take existing car capacity on an arterial and convert it to transit. A third lesson is to avoid expecting too much from the federal government, especially in the current deficit-cutting budget climate, and to line up a contingency plan in case the feds don’t come through. Finally, as much as any transit agency might want to avoid the messy process of a public vote by assembling funding from other sources, doing so can cause controversy and a general lack of public trust in the project.
