Current CRC from Vancouver. Photo by Daniel Ronan.

PDXppl is a series of profiles of Portlanders and area residents and what they do.

The CRC, or Columbia River Crossing is perhaps one of the largest and most controversial public projects ever proposed in the  Portland Metropolitan Area (PMA). The project’s goal, to replace the two aging I-5 bridges across the Columbia River, has presented Portland with a test of its environmental values and resolve for sustainability.

The project includes many stakeholders, including the cities of Portland and Vancouver, Metro, Oregon and Washington state governments, two port authorities and the federal government. Many non-profits, including the Bicycle Transportation Alliance (BTA), not to mention the citizens of the PMA, have also taken interest in the project.

In an attempt to learn more about the project costing the region over $65 million in planning and another $30 million more as of last week, I decided to contact Mayor Royce Pollard's office in Vancouver. Matt Ransom, Vancouver's Transportation Manager, was kind enough to respond.

Below is the email of Matt Ransom's questions and responses. Perhaps as a community we can together ask for clarifications on this project.

Note: this email was written on August 12. It has taken me a while to post this, but the debate around the CRC is still alive and well.

I have been asked by Mayor Pollard to assist you with your questions at this point. I have served as on the City’s primary project managers for this effort and can serve as a main point of contact at this point.

I will attempt to answer your questions in brief below and then you can follow-up with clarifications.

PDXme: What would be the ideal Columbia River bridge for the City of Vancouver?

The City of Vancouver’s Comprehensive Plan anticipates that and is built upon the assumption that a new and updated Columbia River bridge will be built to serve the community and region’s future mobility needs.  The City’s basic vision of this project is that it will be: multi-modal with the inclusion of light-rail transit; that the pedestrian and bicycle corridor will be updated to sufficient size and that is strive to meet world class standards for these modes of travel, that the adjacent interchange and new bridge serve freight truck traffic in a safe and efficient manner, the implementation of the project will achieve sustainability goals in terms of construction methods, materials selection and operations and maintenance practices, and that the funding plan is equitable and sustainable.  These broad objectives have been laid out in our adopted policy plans and were stipulated in the City Council’s resolution of support for a locally preferred alternative in July of 2008.

PDXme: The $4.1 billion dollar price tag for the proposed span has lifted a lot of eyebrows and with a $65 million price tag for planning alone, many have criticized the feasibility of the bridge. How does Vancouver view the currently proposed bridge?

Broadly speaking, the City’s policy plans (Comprehensive Plan and City Center Vision plan) recognize the importance of this bridge infrastructure, both in terms of its inherent value for community circulation and economic well being, coupled with the direct benefits and effects that is places upon downtown Vancouver in particular.  For the vibrancy and future well being of our downtown, the Council has laid out a vision where a bridge should be re-built to ensure downtown multi-modal access, and done in a manner which allows for future growth while delicately inserting the re-built infrastructure in direct adjacency to our downtown core and historic reserve.

Updating this infrastructure to meet our community’s future needs, is a very important task and a myriad of important and inter-connected issues relate to this effort.  In our view the project efforts to date have been thoughtful and detailed in their study and with that effort costs result.  That is to be expected for such and important regional decision.  Based upon the reports we have seen, it is our understanding that the costs incurred to date are within the norm of other similarly sized and complex projects and are in line with preliminary estimates which were developed at the outset of the project.

PDXme: Specifically, light rail to Vancouver has been a major goal of Portland leaders for quite some time. How do you view light rail, as well as other amenities for pedestrians and bicycles affecting downtown Vancouver’s development?

The City Center Vision Plan for downtown Vancouver, which was updated in 2007, calls for significant increases in mass transit to support downtown’s growth and development.  At a minimum, the Plan proposes that to sustain our downtown environment and to support housing and employment growth, over 35% of future commute trips into downtown need to occur in non SOV (single occupancy vehicle) modes.  With the adoption of that general policy direction several efforts are now underway to enhance our transportation networks to support this goal.  Significant expansion of our bike networks and bike parking facilities are underway and the linkage to a new bridge corridor will provide a significant increase in safety and capacity for that mode in particular.  The regional transportation planning agency, the Southwest Regional Transportation Council, recently wrapped up a multi-year planning effort to design the broad plan for expanding mass transit, and specifically bus-rapid transit systems, to serve greater Clark County.  Each of the proposed rapid transit lines would feed downtown Vancouver, which would result in a significant infusion of peak-hour commute trip supply.  Finally, the proposed extension of light-rail transit north into downtown Vancouver would be a significant addition of bi-state transportation supply into downtown which would support an increasingly important bi-state reverse commute, as the downtown Vancouver employment market expands into the future.  Bottom line; our plans are reliant upon the expansion of mass transit and bike systems into downtown and current initiatives will go a long way towards providing us the infrastructure systems to support of growth and development objectives.

PDXme: In terms of economic development for Vancouver, the installation of I-5 in the 1950s hampered much of downtown’s economic vitality. In your view, what effect would the proposed bridge design have on Vancouver’s downtown economy?

Downtown Vancouver prosperity has, from its outset, been reliant upon the river and the bi-state infrastructure systems.  Early river ferry traffic and the initial Interstate bridge fed downtown with activity and most of the commerce of those early days lined Main Street to support and take advantage of the cross river activity.  The same is true today.  Multi-hour congestion on I-5 and SR-14 at the doorstep of downtown Vancouver currently stifles downtown access and economic activity in many ways.  A new bridge which provides multiple net new enhancements to transportation infrastructure supply (light-rail, bikes, etc) with efficiency upgrades (auto and freight) feeding downtown Vancouver will help foster additional economic growth within this important regional center.

Quotes that strike chords in Matt's responses in reference to the CRC project include the mention of "a myriad of important and inter-connected issues relate[d] to this effort" and  "inherent value for community circulation and economic well being." To me, the CRC is more than just a circulator for getting across the river and back, and I believe Matt Ransom and his colleagues share this sentiment. Additionally, I see the tangential issues of the bridge as being "inter-connected." The discrepancy I see in this project, however, is the lip service paid to the concerns of global warming and community building, while effectively (and ironically enough) ignoring the economic impacts of a 12-lane bridge.

Yes, people need to get across the river, and in a timely manner, but will a twelve-lane bridge design really help solve this recurring issue? Will a bridge inspired by 1960s design, with its inhuman scale and propensity to induce demand for single occupancy vehicles really aid the economic and community issues of automobile congestion and pollution? If both Portland and Vancouver intend to grow responsibly and "sustainably" as two cities of a common region, shouldn't the one link between them be rebuilt (or not built at all) to reflect the desires of its visionary planners and citizens?

Something is not right in the Rose City. "Sustainability" seems to have become a buzz-word for a project that has frustrated stakeholders like the BTA, which wiped its hands clean of the public process surrounding the bridge design. With the City of Portland, Metro, the State of Oregon, and Oregon's congressional delegation all on board or eerily silent about this project, one can't help but think of the fitting parallel to the Mt. Hood Expressway, a freeway never built, but which would have sliced through SE Portland, destroying Ladd's Addition and 1% of all Portland's housing at the time.

As with every large project, I believe there is a door of opportunity, to paraphrase the often-recanted phrase. When citizens of Portland didn't want a freeway, they stood up against their elected officials to successfully derail the project by laying down the rails of our now extensive MAX system. I ask Portlanders, Vancouverites and other citizens of the region: are we going to sit idly by while our values and quality of life are at stake? Could over $4 billion in the middle of an economic recession perhaps be better spent on a longer-term solution to our region's connectivity, including improvements and upgrades to the existing 1-5 bridges and significant investments in high-speed rail?

I believe that the CRC could be successfully geared towards increased regional thinking by focusing not only on the regional benefits of a new bridge, but also on north-south connectivity issues of the entire Pacific Northwest. The Obama administration's dedication of $8 billion dollars for high-speed rail shows a commitment to passenger rail, and a large local investment by the state of Oregon (with what would have been borrowed CRC money anyway) would work to provide a cleaner myriad of cross-Columbia transportation options. I liken these transportation options to Matt's, "myriad of important and inter-connected issues relate[d] to this effort."

The sheer amount of money needed to build this super bridge, which will become obsolete with the onset of the effects of global warming, is not merely one of many inter-connected issues; it is the issue. If Portland is pledging to meet its climate goal of 80% of 1990 emission levels by 2050, we cannot afford to spend over 4 billion dollars on a project that will hamper our efforts to meet this goal. The prospect of borrowed money represents another burden for future generations in addition to increased environmental harm. For $4.3 billion, according to Metro cost estimates, we could build MAX lines from Portland to Gresham along Powell, from Portland to Sherwood along Barbur, and from Clackamas Town Center to Oregon City along I-205. These three projects are at the top of list of high capacity transit corridors for future MAX line expansions, showing just how far $4 billion dollars could go if "sustainability" were treated as more than just a buzz-word.

Regardless of the way you talk about the CRC project, we must define our priorities as a city and as a region. The task at hand is to find a more sustainable alternative to the proposed Columbia River Crossing. Contact your legislators and elected officials. Get involved with the citizen campaign and read additional information here and here in opposition to the bridge proposal. For the Facebook inclined, I couldn't find a group addressing this issue, so I went ahead and started one, Citizens for a Better Bridge - NO to the Columbia River Crossing. Together we can find better solutions for Portland and regional transportation needs.

You should follow PDXme on twitter @djronan!

Ottavia of Italy & Quincey of New Jersey. Rendez-vous with a Southern European and current Eugenian: 1

Cup & Saucer Café on SE Hawthorne. Number of Cupcas visited: 1

Biker on SE Hawthorne. Number of "bike walkers" observed: 20+ Number of those 20+ hipsters: huh?! you don't know?

Obama on yo' fixie. Number of Obama images: undefined

SW 9th and Burnside Number of Artsy photos: all of them

A sweet print with the neighborhoods of Portland! Birthday gifts received (four months late): 1 A sweet print with the neighborhoods of Portland! Birthday gifts received four months late: 1

Ottavia (Otti) of Italy and Aida of Spain. Rendez-vous with Southern Europeans: 1

United States Government General Services Administration: 911 Federal Building! Number of semi-neglected yet still timeless government buildings passed on rambling walks through the Pearl: 1

Bike corral at Powell's! Number of bike corrals passed at Powell's with pictured friend Leanne: 1

Peace in Oregon on W Burnside. Spoof on "Made in Oregon" Sign 1/2

"Oregon" on SE Hawthorne. Spoof on "Made in Oregon" Sign 2/2

Union Station at dusk before heading home. Number attempts at this picture: 7

A family shot before heading to Union Station. Number of pictures shot in Jamison Square Park: 5

Things I couldn't get pics of:

My hairdresser, James, at Bishop's salon in the Pearl, soon to be tying the knot.
Haute politico Andrew Plambeck at Marco's in Multnomah Village.
The oh so beautiful Willamette River.

And with that, I hope you have a great start to your week. Lucky are the people who live, work and play in our beautiful City of Roses.

Nancy Stovall, Image compliments of Nancy Stovall.

Over the past couple of weeks I have been a harsh critic of the University of Oregon's (UO) plans to alter the design of the "Made in Oregon" sign and the Water Tower, two Portland icons in the Old Town Chinatown neighborhood. Realizing the compromise for the "Made in Oregon" sign to read "Oregon," was reasonable given the circumstances, I took to the University's proposal to place its "O" logo on the adjacent water tower that currently reads "Old Town."

In my quest to learn more about the key players in this debate, among them UO, Portland City Council, the Historic Landmarks Commission, I found that one key entity was missing. Although this may have seemed obvious in our process-loving town, it seems the Old Town Chinatown Neighborhood Association has yet been given its own soapbox to stand on. I left a message for the Neighborhood Association, and Nancy Stovall was kind enough to give me a call back. Below is her and her neighborhood association's take on the debate that has pervaded Portland's publications for four months as well as more information about Old Town Chinatown, one of Portland's many prized neighborhoods.

PDXme: Who are you and what do you do?

My name is Nancy Stovall; I'm the Vice Chair of the Old Town Chinatown Neighborhood Association.

PDXme: What do Portland and the Old Town Chinatown (OTCT) area mean to you?

I live in Old Town, it's my neighborhood. I love living in an urban environment; I moved here from suburban Atlanta almost 3 years ago. Within the Old Town Chinatown neighborhood boundaries there are two National Historic Districts: Skidmore-Old Town and Japantown-New Chinatown. Most Portlanders don't realize that this is where Portland began. Captain Couch's land claim encompassed what is now Old Town, Chinatown, the Pearl, Nob Hill and some of NW Portland, but there's very few historic buildings anywhere except Old Town Chinatown. Those of us who live here understand that we're only caretakers for the next generation--but there needs to be a balance. Portland needs to take action to preserve what's remaining and revitalize this historic neighborhood.

PDXme: Can you give us an idea as to what the Old Town Chinatown Neighborhood Association has done in the past?

The neighborhood association has partnered with the city of Portland, Portland Development Commission (PDC), the OTCT Business Association, the Chinese Consolidated Benevolent Association and other public and private organizations to preserve and document the neighborhood's history, and champion new development. The Visions Committee grew out of the NA to plan and document a neighborhood charter for preservation and development. The OTCT Visions Plan was adopted by the City, and has been revisited and updated over the past 10 years as work has developed.

PDXme: Regarding the much-publicized debate around the “Made in Oregon” sign and “Old Town” water tower, can you give us the neighborhood association’s perspective of the proposed design changes?

"Made in Oregon" sign and "Old Town" water tower for now as seen from the Burnside Bridge. Photo courtesy of m.johns of Flickr, Creative Commons.

UO has spent a great deal of time, money and energy in faithfully restoring the White Stag Block. The "Made in Oregon" sign has a wonderful past--I wish more people knew about it and could see some of the old pictures. It has always represented the building's tenant--first White Satin Sugar, the White Stag, then Made in Oregon and now U of O. The University understands what historic preservation means to Portland, Oregon and to the neighborhood, and have engaged the NA throughout their process. The water tower has been restored to a working condition thanks to U of O. The NA is completely in support of the historic restoration that U of O has brought to Old Town.

PDXme: What is your personal view towards the proposed changes?

If you take the larger view, the perspective changes. I applaud the University's agreement to lease the Oregon sign and restore the water tower. Portland is famous for its recycle, re-use ethic--this is a great example of the University's commitment to sustainable use. The White Stag Block--the entire Old Town neighborhood, actually--was originally a center for commerce. From the first time that Captain Couch sailed into the port, he knew that he'd make his fortune--and his home--in Old Town. I wonder what he would think of this debate.

PDXme: What has the University of Oregon done to include the neighborhood association in its decision-making?

The U of O has regularly attended our meetings, presented their plans and asked for input and support from the NA. Their work has always been carefully researched and is appropriate from the NA perspective.

PDXme: What would you suggest to Portlanders that just can’t let go of these two Portland landmarks?

There's no need to let go of them--thanks to the U of O they'll still be landmarks. The sign is owned by Ramsay Signs, and leased to the tenant of the building. The lease to Made in Oregon was up, and U of O stepped up to take over the lease. The history of the sign continues. The sign will not change dramatically; the major component of the sign have been constrained to prevent that. The shape, the stag, the colors and pattern of the lights, and even the font are all required to remain the same. The water tower has been saved and restored for Portland. There needs to be more of this type of work in Old Town--without restoration, many buildings will crumble and we'll lose these historic landmarks.

PDXme: Anything else you’d like to tell us?

I'd like to invite all of Portland to come down to the neighborhood--visit the history of the city, and feel the vibe of the area. Old Town is a friendly area--we know our neighbors. I like to say that we're "living history". There's retail, restaurants, arts, culture, commerce and education in Old Town--all in historic buildings and surroundings. Portland is great because of it's small block sizes and diverse neighborhoods. That all started here. Check out our website--oldtownchinatown.org--to see where to shop and eat and what to see and do. All ages and all walks of life will find something fun to do in Old Town Chinatown.

* * *

So there you have it. It looks like the University of Oregon has made the effort to work with its new community in Portland, unlike the way I had characterized the University in previous posts. Although I am not for the proposed changes to the "Made in Oregon" sign, and much less those to the "Old Town" water tower, I respect the fact that communication has been taking place between the University and the Old Town Chinatown Neighborhood Association. Now it's up to the Historic Landmarks Commission to decide on the validity of the proposed redesigns. If you'd like to attend the Commission's meeting to speak for or against the proposed changes, please see the information below.

Landmarks Commission Hearing
Monday, July 27, 2009 at 1:30PM
1900 SW 4th Ave, Room 2500A

View the hearing agenda.

If you would like to testify in front of the commission, it would be best to arrive before 1:30pm to see the clerk in order to put your name on the list. Public comment is limited to three minutes per person.

For related "Made in Oregon" sign and "Old Town" water tower information, visit the general information page updated by the Bureau of Development Services.

The current "Made in Oregon" sign and "Old Town" water tower.

As a relatively new blog, I've been playing catch-up on Portland hot topics. The "Made in Oregon" sign sparked a controversy which culminated in a shouting match between City Commissioner Randy Leonard and former President of the University of Oregon (UO), Dave Frohnmayer. The compromise, as agreed on by the city council, will make its way to the Portland Historic Landmarks Commission for approval on Monday. The upcoming meeting is the public’s last chance to voice any concerns or opinions regarding the sign. According to the Bureau of Development Services Hearing Clerk, who helps run the commission's meetings, leaders would like to have a decision by the end of the hearing.

In March, I started the Facebook group, "Leave the 'Made in Oregon' sign the way it is!" and emotions ran so high that within a week over 2,000 people joined the group. I didn't do too much with it after that first week due to school, but I discovered that it had grown to over 10,000 members. With so much support for such a statement, I thought I would write an update about the sign and the related, yet seldom mentioned, issue of the “water tower.”

In the new design, which aides the Portland Historic Landmarks Commission, the water tower is raised, clad in green aluminum paneling and emblazoned with a yellow University of Oregon "O" logo. As a student at the University of Oregon, I object to this proposal. Everywhere you turn, be it in Eugene or even in Portland, the "O" is there, on lanyards, in back windshields and on shirts.

I wouldn’t mind all the “O”s if the logo were associated more with the academic side of the University of Oregon.  But alas, the "O" is the official logo for UO Athletics. Not to mentioned Nike owns it. What does this say about a public university?

The Oregon "O" at Autzen Stadium in Eugene.

Speaking of shameless advertising, the university recently made headlines in Eugene when UO Education Professor McKay Sohlberg withdrew a 2008 complaint against the 816 square foot "O" on the side of Autzen Stadium. The "O" was four times the legal size. But instead of requesting a variance to the code, the UO installed the sign without warning in the fall of 2007. According to the Daily Emerald, the University will now pay $548 for a permit in addition to $1900 in building permit penalties. Talk about a lack of transparency. After almost two years, the University is starting to understand that, regardless of its size and independence, it is still a member of the community. (A sentiment that I hope the incoming University of Oregon President, Richard Lariviere, will act upon.)

As a member of the Eugene community, it's important that the University understands that other communities, such as Portland, value symbols and landmarks that the UO may not. Case in point: the "Made in Oregon" sign and the "Old Town" water tower.  All of our political capital has been spent in order to retain the sign’s neutral message. "Oregon" strikes the right balance. Although this change is not what I would have liked, I can accept it. The water tower, on the other hand, is not receiving due attention. The proposed change is inappropriate. It does not recognize the unique history behind the lesser viewed, yet equally important phrase, "Old Town."

The proposed changes in the "Made in Oregon" sign and "Old Town" water tower.

In the 1970s, it was Bill Naito who painted the phrase "Old Town" on the tower. According to the Willamette Week, the name stuck for the surrounding area. Today we have a street and soon, a plaza named after the respected Portland businessman. The revitalization of Old Town is an exciting transformation happening right now in the Rose City. The water tower, however, is an important symbol that stands faithfully as a testament to the past: one that should not be tastelessly painted over with the equivalent of a Nike logo. This water tower doesn't hold water.

As an institution of higher education, the University of Oregon has much to be proud of. I regret that the opening of the school's newly renovated Portland campus has caused such a stir.

All in all, the proposed changes in the "Made in Oregon" sign have allowed residents, however unwillingly, to be more welcoming to a U of O presence in Portland. The more inclusive message and "Ducks'" coloring, mark a new start to a rocky introduction to the realm of Portland politics. But there are some things (such as plastering your logo on another community's landmark) that don’t fit. After all, this is Portland, not Eugene.

I would encourage anyone who has anything to say about the proposed changes in Old Town to make their voices heard at the Historic Landmarks Commission hearing on Monday. Below is the hearing information:

Landmarks Commission Hearing
Monday, July 13, 2009 at 1:30PM
1900 SW 4th Ave, Room 2500A

View the hearing agenda.

If you would like to testify in front of the commission, it would be best to arrive before 1:30 to see the clerk in order to put your name on the list. Public comment is limited to three minutes per person.

For related "Made in Oregon" sign and "Old Town" water tower information, visit the general information page updated by the Bureau of Development Services.

"USA! USA! USA!" I almost felt as if I was watching a soccer match unfold while watching this video. The unveiling of the first modern American streetcar prototype in almost sixty years has created a wave in the stadium of public transportation. The car was produced primarily by United Streetcar, a subsidiary of Oregon Iron Works, as well as a myriad of other U.S. companies.

In 2007, the Oregon State Legislature allocated money to the Clackamas-based company to work towards building a manufacturing base here in Portland for these "vehicles of desire." The hopes of creating jobs and rejuvenating America's ailing cities have come true, but there is still so much work to be done. Portland, being heeded by a federal government for once in a long while, is now on the tangible forefront of the shift from sprawling, chaotic communities to more equitable and livable communities to sustain for years to come. LaHood's words are what we've already heard about Portland's efforts to improve and expand public transportation, but the fact that we've gotten this attention has really got Portlanders on a kind of pdxme fix.

In laymen's terms, this pdxme phenomenon is what I try and describe on this blog. It's a feeling you get when you know Portland's got something right, and that is why you're here. What Portlander can't stop giggling at official recognition from the federal government (a.k.a. the people who set trends and make money and ideas happen) of what we already  know? Pdxme! Pdxme! Pdxme! And please, please, Portland me pretty.

Passengers disembark the new MAX green line at Clackamas Town Center. Photo courtesy of Portland Transport.

Another one of the prototype American streetcars unveiled. Notice the bikes! Photo courtesy of Portland Transport.

The interesting geometry of Fareless Square, according to Wikipedia, is due to various events. In the 1990s, the Square's boundaries were changed to accommodate stops at Union Station, to increase access to the new Amtrak Cascade trains.  The extension to the east side in 2001, incorporating the Lloyd Center Shopping Mall as well as the Oregon Convention Center, worked to encourage further use of public transportation, including the use of the newly opened Red Line, with service from the Beaverton Transit Center to the Portland Airport.

In 1986, there was an effort to do away with Fareless Square, but public support for the resource enabled it to survive until today. In 2007, talks of reforming the Square, from making it fareless only during certain hours or calling for its end surfaced as crime perpetrated by the homeless and youth began to rise. The call for reform escalated with incidents of knife fights which prompted extra vigilance from the TriMet Transit Police. The Oregonian has a cool map of crimes perpetrated 2005 and 2006. As a general trend, more violent crimes tended to take place in the suburbs, and, according to Wikipedia, this hampered efforts to do away with the Portland mainstay, located in the central city.

Fareless Square, compliments of TriMet.

This year, TriMet has a new plan to reform the Square. The down economy has prompted the public agency to tighten its belt, and accordingly TriMet has proposed that busses lose their fareless distinction, restricting "free" fare to the MAX and the streetcar. Below is an email alert I received on this recent update:

When MAX Green Line begins service downtown on the Portland Transit Mall in September, riders will be able to use MAX and Portland Streetcar for nearly all trips within Fareless Square. Changing the fare-free zone to rail-only would simplify the system for riders and improve efficiency of bus service, while maintaining frequent, free transit service in the City Center. We’d like your feedback on this proposal. Learn more and share your comments

You should click the link at the end to tell them what you think. (Also, you should sign up for their updates as well.) My initial reaction upon hearing these developments of the Square are mixed. To get downtown I take either the #44 or the #12 along 6th and from there, I tend to walk to my destination. Rarely do I use Fareless Square for free bus fare as in the end I will just have to buy another ticket home, out of the square. I do however, see the convenience in the fareless concept, especially for those who wish to take a quick trip to the other end of the mall. Unfortunately, the MAX is a bit slow downtown, and bus service tends to be faster.

That being said, we've yet to see the travel times for new MAX Green lines which will travel south and north on 5th and 6th Avenues. I could foresee the new MAX service as being incredibly popular, just as the Blue and Red lines have been as an east-west rail thoroughfare. But I would still am not convinced that MAX and streetcar service combined would enable the current scope of access to downtown as the current transit mall. Given, there has never been a MAX on the transit mall, so we shall see. In light of this economy, TriMet is also considering selectively cutting and fine-tuning frequent service bus routes. So perhaps getting around downtown would not be as fast on the bus. This via another TriMet email update:

Due to the weak economy, TriMet still faces a $3.5 million budget shortfall. Instead of cutting more routes or reducing hours of operation, we propose to cover this remaining budget gap by making small reductions in bus service frequency, effective in November. These minor changes would be made during midday, in the evening and on weekends, so most commuters would not be affected. As a result, on 27 bus lines (including most Frequent Service lines) the time between buses would increase by about 2 to 4 minutes. We’d like your feedback on this proposal. Learn more and share your comments

So assuming that the new MAX Green line would be faster and more reliable for downtown travel, we can work to make buses more efficient passing through Fareless Square as they make the way on their routes outside of the downtown.

Here's a thought: perhaps we could designate free shuttle buses from one end of downtown to the other. Two shuttles could perform this task, mirroring the north-south east-west routes of the MAX lines. These shuttles would stop at few locations (ideally 2 or 3) in the immediate city center, lightening the load for buses and trains bogged down with strictly downtown travelers. For example, I could get off at the #44's first stop downtown at 4th and Hall and then take a shuttle that would then stop in Old Town and then Lloyd Center. We could limit these shuttles to rush hour travel only or keeping them going all day, budget permitting.

The goal of light rail is to get people to use it. I agree whole heartily with this statement. But does depending on fareless light rail and streetcar for downtown travel allow for the most efficient movement of people? Yes, it would free and people would most certainly use it, but would this slow down MAX service if buses no longer offered free fare? (The Blue and Red lines serve as examples of moderately slow light rail service in the city center.) As a regional rail system, it's important that we connect people with downtown together with fast and efficient transportation. I would liked to be assured that if TriMet gets rid of fareless busses that, specifically, fast and efficient transportation via MAX will not be compromised.

In the end, I'd rather ride rail than a bus. And I'm sure a lot of people would prefer the same. However, additionally I believe that the more options we offer to passengers, the more ridership we will see and with that, a more livable Portland.

On March 11th, the city council officially decided to bring Major League Soccer to Portland. The council tagged $15 million in urban renewal money for the project, although the funding of this sum is not yet known. According to the League, the Timbers need their own field, not a multi-use set-up as is the case at PGE Park. The plan to move the Beavers into a new stadium in the Rose Quarter failed as the community rejected tearing down the post-modern Memorial Coliseum. Accordingly, the clock is ticketing to find an adequate solution to the placement of both sports teams.

Charles B. Walker Stadium in Lents Park, photo from Steven Nehl of The Oregonian.

Now to Lents. The city council, at the urging of Commissioner Randy Leonard and Mayor Sam Adams have been pushing for a stadium in Lents Park. Lents, is an economically depressed neighborhood in the SE of Portland. The proposed park would take the place of a current Charles B. Walker Stadium used for community play. It's pretty old, and from some high school cross country meets I remember their bathrooms as being a bit less than sanitary. The stadium is, however, a meeting place for the Lents community.

The proposed baseball park, however would need to include upwards of 350 surface parking spaces. You can view the full plan here. From what I remember running in Lents a few years back was a park replete with natural amenities. Namely, trees. The trees around the current baseball diamond as well as on the edges of the park create a great frame for open public space. I've also played soccer in the park. The fields are perhaps a little small for tournament play, and at an awkward angle, but they're great for practicing. I would like to see more about the potential effect on the bark chip trails around the park that are a part of the PIL cross country course.

I would hate to see spaces in the park cornered off for private use. In the new plan, this would undoubtedly occur. The location of the gazebo which is now in the center of the park, will be compromised to a location further south with the introduction of the new baseball stadium. What does it mean when a meeting space in a public park is negotiated with a private interest? What does that say about community? Not to mention the wasted space of vacant parking lots for when the baseball diamond is not in use.

Lents Neighborhood in SE Portland.

From what I have read, the reactions to the proposed stadium have been mixed. There are those in the community that think that the stadium will bring much needed development to the Lents area, and others who see it as a sham deal between city decision makers and a business tycoon. Commissioners Amanda Fritz and Nick Fish voted against the stadium deal. Dan Saltzman, who was one of the three on the city council including Adams and Leonard to pass the resolution bringing MLS to Portland, is now the wavering vote.

At issue is the use of urban renewal dollars raised by the Lents community through the siphoning of property taxes into an urban renewal fund. These urban renewal dollars are meant to bring business and jobs to underdeveloped neighborhoods. Much of these dollars have been used in other parts of the city such as the Pearl and Lloyd Center. Proponents of the stadium wish to use the urban renewal dollars, $42.3 million dollars of it, to build the stadium, taking money away from current urban renewal projects such as a financial-assistance for low-income tenants and seniors for the next couple of years.

Another hurdle for the use of these urban renewal funds is the city-mandated use of 30% of funds for affordable housing in each urban renewal district. Adams and Leonard wish to get around this mandate by what the Portland Mercury calls, "bending the law," accounting for the potential lack in affordable housing in the area by upping the percentages of spending in other urban renewal districts across the city. This plan, I fear, is not good for the precedent of the use of urban renewal funds. What if future city councils took this as a practice? Could we potentially see a concentration of affordable housing in select areas of the city? Would this stigmatize urban living as is has in larger cities, where "living in the projects" is an urban reality.

Many think that the potential for catalytic development is too low. Steve Novick, the former candidate for Democratic Senator of Oregon, wrote to this end in referencing Shea Stadium in Queens. In short, stadiums are not intended to create jobs and investment outside of their walls. They want you to stay inside and buy their over-priced hotdogs, peanuts and beer. Accordingly, there is a very vocal camp claiming that the stadium will not bring jobs to Lents, and in fact lose jobs according to some job forecasts.

Gazebo in the middle of Lents Park.

A long-standing desire of the Lents Community has been the presence of a specialty grocery store, such as a New Seasons in the Lents Town Center, south of Lents Park. There is also a desire to pave roads and fix decrepit sidewalks. Some think that these uses would be a better use of urban renewal dollars and would attract more jobs and business than the proposed stadium. Others see the stadium as putting Lents on the map, after being ignored for so long by those on the other side of the Willamette.

No matter what happens, I hope what can come out of this is a workable conversation on how Portland views its parks and open spaces. With the population of the metropolitan area estimated to be around  3 million people by 2030, our parks and open spaces will be in high demand. Will we continue to give away the commons and mortgage our precious public resources? Will we expand and enhance these spaces? I believe that much depends on the city council's decision making and leadership. Lents Stadium or not, we all have something invested in this debate.

A sign in Chinatown has seen its better days.

Notwithstanding the lack of “naughty neon” signs in this post, I’m quite the fan of old-time neon signs. They provide history and nostalgia above and beyond the ubiquitous “open” signs that now liter modern retail.

Facing South on NW Third towards Couch.

What gets me excited upon seeing one these gems is that they continue to catch attention. The signage of today’s stores barely pass muster. I cannot tell you how fed up I am with recessed lighting and fluorescent cover-ups. It’s just not the same.

So I’ve done some exploring in and around Portland over the past two years since my last posts, and here are some that I’ve come across.

The stories behind these signs are as varied are they are lit. Indeed, some have continued to stick around, restored and maintained to their former glory. Others not so much.

Signs like these, that instill a sense of place and past in people, don’t come without their own controversies. Recently as seen in the recent “Made in Oregon” debacle, people don’t like change when it comes to these visual icons.

Jennifer Anderson, a reporter from the Portland Tribune contacted me a while back regarding the proposed name change from “Made in Oregon” to “University of Oregon.” I had created a Facebook group titled “Keep the ‘Made in Oregon’ sign the way it is!” to combat the dictatorial U of O President Frohnmayer from calling the shots in Portland.

The issue has sparked broad interest in the community, as evidenced in part by two Facebook pages that have formed in opposition. One “keep the sign the way it is” page gathered more than 2,200 members in just a week; the other attracted more than 21,000 people of like-minded sentiment since it was created on Feb. 20.

The keepers of the Facebook pages — a 20-year-old University of Oregon student and a Portland State University adjunct professor in his 30s — are encouraging people to testify at the landmarks commission hearing in person or in writing.

The "Made in Oregon" sign to date, photo by the Oregonian.

"Made in Oregon" sign compromise. From Commissioner Randy Leonard.

The City of Portland and the University of Oregon came to agreement that “Oregon” would be a suitable title for the sign. I think that it was fortunate that we were able to stave off U of O’s excessive corporatism, but we’ll leave that for another post.

The practicality of neon messages is always intriguing Even if their items have since past their days of high fashion, their insistence on showcasing their wares keeps the dream alive.

Taken by Patrick Dirden.

Of course, one must not forget the instigator the “Go by” motif. Portland’s Union Station added it’s “Go by Train” signage shortly after World War II, according to Wikipedia.

Let’s not forget the gem that continues to evoke city-pride, the Portland Sign at the Arlene Schnitzer Concert Theater on Broadway.

As a side note, John Becker Photography has some great high-resolution photos on these idyllic eye-catchers. I’ll leave his shots for the masses.

Neon signs in Portland are icons that we should cherish. And with a rapidly changing cityscape they continue to hold down the port of our past. Here’s to the port of the future! May it be more prosperous and beautiful than ever before!

A Chinatown gem.

Oregon Leather Company at NW 2nd & Couch.

The Portland Outdoor Store at SW 3rd and Oak.

Vintage photo of Union Station from Doug Kroll.

The defining Portland sign on SW Broadway - check out the reflections!