Council Members:
There’s a lot of talk about “smart” growth, but I hope we can learn from places who have tried it and discovered it’s not all it’s
made out to be.
Pat Marriott
Smart Growth Not Smart in Portland [http://bettercupertino.blogspot.com/2017/07/smart-growth-not-smart-in-portland.html]
Portland has been on the forefront of Smart Growth movement. It has invested greatly in bicycle infrastructures and light rail
lines. It has concentrated density in Transit-Oriented Development (TOD). The following two articles from Cascade Policy Institute
did a reality check on whether Smart Growth succeeded or not.
* Portlands' Regional Transit Strategy is Not Working, December 6, 2016, By John A. Charles, Jr.
[http://cascadepolicy.org/blog/2016/12/06/portlands-regional-transit-strategy-is-not-working/]
* What Can Be Learned from Portland Smart Growth Experience?, February 10, 2016, By John A. Charles, Jr.
[http://cascadepolicy.org/blog/2016/02/10/what-can-be-learned-from-portlands-smart-growth-experience/]
Surprisingly, the two articles by John A. Charles, Jr. point out that after 20 years of Smart Growth, Smart Growth is not so smart
in Portland:
* "The share of all commute trips taken by public transit fell 17% during the past year. The transit share of all Portland
commute trips peaked in 2008 at 15%. Since then it has hovered near 12%, and now rests at 10%." (This is after adding four new
light rail lines, commuter rail and streetcar and an investment of $6.3 billion dollars)
* There is only about 10% drop in SOV (single-occupancy vehicle) and about 5% and 4% increase in those who bike or walk
respectively.
* "On the land-use front, planners have succeeded in their goal of densifying the region; but there was collateral damage. Due to
density regulations, buildable land is now scarce, driving up the cost of housing. This is incentivizing many property owners
to tear down nice homes and replace them with out-of-scale apartment buildings – many with no off-street parking. Some Portland
Progressives who supported this planning agenda now wonder why their formerly pleasant neighborhoods are flooded with
automobiles."
* "In the suburbs, most new projects simply have no backyards." There is no room for kids. "Most dwellings will be attached units
on tiny lots. The larger parcels – averaging only 7,000 square feet – are being marketed as lots for “executive housing.”"Nice
backyards that were once common are now only available to the rich, due to the artificial scarcity of land that Smart Growth
calls for.
Another article "The Evolving Urban Form: Portland", August 3, 2013
[http://www.newgeography.com/content/003856-the-evolving-urban-form-portland?page=5], By Wendell ▒▒▒ pointed out the following:
* "Portland has developed an extensive rail system, intended to attract drivers from their cars. Yet the share of commuters using
transithas fallenby a quarter since 1980, the last data available before the first light rail line opened. In short, rail has
not changed the calculus of travel in Portland."
* Clinging to the fantasy transit can materially reduce automobile travel, Oregon officials have blocked substantial roadway
expansions. Residents have been rewarded with much intensified traffic congestion.
The Texas A&M Texas Transportation InstituteAnnual Mobility Report
[http://www.newgeography.com/content/'http:/mobility.tamu.edu/ums/](Note 4) reveals Portland to have the 6th worst traffic
congestion in the nation among major metropolitan areas. This compares to a before-rail ranking of 39th in 1982. (Portland is less
dense than all major urban areas in the 13 western states, with the exception of Seattle.)
More negative consequences from Portland's not-so-smart Smart Growth policies in "Why Denver should avoid Portland’s not-so-smart
growth policies [http://completecolorado.com/pagetwo/2013/12/28/why-denver-should-avoid-portlands-not-so-smart-growth-policies/]",
December 28, 2013, by Baruch Feigenbaum:
* "The city has engaged in too much traffic calming by deliberately slowing almost every route. This has made it challenging to
travel anywhere during rush hour. ... A two-minute delay for an ambulance can be a matter of life and death."
* "For another city to adopt a successful urban growth boundary, it needs to have characteristics similar to Portland for the
growth boundary model to work. These include a small close-knit leadership group, a homogenous population and little interest
in growth. But even if a region were to have these features, would a region want a model that spends billions of dollars on
transit, yet fails to noticeably increase transit ridership? Would a region want a model that makes its affordability worse
than San Francisco or New York City?"
* "Portland’s urban growth boundary has not led to increased transit usage. Driving, either alone or as part of a carpool, is by
far the dominant mode. Despite the urban growth boundaries and all the money poured into construction of light-rail and
streetcars, public transport still accounts for less than 7.0% of all travel in the urbanized area."
* "Despite the hype, Portland’s share of bicycling and walking are not that impressive. Even with all the bike paths and the
extra wide roads in the region, biking only accounts for 2.5% of all travel in the urbanized area."
* "growth boundaries have major negatives. They may protect land but they also increase housing prices for the poorest
residents.In fact, considering all factors such as income, college education, demand, etc. Portland was 37th of 37, or worst in
housing affordability in the country. Growth boundaries have increased gentrification in some areas of downtown Portland, where
wealthy individuals are displacing poor families."
Have the planners learned from the failures and adjust their plans? Mr. John Charles Jr. states
"Perhaps the most disappointing fact about regional planning in Portland is that very little effort is being made to learn from
the experience. Since 2008, at least four audit reports by the Metro Auditor have criticized agency planners for this failure."
Has the planners in Santa Clara County learned anything from the failure of Smart Growth in Portland? With very little investment
in transit infrastructure in Santa Clara County, could building high-density mixed-use "urban centers" in every scattered
commercial site ever bring us anywhere closer to the utopia of Smart Growth?
Here in San Jose, the ridership of VTA drops even more than Portland:
Despite a Santa Clara Valley population and jobs boom, ridership on buses and light-rail trains has dropped a staggering 23
percent since 2001, forcing the Valley Transportation Authority to consider its biggest shake-up ever in transit service. (
http://www.mercurynews.com/2016/04/17/staggering-drop-in-vta-bus-ridership-may-signal-dramatic-changes/
[http://www.mercurynews.com/2016/04/17/staggering-drop-in-vta-bus-ridership-may-signal-dramatic-changes/])
<><><<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Portlands' Regional Transit Strategy is Not Working, December 6, 2016, By John A. Charles, Jr.
http://cascadepolicy.org/blog/2016/12/06/portlands-regional-transit-strategy-is-not-working/
[http://cascadepolicy.org/blog/2016/12/06/portlands-regional-transit-strategy-is-not-working/]
The Portland Auditor released the 2016 Annual Community Survey on November 30. The responses show that the share of all commute
trips taken by public transit fell 17% during the past year.
This was part of a longer-term decline in transit use. The transit share of all Portland commute trips peaked in 2008 at 15%.
Since then it has hovered near 12%, and now rests at 10%.
Taxpayers should be especially concerned about the negative correlation between passenger rail construction and market share. In
1997, when the region had only one light rail line—the Blue line to Gresham—transit market share was 12%.
After extending the Blue line to Hillsboro and adding four new lines plus the WES commuter rail and the Portland Streetcar,
transit market share is only 10%.
Travel Mode Share for Weekday Commuting
Portland citywide, 1997-2016
Mode
1997
2000
2004
2008
2010
2012
2014
2015
2016
SOV
71%
69%
72%
65%
62%
61%
63%
60%
61%
Carpool
9%
9%
8%
8%
7%
6%
6%
5%
6%
Transit
12%
14%
13%
15%
12%
12%
11%
12%
10%
Bike
3%
3%
4%
8%
7%
7%
8%
7%
8%
Walk
5%
5%
3%
4%
6%
7%
8%
9%
9%
Other
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
7%
6%
6%
7%
7%
Source: Portland Auditor, Annual Community Survey
The numbers cited above are for citywide travel patterns. When broken out by sector, the Auditor found that just 5% of all
commuters in Southwest Portland took transit to work in 2016. Despite this lack of interest by commuters, TriMet and Metro are
working to gain approval for another light rail line extension from Portland State University through SW Portland to Bridgeport
Village. The likely construction cost will be around $2.4 billion.
Unfortunately, there is no empirical basis for thinking that cannibalizing current bus service with costly new trains would have
any measurable effect on transit use.
Transit advocates like to claim that we simply need to spend more money to boost ridership, but we’ve already tried that. TriMet’s
annual operating budget went up from $212.2 million in 1998 to $542.2 million in 2016. After adjusting for inflation, that’s an
increase of 72%. Those increases were on top of construction costs for rail, which cumulatively exceeded $3.6 billion during that
era.
It’s time to stop the myth-making and start holding public officials accountable for a plan that isn’t working.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John A. Charles, Jr. is President and CEO of Cascade Policy Institute, Oregon’s free market public policy research organization.
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
What Can Be Learned from Portland Smart Growth Experience?, February 10, 2016, By John A. Charles, Jr.
http://cascadepolicy.org/blog/2016/02/10/what-can-be-learned-from-portlands-smart-growth-experience/
[http://cascadepolicy.org/blog/2016/02/10/what-can-be-learned-from-portlands-smart-growth-experience/]
The annual “New Partners for Smart Growth” conference opens in Portland on Thursday, February 11. “Smart Growth” refers to an
amorphous planning theory favoring (or requiring) high urban densities, mixed-use development, and non-auto travel.
Given Portland’s status as the Mecca for this philosophy, it’s likely that the conference will be a love fest of planners,
activists, and consultants celebrating the “Portland story.” Unfortunately, the reality of Smart Growth is a lot less glamorous
than the PowerPoint slides.
For example, Portland has been a leader in light rail construction for over 30 years, but it hasn’t changed how people travel.
According to the Portland City Auditor, in 1997 – when Portland had only one light rail line terminating in Gresham – 12% of
Portland commuters took transit.
In 2015, transit use was still only 12% of commuter travel, despite (or because of) a multi-billion rail construction campaign
that added a streetcar loop, a new commuter rail line, and five new light rail lines. During that era bus service was reduced by
14%, and buses still account for two-thirds of daily riders.
On the land-use front, planners have succeeded in their goal of densifying the region; but there was collateral damage. Due to
density regulations, buildable land is now scarce, driving up the cost of housing. This is incentivizing many property owners to
tear down nice homes and replace them with out-of-scale apartment buildings – many with no off-street parking. Some Portland
Progressives who supported this planning agenda now wonder why their formerly pleasant neighborhoods are flooded with automobiles.
In the suburbs, most new projects simply have no backyards. It’s hard to remember now, but in 1995, the average lot size for a new
home in Washington County was 15,000 square feet. This provided plenty of room for kids.
Those days are over. In the new “South Hillsboro” development, which will be built out over the next decade, most dwellings will
be attached units on tiny lots. The larger parcels – averaging only 7,000 square feet – are being marketed as lots for “executive
housing.”
Nice backyards that were once common are now only available to the rich, due to the artificial scarcity of land that Smart Growth
calls for.
The Portland conference will feature trips to “transit-oriented developments” (TODs) like Orenco Station in Hillsboro. Orenco
features a housing project with passive solar design along with urban-scale density near light rail, but both elements required
large public subsidies. It would be difficult to replicate those projects elsewhere.
Perhaps the most disappointing fact about regional planning in Portland is that very little effort is being made to learn from the
experience. Since 2008, at least four audit reports by the Metro Auditor have criticized agency planners for this failure.
In the 2010 report, the Auditor found that “Metro’s processes to plan transportation projects in the region were linear when they
should have been circular. After a plan was adopted, the update process began anew with little or no reflection about the
effectiveness of the previous plan or the results of the performance measures they contained.”
It’s clear that this was not an accident; it was by design. As the Auditor noted, “systems to collect data and measure progress
towards these outcomes were not in place.”
No measurement means no accountability. That’s not a smart way to plan a region.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John A. Charles, Jr. is President and CEO of Cascade Policy Institute, Oregon’s free market public policy research organization.
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-QaR5E0F9x8c/WXrvJK3MuZI/AAAAAAAAB9M/0Ojd0AuvcMclwO-7Nf-SccJMS5oe1eaSACLcBGAs/s200/Cascade%2BPolicy%2BInstitute%2B-%2BHome.png
