Every 10 years the Transportation Research Board takes a look at the census data and produces a report on the state of commuting in this country. The current report, Commuting in America III (you can buy the report or download the executive summary) was published yesterday.
NPR had a piece on Morning Edition, which focused on one aspect of the report, exteme commuting. Exteme commuters are those who commute more than 60 minutes in each direction, a category that is growing.
Some facts that didn’t get any play in the NPR piece:
- EVERY state had increases in commute time, including Kansas, which is experiencing a population decline. Oregon is in the middle of the pack on the scale.
- Portland is one of the very few cities in which SOV (single-occupancy-vehicle) commuting decreased (even though only by a little less than 1%)
Meanwhile, over at The Daily Score, they’re pointing to a study that suggests that when you combine housing and transportation costs, your overall cost of living may be higher when you sign up for one of these long commutes to get a cheaper house.
One category of commuting that showed big growth: working at home. I’m enjoying that 20-step commute to my home office…
15 responses to “Commuting in America”
The Oregonian also did a piece on the “extreme commuter” but the telling fact that commuters traveling more than an hour each way make up less than 2% of commuters was buried in the article. We always like to read and hear about freaks (the bearded lady, the calf with two heads) but we don’t make public policy around aberrations (well, we shouldn’t but that doesn’t prevent Congress from reducing capital gains taxes in the guise of saving family businesses when again, less than 2% of family farms and businesses were affected by existing tax law.)
It is a free country. If someone wants to live in Hood River and drive to Portland every day to work, that’s their choice. But we shouldn’t talk about widening I-84 in the Gorge to make their lives easier. Likewise with those that move to northern Clark County and work in the Portland area. I assume they knew that they would have an onerous commute and still preferred to live there. Their choice shouldn’t affect the public investment decisions.
Land policies in Oregon, primarily in the Metro Region have resulted in more people (35% to 40%)commuting to work with distances of 10 to 25 miles each way.
These Metro land policies have caused the price that a family has pay for housing just to live 25% to 50% higher.
These Metro land policies have caused our transportation system to be over-run by these extended commutes.
These Metro land policies have created additional and un-needed harm to our environment by additional vehicle emmissions that are harming and in some cases killing the people.
The Metro controlled Transportation Planning Process has prioritized transportation investments to where congested roads and highways that are vital to sustaining our regions life are not have not been give equal investment priority.
Again, look at 2000 census data…most people who work in Washington county live there, same goes for other employment areas. The only exception is the cross Columbia commute where Oregon jobs are close but on the wrong side of the river for many Clark county residents. People aren’t dumb.
Anyway, Metro’s land use and transportation policies have been a great success…didn’t I read that average commute distances are down to seven from 10 miles? Investment in the core areas and older neighborhoods of Portland are at a boom level that has never been seen before, is making a lot of residents rich and making everyone else nervous. Who is in favor of declining property values? Please stand up.
Yes, housing prices are up, but Portland remains the cheapest city on the westcoast…housing prices are up in Denver, Phoenix as well with sprawl to the horizon.
Talent drives our economy more and more each day, not moving goods…unless your vision for Portland is some vast warehouse of Chinese imports. But that will never happen…the big container ships are going elsewhere.
There is a huge volume of untapped, low cost capacity in the back seat of every commuter driving alone to work.
Paul Edgar, point to a US city doing better? Its not perfect, but we’re at least providing options. It seems to be working. I’d rather try an option with potential for success rather then continue to copy a proven failed model of continuing highway development and sprawl.
A picture can be worth a thousand words or more. The picture on the front page of today’s Oregonian that shows an almost empty HOV and Toll lanes in Denver while the regular freeway is congested says it all. The associated article is about spending limits in Colorado and how highway construction has not kept up with demand, but the picture demonstrates how money in the transportation budget was wasted on restricted highway lanes instead increasing the capacity on the freeway for all users. If the barriers were removed so the vehicles in the congested lanes could use the restricted, the entire free way would flow better.
There is a correlation between this article and highway construction in the Portland metro area. PDOT, ODOT and Metro all have a self imposed budget on highway construction that is not meeting demand, plus wanting to control the way people move about. The Oregonian article points out how Colorado has fallen behind in keeping up the need for more motor vehicle capacity and how it has damaged the economy there. Portland too is falling behind in keeping up with the need for more motor vehicle capacity. However, part of the difference in Portland is that money is siphoned off from street, road and highway funds to subsidize untaxed alternative modes of transport that do pay their own way. A shell game ins in motion that attempts to hide the amount of dollars spent these alternative modes. Part of what is the same in Portland is wasting transportation dollars on restricted lanes, plus other measures that reduce road capacity, often called traffic calming devices. This of course includes curb extensions.
There a transportation funding crisis in Oregon, but NOT because of motorists pay too little in taxes. There is an excessive reliance on the use of motorist paid tax dollars to support and subsidize other modes of transport, modes that come no where near to paying their own way.
The fix is two-fold and requires a mindset change from transportation officials. . First, establish transit fares that better reflect the cost of providing service and initiate a direct tax on the bicycle mode of transport to pay for specialized bicycle infrastructure. Then redirect all motorist paid taxes back to road construction and maintenance, and stop wasting the funds restricted use right-of-ways and anything that will narrow roads and/or reduce motor vehicle capacity. Common buzz phrases like “slowing traffic down’’ need to be changed to ”keeping up with the flow” and “designing free flowing functional streets”. From a transportation standpoint, with or without a taxpayer imposed spending limit in Oregon, unless there is a mind set change and a top priority given to providing more motor vehicle capacity to the stakeholder motorists of transportation infrastructure; instead of singing “California here we come”, Oregonians can start singing “Colorado here we come’ in terms of falling behind the rest of the country for providing an vibrant economy and family wage jobs.
Correction
However, part of the difference in Portland is that money is siphoned off from street, road and highway funds to subsidize untaxed alternative modes of transport that do NOT pay their own way.
Comment: “It is a free country. If someone wants to live in Hood River and drive to Portland every day to work, that’s their choice. But we shouldn’t talk about widening I-84 in the Gorge to make their lives easier. Likewise with those that move to northern Clark County and work in the Portland area. I assume they knew that they would have an onerous commute and still preferred to live there. Their choice shouldn’t affect the public investment decisions.”
I must assume that this philiosophy will be applied consistently.
Therefore I conclude Mr. Burkholder will oppose:
1. Traffic calming, when residents already knew they had moved onto a busy through street.
2. Overly expensive rail transit to sparsely populated areas. They knew they would be far away from downtown–why send a $500 million train to pick ’em up? Or a $2 billion train to No. Clark County?
3. Bulbous, “curb extensions” that become traffic hazards. Why–didn’t you see that’s just a normal sidewalk?
No, I agree that widening I-84 is unreasonable. But, I didn’t know anyone was talking about that.And I don’t know how Oregon voters could affect highway decisions in North Clark County–does anyone?
But I guess in Rex’s world that regardless of why someone changes their job, they will simply move their home too. Aren’t those folks called “gypsies?” As much as I hope mass transit succeeds (and I wouldn’t be devoting time to it,if not) I think we also need to be realistic and offer some balanced alternatives.
So, the masses are coming. Agreed.In some major highway bottle necks even a ten percent increase would cause a crisis. Given a rapid population increase you can’t expect a virtual sum total to just fall in with the mass transit system. So I think in METRO transit planning we should also be discussing local choke points and poor bus service–not just the high-falutin’ projects that are contributing to our “reputation.”
A picture of Portland’s single HOV lane on I-5 north in the PM peak would be very different…it is full of carpools, vanpools and buses carrying 40-60 riders each. The HOV lane actually carries 150% of that carried in each GP lane.
Back to Rex’s point…it is that policy should be based on what most people need, not the 2% outlayers. Among other things, most people want to safely cross busy streets in their communities…hence they favor slower speeds, more crosswalks with curb extensions, etc. By making more communities as safe and accessible as inner Portland neighborhoods, we make a big dent in transportation demand. Witness young Freightliner engineers who move to Piedmont and Overlook in N. Portland…they are no longer impacting the regional transportation system at all no matter how they get down to Swan Island.
A “A picture of Portland’s single HOV lane on I-5 north in the PM peak would be very different…”
B It is only half full of vehicles, and many of those vehicles negatively impact and slow down the other lanes of traffic by weaving across them to use an exit at the last minute, thereby creating a safety hazard. Any accident or crash rate that is recorded higher than average on this stretch of I-5 can be attributed to the HOV lanes. Safety concerns alone should dictate that the entire freeway would operate better if multi-occupant vehicles were mixed in with the rest of the taxpaying traffic. The diamond (HOV) lane designation needs to be removed for the good of all users.
rex Burkholder & Lenny…
If that policy where followed everywhere, why in the world would anyone waste the effort and money on light rail or the streetcar? Don’t support the 2%… why support the 8% when you could the vast majority with roadway expansion?
…just playing the devil’s advocate, but seriously, that’s a bad attitude to have if you’re “pro” alternative “public mass transit” (notice I DID NOT write just “mass transit”).
Please remember that even if each vehicle is carrying only one extra passenger (the most conservitive assumption), an HOV lane needs to carry only half as many vehicles to move the same amount of people. As for the weaving issue, I think there is some agreement that a seperate roadway is best, but it requires more room for shoulders.
As for commuting, the fact is that with two-income households, desirable neighborhoods and job switching it is not possible to have everyone live next to where they work. Transit just helps people deal with that reality in an efficient manner.
Getting as many people using all alternate modes of transportation to commute to work is good, but is still NO subsitute for having adequate capacity with our road and highway system.
When government uses social engineering methods to try to force citizens to comply to their vision of how we should live and where we should live, I think they have gone to far.
When Metro fails to address highway capacity needs like in he I-5 corridor that are local, regional and international and create some of the worse air quality in the nation, yes they should be held responsible.
In my back yard in Clackamas County Metro push out the UGB which has resulted hugh housing growth with NO local job base adequate for the new number of homes and people. This has resulted in these families commuting to work all over the region and taxing our road and highway system and that was not smart.
Getting as many people using all alternate modes of transportation to commute to work is good, but is still NO subsitute for having adequate capacity with our road and highway system.
Isn’t the issue really defining “adequate”? There are almost no trips that aren’t served by motor vehicles. Currently any road that approaches full capacity is at LOS F. Traffic engineers define “adequate” as some level of excess capacity.
When government uses social engineering
I am really tired of this argument. It used to be that streets were shared by people and all variety of vehicles. It was “social engineering” that decided to separate them. Its “social engineering” that says we will accept 50,000 deaths every year so that motor vehicles can travel at unsafe speeds.
force citizens to comply to their vision
No one is being forced to own or use an automobile.
When Metro fails to address highway capacity needs
What is adequate and reasonable when it comes to road and highway capacity?
The FED’s would like any road that they invest into to meet a benchmark of LOS “C” in 20+ out years after the completion of their funding efforts.
I think that the bar the FED’s are asking us to attain is reasonable. The FED’s are also telling us that federal interstate highways should not exceed 2-hours of LOS “F” in present tence circumstances and I think that is reasonable too.
So want is our report card on the I-5 corridor, LOS “F” for 7-hours per day right now, though most of Portland.
In the recent article in the Oregonian they stated that in 2030 time frame we will experience 14-hours per day of LOS “F” conditions in the I-5 corridor with NO solutions built out to solve the problems by 2030.
People and politicians can not stick their heads in the sand and suggest that Light Rail, Bike’s and PED commuters will relieve and therby solve this problem.
I would sure like more people to use every alternative to using a private SOV to commute to work, shopping leisure activities but lets get reasonable with our expectations.
One of the most cost effective transportation solutions is in investing into regional economic development opportunities where real job creation is targeted at creating job base away from core Portland and the I-5 corridor as an example.
Another thing that struck me from the photo of the Denver freeway was that it was 10 plus lanes wide and still didn’t seem to be able to do the job. So what if we widen every freeway in Portland from 6 to 10 lanes…by the time we are done, they will be full, air quality will go down the tubes, close in neighborhoods will be hammered. Why would you want to do this?
Note that whatever is built across the Columbia will be full the day it opens, and we will have to provide and promote transportation options to drive alone trips. Why not start this now and save a ton of money?