Update: 11/2/06
Council held the public hearing yesterday and passed the TOD abatement program update to second reading next week. Commissioner Saltzman actually moved my suggestion for unbundled parking (adding it to the public benefit list) as an amendment, and it will be part of the package voted on next week.
Here are the other highlights of the update:
- Beyond meeting the affordability requirements, developers will need to provide three of the public benefits listed, not just one.
- There is an annual limit of $20M on the amount of property that can have this abatement (to limit the hit on the general fund).
- Council expanded the areas eligible for the program, adding areas in Hillsdale and a site between South Waterfront and RiverPlace (beyond the new areas included in the recommendation from Planning Commission).
The last two points would seem to be in conflict. There will be a lot of folks working to get their projects included in that $20M in value. Commissioner Sten remarked that there are individual projects that could consume the whole thing.
Update: 10/29/06
The credit is on the council agenda for Wednesday at 10:30am. The comments on this post wandered all over the place, so I won’t submit them, but I do hope to be there to testify.
Original Post: 10/5/06
I’m late to the game.
On October 18th (tentatively 9:30am) City Council will be considering changes to the Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Tax Credit. The Planning Commission has recommended a set of changes (PDF, 78K) as part of their review of the credit program.
I missed this as it went through Planning Commission. But I have an idea I’d still like to put into the mix.
The TOD credit program includes a menu of “public benefits”. A developer has to provide sufficient benefits to justify the tax credit. I’d like to add a public benefit to the list: Unbundling Parking.
This is an idea that was first brought to my attention by a fellow neighborhood activist, and which is now being tried in Vancouver, B.C.
Here’s the logic: you’re buying a condo, moving into a dense urban environment. You may or may not need a car. But the lenders for the developer have pretty much decreed that every unit has to having a parking space, or they might not sell (the last outcome the lender wants). So you plunk down $300K for your condo, AND your parking space.
Now imagine if instead, your condo was $270K, and you had the option of buying that parking space for another $30K. Wouldn’t you think twice about whether you wanted to buy a car (if you didn’t have one)? Even if you had a car, wouldn’t $30K make you wonder whether you wanted to keep it?
But today, you don’t think about it. You don’t have a choice to make, you get the parking space whether you want it or not! It’s just one more way that the actual cost of owning a car is hidden.
So in the name of choice, and more affordable housing, let’s unbundle the purchase of parking spaces from condos.
What’s the downside? Developers could get left with unsold parking spaces. The market should adjust over time, but until that time, developers could be allowed to rent out unsold spaces for ‘shared parking’ uses, e.g., monthly rental to nearby employees or valet parking.
Indeed, there’s evidence the market is already figuring this out. A number of units at the new Civic condos on Burnside were built and sold without parking spaces. And Gerding/Edlen has indicated that their new condo development near PSU will have unbundled parking.
So adding a little incentive via the TOD tax credit should just accelerate a good thing for developers who haven’t seen the light yet.
Tell me what you think about this, and I’ll bundle up this post and the comments and send them off to Council before the 18th.
95 responses to “An Open Letter to City Council”
And maybe too the City should also be charging Flexcar 30K for every parking space they have been given special rights to and occupy on public property!
YOU’RE late to the game, Chris? I’M late to the game. I don’t understand why we NEED Transit-Oriented-Development subsidies in the first place.
Isn’t being near transit an amenity that adds to the value of the property already? Isn’t it a natural market development that transit infrastructure –already subsidized– brings with it higher density?
I understand making zoning changes to facilitate development; I see nothing wrong with subsidizing transit per se as it has a public benefit. But what’s the logic behind subsidizing transit…and then also subsiding development that takes advantage of that available transit?
On your unbundling point: years back when I was living at Riverplace when it first opened, and we were told we would no longer be able to rent our “affordable housing” units and had to buy or move…parking spaces were unbundled from unit sales. Nearly all condo parking spaces are separate tax lots, with their own valuations (and property taxes)…so unbundling should be a no-brainer, and is an excellent idea. But the benefits of TOD…not to belabor the point here, but are there studies that show this is truly helpful and not just a giveaway?
And maybe too the City should also be charging Flexcar 30K for every parking space they have been given special rights to and occupy on public property!
Well let’s see… First, the cost of an on-street parking space is vastly less than the cost of structured parking in a condo building.
And the City is already charging Flexcar for the meter revenue they displace. I guess we could raise meter rates to the point where they amortized $30K over some reasonable period, but I suspect that would be politically unpopular :-)
Terry, please explain how you come up with a value of 30K for a parking space…
A fully-utilized (never empty) metered space, metered at 15 hours a day, 6 days a week, at the current rate of $1.25/hour would generate at most $5850 per year in revenue.
– Bob R.
“Terry, please explain how you come up with a value of 30K for a parking space…”
I was just using Chris’ numbers; the difference between the condo bundled with a parking place at 300k and without at 270k. If a parking space off the public right-of-way is worth 30K, a parking place on the street for a condo owner who does not elect to purchase one within the condo complex is priceless.
“I don’t understand why we NEED Transit-Oriented-Development subsidies in the first place.”
I totally agree! When the majority of capital costs and 80% of the operational costs of transit are already taxpayer subsidized, it does not make sense to additionally subsidize TODS. This is particularly true when the Mayor and others are out stumping to increase property taxes on most properties with levies for schools, libraries, green spaces, etc. With tax abatement policies such as they are, the owners of TOD properties rarely contribute a dime to any of these government services. They should be required to pay taxes like the majority of other home and property owners. The entire concept of having the government subsidize TODS is nothing more than a scam brought on by the socialist thinking political forces that want to control how and where people both live and move about, and do it through the use of taxpayer dollars.
As a senior on Social Security I get the right to tell everyone that one subsidy that does not help seniors is Light Rail.
Yes a few like it and use it but the vast majority of seniors want to drive as long as we can and enjoy as much freedom as we can and Light Rail is very restrictive and very hard for most seniors to use and that is backed up with real research not just me.
Buses are much better for seniors but far behind having a car or a friend with a car.
Light Rail is mostly for the young or the young at heart and people who are not afraid for their own personal safety.
So remember that the AARP set carries a lot of clout at the voting box and we are less concerned with someone trying to social engineer us into thinking that you are doing us a favor letting us sit in congestion telling us that we could have been riding the Light Rail and we will like it.
This also does not mean that I do not support Light Rail because I do and I know that it gets of people off the road so I have more freedom to use it. Just don’t get greedy, maintain balance in the priorities and investments.
The AARP set will turn on social engineering transportation planners at the drop of a hat and take everyone out.
So remember reason and balance and that we drive cars.
Right on Chris! I’ve never understood why people are forced to pay extra for an amenity they may or may not want. It should be up to the people whether they want parking.
And I agree with the others that TODs shouldn’t be subsidized.
So remember reason and balance and that we drive cars.
I believe it was the “AARP set” that voted down the gas tax increase to pay for new roads. If you have some research that shows seniors are less likely to use light rail than a fixed line bus route, given the choice, I would love to see it. I don’t think its true. There are a lot of seniors that use light rail on a regular basis just to get around downtown. I don’t see that many climbing onto buses to go up and down the transit mall.
The reality is that the transportation system is out of balance. There are large numbers of trips for which an automobile is the only option. There are many that are not served by transit at all. That includes a large number of jobs which are simply not available to anyone who does not use an auto to get to work unless they are prepared to walk or bike a very long distance under very unsafe and/or unpleasant conditions.
I suspect that people over 50 (the AARP set) are less likely to use a bike than those under 50. But that just means we have greater need for making sure transit serves every trip.
I am happy to say that, while I do rent and not own, I do not pay for an unneeded parking space. Also, it should be noted that people whose housing comes with a parking space are probably unable to sublet the space to someone else.
“I believe it was the “AARP set” that voted down the gas tax increase to pay for new roads.”
The problem with the gas tax is that it is being siphoned off for transit, bicycle infrastructure, nature trails, etc. Seniors and soon to become seniors should not be subsidizing the younger generation that that tend to use these alternatives. This is another good reason to support a bicycle tax and make non-honored transit fares better reflect the true costs of providing the service.
Furthermore, seniors should not be subsidizing TOD development by paying higher property tax rates on their homes to cover city services because TODS receive tax breaks. Take for example the Albina property. Due to neighborhood concerns related to traffic at NE 33rd and Broadway, an intersection that currently operates at level F during some periods, and the impact too high a density would have on the surrounding neighborhoods, the City is requiring exactly 319 housing units, no more no less, be constructed on this property along with any commercial development. As currently planned, the majority of these units are studios and one bedroom units, with a few two bedroom units thrown in. None of the currently planned units are of the three bedroom variety to accommodate families. Yet Fernwood School is a mere two blocks away and Grant High School is within a short walking distance. It is also my understanding a request has been made to receive TOD development tax breaks because of the bus service on Broadway. When the developers were specifically asked why there are no three bedroom units for families, the answer was demographics. In all likelihood, these units will be mostly occupied by a younger generation of renters and first time buyers for the condos. The higher costs of living compared to the suburbs, the political manipulation of the tax codes in Portland, the anti-automobile sentiment of transportation officials and the methodology to go high density all play a role in driving families out of the city thereby leaving the seniors who own homes in Portland to subsidize city services for the new crowd of young yuppies. This seems a little backwards to me.
The problem with the gas tax is that it is being siphoned off for transit
While Federal gas taxes can and do go to transit, the Oregon gas tax (the one we get to vote on) is constitutionally limited to use on roads.
I believe one percent of the Oregon transportation budget is set aside for bicycle infrastructure and that includes dollars from the gas tax. However when hidden in a road or bridge project, bicycle infrastructure costs can far exceed the one percent mandate and not easily be separated out.
One other quick note, if a slab of concrete to park a car on is worth 30k, then a storage closet must be worth at least 20k and a bicycle locker no less than 10k. If parking spaces are not bundled, neither should other transport storage accomodations.
Terry, bicycles are not transit. Yes, you can use gas tax dollars for bicycle facilities on a road. You can also use them to build sidewalks on a road.
But you cannot use them for transit as you suggested.
If you every personally purchase a road, I will support your right not to have to buy the bike lane next to it. But as long as they are community assets, they should serve many types of users.
Development subsidies of whatever kind get us, the public, two things…more affordability for both retail and housing and better design. Portland needs both, and badly.
Of course parking spaces should be sold separately, especially in projects on lightrail lines, which is the primary focus of TOD.
Seniors don’t ride MAX? Give me a break; they come from out of town just to ride it for fun.
TriMet may have some survey data on riders, but most MAX riders are choice riders who own autos and choose to leave them at home.
For Ross Williams and other:
There is an article found in the 10/03/06 Star Bulletin that is part of ongoing studies of the attitudes and needs of seniors. Included in this article is the headline “Rail does not address the needs of seniors”, by Dale Evans.
http://starbulletin.com/2006/10/05/editorial/commentary.html
This transportation issue is a very complex for seniors.
Ross, when most people talk about seniors they are thinking about people over 65-years of age not 50. They are for the most part retired and on fixed income and I assure you that there are always exceptions to this rule.
For me, I am 66-years young and still challenging the process, “Knowing that we can do better”.
Seniors are not monolith and the use most of all transortation modes including Light Rail. But life style changes what is important to seniors and Light Rail and bus use falls off as we age and van use goes up. Independence is paramount as we age and our need and use of rubber tire vehicles completely over shadows all rail modes.
The single most operationally expensive kind of transit service in our area is the LIFT service (I believe averaging out at $28 per ride), well utilized by seniors and the disabled.
– Bob R.
Development subsidies of whatever kind get us, the public, two things…more affordability for both retail and housing and better design. Portland needs both, and badly.
Well, then following that logic…why charge anything at all? Let’s drop all SDC charges! Stop collecting business license taxes! Hell…let’s drop property taxes altogether. Who needs to fund government?
Or is the proposal to subsidize SOME folks…while others pick up the tab? NEW development gets subsidies, while the rest of us already in the system pay. This is the logic that leaves existing transit users, in existing neighborhoods…well, we in SE continue to get our overcrowded #14 buses, while we build a streetcar for SoWa, and, the next SoWa –the Central Eastside Used-to-be-industrial District– gets the NEXT streetcar…to serve residents who, like in SoWa, don’t exist yet.
And what drives this? TOD subsidies…that RAISE the cost of housing and retail and government for the rest of us? Don’t they? This IS a zero-sum game, isn’t it? Tri-Met can only provide so much service. The City can only pave so many streets.
In the meantime, while we clamor for “affordable housing” we’re kicking the elderly and working class out of the Rosefriend, out of Portland Center…for new condos.
Why shouldn’t –why can’t– new development pay its own way?
Frank –
I’m not a great fan of subsidizing development. But I think the argument for TOD subsidies is that it isn’t a zero sum game. If you do a mixed-use development next to a major transit center it is cheaper to provide public services to that development than a similar development somewhere else. The people who live there will make more use of the existing transit service and the commercial development will attract customers and employees who make use transit. So TOD places less of a burden on the community to provide road and parking capacity.
So TOD places less of a burden on the community to provide road and parking capacity.
Thanks for the thoughtful response, Ross, But, on a small scale, in my neighborhood, the exact opposite seems to be the case. A 3-story, 29 unit condo building (with first floor retail and presumptively a restaurant) is replacing a single family home. Despite the additional traffic this development generates, it receives a TOD subsidy because it is next to Division Street.
The existing neighborhood, already short of parking, now has to absorb all the visitor parking for the retail stores and for the 29 tenants (who have their own private gated parking, unlike the many renters in the neighborhood who park on the street).
The existing retail stores, already short of street delivery zones, now have to share what little they have. (No loading dock was required by PDOT.) This building gets a TOD, and doesn’t even have to provide bicycle parking…they buy their way out of that obligation.
The existing infrastructure –and neighborhood– becomes over-taxed with this development, and the developer gets a discount on their System Development Charge. Then we hear how we need parking meters because there is insufficient street parking capacity in our retail corridors, including Division!
We just seem to be working at cross purposes; just as we subsidize “affordable housing” in one place, only to facilitate it being torn down in another.
“But you cannot use them (gas tax dollars) for transit as you suggested.”
I somewhat disagree here. When changes are made to road infrastructure like on Sandy Boulevard, and curb extensions like the ones at 42nd Avenue eastbound and at 50th Avenue westbound are constructed, the primary purpose being for a bus shelter and as loading platforms for transit, the projects are claimed to be road improvements and some gas tax money is involved. Furthermore, when special lanes on city streets are exclusively reserved for busses, SE Madison for example, again I believe some gas tax money is involved.
“But as long as they (roads) are community assets, they should serve many types of users.”
And as community roads they should also share direct financial support from those many types of users. That includes a tan on the bicycle mode of transport to pay for the bicycle portion of the street infrastructure.
typo correction:
And as community roads they should also share direct financial support from those many types of users. That includes a tax on the bicycle mode of transport to pay for the bicycle portion of the street infrastructure.
That includes a tax on the bicycle mode of transport to pay for the bicycle portion of the street infrastructure.
There is no net cost to providing bicycle infrastructure – it saves more in additional public investment than it costs.
The whole point of higher densities is to avoid paving the Tualatin Valley, etc.
Portland looked to put its increased share of residents on transit streets, rather than throughout its neighborhoods. Better a project at Division and 26th next to a 4 stop than in the middle of West Clinton. Right?
And since no one can afford single family homes anywhere this side of 39th, if not 52nd, the only way to bring down the cost of ownership is condominiums…26 where there was once one house.
Impacts, sure, but weighed against the options, TOD development solves a lot more problems than it causes.
Another reason for subsidies…banks are still looking for suburban style buildings surrounded by parking; eastside Portland got enough of them in the 70’s to last several life times.
Portland looked to put its increased share of residents on transit streets, rather than throughout its neighborhoods. Better a project at Division and 26th next to a 4 stop than in the middle of West Clinton. Right?
Just to be clear, the single family homeowners who live next to and behind this project, consider their block –dominated by single-family residences– to be a “neighborhood.”
And since no one can afford single family homes anywhere this side of 39th, if not 52nd…
That would be a surprise to most of my neighbors, and the homeowners of southeast Portland who somehow, despite all the rhetoric, can “afford single family homes,” The Clinton, the condo behemoth going in, promises the most expensive condos ever built on the east side.
I don’t want to take the space –and time– to debate this, but we’ve got to get beyond the rhetoric and good intentions and understand what we’re doing to our neighorhoods, some good, some bad, but let’s base it on reality. We’re building a gated community in an existing neighborhood, unaffordable to the locals who we’re asking to suck it in and deal with it in the name of…progess? Affordability? Neighborhood livability? Let’s decide on the spin, but at least give folks credit for questioning why we ALSO have to pay for THEIR infrastructure.
The existing neighborhood, already short of parking, now has to absorb all the visitor parking for the retail stores and for the 29 tenants (who have their own private gated parking, unlike the many renters in the neighborhood who park on the street).
The existing retail stores, already short of street delivery zones, now have to share what little they have. (No loading dock was required by PDOT.) This building gets a TOD, and doesn’t even have to provide bicycle parking…they buy their way out of that obligation.
The existing infrastructure –and neighborhood– becomes over-taxed with this development, and the developer gets a discount on their System Development Charge. Then we hear how we need parking meters because there is insufficient street parking capacity in our retail corridors, including Division!
Frank, it’s not that different here in NW. We added the Quimby townhouses and now the Vaux with no new visitor parking.
But in general I’m too worried. More density should bring better services, which in turn means more needs can be satisfied with walking and biking trips, etc. If the virtuous cycle continues, we get less auto ownership, and all the infrastructure works better.
Of course, the devil is in the details (like the loading dock), and we have not demonstrated a fantastic ability to get the details right.
But the alternative is sprawling at the edges of the region, and that’s not the answer I want. I’ll keep fighting for the details here in the center instead.
But in general I’m too worried…
Well…yeah! :-)
Typos aside, I’m not arguing against density and I hope it all works out…but we’ve got to be critical thinks too. It’s a good fight, the one againt sprawl…
Frank
Just to be clear, the single family homeowners who live next to and behind this project, consider their block –dominated by single-family residences– to be a “neighborhood.”
Is a “neighborhood” a place where only single-family residences can be?
NW Portlanders would consider otherwise.
Classicism aside, even renters help make up a neighborhood, yet most often they are left out. Sometimes I wonder if there is much of a difference from the Greek system of democracy and modern america – that only wealthy, landowning white people count when it comes to politics.
Chris Smith But in general I’m too worried. More density should bring better services, which in turn means more needs can be satisfied with walking and biking trips, etc. If the virtuous cycle continues, we get less auto ownership, and all the infrastructure works better.
Of course, the devil is in the details (like the loading dock), and we have not demonstrated a fantastic ability to get the details right.
JK: Will we ever get it right? Does anyone know how to get it right? Do you know how much density must increase to reduce driving by what amount? Why would you want to walk to the local 7-11 instead of drive to the local Freddies where the prices are so much lower that we could probably pay for $20/gal gas? As an aside, high density cities tend to have longer commute times – why would we want to waste our only time?
Chris Smith But the alternative is sprawling at the edges of the region, and that’s not the answer I want. I’ll keep fighting for the details here in the center instead.
JK: How high a price are you willing to pay to avoid sprawl? If you rent, you are probably paying over $200/month to control sprawl. If you are buying a home today, perhaps ½ of the cost is regulations, mainly sprawl control.
Too bad about the low income people, but Portland appears to be glad to see them go so that people who pay higher taxes will replace them.
Thanks
JK
[personally directed comment removed]
Why would you want to walk to the local 7-11 instead of drive to the local Freddies where the prices are so much lower
Jim –
Maybe you missed this, but Chris lives in NW Portland. Is there even a 7-1l there? There is a Fred Meyer within walking distance. There is also a Fred Meyer on Hawthorne within walking distance of a large number of people in densely developed neighborhoods. There is another Fred Meyer, not that far away, on 28th and Broadway. Again within walking distance of densely developed neighborhoods. Same with the Fred Meyer on Interstate.
Its actually the suburbs where people are forced to always drive to a Fred Meyer, or to the 7-1l for that matter. A combination of sparser development and the use of highways to connect commercial centers means that companies have to build stores for much wider service areas in order to have enough customers.
Within 500 steps of my front door there are two independently-owned corner markets, plus the Food Front cooperative grocery store.
The Plaid Pantry (no 7-11) is about 3x further).
There are 3 full service grocery stores within a 15-minute walk.
I love density :-)
Is a “neighborhood” a place where only single-family residences can be?
Was anyone suggesting that? I certainly wasn’t. My point was that our “transit streets” are parts of neighborhoods, and where the Clinton is being plopped down is a neighborhood. With one of those tacky Weston apartment buildings across the street, as well as a Plaid Pantry.
My ‘Colonial Heights’ neighborhood in Hosford- Abernethy has single family homes, apartments, condos, duplexs, churches and a bakery. That kind of diversity is as asset, not just in terms of having nice places to walk and shop, but in the diversity of people we have here.
None of which argues for giving System Development Charge discounts to expensive condos that would be built anyway. Are we subsidizing density, or gentrification, in these cases?
Chris Smith: Within 500 steps of my front door there are two independently-owned corner markets, plus the Food Front cooperative grocery store.
JK: How do their prices compare with FM, Costco or Winco? I’ll guess that you are paying 10-30% more.
Chris Smith: I love density :-)
JK: I’ll also guess that you are paying at least $200/mo extra rent due to density/regulations. See “Planning penalty” at http://www.ti.org for how house prices in Portland are much higher than they should be because of planning.
You might also want to check out these:
The Impact of Zoning on Housing Affordability(362k) from Harvard Institute of Economic Research
http://www.portlanddocs.com/housing/HIER1948.pdf
Regulatory Barriers (53k) by the director of the Division of Affordable Housing Research & Technology at HUD. http://www.portlanddocs.com/housing/brightideasSpring2004regbarriers.pdf
The Impact of Building Restrictions on Housing Affordability (182k) Federal Reserve Bank of NY
http://www.portlanddocs.com/housing/0306glae.pdf
Thanks
JK
Frank Dufay: My point was that our “transit streets” are parts of neighborhoods, and where the Clinton is being plopped down is a neighborhood.
JK: Interestingly, Metro does not consider “transit streets” as part of neighborhoods. That was the gotcha in Burkholder’s density limit measure that was on ballot a few years ago. It limited Metro’s future density mandates for “inner” and “outer” neighborhoods, but not corridors etc (streets). Additionally the measure did not have a roll back provision, so current mandates are still being fulfilled with increased density and the measure expires in a few years.
Burkholder’s little trick is why we voted against further density increases in our neighborhoods an we are still getting more density. I considered the measure a complete sham.
Thanks
JK
How do their prices compare with FM, Costco or Winco? I’ll guess that you are paying 10-30% more.
The point is that I value the choice. Sure, the corner market charges a big premium for convenience, and I don’t buy the bulk of my groceries there. Food Front because of its co-op structure is actually a pretty good value for the quality of the food. And within walking distance I have the choice of Zupans (clearly a premium) or Fred Meyer (probably pretty similar prices in the city or suburb).
If I really wanted to do Costco, my weekly bike/bus work trip takes me past one, so I could stuff my paniers full if I wanted to. Otherwise, and hour-and-half shopping trip to Costco would cost me $13.50 for a Flexcar rental. I won’t shop at Wal-Mart because of their labor practices.
I’ll also guess that you are paying at least $200/mo extra rent due to density/regulations.
Well, I’m fortunate enough to own my own home (and favor government policy that promotes more home ownership). It’s doubled in value in the last 10 years, but I think that’s due to Federal monetary policy and the market valuing the choices and livability I have much more than any Metro or City of Portland regulation.
We do have a fair amount of rental stock in NW Portland, at varying price points (Jane Jacob’s maxim about the need for a mix of buildings of different ages and conditions). Are they more expensive than units of equivalent condition in the suburubs? Probably.
We have a lot of PSU students in the neighborhood. I’ll bet that they find being able to walk, bike or take transit to class worth at least $200/mo, particularly when you consider their costs to maintain a car and pay for parking if they drove in from the burbs.
Ironically, the biggest pressure on rental prices in NW comes from condo conversions, which is the free market trying to capture the value of the convenience and livability here in one of the densest neighborhoods in Oregon.
Further to the point about food costs, I also sometimes willingly pay a premium to get organic food, or to get locally produced food (indeed, we belong to a CSA on Sauvie Island).
The idea that the lowest price is always the best choice is deeply flawed.
Metro does not consider “transit streets” as part of neighborhoods.
Jim, I’ve never seen that written down anywhere. Can you back that up? Or is it just rhetoric?
Our neighborhood went through a pretty intense “Division Vision” process that included a lot of upzoning along this transit corridor. The “streetscaping” intended to complement this, however, has failed to make METRO’s first cut list for MTIP (I think that’s right, whatever the heck it stands for) funds. I’m feeling a little bamboozled.
If we upzone, increase densities, but fail to provide the infrastructure needed to accomodate that growth…then where are we going with this stuff? Isn’t there –or shouldn’t there be– a fundamental principle of concurrency? You don’t add a new toilet to your house, do you, without also putting in the plumbing? You just can’t say we’ll get to that later.
The “streetscaping” intended to complement this, however, has failed to make METRO’s first cut list for MTIP (I think that’s right, whatever the heck it stands for) funds. I’m feeling a little bamboozled.
I wonder if the region – including Portland and other local governments – are spending far too much effort on planning for transportation improvements that they are unlikely to be able to afford. Not just money, but by taking up people’s time who then expect some actual result from their efforts. People have a limited amount time for civic engagement and it shouldn’t be wasted creating a nice looking design report on the planners’ shelf.
Metro has pushed out the UGB into Clackamas County without infrastructure.
The worse part of this is what has been happening because there has been the lack of area employment.
Therefore the majority of the people attracted to the new housing has had to commute a long way to their jobs.
This has placed a major burden on the roads and highways and Light Rail is not part of the solution but it is where the majority of the next round major trasportation investment is going.
We need I-205 expanded out to 4-lanes for its full circumfrance to improve freight mobility and all vehicles which is necessary to retain and create new area jobs.
Frank,
There is a long line for the relatively small MTIP (Metro Transportation Improvement Program)pot of funds…federal dollars that can be used for non-road projects. Division will get theirs eventually…I think construction is finally beginning on the Hawthorne project that was approved by Council 10 years ago.
One good reason for TOD and other subsidies to projects on Transit streets or Main Streets, is to buy down the cost of some or all of a projects units. But even market rate housing (ie expensive) achieves important regional and city goals…making better use of existing infrastructure and protecting farm and forest land outside the UGB.
Paul –
You are proposing dramatically increasing the traffic on I205. It seems that every street that even crosses I-205 is congested at rush hour. Where does the traffic get on and off the freeway without creating massive congestion? There may have been a time when there was an unlimited local street network to funnel traffic on and off the freeways. That time is long past in Portland.
If you live up by Thurman Street, I would definitely NOT consider Fred Meyer a convenient
locale to go grocery shopping without a car.
When I was looking for apts. in NW District,
I had to limit myself to the southern end of
the NW District. One-half mile (10 minutes) by
foot to a store is what I consider a reasonable
limit.
Food Front is nifty, but it is not a full service
grocery. The northern part of NW really needs
a full service grocery. And by the way, how come
the Freddy’s at Burnside is a half-assed Freddy’s
(basically just food, not everything under the
sun like other Freddy’s–where’s the second level)
? This is really a damned inconvenience, so often
I take the bus/MAX to Beaverton to buy things
that I could probably buy in most Freddys’
Reply to Ross Williams,
Why I propose increasing the number of lanes/capacity of I-205 is that our region needs a safe, environmentally sound, afforable north/south corridor through the Portland/Vancouver area and I-5 will never be that fit.
The Federal Government has a manidate for our area to provide the necessary ability and capacity to meet its International obligations and I-5 corridor is inadquate.
Within the existing I-205 ROW we have flat and safe corridor (no Terwilliger Curves or Marquam Bridge) and all of the ROW to the most part necessary to expand the I-205 corridor out to 4-lanes in each direction with limited needs to acquire any additional lands.
It is just the smartest thing to do and transportation authorities have told me that it can be done for about the same or less money then replacing the Interstate Bridges with the CRC Project and it provides complete long term solutions where the I-5 corridor will never fit that bill.
I-205 is critical for creating industrial and job development where all of the new housing is going in and will reduce demands currently getting placed on other road and highway system because these people that are buying these homes in the east counties are currently being forced to commute most often 25-miles each way to their jobs.
Frank Dufay (quoting JK)Metro does not consider “transit streets” as part of neighborhoods.
Frank Dufay Jim, I’ve never seen that written down anywhere. Can you back that up? Or is it just rhetoric?
JK: No, it is Rex & the Planners little lie to the voters. Here is the whole deception explained:
http://www.portlanddocs.com/StopMetro/Explained.htm
Be sure to see what is in store for your neighborhood at:
http://www.portlanddocs.com/StopMetro/MetroChart.htm
Find you home on the density map:
http://www.portlanddocs.com/StopMetro/mappage.htm
See Rex’s letter at:
http://www.portlanddocs.com/StopMetro/Burkholder1.htm
See the whole story at:
http://www.portlanddocs.com/StopMetro/
From Rex Burkholder in 2002, bold added:
Mr. Karlock,
The measure that the Metro council referred to the ballot, 26-29, contains a provision that prohibits Metro from increasing densities in inner and outer neighborhoods, as mapped and codified by cities and counties. By definition, corridors and main streets, as well as town centers, industrial lands and regional centers, are not inner or outer neighborhoods.
I don’t know if that answers your question. Please refer to the Metro website or contact Metro Counsel, Dan Cooper at 797-1528.
Sincerely,
Rex Burkholder
Metro Councilor-District 5
600 NE Grand Ave
Portland, OR 97232
503-797-1546
burkholderr@metro.dst.or.us
http://www.metro-region.org
Paul –
Why I propose increasing the number of lanes/capacity of I-205 is that our region needs a safe, environmentally sound, afforable north/south corridor through the Portland/Vancouver area and I-5 will never be that fit.
I don’t see any reason to think I-205 is going to be any better. Both are going to be highly congested corridors no matter how wide they are. As I understand it, I-205, because it is out of route and longer, is not used by most freight traffic going through the region. They choose to use I5 instead. I don’t know why that will change.
transportation authorities have told me that it can be done for about the same or less money then replacing the Interstate Bridges
I don’t doubt it. We can do a lot of transportation projects for what a new I5 bridge will cost. I just don’t see the point in widening I-205.
I-205 is critical for creating industrial and job development where all of the new housing is going in
Actually the Damascus Greenway is a lot more critical than i205 to job development in eastern Clackamas County. Gresham would argue that transportation improvements in their area are more important to job development than adding capacity on I-205.
these people that are buying these homes in the east counties are currently being forced to commute most often 25-miles each way to their jobs.
No one is forcing anyone to commute any distance – that is a choice people make. Just to keep things in perspective, a 25 mile commute would be almost from Gresham to Hillsboro. There are a lot of housing and job choices in between.
Ross Williams: I don’t see any reason to think I-205 is going to be any better. Both are going to be highly congested corridors no matter how wide they are.
JK: Are you saying that if we doubled the width of I205, people will commute to work twice each morning and twice each evening? Get real all we have to do is add capacity at the same rate as we add population (plus increased driving per capita.)
Ross Williams: I just don’t see the point in widening I-205.
JK: Simple: it is overloaded, therefore it needs to be widened. A no brainer.
Ross Williams: No one is forcing anyone to commute any distance – that is a choice people make.
JK: Of course the idiots at Metro are planning houses in Damascus while the jobs are in Beaverton-Hillsboro.
Ross Williams: Just to keep things in perspective, a 25 mile commute would be almost from Gresham to Hillsboro. There are a lot of housing and job choices in between.
JK: Assume you drive. It would be close to an hour on the toy train.
Light rail costs too much and does too little.
Thanks
JK
Are you saying that if we doubled the width of I205, people will commute to work twice each morning and twice each evening?
No. Some people will take the opportunity to commute twice as far. Some will decide to drive twice as far to a restaurant. Some will just use I205 instead of 82nd. There are a combination of factors that will lead the road to fill up again. What won’t happen is an uncongested highway that will attract freight off I5.
JK: Simple: it is overloaded, therefore it needs to be widened.
I don’t think it is possible to provide unlimited road capacity. And its pretty obvious the public does not want to pay for it.
Th FHWA boss for Oregon suggested to me that the cost to widen I-205 out to a minimum of 4-lanes in each direction for its full circumfrance should about the same as replacing the Interstate Bridges and should have the same priority.
He suggested that there are Federal and International obligations to correct and improve our north/south capabilities and capacity in either or both the I-5 or I-205 corridors through Portland. He also suggested that a western freight corridor (replacing the RR Bridge and creating an alternate corridor from Rivergate that bypasses St Johns Bridge and Town Center)should also have a simular priority that provides secondary alternative to the I-5 corridor to get to the west side of the Willamette River.
Compute the fact that to bring the I-5 corridor up to an ability with 4-lanes of capacity and safety enhancements where it could be equal to or better then a simular I-205 corridor would have an added cost in trying to do this in the I-5 corridor of approximately $15 Billion Dollars if it could be ever done.
Adovates of NO-Growth where those who suggest that walking or taking a bike or riding a bus or using the Light Rail will replace needed and balanced freeway system should join a commune.
It is not about alternate modes or roads an highways it is about reason and balance.
Ross Williams No. Some people will take the opportunity to commute twice as far.
JK: That is a choice they make to improve some aspect of their lives. Perhaps to get away from Portland/Multnomah’s high taxes, perhaps to get better schools or a back yard. It’s called freedom, Ross. Why do yo have a problem with other people having freedom?
Ross Williams Some will decide to drive twice as far to a restaurant.
JK: Again, why do you dislike others having freedom of choice? You are starting to sound like Bush.
Ross Williams Some will just use I205 instead of 82nd.
JK: That is the whole idea of freeways – to draw traffic off of arterials which in turn draw traffic out of our neighborhoods. Or do you think, like Metro, that we should increase neighborhood traffic?
Ross Williams There are a combination of factors that will lead the road to fill up again.
JK: Only if we fail to increase capacity as population increases.
Ross Williams I don’t think it is possible to provide unlimited road capacity. And its pretty obvious the public does not want to pay for it.
JK: We don’t need unlimited road capacity as we will not be having unlimited population increase.
Thanks
JK
Why do yo have a problem with other people having freedom?
Jim – you are the one that keeps complaining about one of the consequences of that freedom, congestion.
The simple fact is that if we widen I205 to four lanes it will fill up. There are certainly benefits to some people from that – but freedom from congestion is not one of them. Nor is improved mobility for freight. Nor is reduced traffic on I5.
Ross Williams: Jim – you are the one that keeps complaining about one of the consequences of that freedom, congestion.
JK: Congestion is not a consequence of freedom it is a consequence of the lack of increasing road capacity to match increased demand caused by population increase. We increase stores, schools, water, phone, power and sewer capacity – why don’t we increase road capacity? (Answer: because Metro hates cars and loves toy trains which cost too much and do too little)
Ross Williams: The simple fact is that if we widen I205 to four lanes it will fill up.
JK: Yeah, in about twenty years as the population grows. That is why we need to build roads along with the rest of our infrastructure to accommodate growth.
Thanks
JK
JK, Re the 205 widening, I don’t understand your reasoning. At first you seemed to deny that widening would encourage latent use of the freeway (that is, use that would occur today, but doesn’t because of traffic), then you seemed to acknowledge that congestion may still be present after widening (due to trips that only occur because of increased capacity), but say it’s fine because people are just exercising their “freedom.” Can you clarify?
“It is overloaded, therefore it needs to be widened” is not a no-brainer. The road may continue to be overloaded even after the widening. Building more roads encourages use of the roads (duh), and people will use it until the point at which it’s so congested, they don’t want to anymore. There’s a fairly strong history of road projects becoming congested far, far in advance of projections because of this effect.
By the way, we get it, you think trains are “toys.” And we’ve heard your little slogan about light rail. Enough.
Along those lines, I’m having a hard time with your claims that driving is somehow cheaper than transit. To back this claim, on your website, you say a car costs $114 a month. This is crazy. My insurance costs about that much. Gas is easily another $60 to $100, and then there’s the cost of the car itself! Even assuming a pretty good warranty as you do, there’s still routine maintenance and wear and tear that isn’t covered. Plus registration costs. This doesn’t even get into the other taxpayer subsidies (not all of it is from car and gas taxes) and hidden costs of gasoline-powered transport — military spending to protect the oil shipping lanes, environmental cleanup costs, etc.
Looking at it another way, there’s a reason the IRS allows expensing of car trips at about 50 cents a mile: that’s about how much it costs. For someone driving a pretty typical 12,000 miles a year, that’s $500 a month instead of your estimated $114.
On top of that, there’s a reason most people choose not to drive 90hp, four year old Hyundais. They want something better. Same goes with transit; the cheapest possible option isn’t always preferred.
Building more roads as population increases is impossible unless you’re in favor of sprawl. (Assuming population growth, the only alternative to sprawl is increased density, and there’s a clear limit to road building in areas that are already built out.) Given your apparent hatred of Los Angeles, I’d think you’d be against sprawl, but since you seem to be so anti-transit, maybe you actually want sprawl, so that transit won’t be feasible.
Rob Says: The road may continue to be overloaded even after the widening. Building more roads encourages use of the roads (duh),
JK: That is a 10% factor. Most of the “new” users of added capacity are drawn off of lesser roads, relieving congestion there and in our neighborhoods. You really need to look at stuff other the Sierra club lies.
Rob Says: and people will use it until the point at which it’s so congested, they don’t want to anymore.
JK: Are you seriously suggesting that people would drive 24 hours a day if the roads were un congested? That is what you just said. The fact is that, in the past, we grew a lot without today’s level of congestion by adding road capacity. I84, more lanes on I84, I205 and I5.
Rob Says: There’s a fairly strong history of road projects becoming congested far, far in advance of projections because of this effect.
JK: Most areas quit building roads twenty years ago, while growth continued – there is a lot of un met capacity needs out there. You have to add enough capacity to make up for twenty years of neglect.
Rob Says: By the way, we get it, you think trains are “toys.” And we’ve heard your little slogan about light rail. Enough.
JK: Apparently not because you still don’t get it that they cost too much and do too little.
Rob Says: On top of that, there’s a reason most people choose not to drive 90hp, four year old Hyundais. They want something better.
JK: Such a car is heads and shoulders above any mass transit. It is a fair comparison.
Rob Says: Same goes with transit; the cheapest possible option isn’t always preferred.
JK: Only if the riders want to pay their own way. As long as they are receiving welfare for 80% of the cost, they have no right to expect deluxe.
Rob Says: Building more roads as population increases is impossible unless you’re in favor of sprawl.
JK: Refresh my memory, what is wrong with letting people have living space?
Rob Says: (Assuming population growth, the only alternative to sprawl is increased density, and there’s a clear limit to road building in areas that are already built out.)
JK: That is why high density areas (almost?) always have more traffic congestion and longer commute times. Do you want more congestion and longer commute times?
Rob Says: Given your apparent hatred of Los Angeles, I’d think you’d be against sprawl, but since you seem to be so anti-transit, maybe you actually want sprawl, so that transit won’t be feasible.
JK: Los Angeles is the densest region in the country. Relative to its size, it does not sprawl – that is why Metro wants to replicate LA here. (see Metro Measured)
Thanks
JK
That is a 10% factor.
No. Its more like a 90% factor if you account for all the ways people increase their use of roads.
1) For every 10 mph in increased speed each car uses at least one additional car-length of road. So a 10mph increase in average speed will account for more than the 10% increase you are projecting – probably at least 20%.
For instance, if I5’s average speed really is 25mph at rush hour, doubling that speed to 50 mph will require at least twice as much road space just for the existing traffic to make the trip during the same amount of time.
2) I think you need to think about why someone uses 82nd instead of I205 to being with. I think usually its because 82nd is the most direct route. That means it they switch to I205, it will involve some out of route travel and a longer distance overall even if it takes them less time. That adds to traffic, not only on I205, but on the local streets that provide access to and from I205. And those streets are largely already congested.
3) Increased capacity creates opportunities. People take advantage of those opportunities. Whether a business consolidates their operations or their employees choose to live further from work the effect is the same. They make use of the capacity and the congestion returns.
Now, clearly there are some benefits to all that, but reducing congestion isn’t one of them.
Thanks for the interesting discussion.
JK: That is a 10% factor. Most of the “new” users of added capacity are drawn off of lesser roads, relieving congestion there and in our neighborhoods. You really need to look at stuff other [than] Sierra club lies.
Rob: Well, there’s no shortage of opinions and studies out there saying contradictory things on this. Certainly, it’s not only the Sierra Club (and I’m not sure they are the main proponents of the idea).
JK: Apparently not because you still don’t get it that they cost too much and do too little.
Rob: Hehehehehehe.
JK: [A 90-hp, four year old Hyundai] is heads and shoulders above any mass transit. It is a fair comparison.
Rob: Come on. You can’t be serious. I’ve driven my share of cheap old underpowered cars, and getting onto freeways or going up hills is not pleasant. Not to mention the added maintenance costs of an old “cheap” car.
JK: Refresh my memory, what is wrong with letting people have living space?
Rob: Given a suitably low population, nothing. Given the current situation, we have to deal with a finite supply of space in this city and on this planet, and lots of competing uses.
I take it from your responses you’re in favor of what I’d call sprawl, and what you’d call freedom of people to have as much space as they can afford. Do you think Southern California is a good model for development?
Re adding enough capacity to make up for 20 years of neglect: I don’t see how there’s room for another 8-lane North-South highway within the Portland metro area. So accommodating demand by building more, as has been done in the past, really isn’t an option.
I’m still curious to see some explanation and elaboration of your cost estimates for car vs. train.
Cheers
“Light rail costs too much and does too little.”
Bus Rapid Transit or busways may cost a lot, but they do a lot more.
Pave the West Hills tunnel for dual-mode use, and
you’ll see a a lot!
Rob:Well, there’s no shortage of opinions and studies out there saying contradictory things on this.
JK: My impression is that there are only a few and the more thorough ones show what I said: new capacity that fills up, fills mainly by removing cars from lesser streets. In the long term, as population increases, it becomes necessary to add more capacity just as we add water, phone and power capacity.
Rob: JK: [A 90-hp, four year old Hyundai] is heads and shoulders above any mass transit. It is a fair comparison.
Come on. You can’t be serious. I’ve driven my share of cheap old underpowered cars, and getting onto freeways or going up hills is not pleasant.
JK: Not pleasant? Neither is rush hour transit. We are talking of buying a NEW Hyundai and keeping it as long as the bumper to bumper warranty. That has to be a lot better than transit. And it is door to door, not a quarter mile away. In the rain. In the cold.
Rob: Not to mention the added maintenance costs of an old “cheap” car.
JK: 5 year warranty.
Rob: JK: Refresh my memory, what is wrong with letting people have living space?
Rob: Given a suitably low population, nothing. Given the current situation, we have to deal with a finite supply of space in this city and on this planet, and lots of competing uses.
JK: What planet are you living on? Mine has a population increase that is reducing its rate of increase and will peak in the next 50 (or so) years. The population of most industrialized countries is no longer growing much. Some are shrinking, others are about to start shrinking. As the third world follows suit, there is every reason to believe they will follow. (You really have to stop getting you information from the scare mongers.)
Rob: Do you think Southern California is a good model for development?
JK: If you mean LA, absolutely we should avoid it. However it has become Metro’s model for our area because it is the densest urban area in the country. See Metro Measured – page 7 (PDF page 11), right column, 3rd paragraph.
http://www.portlanddocs.com/metrodocs/metro_measured.PDF
Rob: Re adding enough capacity to make up for 20 years of neglect: I don’t see how there’s room for another 8-lane North-South highway within the Portland metro area. So accommodating demand by building more, as has been done in the past, really isn’t an option.
JK: What 8 lane freeway? I5 is a max of 6 lanes with 4 lanes around the Rose Quarter. Metro wants us to build up instead of out. Apply that to freeways too. That will last us forever as the population is no longer exploding.
Rob: I’m still curious to see some explanation and elaboration of your cost estimates for car vs. train.
JK: see http://www.saveportland.com/Car_Vs_Tri-Met/TriMet_vs_Car5.htm then click on how we calculated the above data. There is a little section on cost. Rail costs about the same as taxi fare per passenger mile. Also note the energy usage comparisons. Cars beat bus. Rail beats both but costs too much and does too little.
Thanks
JK
Nick Bus Rapid Transit or busways may cost a lot, but they do a lot more.
Pave the West Hills tunnel for dual-mode use, and you’ll see a a lot!
JK: right on!
Thanks
JK
Pave the West Hills tunnel for dual-mode use, and
you’ll see a a lot!
What do you get by putting people on buses through the tunnel rather than on light rail other than the increased expense of using more bus drivers?
If you mean LA, absolutely we should avoid it. However it has become Metro’s model for our area because it is the densest urban area in the country.
And yet, it is also the most sprawling and auto-dependent. It may be that there is not an absolute connection between auto oriented, sprawling development and low density. Los Angeles has very little open greenspace. Most of its “undeveloped” space is roads. And parking structures are pretty common rather than large surface parking lots, so even its auto facilities are densely developed.
Portland is not particularly dense when one considers all the open space available. In fact, one purpose of density in Portland is to allow preservation of open space both within the city and, most obviously, outside the urban growth boundary. Density isn’t a problem, some of the most desireable real estate in the world is densely developed. It is how density is developed that makes it a problem in places like Los Angeles.
If you put up a ten two story buildings, a three story parking garage with no open space anywhere in site and try to get everyone in and out by automobile you end up with a place that isn’t very pleasant. If you put up two ten story buildings with high quality transit and use the land saved to create parks and greenspace you help create a highly livable neighborhood.
We are talking of buying a NEW Hyundai…That has to be a lot better than transit. And it is door to door, not a quarter mile away.
Door to door, Jim? Do we all have reserved parking spaces in front of our homes and offices? And good thing there’s no large, sprawling parking lots people might have to, y’know, walk through…even in the rain!
And those forty thousand plus Americans killed in their cars every year? Just collateral damage on the glorious highway of freedom!
JK: see http://www.saveportland.com/Car_Vs_Tri-Met/TriMet_vs_Car5.htm then click on how we calculated the above data. There is a little section on cost. Rail costs about the same as taxi fare per passenger mile. Also note the energy usage comparisons. Cars beat bus. Rail beats both but costs too much and does too little.
Rob: You cite a lot of statistics for the transit cost estimate, but I’m more curious about your $114/month/passenger estimate for cars. Given current rates of carpooling, I would think your 1.2 passengers per car estimate includes the driver, but even if it doesn’t, your numbers still seem wrong.
A nice new Hyundai Accent SE is about $15,000. Assuming a $5000 down payment and the rest financed for 5 years with excellent credit, E-Loan gives a monthly payment of $195. Together with the down payment that’s about $280 a month for 5 years.
The average monthly insurance cost is about $160/month in Oregon but we’ll figure $100/month for a good driver and a relatively affordable car. $60 a month for gas is pretty realistic.
Already that’s up to $440 a month for 1 person, or $200/month/person for the unrealistic scenario of 2.2 people commuting in the same car.
Yahoo has compiled stats on cost to own for lots of car models. For a Hyundai Accent, depending on the specific model, they figure a total cost to own of $31k to $34k for 5 years, or about $515 to $565/month.
I don’t think you can really say both that the car will be carrying two people, and that the driver will be able to pick up kids and groceries on the way home. The common complaint about carpooling is that you don’t have that flexibility. With more compact development, you don’t need to pick up groceries on the way home, because there’s hopefully a store within walking distance to get whatever you need during the week.
Regarding some of your other points:
Transit will never completely replace the car. Autos are great for late night trips and moving furniture. But for many trips, especially commuting, transit could work better.
Regarding “induced demand” or the theory that building more lanes doesn’t significantly reduce congestion, here’s a paper that might be of interest: http://www.uctc.net/papers/444.PDF
It’s a pretty even handed study from Berkeley in 2000, it’s a little bit technical but it reviews a lot of the past studies that both sides claim in their arguments, and does its own analysis of the data. The authors’ conclusions are somewhere in the middle of the cited literature, and they confirm the theory of induced demand, specifically finding that every 10% increase in lane-mile capacity was associated with a 4.5% to 5.2% increase in vehicle miles traveled, controlling for other factors, and accounting for the symmetric influence of VMT on building of lane-miles. Not as crazy as the studies that say 90% of the new lanes get used up by latent demand, but still very significant.
Ross Williams And yet, it is also the most sprawling
JK: Quit playing dumb. LA is the densest urban area in the country. It is NOT THE MOST SPRAWLING. NEW YORK is less dense therefore MORE SPRAWLING.
Ross Williams and auto-dependent.
JK: It is more modern city and was designed after society had progressed to, and recognized the superiority of, the automobile. Its form was determined first by the, now obsolete streetcar, then the modern automobile.
Ross Williams It may be that there is not an absolute connection between auto oriented, sprawling development and low density.
JK: Again. LA is the highest density urban area in the country NYC is second.
Ross Williams: If you put up two ten story buildings with high quality transit and use the land saved to create parks and greenspace you help create a highly livable neighborhood.
JK: Absolute incredable! – You actually consider rat cages livable! I’ve seen pictures of this little paradise in Moscow and Romania and some crime infested housing projects in the USA. Now we know how you want us to live.
No Thanks
JK
Frank Dufay: Door to door, Jim? Do we all have reserved parking spaces in front of our homes
JK: You have in your driveway or garages, just a few steps away if you live in a real house. Is am ignoring new urbanism designs.
Frank Dufay: and offices? And good thing there’s no large, sprawling parking lots people might have to, y’know, walk through…even in the rain!
JK: Usually closer than the transit stop. Especially toy trains.
Frank Dufay: And those forty thousand plus Americans killed in their cars every year? Just collateral damage on the glorious highway of freedom!
JK: If we all got out of our cars as switched to toy trains that number would be 60,000 because RAIL KILLS MORE PEOPLE THAN CARS PER PASSENGER MILE.
Thanks
JK
JK: Quit playing dumb. LA is the densest urban area in the country. It is NOT THE MOST SPRAWLING. NEW YORK is less dense therefore MORE SPRAWLING.
Rob: This is total BS. This paper:
http://lewis.sppsr.ucla.edu/GIScontest/OsgoogEtAl_LANYDensity_report.pdf
neatly dissects the bogus argument that LA is more dense than NY, when you consider the actual city and not the badly defined “urban area.” Basically, the suburbs of LA are slighly more dense than the suburbs of NY (which also cover twice the area), but the city of NY itself is much more dense than any part of LA. See the link for the details.
I hope this puts an end to this canard that LA is the most dense “urban area” in the country.
Ross Williams: If you put up two ten story buildings with high quality transit and use the land saved to create parks and greenspace you help create a highly livable neighborhood.
JK: Absolute incredable! – You actually consider rat cages livable! I’ve seen pictures of this little paradise in Moscow and Romania and some crime infested housing projects in the USA. Now we know how you want us to live.
Rob: Interesting… I’m more on Jim’s side here (but without the sarcasm). I’m no fan of 10-story apartment or condo buildings. I’d much rather have smaller parks and smaller buildings (but still densely packed). Sometimes I think those who favor huge residential building and lots of “green space” aren’t really fans of cities at all… lots of three to five story buildings seem to create a better environment, and make the people who live in them more connected to the street. That said, there is a role to play in downtowns for taller office buildings.
p.s. Romania has some nice cities too. e.g., http://www.brodyaga.com/pages/viewlarge.php?id=4173
Rob Says: The authors’ conclusions are somewhere in the middle of the cited literature, and they confirm the theory of induced demand, specifically finding that every 10% increase in lane-mile capacity was associated with a 4.5% to 5.2% increase in vehicle miles traveled,
JK: That doesn’t pass the laugh test. If that were true, there would be no un- congested roads in the country. It may be a small part of the overall curve where they are still filling un-met demand, but the curve has to level out, or it would project the ridiculous.
Are you trying to convince me that I84 was congested the first year it was built? Or I205. Simply ridiculous. Those roads got full because the population ballooned and road capacity didn’t.
see http://www.publicpurpose.com/hwy-phx-induce.htm for how Pheonix built freeways and didn’t increase driving any more than Portland.
See: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/itfaq.htm
Here is a comment from one transport expert:
Induced demand is more often than not “pent up demand.” One might think of it as the Soviet bread line phenomenom — bread consumption increased not so much because baking more bread caused people to want to eat more. It rather responsded to demand that was already there and was being artificially restrained by planners.
Thanks
JK
LA is the densest urban area in the country. It is NOT THE MOST SPRAWLING. NEW YORK is less dense therefore MORE SPRAWLING.
Accepting for the sake of argument that this is true (even though I don’t believe it), there is more than one way to create the same level of density. An auto-dependent environment of relatively homogeneous density (LA) has different livability characteristics than a place where density is clustered and served by transit and other modes (NYC).
The latter seems more livable to me.
For all of you who want to argue about which is the most dense NY or LA who gives (S), they are both bad and that is not how I would like to live.
For those people who want high denstity transit center housing, I want you to have it and all that goes with it.
Please however have compassion on the majority of the rest of the people to not (S) on us. We should have rights too, don’t you think!
NEW YORK is less dense therefore MORE SPRAWLING.
My point was that there is a difference between population density and sprawl. But we are just playing word games.
I’m no fan of 10-story apartment or condo buildings.
And I am no urban designer. My point was that the same densities can have very different results. There is a place for 10 story buildings and a place for two story apartments. The point is how you achieve population densities is at least as important as the statistical measure.
I’ve seen pictures of this little paradise in Moscow and Romania and some crime infested housing projects in the USA.
I think you will find what I described is the high rent district on Park Avenue in New York City. I would be hard pressed however to find a freeway in Oregon that didn’t look like a soviet style road. Or a Soviet era freeway in Russia and Romania that didn’t look like an Oregon freeway.
JK: If we all got out of our cars as switched to toy trains that number would be 60,000 because RAIL KILLS MORE PEOPLE THAN CARS PER PASSENGER MILE.
Another falsehood. Bureau of Transportation Statistics publications, available on the web, clearly show transit generally and rail specifically are safer than cars per passenger mile. For 2000 (the last year available for all data):
Mode ———– Billion pass. miles — Fatalities — Deaths per billion pass. mile
—————————————————————————————-
All highway 4,394 42,643 9.7
Passenger car 2,547 20,699 8.1
All transit 47.7 295 6.2
Light/heavy rail 15.2 41 2.7
Jim, do you need me to post injury and property damage statistics, or will you admit car travel isn’t safer than rail travel?
Please however have compassion on the majority of the rest of the people to not (S) on us. We should have rights too, don’t you think!
What “rights” are those. The “right” to own a cheap house on 5 acres within 20 minutes of downtown Portland? I don’t think that “right” exists. Its tha adage that you can’t get a job done fast, cheap and good quality. You have to choose two. It puzzles me that people have clearly unreasonable expectations and then blame the “planners” OR “metro” because they aren’t met.
I hope this puts an end to this canard that LA is the most dense “urban area” in the country.
rob, this won’t put an end to anything at all. i confronted jim karlock with similar, even more detailed, analysis of the “urbanized area” statistic in a thread over on commissionersam.com, and i got accused of using a “secondary source”???
i have since given up completely. you can’t discuss something rationally with someone who conclusions are already formed in concrete before any data is presented.
Rob: Jim, do you need me to post injury and property damage statistics, or will you admit car travel isn’t safer than rail travel?
JK: Then how come Trimet is killing people at a rate of 13.7 which, you might notice, is higher than cars?
From: http://www.saveportland.com/Car_Vs_Tri-Met/energy-cost-death-02d.htm
MAX passenger miles from 1987-2002: 1,025 million
Deaths: 14
Deaths per 100 million passenger miles: 14 ÷ 102.5 hundred million = 1.37
(multiply by 10 to get per billion)
Now look at total light rail fatalities, not just the passengers. (Light rail is actually quite safe if you can get inside without being killed.)
I stand by my original statement. You used the wrong data set.
Thanks
JK
Rob: Another falsehood. Bureau of Transportation Statistics publications, available on the web,
JK: Please give the link.
Thanks
JK
peter: i have since given up completely. you can’t discuss something rationally with someone who conclusions are already formed in concrete before any data is presented.
JK: Maybe you will trust our very own METRO: Metro Measured has many charts that use density of cities. They always show LA as being denser that NY. Please take look. Get it from:
http://www.portlanddocs.com/metrodocs/metro_measured.PDF
Here is the truth that sometimes gets lost in these discussions:
We are talking census regions which area single market areas. Beaverton-Portland-Vancouver-etc. is the Portland census region. (I may have the term region wrong here) NY has a very dense core and less dense surroundings. LA has a less dense core and more dense surroundings. When you look at the census region as a whole, LA is denser that NY. Period.
Back on the soapbox: Is not sprawl the inverse of density? LA has a VERY LARGE population so it covers a lot of area. If it covered less area, with the same population, it would be even more dense. Am I missing something here? Are you guys thinking that we should aim for Hong Kong densities? or Calcutta? or Kowloon?
Thanks
JK
Just noticed you new suggestion
Another falsehood. Bureau of Transportation Statistics publications, available on the web,
Please give the link.
Thanks
JK
Wow, those rail statistics are pretty high. In the entire history of Japan’s Shinkansen history, they have never had a crash or a fatality. That’s over 60 years and billions of passengers.
==========
I’m tired of hearing these pro/anti urbanism arguments from relatively uninformed “transportation enthusiasts” – virtually every argument I see posted here has absolutely no basis!
http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0027.html
(based on 1990 data)
NYC 23,700
San Francisco 15,500
Chicago 12,300
Boston 11,900
Philadelphia 11,700
Los Angeles 7,400
By comparison, cities in other countries:
(wiki)
London 12,300
Hong Kong 16,469
Note that for London & Hong Kong, it is counting the greater urbanized area, which includes parks & such. In case you haven’t been visited them, these are fairly clean, rich, modern cities that have a great amount of park space, shopping, and modern transit systems that make every city on the North American continent pale in comparison, particularly in how well maintained they are.
That being said, density is not something that you can control. Some of the densest cities in the world are in third world countries, with low-rise slum housing packed with multiple extended families in each building. Obviously there are safety & health issues associated with slum housing, but even in the US, when housing prices skyrocket, those who cannot afford it typically end up cramming multiple roommates into small apartments or houses.
Zoning density limits only acts to artificially constrict the supply of housing, not market demand – density, particularly in this country with our liberal land ownership laws, is a result of market forces, not government mandate. Therefore, you may very well hate or love density in Portland, but your opninion makes absolutely no difference as to what will get built in this city! There are much larger forces at play: Capitalism.
As the population keeps increasing and density keeps going up, you can either have overcrowding in existing single family housing, or allow taller buildings to help soak up those extra people and help satiate demand.
I’m tired of hearing these pro/anti urbanism arguments from relatively uninformed “transportation enthusiasts” – virtually every argument I see posted here has absolutely no basis! (per Justin)
I’m tired of arguing with people that don’t bother to read: I made it completely clear that I am talking of urbanized areas/regions not just he city limits. The technical term turns out to be “Metropolitan Statistical Area”
Talking city limits is like using city of Portland data when talking of “Portland”. It is just meaningless.
Thanks
JK
The discussion needs to address the issue of how transportation policy can help create livable cities. We know the answer to that in Portland…take a stroll downtown…would you prefer a parking garage on Pioneer Courthouse Sq? a freeway along the river instead of Waterfront Park? If you would, you are one of a very small handful of, frankly, tiring people.
Now we just need to keep pushing what we learned in the central city out into the rest of the neighborhoods and cities of the entire region…more transit, better pedestrian environment, slower traffic speeds, etc. I can’t wait…some day this city will have some bustle and energy if we keep at it.
It is just meaningless.
Why is it more meaningless than the population density of the “Metropolitan Statistical Area”?
Now we just need to keep pushing what we learned in the central city out into the rest of the neighborhoods and cities of the entire region…more transit, better pedestrian environment, slower traffic speeds, etc. I can’t wait…some day this city will have some bustle and energy if we keep at it. (Lenny Anderson)
Great idea, drive the remaining family wage jobs out of Portland, dramatically increase the cost of living and give us the transportation network of a third world county.
Thanks
JK
http://portlandtransport.com/archives/2006/10/an_open_letter_1.html#comments
Jim, do you need me to post injury and property damage statistics, or will you admit car travel isn’t safer than rail travel? ( Rob)
Then how come Trimet is killing people at a rate of 13.7 which, you might notice, is higher than cars?
MAX passenger miles from 1987-2002: 1,025 million
Deaths: 14
Deaths per 100 million passenger miles: 14 ÷ 102.5 hundred million = 1.37
From: http://www.saveportland.com/Car_Vs_Tri-Met/energy-cost-death-02d.htm
(multiply by 10 to get deaths per billion passenger miles = 13.7)
It appears that your data is deaths inside vehicles, instead of total light rail fatalities, which include the kid on the bike that MAX ran over in the Gresham station, they guy that slipped when running to get on MAX near PGE station etc.
I stand by my original statement. You used the wrong data set.
Thanks
JK
Quit playing dumb. LA is the densest urban area in the country. It is NOT THE MOST SPRAWLING. NEW YORK is less dense therefore MORE SPRAWLING.
Ok, calm down man…
There have been a lot of words flying and in order to have an intelligent conversation on the issue we need to be clear on what we are talking about
The term, sprawl does not refer to density. Sprawl is often low density in scale but not always.
Sprawl refers to the built environment of an area where there are mono-functional zones, connected by only a few arterials, creating a pedestrian-hostile place.
Most of the low density suburbs we know fit into this category, but there are also many high-density places that do. High density sprawl usually takes the form of Le Corbusier’s tower in the park, which in reality becomes a tower in a parking lot. Most of the so-called urban renewal from the ’60s through the ’80s is exactly that. Take a look at a satellite photo of downtown Houston to get an idea of this.
So before we get all fired up about this, lets look at the claims.
LA is the most dense region in the country. Maybe (JK says absolutely).
LA is sprawling. Yes.
Can these two claims co-exist? Yes they can.
The point is, density alone tells us nothing about the quality of the urban or suburban environment. Can we have high density cities that are not auto-dependent? Of course. Can we have high density cities that are completely auto-dependent? We already do.
Lastly, let’s be a little more civil in our comments so we can have a worthwhile discussion.
LA is not the densest Metropolitan Statistical Area in the US.
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/GCTTable?_bm=y&-ds_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U&-CONTEXT=gct&-mt_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U_GCTPH1_US25&-redoLog=false&-_caller=geoselect&-geo_id=&-format=US-10%7CUS-10S&-_lang=en
According to the census, here is the MSA pop & density numbers for LA & NYC:
Los Angeles–Riverside–Orange County, CA CMSA
Population: 16,373,645
Land Area: 33,955.44 mi^2
Density: 482.2 pop/mi^2
New York–Northern New Jersey–Long Island, NY–NJ–CT–PA CMSA
Population: 21,199,865
Land Area: 13,117.93 mi^2
Density: 2,028.7 pop/mi^2
Just for fun, here is Portland’s:
Portland–Salem, OR–WA CMSA
Population: 2,265,223
Land Area: 7,072.23 mi^2
Density: 325.8 pop/mi^2
…only slightly lower than Los Angeles’ density, although we are talking about a huge land area, and it includes Salem & Vancouver.
=========================
Looking at more detailed areas within these greater CMSA’s, the Jersey City PMSA (a subset of the New York CMSA) has the greatest density in the United States:
Jersey City, NJ PMSA
Population: 608,975
Land Area: 62.43 mi^2
Density: 13,043.6 pop/mi^2
by contrast, the densest PMSA in the greater Los Angeles region, Orange County (which is denser than the Los Angeles/Long Beach PMSA) is far less dense:
Orange County, CA PMSA
Population: 2,846,289
Land Area: 947.98 mi^2
Density: 3,605.6 pop/mi^2
Note: Oregon’s land area is 98,000 mi^2, approximately 3 times that of the NY Metroplitan Statistical Area, which also comprises parts of Connecticut, Pennsylvania and New Jersey. I doubt many people would actually consider this part of the New York City proper metro area.
Note2: According to the 2000 US Census, Manhattan has a pop density of 66,940.1/mi^2
(wiki entry for Manhattan)
Sorry, I posted the wrong land area for the above MSA’s. The density numbers are correct.
They should read:
NYC CMSA: 10,449.86 mi^2
LA: (is correct)
Portland: 6,952.64 mi^2
Jersey City PMSA: 46.69 mi^2
OC PMSA: 789.40 mi^2
And it should read that Oregon is 3x the land area of the LA CMSA, not NY’s.
===========================
According to the document posted at this link: http://www.portlanddocs.com/metrodocs/metro_measured.PDF
…seems to claim that NYC has a higher land area and commute time than any other city(region?) in the USA.
I’m not sure about the commute times – that is a whole different issue that is actually much more relevant to a transportation discussion. However, I have shown that NYC is much more dense than LA.
As far as the city PROPER is concerned, it should be a non-starter to claim that NYC has a much higher transit usage than any other city in the USA, particularly for commuters. LA has more freeway traffic. Any other comparison between these two entities is fairly incongruous; apples and… fish?
However, is this really relevant to Portland?
Portland clearly has more in common with LA as far as density, although the land area involved is on a different order of magnitude. The growth of our city is at the point where we can determine how we are going to grow our region: up or out (or a bit of both)
As I have said in a previous post, more people are coming, which is based upon economics (job availability, housing prices, migration patterns are key factors!), and that we may, in fact, not be able to do much to determine the density of the region, which follows its own rules as long as governmental regulation does not artificially restrict the market.
May I suggest that we will be growing both up AND out? And that as Portland gains population, due to the inability for this metro area and state to build enormous transportation projects (new freeways or heavy rail networks), that people will be forced to simply commute shorter distances using a greater share of alternatives?
In that area, I would argue we may be more similar to the CITY of Los Angeles (not its CMSA) than we might think – our networks are taxed and will not see huge capacity increases. Unsurprisingly, LA is now getting started building more heavy/lightrail/BRT lines!
This is the time for incremental changes, one small step at a time – as has often been suggested on this forum. The era for huge mega-projects to support enhanced auto mobility is largely over, particularly in reference to the LA metro area’s freeway network.
To further illustrate the meaninglessness of utilizing CMSA data for anything, the LA CMSA is the 37th most dense MSA in the USA. (same source above: 2000 census)
I do not see how this is relevant to any further discussion!
RANK MSA DENSITY
1 New York–Northern New Jersey–Long Island, NY–NJ–CT–PA CMSA 2,028.70
2 Honolulu, HI MSA 1,460.80
3 Chicago–Gary–Kenosha, IL–IN–WI CMSA 1,322.00
4 Miami–Fort Lauderdale, FL CMSA 1,230.00
5 Puerto Rico 1,112.10
6 Philadelphia–Wilmington–Atlantic City, PA–NJ–DE–MD CMSA 1,042.70
7 Providence–Fall River–Warwick, RI–MA MSA 1,041.50
8 Boston–Worcester–Lawrence, MA–NH–ME–CT CMSA 1,034.10
9 San Francisco–Oakland–San Jose, CA CMSA 955.4
10 Milwaukee–Racine, WI CMSA 942.3
11 Tampa–St. Petersburg–Clearwater, FL MSA 938.1
12 Detroit–Ann Arbor–Flint, MI CMSA 831.1
13 Salt Lake City–Ogden, UT MSA 824.7
14 Cleveland–Akron, OH CMSA 815.6
15 Springfield, MA MSA 804.7
16 Washington–Baltimore, DC–MD–VA–WV CMSA 794.5
17 Buffalo–Niagara Falls, NY MSA 746.6
18 Hartford, CT MSA 705.4
19 Atlanta, GA MSA 671.5
20 El Paso, TX MSA 670.8
21 San Diego, CA MSA 670
22 Norfolk–Virginia Beach–Newport News, VA–NC MSA 668.3
23 Barnstable–Yarmouth, MA MSA 625.8
24 Houston–Galveston–Brazoria, TX CMSA 606
25 South Bend, IN MSA 580.7
26 Allentown–Bethlehem–Easton, PA MSA 579.2
27 Dallas–Fort Worth, TX CMSA 573.6
28 West Palm Beach–Boca Raton, FL MSA 573
29 Dayton–Springfield, OH MSA 564.6
30 Fort Myers–Cape Coral, FL MSA 548.6
31 Cincinnati–Hamilton, OH–KY–IN CMSA 519.6
32 Pittsburgh, PA MSA 509.9
33 Louisville, KY–IN MSA 495
34 Seattle–Tacoma–Bremerton, WA CMSA 492
35 Columbus, OH MSA 490.3
36 Minneapolis–St. Paul, MN–WI MSA 489.7
37 Los Angeles–Riverside–Orange County, CA CMSA 482.2
As I have said in a previous post, more people are coming, which is based upon economics (job availability, housing prices, migration patterns are key factors!), and that we may, in fact, not be able to do much to determine the density of the region
In fact, all regional population “density” measures is how many people per amount of land. Since the amount of land in the region is fixed, our density is entirely determined by how many people live in the region.
That, of course, doesn’t say anything at all about the population density of particular neighborhoods. But for every neighborhood that is higher in density another neighborhood is going to be lower. So high densities create diverse kinds of neighborhoods with mulitiple choices for how people will live.
That doesn’t mean everyone can have a cheap house on 5 acres 20 minutes from downtown. If you want that kind of lifestyle, there are plenty of small towns in America that offer it. What they don’t offer is good opportunities for employment or operating a business.
Mode ———– Billion pass. miles — Fatalities — Deaths per billion pass. mile
—————————————————————————————-
All highway 4,394 42,643 9.7
Passenger car 2,547 20,699 8.1
All transit 47.7 295 6.2
Light/heavy rail 15.2 41 2.7
Jim, do you need me to post injury and property damage statistics, or will you admit car travel isn’t safer than rail travel? (Rob)
Then why does Trimet have fatalities a rate of 13.7 per billion (see my web site)?
And why does you data show 42,643 for highway, but only 20,699 for car?
The answer that your chart is probably fatalities within vehicles. Look at total for each mode and you will see that, once again, I am right.
Thanks
JK
I’m not sure about the commute times – that is a whole different issue that is actually much more relevant to a transportation discussion. (Justin)
Right, commute time it is extremely relevant – dense cities tend to have longer commute times and time matters more than distance to most first world people. This is another reason that only a small percentage of people choose to live in Manhattan densities.
However, I have shown that NYC is much more dense than LA. (Justin)
Metro is right, you are wrong. (I have found Metro data to be generally reliable. It is just their planning to emulate LA and all of its implications that is totally wrong headed.)
You will find the real densities at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/ohim/hs04/pdf/hm72.pdf
There are both population and UZA square miles columns, and they calculate the population per square mile. LA is number one, at 5,618. For the entire, Tri-State area (NY, NJ, and just a tad of CN), greater NYC is at 3,717, so LA is 51% higher. The NY state portion of greater NYC is higher, at 4,697, but Greater LA still beats it easily.
Thanks
JK
dense cities tend to have longer commute times
I didn’t think that was true. Is there some new evidence for this or is it intuitive?
time matters more than distance to most first world people.
Exactly, which is why commute times stayed relatively stable even as auto use increased and have continued to remain stable as congestion increased. People adjust the distances they are willing to travel according to how long it takes.
The NY state portion of greater NYC is higher, at 4,697, but Greater LA still beats it easily.
That report shows the Washington portion of Greater Portland is more densely populated than the Oregon side of the river 3232 to 3134. Interesting data – but what does it mean?
The NY state portion of greater NYC is higher, at 4,697, but Greater LA still beats it easily.
That report shows the Washington portion of Greater Portland is more densely populated than the Oregon side of the river 3232 to 3134. Interesting data – but what does it mean?
It means that the LA region is more dense than the NY region, just as I stated day(s)ago (and as Metro shows in Metro Measured). That is probably why Metro chose to replicate LA instead of NY.
Thanks
JK
No matter how much all argue. When people like my friend live downtown and enjoy it, then move to the burbs where they pay about 250 bucks amonth less in rent, but lose all of that travelling MORE to get what they need. All the stats don’t matter anymore.
It simply costs them more to live in the burbs to maintain the same standard of living UNLESS your priority is pure land space and square footage.