Jonathan Schlueter of the Westside Economic Alliance passed out some interesting information at this month’s transportation committee meeting, showing the increase in motor vehicle registration over the past 30 years.
In 1975, there were about 2.3 million people living in Oregon. They owned about 386 Thousand cars. That’s one vehicle for every 6 people.
In 2004, there were about 3.6 million people living in Oregon, owning 3.2 million vehicles. Just over 1.1 people per vehicle.
In 30 years, people population grew 56% and motor vehicle population grew 280%, more than 5 times as fast.
There are many factors that prompted this radical shift, including rising incomes, availability of easy credit, and women entering the workforce. But the greatest impact was freeway-caused suburbanization, which made driving a necessity. (I-5 plowed through Portland in the 1960’s).
(another interesting fact: each day there are 121 new motor vehicle registrations in Oregon: 14 in Clackamas County, 5 in Multnomah, and 21 in Washington County.)
46 responses to “The Real Cause of Congestion?”
The key factor “freeway-caused suburbanization”.
Freightliner engineers who buy homes in Piedmont in N Portland do not have a congestion problem.
Intel engineers who buy homes in Washougal do. Its all a matter of someone’s choice; some of us choose to congest, others don’t.
Public policy should look to reward, encourage, support those who choose not to congest. By doing so we preserve vital lane space for essential trips that bring goods and services to us all.
Fortunately, we can only drive one vehicle at a time.
I remember a few years ago the Willamette Week did a story on the evils of SUV’s. I pointed out that the person who drives a hybrid to work is still causing more air pollution and congestion than the person who owns a gas guzzling SUV and leaves it parked in the garage and rides her bike instead.
I am not convinced that it is suburbanization that causes people to drive. I think suburbs attract people who want to drive and they raise kids who expect to ride in a vehicle everywhere.
If you look at what is happening in small towns, many of them have been suburbanizing for a long time. Retail has stretched out along the highway and old walkable downtowns have died. These towns didn’t wake up one day and stop being walkable.
Some are no doubt victims of traffic engineers. But most are victims of automobiles and national branding that replaced local businesses with cookie-cutter “cash and carry” stores that assumed people would drive. And that assumption was self-fulfilling. That same process happened in the suburbs.
But suburban streets are not simply auto-oriented. They are but-ugly industrial roads that are unpleasant to drive on, much-less walk or bicycle. The starting point for suburban transportation improvement ought to be to make the streets pleasant places so at least when you are stuck in traffic you are stuck in a pleasant place in traffic.
Oregon and Washington are very popular places to live. Rex, should know that Metro land use plans and extensions of the UGB have brought significant new infill and new suburban area’s.
What this tells me is that we cannot stick our heads in the sand and not recognize that we must prioritize investment to create new capacity with our roads and highways. It is a fact of life.
Failure to address this need to accommodate this increase in the number of vehicles will result in worse air and water quality that will be a direct result of this increased levels of congestion.
There is NO free lunch, our quality of life will be reduced unless reasonable capacity is added to our roads and highways.
I am sure that many of the people who read this WEB blog are going to do their part eliminating or curtailing their need and use of motorized vehicles and that is good.
We all have a responsibility to our neighbor, the environment, and the world as a whole.
But lets get honest as we look at problems that are compounding faster then can be solved with more people using and investments made into Light Rail, Streetcars, Bike and PED Paths.
The example is the number of vehicles that can be and/or are reduced or taken out of a corridor when Light Rail capabilities are brought online.
It has been estimated that when Light Rail gets extended into Vancouver it might reduce the number of vehicles in the I-5 corridor by 1% initially. It might ramp up to 2% in 5-years and 4% in 10-years.
However if growth in SW Washington is in double digits and that has been the case for approximately the last 10-years, we are falling behind and Light Rail will help but it is more like putting a finger in the dike of demand.
Washington County has job base, Clark County Washington sends approximately 65,000 commuters to jobs in Oregon in the I-5 corridor each day.
Approximately 55,000 of these job commuters cannot currently use any tansit method to get to their place of work, it is just not available, Light Rail is not going to solve the problem either.
Clackamas County has limited job opportunities and it is a base exporter of workers. Clackamas County has received one of the biggest increases of the UGB, thank you Metro for creating more suburbia, need for cars, and greater congestion.
The new planned extension of the Light Rail to the Clackamas Town Center/Mall is great but these rail cars are not going to prevent congestion from getting worse in the I-205 corridor.
In fact congestion is going to get worse in Clackamas County in a compounded way unless more capacity is added to I-205 immediately.
We must include the building of the new Sunrise corridor out to Damascus to save jobs in the 212/224 corridor or all of these new people will have to commute further to work.
It is all about having access to places of work where good family wage jobs exist.
It is about the economy and transportation plays more then a minor role in creating these jobs and opportunities.
“But the greatest impact was freeway-caused suburbanization, which made driving a necessity.”
Where is the documentation that supports this statement? Or is it only a theory?
“I-5 plowed through Portland in the 1960’s”
Would you rather have all the traffic on Interstate Avenue, MLK, Barbur Boulevard and all other adjoining streets including the residential ones? The population growth in the area alone would overwhelm such a plan. Owning and driving a motor vehicle for most people is not only an expression of freedom, but a fact of life anti-car people must accept.
Furthermore, I have to agree with Paul. His post is right on target.
…each day there are 121 new motor vehicle registrations in Oregon: 14 in Clackamas County, 5 in Multnomah, and 21 in Washington County.)
The differential in this statistic seems obvious but still speaks volumes. Any idea how many of these registrations are from newly immigrated population and how many are from current residents?
“But the greatest impact was freeway-caused suburbanization, which made driving a necessity.”
what’s controversial here?
1. automobile suburbs were rare before the massive freeway buildout that began during fdr’s presidency. at that time, they were mostly a refuge for the more weal off who could afford cars.
2. as the freeway network expanded, and cars became more and more affordable, the middle-class fled to the cheap land of the suburbs for their new homes which were more affordable due to federally insured loans, and mortgage interest write-offs.
3. as the middle class left the cities, city infrastructure and services crumbled, creating greater demand for these new auto-oriented suburbs–something like 80% of American buildings have been put up in the last 50 years.
4. as new communities were built around cars, and old pre-car communities died, the need for a car increased.
the only dispute i can think of would be “freeway-caused suburbanization”, which is fair. i don’t think it’s that debatable, though. some sort of suburbanization would have taken place without the federal and state highway systems, but it would be much different than what we have now.
Clark County Washington sends approximately 65,000 commuters to jobs in Oregon in the I-5 corridor each day.
Which is the real explanation for congestion and they continue to build houses faster than they are creating jobs.
Approximately 55,000 of these job commuters cannot currently use any tansit method to get to their place of work, it is just not available,
Which is the second real explanation. People drive because they have no alternatives. And most of their new housing is being built in places where there are no alternatives.
How about Clark County not issuing any new building permits where there isn’t transit available.
Ross Williams writes: “People drive because they have no alternatives.”
That is on the spot. So let’s give them an alternative by opening the transit market to others, whether they are indivuals driving part-time, or major corporation such as Raz Transport, Blue Star, or someone we never heard of before.
M.W.
Actually, I run 5 vanpools between Swan Island and Clark county…they are heavily subsidized with CMAQ funds thru Metro (no Clark county or C-Tran support). I am not making money!
UPS has already solved their I-5 problem…they built a hub in Vancouver and put 100 people to work there. Now if we could get WA to legalize triples, UPS would be happy.
Last, one of my vanpool riders from Battle Ground took matters into her own hands and moved to north Portland; her commute to Swan Island is now a breeze…no congestion at all.
There is no need to accommodate foolishness.
If I-5 had not but cut through the guts of north and eastside Portland, we probably would have ended up with a freight priority extension of Greeley connecting Swan Island with Rivergate, Downtown Vancouver would be a major retail hub in its own right, and the East Portland beach on the Willamette would be really nice on an afternoon like this.
…Clark County Washington sends approximately 65,000 commuters to jobs in Oregon in the I-5 corridor each day.
…
Approximately 55,000 of these job commuters cannot currently use any tansit method to get to their place of work, it is just not available…
…
People drive because they have no alternatives. And most of their new housing is being built in places where there are no alternatives.
This discussion about transit in Clark County is going on at just the right time – C-TRAN is asking for feedback on revamping the system due to loosing 7th St. Transit Center (they don’t actually mention it, that’s what’s going on).
The info. is currently linked on the homepage of c-tran.com.
They’re also running a comprehensive curcuit of open houses that started on Monday and continues until early next week. I’ve been to these before on other topics (IMO, unlike TriMet, they listen to comments more carefully and seem to answer most if not all of the questions they’re asked), and highly recommend attending one if you’re interested in public transit in Clark Co., or even in general.
Actually, I run 5 vanpools between Swan Island and Clark county…they are heavily subsidized with CMAQ funds thru Metro (no Clark county or C-Tran support). I am not making money!
Thanks for the info., that answers my Aug. 10th question in the “Ferry Feasibility” thread about the old 191 Swan Island Express route.
Lenny Anderson writes: “Actually, I run 5 vanpools between Swan Island and Clark county…they are heavily subsidized with CMAQ funds thru Metro (no Clark county or C-Tran support). I am not making money!”
Okay you are not making any money so the question is why are you not making any money? How much does it cost each rider? Ho many stops does each van make? And where can we get more information on this service?
Thanks,
M.W.
Where is the documentation that supports this statement?
Terry, you should not be requesting documentation as you have never supplied any sources when I have called you on bogus information.
it is really amazing that everyone’s facts match everyone’s opinions. makes me hopeful that some genuine fact finding and real debate can actually change people’s minds.
Some facts that apparently need re-stating:
1) You have no natural right to freeways. The “fact of life” that says that suburban commuters are entitled to more freeways is in fact a subsidy from the taxpayers. You’re whining for those of us who made community-oriented sacrifices (riding bikes and public transit, sacrificing square footage in our homes in order to live closer to where we work) to subsidize your McMansions and big yard lifestyle. No free lunches.
It shouldn’t surprise you that we prefer to subsidize forms of transportation — mass transit — that cost a lot less, contribute less to global warming and pollution (that hurt all of us), and foster community rather than yet more expensive and subsidized sprawl development.
If you don’t like it, don’t move to places that require so much car commuting. As more commuters get disgusted with gridlock, demand should rise for affordable closer-in housing and transit alternatives, and presumably the market and government will respond.
2. If we build more freeway capacity, it’ll just fill up again in a few years as developers build yet more sprawl to take advantage of their publicly subsidized transport arteries. As this site has shown so often, building more highway lanes is futile, and rail expansion (combined with other strategies) is ultimately the most cost effective way to reduce congestion. http://www.vtpi.org/cong_relief.pdf http://www.vtpi.org/cong_reliefII.pdf
A quote from the latter: “Roadway expansion can reduce traffic congestion in the short-run, but these benefit tends to decline over time due to generated traffic, and the additional vehicle travel tends to increase other costs such as downstream traffic congestion and parking demand, total accidents, energy consumption and pollution emissions (Litman, 2006b). Advocates generally exaggerate the benefits and underestimate the full costs of highway expansion.”
Congestion is reality’s way of telling developers and politicians that they need to provide cheaper, healthier alternatives than the failed policies — more highways– of the past. Agreed that we need to work for (that is, require developers and lawmakers to provide) non-car alternatives for commuters. Yet it’s ironic that many who gripe about gridlock also often vote against candidates, initiatives and taxes that support expanded public transportation that could in the long term reduce congestion far more cost-effectively than more freeways.
Rex: In 1975, there were about 2.3 million people living in Oregon. They owned about 386 Thousand cars. That’s one vehicle for every 6 people.
In 2004, there were about 3.6 million people living in Oregon, owning 3.2 million vehicles. Just over 1.1 people per vehicle.
JK: People tend to get cars to improve their life as soon as they can afford them. They end their transit dependance and travel where they want, when they want, door to door and in comfort without having to be around drug deals and crime. (who wants to hang around a max station at 82nd, far NE or Hillsboro?) This trend started in the 1920s, a time when the USA had the best transit system that it ever had. Even then, transit was unable to compete with the automobile. People who think that we just need a better transit system to get people out of their cars are trying to re-run a battle that transit lost 8o years ago. The win was so decisive, that well over half of America’s households got a car withing a ten year period (if I recall right)
Portland will be a better place to live when planners recognize this simple fact and start planning for the way people want to live instead of how the planner’s theology says they should live. Same for elected officials. Even in transit rich Europe, most transit systems are losing market share to the car. There is a reason: the car is better in just a bout every respect.
Rex: There are many factors that prompted this radical shift, including rising incomes, availability of easy credit, and women entering the workforce.
JK: Although Europe has lower income than the USA, a similar trend is happening there. In general, Europeans are abandoning mass transit and moving to the freedom of the suburbs, just like in the USA. They are just a few years behind us because of their lower standard of living. (Why are planners constantly looking to Europe as a model – are they trying to lower our income too?)
Rex: But the greatest impact was freeway-caused suburbanization, which made driving a necessity. (I-5 plowed through Portland in the 1960’s).
JK: Rex, you need to learn a little history. The term suburb is ancient. It means “beyond the wall” – beyond the wall around the city. Medieval cities had suburbs. Suburbs were not caused by the auto, they were caused by people wanting to live in a better place – away from the city. If you want to learn how people want to live (as opposed to how planners want them to live) look at how the rich live. Where does your good friend, Neil, live? Out of the city. There is a reason – a better life. Metro needs to stop trying to force people into a less desirable lifestyle and quit trying to imitate the densest urban area in the country: Los Angeles.
Thanks
JK
peter Says: 1. automobile suburbs were rare before the massive freeway buildout that began during fdr’s presidency.
JK: Eisenhower was prez when the interstate system started. FDR was an earlier president.
peter Says: at that time, they were mostly a refuge for the more weal off who could afford cars.
JK: Look at how the well off live to tell how people really want to live. Suburbs allowed millions of peole to live a better life. Why do you have a problem with that?
peter Says: 2. as the freeway network expanded, and cars became more and more affordable, the middle-class fled to the cheap land of the suburbs for their new homes
JK: That raised their standard of living and they found the suburbs mere desirable: IE: more livable.
peter Says: which were more affordable due to federally insured loans, and mortgage interest write-offs.
JK: Wrong. Those same advantages were available anywhere (except for some redlining) They could have had a row house build in the dense inner city with no backyard for the kids, high crime and crummy schools, but they choose a large back yard, lower cost, better schools and lower crime, the idiots.
Thanks
JK
Ross Williams Says: Clark County Washington sends approximately 65,000 commuters to jobs in Oregon in the I-5 corridor each day.
JK: This is a good example of how screwed up Oregon land use policies have driven people out of Oregon to Vancouver. Look at how much congestion we would have if the 65,000 people lived near their jobs in Hillsboro and Beaverton. But Metro is putting new housing in Damascus. What idiots!!
Ross Williams Says: Approximately 55,000 of these job commuters cannot currently use any transit method to get to their place of work, it is just not available,
…
Which is the second real explanation. People drive because they have no alternatives. And most of their new housing is being built in places where there are no alternatives.
JK: Wrong again. People drive because it is more convenient and more comfortable. We are not a third world country that has to settle for traveling in uncomfortable transit.
Ross Williams Says: How about Clark County not issuing any new building permits where there isn’t transit available.
JK: How about Calrk County just adapt Oregon’s screwed up land use system. Then Vancouver homes can cost twice what they should like Portland’s. See Planning Penalty at http://www.ti.org
Thanks
JK
JK says: Metro needs to stop trying to force people into a less desirable lifestyle and quit trying to imitate the densest urban area in the country: Los Angeles
Common sense: then stop building roads and start building alternatives!
PS. I would like to see where you got that gem about LA being the “densest urban area in the country.”
PPS. Plenty of rich folk live in the city.
Well, the truth is that the Los Angeles area IS the most densely populated urban area in America.
The devil is in the details, however. What happened in LA is that all of the auto-dominated sprawl created between 1950 and 1990 has filled in. All of the smaller cities and towns have filled up to the point where it’s impossible to tell if the strip malls you’re looking at are in Asuza or Cucamonga.
So, what exists now are millions of people living closely together with few or no viable travel choices other than private automobiles thanks to 50 years of auto-centric transportation policy. That is NOT what Portland is trying to emulate.
For a good reference on urban density, check out http://www.sprawlcity.org.
nuovorecord Says: So, what exists now are millions of people living closely together with few or no viable travel choices other than private automobiles thanks to 50 years of auto-centric transportation policy. That is NOT what Portland is trying to emulate.
JK: Oh, what about this metro quote:
We could not depart Figures 12 through 14 without pointing out some apparent disparities between perception and measurement, namely, Los Angeles. When we measure the LA region, we find high densities and low per capita road and freeway mileage and travel times only slightly higher than average. By way of contrast, common perceptions of Los Angeles suggest low density, high per capita road mileage and intolerable congestion. In public discussions we gather the general impression that Los Angeles represents a future to be avoided. By the same token, with respect to density and road per capita mileage it displays an investment pattern we desire to replicate.
You can get a copy from:
http://www.portlanddocs.com/metrodocs/metro_measured.PDF
(Although, I think Metro finally got around to putting it on their site, this is a scan from an original paper copy)
Notice that Metro is right on schedule:
1. We are increasing density.
2. We are reducing lane-miler per capita by both reducing lane-miles (boulevards, bike lanes) and increasing the capita as the region’s population increases.
nuovorecord Says: For a good reference on urban density, check out http://www.sprawlcity.org.
JK: What is wrong with allowing people to live where they want to? People generally prefer the suburbs because of a better quality of life. Are you against a better quality of life for other people?
BTW: do you have a real name? Please use it.
Thanks
JK
“JK: Eisenhower was prez when the interstate system started. FDR was an earlier president.”
Eisenhower was reponsible for The Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956 which finalized our interstate system, but according the the FHWA, the master plan really began under FDR with the The Federal Aid Highway Act of 1938. This was follwed by the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1944 (see above link), then the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1952(see above) and for $955 million, 6,417 miles of highway had been built before Eisenhower entered office.
Earlier designs called for a toll funded system but then were put to rest because it wouldn’t pay for itself.
“JK: Look at how the well off live to tell how people really want to live. Suburbs allowed millions of peole to live a better life. Why do you have a problem with that?”
did i say i had a problem with people living in the suburbs? Answer: No. Fwiw, wealthy people also like to live in high-rise condos, in the Pearl District, and other urban cores across the nation. I think it’s a mistake to draw such general conclusions from the living patterns of a small number of wealthy people.
You offer these platitudes, which sound nice, but mean nothing. Soley judging by land value, we could determine that the most desirable, IE: more livable, areas are the inner urban core in Portland. The turht is quite simple, and obvious: different people desire to live in different ways. Who woulda thunk?!?
“peter Says: which were more affordable due to federally insured loans, and mortgage interest write-offs.
JK: Wrong. Those same advantages were available anywhere (except for some redlining) They could have had a row house build in the dense inner city with no backyard for the kids, high crime and crummy schools, but they choose a large back yard, lower cost, better schools and lower crime, the idiots.”
Actually, this is technically quite innacurate, though it’s a common misconception, those loans were not available equally in urban and suburban areas. Early on the FHA implemented loan requirments that garunteed only “low-risk” areas. The criteria for an area to be categorized “low-risk” included:
1. Having a low population density.
2. Consisting of mostly newer construction.
3. Not having a significant black or immigrant population.
ie: chacteristically suburban areas.
The FHA garunteed 90% of a loan’s value. A mortgage for a non-FHA loan would have required at least 33% down, but more often 50%; this had the effect of often making it cheaper to buy in the new suburbs than to rent in the already established urban region.
Thank you for mentioning redlining, a practice in which the Home Owners Loan Corp issued maps based on the above criteria, marking the “high-risk” areas red, the most desireable areas green (with blue and yellow in between). The FHA would not insure loans in “red” areas.
FHA also subsidized home repair at a much lower rate than home building, meaning it was often cheaper for a home owner to buy a new house than repair or upgrade an existing one. Another bias towards suburbs.
High crime and crummy schools are the product of a vicious circle of federal economic policies which have driven out the middle class, and redistributed wealth from the central city to the urban fringe. Obviously there are good things and bad things about the decentralization of urban regions, but you have to look at what the policies that shaped this outcome were; you can just pretend it was the “free market”–there is no “free market”. Here in Portland, and many other cities countrywide, we are now seeing a reversal of this trend where the middle class and wealthy have been returning the urban core, and the less well off are getting pushed out to the older, decay suburbs due to gentrification.
“JK:Thanks”
You’re welcome.
on another tac…the best gauge of economic activity in the south Bay Area is congestion on freeways linking SF with San Jose. The longer the trip, the more economic activity…said to be a more accurate almost real time metric than the usual measures.
Let’s not hope for less congestion…like we had around here in ’82.
Look at how much congestion we would have if the 65,000 people lived near their jobs in Hillsboro and Beaverton. But Metro is putting new housing in Damascus. What idiots!!
Yes. I would say anyone who buys a new house in Damascus and works in Hillsboro is probably an idiot. But none of the trip studies suggest that is happening or that it will happen in the future.
And very few of those 65,000 Clark County commuters are going anywhere near Hillsboro. They are going just across the river into the Columbia Corridor, Rivergate and the airport, to Swan Island, to Lloyd Center and to downtown Portland. All those places near where new housing is being encouraged.
Randal O’Toole just wrote a great report that seems to counter Rex Bikeholder’s assumptions
————————————————
The Greatest Invention
How Automobiles Made America Great
http://americandreamcoalition.org/Greatest.pdf
The automobile has been widely criticized for its social costs, including accidents, pollution, and changes to urban form. But few of the critics consider the many benefits that the auto has produced for the average American. This new paper (940-kb pdf) from the American Dream Coalition fills that gap, showing that the automobile has played a large or dominant role in:
* Increasing personal incomes by seven times;
* Increasing personal mobility by six to eight times;
* Increasing homeownership rates by nearly 50 percent;
* Reducing the cost of consumer goods and increasing the variety of such goods by up to 100 times or more;
* Enabling the civil rights and women’s liberation movements;
* Making outdoor sports and numerous other recreational and social opportunities available to the average person;
* Reforesting 80 million acres of deforested horsepasture lands and converting 40 million acres of other pastures to higher-value croplands;
* Providing rapid access to fire and other emergency services and swift escape from natural disasters.
Automobiles, trucks, and tractors also allowed a significant improvement in land uses in this country. Since they replaced horses for most farming and hauling uses, farmers converted 80 million acres of horsepasture to forests, which are far superior for wildlife and watersheds, and another 40 million acres of pasture to the production of higher-valued crops. In comparison, the 21 million or so acres of low-density suburban development that has taken place since 1945 is relatively insignificant.
Because of these benefits, it is reasonable to call the mass-produced automobile the greatest invention in the 230 years since the American republic was founded. Those who seek to reduce the amount of driving people do by imposing disincentives to the auto or allowing traffic congestion to increase risk killing, or at least limiting, the automotive goose that laid the golden egg of American prosperity.
The paper recommends:
* Governments should be neutral regarding people’s transportation choices, only insuring that people pay the full costs of their choices
* Transportation agencies should be led by transportation professionals, not political appointees, and funded as much as possible out of user fees such as gasoline taxes, tolls, and transit fares.
* Subsidies needed for purposes of social equity should be given to transportation users, not transportation bureaucracies.
These policy guidelines will insure that government programs produce transportation systems that are safe and efficient, allowing the nation to continue enjoying the benefits of the greatest invention in its history.
If he (or whatever Metro “planner” is ble to look up the facts) they would find the same trend of vastly increasing per capita auto ownership throughout the world, especially Western Europe, as well as in “transit-oriented” “high density” areas such as Inner Portland (population lower than in 1950 but autos owned much, much higher) or New York City. This also includes major cities that lack any freeways (e.g. Clevaland OH & Vancouver BC).
Also, those freeways — and highway expansion in general — came about because of something called democracy. Having good roads with adequate capacity is very popular among the public. The only reason this has not been translated in recent decades into expanding highway capacity is because of the incessant propaganda campaign by the elitist, left-leaning media & campus pinhead “intellectuals” against it. Their belief is that vastly increasing demand should be met by freezing or even decreasing the supply, like Castro’s rice ration in Cuba (from 6 to 5 bags, 1960 to 2000). This Lunatic Fringe “solution” ain’t gonna last and only has been perpetuated by Rex and Co. by misleading the public about their objectives and the results of what are basically anti-democratic, un-American, and reactionary policies.
I agree with ROT, the automobile was a great invention that has provided dramatic benefits. That does not follow that a hundred years later it more use of the automobile still produces a net benefit. If we look at electricity, for example, it is clear that there has been a huge benefit from its use. YOu could argue that the benfits are far greater than the automobile. But we learned a long time ago that it was not cost effective to build new expensive power plants so that people didn’t have to insulate their homes, caulk windows or turn off lights when they weren’t being used.
We have reached that same point with automobiles. The cost of providing capacity for people during rush hour in urban settings is enormous. When you add the cost of highways, local streets and parking to the cost of operating the auto, it is far cheaper to provide transit. And experience shows that as the quality of transit service improves, more people choose to use it. The same is true of pedestrian and bike improvements. As it has been made easier and safer to use a bike or walk for transportation, more people have chosen to do so.
At some point we will no doubt reach a point of diminishing returns on transit, bike and pedestrians investments. But we are a very long way from that.
And, of course, ROT is an economist. He has no interest in evaluating aesthetics. But it is quite clear that people prefer places where there is less traffic. Even in densely settled areas like Portland, people prefer quieter neighborhood streets with trees to the soviet-style industrial roads that serve large numbers of automobiles.
came about because of something called democracy. … The only reason this has not been translated in recent decades into expanding highway capacity is because of the incessant propaganda campaign
Otherwise known as democracy. The fact is that light rail and transit are enormously popular even in Portland’s suburbs. People want to be able to drive places and they can. But, they also want an alternative for more trips so that they aren’t always forced to drive.
Ross Williams Says: We have reached that same point with automobiles. The cost of providing capacity for people during rush hour in urban settings is enormous.
JK: Yes, but roads are far cheaper than rail. Buses are cheap because they share the roadbed expenses with cars and trucks. If mass transit is so cheap, how come Trimet’s price for a monthly pass (without subsidy) is about twice the monthly payment on a new car. (Small car, but a heck of a lot bigger than ONE transit seat, if you are lucky enough to actually get a seat)
Ross Williams Says: When you add the cost of highways, local streets and parking to the cost of operating the auto, it is far cheaper to provide transit.
JK: But users pay for the roads & highways while transit users depends on others to pay their cost (taxpayer subsidies.) On street parking is a road expense, paid for by road users while off street par king is provided by businesses to attract customers, much like advertising.
Ross Williams Says: And experience shows that as the quality of transit service improves, more people choose to use it.
JK: Then howcome, when we had a complete tranist system, people left it as soon as they could afford cars? You are trying to repeat a battle transit lost 80 years ago, hoping that human nature has changed and that people no longer appreciate comfort, convenience and saving time.
Ross Williams Says: And, of course, ROT is an economist. He has no interest in evaluating aesthetics.
JK: But aesthetics is so subjective. For instance, some people actually prefer a one-to -five acre, tree filled lot, with a 3000 sqft house, little impermeable surface, on site rainwater management, a garden, a windmill for energy and maybe even locally handled sewage to a 1500 sqft condo in a tower surrounded by asphalt and concrete with the only green in the far distance (except for those hideous little street trees). The one-five acre is also much cheaper except, perhaps, for Metro’s artificial shortage of land.
Ross Williams Says: But it is quite clear that people prefer places where there is less traffic. Even in densely settled areas like Portland, people prefer quieter neighborhood streets with trees.
JK: That is why people move to the suburbs – ½ acre (&up) lots, quiet cul-de-sacs with all the traffic on nearby arterials. Not to mention better schools, less crime and lower costs, all of which add up to a better standard of living (better livability).
Ross Williams Says: to the soviet-style industrial roads that serve large numbers of automobiles
JK: Soviets did not have large number of automobiles, they kept their people too poor to afford them. But Portland does have Soviet style housing – take a look at that planner’s paradise, the Center Commons, from the Banfield – looks just like a Moscow apartment block.
Thanks
JK
But users pay for the roads & highways
The people who use roads and highways at rush hour in urban settings don’t begin to pay for the costs of those roads while using them.
If it were up to the libertarian’s, there wouldn’t be any bridges across the Willamette. We would still be using free-enterprise ferries. The fact is that there are benefits to a public transportation system that includes transit. And it is fantasy to think we are going to have an entirely private, free-enterprise transportation system.
Ross Williams: The people who use roads and highways at rush hour in urban settings don’t begin to pay for the costs of those roads while using them.
JK: Peak usage is a fact of life in many industries such as telephone, water and electricity. The highway department needs to get used to it instead of attempting social engendering.
Thanks
JK
JK: Peak usage is a fact of life in many industries such as telephone, water and electricity. The highway department needs to get used to it instead of attempting social engendering.
Yes, people pay more to use many services during peak hours. That’s how the market works
peter Says: Eisenhower was reponsible for The Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956 which finalized our interstate system, but according the the FHWA, the master plan really began under FDR …, 6,417 miles of highway had been built before Eisenhower entered office.
JK: Apparently you missed the fact that the modern system was formulated under Ike:
“However, 1954 was a year in which a new federal-aid highway act would be needed, and from the start, during the State of the Union Address on Jan. 7, Eisenhower made clear that he was ready to turn his attention to the nation’s highway problems. He considered it important to “protect the vital interest of every citizen in a safe and adequate highway system.””
Ike’s key speech(read by Nixon): “the increased funding authorized earlier that year was “a good start” but “a $50 billion highway program in 10 years is a goal toward which we can – and we should – look.” Such a program, over and above the regular federal-aid program, was needed because “… our highway network is inadequate locally, and obsolete as a national system….What was needed, the president believed, was a grand plan for a properly articulated system of highways.”
“The speech, according to a contemporary observer, had an “electrifying effect” on the conference.”
“ BPR estimated that the cost of modernizing the designated 60,670 km in 10 years would be $23 billion. “
So , under Ike, the plan was to build ten times as much as your number above. And it rebuilt the obsolete stuff left over from FDR. Sounds like Ike is really the father of the system as usually stated.
peter Says: Here in Portland, and many other cities countrywide, we are now seeing a reversal of this trend where the middle class and wealthy have been returning the urban core
JK: At great expense and loss of liberty as the UGB boxes in people like the Berlin wall. The cost is already approaching a billion dollars of tax money for the Pearl plus the SoWhat. The cost in inflating the price of housing has made it impossible for new families to afford most homes. Close to 50% of the cost of a home is due to land use policies. See the planning penalty (free download from ti.org.)
peter Says: , and the less well off are getting pushed out to the older, decay suburbs due to gentrification.
JK: Thanks for recognizing that these policies screw the poor again.
Thanks
JK
Peak usage is a fact of life in many industries such as telephone, water and electricity. The highway department needs to get used to it instead of attempting social engendering.
I agree. ODOT doesn’t have enough money to adequately maintain the current roads. They are deferring maintenance that will mean much more costly repairs in the future.
So isn’t it “social engineering” to let some roads deteriorate, while using the money on new facilities that encourage suburban housing development and longer commutes by automobile?
Jim: Apparently you missed the fact that the modern system was formulated under Ike:
…
So , under Ike, the plan was to build ten times as much as your number above. And it rebuilt the obsolete stuff left over from FDR. Sounds like Ike is really the father of the system as usually stated.
peter: dude, you are arguing a point i did not make. here’s all that i said: “automobile suburbs were rare before the massive freeway buildout that began during fdr’s presidency”. of course Ike is known as the “father of the interstate system”, but that doesn’t change the fact that the freeway buildout began in 1938 under fdr. sheesh!
Jim: Close to 50% of the cost of a home is due to land use policies.
peter: a huge portion of the cost of home right now has to do with greenspan’s bubblicious monetary policies over the past few years, combined with irresponsible lending practicies.
interesting how you never address all the federal policies that–intentionally or not–dramatically favored the development of auto-oriented suburbs, and the middle-class exodus from the urban areas. all you ever do is say “what, don’t you like freedom!?!”.
peter Says: here’s all that i said: “automobile suburbs were rare before the massive freeway buildout that began during fdr’s presidency”
JK: Yep. They used to be called streetcar suburbs. I assume that you know suburbs means beyond the wall as in beyond the city’s wall. It is an ancient word, as are suburbs. The streetcar, then highways just made it easier for people to live they way they wanted – out of the high density city.
peter Says: a huge portion of the cost of home right now has to do with greenspan’s bubblicious monetary policies over the past few years, combined with irresponsible lending practicies.
JK: That is why you compare similar homes in two different cities like O’Toole did at http://www.ti.org and found that similar homes cost around twice as much in Portland. (Don’t feed me that “Portland is such a desirable place line” – the planners say that about every city, across the country, after they destroy housing affordability.)
peter Says: interesting how you never address all the federal policies that–intentionally or not–dramatically favored the development of auto-oriented suburbs, and the middle-class exodus from the urban areas.
JK: How come the same thing is going on in Australia and Europe?
peter Says: all you ever do is say “what, don’t you like freedom!?!”.
JK: Well, what don’t you like about freedom?
Thanks
JK
“The house on the cover of this report recently sold for $150,000 in Houston. But if it were in Portland, it would cost more than $300,000; in Boulder, nearly $550,000; and in San Jose, well over $1.2 million. What causes such wide variations in housing prices? The answer is housing shortages caused by restrictive land-use planning”
So, according to this theory, Portland has much less restrictive land use planning than San Jose and Boulder. But more restrictive than Houston.
Of course Oregon’s land use laws apply to the entire state. So what would the price of that house be in Umatilla? I guess this theory is it would be the same as Portland.
There is this cliche about real estate prices ROT has apparently never heard, “location, location, location”.
Jim: Yep. They used to be called streetcar suburbs. I assume that you know suburbs means beyond the wall as in beyond the city’s wall. It is an ancient word, as are suburbs. The streetcar, then highways just made it easier for people to live they way they wanted – out of the high density city.
peter: yes, i took latin in college, i know what it means. “sub” under or near, “urbs” is short for urbis, which means city, but in the roman empire urbis usually referred to Rome itself, or other walled cities, thus “close to the city”.
but this is all beside the point. i have nothing against suburbs, people who want to live in them, or even really the massive amount of public spending that has gone into making that way of living accessible to many people. all i want is a transportation infrastructure that is not dominated by a single-mode. oh, and an economic system that more accurately prices the cost of relying so heavily on that one mode.
JK: That is why you compare similar homes in two different cities like O’Toole did at http://www.ti.org and found that similar homes cost around twice as much in Portland. (Don’t feed me that “Portland is such a desirable place line” – the planners say that about every city, across the country, after they destroy housing affordability.)
peter: Portland is such a desirable place. but really; i have read parts of that report, it is interesting to me; several of the example regions that are not suffering from the “planning penalty” are also regions that happen to have a net loss of population every year (cincinatti, indianapolis, grand rapids). other regions without the “planning penalty” have near the worst air quality in the country (atlanta, houston), and i’m not sure about their growth patterns.
echoing ross’s point, growth is very important; areas that are not growing fast–or at all–are not going to have any political motivation or need to limit, or control growth. they are also not going to see rising land prices. areas without rising land prices are not going to be affected by speculative asset bubbles generated by alan greenspan.
finally, ROT engages in more statistical trickery in this report: he asks “If heavily planned Portland is so much more livable than lightly planned Vancouver, Washington, then why did Vancouver grow by 210 percent in the 1990s when Portland grew by only 22 percent?”. why indeed? how about because “Vancouver grew significantly through annexation in the 1990s. During this time Vancouver’s city limits expanded by 29 square miles, and added almost 100,000 residents. Vancouver completed the largest annexation in state history on January 1, 1997 when 11,258 acres and 58,171 residents were brought into the City”. This is one example of how intentionally misleading his statistics are, and why i cannot trust even the reasonable sounding stats.
JK: How come the same thing is going on in Australia and Europe?
peter: they build publically funded roads there too.
JK: Well, what don’t you like about freedom?
peter: i don’t like when the word is abused.
Ross Williams Says: “The house on the cover of this report recently sold for $150,000 in Houston. But if it were in Portland, it would cost more than $300,000; in Boulder, nearly $550,000; and in San Jose, well over $1.2 million. What causes such wide variations in housing prices? The answer is housing shortages caused by restrictive land-use planning”
So, according to this theory, Portland has much less restrictive land use planning than San Jose and Boulder. But more restrictive than Houston.
JK: That is correct. San Jose has had insane land use restrictions longer than Portland.
Ross Williams Says: Of course Oregon’s land use laws apply to the entire state. So what would the price of that house be in Umatilla? I guess this theory is it would be the same as Portland.
JK: As usual, you ar wrong. Some cities have hit their Berlin Walls harder than others. When the walls were established, they were far out and had no effect. Gradually, over time, one city after another grew to the wall and land became more expensive. I have heard reports of a million dollars an acre in some of Portland’s suburbs.
Ross Williams Says: There is this cliche about real estate prices ROT has apparently never heard, “location, location, location”.
JK: Right! Close to a million dollars an acre inside Portland’s Berlin wall and cheap outside. It is working just as Metro anticipated ten years ago:
3, By the same token, the data suggest a public welfare tradeoff for increased density, reduced VMT and higher nonauto travel . The downside of pursuing such objectives appears to be higher housing prices and reduced housing output . Metro Measures pg 45
Thanks
JK
peter Says: all i want is a transportation infrastructure that is not dominated by a single-mode. oh, and an economic system that more accurately prices the cost of relying so heavily on that one mode.
JK: Of course we rely on the auto because it is the best, most versatile, most comfortable mode of transport. But you are right, all modes should pay their own way. Since autos already do, a good start would be to have TriMet start paying its own way.
peter Says: echoing ross’s point, growth is very important; areas that are not growing fast–or at all–are not going to have any political motivation or need to limit, or control growth. they are also not going to see rising land prices. areas without rising land prices are not going to be affected by speculative asset bubbles generated by alan greenspan.
JK: You left out one detail: some areas are growing fast without an increase in prices and they are areas without restrictive land use regulations.
peter Says: JK: How come the same thing is going on in Australia and Europe?
peter: they build publically funded roads there too.
JK: Australia had no urban freeways throughout their rapid rise in prices.
peter Says: JK: Well, what don’t you like about freedom?
peter: i don’t like when the word is abused.
JK: In other words, you don’t like other people having freedom.
Thanks
JK
JK: People tend to get cars to improve their life as soon as they can afford them.
Me: this explains why only 22% of households in Manhattan own cars? The mean income of Manhattan is: $47,000 per household (1999, census).
Average house price in Manhattan?
1-bedroom: $750,000
2-bedroom: $1 million
They seem to do quite well without cars – particularly financially!
peter Says: at that time, they were mostly a refuge for the more weal off who could afford cars.
JK: Look at how the well off live to tell how people really want to live. Suburbs allowed millions of peole to live a better life. Why do you have a problem with that?
Don’t forget that American cities 100 years ago were total shitholes. By today’s standards, noone wants to live in slummy tenemant housing with 8 families sharing a 1-bedroom apartment! By any world standards, they sucked. No heating, no plumbing, etc, etc…
European cities, particularly today – after massive reinvestment – are a thousand times better than the US in 1920 (our heyday). Much of the reconstruction money for Europe came from the US – if I recall, there was about $50 billion in the 1950’s that was given to France, Germany, etc post WW2. Meanwhile, the US spent far more than that constructing low-density suburbs, carving freeways through vibrant neighborhoods, and generally wreaking havoc with our (then) intact cities.
My favorite quote: “If one were to compare the cities of the US and Europe, one would conclude that WW2 had been fought in America…” – such is the (as of 10 years ago) state of the country.
However, I am just preaching to the choir, and die-hards – whether you prefer a *nice* urban environment or a suburb, will not likely change your mind.
However, please remember that where you spend the money determines where people will live, and how they will live and get around. It’s quite simple, and simply not spending money one place does not mean that the entire Portland Metro will fail and become a ghost town with no jobs. Cities will always adapt.
Jim –
I hate to say this, but if you gave people a choice of where to live. Portland, Boulder, San Jose or Houston, not many people would choose Houston. The fact is that comparison makes it pretty clear that stricter land use laws create better communities. Houston has the oil industry, because that’s where the oil is. The other three cities are growing because people are picking up and moving there.
Justin Says: JK: People tend to get cars to improve their life as soon as they can afford them.
Me: this explains why only 22% of households in Manhattan own cars? The mean income of Manhattan is: $47,000 per household (1999, census).
Average house price in Manhattan?
1-bedroom: $750,000
2-bedroom: $1 million
They seem to do quite well without cars – particularly financially!
JK: Looks to me like they can’t afford cars with their average income of $47,000 and mortgage payment of $70,028 (@5.75%-12x$ 5,835.73) on that million dollar 2 bedroom house.
Thanks
JK
Justin Says: Don’t forget that American cities 100 years ago were total shitholes. By today’s standards, noone wants to live in slummy tenemant housing with 8 families sharing a 1-bedroom apartment! By any world standards, they sucked. No heating, no plumbing, etc, etc…
JK: Everything got better, both the cities and the burbs. so the burbs are still more attractive.
And burbs are still cheaper with better schools and larger lots, all of which add up to a higher standard of living – more livable. Of course you are more likely to be close to your job in the burbs since that is where 80% of the jobs are now days.
Justin Says: European cities, particularly today – after massive reinvestment – are a thousand times better than the US in 1920 (our heyday).
JK: And Europeans are still mainly living in the sprawling suburbs. (more dense than our average suburbs, but still sprawling)
Justin Says: However, please remember that where you spend the money determines where people will live, and how they will live and get around.
JK: How about letting builders build where people want to live, instead of trying to confine them to some planner’s dogma as to where people should live?
BTW, do you have any comment on the claim that the long range goal of the planning class is to get all people into high density cities, ban living outside of the cities (except for farming) and let the rest of the country revert to nature. (wildlands project)
Thanks
JK
Ross Williams Says: I hate to say this, but if you gave people a choice of where to live. Portland, Boulder, San Jose or Houston, not many people would choose Houston.
JK: Wrong again. Looks like twice as many people chose Houston over Portland. Maybe they like having a job or affordable housing. (Houston population: 4,647,300; Portland: 2,255,500 source:http://www.mongabay.com/cities_urban_01.htm )
Ross Williams Says: The fact is that comparison makes it pretty clear that stricter land use laws create better communities. Houston has the oil industry, because that’s where the oil is. The other three cities are growing because people are picking up and moving there.
JK: You aren’t serious are you? First your conclusion does not follow from the facts. But, the REAL fact is that your comparison makes it pretty clear that something didn’t attract as many people to Portland as to Houston, with its lack of silly land use laws. I suspect that people like Houston’s affordable housing and low unemployment, both of which Oregon is rapidly losing due to nutty land use laws (and other nutty laws).
Thanks
JK