A post on Planetizen today offers a link to a Newsday article discussing the future of suburbs in America. Triggered by recent efforts in Nassau County, New York, Scott Carlin, an associate professor of geography at the C.W. Post Campus of Long Island University, offers suggestions for reversing the trends of individualism and consumerism and discusses sustainability and interdependence as the future philosophy for American suburbs. Indeed, the discussion also turns to development patterns and adjustments in the transportation networks that link suburbs to their neighbors.
Greening the suburbs is about recalibrating philosophy, technology and public policy so we champion interdependence rather than individualism. The suburbs were born out of an ideology of separation from the city, but the 21st century requires new regional and global partnerships.
Green suburbs will need a new generation of regional plans that are far more visionary than current offerings. The challenge is to reduce total energy consumption dramatically, yet create more enjoyable and healthier communities that reconnect us to nature. Green suburbs will be high-density, mixed use, walkable communities built close to public transportation. In a greener future, cars will be used sparingly – maybe even shared among neighbors instead of being privately owned. Food and energy will be produced locally. The green suburb won’t be an assemblage of individual homesteaders; it will be a mixed-income, ecologically integrated community that promotes natural and cultural diversity.
In this era of severe resistance to new taxes, what are some ways we could promote these concepts in the Portland area? Given that roughly two-thirds of the metro-area population resides outside of the urban core, how could we tackle the challenge of transforming existing suburbs into walkable neighborhoods with easy access to reliable public transportation? A frequent topic of discussion on this board relates to the challenge of adequately funding public transportation in the low-density suburbs. In a future that requires taking serious and tangible measures toward reducing energy consumption, what specific steps could we take here in the Portland area to address the challenge of making transit an attractive and practical alternative to driving in the suburbs? How do we address the inevitable mobility challenges for the baby-boomers that are now reaching retirement age? How could we promote local production of goods that will rely less on fossil fuels and an increasingly constrained freight system for delivering food to the local grocer?
Continue reading The Greening of the Suburbs
37 responses to “The Greening of the Suburbs”
One option: Just sit back and wait… in a few years oil could be expensive enough to convince people to drastically reduce the amount of driving they do.
I’d say we have to be more proactive than complacently patient while business-as-usual sprawl and couterpart skyscraper towers leave suburbs economically dysfunctionally under-developed and central city over-developed.
Oregon’s land-use laws slow development down to where some progress and innovation may occur, but the rest of the nation’s suburbs will continue to sprawl recklessly while their city centers hoard building materials (that should be distributed throughout the suburbs) in the form of skyscrapers.
No doubt the right wing will continue to oppose change lemming-like upon the precipice of economic and environmental collapse. What say we go build on the cheap in the flood plain?
I think maybe having some local studies and whitepaper that give a vision for what could be, and back it up with facts about why it is better (and cheaper), then that could be publicized and could sway the public,and the elected officials.
heres how:
Government control and restriction of corporate big box retailers, and preferential tax treatment and other incentives toward the development small ‘family’ stores which can operate on a micro scale, within walking distance to suburban communities and which contribute to the general social fabric of rather than plunder it.
We need to go back to city planning models around the turn of the century, and reverse the run away corporate big box monstrosities.
I don’t think there has really been a lot of thought given to how you really get compact, transit friendly development in the suburbs. Some suburbs have moved to create pseudo-city centers but they have mostly turned out as large shopping centers with very little residential development.
If you look at small towns, they are becoming more “suburban” with auto-dependent development in strip malls spread out along the highway. Outside Oregon with its urban growth boundaries, most of the new residential development for small towns is happening in the surrounding rural areas because of lower land prices and taxes.
My guess is that on net, auto dependency continues to grow. Some cities are starting to make changes to reduce dependence, but they are offset by the continued growth of auto-dependence in suburbs, small towns and rural communities.
It would help if gas was more expensive, but instead of waiting for it to happen naturally, we could increase the cost artificially (petroleum user fees) and reinvest that money into our communities.
An opinion piece in the Oregonian a while ago pointed out that Americans already pay a very large gas tax – but instead of the money coming back to us it goes to middle eastern countries who use it to build stuff like giant palaces and huge infrastructure. If only more people would understand that.
Before, I begin, I would like to state that I love nothing more for us to live in ” green suburbs that are high-density, mixed use, walkable communities built close to public transportation”.
However, this must be a decision that people and society make, not simply because of rising oil prices. But because, high density living is more attractive and how allows a better quality of living. What will occur, if we discover a fuel source in the next 20 years that will allow us to commute cheaply once more, if such decisions are based on economics alone?
Finally, the author talks of the production of food locally. However, remember this occured before the agriculture revolution. We delegated the production of food over 200 years ago, so as to enable us to focus resources on other more attractive and profitable areas of the economy.
I have been happier since I moved out of the Portland Metropolitan concrete jungle back in August. I now drive around a giant pickup and spend about $400 a month in gas to get around. Add to that my $150 a month insurance and $500 car payment. Sure, it’s much more than I was spending to ride the MAX but my rent is cheaper, groceries, everything is cheaper and my quality of life has been substantially improved by moving out of neurotic, overly congested and polluted city Portland, Oregon. We Northwesterners love nature and are close to the earth. We weren’t meant to be caged in concrete vertical highrises and be made to ride around in cattle cars to go up the street to get our overpriced lattes. We need to wake up and stop building more concrete places and be out in the country. Or make our kids and pets play in recycled fountain water on the concrete in the middle of summer. Why are we glorifying this newfangled “smart growth” idiocy which is doing nothing except making the ever expanding Portland area like any other big city worldwide?
GT –
The more urbanized areas grow upward, the less they are growing outward, protecting your rural and outer-suburban areas from overdevelopment.
– Bob R.
We delegated the production of food over 200 years ago, so as to enable us to focus resources on other more attractive and profitable areas of the economy.
I think that misunderstands the history of agriculture. There has always been trade in some agricultural goods. But the focus on large centralized production was heavily subsidized. The “farms” in California are irrigated by public water projects. We built a public transportation system that allows them to ship fresh products all over the county. And public universities did the research and developed the crops that would survive that kind of shipping. They developed crops that would produce large yields and could be mechanically harvested by large machines.
I agree with you that counting on the economy to force everyone adopt a green lifestyle is a bad idea. But so is pretending that the current situation is a natural result of progress. We chose to centralize crop production, not because is was cheaper and more efficient but, because it made a lot of money for very powerful interests. Often at the expense of local producers, good nutrition and taste.
“Government control and restriction of corporate big box retailers, and preferential tax treatment and other incentives toward the development small ‘family’ stores which can operate on a micro scale…”
>>>> This sounds sort of ‘communistic’ to this politically middle of the road poster.
Also, small ‘family’ stores often tend to have higher prices. limited selection, and limited hours. Not very pro-consumer in these regards.
And this puts the screws to working class families, but I guess the so-called progressive elitists don’t really give a damn about them, do they?
Well, if the banks simply projected out what the price of gasoline will be in 30 years, (given that most people think peak oil will happen by then, it will be high,) what will be required to keep the suburbs above water/fed/etc, (less CO2,) along with expected gas mileage, and the cost of heating/cooling those houses, they’d realize that a lot of their loans are going to fail…
And (well, until a few years ago,) banks didn’t make loans that they didn’t think would get paid back, especially if the collateral was going to suffer at the same time. And that is my point: If you couldn’t get a loan on a house that didn’t have any insulation, everyone would put insulation up pretty fast…
But the focus on large centralized production was heavily subsidized. The “farms” in California are irrigated by public water projects
Well what’s the alternative? How else are we going to get food here during the winter? Or Bananas and Oranges? What happens if there is a totaly energy meltdown? Do you really think people in town will be able to feed themselves or get heat? Maybe we should do something innovative like have giant hydroponic greenhouses all connected to a solar and wind grid and grow “off season” crops in temperature controlled greenhouses. Then distribute the goods overnight on the MAX to the New Seasons and Whole Foods markets throughout town. I think this would be a great way to go but it would be prohibitively more expensive. But on the other hand maybe this type of production would be less as the price of fuel goes up! Here in Oregon, and especially so in the much touted “high value farmland” Willamette Valley, we are very seasonal. To add to it, we grow a lot of grass and nursery stock for ornamental purposes, not food production. And to think now they want to use food production land for canola which displaces normal food production AND it can ruin other nearby crops with cross pollination. Hey we’re “green” but we’ll starve ourselves trying to be just that. I truly think the people living in Portland believe all the valley produces food for the local farmers markets but that isn’t the case. Oh well in a perfect world.
“Well what’s the alternative? How else are we going to get food here during the winter? Or Bananas and Oranges? What happens if there is a totaly energy meltdown?”
Potatoes.
And keep in mind that California Oranges have been available in New York City since the 1890s, we have a ways to go before we starve…
As I recall, the “Victory Gardens” program during World War II produced a very large amount of food. Whether that is repeatable today is questionable.
For those concerned about calamitous breakdown in the food distribution and supply system, the only real solution is to stockpile food. But those are temporary crisis. There are also some potential slow-moving crisis, like the availability of water and the cost of transportation. You can still get oranges, but they are a lot more expensive. You can’t get tomatoes from Mexico, because they are no cheaper than hothouse tomatos grown locally.
It is those slow-moving crisis where the resiliency of a community is going to depend on its ability to produce more of its own food. And that means the local community has the knowledge, tools,services and land needed to do that.
That said, my point was simply that the growth of centralized commercial agriculture was not a natural product of the marketplace. It is a result of government policies that heavily subsidized its development and continues to subsidize it.
For this conversation to make sense, one must ask “which suburbs?” For 1st tier suburbs, like Milwaukie, Beaverton, Gresham, its pretty clear…create “centers” or perhaps to put it better “Create Theres”…places where people want to be, ways to get there without a car, and nearby housing, affordable and otherwise. The challenges are the old roadway networks that are so destructive of safe multimodal access.
Shopping centers/districts like Wash Sq, CTC and Gateway offer other challenges…acres of parking surrounding fortresses of retail. Tough to convert, but with the advantage of already being a destination. Lots of possiblities.
People move to the suburbs to get away from high density, over crowding and the socialistic assessment of taxes imposed by big city governments that want to implement their own idealistic controls on the lives of other people. Individualism is the basic element of diversity. The first step in any kind of sustainability must be financial self-sustainability – not using tax dollars to subsidize what somebody else wants such as mass transit, bicycle infrastructure, high density people warehouses and/or any other development where the users alone should be footing the bill and paying for the product or service.. People want independence, not interdependence on everybody else. Most people want privacy and grassy back yards, not communal style living sandwiched in like canned sardines. Green in the suburbs is the absence of density and the abundance of individual natural and landscaped areas. The inner cities with tall buildings built sidewalk to sidewalk are the urban incubators where temperatures can often rise to be five to fifteen degrees warmer than in the surrounding suburbs. The challenge is to give people choices and their right to freedom, tax them for only the services they use, and not to impose a big brother style of domination and manipulation over individual lifestyles.
“The challenge is to give people choices and their right to freedom, tax them for only the services they use, and not to impose a big brother style of domination and manipulation over individual lifestyles.”
I SECOND THAT MOTION!
“The first step in any kind of sustainability must be financial self-sustainability – not using tax dollars to subsidize what somebody else wants such as mass transit, bicycle infrastructure, high density people warehouses and/or any other development where the users alone should be footing the bill and paying for the product or service.”
If we’re talking removing subsidies, then we should also remove public subsidies for highways, the oil industry, oil-related environmental cleanup, the portion of the military-industrial complex dedicated to ensuring oil supplies, etc. Once these subsidies are removed, one estimate I read said that car drivers would be paying 50 cents a mile for road use plus 10-12 dollars a gallon for gas.
If those subsidies are removed, then I would be okay with removing subsidies on transit.
So, Terry, are you for the repeal of zoning in the suburbs such as height limits, minimum lot sizes, parking and setback requirements which prevent people from building any form of structure (so long as it is structurally sound) they choose? Because right now, the suburbs have the form they do largely because of such “socialistic” laws. Or, are you just looking to have one set of dictates of development style reign supreme?
People move(d) to the suburbs because that is what they were told was the “right” and “normal” thing to do.
For 50 years now kids have grown up with the government, TV, and advertising telling them that the way we live is a suburban home with a nice lawn and a car in each driveway. And now we have dual car driveways, and three car driveways.
That is in every TV show, and every ad campaign.
I grew up in the 80s seeing all these things and it is what I thought I wanted. So I lived in the suburbs. For 10 years. I bought the suburban houses and drove around and lived like I thought we were supposed to.
But I didn’t like it.
I found that I like the urban areas much more. Now I walk and bike. Now I have stores and shops and jobs, all within walking distance. My daughter loves to walk and ride and use transit.
And we still enjoy going to the mountains or the beach and camping and hiking too.
I found the suburbs to be the WORST of both worlds. You get all of the concrete, taxes, congestion, noise, and pollution of the city – but NONE of the greenspace and nature of the country…
We have been told for so long that it is “Normal” and “American” to own a car and live in the burbs – that it seems almost alien to simply – not…
(And doesn’t Washington County have some of the highest taxes in the region? What are some things that I can’t do in my Portland house that I can do in a Beaverton or Hillsboro house, you know with the evil Portland government forcing it’s idealistic controls on me…? Why is a WAL-MART considered more appealing than a Pearl district?)
Greening the suburbs may wind up taking nearly as long as it took to build the suburbs originally. The bicycle and pedestrian networks need to be built out, so that every house is connected to a nearby neighborhood retail & transit center by both sidewalks and bicycle facilities — just like in the central city.
The nearby retail & transit center needs to be a medium-density urban village. Zoning codes and parking policies need to be revised such that, when existing big-box tilt-up style development reaches the end of its useful lifespan, it will be replaced with 2-8 story (probably 2-5 story in most places) mixed-used buildings. The Westside Corridor, including Beaverton Central, downtown Hillsboro and Orenco already represent good examples of how this might be done — though there is still obviously room for improvement.
Solar panels, green roofs and more urban sustainability programs would also help to make both suburbs and urban areas more sustainable. Bioswales could be used more often to reduce stormwater runoff.
And, of course, better transit systems (ala Westside MAX) need to connect the suburban nodes with one another and with the central city.
Some high-speed rail between one central city and the next might help as well, to reduce the general feeling of need for automobiles. Better mass transit to places like Mt. Hood and the beach would also help.
Why is a WAL-MART considered more appealing than a Pearl district?
Because it’s cheaper, and more accessible. You can buy a whole SUV load full of chinese made crap at Wal-Mart but to buy the same amount in the Pearl is more difficult and you can’t exactly park in a parking lot, either. The only real difference between Pearl District shops and Wal-Mart is the price but the product all has the made in China label on it. Even much of the merchandise in “Made in Oregon” stores is made in China! SHAME! I’m not a fan of Wal-Mart but I’m not vehemently against it either like a lot of Portland NIMBYs. And don’t forget, Portland has two Wal-Marts within its city limits. You can’t say the same of Beaverton or Hillsboro (though I think that, too, will soon be changing). They are even planning a fourth Wal-Mart in the Salem/Keizer suburbs at Keizer station. Personally I would rather see a New Seasons or Whole Foods type market over another super Wal-Mart but I guess people down here aren’t as sophisticated (and definitely a lot rounder) as Portlanders.
You know this whole conversation is interesting. The pundits say that everyone should live in a 400 square foot luxury condo in the Pearl District and pay $900 a month for renting it. The Pearl District is all artificial. That area was once a lake before it became a landfill for Portland, then paved over and turned into an industrial area, now people are living in high density prison cells on top of the former lake. What is natural or “green” about that type of living? Are you crazy? I tried living this way and I hated it. There are crazy and violent people everywhere, bums harassing you everywhere you go, public inebriates all over downtown. Dilapidated, junky and vacant buildings everywhere. The suburbs are much greener than Portland will ever be. Portland is all made out of concrete and high urban density causes problems like heat islands, fumes from exhaust coming from cars (a recent article said Pearl District and SoWhat residents are exposed to much because of proximity and lots of cars), even the Willamette River running through downtown Portland looks like the L.A. cement river with cement walls on both its banks! And don’t forget the sewage in the river! Portland is such a green utopia…. NOT… I sure hope all the suburb cities learn from Portland’s folly and don’t follow its lead.
he pundits say that everyone should live in a 400 square foot luxury condo
Who are those pundits and where are they published?
Where are there 400 square foot “luxury” condos in the Pearl?
now people are living in high density prison cells
I see people coming and going from those condos quite frequently. The guards must be asleep.
Really, Greg, you need to dispense with the hyperbole. You just come off as ranting all the time rather than contributing anything factual or real.
What is natural or “green” about that type of living?
Less resource utilization per capita for things like transportation and heating. Less stormwater runoff per capita. Less water utilization per capita. Etc. etc. If those people weren’t making the _choice_ to live in a somewhat dense residential environment, they’d still be living human beings but utilizing far more resources. _That’s_ what’s green about it.
fumes from exhaust coming from cars
You yourself admitted that you’re driving much more now than you used to, so although your pollution is dispersed, you are still contributing more pollution now than you used to.
And don’t forget the sewage in the river!
Who could forget? You remind us frequently. But apparently you readily forget that Salem discharges sewage into the river, too, and that Portland is spending literally billions to stop the vast majority of overflows.
– Bob R.
I just did a quick search with several realtors offering “luxury” condos in the Pearl District. None of the condos advertised as “luxury” were under 850sq ft, many in the 1,200-1,500 sq ft range, and one over 3,400 sq ft.
There were a few smaller units available in the 450-600 sq ft range, but these were not described as “Luxury”.
Clearly, there are a wide variety of floorplans and unit sizes available in that neighborhood, from studios to 3 and 4 bedroom units. Not the most affordable neighborhood in town, that’s for sure, but there’s a broad range to choose from.
– Bob R.
But apparently you readily forget that Salem discharges sewage into the river, too, and that Portland is spending literally billions to stop the vast majority of overflows
Yes, as do Corvallis and Eugene, two other “green” enclaves…. There was a big hoopla in our community a few months ago. Salem had an application to apply “biosolids” to a 300 acre field strattling the Polk/Yamhill line. There was huge community outcry (NIMBYism) because people in the community felt it wouldn’t be safe. Salem assured everyone it was “safe”. Well if Salem felt it was so “safe” as it alleged then why wouldn’t it put the “crap” all over its own yards and places in town!? Well I think all the cities of the Willamette Valley need to significantly improve in this regard. It’s a disgrace that we are supposedly this environmental utopia and yet we can’t properly dispose of waste (but oh, we have streetcars and trams and other monumental wastes of money adorning our landscape).
“And, of course, better transit systems (ala Westside MAX) need to connect the suburban nodes with one another and with the central city.”
>>>> Westside MAX is BETTER? Are you serious?
The MAX line screwed up most of the transit in Wash. County after it was opened, with unproductive feeder bus lines that don’t really go anyplace. That’s why people complain that it’s so hard to get around by transit. And don’t forget all of the bus lines that don’t go downtown any more, because they are force-fed into MAX, creating additional transfers and longer travel times.
Here’s another thought for all the people that advocate green tax subsidies and socialization – it can even work both ways.
Since every acre of grassland stores some three tons of carbon per year, most deep rooted below ground; under the current “socialistic” tax structure self-proclaimed progressives steadfastly defend whereby specialized infrastructure is 100% subsidized for freeloading bicyclists, and transit riders pay only 21 percent of the costs of providing the service, property owners that have big, medium sized and even small grassy yards should receive huge property tax subsidies and credits from those who don’t – and free water use too to keep all that grass green. Such a subsidy can all be paid for by simply raising taxes and water rates on property owners located in the tall over crowded concrete jungles of the high density urban heat islands, like downtown Portland, the Pearl, etc.
The MAX line screwed up most of the transit in Wash. County after it was opened
Which doesn’t explain why transit use immediately jumped. Trimet should screw up a few more times like that if they can get that kind of jump in riders.
That’s why people complain that it’s so hard to get around by transit.
No it isn’t. Those complaints were there long before MAX was opened. People complain it is hard to get around Washington County by car as well. And that isn’t Trimet’s fault either. The fact is that the County was built out with limited connectivity and has some natural barriers to creating it that effect both transit and auto travel.
don’t forget all of the bus lines that don’t go downtown any more
Its absolutely true that a lot of the express buses got eliminated when MAX opened and that has caused complaints. But which regular lines, that used to go downtown, were changed when MAX opened? There must have been some, because they expanded the local bus service, but I don’t remember any.
“Since every acre of grassland stores some three tons of carbon per year, most deep rooted below ground…property owners that have big, medium sized and even small grassy yards should receive huge property tax subsidies and credits from those who don’t”
I agree totally, we should change the entire tax code to be about carbon. The typical Portland lot is .11 acres, and approximately half of that is covered house/driveway/etc… So at best it is .06 acres of partly shaded (and therefore, not 3 tons/year) grass, which would absorb .18 tons (360 lbs) of CO2/year. Gasoline makes 19.2 lbs CO2/gallon when it is burned, so that 360 lbs is a little less than 19 gallons of gas… So bicyclists with no lawns would have to burn 19 gallons of gasoline less per year than people that own houses, assuming they both wanted to pay the same amount of taxes…
How big of a subsidy were you thinking?
It’s not a carbon tax, but the city does provide a discount for stormwater management on the property, which unless you have a graywater storage tank, usually means downspout disconnection and a yard.
Getting back to the main topic, it is entirely possible to have a low-to-medium density suburban lifestyle, house, yard, garage, etc., in a community which is still designed for walkable and bikeable connections.
My own grandmother, still with us, lived in her own home in Salem — a typical ranch-style home with attached garage — maintaining a very independent lifestyle up to the age of 96 because she could walk to the grocery store. She’s in the process of moving to a senior apartment in Oak Grove now, but if the sidewalk network and nearby grocery store weren’t there for her in Salem, the move would have happened years earlier.
So many newer suburban communities (especially outside of Oregon) require a long drive to basic services. Even if a person is healthy and can walk a long distance, the sidewalk networks are woefully incomplete. The last time I visited friends in Las Vegas, I saw several brand-new major subdivisions going in with no sidewalks whatsoever, and a pointlessly large percentage of dead-ends and cul-de-sacs.
– Bob R.
it is entirely possible to have a low-to-medium density suburban lifestyle, house, yard, garage, etc., in a community which is still designed for walkable and bikeable connections
I wish it were possible to have a no density rural lifestyle and still have mass transit and walking amenities.
One of the things I really miss about Portland is the awesome pedestrian infrastructure and numerous places to walk around. Why do you think I come up on the Amtrak to Portland almost every weekend? The numerous adventures to be had! I just don’t like being in the midst of it ALL THE TIME – I get claustrophobic and don’t like being harassed by bums. Salem actually has many places to bike, too, but they don’t publicize it as much as Portland. I wonder if I can put my bike in the back of my pickup and put my bike on Amtrak when I come to Portland?
In this era of severe resistance to new taxes, what are some ways we could promote these concepts in the Portland area?
Simple.
TriMet needs to focus 100% on expanding bus service to the suburbs. That means new and improved busses, reliable service, and bus stops that people want to go to located near places people want to go to.
Once ridership is built, then TriMet can look at expansions – whether it be a Streetcar or a MAX light rail line.
Instead TriMet is stuck on its “build MAX at all cost” regardless of demand or need; and fail to improve bus service.
Nevermind that TriMet’s latest expansion is to a shopping mall and the best thing it comes to serving a “downtown area” is Lents, a collection of abandoned businesses that straddle a freeway offramp. Improving the line 12-Barbur Boulevard bus would connect Portland with Burlingame, Tigard, King City and Sherwood; offshoots of that line would connect Hillsdale, Multnomah Village, Garden Home, and Tualatin and at a fraction of the cost of a MAX line.
I wonder if I can put my bike in the back of my pickup and put my bike on Amtrak when I come to Portland?
Well, you definitely can put your bike in your truck, Greg. And you can definitely take your bike on Amtrak Cascades.
http://www.amtrakcascades.com/Bicycles.aspx
Nick:
>>”Also, small ‘family’ stores often tend to have higher prices. limited selection, and limited hours. Not very pro-consumer in these regards.”
Yes of course they do, but what do you expect when a store pays their employees a living wage, stocks local, quality goods, and doesn’t have hundreds of employees each working small shifts and paid minimum wage to keep the store open until 11.
All of your ‘consumer conveniences’ which in reality do not amount to you leading a happier and more fulfilled life or anything of the sort, have their price.
TriMet needs to focus 100% on expanding bus service to the suburbs…Once ridership is built, then TriMet can look at expansions
As I understand it, Trimet is already spending far more per average rider on suburban service than it is in denser urban neighborhoods. Running half-empty buses will do that.
Its not at all clear that the quality of service is the major barrier to building suburban ridership. Instead it is low ridership, caused by other barriers, that makes it difficult to justify better service.
One of the major barriers in suburbs is the pedestrian environment. It is simply difficult to get to and from the bus stop because the pedestrian network does not exist or is fragmented. And where pedestrian facilities exist, they are often unpleasant to use. A long walk between parking lots and a four lane road with cars spraying you is not a great way to start the day. And adding more frequent service isn’t going to change that.
A second major barrier, is that people who use transit to suburban office parks often find themselves isolated. Their choices for lunch are the company cafeteria and they have no way to run any other errands before work, after work or at lunch. The Westside TMA did a survey of why people didn’t use transit, and that came up as one of the major factors.
In other words, there is service in the suburbs but people are not using it because of other factors. Simply increasing service is not going to “build ridership”, its going to require a commitment from local communities to creating the kind of pedestrian and commercial environment in which using transit is a good experience.
In the mean time, it does not make sense for Trimet to disinvest in places where ridership is high and new investments will not only increase ridership, but reduce the cost of serving current riders. The result is more people using transit immediately and operating resources freed up to improve other service.
That doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be investments in improving transit in the suburbs. In fact, the region is about to open its first commuter rail project just to serve suburban centers. Hopefully that will drive a need for improvements in bus service. But far from focusing all its attention on the suburbs, Trimet needs to continue to balance its investments to build ridership wherever it will get the best results. That means new investments in the suburbs, but it also means improving the rest of the network.
I guess we need more Beaverton Rounds?