Congratulations to Portland for conning another gullible publication into declaring it a wonderful place to live based on intentions rather than results. A magazine named Grist has just declared Portland to be the second greenest city in the world.
What is the basis for this declaration? Why, Portland has a plan, you see, to reduce greenhouse gases. It also has light-rail transit “to help keep cars off the road.”
Yes, and that plus $5 will buy you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.
Judging a city based on its plan is clearly relying on intentions rather than results. Anyone can write a plan. But how about that light-rail system? How much has that done to help keep cars off the road, save energy, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions?
Answer: Not much. Back in the early 1980s, before Portland opened its first light-rail line, transit carried 9.8 percent of commuters and 2.6 percent of passenger travel in the Portland area. Today those numbers have declined to about 7.6 percent and 2.2 percent. Sounds to me like light rail is putting cars back on the road.
Does light rail save energy? In 1983, Portland’s transit agency consumed 5.5 million gallons of Diesel moving about 205 million passenger miles. Using factors in the National Transportation Energy Databook, that works out to about 3,700 BTUs per passenger mile. Using factors from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, that works out to about 0.60 pounds of CO2 per passenger mile.
In order to influence sex hormone, one of these viagra best prices known prescription female sexual enhancement medications is, De hydro epiandrosterone. purchase viagra uk There are multiple benefits of the process including better ejaculation strength, more pleasurable and satisfying orgasm. The problem of tadalafil side effects erectile dysfunction among men is not a new endeavor. Psoriasis Is Associated With Serious Medical Conditions including heart disease, cancer, obesity, psoriatic arthritis, levitra without prescription metabolic syndrome, diabetes, autoimmune diseases (Crohn’s disease), psychiatric diseases (such as depression and sexual dysfunction), sleep apnea, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Then TriMet was forced to raise fares and cut bus service by more than 10 percent to help pay for rail cost overruns. In 1988, after the light-rail line opened, buses used more than 4,100 BTUs per passenger mile. Light rail did better, but the system as a whole required more than 3,900 BTUs and emitted 0.68 pounds of CO2 per passenger mile — significantly worse than the pre-rail buses alone had done.
Portland boomed over the next decade and transit ridership grew by about 54 percent. No new light-rail lines opened during this time, so it is pretty certain this growth would have happened if the region had relied on buses alone. After all, bus ridership increased by 150 percent in the 1970s, against which a 54 percent increase is pretty unimpressive.
As a result of this ridership increase, by 1998 TriMet was using around 3,260 BTUs and emitting just 0.54 pounds of CO2 per passenger mile. Again, this wasn’t due to light rail: at 3,500 BTUs per passenger mile, TriMet buses alone were doing much better in 1998 than they were in 1983 or 1988.
But then TriMet opened another light-rail line. Heavily used corridor bus routes were turned into lightly used feeder bus routes. The agency also nearly tripled light-rail vehicle miles even though the new line was no longer than the first line. The result was a huge increase in energy consumption — by both bus and rail — but only a modest increase in transit ridership.
By 2000, transit needed 3,500 BTUs and emitted 0.60 pounds of CO2 per passenger mile. That’s better than 1983, but how much better could Portland have done if it had stuck with buses and not lost so many transit riders? No one knows.
TriMet has done slightly better since 2000, although the 2005 energy numbers it reported to the Federal Transit Administration seem questionably low, claiming, for example, a 20 percent increase in bus miles per gallon. If that is valid, then whatever the agency did to obtain that savings would have done far more to make Portland green than building light rail.
Portland’s light rail might make other city officials green with envy, but just having light rail does not make a city green.
Randal,
You do your readers a disservice by not placing the numbers you give in context.
Can you show them how other similarly-sized cities compare? Your readers thank you.
DS
i think the authors were measuring political will and focus as their metric for “greenness”. portland should rank highly in this measure, especially considering the political climate in the US.
David Boaz of the Cato Institute, while discussing media bias, cites an example in which intentions are used for rankings here.
Light rail is only part of what makes Portland “green”. Public transportation ridership has increased 75% since 1990, which means fewer cars stuck in freeway traffic. The MAX, street cars, and buses make it possible to live in Portland without owning a car (which I have for 6 years). TriMet has recently refitted buses to reduce emissions by 90%. TriMet expanded its use of biodiesel, which is produced locally and consists of vegetable oil and used cooking oil from Northwest restaurants and Kettle Foods in Salem. Additionally, Portland has a growing network of bike lanes, trails, and signed routes (currently 259 miles) that have doubled the level of bicycle use since the early ’90s. Downtown and many other parts of inner Portland have compact square blocks (and narrow streets, a pedestrian-friendly combination.
Interestingly enough, you ask if light rail saves energy, but go on to talk about diesel; the MAX runs off electricity, not diesel (yes, I’m sure some of the electricity comes from coal-burning plants).
“…but just having light rail does not make a city green.” I couldn’t agree more, and if you knew anything bout Portland, you’d know there are many other aspects to its “greenness”. Aside from transportation, Portland protects green spaces. In the last few years, almost 10,000 acres of forest, wetlands, and other natural areas in the metropolitan area have been permanently preserved raising Portland’s total green space to 92,000 acres, area slightly smaller than Zion National Park. At 5000 acres, Portland’s Forest Park is among the largest wilderness parks within city limits in the US.
Oregon recycles 50% of “waste” and is tied with Maine for the highest rate in the nation. Portland’s regional government, Metro, is working in increasing the diversion rate to over 60% by the end of the decade. Don’t forget Oregon’s landmark bottle bill, which has kept millions of pounds from landfills.
Portland has a developing Ecoroof Program. An ecoroof significantly decreases stormwater runoff, saves energy, reduces pollution and erosion, and helps preserve fish habitat. Portland is already a leader in the green building movement.
Portland has the most amazing urban forest I’ve ever seen and boasts old growth douglas firs, thousands of giant sequoias, and a high percentage canopy cover. Additionally, there are dozens of community gardens; Portlanders also boast a high composting rate.
The city is investigating powering all its facilities with wind energy; this after making its current structures 80% more energy efficient.
I could go on and on about Portland’s “greenness”, but this should make my point that there is far more than light rail that makes this city green.
Your attempt to debunk Portland’s environmental commitment was a shallow attempt; had you done more than scratched the surface, you would have found what I’ve listed and more. But of course, that wouldn’t have supported your political agenda.
rangerx,
Thank you for commenting. I’ve done more than scratch the surface and read press releases. Portland transit ridership grew by 150 percent between 1970 and 1980 when nary a streetcar was in sight. Against that, a mere 75 percent increase since 1990 isn’t much.
But my question was not whether light rail has increased transit ridership (a question I’ve answered elsewhere), but whether it reduces CO2 emissions. It does not.
Sure, Portland has a forest park. It had that park for decades before anyone even used the term “environmentalist.” There isn’t much, if any, old growth in that park, however. I know; I’ve hiked all through it.
Some people are content to praise a city based on promises. I want results. The only results I see in Portland are huge tax subsidies to selected developers and the 2.2 percent of travelers willing to use public transit.
Randal,
can you compare Portland to other cities in order to support your assertion that PDX is not green? You numbers in isolation show nothing.
Your readers thank you.
DS
Randal,
Thanks for your reply. I understand that the parasitic transfer-seeking economy representative of the federal government is also found in regional and city government. I see your point about TriMet reducing C02 emissions; it’s not really reducing emissions so much as transferring them elsewhere. However, TriMet should be recognized for the services it provides to the poor, especially those in North Portland. It privides a vital life line and has reinvigorated business in North Portland, which was where blacks were forced to live before the ’60s civil rights era. It invigorates business everywhere it goes. It also helps non-car owners, some of whom have chosen not to own a car, reduce their impact on the environment in other ways (since I don’t own a car and use rail instead, I don’t consume gasoline or get oil changes or leak oil or throw away tires or run over people or animals). Of course I do still make an impact since some of that electricity was generated through burning fossil fuels.
Portland is green in other ways that are non-governmental. There is a grass-roots movement in Portland. And you didn’t really address our recycling or innovation.
As for Forest Park, it is an absolutely beautiful green way that preserves habitat for animals who range the route relatively uninterrupted from Portland to the coast. Yeah, there’s not a lot of old growth (just some pockets), but imagine what that park will look like in 50-100 years! Someday, Portland will be an old-growth forest of doug firs and giant sequoias, trees that grow 10-30 feet in diameter and 300 feet tall. We won’t enjoy it, but hopefully future generations will. And they’ll thank us for our foresight to preserve over 90000 acres of green areas in Portland. That fact alone should rank Portland in the greenest cities.
You seem blinded by your libertarian filter. You can’t see past the wasteful government, and that’s a sad thing, because like or not, Portland is one of the greenest cities in the world, and most people who live here feel that way. And that’s ultimately all that matters.
rangerx Light rail is only part of what makes Portland “greenâ€Â. Public transportation ridership has increased 75% since 1990, which means fewer cars stuck in freeway traffic.
JK: Ridership doesn’t matter. Suppose ridership doubled while the population tripled – that would be a loss of market share. In fact between the last two censuses, Trimet only gained 1% in market share. I would guess most of that is due to our influx of immigrants who typically use transit until they can car pool, then buy a car of their own.
That Trimet’s share of commuters to the downtown core has declined, supports my guess:
* Downtown Employees Getting to Work by BUS decreased 9% (from 25 to 23%)
* Downtown Employees Getting to Work by MAX Light Rail decreased 43% (from 20 to 14%)
* Downtown Employees Getting to Work by DRIVE ALONE INCREASED 10% (from 44 to 48%)
See: http://www.DebunkingPortland.com/Smart/VibrantDowntown.htm
rangerx The MAX, street cars, and buses make it possible to live in Portland without owning a car (which I have for 6 years).
JK: Of course other taxpayers are paying 80% of your commuting costs. Just for the record, transit costs around three times the cost of driving. See: http://www.DebunkingPortland.com/Transit/Cost-Cars-Transit(2005).htm
rangerx TriMet has recently refitted buses to reduce emissions by 90%.
JK: Make that some buses. That brings to mind all of those “spare the air days†were actually encouraging people to switch to a more polluting form of transportation. For instance see: http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/big_rig_cleanup/rolling-smokestacks-cleaning-up-americas-trucks-and-buses.html and http://www.seattleweekly.com/diversions/0322/diversions-bus.php
rangerx Interestingly enough, you ask if light rail saves energy, but go on to talk about diesel; the MAX runs off electricity, not diesel (yes, I’m sure some of the electricity comes from coal-burning plants).
JK: I think you missed his point: on a passenger-mile basis, the whole system became more energy wasteful. This is because the bus portion became so much more wasteful (due to accommodating the trains), that it overcame any savings from the toy train.
rangerx Oregon recycles 50% of “waste†and is tied with Maine for the highest rate in the nation. Portland’s regional government, Metro, is working in increasing the diversion rate to over 60% by the end of the decade.
JK: Can you provide any credible study that shows money savings from re-cycling? And, I don’t mean the things that have been recycled for years.
rangerx Portland has a developing Ecoroof Program. An ecoroof significantly decreases stormwater runoff, saves energy, reduces pollution and erosion, and helps preserve fish habitat.
JK: So do half acre lots. Those problems you mention are a fallout from the mindless rush to high density. High density also costs more, thus lowering people’s standard of living. see: http://www.DebunkingPortland.com/Smart/DensityCost.htm
rangerx Your attempt to debunk Portland’s environmental commitment was a shallow attempt; had you done more than scratched the surface, you would have found what I’ve listed and more. But of course, that wouldn’t have supported your political agenda.
JK: So is yours.
Thanks
JK
Pingback: » The Antiplanner