A group called Sustainlane has ranked America’s largest cities for their sustainability. Which is number one? Why, Portland, of course.
But I have a few questions about how they calculated their rankings. Most of their data are based on secondary sources. Take public transit, for example, which, they say, is based on the “2003 Texas Mobility Study.” Based on whatever this study is supposed to say, Portland gets a greenish score of 20 while Honolulu gets a yellow 28 (apparently, smaller numbers are better).
In fact, Honolulu has one of the highest rates of transit ridership of any urban area in the country. U.S. DOT data show that 3.9 percent of all mechanized travel in Honolulu is by transit, compared with just 2.2 percent in Portland. The 2000 census found that 9.3 percent of Honolulu workers took transit to work, while only 7.7 percent of Portland workers did.
So how did Sustainlane come up with their numbers? The group says they docked Honolulu because it hasn’t built a rail line. Intentions are more important than results.
If you end female cialis up with impotence issue, you may find it effective, some suffer from its undesirable side effects- insomnia, difficulty of breathing, and many others to name a few. So the instruction appears to be working and having a positive Attitude generic viagra prices – Having a positive attitude is very important in business today. People with canadian generic tadalafil severe blood pressure, kidney and liver problems need to consult their physician first. This process is continuous as they have seriously bad influence on male sexual health. buy viagra
Sustainlane also focused on cities rather than urban areas — and transit in the city of Portland does have slightly higher share of ridership than Honolulu. But this only shows what is wrong with focusing on cities rather than urban areas. Honolulu has a merged city/county government, so the entire island of Oahu is Honolulu. Yet most of the island is rural, so the city’s transit market share is lower than other cities, like Portland, that are entirely urban and surrounded by suburbs (where transit ridership is typically lower).
How about some of the other criteria used in Sustainlane’s analysis? “In 1993, Portland was the first city to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.” Well, in fact, it was the first city to claim to reduce them, and the year was 2004, not 1993. And then, it turned out to be an error in arithmetic, and it did not reduce emissions at all. But I guess claiming to reduce emissions is good enough.
Portland also gets credit for being “at the forefront of local food movements.” It got to that forefront because the mayor “formed a food advisory council” and “urged citizens to buy at least 10% of their food from local sources.” It doesn’t mean they are actually eating anything any different from anyone else.
Plus, Portland has an Office of Sustainable Development and it plans to develop renewable energy sources by 2010. Plans plans plans. It would be nice to rank cities on actual performance rather than their plans.
You forgot to mention that Portland is about to become the next hub of that budding new 19th century industry: streetcar production!
Streetcars are particularly attractive to the planner class for two reasons. First they are a genuine 19th century throwback and therefore fit well with the planner class’s preferred city form of a 19th century style high density central city. (The only thing missing will be the horse droppings.) Second, they represent a new high in transportation cost. For instance Portland’s streetcar delivers passenger-miles to people at a cost of only $1.67 each, compared to automobile’s $0.185 (nationally) or around $0.23 in Portland (due to lower average vehicle loads.)
Planners appear to seek to maximize the ratio of transit cost to automobile cost and the streetcars are especially attractive, coming in at over 700% compared to light rails paltry 480% and the best bus lines anemic 146% of the cost of owning and driving a car. Of course, the great advantage of these high ratios is that the taxpayer pays the cost. (Taxis would actually be cheaper per passenger mile if they were allowed to pickup several un-related people and dropped the boarding fee.)
An aside: If we continue to be burdened by low costs, we will never match most European country’s productivity.
data at http://www.DebunkingPortland.com/Transit/Cost-Cars-Transit.htm
Thanks
JK
We in Honolulu are going to get that award, by golly. Our Mayor is not going to leave us behind! He’s infamously quoted as saying “All Great Cities Have Rail!” and he’s right!
We need rail. Badly. Our city needs to be great. We’re not winning awards.
I actually agree with one or two of the many vague things Randal implies here. For instance: it is almost always better to use the latest data available. But, really: who couldn’t agree with that?
Nevertheless, this post is an argument based on ignorance, not on facts.
Most of Randal’s points are quibbles based on – judging by the text – unfamiliarity with designing studies, and thus this post cries out for clarification to understand, in context, how this overall post actually does anything useful, but especially how it doesn’t actually rebut the assertions:
1. Most of their data are based on secondary sources
And?
Almost all studies of this size are constructed this way. Welcome to the world of studies. We never get what we want, so we have to use what we have and supplement according to our time and resources.
To clarify: can you point your readers to, Randal, studies of similar size that did their own complete data collection, and then explain to your readers what is the percentage of these studies to the rest of the ones you implicitly decry? Thank you.
2. So how did Sustainlane come up with their numbers? The group says they docked Honolulu because it hasn’t built a rail line. Intentions are more important than results.
This means nothing.
You should tell your readers, Randal, where the study’s methodologies are so they can look for themselves to find out how SL came up with their numbers and weighting of them. They will then see the reasoning and judge whether your quibbles are valid.
You do your readers a disservice by arguing with no facts – you simply wish to say something negative. If your readers choose to believe you simply because your rhetoric is compelling, they have been swayed by the rhetoric of false premise rather than by facts.
3. Sustainlane also focused on cities rather than urban areas  and transit in the city of Portland does have slightly higher share of ridership than Honolulu. But this only shows what is wrong with focusing on cities rather than urban areas
SL explains this too.
If you have actually ever done a study, Randal, you know how difficult it is to get data that are consistent across all scales. You goes with what you gots.
You should, Randal, either explain to your readers that you are unfamiliar with study design, or explain to them why you are only giving them a partial story.
This metric issue is, BTW, why the CO2 reduction people you linked to got play in the Portland paper, because there are few data to choose from. This is, BTW, adaptive management, but in this case with limited options. See, they chose a milestone, chose metrics that had data, chose a scenario trajectory, measured the metric and reported it. Now, because the target was not met, the management adjusts (adapts) at the milestone to either change the trajectory or implement programs to reduce the emissions. See?
4a. Portland also gets credit for being “at the forefront of local food movements.†It got to that forefront because the mayor “formed a food advisory council†and “urged citizens to buy at least 10% of their food from local sources.†It doesn’t mean they are actually eating anything any different from anyone else….
4b. [p]lus, Portland has an Office of Sustainable Development and it plans to develop renewable energy sources by 2010. Plans plans plans. It would be nice to rank cities on actual performance rather than their plans. [emphases added]
These are both of a piece.
An actual rebuttal would be ‘cities q, r, s, t, u, v, and w are actually far ahead of city x, thus forefront is actually incorrect’.
Randal, you have provided no actual information to back your statement ‘doesn’t mean’, which doesn’t mean anything and thus is worthless. IOW, so what. Why did you bother to write this statement if you can’t contextualize ‘actual’ it for your readers? Your readers are no better off, they do not know whether city x is at the forefront. You have said nothing.
Plus, you have actually said nothing about renewable energy measures. Nothing. You have provided no context for your readers.
You surely can’t consider providing nothing to be a rebuttal, unless you think a rebuttal is simply saying something – anything – against something you don’t like, no matter how vapid or how absent of fact a statement can be.
Your readers need to know what cities have actual performance measurements so they can tell where Portland sits. Or, what cities have plans so they can tell where Portland sits. Or, how well Portland’s plans are progressing so they can tell where Portland sits. Or, how well the country or the planet is doing vis a vis Portland’s plans so they can tell where Portland sits.
Give your readers something to make a judgment, Randal. They can’t do anything useful with empty phrases, no numbers, or no evidence for your dislike of something you don’t like.
Let us know when you’ve done some work so we can learn an actual something from your post. Hint: let us know some real facts about SL’s other performance measures, and what the empirical literature says about their usefulness.
Hope this helps you tell a complete story next time, Randal, so your readers are better served. You surely wouldn’t want them to blindly refer someone back to this empty post and suffer indignity for actually saying nothing.
DS
DS,
Thanks for your lengthy discussion of study design. However, I think you are mistaken about a couple of points.
You suggest that “primary data” means data that the analysts collected themselves. Not at all; it simply means the original data from any source, not the massaged analysis of those data from some biased source. I use census data and FTA transit data; SustainLane used other people’s analyses of those data.
You suggest that it is impossible to get data on some topics for urban areas. I haven’t had a problem with that, but even if there was one, this does not justify comparing portions of those areas. If you compared Manhattan with Houston, you would find huge differences. But when you compare the New York urban area with the Houston urban area, the differences are much smaller. Manhattan could not exist without the urban area around it, but SustainLane compares cities and ignores their suburbs. This is not valid.
Finally, you suggest that I tell readers to look at SustainLane’s methodologies so they can judge for themselves. I would be glad to do that, but SustainLane did not reveal how they calculated any of their numbers. That in itself is a serious methodological fault.
Thank you Randal.
It’s confusing because I didn’t see that many secondary sources – using my fingers while at lunch, less than 50% (as opposed to your Most of their data are based on secondary sources ).
Your second para is presuming cities were compared with unequal data. That is not the case. My discussion focused on the difficulty of finding similar metrics across scales, hence SL’s choice of metrics. If you can show SL did as you say, I’d appreciate it. And if you’re not happy about no suburbs, wait for another paper. Just because they omitted this means, well, what?
And I’m quite sure if you e-mailed the authors, they’d share their methods with you, a this is a compilation site.
Let us know what they send you after you e-m them.
DS
On February 15th, 2007, Dan said:
“…explain to your readers that you are unfamiliar with study design…”
Speaking for myself, I am certainly unfamiliar with study design. If Dan, Randal, or anyone else can recommend something concise on the subject, I would be grateful.
“Just because they omitted this means, well, what?”
It suggests to me, although I haven’t read the paper myself, that the authors may be cherry picking and massaging data, rendering the results questionable. Also, if they are awarding points for plans and intentions rather than or in addition to results, I don’t have any interest in the results, pro-Portland, anti-Portland, or whatever.
On February 15th, 2007, JimKarlock said:
“Streetcars are particularly attractive to the planner class for two reasons… Second, they represent a new high in transportation cost.”
“Planners appear to seek to maximize the ratio of transit cost to automobile cost…”
I hope JK is being facetious. I can’t see anyone believing these statements to be true.
Thank you davek:
It suggests to me, although I haven’t read the paper myself, that the authors may be cherry picking and massaging data, rendering the results questionable.
Good statement.
This is not a formal empircal paper submitted to a journal, it is a best practices website and the product is a study.
You cannot judge whether they are cherry-picking just because the methodology on their site is 2000 words vs 5,000. There are few if any standards for this sort of thing. It is new ground. Maybe they thought 2000 words was enough.
E-mail them and ask them to upload or send you more. See what they say before ascribing malintent. It is a standard part of the month for academics to send a paper along to someone who asks for it.
I anxiously await for Randal to relay the contents of the package he requested from the authors.
DS
DS
Secondary sources, let’s see:
Commute to work: primary
Regional transportation: secondary
Congestion: secondary
NGO information: secondary
Tap water quality: possibly primary
LEED building: possibly primary
Local food and ag: primary
Planning/land use: secondary
Housing affordability: Not specified (but note extra credit for “living wage ordinances” — again, intentions valued over results)
Natural disaster risk: secondary
Energy: primary
City innovations: primary
Knowledge/communications: primary
Based on this, primary slightly edges secondary. But only because of the last three categories, which I consider to be pretty subjective and of questionable validity. As I point out in my article, these are mainly based on intentions rather than results.
I am not going to bother to write them to ask how they calculated their numbers; that information should have been in their report. If you write them, be sure to let us know what they say.
Hello Warren:
I’m a [credential] working in x, interested in y. I’m interested in your complete methodology for your city sustainability rankings. Would you mind, when you have the time, sending me your complete methodology?
Thank you in advance.
Regards,
z
—–
Time expenditure: 14 seconds.
Well, I guess that quibble about methodology wasn’t such a big deal after all.
Nice long post, though.
DS
“Sustainlane also focused on cities rather than urban areas  and transit in the city of Portland does have slightly higher share of ridership than Honolulu. But this only shows what is wrong with focusing on cities rather than urban areas.â€Â
This doesn’t actually show what is wrong with using cities alone (at least when talking about density and transit ridership). It does show that a denser area (Portland city) has higher transit ridership than a less dense area (Honolulu island). I know it contradicts your notion that density does not affect transit ridership (or affects it minimally) so I guess that must be why you conclude this methodology is wrong.
It isn’t wrong to use a use a city, metro, or state to see the correlation between transit ridership and density, in fact if the trend holds at all scales (which it certainly seems to) it reinforces it.
A group called Sustainlane has ranked America’s largest cities for their sustainability
jk: Can someone define “sustainability” in a menainful fashon?
Thanks
JK
Judging Planners by Their Intentions
JK: How else would you judge a grouop that has faild to produce the results that they promised?
They promised lower costs and gave us unaffordable housing.
They promised lower congestion and delivered more congestion.
They promised less pollution and gave us more pollution.
They promised lower cost transportation and gave us mass transit that costs sevral time what the private car costs.
They appear incapable of delivering results. But that doesn’t matter because they spin a good line like the classic snake oil salesman.
Thanks
JK
PDXF
Maybe I did not explain clearly why cities are the wrong measure for sustainability. According to SustainLane’s criteria, denser areas tend to be more sustainable. If a dense city is surrounded by low-density suburbs, the city may rank high even though the overall urban area does not. But no dense city exists in isolation from its suburbs, so all these criteria do is reward high densities that are do more to history than current city planning.
On the other hand, if a city is part of a city-county consolidation with large rural areas in the county (e.g. Honolulu), the rural parts of the county will tend to reduce that region’s score.
Since some states give cities strong powers of annexation and others don’t, city boundaries are pretty arbitrary. But the urbanized area is based on the same definition for all regions of the country (roughly, the central city plus all contiguous areas denser than 1,000 people per square mile).
Thus, any comparison of regions should use urbanized areas. Otherwise, the comparisons will be based on arbitrary geographic factors. City data are useful for other purposes, just not for interregional comparisons of such things as sustainability.
ANTIPLANNER,
I agree that the study is most likely BS…I was referring to your continued stance that when discussing transit ridership and density specifically, you still bring up that you can’t compare use both city and metro data, which I disagree with and stated why.
Why transit? Transit does NOT save money, time or energy compared to small cars. And it pollutes more.
Thanks
JK