Planners for Metro, Portland’s regional planning agency, are playing an interesting game. They did a travel survey in 1994, when gas prices were low and the economy was booming. Then they did another survey in 2011, when gas prices were high and the economy was in recession. They found that Portland travelers in 2011 are more likely to bicycle or ride transit and less likely to drive. Naturally, they credit their land-use policies with the change.
The Oregonian is rightly skeptical of the “spin” Metro planners are putting on the numbers. There are several reasons justifying such skepticism.
First, the sample size was small–4,800 people for a region of well over a million people. Second, the numbers do not tally well with the results of the Census Bureau’s American Community survey. The Metro survey found that 81 percent of Portland-area commuters rode in cars and 11 percent took transit to work in 2011. The Census Bureau, however, found that more than 84 percent drove and only 8 percent took transit in 2008. Since the census data are based on a larger sample–more than 25,000 households in Oregon, of which about a third are from the Portland area–it is probably more reliable.
A cialis online http://www.slovak-republic.org/language/ migraine is usually described as a very real warning. If you start losing interest in sexual thoughts and sexual activities, then you may be suffering from low T level, the demand for testosterone canadian viagra 100mg will increase. These words echo all the time and everywhere for all the men. tadalafil uk cheap We can source you the best solutions for ED issue at a most reduced conceivable value so that our clients get significant levitra cheap reserve funds on their costs on pharmaceuticals. Third, there’s the whole 1994 vs. 2011 comparison. Transit nationwide came pretty close to hitting bottom in 1994, when it carried only 7.9 billion trips. (Bottom came in 1995 at 7.8 billion trips.) In 2011, transit carried 10.4 billion trips, 32 percent more than in 1994. Considering population growth, this represents a 10 percent growth in per capita trips, which has more to do with gas prices than land-use planning.
Fourth, claims that density are the “key to low-car life” ignore other important differences. Planners say that auto use is lowest in the city center, which they say is denser. But the Metro survey also found that children are a major travel generator: While a two-person household makes about twice as many trips as a one-person household, a household with two children makes more than three times as many trips per day as a two-person household with no children.
What really happened in Portland is that high housing costs have driven most families with children to the suburbs, while the city center consists largely of singles and childless couples. The exodus of families with children has forced Portland to close more than a third of its high schools since 1980, and those that remain open have only about half the students that they had in 1970.
So the real key to low-car use is not density, but getting rid of the children. That’s probably not a prescription that Metro planners want to advocate out loud.
Considering population growth, this represents a 10 percent growth in per capita trips, which has more to do with gas prices than land-use planning.
I agree that we shouldn’t plan for increasing energy prices. We should continue to do things the old way, with no transportation or energy choices in rising prices. If you can’t make more money to pay for things, YOYO bro. Too bad for you!
DS
If you can’t use the government monopoly transit systeem because it does not go to where you are going, when you need to be there. Too bad for you, you still have to subsidize it.
Last time I looked, increased gas prices, also affect the cost of transit.
Last time I looked, increased gas prices, also affect the cost of transit.
Stated another way, since transit is so profoundly dependent on highway users to fund transit operating and capital deficits, reduced highway use (and reduced taxes paid by highway users) reduces the amount of money that transit can consume.
Third, there’s the whole 1994 vs. 2011 comparison. Transit nationwide came pretty close to hitting bottom in 1994, when it carried only 7.9 billion trips. (Bottom came in 1995 at 7.8 billion trips.) In 2011, transit carried 10.4 billion trips, 32 percent more than in 1994. Considering population growth, this represents a 10 percent growth in per capita trips, which has more to do with gas prices than land-use planning.
How much of that 32% increase can be attributed to transit use in New York City and places served by transit running to Manhattan (Penn Station, Grand Central Terminal, the PATH system and the Port Authority Bus Terminal)?
When it comes to transit, the iconic New Yorker cover is correct – there is Manhattan, and then there is the rest of the United States.
What really happened in Portland is that high housing costs have driven most families with children to the suburbs, while the city center consists largely of singles and childless couples. The exodus of families with children has forced Portland to close more than a third of its high schools since 1980, and those that remain open have only about half the students that they had in 1970.
Of course the policies seeking to generate high density is a movement to get kids out of the city. All the “positive” indicators of desired city life — loud bars, bad parking, street musicians, people just hanging around on the street — are not what people with kids want around their neighborhood.
Considering population growth, this represents a 10 percent growth in per capita trips, which has more to do with gas prices than land-use planning.
How much of the transit patronage increase is due to an increase in the number of poor people in Portland and nearby areas?
In my home county of Montgomery County, Maryland, planners piled up low-income apartment complexes in certain parts of the county, and then took credit for increased transit patronage, most of which was due to apartment dwellers (with lower(er) incomes) who did not own motor vehicles.
“Naturally, they credit their land-use policies with the change.”
Not that I don’t believe you, but this was not explicit in any of your links. The hubbub between Metro and the paper seems to be about the validity of the numbers not the cause of the mode shifts.
I can’t say that I would be surprised that so called “anti-auto” land use policies did have a marginal effect of the mode split in Portland, but I agree that other factors are probably more prominent.
“So the real key to low-car use is not density, but getting rid of the children. That’s probably not a prescription that Metro planners want to advocate out loud.”
It think it’s both. Massive increases in density are unattractive to drivers and parents. I may play semantics and phrase it a bit differently but I don’t think transit planners should deny this. Taking away the outliers you see this everywhere in America. You don’t see a lot of school children in LoDo (Denver) and I would bet my life savings that transit and bicycle use is higher there than in Cherry Creek. Same for downtown Austin. Same for…
Taking away the outliers you see this everywhere in America. You don’t see a lot of school children in LoDo (Denver) and I would bet my life savings that transit and bicycle use is higher there than in Cherry Creek. Same for downtown Austin. Same for…
If you choose conveniently omit the basic fact that different life stages have different dwelling requirements, then you can make a (false) claim that patriotic housing choices are being negatively affected in an area where Ricardian rents crowd out SFH.
That is: the demand in high-rent areas is too great for low-density picket fences and space for the standard-issue yellow labrador retriever. Couple that with demographic changes and no wonder some are afraid.
Although Belltown neighborhood in Seattle and parts of Vancouver BC are reporting stroller congestion, so there’s hope for Children of
DestinyDensity.DS
“If you choose conveniently omit the basic fact that different life stages have different dwelling requirements, then you can make a (false) claim that patriotic housing choices are being negatively affected in an area where Ricardian rents crowd out SFH.”
BS. Don’t put words in my mouth. My point is exactly “that different life stages have different dwelling requirements.” That’s exactly why you don’t see many families with children in LoDo. That is my observation based on almost everywhere I’ve seen in America (sans the outliers). That said, I’ve never been to Belltown.
My point about semantics is what you obviously missed. You can say “the key to low-car use is getting rid of the children,” or you can say “that different life stages have different dwelling requirements.” It’s the same thing. You can either say it like an objective and rational person or you can say it like a snarkey antiplanner, but ultimately the point is the same.
I for one don’t believe that you have to give up yards and labradors to increase density. I’ve worked on a couple of projects where the goal was to increase (double for the most part) density without sacrificing the SF character of a neighborhood. The fact is, most americans with school aged children will not choose to live in a highrise. However, they might choose to live on a lot with 2 dwelling units (sse: duplex or granny flat).
Also, I live in a SF neighborhood of mostly starter homes, mostly occupied by 30 somethings with toddlers. I know all about stroller congestion. The sidewalk in front of my house is pure madness at 10am on any given Sat. All this without a highrise.
Ah. I omitted the emoticon that depicts [insert right-wing ideological argument here], resulting in confusion. Apologies.
DS
Kid friendly restaurants is your evidence? Really? With 1,732 children living downtown (including Belltown) and the lowest percentage of the population of under 19 of any Seattle neighborhood, reality begs to differ.
I wrote ‘stroller congestion’, I didn’t write ‘backpack congestion’ or ‘schools coming back downtown’. The attrition makes my point about life stages and crowding, so thanks. White flight and suburban flight has happened across the country, in cities without growth management as well.
DS
My bad. Although I still don’t think that Belltown can be described as having “stroller congestion” when only 76 children under two years old live there.
There are over 11 times as many of the same demographic in nearby Queen Anne, and even industrial Interbay = 3x Belltown.
When I go to see the new Bond movie at Cinerama next week, I’ll take an informal stroller survey as I walk down the sidewalk while trying to avoid stepping in vomit, panhandlers, drug dealers, and drunk hipsters.
Stroller congestion is the greatest density term I’ve come across in some time.
Believe it or not, I’ve seen stroller congestion result in stroller rage.
Ha ha. + 1
I hope stroller rage can be mitigated by the proper dispute resolution techniques.
During a presentation of the research Tuesday, Metro board
members asked the authors of the $1 million study to dig even
deeper to find data showing the agency’s land-use planning is
paying dividends.
Metro planners have long operated on the assumption that
people don’t want to spend time in their cars.
So, they spent a million dollars on a study that didn’t yield the results they wanted. Therefore, the politicians told them to “fix” the problem so that the board and their planners don’t look entirely stupid.
And just who told the “planners” that people don’t want to spend time in their cars?
Do planners consider a city without children to be “sustainable”?
To the extent that it results in a lower population, I would guess the answer is “yes”.
No.
Fuel prices affect what?
Hello, McStatist?!