Trouble In Smart Growth's Nirvana

Portland: You know you’re in a cool town when you can roll your baby in his buggy from the Alaskan Airways baggage claim to the lightrail and be at your downtown hotel’s doorstep in 30 minutes. Bottom line is on a typical Tuesday afternoon I could push my baby in the buggy from one end of Portland to the other on foot or via transit and not feel threatened or frustrated or dirty or second class. Three days in Portland’s downtown and I NEVER saw congestion. Bicyclists, buses, quiet streetcars, pedestrians, stylish establishments, and open air cafes everywhere.

It’s ironic that Mr. Cox is accusing Portland of big brother policies when Portland more than any other city shows up in textbooks and case studies as a model for public participation, community driven planning, and democracy. No city that I’m aware of upholds such high standards for and devotes more human and financial resources to public participation than Portland. I fear Mr. Cox knows very little about the city of Portland.

The Portland attacker and many of the Portland defenders appear threatened, like they are feeling exposed or vulnerable. I think economics is the only leg the sprawl lobby has ever been able to stand on. And that's an easy argument for smart growth to win. Smart growth is an offer you can't refuse, if it's presented right. The problem is not Mr. Cox or the sprawl lobby. The problem is that smart growthers can only blame themselves for failing to articulate the economic benefits, which would help the sprawl lobby dinosaurs fade quickly into the setting sun forever. Taking a page out of the conservatives own book, if you ran cities like successful businesses or real estate investment trusts (with long term prosperity goals) you'd emphasize long term investments, long term planning, continuity, efficiency (cost/price/quality), optimizing resources, asset management, customer loyalty, innovation, re-investment, and essentially the biggest bang for your customer's buck (can you tell I’m an MBA head?). Smart growth does all that. Case closed.

Well, I did my homework while working the last three years in the economic development dept of a small town govt (which the sprawl lobby has overwhelmed, despite its smart growth general plan). Smart growth saves Americans billions of dollars in more efficient use of infrastructure and services. It creates more sales and property tax dollars per acre, more management level jobs per acre, and so forth. If smart growth and downtown districts were subsidized the way sprawl is, America would be a nation of thriving hometowns instead of soulless clonetowns.

Affordability cannot be measured in housing alone. The discussion is pointless unless you can address the full cost of affordable living. Housing costs may go up, but this usually coincides with reduced costs in other areas and increased quality and efficiencies. Time is money. If you can ride your bike to work laughing at the gridlock all the way, you've made a good economic decision. If you can count on transit and bicycles to safely chauffer your kids around, you’ve made a good economic decision (kids in Austria ride public transit to school. Who in their right mind would build schools in places that would require its their own transit systems!). And chances are your physical and mental health care will cost you less. In any case housing prices wouldn't be so bad if there were more smart growth communities.

Economic growth in itself is also a pointless objective. You can grow an economy with minimum wage jobs, but it doesn’t improve quality of life. Most adults are trying to resist getting larger because growth is not an automatic indicator of good things. The only good thing that comes from growth for growth’s sake is executives can collect bonuses and bail before burnout. Last time I checked Portland’s urban growth boundary didn’t stifle their economy. That’s the rally cry nationwide by opponents of growth boundaries: “big brother restrictions will kill our American Dream.” Portland has been growing for thirty years since the installment of the boundary. The city’s undisputed improved quality of life since the urban growth boundary can be attributed to innovation, efficiency, long term commitment, democracy/public participation. Smart growth.

I grew up in NYC and I have been to san jose. Claming that San Jose is denser than NYC weakens your arguments as it is a preposterous statement. I'm sure that by some torturing of data you can make such a statement but the self evident reality speaks for itself.

First off, I am a 17-year-old student in a high school in a suburb of Portland (Milwaukie). I have lived in Portland, and am glad I still live near it.

To me, it seems Mr. Cox is not only attacking a well thought out system created by people who were elected because they seemed to have some intellegence (and I would agree), but he also seems to be attacking the city of Portland itself. Portland is a great city, and is often rated high in many different polls (#1 most liveable city in 2000, #1 most kid-freindly city in 2001, among others).

It is a city that is so utterly different than other cities in many respects (geography, ecology, and pedestrian appeal, for example) that it is hard to put in in to categories as "high housing cost cities" without mentioning why... unless you ignore the reasons (like Mr. Cox), which only a right-wing conservative would do. One main reason for the high housing prices is the rarity of the natural beauty, which you can only find in a few select cities, and you could easily say Portland is the most beautiful of all the major cities in the US.

This type of point, which may not appeal to the right-wing conservatives, is definately an important reason the people that live here continue to do so.

Some people are so afraid of what's "different" that they don't want to admit that a change can often be a good thing. Sure, many ideas from the past have failed miserably, but many more have changed the course of life as we know it.

Also, as a prior resident of the city (and still a resident of a suburb), I feel I have more say about whether the transit system (Tri-Met) is working than anybody who lives somewhere else. I take the public bus to school every day, and yet live about 10 miles (if not more. It's just an estimate... if you want to look it up, I live in the eastern part of the city of Clackamas, southeast of Portland.) away from the city center. The transit system in Portland was rated the number one transit system in the US. Also, Portland was rated the number one bike-friendly city in the US. There are many forms of alternative transportation in AND AROUND the city.

As for the traffic, I don't really know where this information came from. There are a few areas around the city that are regularly very slow during rush hour, but I have not seen traffic in Portland bad because of too many cars. The only full-fledged bumper-to-bumper traffic jams I have seen have been caused by accidents.

The downtown Portland area, in fact, has one of the best street systems in the US, and is rarely, if ever, congested. When I see things in televsion programs, for example, of the traffic in other cities, it renews my gladness to live in Portland.

Overall, I am glad I live in Portland. I am a democrat, which of course is the reason I enjoy it so much. But I don't think you should bash on Portland for reasons that are only half the truth. The whole truth is, Portland is an environmetally friendly city, and status quo is not necessary to govern it.

Last comment- Please don't point out flaws in Portland without pointing out the true reason for the flaws, or at least pointing out good things about the city also. And if you've never lived or visited here, maybe you should try before you complain about it.

I was confused by your statement about Dallas. The 39% increase in alternative transportation modes yet not using public transportation. I was confused if this was Dallas or Portland that you were reffering to.

I thought that things were going well in Dallas. The Dallas Area Rapid Transit just opened light rail into the suburbs this summer. The parking lots at the new opened stations are so busy that people have to car pool to get to the stations becuase there are not enough places to park.

Thanks for the heads up about Portland traffic. My family are going there next month for vacation. I know that we will need to allow for extra time to get around the City.

Having lived in both Phoenix and Portland in the past few years I'm having great difficulty with the comparison in the article. I've found housing values to be quite similar in both cities. I can't afford to buy a house in either cities. I can buy a house in both cities if I chose to live outside the urban core area. Is there any housing in the urban core of Phoenix anyway? I could go on and on about indexes and livability issues and how is affordability measured but I won't. I just want to say that I'd rather live in Portland that has a thriving downtown core, where I could live within 20 blocks of downtown on a salary of under 20k (renting), ride the bus wherever I wanted to go in the whole metro area easily and where there is neighborhood shopping and restauants within walking distance of almost every house in town versus having to drive to everything, living in a cheap house miles from downtown, which is a concrete jungle devoid of almost anything except office buildings and wide, wide roads.

I am concerned that Planetizen chose to highlight such a poorly written article with dubious presentation of "facts." It is misleading to those who use your service as their main source of information on planning matters. Are you supporting Cox's stance? If not, why not pair his piece with another that contradicts it so people can decide. As presented, it appears that his is the mainstream idea, and others, listed below his article, are secondary. Very misleading, and I am surprised at how you presented it.

Regina Manzo, AICP

Executive Planner

Singapore Urban Redevelopment Authority

No one can slice and dice the truth like Wendell Cox.

One "personal attack" and then I'll get to the facts. Wendell Cox participated in the George W. Bush transition advisory team. Why he wouldn't mention such a high honor surprises me. But maybe it's low on his "agenda" if you know what I mean.

From the Op-Ed:

--"Portland made some gains in the 1990s. More people used transit to get to work, but as in the other metropolitan areas that made transit gains, many more workers started driving alone."

If Cox is using the Portland-Vancouver urbanized area data he cites, then he is talking about travel behavior in

a market much wider than that in which Portland's vigorous mass transit development could compete and its Smart

Growth policies could possibly have any effect.

Second, mass transit was expanded

modestly in the period 1990-2000 ~ only 18 miles of route(the Westside extension) were added. In contrast, freeways increased by 95 lane-miles and the overall roadway system by more than 1,200. Under these conditions ~ and the many more billions of investment dollars poured into Portland-area

roadway expansion ~ it is hardly surprising that private automobile travel has grown.

However, Portland's transit system has nevertheless experienced significant gains in some respect. Between 1990 and 1997, for example (even before opening of the Westside line), transit ridership in the Portland metropolitan

area grew 20% faster than the growth in vehicle miles traveled (VMT), 43% faster than the growth in transit service provided, and 40% faster than the growth in population. In that period transit ridership grew by 30%, VMT grew by 24%, Tri-Met service by 17%, and population by 18%. That would

seem to be a laudable achievement for any large metro area. [Tri-Met data, 2000/02/23]

--"As Portland's three county transit district expanded both light rail and bus services, 33 percent of new commuters use alternatives to driving alone. But most of them were in the

less costly car pooling and work at home categories."

How can Cox count as "new commuters" individuals who work at home?

--"It will doubtless come as a surprise that even Dallas did better than Portland. In the Dallas Area Rapid Transit service area, 39 percent of new commuters used alternatives to driving alone. And the greatest surprise -- not

a single one took transit. Despite the opening three new light rail lines and one commuter rail line, transit work trip ridership dropped more than 3,000 and transit's work trip market share dropped 16 percent."

Cox's assertions here are extremely questionable. They seem contradicted by other mobility-related data for the

DART service area, and do not appear to be substantiated by the data Cox cites, which relate to the entire Dallas-Ft.

Worth urbanized area.

The Census data, on which Cox seems to base his numbers, do not appear to provide data in any form that

would allow one to make judgements as to the travel behavior of "new commuters". Furthermore, Cox's assertions that, of these "new commuters", "not a single one took transit", and that "transit work trip ridership dropped more than 3,000", appear to conflict with reliable data.

DART's new rail services appear to have attracted many new riders. Between 1997 (the first full year of LRT

operation) and 2000, average daily LRT ridership grew from 25,700 to 37,700. Total daily system ridership in that same period grew from 170,400 to 196,800. [FTA NTDB data, 1997 and 2000] DART surveys have indicated that 30-40% of DART's initial riders were totally new to transit. It is extremely unlikely that this growth was all in non-work, non-"commuter" trips.

As for the work trip "market share" ~ perhaps this dropped, but it is unclear whether this occurred at all, or as sharply, within the DART services area (where transit is vigorously competitive for these trips), as Cox intimates. In addition, it must be noted that, while DART's rail and other transit services have been energetically expanded, the area's

roadway system has been expanded many times more vigorously. While rail lines grew a few dozen miles bewteen

1990-2000, for example, the urbanized area's freeways were extended by 575 lane miles, and the entire roadway system by 1,000 miles. Moreover, the entire urbanized area grew in size ~ expanding by 325 square miles. [TTI Mobility Study data, 2002] It's highly doubtful that expansion even of the

bus system kept pace with this growth, which instead produced greater dependency on automobiles for travel in

increasingly surburban-sprawl-type areas.

I think Wendell makes some valid points. Certainly the voter initiative process has been used successfully to address the real or perceived over regulation problems in Portland, Oregon. The so called "un-densification" measure was proceeded by one that provided much more compensation for takings than that provided by the U.S. Supreme Court. Also light rail transit has been dealt staggering defeats. It is interesting that the taking measure was never implemented because of state legal challenges. And light rail got built in spite of the voters from other funds. It is when the voters see their desires and their votes ignored that they become bitter and angry.

One side note. Several earlier tax iniatives have gutted the Oregon K-12 education system. I recently moved across the river to the Washington side of the Portland-Vancouver metro area. I stopped paying the 9% Oregon income tax and I got better schools for my children. Remember, there is more to quality of life than land use planning.

Wendell Cox's attack on Smart Growth in Portland is less a

well-reasoned, fact-based professional contribution than a

highly partisan political tract with largely unsubstantiated and

highly dubious arguments. I will comment on some of these.

>>What was not expected was that all-suburban Phoenix

would become more dense than Portland, and that sprawl-

defining Los Angeles would emerge twice as dense. It may

be surprising that Los Angeles has been the nation’s most

dense urban area for two decades and has now passed

Toronto. Even 100 percent suburban San Jose is 80 percent

more dense than Portland and more dense than New

York.<<

Other commentators have noted that Phoenix does not have

a higher population density than Portland. Furthermore,

there is nothing new or surprising in the fact that Los

Angeles has a higher density than Portland ~ it has exhibited

approximately twice the density for at least the past decade

(at least according to the TTI 2001 Mobility Study I

consulted). Thus, to imply that LA "would emerge twice as

dense", suddenly outstripping Portland, is misleading. And

to characterize Phoenix as "all-suburban" and San Jose as

"100 percent suburban" is both puzzling (as these are urban

communities) and without basis in fact, as both cities have

well-defined urban cores, CBDs, etc.

>>Despite the claims of the transit-media complex,

Portland’s anti-highway policies are failing.<<

What Cox means by "anti-highway policies" is unclear, but

on the basis of his central focus, one can assume he means

Portland's Smart Growth policies. To characterize these as

"anti-highway" is extremely dubious. According to TTI's

2002 Mobility Study, between 1990-2000 Portland added 95

lane-miles of additional freeways, and 1,235 lane-miles to its

entire roadway system.

>>The 2000 Census shows that transit’s work trip market

share remains 20 percent below the 1980 Census rate,

which preceded opening of the first light rail line.<<

Cox's basis for determining work-trip "market share" appears

to be the US Census, but is not substantiated by the data he

presents. Apparently, the Census queried respondents as

to what mode they were using for their current work trip.

However, this information is not the same as a tabulation of

the mode choice of all daily work trips made. Furthermore,

the Census data Cox cites seems to include the entire

Portland, Or-Vancouver, Wa urbanized area, much of which

lies outside the Tri-Met service area where light rail transit

(LRT) and buses could reasonably compete for private-auto-

based work trips.

>>And, Portland’s highway congestion has become the

worst of any metropolitan area of its size.<<

First, this assertion is dubious, depending as it does on what

measure of "congestion" one uses. If TTI's 2002 Travel

Rate Index is used, then Portland (1.22) is topped by other

Large-category cities like Ft. Lauderdale (1.24), Las Vegas

(1.23), Phoenix (1.25), and Seattle (1.25). If TTI's Roadway

Congestion Index is used, Portland (1.27) ties with Phoenix.

Second, both the Census data Cox cites and the TTI data

apply to the entire Portland-Vancouver urbanized area,

much of which is outside the reach of both Portland's transit

system and its Smart Growth policy jurisdiction.

Third, is it really valid to brandish roadway congestion as any

kind of a measure of the effectiveness of mass transit

expansion and Smart Growth policies? The basic argument

for both programs is that roadways are inherently prone to

congestion. Mass transit and Smart Growth are posed as

ALTERNATIVES to congestion, not as remedies for it ~ i.e.,

more as means to maintain mobility in the face of increasing

congestion rather than as means to rectify it. It is quite

arguable that, as roadway congestion increases, mass

transit ~ especially light rail transit (LRT) and other fixed-

guidfeway, segregated modes ~ becomes increasingly

attractive and gains ridership. Conversely, reduced

congestion probably correlates somewhat with lower transit

ridership.

"Programs designed by governments to mold and shape human priorities and decisions will fail." I suppose the interstate highway system and federal mortgage programs are exceptions? We have been on a government-sponsored road to sprawl for a long time.

In fact, there has been little in the way of choice as to how our cities and rural areas have developed. It is surprising to me, when someone uses “choice” as an argument for a status quo pattern of development that is 1) heavily subsidized by taxpayers and 2) has a legal monopoly. Sprawl has so many laws in its favor that it has become the only viable choice for some. Only one choice is not a choice. Is this a failure? Time to move on?

“Programs designed by governments to mold and shape human priorities and decisions will fail.” Human priorities and decisions mold and shape programs designed by governments. We fail, but sometimes evolve.

There is room for debate as to what the vote means. Is Metro arrogant or

are developers? Are residents NIMBYs or just frustrated and angry at lousy

design, as Jim K. might suggest. Is the City making mistakes in development

planning?

The vote may in fact support many of the concepts and policies of the CNU.

Here is one comment from a Portland resident:

"There is certainly some concern in the neighborhoods about the KIND of

building that takes place, and with good reason, as some neighborhoods have

had the ugliest rowhouses, with prominent garage doors, foisted upon them.

Not quite the cute new urban development they were expecting.

"Also, the issue has been very hot in Southwest Portland, because the

residents there felt it was unfair to increase the density without adding

appropriate infrastructure (roads, sewers, schools, parks, etc) that are

already below standard. Again, good point.

"However, the failed initiative Cox talks about didn't come from the

neighborhoods, it came from Oregonians in Action, an extremist anti-urban

group. The initiative, which purported to give local control back to the

local jurisdictions within Metro, was opposed by the mayors of all 24

incorporated cities within the region."

This Cox guy has hit it bang on with his analysis of the effects of forced desification. Those people who were lucky and already own their homes are going to reap windfall profits from the sale of their homes. Good for them. Not so good for those who are first time home owners, especialy those struggling to get their foot on the lower rung of the ladder. It's not hard to understand why some are such rabid supporters of "Smart Growth" with so much to personaly gain finacialy.

Pro-choice means just that, allowing people the choice (freedom) of where they want to live. BMPers (Behavior Modification Police)if successful, would have prevented settlers from migrating West and settling Portland.

Stephan Louis

Cinn City

I've read the first few comments and obviously at least one nerve is touched. I think he makes some good points, which, like it or not, are worth spending some time thinking about - instead of screaming "right-wing demogogue".

I personally suspect the reason that Portland housing is so high-cost compared to these other places - if the figures on affordability are to be believed - IS market forces more than just density driving the prices. Maybe lots of people just *want* to move to Oregon in general, and that's why housing affordability is dropping. I'd like to see an analysis of migration statistics.

Personally, I can't see why anyone would want to live somewhere like Oregon where rain and depressing gray clouds are a constant part of the landscape (here's my cheap shot, TAKE THAT!), but I think it is reasonable to assume that it is more than density that is driving the cost of housing up - but it certainly can't help, either, to regulate land-use to this extent.

Nice propoganda, Wendell Hatchetman Cox. It's good that it has little basis in reality, making it easier for reasonable conservatives to dismiss. Cox is a Far Right Wing Reactionary, in that he will deconstruct every recognizable achievement to make political favor with those who have no social conscience, no environmental ethic and no other vision in life but monetary profit and material gain at the expense of the rest of humanity. The reason he is still considered an expert in transportaiton is related to his political loyalties, not his highly questionable consultancy.

Just wanted to do a little fact checking (all according to the 2000 census data table GCT-PH1-R):

The City of Los Angeles contains 3,694,820 people located on 469.07 sq/mi of land, for a population density of 7,876.80 people per square mile.

And if only the density information is important, then totals for other areas are as follows:

Los Angeles PMSA 2,344.20

San Jose 5,117.9

San Francisco 7,421.2

Seattle 6,717

Chicago 12,750

Manhattan 66,940.1

City of New York 26,402.8

Portland 3,939.2

So in fact, San Jose may be denser than Portland but trails behind Chicago, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Seattle, New York and most likely more cities not mentioned.

And never having the pleasure of visiting Portland, I can't comment on how the urban growth boundary truly affects the area or exactly how bad the traffic is but I will comment on a few things.

1) Transit in Portland. According to the Tri-Met website, http://www.tri-met.org/whorides.htm, there were 69,800 boardings per day in 2001. That is 69,800 times per day that someone was able to make a trip without a vehicle, saving congestion on the roads and also meaning that a parking spot was not required or taken at the end of the trip.

Congestion will always be a given in an urban environment. You can't have millions of people living in one area and not have problems getting from place to place. At least transit options allow you to not be forced to have to drive there.

2: It is a given that affordability issues will arise with limiting the supply of land. If you want a cheap house, the best way to get one is to build it on dirt-cheap land that is dozens of miles away from a center city. Any type of smart growth will force developers to use land that is closer and of a more limited supply, meaning that it is more expensive. Also hopefully the developers will use the land more fully, with less "dead space" and better placement of buildings relative to infrastructure.

Density can be a good or bad thing, depending on each certain situation and how it is done. Pruett-Igoe is a bad example, but Greenwich Village doesn't seem so bad. At some point, metropolitan areas need to densify if they are to adequately handle increasing population growth.