Three Elements of Portland’s Success

Portland's Pearl District is one of the truly unique neighborhoods on the West Coast

I recently returned from a few days up in Portland, a city well-known as being decades ahead of its peers when it comes to urban planning.  While I wont go into as much detail as my examination of innovative urban policies in Colorado, I took away three primary elements of Portland’s planning paradigm which have helped it to earn the title of most sustainable city year after year.

Element #1: The Urban Growth Boundary

Portland's UGB is the single most important policy in understanding the region's successes.

In Portland, land is a limited resource.  For the past 30 years, Portland has protected farmland and open space by limiting the development of sprawling suburbs and exurbs through strict controls over the location of growth.  When done right, an urban growth boundary can be the single most effective policy to create a livable and sustainable city and region.  By containing sprawl, Portland makes the most of its built environment, which mostly resembles a less-congested Berkeley density-wise.  What really blew me away was the sheer number of vibrant neighborhood commercial streets that were often within only blocks of one another–NW 21st and NW 23rd, Hawthorne and Belmont, not to mention the entire Pearl District–something which could not occur in a more heavily suburbanized region with a greater presence of strip malls.

There are a number of misconceptions that result from Portland’s UGB.  Contrary to the claims of libertarian critics, the UGB has not stopped all growth and led to an unaffordable region; Portland is actually one of the most pro-growth cities in the nation and has made it easy (through progressive zoning codes and parking requirements–see below) for developers to construct high-quality yet affordable housing to meet the demand of the market.  As a result, Portland experienced much less of a boom and bust than cities in California, and currently has a median housing price is 40% that of San Francisco, 60% that of LA, and 80% that of Seattle, making it one of the most affordable cities on the West Coast.

Element #2: Smart Parking Management

A village of food carts lining a surface parking lot in Downtown Portland.

In the Bay Area, parking can turn conservatives into progressives and liberals into Teabaggers.  Because land is a limited resource and Portland must make the most of existing space, Portland has pioneered a number of interesting and innovative parking management practices.  The two most noticeable of these practices are the adaptive reuse of surface parking lots with food carts and the parking management policies around transit.

Unbeknownst to me before my visit, Portland is famous for its food carts, second to only New York City (which has about 14 times the population).  The 400+ carts range from Indian to Cambodian to Mexican to Brazilian and boast some of the best food in the entire city for a price of $5-$7 dollars.  What do food carts have to do with parking management? Whereas surface parking lots are traditionally one of the single biggest causes of blight in cities, Portland’s food carts play a vital role in fostering a vibrant street life where there otherwise would be none.  Food carts make surface parking lots work.

Portland is also a leader in smart parking policies around transit.  While many local governments maintain high parking requirements even in transit-rich areas, new developments in Portland near frequent transit (buses, light rail, and streetcars) have no parking requirements whatsoever.  Keep in mind this does not mean developers have stopped building parking altogether; it simply gives the power of determining parking ratios to developers and the housing market rather than local governments.  Since an average parking space adds $40,000 to the cost of a housing unit, allowing for unbundled parking with lower ratios has a huge effect on housing affordability near transit.  Even in booming areas such as the Pearl District, condos and live-work units currently start under $200,000–try and find that in San Francisco.

Element #3: Cost-Effective Transportation Choices

The Portland Streetcar is the epitome of development-oriented transit.

Portland’s transit system is geared toward providing the greatest amount of economic growth and mobility for the lowest price.  Over the past 15 years, Portland has had an extraordinary streak of New Starts-funded projects, having built five major MAX light rail extensions totaling nearly 38 miles (not to mention the 15 mile regionally-funded WES commuter rail and the 4 mile locally funded Portland Streetcar).  Yet, Portland’s still not finished, with the 3.3 mile Small Starts-funded Eastside Loop for the streetcar, and the 7.3 mile Milwaukie light rail extension, set to be completed by 2012 and 2015, respectively, as well as a 5 mile rapid streetcar extension to Lake Oswego (essentially a cheaper alternative to light rail) currently in planning and aiming to open in 2014.  The total cost of the 68 miles of rail that Portland will add between 1995 and 2015 is about 25% less than the cost of the 32.5 miles of BART extensions that the Bay Area will have had in the same time period (keep in mind these are just rough estimates adjusted for inflation).  Portland has also achieved better returns on its investment, with around three times the ridership as BART’s extensions (once again, semi-rough estimates).  Even with the fuzzy math, twice the mileage and three times the ridership for 3/4 the price is outstanding for TriMet and embarrassing for BART. As I’ve written too many times before, this enviable cost effectiveness is nothing new for other metro regions, but back to transit in Portland…

The most interesting aspect of Portland transit is its use of streetcars.  Portland’s streetcar system has a very specific function not as an urban circulator or glorified bus, but as a tool of placemaking.  When coupled with a progressive form-based zoning code and market-based parking requirements, the results of the streetcar have been staggering.  Since opening in 2001, 10,000 housing units and $4 billion in economic development have occurred within three blocks of the four mile streetcar line, and new districts have emerged such as the Pearl District, which I found to be one of the best urban neighborhoods I’ve ever been to.  For anyone who believes that streetcars are just glorified buses, I urge you to travel to Portland and see the clear difference for yourself.

Conclusion

Portland is still by no means perfect–there are still numerous aspects of the city’s urban fabric that could be improved.  Portland still has it’s fair share of surface parking lots, at times comically surrounding a streetcar line or light rail stops, and transit mode share is still rather low (13% within the city) considering the city’s reputation (non-commute trips seems to be a big source of ridership as well).  I would have liked to see some nicer buses–Portland was one of the first cities to invest in low-floor buses in the 1990s, but now they look pretty outdated compared to AC Transit’s Van Hools.  Portland could also use a greater investment in Rapid Bus/BRT for some of its major corridors.

View Larger Map

Above: Portland’s Lloyd District–Surface parking lot heaven, in spite of ample transit access (three light rail lines and a soon-to-be streetcar line)

Nevertheless, Portland has accomplished a feat which few other cities can attest to: creating a compact, affordable region with the right mix of densities and transit modes.  Unlike the Bay Area, Portland doesn’t have “www.trimetrage.com,” “www.trimetsucks.com,” or “www.rescuetrimet.com”–transit just works.  I was not able to spend too much time exploring Portland’s bicycle network, though it’s platinum rating, 8% mode share and ambitious plan for 25% of all trips by 2030 could fill up a number of posts themselves.  Overall, Portland is well on its way to becoming “the best European City in America,” leading other regions (such as the Bay Area) to seek to emulate its success.

More photos on the 21st Century Urban Solutions Flickr.

A Truly Progressive Transportation Policy: Invest 5% Of Our Highway Budgets In Bicycling

During the stimulus debate, a controversy developed over a provision to allocate 3%, or 825 million, of the 27.5 billion dollars worth of highway funding to “Transportation Enhancements,” of which approximately 500 million would go directly to bicycle and pedestrian projects.  Here are just a few examples of the backlash which continues to occur:

“To give you just an example [of wasteful stimulus spending], $3 million went to the District of Columbia. You know what they did with that money? They’re going to go build bike paths, and they’re going to increase the number of bike racks in neighborhoods like Georgetown. I don’t think that that’s a stimulative move.”-House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R, Virginia), March 26th, 2009

“I cycle. I like bike paths. I love to see them out there…This is not the time to build these kinds of things. If we are going to invest in infrastructure, invest in infrastructure that actually makes the economy more efficient, such as roads that are needed.”-Senator John Ensign (R-Nevada), February 7th, 2009

“When people see bike trails and hiking trails and golf courses, they know this is not designed to stimulate the economy and create jobs,” Senator Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina), February 2nd, 2009

“I think there’s a place for infrastructure. But what kind of infrastructure? Infrastructure to widen highways to ease congestion for American families?…But if we’re talking about beautification projects or we’re talking about bike paths, Americans are not going to look very kindly on this.”-House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio), January 11th, 2009

When I read these comments, I was stunned by the ignorance and arrogance with which our congressmen approached the 3% funding provision, and how they backed their claims up with no substantial evidence and simply assumed (minor) investments in bicycling to automatically be a complete waste of money.  34 pages later, I completed my research paper entitled Practical or Pork Barrel: The Potential Impacts of Bicycle Infrastructure in America (which was recently nominated for the Boothe Prize for outstanding first-year research at Stanford).

To sum up my findings:

Investments in bicycle infrastructure are among the most cost-effective and beneficial investments that the government can make.  We pour over 175 billion dollars into roads and highways every year, yet our automobile infrastructure is still insufficient to meet demand, causing traffic throughout America.  Factoring in costs from depreciation, fuel, insurance, parking, fees, maintenance, congestion, and pollution, we spend as much as 4 trillion every year, or 1/4 or our GDP, on driving.  In addition, 40% of our oil use and 20% of our emissions come from private automobiles, and increases in driving has been directly linked to America’s growing obesity epidemic.  Most importantly, to believe the solution to these problems can come by increasing efficiency and investing in alternative fuels alone is just plain nonsense.  America has 250 million registered vehicles, of which less than one million are hybrids.  So, to make any sizable reductions in emissions and oil use would take decades and trillions of dollars from consumers, and even then, vehicle miles traveled is predicted to increase 48% by 2030, which would likely wipe out any reductions and even increase our energy use.

If Obama wants to stay on course for an 80% reduction in emissions by 2050 and a 17% reduction in oil use by 2020, American’s must drive less.

Bicycling has a huge potential for success in America.  Nearly half of trips in America are less than 3 miles; yet, 90% of these trips are taken by car.  If just 1/4 of these trips were taken by walking or bicycling, we would reduce emissions and gas use by about 8% apiece, equivalent to 50 million new hybrids on the road (if you haven’t read it yet, Active Transportation for America is a great study).  This is merely a starting point, and with volatile gas prices leading many Americans to seek alternatives to driving, this could be done within 5-7 years with targeted investments in bicycling.  If mode share for under three miles could be bumped up to 40%, we’re looking at a 18-19% reduction, along with a healthier, less congested America.

The best part: cities such as Portland, Davis, and Boulder have already shown the potential of bicycling with just a modest investment–Boulder has achieved a 21% mode share with just 15-20% of their transportation going toward bicycling.  Portland’s bicycle coordinator, Roger Geller, estimates that for his city to raise its bicycling mode share from 8% to 25% would cost just 100 million dollars (50 for the city and 50 for the region), making the total investment for the city alone just 105 million dollars, equivalent to less than one freeway interchange.

So what would it cost the nation to reach a 20-25% total mode share? I have arrived at a figure of 9 billion dollars per year, or 5% of our national highway budget.  Of this, 5 billion would likely need to come from the federal government.  With targeted investments, America could dramatically reduce our energy use and emissions while becoming a healthier and less congested nation within 10 years.  Given rising gas prices, cash-strapped governments, and ailing automobile infrastructure which requires immense investments to meet future demand, we need to start thinking about simple, cost-effective alternatives which will yield positive short and long term impacts.  Integrating bicycle use into our daily lives, just as residents of Amsterdam and Copenhagen have, will have more of an impact than tens of millions of new hybrids.

Is Obama “progressive” enough to follow through with his goals and make this investment? I’m not sure.

To read my research paper, click here.