OREGON

TRANSPORTATION

INSTITUTE

OTI is a nonprofit corporation dedicated to providing transportation information.

Main Menu

Appearing below are three pieces dealing with "sprawl," a land-use term generally meaning spreading people over a larger land area; its effects; and comparisons of land-use policies in Los Angeles and Portland; and the effects of such policies.

The first piece is an article written by Professors Peter Gordon and Harry Richardson of the University of Southern California.

The second piece is a response written by Transportation Director Andrew Cutugno and John Fregonese, Director of Growth Management, of Metro in Portland, Oregon.

The third piece is a rebuttal to the Metro response written by the Oregon Transportation Institute.

WHY SPRAWL IS GOOD

by Peter Gordon and Harry W. Richardson

Carping at Los Angeles has long been a national pastime. In his recent two-part series, "Becoming Los Angeles" (New York Times, December 29-30, 1996 and cited in The Oregonian, 1-4-97), Timothy Egan combines this with praise for Portland, in making the case for interventionist urban planning to slow down urban growth and change the prevalent patterns of urban settlement. The case is built on several misconceptions.

1) He forgets that the virtue of markets is that they give people what they want. No developer gets rich by building housing and projects that people dislike. No city strengthens its tax base by promoting developments (e.g. most downtown projects) that are unpopular, unprofitable and badly located.

2) Los Angeles is not the sprawl capital of the world. On the contrary, its urbanized area has the highest population density in the U.S (according to the U.S. Census), higher than New York, Chicago, and San Francisco, and double that of Phoenix. The reasons include small lot sizes , a sizeable stock of apartments and high dwelling densities among the large immigrant population.

3) Most people throughout the country are choosing to live away from commercial areas, enjoying the private spaces afforded by single-family homes set back from streets and the mobility and accessiblity offered by the private automobile. This lifestyle is not imposed by malignant U.S. policies, for suburbanization trends are global: in Canada without mortgage interest tax deductions, in Europe with high gasoline taxes, in Seoul with plentiful public transit, and in Mexico City with its huge subway subsidies.

4) Compact development is not a cure for traffic congestion. In the absence of a major shift to transit (highly improbable, given that transit use declined in every "new rail" city in the 1980s), higher densities mean more congestion not less. Los Angeles' commuting speeds compare favorably with Portland's (31.7 mph vs. 26.7 mph in the central city, and 33.6 mph vs. 35.0 mph in the suburbs). Commuting everywhere is increasingly suburb-to-suburb. This means a relatively speedy trip for most commuters; only 10 percent travel more than 44 minutes one way.

5) Rail transit has an impossible fit to modern cities. U.S. rail transit investments have been costly failures that have paradoxically resulted in less transit use as bus funds were cannibalized for rail. Los Angeles, as a typical example, has lost more than a fifth of its transit riders since it started spending billions of dollars on rail. As for the much touted Portland light rail (MAX), every Portland freeway carries four to five times more riders per day, only 0.8 percent of the regional jobs created between 1990 and 1994 were downtown (and MAX is a downtown-oriented system), the cost per one-way trip (including capital costs) is about $20, and transit ridership has not increased because of the substitution of Federally-substituted rail for bus routes. In the new Mecca of urban planning, transit accounts for only 2.8 percent of trips, with a mere 0.3 percent using MAX, and only about one percent of the Tri-Met's service area population is within walking distance of MAX stations.

Anticipating all of this, one of us forecast MAX 1990 ridership (19,700 boardings per day) quite accurately back in 1983. That forecast actually predicted 19,730 MAX boardings per day; Metro's estimate was for 42,500 boardings per day.

6) Improving air quality has been a major rationale for growth management and other anti-sprawl measures, often by quoting Los Angeles. But air quality in Los Angeles has been improving dramatically year by year, even during its rapid growth phase of the 1980s. There were only seven smog alerts in the 1996 smog season compared with 121 in 1977.

Furthermore, more compact development has a minimal impact on air quality because it is likely to result in more frequent but shorter automobile trips (almost two-thirds of automobile pollution is associated with starting and stopping, the cold start and the hot soak problems).

7) Markets continue to do a good job of allocating resources, including farmland. U.S. cropland use peaked in 1930. We continue to feed millions more on less land because of improved farming methods. The demand for agricultural land would fall even further if the 105th Congress continues the good work begun in the 104th in cutting farm subsidies.

8) The telecommunications revolution is allowing jobs to move to where people want to live, unlike in the past when people followed the jobs. An increasing proportion of mobile households choose to live in high amenity-low density settings. Most job growth is now in rural areas. There is little evidence that people prefer to live in more compact environments, such as downtowns, the communities of the New Urbanism, or within fixed urban growth boundaries (where prices are higher). A golden rule for urban planners is: don't play at being King Canute.

Growth gets a bad rap, both when it happens and when it stops. In either case, intelligent discussions must take place if sound policy choices are to be made. Getting the facts right is a good beginning. So much of the so-called New Urbanism and the compact city movement rests on wishful thinking and the arrogance of social engineers who override individual preferences.

The following is a letter sent by John Fregonese and Andrew Cutugno of Metro to the Oregonian responding to the "Sprawl" article by Peter Gordon and Harry Richardson above. It is followed by a rebuttal by the Oregon Transportation Institute to clarify inaccuracies in the Metro letter.

In making the case for Los Angeles sprawl, University of Southern California professors Peter Gordon and Harry Richardson ended their editorial (February 4, 1997, Reader Feedback) with an admonition to "get the face straight." We wish they had taken their own advice. Their statements about the lack of value in preserving farmland is so fat from the beliefs of the vast majority of Oregonians, we will not address that here. The bulk of their other arguments seem to say that Los Angles isn't so bad after all. for example, they hold up as an example the fact that their average speed is five miles per hour faster than Portland. However they don't mention that they also have to travel farther, and on average, spend 20 percent more time in their cars to got there. Neither is Portland housing more expensive then other rapidly growing areas in the West, being the second cheapest metropolitan housing market on the west coast. and exactly the same average prices as Salt Lake City, which has no urban growth boundary and rampant sprawl.

There are several other statements that are just plain wrong when applied to the Portland region. One assertion is that people prefer a large lot away from commercial areas or city cores. This may be true in Los Angeles, but in the Portland the trend has been to smaller lots and close in locations. The average lot size in the Metro area has decreased from 13,000 square feet in the mid 1970's to just 6,700 square feet last year. This increasing efficiency has saved thousands of acres of farmland from development and was driven by consumer choice. Most people place home size and location ahead of lot size. In the 1996 housing market in the Metro area. there es little difference in home price based on lot size. On average, doubling the lot size results in a price increase of only 10 percent.

The world is a different place today than during the heyday of the single family neighborhood' and many of today's home buyers are looking for more than lot size -they want good neighborhoods and convenient locations. We have found that the mixed-use, close in neighborhoods have among the highest prices and the greatest appreciation in the region, indicating strong demand for just the type of area the Gordon and Richardson say people are fleeing. We have even found a premium of $6,000 on townhouse sales, again indicating that many people willingly trade lot size for a good home in a good location.

You may have heard that Tri-Met's 1978 forecast for MAX was for 42,000 riders, and we acknowledge that the early forecasting models were not very accurate. However, since Metro's models were improved in me early 1980's, they have produced very accurate forecasts. Metro prepared a forecast in 1985 of MAX ridership a year after opening of 19,960 per day, and the actual ridership was within a few hundred of that number. We also prepared a forecast of ridership for the Eastside MAX in 1989, and forecast a ridership of 30,000 per day in conjunction with the Westside expansion by the year 2005.

Actually, MAX's ridership averaged 29,700 a day in December 1996, in other words, about nine years ahead of forecast. That is about the same amount of traffic on a busy urban arterial such as Sandy Boulevard, Canyon Road, or S. E. 82nd Avenue. Transit usage continues to climb relative to population. From 1 990 to 1995, while population has increased 13 percent, transit ridership has increased 16 percent, and MAX ridership is up by 27 percent, more than double the rate of population growth. If Gordon end Richardson think light rail is such a failure, they should try to squeeze on a train at 5:00 p.m. By any standards of measurement, MAX is a rousing success.

Compact development does improve traffic congestion, contrary to their claims. The facts show that existing areas of the Portland region with compact, mixed use development patterns and good transit service result in 12.5 miles of auto travel per person, per day, while areas of low density, poor transit and without mixed land uses result in 24 miles of auto travel per day. If the region sprawls in the typical Los Angeles pattern, the Portland region ends up with a lot more traffic to deal with, resulting in significantly more congestion.

They made several other statements that are untrue of the Metro area, such as that most job growth is in rural areas. In fact, over 80 percent of regional job grown between 1990 and 1994 has been within the Metro UGB, and 60 percent of that has been in the centers and mixed use areas designated in Metro's 2040 Growth Concept. Only 16 percent has been in industrial and business park settings. While their points may be true for some metropolitan areas, it does not accurately describe the Portland experience.

Andrew Cotugno John Fregonese

Transportation Director Director of Growth Management

REBUTTAL TO THE METRO RESPONSE

BY THE OREGON TRANSPORTATION INSTITUTE

In responding to the Gordon-Richardson article on sprawl, Metro's John Fregonese, Director of Growth Management, and Andrew Cutugno, Transportation Director, (hereinafter referred to as Metro) reinforce the Gordon and Richardson point about Metro and Tri Met's inability to get the facts straight.

1. To conclude that "MAX is a rousing success," Metro states that MAX ridership is the same as Sandy Boulevard, Canyon Road, etc., by comparing the counts for everyone who gets on and off MAX during its 30 mile route (bidirection) with the number of vehicles at any one point on Sandy Boulevard or Canyon Road. The number of on and offs are not measured for Canyon Road or Sandy Blvd. Anyone that has ever observed these routes would conclude that including vehicles that get on and off Sandy Blvd. or Canyon Road would be, at least, triple MAX patronage.

Moreover, the number of vehicles on Sandy Boulevard or any road does not represent the number of passengers which would be much greater because of buses as well as cars with more than just the driver. Carpools, according to the 1990 census, carried 2 times as many people as buses and MAX combined.

An accurate comparison would be the number of people on MAX at any one point (referred to as the "load"). According to Tri Met's latest census, at MAX's largest load point, Hollywood Station, MAX's ridership is about one third of Sandy Boulevard's vehicles.

Metro conveniently avoids comparisons to the Banfield which abuts MAX, the highway which was to have been decongested by the construction of MAX. At the same screen-line and measured at the same time, the number of vehicles on the Banfield was more than fourteen times the number of people on MAX. Where MAX was carrying 12,090 passengers during all hours of operation in both directions, the Banfield was carrying 171,288 vehicles.

Another relevant fact to consider is that while ridership , according to Tri Met reports, has risen, the increases have occurred, mainly during non peak hours when there is no congestion problem. Our counts showed a 1% drop in peak period (6:00 AM to 9:00 AM) inbound ridership leaving the Gateway Transit Center to go to the central business district between 1994 and 1995. Tri Met's last census showed inbound ridership between 6:00 AM and 9:00 AM to the central business district and Lloyd district amounted to only 27% of total inbound ridership.

There can be no discussion of MAX ridership without commenting on the subjective manner in which ridership counts are derived. Unlike buses, there are no automatic counters on MAX trains. Nor are there counts of people entering stations or from reconciliation of fare receipts. The ridership counts publicized by Metro are "spot" estimates made by Fare Inspectors that are applied to the entire MAX system. Oregon Transportation Institute (OTI) cannot view these Tri Met employees as impartial in light of the fact that they insisted on having OTI representatives arrested for counting passengers at MAX stations.

2. What is claimed, by Metro, as "facts" relating to compact development aren't facts. They are assumptions as to future transit ridership in compact development around rail stations. Actual measurements around BART stations, which have been in operation for almost 25 years, or around MAX stations do not support these assumptions. We find no material increase in transit usage from these "transit oriented developments." Using data from neighborhoods developed long ago with no parking is not relevant.

3. If Metro's statement that "compact development improves congestion," is true, Metro should not be critical of Los Angeles. The Los Angeles-Long Beach Primary Metropolitan Statistical area (PSMA) has more than six times the density of the Portland PMSA (2,183 people per square mile as opposed to Portland's 331 people per square mile).

According to Metro's publication "Metro Measured," Los Angeles has about one-half the freeway miles per capita of this region and has made light and heavy rail investments that makes Portland's present and proposed light rail expenditures look paltry.

In fact, the Portland Metro plan emulates Los Angeles' policies.

4. Metro is playing with words when they state that this region's job growth has been in "centers and mixed use areas." The simple truth is that job creation has been in suburban part of the region and that the emphasis of Metro's assignment of allowable residential construction has been just the opposite.

The Central City Report stated that for the years 1990 through 1994, 95,200 jobs were created in the region but only 800 were in the central business, north Macadam and Lloyd districts. Since more than 1,000 jobs were government additions or transfers to that area, there was a net loss in private sector jobs in the "central city" during that period.

The Gordon and Richardson statement that "most job growth is now in rural areas" is an accurate statement. According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, job growth in MSA's (metropolitan statistical areas) between 1988 and 1994) was 1.20% while job growth in non MSA counties was 2.14%.

5. If it is true that people in this region prefer high density and multiple family units close to city cores, as Metro alleges, why are we subsidizing such construction with tax breaks, developmental fee waivers and outright grants to developers? Why do we need prohibitive zoning? Why do we need an urban growth boundary? Why are people in communities along the MAX lines so upset about what is happening to their community against their wishes?

It should be noted that all of the Portland metro suburbs, slated for light rail on Metro's 2040 plan, voted against the funding for light rail expansion. The only suburbs voting in favor were Lake Oswego and West Linn which will not be affected by light rail expansion.

6. There has been no consumer preference trend to smaller lots and close-in locations as asserted by Metro. Portland area new-home lot sizes grew steadily from 1970 to 1990. Lot sizes increased from 6,000 to 8,000 sq. ft. Lot sizes have decreased since then because Metro's urban growth boundary has been artificially driving-up the cost of land and jurisdictions have been requiring build-out to maximum 2040 density.

7. Metro makes the point that Portland metro area housing is not the most expensive in the west. The more relevant question is the rate of change. The Portland region has gone from being one of the most affordable areas in the country to one of the least affordable areas in a relatively short time. Between 1985 and 1995, the average price of an existing home rose from $70,600 to $149,400 in the Portland PMSA.

It is recognized that more populated metropolitan areas have higher housing prices than less populated areas. Hence, Metro's price comparisons to Seattle, San Francisco, San Diego, etc., is a simplistic one that needs to be adjusted for metropolitan area size, population and population growth.

8. Metro asserts that people in Los Angeles "have to drive further, and on the average, spend 20% more time in their cars to get there." Let's put that in context. The Los Angeles CMSA (Combined Metropolitan Statistical Area) is almost 8 times greater in size than the Portland region according to the US Census Bureau at the time of the last census, 33,966 square miles as compared to Portland's 4,371 square miles.

Despite the fact that the Los Angeles region's population was almost ten times greater and its land area almost eight times greater than the Portland region, the average trip time was only four minutes more (26 minutes v 22 minutes).

9. It is refreshing and unusual to hear Metro admit that their projections for east side MAX were incorrect. The significance of that mistake is that light rail would not have been introduced to this area if Metro had not concocted such misleading projections. Others like Gordon and Richardson said those projections were not reliable.

Metro now states that it's model has been improved with regard to projecting growth of established routes. But people who were critical of Metro's original incorrect projections now say that Metro's projections for south/north are every bit as bad and that Metro repeats the earlier poor techniques when it comes to selling new light rail lines.