One of the primary assumptions of the so-called "Smart Growth" movement has long been that smart growth, combined with expenditures on mass transit (especially transit such as light rail or streetcar that encourage "choice" riders who might otherwise drive) save everyone time and money and protect the environment. The latest statistics from the Texas Transportation Institute show this to be the case. This diary will briefly describe Oregon's land use system as it applies to Smart Growth and our investments in public transportation, along with their impacts.
Cross-Posted at Loaded Orygun: http://www.loadedorygun.net/...
The inspiration for this diary comes from an article in today's Oregonian (Portland-area drivers get an hour break at rush hour), which states that:
Portland-area drivers may be a little less frustrated than a few years ago, as higher gas prices, tighter development and growing mass-transit use have reduced the time we sit in traffic.
In 2007, congestion added 37 hours behind the wheel to motorists' rush-hour trips, a decline of one hour from the 2006 rate. That was slightly better than the national dip from 36.6 hours to 36.1 hours.
Most motorists may still see traffic congestion as a growing problem across the region, however, because as the population increases, more drivers hit the road. Added together over a longer period, all area motorists experienced 34.4 million hours of delay because of congestion in 2007 -- a 21 percent jump from 2002.
The differences in the delays per motorist are small, but they represent a rare break in near-constant increases during the past two decades. The information is outlined in the 2009 Urban Mobility Report released today by the Texas Transportation Institute, part of Texas A&M University.
In the 10 years leading up to 2007, the average Portland commuter's delay rose from 35 hours a year to 37. The average for the top 90 metro areas grew from 36 hours a year to 41 hours.
Two main interrelated factors contributed to this success, smart growth and investment in "choice" transit options. I cover how Portland has combined them below.
SB 100, Metro 2040 and Transit Oriented Development:
The base of Oregon's Land Use System is Senate Bill 100, passed in 1973 under the leadership of Republican governor Tom McCall and Republican State Senator Hector MacPherson (whose son Greg MacPherson was a four-term Democratic State Representative before running and losing the primary for Oregon Attorney General in 2008). One of its main tenets is the so-called "Urban Growth Boundary", a line that is drawn on the outskirts of every city (or in the case of Eugene and Portland the entire urban area) beyond which only limited development may occur. The cause of this has been to force infill and reduce sprawl.
Although these boundaries are managed in most cases by the city or county governments, due to the size and complexity of the Portland metro area, the citizens of Portland chose to create the Metro Regional Government, among whose main responsibilities is managing growth. In anticipation of Portland's continued growth, it underwent a long-term planning process, updated every few years, designed to create a 30-year plan for the region's growth. It focuses on identifying potential "High-Density Transit Corridors" using a method known as "Transit-Oriented Development (TOD)." This plan has helped to identify many areas, especially in Washington and Clackamas County (where most of the growth occurs), where light rail has either been planned or built in order to encourage ridership. You can see the plan here (in PDF form): Metro 2040.
The Results and the Environmental Impact of TOD:
Despite being only the 24th biggest metro area in the United States, Portland's transit agency, Tri-Met, saw a total of more than 101 million trips taken in 2006 (and the total has grown since then), placing it thirteenth nationally and more than 15 million trips above fourteenth placed Denver (Data is located here in PDF format: 2006 Annual Transit Ridership).
Much of this is due to TOD and specifically to the growth of the MAX light rail system. Although ridership was initially slow to take off, the opening of the west-side light rail expansion in 1998 exceeded even Tri-Met's wildest expectations (Transit Investment Plan) carrying as many daily riders in the first two years as Tri-Met thought would be carried in five. Since ridership is substantially made up of "choice riders" who would likely not have ridden an expanded bus system. What's more, development sprung up around these transit corridors, and Tri-Met contends that more than $7 billion in development has occurred within walking distance of a MAX station since the decision to build was made in 1980 (Tri-Met Fact Sheet). Although much, if not most, of this development may have nothing to do with MAX, it is highly likely that MAX was a significant benefit and driver towards it in any case. In any event, the results appear to be quite clearly beneficial and have led to an increase in ridership and a decrease in commute time, leading to an increase in productivity and saving money.
Environmental Benefits of TOD:
The environmental benefits of TOD are equally clear. As of the most recent estimates, Tri-Met believes that MAX light rail carries about 25-30% of commuters who live in/near the MAX lines (Transit Oriented Development). MAX keeps an estimated 74,000 cars off the road every weekday (which is roughly what an additional lane of highway in each direction would carry), or about 24.5 million trips a year. This reduces emissions by about 4.2 tons of pollutants every single day. No other model could likely achieve these benefits.
It is clear that TOD has helped reduce commute time, save money and protect the environment. Your comments are welcome, and as the sign says in Portland:
or MAX!