TR Circular E-C058_9th LRT Conference_2003.pdf - Florida ...

Henry 379
ATTACK ON SMART GROWTH AND LRT IN PORTLAND
Among new LRT systems such as DART’s, some transit critics, in their campaign to disparage
efforts to develop higher-quality transit and combat suburban sprawl, have found Portland an
especially compelling target because of its highly publicized LRT system and Smart Growth
policies (e.g., its Urban Growth Boundary program). In the commentary previously cited,
Wendell Cox further argues:
Portland, Ore[gon], has built not only two new light rail lines but has embarked
on smart-growth strategies to limit sprawl and to not expand highways. All of this
was to attract people out of their cars. Yet today more people than ever drive
alone to work in Portland, and transit’s market share is lower than before the rail
system was built. (3)
To advance his portrayal of Portland’s MAX LRT as a failure, Cox reverts two decades to
cite the 1980 “market share” figure (before LRT), which was 9.5%. This enables him to show the
change between 1980 and 2000 as a negative figure and thus disparage what was actually a
significant transit improvement (the installation of MAX in 1986) which effectively reversed
Portland’s previous trend of transit decline (declining boardings and passenger-miles on Tri-Met,
the transit agency). Indeed, since the opening of MAX, both indicators have increased
significantly; between 1990 and 2000, total transit boardings have increased 68%, and passengermiles
80% (10, 11). Between 1990 and 1997 alone (even before opening 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 (15). Ridership growth, which actually outpaced growth in both
population and VMT, would seem to be a laudable achievement for any large metro area.
Cox, unfortunately, ignores in his essay above a comparison of the census data for 1990
and 2000 for the three-county TriMet service area in Portland—which he, however, tabulates on
his own website, Publicpurpose.com. These data indicate that the journey-to-work “market
share” actually increased from 6.3% to 7.6% over the 10-year period—a gain of more than 20%.
Curiously, it is of interest to note that Portland was not alone among large metro areas in
not exhibiting a decline in “market share” among residents in the census journey-to-work survey.
Indeed, of the 12 major-city transit systems that actually gained or maintained “market share” of
work trips between 1990 and 2000, nine of them are cities with major rail transit (New York, Los
Angeles, San Francisco, Boston, San Diego, Denver, Portland, Sacramento, and Salt Lake City),
and all except New York City have LRT systems (New York, too, if considered as the New
York–New Jersey urbanized area, encompassing LRT in Newark and Hudson-Bergen). The
specific percentage changes in the estimated proportion of workers using transit (“market share”)
for selected cities with LRT are listed in the accompanying table (Table 2). Whether these trends
tend to suggest that rail transit has any impact on area-wide transit usage, merits further
investigation.