[sustran] Another Response to Cox on New Urbanism, Portland and , THE , ECONOMIST

[Eric Bruun]

Sorry for the delay in responding. I have been away. It is not
just a matter of personal taste when I say that Portland is better
for people who like to use transit. It is simply a fact that Portland
proper has more frequent and denser transit service than Seattle
proper. In the Seattle area, transit service is disproportionately
allocated to peak-hour peak direction service to suburbs. Also, Seattle
has very few places where transit is sped up with preferential treatment.
Also, Seattle is most assuredly a less "lovely" place to drive with
the limited travel corridors. The Texas Transportation Institute 
consistently rate Seattle in the top 6 for time lost due to congestion
delays.  So it is not just my subjective judgement when I say that
Portland is better in certain respects.  Eric


On Tue, 20 Jan 1998, Wendell Cox wrote:

> >Look, it is just an assertion on Cox' part that nothing is happening
> >in Portland. He is right that not much changed by the 1990 Census,
> >but, I repeat, infill is occuring now, even if he wants to ignore
> >it. Portland is going to show an increase in density after the 2000
> >census instead of a decrease. It will at least be a step in the right
> >direction. Seattle, by contrast, which Cox thinks is equally good, is
> >gridlocked on a larger scale and far more often than Portland.
> >Furthermore, living without a car is very difficult due to sparser and
> >slower transit service than Portland.  I am a native of Seattle, and as
> >one who prefers to bicycle and use transit, I far prefer Portland. 
> >
> 1. I am happy to wait to the 2000 census to find out if anything is really
> happening. My basic point is that the Portland cheerleaders have been
> claiming a whole lot of success that has not occured and is certainly not
> attributable to the planning decisions they attribute them to. The latest
> blurb from the Economist is typical of the kind of misleading assessment
> that Portland folks have fostered. The fact is that the decline in urban
> densities appears to have about ended, and the 1980s data shows that the
> trend is in the opposite directioin in the west. Portland trailed all
> western cities. I will not be surprised if Portland ranks no better than
> average after the 2000 census numbers are out --- but we will have to wait
> for that.
> 
> 2. As for personal preferences --- I have lived in Portland and spent a good
> deal of time in Seattle --- and I find Seattle a more delightful city. This
> is not to argue with Eric's preference --- because it is just that --- a
> preference --- a subjective judgement. I suspect that the number of people
> who know both cities who favor one over the other is about equal.
> 
> >I would like to know what Cox' point is by this Portland bashing.
> >Tell us if your point is that land use planning as advertized by
> >Portland is a hoax, or if land use planning can not work anywhere,
> >or maybe your point is that decreasing density is not a bad thing.
> >
> Point has to do with the misleading publicity out of and about Portland.
> Portland may stand on the threshhold of accomplishing something, but it has
> not yet. The Portland hype is a hoax. Decreasing density, (forgive the
> political incorrectness) is not necessarily bad. 
> 
> >I will be traveling for the next week, but I will certainly follow
> >this discussion if it is still going on when I get back. Eric
> >
> >
> >On Mon, 19 Jan 1998, Wendell Cox wrote:
> >
> >> It is, however, the most recent available for urbanized areas. The issue
> >> is raised because Portland promoters routinely claim that their urban
> >> growth boundary (UGB) and planning policies have already accomplished
> >> much. The fact is that the UGB has been in effect for nearly 20 years
> >> --- and the one decade during that period for which we have data
> >> indicates that it had no impact whatever --- that all other US western
> >> urbanized areas densified at greater rates than Portland --- many
> >> significantly greater. The story in Portland is not what they have
> >> accomplished --- because they havn't accomplished anything --- it is
> >> rather what they intend to accomplish. The next data point will be the
> >> 2000 census, with urbanized area data due out in 2002 (or 2003).
> >> Meanwhile, it's a bit early to "break out the champaign." Seattle, which
> >> has only recently obtained an UGB, is every bit as delightful as
> >> Portland. And San Bernardino-Riverside, the data indicates, emerges as
> >> the new urbanist model for others to follow (at least in the 1980s).
> >> 
> >> Portland, like virtually all other US urbanized areas is becoming or
> >> seeks to become Los Angeles! (at least with respect to density). The
> >> 2040 plan could get them there, though I would bet against it, given
> >> recent political happenings there.
> >> 
> >> Best regards,
> >> Wendell Cox
> >> 
> >> Eric Bruun wrote:
> >> > 
> >> > The Census data up to 1990 that Cox cites below is very obsolete. The
> >> > infill craze, and there really is some infill going on, is over the last
> >> > few years. However, it is still limited and is causing a lot of hardship
> >> > for people of modest means as real estate values approach those of
> >> > San Francisco. Cox is right that the average density is lower
> >> > than Los Angeles, as LA does have some dense areas.  However, I think the
> >> > data will show that Portland is increasing in density, and not decreasing
> >> > like almost every other city. Eric Bruun
> >> > 
> >> > On Fri, 16 Jan 1998, Wendell Cox wrote:
> >> > 
> >> > > Article in current issue of THE ECONOMIST suggests that Portland's 2
> decade
> >> > > old urban growth boundary had forced infilling development. US Census
> Bureau
> >> > > data for the 1980-1990 period indicates no such trend (latest data
> >> > > available). Among 10 US urbanized areas with  more than 1 million
> >> > > population, Portland ranked last in percentage density increase.
> Ranked 7th
> >> > > in overall density --- barely half that of Los Angeles.
> >> > >
> >> > > Details at...
> >> > >
> >> > > http://www.publicpurpose.com/dm-uargn.htm
> >> > >
> >> > > Best regards,
> >> > > Wendell Cox
> >> > > WENDELL COX CONSULTANCY
> >> > > International Public Policy, Economics, Labour, Transport & Strategic
> Planning
> >> > > The Public Purpose: Internet Public Policy Journal
> >> > > http://www.publicpurpose.com
> >> > > Voice +1 618 632 8507; Fax  +1 618 632 8538
> >> > > P.O. Box 841- Belleville, Illinois 62222 USA
> >> > >
> >> > > "To facilitate the ideal of government as the servant  of the people by
> >> > > identifying and implementing strategies to achieve public purposes at
> a cost
> >> > > that is no higher than necessary."
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> 
> >
> >
> >
> WENDELL COX CONSULTANCY
> International Public Policy, Economics, Labour, Transport & Strategic Planning
> The Public Purpose: Internet Public Policy Journal
> http://www.publicpurpose.com
> Voice +1 618 632 8507; Fax  +1 618 632 8538
> P.O. Box 841- Belleville, Illinois 62222 USA
> 
> "To facilitate the ideal of government as the servant  of the people by
> identifying and implementing strategies to achieve public purposes at a cost
> that is no higher than necessary."
> 
>