Light Rail Success Story - Portland, OR

[ProHouston]

After spending a few days in Portland, OR this past week, I am now convinced that light rail can be a success in Houston. I was never totally convinced of the success of "at grade" rail, even though I always supported it. The Portland rail line runs on city streets and looks just like the rail in Houston. However, they have several tracks in and around downtown, and guess what? Nobody was running into them! I also followed a line out of downtown, much like the Main Street line and it went right down the center of the street into a car friendly area. There were still many cars and suburban style shopping centers, but also many people (all kinds) riding the rails, and this was at nighttime.

In Portland, they have 44 miles of light rail that appears very successful. It's sad to say, but I think this smaller city should be our guage of success for our light rail network. One great idea that they implement is to offer free rides within the downtown area. What a great idea to increase ridership and convince residents to move downtown!

Portland Tri-Met Facts

[Trae]

Portland is a forward thinking city. I hope Houston gets that way with its rail (ahh without Afton Oaks).

[TheNiche]

After spending a few days in Portland, OR this past week, I am now convinced that light rail can be a success in Houston.

Portland and Houston are completely incomparable in every conceivable way. When it comes to urban planning, Portland is on the one extreme and Houston is on the other...EVERY other city in the nation of any size larger than Beaumont is in between. No exaggeration.

[CE_ugh]

A better example would probably be San Diego or Denver. Actually Denver's T-Rex could be an example of what could have been if the Katy Freeway had light rail.

[DaTrain]

Just as long as the Main Street Corridor (Midtown/Historic DT) doesn't suffer the same fact as the one in Buffalo. Ppl there are talkin of closing thair LRT there for good in DT Buffalo because the Main Street there is full of LRT, but it's not attracting nobody to their businesses. They'd rather see it go back to cars. Puh.

[musicman]

Portland is a forward thinking city. I hope Houston gets that way with its rail (ahh without Afton Oaks).

it seems portland is having increasing congestion problems. There are numerous articles on the subject.

Here's a typical one.

one interesting statement is this "For all of the Portland efforts to expand transit and discourage automobile commuting, less than 2 percent of new travel in the 1990s has been by transit. "

I found the following interesting as well.

In the modern urban area, transit is simply not able to serve the overwhelming majority of trips. Except for trips to downtown and in the urban core, the automobile is a necessity. Artificially increasing densities will not reduce traffic congestion, rather congestion will increase because more automobiles will be competing for space in a smaller area.

This will require innovative auto-oriented solutions, including adequate roadway capacity to serve development in newly developing areas.

Portland is not unique. It sprawls like any other large U.S. urban area. Portland is, in fact, less dense than sprawling Phoenix or Denver, and 60 percent less dense than the grandfather of urban sprawl, Los Angeles. But Portland's attractive and compact downtown area is no more the result of its growth management policies than Seattle's similarly attractive and compact downtown area is the result of not having had such policies.

What sets Portland apart is not reality, but rather perception and marketing

[ProHouston]

it seems portland is having increasing congestion problems. There are numerous articles on the subject.

Here's a typical one.

one interesting statement is this "For all of the Portland efforts to expand transit and discourage automobile commuting, less than 2 percent of new travel in the 1990s has been by transit. "

I found the following interesting as well.

In the modern urban area, transit is simply not able to serve the overwhelming majority of trips. Except for trips to downtown and in the urban core, the automobile is a necessity. Artificially increasing densities will not reduce traffic congestion, rather congestion will increase because more automobiles will be competing for space in a smaller area.

This will require innovative auto-oriented solutions, including adequate roadway capacity to serve development in newly developing areas.

Portland is not unique. It sprawls like any other large U.S. urban area. Portland is, in fact, less dense than sprawling Phoenix or Denver, and 60 percent less dense than the grandfather of urban sprawl, Los Angeles. But Portland's attractive and compact downtown area is no more the result of its growth management policies than Seattle's similarly attractive and compact downtown area is the result of not having had such policies.

What sets Portland apart is not reality, but rather perception and marketing

Well whatever Portland has done right, we need to look into it. They have (at a smaller level) what we want. A strong and vibrant downtown with effective, useful, and popular light rail. We are light years from this but I believe it could be a reality. Imagine if Houston had a vibrant downtown, we would be on par with NYC and Chicago, not struggling with Dallas and Atlanta.

[musicman]

Well whatever Portland has done right, we need to look into it. They have (at a smaller level) what we want. A strong and vibrant downtown with effective, useful, and popular light rail. We are light years from this but I believe it could be a reality. Imagine if Houston had a vibrant downtown, we would be on par with NYC and Chicago, not struggling with Dallas and Atlanta.

There just seem to be numerous articles out there that say otherwise. A successful transit system has more than 2% using it. Portland has less than 2%.

[TheNiche]

Imagine if Houston had a vibrant downtown, we would be on par with NYC and Chicago, not struggling with Dallas and Atlanta.

Who's "struggling"?

Based upon long-term population projections, our metro area won't approach Chicago's in terms of population for at least another 20 to 30 years...never mind that Chicago will be growing in the mean time. And NYC and LA are each completely out of our league.

A vibrant downtown won't change any of that.

[worldlyman]

Portland's a cute little town that doesn't have quite the sprawl issues of Houston. Two trips there and I found some of the people to be snotty...compared to Seattle folks whom I found quite friendlier and chattier.

San Diego's Trolley LRT as far as going from South Bay to downtown and on through Mission Valley/Fashion Valley as well as Old Town and very far East County such as El Cajon...is a "success story" as in San Diegans still clog their freeways mercilessly.

It's not a badly thought out system BUT it's more of a nice option. So Houstonians that rag on Houston because our transit is not as caught up as other places should realize that.

In sprawlfests like Houston and San Diego, places quite physically larger than Portland...light rail will never remedy things like freeway traffic and the need for general two or four wheel transportation.

Having lived in San Diego, I saw light rail as an option (whenever I lived close enough to the Trolley stop) here and there. And I say that because in context of car ownership, using the Trolley regularly is just like having to pay substantially extra automobile expenses...so better to tough it out on the clogged freeways like the terrible 805.

It seems great if you live quite near a stop and you don't have a car expense and your destination was actually downtown San Diego. Now getting off at a stop in, say, Fashion or Mission Valley and you work there...it is INSANE to try and walk that area unless your job was at one of the malls adjacent to the Trolley stops.

If Houston can add more to the METRO line, more power for another option. I'm all for it...but neither will I feel some sort of inferiority complex because it's not as complete as other cities. I'm actually for electric cars that go slower if anything.

There's always the ubiquitious jackboot enforcement in San Diego that I didn't notice with Houston's METRO rail when I did it quite a bit in 2004. One time on the Green Line from El Cajon or Lemon Grove, there were like 9 or 10 transit cops just to check tickets. Oh, they won't do that so harshly on the Fashion Valley to Old Town line, no siree bob, scare the tourists and stuff.

I live here in the Tampa Bay area now and they're still debating as to whether to put in LRT or not!

So cheer up, Houston! Just add some tracks, be proud and have a kolache or two.

[ProHouston]

Who's "struggling"?

Based upon long-term population projections, our metro area won't approach Chicago's in terms of population for at least another 20 to 30 years...never mind that Chicago will be growing in the mean time. And NYC and LA are each completely out of our league.

A vibrant downtown won't change any of that.

My point is, we don't have to be any bigger to have a vibrant downtown and successful LRT. If Portland can be successful (from an outsider's point of view), then we can as well. Now. Not in 20-30 years. The reason I compared us to NYC/Chicago is because our downtown is already so large. If we are able to get the masses to live and shop down there, then we're where we should be. I just think we're a long ways away right now.

[ricco67]

Portland's a cute little town that doesn't have quite the sprawl issues of Houston. Two trips there and I found some of the people to be snotty...compared to Seattle folks whom I found quite friendlier and chattier.

San Diego's Trolley LRT as far as going from South Bay to downtown and on through Mission Valley/Fashion Valley as well as Old Town and very far East County such as El Cajon...is a "success story" as in San Diegans still clog their freeways mercilessly.

It's not a badly thought out system BUT it's more of a nice option. So Houstonians that rag on Houston because our transit is not as caught up as other places should realize that.

In sprawlfests like Houston and San Diego, places quite physically larger than Portland...light rail will never remedy things like freeway traffic and the need for general two or four wheel transportation.

Having lived in San Diego, I saw light rail as an option (whenever I lived close enough to the Trolley stop) here and there. And I say that because in context of car ownership, using the Trolley regularly is just like having to pay substantially extra automobile expenses...so better to tough it out on the clogged freeways like the terrible 805.

It seems great if you live quite near a stop and you don't have a car expense and your destination was actually downtown San Diego. Now getting off at a stop in, say, Fashion or Mission Valley and you work there...it is INSANE to try and walk that area unless your job was at one of the malls adjacent to the Trolley stops.

If Houston can add more to the METRO line, more power for another option. I'm all for it...but neither will I feel some sort of inferiority complex because it's not as complete as other cities. I'm actually for electric cars that go slower if anything.

....

So cheer up, Houston! Just add some tracks, be proud and have a kolache or two.

Thanks for the post and new perspective. Kinda' wish we had more posts like this for this exact reason.

The only other LRT system I'm familiar with is the Hiawatha (sp) line up in Minneapolis and it has been a substantial success up there.

While Portland and a few of the other cities don't have the added challenges of our area size and sprawl, it's important to note that selecting the right route for the right reasons is incredibly important in the initial planning stages.

Even if the initial route may not seem to be the best at first, I'm sure development would eventually catch up.

[TheNiche]

My point is, we don't have to be any bigger to have a vibrant downtown and successful LRT. If Portland can be successful (from an outsider's point of view), then we can as well. Now. Not in 20-30 years. The reason I compared us to NYC/Chicago is because our downtown is already so large. If we are able to get the masses to live and shop down there, then we're where we should be. I just think we're a long ways away right now.

I think that our views of "successful" probably differ substantially.

[ProHouston]

I think that our views of "successful" probably differ substantially.

That's very likely. The term "successful" is a subjective one.

[Subdude]

Funny, I just got back from Portland myself. Nice town, but not really comparable to Houston in a lot of ways. The rail there seemed to be packed. What you have to remember is that their rail has been in place for something like 20 years, so over a time a lot of development has been geared around it. Do most people still take cars? Yes, of course, and there were massive traffic jams during rush hour. I imagine without the rail, the traffic would be even worse.

It was interesting that the city is very concerned with the state of downtown and the quality of downtown development. There was a story last week about how residents were concerned that a new condo tower was too large and shaped wrong for its neighborhood (by the Park Blocks), and the zoning commission and a citizen's group were working with the developer to realign the tower so it wouldn't have such a visual impact on the park. Somehow I don't see that happening here.

Another article was about the fact that the downtown develoment plan was outdated and it was critical that they develop a new one. On the other hand, the one they have must be at least OK, since Hyatt Hotel and some department store just announced plans for new downtown developments.

Portland is lucky to have Powells, which must be the worlds best used bookstore.

Btw I'm not sure that Wendell Cox is considered the most reputable of sources. Isn't the guy pretty much just an anti-rail shill? At one point the story was he was receiving money from car companies, but that was a few years back.

[sevfiv]

true, portland and houston are incredibly different and would probably be unfair to compare the two.

i was in portland for about a week a few months back (stayed downtown) and managed to get around with no car very easily. the rail was extremely efficient and easy to take from the hotel to the airport. i took a taxi once, and walked everywhere else.

the parks are great, and powell's is fantastic (but a little overwhelming )

[wendyps]

HA! I also just got back from a trip to Portland/Seattle!

I think we may also have an "egg conundrum". Which came first? The light rail or the pedestrian environment?

I would LOVE LR all over the city. I like to think that I would use it...but then, where would I go? Houston is so spread out, that you really can't run many errands in a linear direction. Other than say 19th St, Highland Village and Rice, we don't have many areas of solid retail where you could jump on and off a train. We also don't have too many of the dense residentail areas like they do in Seattle/Portland.

hmmm, the more I type, the more I'm convincing myself otherwise. At least inside the loop, west of 45, we probably can support it. Then if they link it to the east, it would encourage development.

[musicman]

Because of the money Portland has spent on rail their road construction has suffered and as a result, congestion has become worse. Sustain lane is into healthy and sustainable living. They have lots of stats. Here are some numbers that might bring out some additional discussion. Street and freeway congestion and Regional public transportation ridership

Even though many here have a negative opinion on Houston's traffic, it seems we aren't as bad as most people think.

[ssullivan]

I've made a few short trips to Portland in the last year, and a longer one five years ago. Despite the statistic that 2% or less of Portland's commuters use mass transit, the system is still quite busy with passengers all day long, and carries a lot of people. Yes, they may be a small percentage of the overall metro area's population, but their light rail trains are still carrying a lot of people. I have to wonder what percent of Houston's commuters our MetroRail line carries. It can't be very high, yet, we still have extremely high weekday passenger boardings, even with only 7 miles of rail. You can't rely on just the percent of total commuters using a particular transit method as justification for saying that method is or is not a success.

Portland is a very nice city, with some great neighborhoods. Yes, you still need a car to get around to many places, but not all places. And, unlike almost all neighborhoods in Houston, most neighborhoods I've seen in Portland are designed so that you can easily choose to walk to places like the grocery store, bank, restaurants, and other retail and services. My team manager at work lives in Portland in such a neighborhood, and can run many of her errands by walking just a few blocks on wide, well maintained sidewalks. Light rail to downtown is also available via a short drive to a park and ride lot, or a short trip on a local bus to the rail line.

Based on what I've seen of Portland in my trips up there, plus talking with my manager who has lived there for nearly a year, I'm strongly considering a move to Portland next year. It's one of about four cities that are possible candidates.

[musicman]

I've made a few short trips to Portland in the last year, and a longer one five years ago. Despite the statistic that 2% or less of Portland's commuters use mass transit, the system is still quite busy with passengers all day long, and carries a lot of people. Yes, they may be a small percentage of the overall metro area's population, but their light rail trains are still carrying a lot of people. I have to wonder what percent of Houston's commuters our MetroRail line carries. It can't be very high, yet, we still have extremely high weekday passenger boardings, even with only 7 miles of rail. You can't rely on just the percent of total commuters using a particular transit method as justification for saying that method is or is not a success.

For me, it is about getting the most for our money. Portland has spent quite a bit on light rail at the expense of upgrading freeways. As a result traffic has become worse. So if 2 people are using the system and 98 are experiencing worse traffic, was the expenditure worth it?

[ssullivan]

First, how do you know that light rail expansion in any city has come at the expense of not upgrading freeways? In most cases, mass transit and freeways are not funded out of the same pot of money.

Second, if you look at the facts on Portland's MAX light rail, you'll see that it carries about 97,000 passengers each weekday. Tri-Met estimates that this equates to 67,000 auto trips not taken on an average weekday, or 22.2 million fewer auto trips per year. If you add in the bus system, Tri-Met's services are removing 62.5 million auto trips per year. How is that not reducing traffic congestion? How much worse would traffic congestion be with 62.5 million more cars on the road throughout the year? Further, 43% of the adults in the Tri-Met service area report riding Tri-Met at least twice a month. That's an incredible number for an area where most adults have a car available.

Yes, I'm well aware of the congestion issues with Portland's freeways. But every large city has congested freeways during rush hours. Several decades of freeway expansion in Houston have proven that the relief that widening a freeway provides is often marginal and temporary -- in some cases, average commute times on an expanded freeway are cut by only a few minutes, and after a few years, traffic increases to a level where the expanded freeway is once again clogged. At least in some cities there are viable options other than driving.

[N Judah]

I was also in P'land and Seattle a few weeks ago. The LRT is great, but to be honest if I lived there I'd probably just use a bicycle to get around. There were a few condo towers that weren't there last time I visited -- and they were wisely placed near mass transit -- definitely the type of development I'd like to see near the stops on Houston's LRT extensions, though hopefully on a slightly smaller scale.

No matter what you do or where you go you're going to have traffic during rush hour. Even Missoula gets jammed up right after everyone gets off of work. I think the real effect of mass transit is on the length of the rush hour. Then again, I'm not a transportation expert.

[GovernorAggie]

For me, it is about getting the most for our money. Portland has spent quite a bit on light rail at the expense of upgrading freeways. As a result traffic has become worse. So if 2 people are using the system and 98 are experiencing worse traffic, was the expenditure worth it?

Note--I must have not gotten the memo because I have never been to Portland...and I used to be one of its biggest haters.

I'm not quite seeing the connection, either, because I think that Portland's congestion is much more closely related to its land use policies (which are metro-wide almost) than the spending on LRT vs. fwys. Portland's land costs are very high. Most of those cars sitting in traffic are likely people who live in areas just outside the urban growth boundary and in Vancouver, WA, where homes are a little cheaper. Let's also remember that the place grew while its economy was not too rosy a few years ago. Unemployment was pretty high there (something like the 7-10% range I think) but it remained a desirable place. The market was letting them down and the city didn't completely follow suit, unlike Houston where so goes the market, so goes Houston (see the 1980s).

I don't think their congestion will decrease substantially. However, I do think that they have to look more at commuter rail to these less expensive areas to live in order to address congestion (not solve congestion), which I think they've already started with a CRT line to Washington County, I believe.

It should be noted that the only places in the US experiencing decreasing congestion overall include Buffalo and Cleveland--declining metropolitan areas.

[musicman]

First, how do you know that light rail expansion in any city has come at the expense of not upgrading freeways? In most cases, mass transit and freeways are not funded out of the same pot of money.

Second, if you look at the facts on Portland's MAX light rail, you'll see that it carries about 97,000 passengers each weekday. Tri-Met estimates that this equates to 67,000 auto trips not taken on an average weekday, or 22.2 million fewer auto trips per year. If you add in the bus system, Tri-Met's services are removing 62.5 million auto trips per year. How is that not reducing traffic congestion? How much worse would traffic congestion be with 62.5 million more cars on the road throughout the year? Further, 43% of the adults in the Tri-Met service area report riding Tri-Met at least twice a month. That's an incredible number for an area where most adults have a car available.

Yes, I'm well aware of the congestion issues with Portland's freeways. But every large city has congested freeways during rush hours. Several decades of freeway expansion in Houston have proven that the relief that widening a freeway provides is often marginal and temporary -- in some cases, average commute times on an expanded freeway are cut by only a few minutes, and after a few years, traffic increases to a level where the expanded freeway is once again clogged. At least in some cities there are viable options other than driving.

I didn't say that freeway and mass transit were funded out of the same pot of money. I said that the city mgmt felt that light rail expansion was more important than freeway expansion and hence concentrated on LRT expansion at the expense of freeway lane construction.

I was simply using the numbers you provided regarding the percentage of the population in Portland that uses mass transit which was 2%. Not focusing on freeway capacity at a time when only 2 percent of the population is using mass transit is an issue IMO. The numbers i've seen for Houston are 3.3 percent.

Of course large cities have congestion problems at rush hr but as the numbers clearly show, Houston has definitely made strides since the last time we received poor marks for congestion. Relatively we're not as bad as we were in the 70's and 80's yet our population is continuing to increase. The opening of 59 between 8 and 6 cut travel times 10-15 mins. While just a "few" minutes, the hours are staggering when this is multiplied by the number of daily users.

Austin refused to address freeway congestion and as a result their congestion worsened. similarly for Dallas in the 90's. Houston created Transtar in the 90's to address our woes. Do to their efforts congestion has decreased. This is from their 2003 annual report.

Determining the benefits of Houston TranStar is limited and conservative since many of the

benefits are not quantifiable and some are intangible. An attempt is made to develop estimates

of those benefits, which are quantifiable, e.g., the cost of motorist delay savings, fuel savings,

and emissions savings. An approach was established in preparing annual reports for prior years,

which estimates the operational benefits in terms of freeway motorist delay savings.

Traffic congestion on the freeway system was determined from the automatic vehicle

identification (AVI) travel time monitoring system and traffic volumes from the TxDOT annual

volume-roadway inventory files. The procedure for evaluation uses national experience to

establish Houston TranStar quantitative goals for expected benefits and the expertise of Houston

TranStar staff to estimate performance of the transportation systems in terms of percent

attainment of the goals.

The projected costs of congestion for the year 2003 were calculated to be over $640 million.

Annual benefits in the reduction of travel time were estimated to be 8.3 million vehicle-hours

with an estimated monetary value of $145 million. A summary of estimated operational savings

is provided in Table 11. The savings in travel time are equivalent to reducing fuel consumption

by 15 million gallons for an additional savings of over $23 million. Thus, total 2003 motorists

[houstonfella]

Who's "struggling"?

Based upon long-term population projections, our metro area won't approach Chicago's in terms of population for at least another 20 to 30 years...never mind that Chicago will be growing in the mean time. And NYC and LA are each completely out of our league.

A vibrant downtown won't change any of that.

Actually, I read, just yesterday, that Chicago not only is losing population, but Cook County as well. Lots of folks are moving away from Cook County (probably to the far burbs ... other counties). Houston is growing and Chicago is losing population. It will be interesting to see when Houston is the nation's 3rd largest city.

[TheNiche]

Several decades of freeway expansion in Houston have proven that the relief that widening a freeway provides is often marginal and temporary -- in some cases, average commute times on an expanded freeway are cut by only a few minutes, and after a few years, traffic increases to a level where the expanded freeway is once again clogged.

At least in some cities there are viable options other than driving.

When a freeway is expanded, the immediate effect is that it pulls traffic off of alternate routes, easing congestion on those routes. So the average speed on the freeway may actually only increase by a small amount. But if you take into account the fact that a freeway is not a closed system, then the benefits are much more numerous and apparent.

Also, just because the speeds are only marginally improved doesn't mean that it isn't able to handle a higher capacity of traffic. What would've happened in the long term no-build scenario? If we decide against building/expanding a particular freeway, ceteris paribum, then instead of new population growth occuring along that corridor, it will occur throughout the metro area, placing more traffic burden incrementally upon all of the freeways. And yes, it might induce some people to move into town, but it still isn't going to be a huge number.

Options are nice, but that doesn't mean that they're necessarily 'viable'. If a society invests only 5% of its transportation budget into a system that is only used by 2% of the people (whose average speed of travel is far lower than the other 98% of the people), how is that 'viable'? The coefficients in a congestion model would have to be absolutely unrealistic for 'viability' to be proven.

[N Judah]

I think everyone is misreading the statistic that someone posted above. It said that "less than 2 percent of new travel in the 1990s has been by transit." Not "2% of all portland trips are done via mass transit."

[TheNiche]

I think everyone is misreading the statistic that someone posted above. It said that "less than 2 percent of new travel in the 1990s has been by transit." Not "2% of all portland trips are done via mass transit."

The numbers I used were hypothetical examples.

Having said that, we could still use Portland's 2% of new riders since the 1990's figure if we looked at what percentage of their transportation departments' budgets for capital improvements were spent on mass transit compared to the amount of marginal ridership that that investment generated over that period of time.

I still get the strong intuitive sense that its going to be a weak argument for mass transit.