What can Portland teach Los Angeles about transportation?

I recently spent a long weekend in Portland, Ore. The trip was for fun, but it was hard not to look and sometimes marvel at the many things that Portland does well on the transportation front and wonder if they can be applied here.

Of course, comparing the Portland area to the Southland is a bit unfair. The city of Portland has a population of about 537,000 (about 10% larger than Long Beach) and the metro area has about 2.1 million people. Los Angeles County alone has about 10 million people.

In other words, they've got the advantage of being smaller and in the world of urban planning, smaller usually translates to getting things done faster.

CYCLING

Census Bureau numbers from 2006 show that 4.1% of commuters in Portland use bikes to get to work compared with six-tenths of one percent in the city of Los Angeles. Portland transportation officials say that their own surveys show that actually 6% of the city's residents are pedaling to work -- tops in the nation for a large city.

I'd be skeptical of that number ordinarily. But on a Monday afternoon I sat on my rental bike watching the number of bike commuters heading out of downtown on the Hawthorne Bridge at rush hour. It was one bike after another on the bike lane on the bridge. Upon reaching the east side of the bridge, some cyclists used a special bike exit ramp to reach a bike path running along the Willamette. Amazing.

The funny thing about Portland is that the area really doesn't have a tremendous number of miles of separated bike paths. Instead, the city has put bike lanes and routes on streets with lower volumes of traffic and emphasized connections. In other words, someone actually went out and came up with a strategy for cyclists to get from Point A to Point B.

Here's an example: I rented a bike on the northwest side of Portland. The city's bike map helped me easily navigate to the riverfront bike path to the Hawthorne Bridge, which has bike lanes on both sides of it.

When a cyclist arrives at the east side of the Willamette River, the bike lane within several blocks peels off busy Hawthorne and instead puts cyclists on parallel residential streets. Again, there were plenty of signs and street markings (see photo below). And, again, there were a ton of cyclists on the street going both directions.

The funny thing is that many cities here have designated bike routes -- you see those little green signs everywhere in Pasadena, for example. I think the difference in Portland is the emphasis on connectivity. It's also a geographical and cultural thing. Commutes are shorter and residents clearly are into cycling.

Maybe that is a reflection of the fact that the city and region have invested in biking. Cheryl Kuck, a spokesperson for the city's transportation bureau, said that as more people have taken to biking, the city is mandated to keep spending money to keep improving facilities.

"If we have users at 4% to 6% or beyond [of all commuters], our capital budget has to create funds for that user group," she said.

And that, rest assured, is a foreign concept here.

LIGHT RAIL

Perhaps the biggest difference between Portland and here is something you notice within minutes of walking off a plane: A light rail line stops at the far end of the Portland airport's terminal building. For $2.05, you can buy a ticket and be on a train that takes about 40 minutes to reach the central business district in downtown.

Driving is undoubtedly quicker. Still, I took the train at 10 p.m. on a Friday night -- the airport at that point was pretty dead -- and I'm guessing 40 or so people boarded the train at the airport. The line was completed in 2001, making Portland the first city on the West Coast to have a train running to the airport. In the last fiscal year, 1.2 million people took the train to and from the airport, according to TriMet, the local transportation agency.

It's worth noting here that the proposal to bring the Green Line to LAX doesn't actually take the Green Line to LAX. The train would stop out near Parking Lot C, where passengers would transfer to a people mover that the airport is supposed to build.

Three light rail lines enter downtown Portland from the suburbs and next year a fourth will arrive. All have opened in the past seven years after decades of planning. In many cases, the trains run right up the middle of the street -- stations are literally on the curb. They run slow and stop often in downtown and it doesn't appear to be a problem in terms of people-train-car conflicts.

The other novel approach taken by Portland was that the city drew a square around downtown and declared that the "fareless zone." If you only ride the train or the bus within that zone, it's a free ride. The idea was to encourage people to use the trains and buses for short trips within downtown. It's a bit of a controversial notion and the policy is under review -- some feel it encourages some not-so-pleasant types to ride -- but you can't beat the price.

A couple of other notes: The trains have bike hooks. And the train goes to some novel destinations. In one case it tunnels under Washington Park -- but has a stop there. Take the elevator up and you've got hiking trails, the zoo and the Children's Museum just steps away. There's a good post at The Times' Outpost blog with plenty of tips on how to spend a weekend in Portland.

DOWNTOWN PARKING

One of the worst things about downtown L.A., I've always thought, is the number of parking lots. The big, empty spaces create dead zones where there's nothing going on except parking. And, the lots have made it difficult to create the kind of critical mass of people that in turn attracts the kind of businesses that create a thriving downtown.

Downtown Portland is much smaller than L.A. While it certainly has parking lots and garages -- but nothing on the magnitude of what you see in L.A. As it turns out, this is the result of some smart things Portland did going back to the 1970s.

Back then, air quality officials in Oregon began cracking down on car pollution. They imposed tight rules on emissions and told cities to start finding ways to get people to drive less. With that kick in the rear, Portland initially created a plan that capped the number of parking spaces allowed downtown. The idea was to encourage more people to take mass transit.

The city also turned two streets into a "bus mall" -- two one-way streets that mostly served buses -- and zoned the city in such a way that buildings closest to mass transit were given strict limits on how much parking they could build. The above drawing shows the new light rail line being added to the mall.

I cannot emphasize enough how different this is from Los Angeles, which has the exact opposite policy: New residential and commercial buildings have minimum amounts of parking they can build. There is no maximum.

Even relaxing the minimums here have been controversial: When the city of L.A. planning department tried to do it last year for buildings on transit lines (including bus routes), an upswell of protest put the plan on hold. No one believed people would buy new residential units without parking. They envisioned those new residents parking cars in their neighborhoods.

"We have no minimums anywhere in the central city," said Jessica Richman, a senior planner in the Portland Planning Bureau. "We could do it downtown with a strong transit system, transit is free. I don't think L.A. has the transit system to match, but it's also just kind of that mentality that is typical in America that everyone needs a car. People [in Portland] do say if you build something without parking, people will compete for scarce on-street parking. It's definitely a stick approach, but we also try to build in the carrots to make it easier for you not to drive."

If you walk around Portland, you'll notice something else: Zipcars -- the company that specializes in short-term car rentals -- has a vehicle parked every few blocks in parking spaces the city has dedicated to the firm. It goes back to that idea that Portland is trying to help provide people with alternatives to car ownership.

THE STREETCAR

Of all the transit-related things that Portland has done, perhaps none have gotten more attention than the city's revival of the streetcar in 2001. The line has since been expanded and runs in a eight-mile loop on city streets. In traffic. In incredibly dense neighborhoods of new and gentrified buildings where there is, remarkably, not that much traffic.

The line runs through downtown and connects a new neighborhood along the Willamette River to the relatively new Pearl District and on to the older northwest side neighborhood. The streetcars are about the same size as one of Metro's articulated buses.

The streetcar runs at about the same speed as a bus. Stops are typically one to three blocks apart and like buses, the streetcar has that magical gift of missing virtually every green light because it's always stopping. In exchange for lack of speed, however, the streetcar is basically a hyper-local service that is very convenient to reach for anyone living or working near the line.

Like the light rail and buses, the streetcar is free within downtown. Unlike buses, people riding the streetcars can enter any one of three doors and they can buy a ticket on board. That does help speed the proceedings. Because many people are riding for short distances, the streetcar has few seats but a lot of room for standing and it runs at curb level.

Proponents of the streetcar say it has attracted millions of dollars of development along the route (that's a new condo building and park in the Pearl District, at left). They say that streetcar tracks, unlike bus routes, signal to the community that such areas are worthy of long-term investment. And they say the streetcars are quieter and more attractive than buses. There may be something to this. There are certainly people in the L.A. area who say some major streets -- such as Brand Boulevard in Glendale -- took decades to recover after losing their streetcar lines.

A couple of other things worth knowing about the streetcar in Portland: about one-third the cost was paid for by residents who live near it via an assessment. And businesses continue to subsidize it through sponsorships. The Community Redevelopment Agency has been studying building a streetcar line in downtown L.A. but it's likely going to require a heavy investment from the private sector to do so.

"The best part of it is that it's relatively cheap and it leads to a much more compelling pedestrian environment -- and real estate values go up because it's permanent," said Tom Cody, a principal with the developer Gerding Edlen, which is building projects in Portland and L.A. "People who are critics say let's put in a DASH system, but a DASH bus can always go away. A streetcar if done correctly, comes with landscaping, shelters, trash cans and because it's putting eyes on the street it makes neighborhoods safer because people are on the street."

THINKING OUTSIDE THE BOX

Most recently, Portland opened an aerial tram that connects a new neighborhood of high-rises along the Willamette to the state's health campus that sits 500 feet higher and on the other side of a freeway.

In terms of mass transit solutions, I'm not sure that it's a great example of practicality, but it's hard not to be impressed with the willingness to do something different -- particularly to the tune of $57 million (the Oregon Health & Science University paid about $40 million of its cost).

There was a study in the early 1990s that looked at ways to connect Dodger Stadium to Chinatown. A tram was one of the options reviewed, but the study concluded it couldn't carry enough people to handle crowds before and after games.

The most noticeable thing about Portland, however, is its willingness to embrace density. Neighborhoods near mass transit are filled with high-rise development. It's clear that Portland has embraced the idea that if mass transit is to survive, a lot of people need to live or work near it.

SO, WHAT CAN L.A. LEARN?

A couple of days after returning from Portland, I dialed up Gail Goldberg, the chief of the city of Los Angeles' planning department. Goldberg knows Portland well -- in urban planning circles it's often used as an example -- and one of her sons lives in the Pearl, the old manufacturing district now filled with new high-rises and old buildings converted into housing.

She focused on a few issues: redevelopment laws in Portland are, as she understood them, more flexible in terms of providing incentives to get developers to build what the city wants them to build. And she thought that business improvement districts in Portland had shown more willingness to spend money improving their communities.

On the transit front, Goldberg said "I like that they understand the value and are willing to have free service in the downtown area. Whereas here, we're worried about how to pay for everything, so everything has to be be self-sufficient and we're not subsidizing everything. They've somehow learned [in Portland] that it's not a subsidy, it's an investment and that obviously gives them other returns.

One of the last things Goldberg said in our conversation was I think the most insightful. She said that things people see in Portland in 2008 are really the result of smart decisions made as far back as the 1970s -- the region's decision to adopt an urban growth boundary, investment in mass transit.

"The thing about Portland -- like Vancouver (in British Columbia) -- is that they had a great plan adopted 20 years ago and the City Council sticks to the plan," Goldberg said. "And that's how they got here -- that willingness to stick to the plan."

What do you think, Bottleneckers? What do cities such as Portland do that we can learn from down here, both on the transportation and planning fronts? Leave a comment and in a few days I'll put the best ideas in a new post.

-- Steve Hymon

Streetcar photo: Julie Sheer / Los Angeles Times

Hawthorne Bridge photo: Dana E. Olsen / The Oregonian

Bike commuting photo: Christopher Reynolds / LAT

Bike marker photo: Steve Hymon / LAT

Red streetcar photo: Portland Streetcar

Portland Mall rendering: Portland Mall

Gondola photo: Julie Sheer / LAT

Comments

[Toronto Airport Limo]

I like this blog very much keep it up

[Joe]

Having lived in LA/Long Beach all my life (except for the past 3 years here in Portland), I can attest to the world of difference between these two places. I kinda like that LA continues to "invest" in expensive highway infrastructure that drains basic maintenance costs from local roads in LA (I can attest to local streets being in worse shape in LA than here in Portland). In the meantime, we in portland will continue to invest in bikes, sidewalks, transit, and community spaces. The contrast will continue to be stark and we'll always have a good example of what cities should be doing (Portland) and a good example of what cities shouldn't be doing (LA).

One thing that State of Oregon does that can't be overemphasized is it's use of an urban growth boundary and minimum density limits to make Portland (and all other cities) grow "up" instead of sprawling forever, like LA. This results in more people living closer together, shorter commutes, and thus, it's easier to get around by walking, bicycling, or taking transit. It's probably too late for this to help LA, but again, thanks to LA, Oregon knew what they didn't want to look like and 30 years ago created these urban growth boundaries.

[Chuck Ty]

From The Oregonian Newpaper showing that Light Rail funding has caused a huge backlog of repairs to the City of Portland:

Taking all that into account, erasing the maintenance backlog could cost the city close to $1 billion, said Steve Townsen, the city's head transportation engineer.

Commissioner Sam Adams, who oversees the transportation department, had hoped to ask voters in November to approve a new fee on households and businesses that would raise about $340 million over 15 years to pay for the most serious repairs. He shelved the plan last month after polling showed that voters, feeling pinched, would reject the new tax.

What did it teach LA? Don't waste your money on Light Rail since you will not have any money left over.

[Bob R.]

A correction...

The article says "Three light rail lines enter downtown Portland from the suburbs and next year a fourth will arrive. All have opened in the past seven years after decades of planning."

The MAX light rail system actually opened it's first line in 1986, 22 years ago.

The actual opening dates are:

MAX light rail from Portland to Gresham (now the Blue line), September, 1986.
Westside MAX, extending the existing Blue Line from Portland west to Hillsboro, fully open in September, 1998.
Airport Red Line, September, 2001.
Interstate Ave. Yellow Line, May, 2004.

The new Green Line and corresponding transit mall remodel is expected to open in September, 2009.

[M]

Bernard Samstag, actually that could happen. I was out here in Southern California in Claremont for 3 of my 4 years in college without a car and without issues. You just have to know where to go. Granted I never went to downtown LA or Hollywood (thanks to a Metrolink train that stops running insanely early and runs too infrequently), but I didn't have any need to go to those places.

Also, Toni Magic, they are building mixed use building here, but one of the problems seems to be rents for these retail areas and the economy. Also along places like Ventura blvd there is an insane number of apartment buildings tucked on streets parallel to Ventura only minutes (in walking time) from the retail spaces. Unfortunately I've watched many of these retail spaces close over the past few years. Some have been sitting unused for a year or longer.

[DebunkingPortland]

The solution is NOT slow light rail trains that make traffic worse, hit every moving object in its way, and avoid the real places people are coming from and going.

[Sky]

Chuck Ty please keep your frustrated self on your side of the river in Vantuky. So, as not to take jobs from contented Oregonians, and bring your poor driving habits across and overwhelming bridges we paid for. If you enjoy Mini-mall USA with a overstressed infrastructure, hey great to each his own.

[Jessica Roberts]

I'm glad to hear that you were able to use our bicycle network to get around. I always wonder how easy-to-use the system is; once you know the bikeway network it works like a dream, but sometimes people have trouble figuring out a new (non-car) mental map. It's good that the map and the on-street markings are doing what they're intended to do.

[Dan W.]

"This anactdotal faux-reporting is just another component of the Times' RAH-RAH for light rail,"

-----------------------

And what's your alternative?

SCAG predicts three million more people migrating to Los Angeles County over the next three decades. Congestion is only going to get worse and gasoline prices are going to continue to rise over time.

The golden age of the single-occupancy automobile is long behind us and will never return to its former quality. Buses in themselves, even with bus only lanes, do not provide enough mobility to keep Los Angeles economically prosperous and sustainable.

The truth is that we need to invest as heavily in our public transit infrastructure over the next five decades as we invested in roads and freeways over the last five.

For those people who want the high-quality, low-density, drive and park a single-occupancy vehicle quickly, conveniently, affordably on demand, car culture Los Angeles of the past to return -- those people need a time machine more than anything in the real world.

[Kt]

The reason traffic in Vancouver WA is so great during the weekdays is because everyone who lives in Vancouver actually WORKS IN PORTLAND.

So naturally, during the weekdays, Vanc's streets are empty and wide open.

[johnny]

I must say Mr. Ty, you're really on to something. We must do all we can to shut down this "crime rail", in fact it is our duty as god-fearing Americans to do so. I myself lie awake at night, stricken with fear at the though of covert crime rail construction operatives secretly opening a crime rail station in my virgin neighborhood. The ensuing torrent of hippies and colored people would surely peddle drugs from my front yard while simultaneously stealing my vast jet-ski collection. You're exactly the kind of person this country needs. I salute you. Fight Crime Rail!!!

[Dan]

I agree with Chuck Ty... don't move to Portland unless you're a socialist.

If you're a xenophobic working class victim of all things left move to the 'Couve, WA... a sprawling stripmall wasteland that reminds me of California.

[Bernard Samstag]

I recently flew to Portland to bring back my 2002 Honda that my college-aged daughter no longer needs. She attends Reed College, owns a bicycle and works in a Bike Shop. That would never happen if she attended a Los Angeles college - unless she lived 60 or 70 years ago when Pacific Electric and L A Transit lines moved people in streetcars.

[DebunkingPortland]

I just love how Hymon glosses over the subsidies that the developers are getting. The need for MASSIVE GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES for the market to respond is reflective of a failure in planning and design. Give any area enough of our tax dollars and developers will respond.

And in similar kind Hymon just glosses over the fact people have free fares in downtown, and doesn't mention that even with the free fare Portland's transit ridership is no better than most of the other cities in our country.

How can you call it a success when the city has to bribe developers with tax-dollars to build around the lines and bribe people to ride a system that is so much slower than cars and even buses? Give me a break.

Gloss over the development subsidies and the free fares and sure "Portland is a model in urban planning and shows how great light rail can be." Just like Bush is a great American president if you don't consider the Iraq Quagmire, Katrina, and the wrecked economy!

This anactdotal faux-reporting is just another component of the Times' RAH-RAH for light rail, developer subsidies and giving an incompetent corrupt public agency $40 billion of our tax dollars over the next 30 years. You end with Goldberg's quote like there is some kind of plan for growth, development, traffic and mass transit investment, when nothing could be further from the truth. And how about doing some real reporting Hymon and highlight and address the perspective and many stats presented on the Debunking Portland website:
http://www.debunkingportland.com

[Dan W.]

All this talk about "socialism"..

Ah, these "socialist libertarians" who want government to continue to subsidizing their single-occupancy motoring lifestyle regardless of the economic or environmental impacts, because they think they are too good for mass transit or delude themselves into thinking their single-occupancy automobiles are somehow "free market".

Everyone should read Fred Camino's essay "Exposing Socialist Libertarians":

http://metroriderla.com/2008/04/03/exposing-socialist-libertarians/

[Chuck Ty]

The FAMED TRAM in Portland was a 13 million dollar project for the doctors of the S. Waterfront and the social elite on the hill. The cost kept moving on up to over 57 million since the mayor lied about the price to get it approved and then just moved up the price. The S. Waterfront was a sellout to the friends of Portland Commissioners by giving them the land and the tram and billed the people of Portland for 17 million when there was no benefit to them.

Come live in Portland if you like being attacked by BUMS and being taxed out of your house and forced on to mass transit.

[Chuck Ty]

Richard,

If you look at a US map you will find that Vancouver, WA is right across the river from Portland has been smart enough to stay away from Crime Rail. Vancouver has focused on building roads along with density without forcing people on to mass transit. The working class has moved from Portland, OR to Vancouver due to the Socialist bent of Portland and taxing people till they have to ride rail to feed their family.

[Richard]

Why is Chuck Ty talking about a city in Washington and not about Vancouver in BRITISH COLUMBIA, as in CANADA?!

[paul]

This is like the "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" for transportation issues. Very amateurish and shows little knowledge or depth of understanding of the subject at hand. Sad to see how far LAtimes' reporting standards have fallen in the last few years.

[Chuck Ty]

Mr. Mike Justice obviously doesn't live in the greater Portland area and thus doesn't know the facts on the ground in Portland.

1. The city of Portland road budget is over 100 million behind and the new mayor is pushing for a per house road tax. The city HAS NOT added new roadways since 1983 and the budget issues started when MAX was put in. Portland is also running buses that are past their service prime due to no money to replace them and even the city admits to it.
2. Not every city is a Parking lot on the weekdays since the city of Vancouver, WA is wide open and doesn't have traffic jams due to adding new roads every year and we have money for more and more.
3. The Airport MAX line was such a waste of money that the city gave up on a transit focused business park in the area due to low ridership numbers. The Airport line is the least used line in the MAX system and most that use it are not from out of town.
4. Don't know what you are smoking since the Oregonian has run COUNTLESS article on the subject of violence on the MAX line and you can Google it anytime. There was a shooting on the system just last week and a Vancouver woman that was the subject of a hate crime while being mugged and beat by five black teens.
5. Where is this 'safest' city study that is lied about? I forgot, it got lost with the bums that ride MAX for free all Winter to stay warm. If you come to Portland be prepared for lots of aggressive BUMS and cyclists that don't obey the law, and don't even think of asking for help from the Police. I lived in NY City for 20 years and can say the city and subway are far safer than Portland.

Come visit Vancouver, WA if you want wide open roads where people actually have jobs and are not just lazy Socialists. You will get to enjoy the best farmers Market in the area and a river walk where you don't run into BUMS and Drugged up Teens with aggressive dogs trying to attack you like on the Portland waterfront.

[Mike Justice]

Perhaps Mr. Steve Hymon failed to point out said 'points' because -

1. There is plenty of money left over for roads and buses and I don't know where you got that erroneous information.
2. Every city's road network is a parking lot on weekdays, hence the term 'weekday traffic.'
3. Voters may have turned down MAX airport service at the ballot box, but if sheer numbers are any indication, a great number of people who voted no are now riding MAX from the airport, so I'm sure they don't feel too badly about it now. Plus, a lot of people who ride MAX from the airport are VISITING FROM OTHER CITIES, so it really doesn't matter what local voters want or don't want, because it's not entirely for them anyway.
4. Crime is hardly 'out of control' on the MAX, and no educated journalist with a degree and experience would print an inaccurate opinion as fact without citing sources, of which there are none because it's not true.
5. "MAX is the best mover of drugs and criminals on the West Coast" - well, once again, a journalist -- strike that, anyone with any sense whatsoever -- would never state something so ridiculously false and lacking in any journalistic verisimilitude.
6. It's taken sky high gas prices to get public transportation ridership to go up all over the country. That's not a secret. It's not like MAX was a ghost town beforehand. Gas prices go up, more people ride transit. That's a given.
7. Portland consistently ranks as one of America's safest big cities. If Vancouver is 'safer,' it's only because -- drum roll -- it's not a big city! It's, like, one-fifth the size of Portland. That might account for the traffic being easier, too. I, personally, have never been mugged in Portland, and I don't know a lot of people who have. And most people I know would rather 'sit in traffic' in Portland, Oregon than live in Vancouver, Washington.

Honestly, I thought this article was very well-written and researched, and I'd like to thank the author for his journalistic integrity. If subscriptions to LA Times are down, it's probably for the same reason public transportation ridership is up.

[Chuck Ty]

What Mr. Steve Hymon fails to point out is all the downsides to having a bad Light Rail system pushed on a city.

1. The MAX system costs so much money to build and maintain that there is no money left over for roads or even buses.
2. The road network has not been added to since 1983 and is thus a parking lot most weekdays for about 7 hours, which explains why the author came up on the weekend.
3. The Airport MAX line was turned down by the voters along with two other recent voter refusals for added lines.
4. Crime is out of control on the MAX system and it has been ignored by the socialist Government that runs the city since they feel they are above everyone else.
5. MAX is the best mover of drugs and criminals on the West Coast.
6. It took sky high gas prices to get ridership to go up this year.
7. Vancouver, WA has voted down failed crime rail and the traffic in the city is easy and fast and you have to go to Portland to get mugged and sit in traffic.

Honesty would have been nice out of the author but I am used to that from the LA Times and why their subscriptions are down.

[rallenr]

For a different perspective on the Portland streetcars, Cato's had some things to say: Debunking Portland -- The Public Transit Myth (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8643).

[richard schumacher]

Quick, someone call Randall O'Toole, so he can explain how nobody actually uses any of this and it's all a bad idea and a waste of money.

[lsm]

Rob Stewart,

Did Vancouver successfully avoid connecting its "number of high-density town centres within the city and metro region" with an integrated mass-transit system? We in LA County are blessed with a supervisor who blathers about "equity" (which he helpfully defines by where his constituents live rather than where people need to go) in his zeal to spare us such a useful system. Did Vancouver dodge the pitfall of using grade-separated rail in its densest neighborhoods? We in LA County are again blessed with another supervisor who babyishly drivels about "this little choo-choo" to prevent that solution to gridlock. If Vancouver fell into either or both of these two traps, many of us will gladly chip in for one-way tickets so these supervisors can head north to share their transit visions with you.