|
The Claim: Portland's Superiority over Seattle
Portland, Oregon is often cited as a model of urban planning in the United States. More than 15
years ago, the Oregon legislature authorized regional planning authorities to establish an urban
growth boundary, the purpose of which was to encourage more dense urban development, and
stop urban sprawl. The area built a light rail line, to which they attribute significant development.
And local publications have referred to Portland as a "compact" urban area. At the same time,
local commentators often contrast Portland's urban planning "success" with the Seattle,
Washington experience, even referring to Seattle as a "paradise lost." The facts portray a much
different picture.
Population & Transport:
Seattle & Portland Data Compared
|
| Characteristic |
Seattle |
Portland |
|
Urbanized Area: Square Miles |
| 1950 |
123 |
114 |
| 1980 |
485 |
349 |
| 1990 |
588 |
388 |
| Change |
21.2% |
11.2% |
| Source: US Census Bureau |
|
Urbanized Area: Population |
| 1950 |
622,000 |
512,000 |
| 1980 |
1,392,000 |
1,026,000 |
| 1990 |
1,744,000 |
1,172,000 |
| Change: 1980-1990 |
25.3% |
14.2% |
| Source: US Census Bureau |
|
Population per Square Mile
|
| 1950 |
5,057 |
4,511 |
| 1980 |
2,870 |
2,940 |
| 1990 |
2,966 |
3,021 |
| Change: 1980-1990 |
3.3% |
2.7% |
| Source: US Census Bureau |
|
Core City Population Density
|
| 1950 |
6,604 |
5,829 |
| 1980 |
5,886 |
3,557 |
| 1990 |
6,153 |
3,507 |
| Change: 1980-1990 |
4.5% |
-1.4% |
| Source: US Census Bureau |
|
Daily Work Trips by Passenger Transport
|
| 1980 |
79,323 |
47,504 |
| 1990 |
82,619 |
39,259 |
| Change |
3,296 |
(8,245) |
| % Change |
4.2% |
-17.4% |
| Source: US Census Bureau |
|
Public Transport Work Trip Market Share
|
| 1980 |
8.2% |
8.1% |
| 1990 |
6.3% |
5.4% |
| Change |
-23.2% |
-33.3% |
| Source: US Census Bureau |
|
Public Transp. Work Trip Market Share by Loca: 1990
|
| Central Business District |
36.2% |
20.0% |
| City Excluding CBD |
10.5% |
5.6% |
| Suburbs |
2.0% |
1.6% |
| Source: US Census Bureau |
|
Automobile Work Trip Market Share
|
| 1980 |
83.2% |
82.3% |
| 1990 |
85.4% |
86.1% |
| Change |
2.6% |
4.6% |
| Source: US Census Bureau |
|
Annual Transit Rides/Capita: Metropolitan Core |
| 1980 |
46.9 |
38.0 |
| 1996 |
47.9 |
43.4 |
| Change |
2.0% |
14.3% |
|
Annual transit rides in core metropolitan area divided by core metropolitan population (Seattle: King & Snohomish counties, Portland:
Clackamas, Multnomah & Washington counties.) These areas roughly correspond to the service areas
of the major public transport operators in 1980 (Metro in Seattle and Tri-Met in Portland)
Portland data artificially higher due to double counting of light rail-bus riders
|
|
Commercial Building Index
|
| 1981 |
464 |
41 |
| 1996 |
838 |
148 |
| Change |
374 |
107 |
|
Calculated from data in World Almanac
|
|
Traffic Congestion Index
|
| 1982 |
0.95 |
0.87 |
| 1994 |
1.25 |
1.11 |
| Change |
31.6% |
27.6% |
| Adj. for Pop. Change |
3.1% |
3.8% |
|
Source: Texas Transportation Institute (Texas A&M University) project for the US Department of
Transportation Federal Highway Administration.
|
|
Daily Vehicle Miles per Capita
|
| 1989 |
24.2 |
18.9 |
| 1995 |
24.5 |
21.6 |
| Change |
1.2% |
14.3% |
| Source:
Federal Highway Administration Highway Statistics
|
Performance Generally Favors Seattle
The table includes a number of indicators of urban sprawl and urban urban transport use.
- Seattle's population density is growing faster than Portland's: Between 1980 and 1990 (the two most recent United States censuses), the Portland urbanized
area experience population density growth of 2.7 percent, nearly 20 percent below Seattle's rate
of urban density growth. Portland's urbanized area density is 2 percent more dense than Seattle's.
- The central city of Seattle is considerably more dense than the central city of Portland:
The core city of Seattle has a population density 45 percent higher than that of the core city of
Portland.
- Urban transport's work trip market share is higher in Seattle: The percentage of workers using
urban transport (transit)for the work trip is now higher in the Seattle
area than in the Portland area, despite the addition of Portland's light rail line (opened in 1986). In
1980, Portland's urban transport work trip market share was higher than Seattle's.
From 1980 to 1990, urban transport work trip
market share declined by 33 percent in Portland, and 23 percent in Seattle.
In Portland, total daily urban transport work trips dropped by more than 8,200 round trips, despite
and increase of more than 155,000 total daily work trips and the addition of one of the nation's most
successful new light rail lines during the period.
In Seattle, total daily urban transport work trips increased by 3,300 round trips out of 330,000 new daily
work trips.
- Automobile commuting is growing faster in Portland, and has passed Seattle :
The percentage of workers using automobiles for the work trip is now higher in the Portland
area than in the Seattle area. In
1980, Seattle's automobile work trip market share was higher than Seattle's. From 1980 to 1990, automobile work trip
market share increased by 4.6 percent in Portland, and 2.6 percent in Seattle.
- A higher percentage of workers commute to downtown Seattle than to downtown Portland (36.2 percent compared to 20.0 percent).
Similarly, a higher percentage of workers commute to central city locations outside the CBD and to suburban locations in
Seattle.
Automobile Dependency is Rising Faster in Portland
In the critical indicators of traffic congestion and automobile use, Seattle trends are better than Portland's.
- Population growth adjusted traffic congestion is rising faster in Portland:
Traffic congestion, based upon the Texas Transportation Institute index, is growing in both urban
areas. Seattle's overall traffic growth over the past 10 years has been greater than that of Portland.
But when adjusted for relative
population Seattle's traffic growth is less than that of Portland.
-
Automobile use is rising faster in Portland:
Average daily vehicle miles traveled per capita is greater in Seattle, which is to be expected in that
Seattle covers nearly 50 percent more land area than Portland. However, Portland's automobile use is rising, while Seattle's
is falling. In the last five years, Seattle's average daily
vehicle miles traveled per capita has increased 1.2 percent, while Portland's has increased by 14.3
percent.
Portland's Model: No Better than Average
Moreover, Portland does not stand out as a compact urban area even by the sparse standards of
US urbanized areas. From 1980 to 1990, Portland added 39 square miles to its urbanized area ---
more than the area of Paris (while adding less than 1/15th of Paris' population). In contrast:
- Denver added only 20 square miles, yet accommodated 20,000 more new residents than Portland.
Denver densified at a rate more than 2.5 times that of Portland.
The Denver urbanized area population density is nearly 10 percent higher than that of Portland.
- If decentralized Phoenix continues to densify at 1980-1990 rates, it will exceed Portland densities by 2000 ---
this despite the fact that Phoenix has one of the smallest urban transport systems in a major US
urbanized area.
- Portland's population density ranks squarely in the middle of US urbanized areas of more than
one million population - 17th out of 33. The average population density of US urbanized areas of more than one million residents is five
percent higher than that of Portland.
Neither Denver nor Phoenix have strong regional land use planning legislation. During the early
1990s, Seattle became subject to growth management laws similar to that of Portland.
Neither Seattle nor Portland are densifying significantly. Portland, which has gone to such lengths
to advertise its "success" is densifying at a rate somewhat lower than that of Seattle.
Portland's rate of densification
is miniscule --- at the 1980 to 1990 rate, it would require:
- 150 years to return to Portland's 1950 density --- still highly automobile dependent.
- 250 years to achieve the density of the Los Angeles urbanized area.
- 750 years to achieve the density of metropolitan Paris.
By most measures, including the most important automobile use measures, the trends are more
favorable in Seattle than in Portland. Portland is not a compact urban area, not even by US standards.
In 1990, the Portland urbanized area was:
-
barely half as dense as
Los Angeles ---the ultimate automobile oriented urban area.
-
10 percent or more less dense than Denver and San Diego.
-
1/7 as dense as metropolitan Paris.
-
1/16 as dense as
the city of Paris.
By no objective standard does Portland's performance live up to the inflated claims.
Also see: Portland Planning: A Potemkin
Village
|
Urbanized Areas over 1,000,000: 1990 |
| Urbanized Area |
Population |
Land Area
(Sq. Mi.) |
Pop./Sq.
Mile |
Compared to
Average |
| 1 |
Los Angeles |
11,402,000 |
1,966 |
5,800 |
70.3% |
| 2 |
Miami |
1,915,000 |
353 |
5,425 |
59.3% |
| 3 |
New York |
16,044,000 |
2,967 |
5,407 |
58.8% |
| 4 |
Chicago |
6,792,000 |
1,585 |
4,285 |
25.8% |
| 5 |
San Jose |
1,435,000 |
338 |
4,246 |
24.6% |
| 6 |
San Francisco-Oakland |
3,630,000 |
874 |
4,153 |
21.9% |
| 7 |
New Orleans |
1,040,000 |
270 |
3,852 |
13.1% |
| 8 |
Fort Lauderdale |
1,238,000 |
327 |
3,786 |
11.1% |
| 9 |
Philadelphia |
4,222,000 |
1,164 |
3,627 |
6.5% |
| Average |
--- |
--- |
3,406 |
0.0% |
| 10 |
San Diego |
2,348,000 |
690 |
3,403 |
-0.1% |
| 11 |
Buffalo |
954,000 |
286 |
3,336 |
-2.1% |
| 12 |
Denver |
1,518,000 |
459 |
3,307 |
-2.9% |
| 13 |
Detroit |
3,697,000 |
1,119 |
3,304 |
-3.0% |
| 14 |
Sacramento |
1,097,000 |
334 |
3,284 |
-3.6% |
| 15 |
Baltimore |
1,890,000 |
593 |
3,187 |
-6.4% |
| 16 |
Boston |
2,775,000 |
891 |
3,114 |
-8.6% |
| 17 |
Portland |
1,172,000 |
388 |
3,021 |
-11.3% |
| 18 |
Seattle |
1,744,000 |
588 |
2,966 |
-12.9% |
| 19 |
Phoenix |
2,006,000 |
741 |
2,707 |
-20.5% |
| 20 |
St. Louis |
1,947,000 |
728 |
2,674 |
-21.5% |
| 21 |
Cleveland |
1,677,000 |
636 |
2,637 |
-22.6% |
| 22 |
Tampa-St. Petersburg |
1,709,000 |
650 |
2,629 |
-22.8% |
| 23 |
San Antonio |
1,129,000 |
438 |
2,578 |
-24.3% |
| 24 |
Riverside-San Bernardino |
1,170,000 |
460 |
2,543 |
-25.3% |
| 25 |
Houston |
2,902,000 |
1,177 |
2,466 |
-27.6% |
| 26 |
Milwaukee |
1,226,000 |
512 |
2,395 |
-29.7% |
| 27 |
Cincinnati |
1,212,000 |
512 |
2,367 |
-30.5% |
| 28 |
Dallas-Fort Worth |
3,198,000 |
1,443 |
2,216 |
-34.9% |
| 29 |
Pittsburgh |
1,678,000 |
778 |
2,157 |
-36.7% |
| 30 |
Norfolk |
1,323,000 |
664 |
1,992 |
-41.5% |
| 31 |
Minneapolis-St. Paul |
2,080,000 |
1,063 |
1,957 |
-42.6% |
| 32 |
Atlanta |
2,157,000 |
1,137 |
1,897 |
-44.3% |
| 33 |
Kansas City |
1,275,000 |
762 |
1,673 |
-50.9% |
|
Total |
91,602,000 |
26,893 |
3,406 |
0.0% |
Revised 1998.06.09
DEMOGRAPHIA
is an Undertaking of
WENDELL COX CONSULTANCY
P. O. Box 841 - Belleville, IL 62269 USA
Telephone: +1.618.632.8507 -
Facsimile: +1.618.632.8538
E-Mail:
enquiries@demographics.com
Demographic Briefs |
New Items |
Book Store |
Subscribe (Free)
THE PUBLIC PURPOSE
Internet Public Policy Resource
Corrections Policy, Rights & Permissions
|
|
