1990 18.8
1991 19.2
1992 19.8
1993 20.9
1994 20.1
1995 20.9
1996 21.7
1997 20.8
1998 21.0
1999 20.5
2000 20.0
2001 19.8
2002 19.5
2003 19.5
2004 20.7
2005 20.9

Like comment #4, I noticed how white the population is (78% white according to the 2000 census). Why is this an important factor to point out?

When a white middle-class community demands something, government in America responds differently than it does to low-income minority communities.

For another thing, political consensus emerges more easily in homogeneous environments. This is because varied groups make varied demands of the same resource, and controversy ensues.

Lastly, there is the issue of who feels comfortable doing what. WNYC recently interviewed a social anthropologist who studies New York's public spaces and who found that as neighborhoods gentrify, parks become cleaner and better maintained while at the same time certain activities become restricted. It so happens that those activities (barbecuing, playing loud music, etc.) are the very activities that lower-income residents enjoy in public spaces and that newcomers find distasteful. Another example is the police citing an older neighborhood resident drinking beers with his buddies at a picnic table in the park, while across the street a group of "young professionals" drink wine unperturbed at a restaurant's outdoor patio. Both groups are drinking alcohol in public, but one group is criminalized while the other is not.

Portland, with it's homogeneous population and political culture, manages to avoid all of these complex issues in its community planning.

This is not to say that social diversity is a hindrance. Rather, it is a tremendous asset that makes New York a vastly more interesting and vibrant place. (I'd still rather live here and defy livery cabs on my bike than live in Portland.) Along with its benefits, however, it also brings challenges.

Don't think Portland does not have issues too.

Outside the downtown neighborhoods there are sprawl suburbs, though not as many as Seattle for example. Also, Portland is a good city for bicycles but it's not as walkable as NY.

You could probably have filmed this same video in New York, if you chose certain places. Portland has nowhere near the pedestrians as many northeastern cities. The MAX system is good because it is new but it doesn't have the same frequency, utilization, and hours of the NYCT.

Still, their streetscape improvements should definitely be copied!

The model they have used is effective. You should use it to - take the parts that work for your city and use them. For those that don't and the left over problems, create solutions and work them through so that they are specific to each location. Wait, thats exactly what they do!

How can you hate on the senior citizens and children who were riding their bikes?

Metro, as an agency, is also responsible for tracking VMT in the region. So, Rex reporting the number is a cite within itself because he is the agency head that tracks VMT. If you want more detail, you can find it on their web page at http://www.metro-region.org/. There is also a link there to email Rex if you need more info.

I am not involved in the VMT modeling and can not give more detail.

Thanks.
Greg Raisman
Community and School Traffic Safety Partnership
Portland Office of Transportation
(503) 823-1052

This statistic refutes the claim of Randal O’Toole and others that Portland’s planning has not reduced auto use, so it would be great to have a good reference for it.

Of course, it is easier to get people to walk and bicycle in Portland than in most places, because you don’t have to worry about getting a sunburn in Portland.

Fabulous work, although I missed any mention of the Bicycle Transportation Alliance, which has certainly helped propel the agenda there over the years.