: Urban Growth Management and Transportation Planning -- Implications of Portland s Experience to Chinese Cities

1. ?????????????: ???????????Urban Growth Management and Transportation Planning-- Implications of Portland�s Experience to Chinese Cities� ??? ?? Zhong-Ren Peng, Ph.D. Professor and Chair Department of Urban and Regional Planning University of Florida, USA ??????????????????????? ??????????????????? Focusing on urban transportation planning in the context of growth management. Nationally, Portland is considered successful in managing urban growth and curbing sprawl. This has been accomplished by means of an Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) to limit suburban expansion, encouragement of higher-density development, infill development and redevelopment, and emphasis of rail transit over highway development. Growth management in Portland is visionary, bold, and costly. It has the support of leaders and the public. They feel that current trends are not acceptable and must be broken to reduce urban sprawl and auto dependency. However, evidence of success is mixed, more perception than reality. But the perception is strong and the regulations are being tightened in hopes of making the vision a reality. In the meantime, more people are beginning to feel the congestion and housing affordability pinch. The system performance as forecast in the 2000 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) ought to signal further analysis and discussion is needed. The projected levels of congestion raise concern that the land use forecast is not consistent with the transportation forecast and the land use may not build out as forecast. Also, the optimistic transit ridership forecast may not be achievable, yet the forecasts are not high enough to warrant the large transit investments contained in the RTP. However, there does not appear to be much interest in revisiting the strong commitment to rail transit or the growth management vision upon which the regional land use plan is based. Rather the 2000 RTP is considered to be beyond testing of the regional framework plan and is in the stage of plan implementation.Focusing on urban transportation planning in the context of growth management. Nationally, Portland is considered successful in managing urban growth and curbing sprawl. This has been accomplished by means of an Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) to limit suburban expansion, encouragement of higher-density development, infill development and redevelopment, and emphasis of rail transit over highway development. Growth management in Portland is visionary, bold, and costly. It has the support of leaders and the public. They feel that current trends are not acceptable and must be broken to reduce urban sprawl and auto dependency. However, evidence of success is mixed, more perception than reality. But the perception is strong and the regulations are being tightened in hopes of making the vision a reality. In the meantime, more people are beginning to feel the congestion and housing affordability pinch. The system performance as forecast in the 2000 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) ought to signal further analysis and discussion is needed. The projected levels of congestion raise concern that the land use forecast is not consistent with the transportation forecast and the land use may not build out as forecast. Also, the optimistic transit ridership forecast may not be achievable, yet the forecasts are not high enough to warrant the large transit investments contained in the RTP. However, there does not appear to be much interest in revisiting the strong commitment to rail transit or the growth management vision upon which the regional land use plan is based. Rather the 2000 RTP is considered to be beyond testing of the regional framework plan and is in the stage of plan implementation.

2. ???? Outline ????????????What is Managed Growth in Portland, OR? ????????????????????? Transportation policy and planning under urban growth management policy ???????????? The impacts ?????????????, Impacts on transportation investment and congestion? ???????????, Impacts on travel behavior ?????????,Impacts on urban form, land use pattern and housing pricing, ????????????????????????? What can be learned from Portland�s experience?

3. ??????????????? What is Managed Growth in Portland, OR? ?�??????�??????????? Managing urban growth by using Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). ?????????????????? Demand high density and in-fill land use development. ???????????????????????? Favor transit investment over highway expansion.

4. ???????�??????� What is Portland�s Urban Growth Boundary? Showing freeway system, UGB, and urban reserves. There has been no major expansion of the freeway system since the mid-80�s with the completion of I-205 and the rebuilding of I-84 in conjunction with the building of the Eastside light rail Urban reserve land; LCDC and 1000 Friends of Oregon appealed Metro�s comprehensive plan to expand the UBG to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). LUBA disallowed Metro�s expansion plan to balance jobs and housing because it expanded onto prime agricultural land in Washington County before using up secondary lands in Clackamas County. Transportation investments must be balanced in the three county region. Showing freeway system, UGB, and urban reserves. There has been no major expansion of the freeway system since the mid-80�s with the completion of I-205 and the rebuilding of I-84 in conjunction with the building of the Eastside light rail Urban reserve land; LCDC and 1000 Friends of Oregon appealed Metro�s comprehensive plan to expand the UBG to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). LUBA disallowed Metro�s expansion plan to balance jobs and housing because it expanded onto prime agricultural land in Washington County before using up secondary lands in Clackamas County. Transportation investments must be balanced in the three county region.

5. ???????�??????� What is Portland�s Urban Growth Boundary?

6. ?????????????????? What contributed to Portland�s urban growth management program ????????????? Oregon land use planning system LCDC � ?????????? Land Conservation and Development Commission UGB �?????? Urban Growth Boundary TPR � ?????? Transportation Planning Rule ?????????????????? Strong political coalition in Portland Region Metro � ????????????,regional government and MPO 1000 Friends of Oregon -????????????????? the guardian of Oregon LU planning system The context for growth management is unique in Portland. No other large metropolitan area has such a strong state land use planning system or such a strong regional government. Land Conservation and Development Commission sets the policy and Department of Land Conservation and Development manages the Oregon land use planning system. The system focuses on protecting farm and forest lands through exclusive farm and forest zoning and containing urban growth by means of comprehensive planning and urban growth boundaries.The context for growth management is unique in Portland. No other large metropolitan area has such a strong state land use planning system or such a strong regional government. Land Conservation and Development Commission sets the policy and Department of Land Conservation and Development manages the Oregon land use planning system. The system focuses on protecting farm and forest lands through exclusive farm and forest zoning and containing urban growth by means of comprehensive planning and urban growth boundaries.

7. Metro � ??????????Metro � A Regional Government ????????? Urban portions of 3 counties 460????,130???, 460 sq mi. (1191 sq. KM), 1.3 million people 24 ???, 24 cities ???????????? Operational duties and taxing authority ??????(???7?),????????? Elected councilors (7), executive, and auditor Background on political context of the Portland region. Strong regional governance.Background on political context of the Portland region. Strong regional governance.

8. ????1000?????1000 Friends of Oregon ????McCall ?1975???? Created by former Gov. McCall in 1975 �????????????????� �A powerful tool to make good land use planning a reality� ??????????????? Uses threat of lawsuits as primary bargaining chip 1987??????????????????? 1987 lawsuit initiated development of Transportation Planning Rule LUTRAQ(????,???????)?? ??? LUTRAQ Study 1000 Friends of Oregon have been very instrumental in keeping the pressure on state and local governments in implementing the Oregon planning system. They sued ODOT and killed the Westside Bypass Conducted LUTRAQ study which influenced the encouragement of the transit-oriented development movement in Portland, and the discouragement of auto dependent development that led to the 2040 planning process. LUTRAQ also led to the new generation of transportation models. The old ones were not sensitive to alternative modes and TODs1000 Friends of Oregon have been very instrumental in keeping the pressure on state and local governments in implementing the Oregon planning system. They sued ODOT and killed the Westside Bypass Conducted LUTRAQ study which influenced the encouragement of the transit-oriented development movement in Portland, and the discouragement of auto dependent development that led to the 2040 planning process. LUTRAQ also led to the new generation of transportation models. The old ones were not sensitive to alternative modes and TODs

9. ??????Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) ??1974????????????1999?????? Adopted 1991 as a stronger version of former Transportation Goal (1974) ???????????? Rule emphasizes reduction in reliance on autos ???20????20%?????? decrease in VMT within 20 years ???30????25%?????? additional 5% reduction in VMT within 30 years ??10%????? 10% decrease in parking spaces Metro�s TSP is required to be designed to either achieve a 10% reduction of VMT per capita within 20 years and an additional 5% reduction within 30 years or demonstrate an alternative standard for reduction of VMT per capita. Like all other MPOs Metro is requesting LCDC authorization to use alternative standards to demonstrate progress towards reducing auto reliance. The alternative consists of: 1. street connectivity 2. Reduced parking requirements and parking pricing 3. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Assumptions of achievements of these were used to obtain an estimated 1.8% increase in VMT per capita was achieved. The modeling results estimate 14.3VMT per capita in 2020). The fourth element is a functional plan requirement for city and county TSPs, passing to them they targets for more reduction of VMT per capita. TPR is indicative of target-driven planning in Oregon.Metro�s TSP is required to be designed to either achieve a 10% reduction of VMT per capita within 20 years and an additional 5% reduction within 30 years or demonstrate an alternative standard for reduction of VMT per capita. Like all other MPOs Metro is requesting LCDC authorization to use alternative standards to demonstrate progress towards reducing auto reliance. The alternative consists of: 1. street connectivity 2. Reduced parking requirements and parking pricing 3. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Assumptions of achievements of these were used to obtain an estimated 1.8% increase in VMT per capita was achieved. The modeling results estimate 14.3VMT per capita in 2020). The fourth element is a functional plan requirement for city and county TSPs, passing to them they targets for more reduction of VMT per capita. TPR is indicative of target-driven planning in Oregon.

10. 2040????? 2040 Growth Concept ???????????? Includes land-use and transportation policies that encourage. ?????? efficient use of land ????????? protection of farmland and natural areas ???????? a balanced transportation system ???????? a healthy economy ????????? diverse housing options.

11. 2040??????????? Transportation Planning ????:??,???????,???,????,?????? Investment priorities: transit, particularly rail transit, pedestrian, bicycle and street design ???????,?????????????????????? Cap highway construction but focus on the efficient management of the overall system using Intelligent Transportation Systems. ??????????? Goal-oriented planning approach � set up a future goal and identify ways to achieve it. ?80???????????? No major highway construction since 1980s.

12. ??????? Bike Plan ?????????????,provide a regional network of safe and convenient bikeways, including bike lanes, multi-use paths and bicycle boulevards; ???????? increase the number of bicycle trips throughout the region; ???????????????????????? ensure that transportation projects use appropriate design guidelines to accommodate bicyclists; ???????????????? encourage bicyclists and motorists to share the road safely.

13. ??????Planning for Pedestrians ??:??????????????? Policy focus: to make walking safe, convenient and accessible to all and addresses the need for continuous sidewalks and safe pedestrian crossings. ??:??????,?????????Priority: improving the walking environment to provide safe, continuous and direct connections between destinations. ??:???????????,??????????????? Goal: to increase the number of people who walk for short trips and to improve pedestrian safety and access to transit.

14. ?????? Eastside Light Rail Line Eastside MAX opened in 1986. Portland experience confirms the statement made by Marty Wachs that �transit does not lead to densification.�. There was very little private investment along the Eastside light rail line. Public investment occurred in the central area to reinforce the light rail, in the form of a convention center, a state office building a sports complex. In the late 1990�s thee are several subsidized housing projects near Eastside station areas that have been encouraged by the City of Portland with property tax abatements.Eastside MAX opened in 1986. Portland experience confirms the statement made by Marty Wachs that �transit does not lead to densification.�. There was very little private investment along the Eastside light rail line. Public investment occurred in the central area to reinforce the light rail, in the form of a convention center, a state office building a sports complex. In the late 1990�s thee are several subsidized housing projects near Eastside station areas that have been encouraged by the City of Portland with property tax abatements.

15. ?????? Westside Light Rail Line Voter approved in 1990, first real local money Opened in 1998 westside bypass Washington County�s first priority was perceived to cause sprawl, causing suit by 1000 Friends of Oregon I-5 to 99W piece remains on drawing board TODs have been integral to the design of the Westside light rail. There was ample land along the part of the route between Beaverton and Hillboro along the abandoned rail line.Voter approved in 1990, first real local money Opened in 1998 westside bypass Washington County�s first priority was perceived to cause sprawl, causing suit by 1000 Friends of Oregon I-5 to 99W piece remains on drawing board TODs have been integral to the design of the Westside light rail. There was ample land along the part of the route between Beaverton and Hillboro along the abandoned rail line.

16. ??????? North-south LRT (proposed) Voter approval in 1994 Failed in Clark county in 1995 Failed statewide in 1996 Failed in region in 1998 carried in COP, 54%; Mult. County, 52%, but failed in Clackamas county. Declining support in each election in 3-county region 1990 74% yes 1994 63% 1996 55% 1998 48% Sunrise corridor is the highway priority Clackamas CountyVoter approval in 1994 Failed in Clark county in 1995 Failed statewide in 1996 Failed in region in 1998 carried in COP, 54%; Mult. County, 52%, but failed in Clackamas county. Declining support in each election in 3-county region 1990 74% yes 1994 63% 1996 55% 1998 48% Sunrise corridor is the highway priority Clackamas County

17. ???? Airport LRT Public-private partnership was formed. A developer is paying for the light rail in return for land from the Port of Portland. Public-private partnership was formed. A developer is paying for the light rail in return for land from the Port of Portland.

18. 2004???????:???????????? 2004 RTP: A Conditional Forecast of System Performance ??????? Refinement of an earlier plan ??????? LOS standards have been relaxed ?????? ?????? Non-SOV mode choice assumptions ???? Three scenarios ?????? financially constrained ???? strategic ??? preferred Metro is the MPO for the Oregon part of the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Statistical Area. Metro employed a state-of-the-art urban transportation modeling system to analyze the transportation plan. Integrated Land Use and Transportation Plan 1. 2000 RTP component of the 1997 Regional Framework Plan 2. Based on the 2040 Growth Concept adopted in 1995 With the emphasis on implementation the forecast system performance measures have not been examined closely. The recently adopted Year 2000 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) reflects the region�s plan for investment in transportation.. The year 2000 RTP is in a planning-maintenance mode, so it does not assess strategic options. That was done earlier as part of the development of the 2040 Framework Plan. LOS standards have been relaxed. Generous assumptions were made that result in high levels of transit ridership and non-SOV use.Metro is the MPO for the Oregon part of the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Statistical Area. Metro employed a state-of-the-art urban transportation modeling system to analyze the transportation plan. Integrated Land Use and Transportation Plan 1. 2000 RTP component of the 1997 Regional Framework Plan 2. Based on the 2040 Growth Concept adopted in 1995 With the emphasis on implementation the forecast system performance measures have not been examined closely. The recently adopted Year 2000 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) reflects the region�s plan for investment in transportation.. The year 2000 RTP is in a planning-maintenance mode, so it does not assess strategic options. That was done earlier as part of the development of the 2040 Framework Plan. LOS standards have been relaxed. Generous assumptions were made that result in high levels of transit ridership and non-SOV use.

19. 2004?????????RTP Forecasts ??????????? Transit and highway supply ??????,??????????? Transit trips, auto trips, and VMT ??????? Mode shares ???????? Peer City comparison ???? Congestion ??????????????? Annualized capital cost per trip by mode In Portland, the conventional wisdom of those expressing a regional perspective is that building more highways is a poor strategy because they congest upon completion and they fuel our dependence on autos. Congestion is necessary to sustain a commitment to alternative modes, and to keep people in carpools and using transit, and to promote more dense development. There are two aspects of the RTP that influences the estimates of travel demand modeling estimate of auto and transit trips. To hold down VMT, generous assumptions were made concerning the 2040 Design Types as implementation tools for the Regional and Town Centers and station areas. Assumptions regarding transit mode choice increases were associated with intersection density, parking factors, transit pass factors, and fareless areas. The following graphics are taken from the System Performance Measures for intra-UGB trips. In Portland, the conventional wisdom of those expressing a regional perspective is that building more highways is a poor strategy because they congest upon completion and they fuel our dependence on autos. Congestion is necessary to sustain a commitment to alternative modes, and to keep people in carpools and using transit, and to promote more dense development. There are two aspects of the RTP that influences the estimates of travel demand modeling estimate of auto and transit trips. To hold down VMT, generous assumptions were made concerning the 2040 Design Types as implementation tools for the Regional and Town Centers and station areas. Assumptions regarding transit mode choice increases were associated with intersection density, parking factors, transit pass factors, and fareless areas. The following graphics are taken from the System Performance Measures for intra-UGB trips.

20. ???????????Transit and Highway Supply The analysis supporting the RTP has a 1994 base year and a 2020 horizon year. Three 2020 scenarios are modeled, Financially Constrained, Strategic, and Preferred. The following analysis is based on the Financially Constrained scenario. The TRP reflects a transit emphasis. The RTP project list (August 10, 2000) includes: $1.94 B is identified for transit capital and $1.26 B for highway capacity expansion. Other categories include: TOD, bike/ped, boulevard, freight, TDM These collapse to: transit-related = $1.93 B and road related = $1.84. B This modal allocation is made possible by/results from a reduction in roadway LOS standards. The plan will only accommodate LOS E (in mid-day) and LOS F (in am and pm peak periods) on major freeways and in �concept areas� (downtown, regional center, town centers, and major corridors). Thus, the �plan� of the RTP is to let roads congest. Lane miles added is 335, from 3805 to 4140, a 8.8% increase AWD transit revenue hours is estimated to increase from 4400 hours to 6400, an increase of 45% Strategic system Lane miles added is 634, from 3805 to 4439, a 17% increase The analysis supporting the RTP has a 1994 base year and a 2020 horizon year. Three 2020 scenarios are modeled, Financially Constrained, Strategic, and Preferred. The following analysis is based on the Financially Constrained scenario. The TRP reflects a transit emphasis. The RTP project list (August 10, 2000) includes: $1.94 B is identified for transit capital and $1.26 B for highway capacity expansion. Other categories include: TOD, bike/ped, boulevard, freight, TDM These collapse to: transit-related = $1.93 B and road related = $1.84. B This modal allocation is made possible by/results from a reduction in roadway LOS standards. The plan will only accommodate LOS E (in mid-day) and LOS F (in am and pm peak periods) on major freeways and in �concept areas� (downtown, regional center, town centers, and major corridors). Thus, the �plan� of the RTP is to let roads congest. Lane miles added is 335, from 3805 to 4140, a 8.8% increase AWD transit revenue hours is estimated to increase from 4400 hours to 6400, an increase of 45% Strategic system Lane miles added is 634, from 3805 to 4439, a 17% increase

21. ??????????Transit and Auto Trips AWD auto trips is estimated to grow from 4.27 M per day to 6.39 M, a 50% increase or over +2 M per day. The percent of SOV trips is estimated to be reduced from 61.48% to 60.74%, a 0.74% decrease in share of SOV trips. Strategic system AWD auto trips is estimated to grow from 4.27 M per day to 6.21 M, a 45% increase or nearly +2 M. The percent of SOV trips is estimated to be reduced from 61.48% to 59.11%, a 2.37% decrease in share of SOV tripsAWD auto trips is estimated to grow from 4.27 M per day to 6.39 M, a 50% increase or over +2 M per day. The percent of SOV trips is estimated to be reduced from 61.48% to 60.74%, a 0.74% decrease in share of SOV trips. Strategic system AWD auto trips is estimated to grow from 4.27 M per day to 6.21 M, a 45% increase or nearly +2 M. The percent of SOV trips is estimated to be reduced from 61.48% to 59.11%, a 2.37% decrease in share of SOV trips

22. ????,?????????Transit Trips, Auto Trips, VMT AWD VMT is estimated to grow from 16.11M to 24.04M, a 49% increase. Strategic system AWD VMT is estimated to grow from 16.11M to 23.93M, a 48% increase. AWD VMT is estimated to grow from 16.11M to 24.04M, a 49% increase. Strategic system AWD VMT is estimated to grow from 16.11M to 23.93M, a 48% increase.

23. ?????????????Congestion in PM 2-Hr. peak The PM 2-hr congested miles (v/c > .9) is estimated to increase from 198 miles to 684, a 245% increase. From 6.5% of the miles in network to 21.6% The PM 2- hr congested hours is estimated to increase from 7764 hours to 51,494, a 560% increase. Strategic system The PM 2-hr congested miles (v/c > .9) is estimated to increase from 198 miles to 523, a 164% increase. From 6.5% of the miles in network to 16% The PM 2- hr congested hours is estimated to increase from 7764 hours to 36,304, a 368% increase. The PM 2-hr congested miles (v/c > .9) is estimated to increase from 198 miles to 684, a 245% increase. From 6.5% of the miles in network to 21.6% The PM 2- hr congested hours is estimated to increase from 7764 hours to 51,494, a 560% increase. Strategic system The PM 2-hr congested miles (v/c > .9) is estimated to increase from 198 miles to 523, a 164% increase. From 6.5% of the miles in network to 16% The PM 2- hr congested hours is estimated to increase from 7764 hours to 36,304, a 368% increase.

24. ???????Mode Shares AWD total transit trips is estimated to increase from 0.172M trips to 0.388M, an increase of 126% The share of transit trips is estimated to increase from 3.55% to 5.11%, or the 126% increase in transit ridership will result in a 1.56% increase in transit share of person trips. Strategic system The share of transit trips is estimated to increase from 3.55% to 6.92%, or the 204% increase in transit riders will result in a 3.37% increase in transit share of person trips AWD total transit trips is estimated to increase from 0.172M trips to 0.388M, an increase of 126% The share of transit trips is estimated to increase from 3.55% to 5.11%, or the 126% increase in transit ridership will result in a 1.56% increase in transit share of person trips. Strategic system The share of transit trips is estimated to increase from 3.55% to 6.92%, or the 204% increase in transit riders will result in a 3.37% increase in transit share of person trips

25. ??????(????)Peer City Comparison (per year increase)

26. ???????????Annualized Capital Cost per Trip Capital costs (Financially Constrained) annualized over new trips Using a 7% capital recovery factor, the $1.94B for transit capital is an annual cost of $135.8M per year, which yields $1.29 per new transit trip (215,000 new AWD originating trips x 300 equiv. weekdays days per year) The new highway capacity in the RTP is estimated to cost $1.26B, or $88.2M per year $1.99M per lane mile of added capacity (335 mi) expenditure of $0.138 per new auto trip 6.39M auto trips x 300 days per yr) ----------- Capital costs (Financially Constrained) annualized over all trips The annual cost of $135.8M for the financially constrained system yields $1.17 per transit trip (387,500 AWD originating trips x 300 days per year) The new highway capacity in the RTP is estimated to cost $0.046 per auto trip ($88.2M/(6.39Mx300)) Capital costs (Financially Constrained) annualized over new trips Using a 7% capital recovery factor, the $1.94B for transit capital is an annual cost of $135.8M per year, which yields $1.29 per new transit trip (215,000 new AWD originating trips x 300 equiv. weekdays days per year) The new highway capacity in the RTP is estimated to cost $1.26B, or $88.2M per year $1.99M per lane mile of added capacity (335 mi) expenditure of $0.138 per new auto trip 6.39M auto trips x 300 days per yr) ----------- Capital costs (Financially Constrained) annualized over all trips The annual cost of $135.8M for the financially constrained system yields $1.17 per transit trip (387,500 AWD originating trips x 300 days per year) The new highway capacity in the RTP is estimated to cost $0.046 per auto trip ($88.2M/(6.39Mx300))

27. ????????RTP Observations ???????????????? No feedback loop in land use model ???????????????????????? Mode choice model process overestimates non-SOV travel ?????? Too high to achieve ????????????????? Too low to justify level of transit investment ?????? Congestion levels ????????? Too high, land use may not build out ??????????,????????? If acceptable, will promote densification In either scenario, the transportation and land use in the RTP is imbalanced, it is without a land use feedback loop. If the anticipated congestion occurs either the estimated population increases will not occur or it will be politically unsustainable. Transit mode choice estimates are: too high to achieve too low to justify the high level of investment in transit. The plan is based on the premise: don�t build roads, it will only encourage people to drive; the road will fill up and congest. However, the densification and planned congestion may result in the opposite effect, don�t build the roads and the growth will go away. ------ Urban transportation planning is a challenging process when placed in the context of regional growth management as is exemplified in Portland. First, the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) of the Oregon land use system calls for reducing reliance on SOV and the promotion of alternative modes. Second, the UGB promotes densification and thereby concentrates trip-making, ostensibly to encourage transit and pedestrian trip-making, but it also concentrates auto trips and congestion. Third, large transit investments draw financial resources from roadways to accommodate new traffic growth. If this regulated landscape meets market resistance , a diversion of the growth to other places will occur. Thus, the plan for growth may cause it not to happen. . In either scenario, the transportation and land use in the RTP is imbalanced, it is without a land use feedback loop. If the anticipated congestion occurs either the estimated population increases will not occur or it will be politically unsustainable. Transit mode choice estimates are: too high to achieve too low to justify the high level of investment in transit. The plan is based on the premise: don�t build roads, it will only encourage people to drive; the road will fill up and congest. However, the densification and planned congestion may result in the opposite effect, don�t build the roads and the growth will go away. ------ Urban transportation planning is a challenging process when placed in the context of regional growth management as is exemplified in Portland. First, the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) of the Oregon land use system calls for reducing reliance on SOV and the promotion of alternative modes. Second, the UGB promotes densification and thereby concentrates trip-making, ostensibly to encourage transit and pedestrian trip-making, but it also concentrates auto trips and congestion. Third, large transit investments draw financial resources from roadways to accommodate new traffic growth. If this regulated landscape meets market resistance , a diversion of the growth to other places will occur. Thus, the plan for growth may cause it not to happen. .

28. ????????Effects of Managed Growth ?????? Central City and neighborhood ??????? Land use and housing ????????? Traffic congestion and travel behavior

29. ?????: ?????Qualified Success: Strong Base ?????????? Stronger central city than most ?????? Strong downtown �????�????,??????????? Less white flight and more gentrifications ????? Strong neighborhoods ????????????,???????????????? More progress on the institutional side than with urban development patterns Portland�s inner city neighborhoods have not been abandoned. The opposite is becoming a problem; gentrification and a lack of affordable housing in inner city neighborhoods is a growing problem. Strong institutional context for growth management has evolvedPortland�s inner city neighborhoods have not been abandoned. The opposite is becoming a problem; gentrification and a lack of affordable housing in inner city neighborhoods is a growing problem. Strong institutional context for growth management has evolved

30. ?????: ?????Qualified Success: Strong Context ??????,??????????????? Less intense central city-suburban conflicts and more regional-minded suburban leaders, due to context ??????? State land use planning ???? Regional government ????????????????????????? Rail orientation and TPR causes a shift in modal investments. ?????????????????????,??????????????? UGB influences extent of urban area, not so much as what goes on inside Political leaders who choose to work in a regional context find a supportive institutional context in terms of statewide land use planning and a strong regional government facilitates, which cements this political consensus. This consensus feeds and leads to exaggerated claims of benefits of compact development and progress towards it. At first the UGB had little impact. There was plenty of room within the boundary and development continued to be of a conventional suburban form, in spite of the first rail investment, the Eastside light rail. Political leaders who choose to work in a regional context find a supportive institutional context in terms of statewide land use planning and a strong regional government facilitates, which cements this political consensus. This consensus feeds and leads to exaggerated claims of benefits of compact development and progress towards it.

31. ?????????Impacts on Land Use and Housing ??????????????????? UGB reduced the supply of developable land within the UGB. ????????????????? UGB intensified the land use patterns. ???????????????????? The rate of housing price increase is among the largest over the last decade.

32. ?????????Impacts on Land Use and Housing ??????????????????????,????????????? UGB contributed to the least affordability of housing in the Portland area, may have adverse effects to low- to moderate-income households. ???????????????????-?????????? UGB created new special-interest groups -- high-income hobby farmers. ????????????????????????,??????????? UGB contributed to the higher cost of land and thus housing, but the magnitude is uncertain .

33. ?????????????Impacts on Traffic Congestion and Travel Behavior ???????????,?????????Transit Ridership Gains better than other cities, but transit share decreased ????????? Growing Congestion -- More rapidly than other cities. ?????????????? The impact on changing commuters� behavior is limited.

34. ?????????Transit Ridership Gains ?1993??2005?,??????72%? 72% increase from 1993 through 2005. ?????4.3% ? Tri-Met ridership is increasing by 4.3% per year. 1993??????6070?? In 1993, annual ridership is 60.7 M, 1993??????1?450?? In 2005, annual ridership is 104.5M.

35. ??????? Transit Share Source: Source: http://www.publicpurpose.com/ut-jtw60.htm#ch1 and http://mobility.tamu.edu/Source: Source: http://www.publicpurpose.com/ut-jtw60.htm#ch1 and http://mobility.tamu.edu/

36. ???????Per Capita Vehicle Miles: 1990-1999 Source: http://www.publicpurpose.com/hwy-tti9099.htmSource: http://www.publicpurpose.com/hwy-tti9099.htm

37. TTI ??????TTI Congestion Index, 1982-2003 Alarming to local observers is the growing rate of congestion, as measured by the TTI Congestion Index. Congestion in Portland started from a lower base but is growing more rapidly than comparator cities. Source TTI congestion Index. http://mobility.tamu.edu/ Alarming to local observers is the growing rate of congestion, as measured by the TTI Congestion Index. Congestion in Portland started from a lower base but is growing more rapidly than comparator cities. Source TTI congestion Index. http://mobility.tamu.edu/

38. ???????????????Trip generation rates at TODs ???Fairview?(????????????)???,????????????? Surveys of Fairview Village (a TOD neighborhood ) and two traditional suburban neighborhoods. Fairview????????????,????????????? Residents in Fairview Village drove significantly fewer miles, made fewer vehicle trips and more walking and bicycling trips. Fairview?????????????????? Some of this difference is explained by lower vehicle ownership rates and smaller households. ????????????????????????? The responses to the attitudinal questions also indicate some of the differences are due to "self-selection.� Many planners and designers claim that New Urbanist neighborhoods will encourage residents to walk and bicycle more and increase their sense of community. However, there is little empirical evidence to support these claims. Moreover, while some studies show that people living in New Urbanist-style neighborhoods walk more, it is unclear whether the neighborhood influenced the behavior or if people who want to walk chose to live in such a neighborhood. An example of a New Urbanist neighborhood is Fairview Village, just east of Portland, Oregon. This paper presents the results of surveys of residents of Fairview Village and two control neighborhoods. The surveys asked about travel behavior and attitudes. The findings reveal that residents in Fairview Village drove significantly fewer miles in private vehicles. Some of this difference is explained by lower vehicle ownership rates and smaller households. The adults in Fairview Village also made significantly fewer vehicle trips and more walking and bicycling trips during the week before the survey. The responses to the attitudinal questions on the survey indicate that many Fairview Village residents were looking for a place to live that enabled them to walk and bicycle more, they found it, and they are now walking and bicycling more. From Dill (2003), �Travel Behavior and Attitudes: New Urbanist vs. Traditional Suburban Neighborhoods,� submitted for 2004 TRBMany planners and designers claim that New Urbanist neighborhoods will encourage residents to walk and bicycle more and increase their sense of community. However, there is little empirical evidence to support these claims. Moreover, while some studies show that people living in New Urbanist-style neighborhoods walk more, it is unclear whether the neighborhood influenced the behavior or if people who want to walk chose to live in such a neighborhood. An example of a New Urbanist neighborhood is Fairview Village, just east of Portland, Oregon. This paper presents the results of surveys of residents of Fairview Village and two control neighborhoods. The surveys asked about travel behavior and attitudes. The findings reveal that residents in Fairview Village drove significantly fewer miles in private vehicles. Some of this difference is explained by lower vehicle ownership rates and smaller households. The adults in Fairview Village also made significantly fewer vehicle trips and more walking and bicycling trips during the week before the survey. The responses to the attitudinal questions on the survey indicate that many Fairview Village residents were looking for a place to live that enabled them to walk and bicycle more, they found it, and they are now walking and bicycling more. From Dill (2003), �Travel Behavior and Attitudes: New Urbanist vs. Traditional Suburban Neighborhoods,� submitted for 2004 TRB

39. ????Critical Questions ????????? Reduction in auto travel? ?????????????? Increased use of alternative modes? ??????? Research is needed on: ??????????????? travel behavior in transit-oriented developments ??,??????????? relationship between speed,density, and accessibility

40. ????????????????What can be learnt from Portland�s Experience for Cities in China ??????????????? Can managed growth curbing sprawl? ??- ?????????????????? Yes - the UGB provides a hard boundary. ???-???????????????????(???????) No - the UGB is required to expand periodically to maintain a 20-year supply of vacant land (a movable urban service boundary). ??????????????????????????Residents� behavior inside the UGB may not be much different from that in other cities without UGB.

41. ????????????Implications for China�s Urban Transportation Policy ????????????????????? The goal of urban transportation is to serve the urban residents not cars. ???????????????????? Biking, walking and public transit are important travel modes in a livable city. ???????????????????????????? Transportation planning should focus more on developing facilities that facilitate walking, biking and transit usage.

42. ??????????The importance of cost of driving ???????????????????????,?????????????????? Without policies to limit the car ownership and increase the costs of driving and parking, the effect of improving transit services alone may be limited.

43. Thank you!Questions?