“Car junkies like me are becoming an endangered species” in Portland, Ore., writes British politician Sayeeda Warsi for the BBC (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/4794361.stm). Warsi has fallen for the common trap of judging urban planners by their intentions, not their results.

It is true, as Warsi said, that Portland has spent most of its transportation dollars on rail transit. Yet light rail carries only 0.9 percent of the region’s passenger traffic. Buses carry 1.4 percent. In what world does it make sense to spend most of the public’s money on 0.9 percent of output—and not, by far, the most valuable 0.9 percent? When more than 90 percent of travel is by car, how can autos be considered “an endangered species”?

It is true, as Warsi said, that public transit ridership has significantly increased over the last 10 years. But he failed to note a significant downslide in ridership in the 1980s, when Portland began focusing on light rail and lost touch with bus riders. As a result, Portland transit today carries a smaller share of commuters and a smaller share of total travel than it did in 1980, before the region’s leaders began their love affair with expensive rail transit.

It is not true, as Warsi said, that Portland has “eradicated over 62 million car trips a year.” Transit carries 104 million trips per year, 58 million of which were carried by buses in 1985 before the first light-rail line opened. Portland’s population since then has grown by about 50 percent, so it is likely that the vast majority of transit riders today would still be riding transit if not a single mile of light rail had been built.

It might be true, as Warsi said, that Portland “car use is growing at the slowest rate anywhere in the United States.” But it was not true a few years ago and it is true today only because Portland’s antibusiness climate has driven away employers, leading to a stagnation of the region’s economy. As Warsi failed to note, even transit ridership has fallen since 2002.

Like many reporters, Warsi seems to have judged the entire Portland area by a visit to downtown. Thanks to subsidized downtown housing, Portland’s inner city has undergone a demographic change and is now occupied mainly by young singles and childless couples. Though bicycling is popular among this group, inner-city streets remain jammed with autos. Away from the inner city you will find bicycling no more popular than anywhere else in the country.

It is not true, as Warsi claimed, that Portland’s transportation vision evolved because of “true direct democracy in action:”
• Portland voted down further funding for light rail in 1998, but the region is building more anyway.
• Voters also rejected an expanded convention center, but city officials built it anyway, further demonstrating the contempt the region’s leaders have for democracy.
• Two of Portland’s suburbs have withdrawn from the region’s transit district so that they can provide their own, better, service at a lower cost to their residents.
• Construction of an aerial tramway, another transportation boondoggle, led to a huge political battle whose repercussions will have lasting consequences (see http://ti.org/vaupdate62.html).

• When Portland U.S. Rep. David Wu offered the region federal funds to expand the capacity of the region’s most heavily congested freeway, the region’s leaders turned him down (see http://tinyurl.com/e762m) because they don’t want to risk reducing transit ridership.

If Portland-area voters had a real say in their future, they would certainly not favor the gridlock that is the admitted goal of the region’s planners.

In short, Warsi’s report is based largely on myths, fabrications, and selective use of data. Warsi is the vice chairman of Britain’s Conservative Party. Considering his lack of skepticism and analytical skills, it is no wonder that the Conservatives have been out of power for well over a decade.

Randal O’Toole is director of the Thoreau Institute in Bandon, Ore., and a contributing editor of Carolina Journal.