Urban Rail Transit Provides the Necessary Access to a Metropolitan Area: A Case Study of Portland, Oregon, USA

Abstract

Access to good public transit for low-socioeconomic communities has been an important concern in transportation planning and urban studies research. In Portland, Oregon, USA, the rapid growth of housing prices and rents in the urban core has caused displacement of low-income residents to peripheral and suburban neighborhoods where housing is more affordable. Because public transit is generally more limited in the urban periphery and suburbs, there is concern that the low-income suburban residents may have more limited access to Portland’s light rail transit service than more affluent residents do. This study examines the relationships between the light rail transit accessibility and socioeconomic status—income, race and ethnicity—in the Portland metro area. Light rail transit accessibility is compared for all income and racial/ethnic groups across four access zones. Multinomial logistic econometric models were used to measure likelihood differences of being located in different access zones between each demographic group. The results show that there is no significant barrier for low-income and racial and ethnic minority residents to access urban rail transit in Portland. The results suggest that despite low-income residents’ movement to the suburbs, Portland’s urban rail transit system continues to serve all residents by providing cohesive connections between the urban core, periphery and suburbs.

Keywords

Urban rail transit / Accessibility / Equity / Urban regeneration / Socioeconomic status

References

[1] Sun Y, Lin HF. GIS-based analysis of public transit accessibility: definition and display. COTA Int Conf Transp, 2015, 15: 1213-1224.

[2] Gradin C. Race and income distribution: evidence from the USA, Brazil and South Africa. Rev Dev Econ, 2014, 18(1): 73-92

[3] Richardson AS, Boone-Heinonen J, Popkin BM, Gordon-Larsen P. Are neighbourhood food resources distributed inequitably by income and race in the USA? Epidemiological findings across the urban spectrum. BMJ Open, 2012, 2: 1-9

[4] Glaeser EL, Kahn ME, Rapparport J. Why do the poor live in cities? The role of public transportation. J Urban Econ, 2008, 63: 1-24

[5] Covington KL. Poverty suburbanization: theoretical insights and empirical analyses. Soc Incl, 2015, 3(2): 71-90

[6] Farmer S. Uneven public transportation development in neoliberalizing Chicago, USA. Environ Plan A, 2011, 43(5): 1154-1172

[7] Holzer HJ, Stoll MA. Where workers go do jobs follow? Metropolitan labor markets in the US, 1990 to 2000, 2007, Washington: Brookings Institution

[8] Howell AJ, Timberlake JM. Racial and ethnic trends in the suburbanization of poverty in U.S. metropolitan areas, 1980–2010. J Urban Aff, 2013, 36(1): 79-98

[9] Mckenzie BS. Neighborhood access to transit by race, ethnicity, and poverty in Portland, OR. City Community, 2013, 12(2): 134-155

[10] Goodling E, Green J, McClintock N. Uneven development of the sustainable city: shifting capital in Portland, Oregon. Urban Geogr, 2015, 36(4): 504-527

[11] Tomer A. Transit access and zero-vehicle households, 2011, Washington: Brookings Institution

[12] Desjardins X, Drevelle M. Trends in the social disparities in access to jobs by train in the Paris region since 1975. Town Plan Rev, 2014, 85(2): 155-170

[13] Stoll M, Holzer HJ, Ihlanfeldt K. Within cities and suburbs: racial residential concentration and the spatial distribution of employment opportunities across metropolitan areas. J Policy Anal Manag, 2000, 19: 207-231

[14] Revington N, Townsend C. Market rental housing affordability and rapid transit catchments: application of a new measure in Canada. Hous Policy Debate, 2016, 26(4–5): 864-886

[15] El-Geneidy A, Buliung R, Diab E, van Lierop D, Langlois M, Legrain A. Non-stop equity: assessing daily intersections between transit accessibility and social disparity across the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area (GTHA). Environ Plan, 2015, 43(3): 540-560

[16] Taylor BD, Morris EA. Public transportation objectives and rider demographics: are transit’s priorities poor public policy?. Transportation, 2014, 42(2): 347-367

[17] Sanchez TW. The connection between public transit and employment: the cases of Portland and Atlanta. J Am Plan Assoc, 1999, 65: 284-296

[18] Alam BM (2005) Influence of transit accessibility to jobs on the employability of the welfare recipients: the case of Broward County, Florida. Dissertation, Florida State University. http://diginole.lib.fsu.edu/etd/45

[19] Sanchez TW. The impact of public transport on U.S. metropolitan wage inequality. Urban Stud, 2002, 39: 423-436

[20] Holzer HJ, Quigley J, Raphael S. Public transit and the spatial distribution of minority employment: evidence from a natural experiment. J Policy Anal Manag, 2003, 22: 415-442

[21] TriMet (2018) MAX light rail project history. https://trimet.org/history/maxoverview.htm. Accessed 22 Oct 2018

[22] Brown J, Thompson G, Bhattacharya T, Jaroszynski M. Understanding transit ridership demand for the multidestination, multimodal transit network in Atlanta, Georgia: lessons for increasing rail transit choice ridership while maintaining transit dependent bus ridership. Urban Stud, 2013, 51(5): 938-958

[23] Barton MS, Gibbons J. A stop too far: how does public transportation concentration influence neighbourhood median household income?. Urban Stud, 2017, 54(2): 538-554

[24] Giuliano G. Low income, public transit, and mobility. Transp Res Rec, 2005, 1927: 63-70

[25] Taylor BD, Ong P. Spatial mismatch or automobile mismatch? An examination of race, residence and commuting in US metropolitan areas. Urban Stud, 1995, 32(9): 1453-1473

[26] García-Palomares JC, Gutiérrez J, Cardozo OD. Walking accessibility to public transport: an analysis based on microdata and GIS. Environ Plan, 2013, 40(6): 1087-1102

[27] Debrezion G, Pels E, Rietveld P. Modelling the joint access mode and railway station choice. Transp Res Part E, 2009, 45: 270-283

[28] Metro of Portland (2018) Urban growth boundary. https://www.oregonmetro.gov/urban-growth-boundary. Accessed 18 Oct 2018

[29] U.S. Census Bureau (2000) American Community Survey. http://factfinder.census.gov. Accessed 10 Oct 2018

[30] U.S. Census Bureau (2015) American Community Survey. http://factfinder.census.gov. Accessed 10 Oct 2018

[31] U.S. Census Bureau (2016) American Community Survey. http://factfinder.census.gov. Accessed 10 Oct 2018

[32] McClintock N, Mahmoudi D, Simpson M, Santos JP. Socio-spatial differentiation in the sustainable city: a mixed-methods assessment of residential gardens in metropolitan Portland, Oregon, USA. Landsc Urban Plan, 2016, 148: 1-16

[33] Center for Poverty Research, University of California, Davis (2017) How is poverty measured in the United States? https://poverty.ucdavis.edu/faq/how-poverty-measured-united-states. Accessed 7 Oct 2018

[34] Hadi AS. Regression analysis by example, 2006, Hoboken: Wiley

[35] Song Y, Knaap GJ. Measuring urban form: is Portland winning the war on sprawl?. J Am Plan Assoc, 2004, 70(2): 210-225

[36] TriMet (2018) Rider’s guide: fares and how to ride. https://trimet.org/pdfs/languages/riders-guide.pdf. Accessed 29 Nov 2018