Opinion

Vancouver Is Cascadia's Greenest City, Who Is Second?

Guess which takes the silver medal, Seattle or Portland? You might be surprised.

By Alan Durning, 7 Jan 2010, TheTyee.ca

vancouver-skyline-flickr2.jpg

Vancouver. Photo from Tyee's Your BC flickr pool, by thedarkerside.to

Text size:

Rate this:

Login/Register

Related

Monday, Seattle inaugurated a new, ultra-green mayor, which got me thinking comparatively. Which of the three largest Cascadian cities is the greenest? Not in plans and intentions and declarations but in facts? I recently pored over data from the Cascadia Scorecard and other sources.

The answer? No contest: Vancouver, BC.

It's not so much Vancouver's new rail transit line under downtown that goes to the airport (which Seattle now boasts too). It's not the city's progressive green mayor, who ran an exceptional, grassroots campaign against a candidate with the support of the business community. (Portland and Seattle have similar mayors, similarly elected.) It's that Vancouver has, among large Northwest cities, the highest urban density, the most cycling, the most walking, the most transit ridership, the fewest cars -- and the least driving -- per person, the lowest greenhouse gas emissions per capita by far (thanks to its car-lite ways and to its carbon-free electricity), the lowest teen birth rate and family size, the highest life expectancy, and the lowest poverty rate. There's hardly a category of the Cascadia Scorecard in which the soon-to-be Olympic city doesn't take gold.

But that's not a surprise, is it?

What's more interesting is the next question, Who takes second?

Five key measures

By reputation, Portland -- darling of planners, cycling mecca of the United States, transit innovator, street-food leader -- seems the obvious silver medalist. I expected it to take second, but didn't count Seattle out. I checked the five (of seven) Cascadia Scorecard indicators for which relevant local data are available: health, economy, population, sprawl, and energy. And for the purposes of this essay, I tried to compare cities, not metropolitan areas (although as noted at the end, I had to rely on sometimes-mismatched data).

1. Health. Which city is healthier overall, as measured by life expectancy?

Seattle

A baby born last year in Seattle can expect to live 79.6 years, three years longer than a baby born in Portland. That's a huge gap. On the league tables of life expectancy, Seattle is by Germany and the United Kingdom; Portland is down with Albania and Uruguay.

2. Economy. Where are ordinary people faring better economically?

Seattle

The poverty rate in Seattle (12.5 per cent) is almost three points lower than in Portland (15.2 per cent). The unemployment rate in Seattle (9.1 per cent) is almost two points lower than in Portland (10.9 per cent). Median household income -- the mid-point of the income ladder -- in Seattle ($61,000) is 24 per cent higher than in Portland ($49,000). Again, a huge gap in Seattle's favor.

3. Population. Which city has smaller families (a reflection of both women's equality and slow population increase)?

Tied.

Both cities have average family sizes of 1.7 children per woman. Both cities are almost European in their fertility patterns: women in Portland and Seattle have few children, late in life.

4. Sprawl. Which city does better at growing in compact neighborhoods?

Greater Portland is more compact than greater Seattle, thanks to its tighter urban boundary, regional governance, and more-consistent planning. At last count (way back in 2000 when the last census was completed), about 28 per cent of residents of greater Portland lived in neighbourhoods that were compact enough to support good transit service and local stores. (Call these places, with at least 12 people per acre, "transit neighborhoods.") Greater Seattle lagged at 23 per cent.

But within city boundaries, the two switch places. The city of Seattle outperforms the city of Portland. In Portland, somewhere around 45 per cent of residents live in transit neighborhoods. In Seattle, the comparable figure is 57 per cent. Or that was the situation in 2000. We'll have to wait a year to get new census numbers. Still, both cities have seemed committed to in-fill development in the "aughties." I'd be surprised if Portland has closed the gap.

Even more impressive, at the time of the last census, before the surge of residential development in Portland's Pearl District and around downtown Seattle, some 11 per cent of Seattleites lived in urban neighbourhoods with density in the "walking zone" sweet spot above 40 people per acre. Just four per cent of Portlanders lived in such walking neighbourhoods. (Of course, in Vancouver, B.C., the figure was 27 per cent, as of 2006!)

Reputations aside, Seattle proper beat Portland proper in compact growth.

5. Energy. Which city is ahead in the clean-energy economy?

Portlanders drive less than Seattleites. They also ride transit more and bike much more. (Portlanders bike on about four per cent of all commutes --beating not only Seattle but even Vancouver, B.C. About 9,000 Portlanders bike into downtown Portland each day, three times as many as bike into downtown Vancouver or downtown Seattle.) But Seattleites appear to walk more. More importantly, Seattle has carbon-neutral electricity, thanks to its all-hydro municipal utility. Portland, on the other hand, gets some of its electricity from a coal-fired power plant in Boardman, Oregon, courtesy of Portland General Electric, majority owner of the plant. This plant is responsible for eight per cent of Oregon's total greenhouse-gas emissions.

So Portland is striding more decisively away from oil, while Seattle has already (mostly) weaned itself off coal. Which city wins the game?

Portland's estimated 2008 greenhouse gas emissions came to 11.9 metric tons of carbon dioxide-equivalent per person. Seattle's were 11.3 tons (and the real gap probably favors Seattle more strongly, because Seattle's inventory of emissions is more comprehensive than Portland's, as discussed below).

Silver and bronze

Seattle takes game, set, and match, to win the silver medal. Portland takes bronze.

This outcome surprised me. I expected Portland to win silver. I was doubly surprised by how one-sided the contest was: four games to Seattle, one draw. How's that for inauguration-day gift for Seattle's new mayor?

In fairness, as I note below, some of the data is weak. Other indicators might have favored Portland.

Furthermore, the standings are not necessarily reflections of effort or intentions. Many other causes are in play. Seattle has carbon-neutral electricity, for example, mostly because the city utility locked up some of the best hydropower locations in the Northwest a century ago. It has a denser center city than Portland partly because it is the heart of a much larger metropolitan area. It's health and prosperity are reflections of the greater wealth and economic dynamism of the state and metropolis it centers.

Meanwhile, all of the cities' standings are reflections of scores of decisions, many of them made decades ago, often for unrelated reasons. Neighbourhood opposition to freeway building stopped Vancouver from following Seattle and Portland's leads and building downtown freeways. Now, the city benefits from a less car-dependent urban form.

Still, in the end, sustainable progress is measured in facts, not intentions. So whatever the reasons, the standings matter.

It probably also warrants saying that sustainability isn't a reality TV show or a celebrity cage fight (though the mayors of Portland and Vancouver have launched an official eco-rivalry).

No Northwest city is yet close to the destination of sustainability: carbon neutrality; widely shared prosperity; stable populations in strong communities; educational and economic opportunity for all; hyper-efficient use of natural resources; zero-pollution industries; and low-stuff, high-satisfaction lives.

To achieve these goals, Portland, Seattle, and Vancouver -- and all the other communities in Cascadia -- will best succeed if they not only compete for the lead but also cooperate, sharing lessons. In the race for sustainability, we all win only when we all finish.

Still, competition can motivate us onward. And the city of Seattle, it turns out, is currently leading the city of Portland. Who knew?

Notes about data and sources

I used a variety of sources to gather these data, and I also had to use different geographic areas as proxies for the cities. Consequently, you should take this post with a spoonful of salt. If Sightline were to complete a full study on this question, we'd find better data or rely on a consistent set of geographic definitions. But these data are good first approximations.

Life expectancy data are for King and Multnomah Counties, not Seattle and Portland proper. Both counties encompass suburban cities and towns in addition to their respective big cities. City-only life expectancy data are not readily available. The data come from datasets we collect from state and federal agencies in the vital statistics series. (See Cascadia Scorecard for details.)

Poverty and median income data are for the cities themselves. Poverty and median income data are from the U.S. Census's American Community Survey, as reported on the Census FactFinder. Unemployment rates are for metropolitan statistical areas, which include some suburban cities, from the U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Family sizes (technically, total fertility rates) are for King and Multnomah Counties.

Sprawl data are from the U.S. Census, as analyzed in the Cascadia Scorecard. Certain Portland-specific data were interpolated from findings originally made for Multnomah County overall. For example, I assumed that all of Multnomah County's "walking neighbourhoods" (where more than 40 people live on each acre) were inside the city of Portland.

Greenhouse gas emissions: Seattle from the city's new greenhouse gas inventory (see page 4). (You can find an interesting discussion of the inventory on former Sightliner Dan Bertolet's blog, starting here, then here and here, too.)

Portland's inventory (see page 12) covers all of Multnomah County and uses a different, less-comprehensive methodology than Seattle's. For example, Seattle includes its share of air travel from Sea-Tac Airport, while Portland does not include air travel. From my preliminary analysis, it appears that if Seattle had used the same methodology as Portland, its carbon footprint would have appeared to be at least 20 per cent smaller than reported. [Tyee]

Alan Durning is director of the Sightline Institute in Seattle, Washington, which publishes The Sightline Daily: Northwest News That Matters.

26 Comments:

Login or register to post comments

  • Grumpy

    2 years ago

    Vancouver Green...................Not!

    My god, the Lotus Eater & Pink Glasses crowd are out in full force. Vancouver is not Green, not by a long shot. We have spent over $6 billion on three metro lines, yet there is little evidence of any modal shift from car to transit, in fact car ownership is rising quite fast in the region.

    Seattle has just completed a hybrid light rail/metro line that despite costing well mover $2 billion, is carrying a pathetic 30,000 passengers a day!

    In Portland they have five LRT lines and two streetcar lines which over half the ridership are former motorists. In Portland the light rail services just about everywhere and it is easy to see why people drive less.

    This self serving jingoism is unworthy of the Tyee and it sound more like the Vancouver sun!

  • Snowrunner

    2 years ago

    Green Green Green

    Vancouver's "saving grace" is essentially the limited amount of space. The obsession with the car and a lack of planning by the Provincial and Municpial Governments (as far as public transit / infrastructure) is concerned do their best to prevent Vancouver from "standing out".

    Having said this: Vancouver still probably is the greenest of the three, but not by design, rather by accident.

    Oh, and who the heck approved the design of the current YVR skytrain stations? They are WAY undersized.

  • make_up_another...

    2 years ago

    How About New York?

    New Yorkers are actually very 'green' due to the sheer poplulation density. They utilize public transit on a grand scale. They live in small spaces and have one of the finest green spaces around, Central Park, and all of this has been in place since the dawn of the 20th century.

    I'm sure there are some things about it that aren't green, but that's pretty good for a city of millions.

  • Grumpy

    2 years ago

    RE: RAV Stations

    The reason why the RAV stations are small is because the $2.5 billion+ metro's costs were escalating wildly. As built, RAV has less potential capacity than if LRT were to have been built at one third the cost!

    The cost of retrofitting RAV to increase capacity - $1 billion to $2 billion.

    Now that is Green!

  • freebear

    2 years ago

    Green is a useless term, because, as the author

    points out:

    "No Northwest city is yet close to the destination of sustainability: carbon neutrality; widely shared prosperity; stable populations in strong communities; educational and economic opportunity for all; hyper-efficient use of natural resources; zero-pollution industries; and low-stuff, high-satisfaction lives."

    A city is either sustainable, or not.

    A city can be progressing towards being sustainable.

    BUT a city/region is not 'achieving higher levels of sustainability' or 'becoming more sustainable(Comox Valley Draft Sustainability Strategy)!

  • Alan Durning

    2 years ago

    Replies

    Grumpy:

    I said Vancouver was the greenest of the three, not that it was green enough. And I judged based on the indicators in the article, not the presence of expensive rail infrastructure.

    Make_Up_Another . . . Good point about New York. I wrote an article articulating the case. In fact, I called it "Ecotopia on the Hudson." Find it here: http://www.grist.org/article/on7

  • speedo

    2 years ago

    how green is Vancouver really?

    I made an online game you can play to determine how green Vancouver is relative to other cities in Canada. It's based on data in a 2007 study done by the Corporate Knights. Check it out:

    http://agora.virtualmuseum.ca/edu/ViewLoitDa.do;jsessionid=3730D5CE1869DD9DE71CDDC20B9F603B?method=preview&lang=EN&id=1594

  • nlreese

    2 years ago

    Don't pat yourselves on the back just yet.....

    How can a city claim to be green when it is dumping such a large amount of it's raw sewage directly into Georgia Strait?!?!?!?
    Dumping sewage into the estuary has lead to toxic algal blooms that have killed thousands... make that TENS OF THOUSANDS of fish both in Canada and in the lower part of the Salish Sea (Puget Sound and Hood Canal) When you look at the role these fish play in the food wed, it is almost impossible to calculate the damage that has been done to our ecosystem because the city is unable to build a freaking sewage treatment plant!
    Maybe Vancouver is doing better with air quality and public health care (life expectancy and what not) but at least Seattle and Portland don't have the blood of so many animals on their hands.
    Granted, sewage flows into Puget Sound from time to time due to heavy rain and CSO pipes, but at least there are response teams to deal with that and clean it up. Apparently this issue is just what this column is... a big stinking heap of crap.

  • Grumpy

    2 years ago

    Ha, ha, ha

    Have you ever been to Portland? I am able to get to almost all destinations from the city market to the Portland zoo, by tram. It goes where I want to go.

    Not so in Vancouver and Seattle, where driving is the only way to get around.

    As I said before, the article is pure CanWest/Global jingoism.

  • Bytesmiths

    2 years ago

    Grumpy suits his name...

    Before you attack The Tyee (as you are wont to do in many such discussions), consider that the author this article, Alan Durning, does NOT work for The Tyee nor CanWest, and is NOT Canadian.

    Alan actually lives in Seattle, and works for Sightline Institute, a uniquely bioregional environmental non-profit. At a time when many environmental organizations stop at the 49th parallel, Sightline is unique in its bioregional perspective, from the Siskiyou Mountains in southern Oregon to the Alaskan Panhandle, east to the watershed divide between the wet coast and the arid interior.

    Don't shoot the messenger. The message is well-researched by the ONLY organization qualified to compare cities on either side of the border!

  • Antonio

    2 years ago

    Family size

    Interesting article, although I think family size is likely more a measure of housing affordability than anything else.

    People who have kids are pushed from Vancouver and Seattle out to the burbs because of high housing costs, which just redistributes the ecological footprint across the wider region rather than equaling any meaningful reduction in resources use, emissions, etc.

    It would be interesting seeing this analysis by metro region, rather than by municipal boundaries...

  • Dethe

    2 years ago

    I love walking Vancouver

    I grew up in Seattle, enjoyed the trackless trolleys, and walked or biked all over the city, but I live in Vancouver now and love walking here. I rarely drive (my wife drives more, taking kids to and from school, etc.) and can walk or bus to work. We've still got a lot we can improve (and maybe once the freaking Olympics are over we can start), but it's a lovely city. All three are, of course. I've also lived outside of Boston and in Cleveland and Knoxville, and would pick any of the three Cascadia cities in a flash.

    Of course, this is anecdotal, more than informational, but count me among the Lotus Eaters if you must.

  • dave49

    2 years ago

    The reality as per BC politics?

    Such a laudatory piece only suggests that the 'smoke and mirrors' faux-green policies of our governments (BC and Fed as well) actually have positive impacts.

    We could do things so much better that we do in Canada. Let's stop trumpeting our mediocrity to salve ourselves!

  • shepsil

    2 years ago

    Useless article about how green the Pacific NorthWest isn't!

    Talk about a lack of balance. Mr. Durning used to write about how great our transit system was here in Vancouver compared to Seattle! Obviously he knows little about real transit systems. That our LightRail Rav Lines are out of date and way over priced seems to have escaped his criticism. The problem is, compared to the US, Canada doesn't look that bad. So maybe The Tyee should see if they can get someone who understands what green is all about, instead of someone who seems to think having a green love-fest with Gordon Campbell and the BC Liberals is appropriate. I guess from down there, all he can see is green and we don't need him diluting our waters up here that many of us have worked so hard for.
    All this article will do is give the BC Liberals something to crow about!

  • make_up_another...

    2 years ago

    Living Green In The Future

    In the next 20 or 30 years, cities are going to be radically different. We are going to face the reality of peak oil very abruptly when demand outstrips supply.

    Opponents of suburban sprawl won't need to rally against it anymore, because it is simply going to collapse. Our 200 year industrial experiment is in its twilight.

    Alternative energy sources will help prevent us from sliding back to the dark ages, but they can't sustain the growth and excess of the oil based economy. It's simply impossible. Automobiles and airplanes as modes of affordable consumer transportation are not going to be viable. There is no miracle energy source that can sustain this.

    This is probably for the best, the question is whether the transition is soft or hard.

  • RiverEyes

    2 years ago

    Vancouver the Greenest?

    Maybe the best at greenwashing right before the Oly Show.
    The timing of this article leads one to think The Mayor's Office knew to get the spin meisters going hot and heavy, brand the city, bait and switch.
    Tiresome, really.
    I can't wait to read international media during the fiasco that we'll pay for in reduced quality of life during and after The Shames are over.

  • carfreed

    2 years ago

    green city

    when Vacouver gets rid of two thirds of its traffic, then, I will call it a fairly green city.
    I hate all the traffic and the attitudes of drivers.
    Total ignorance and mindlessness.

  • soleprobe

    2 years ago

    Green Zombies

    I'm sick of green

  • realisticman

    2 years ago

    Alan

    As you probably know there is a small clique in Vancouver that revel in being miserable. No matter how many times the city is praised from all over the world and by all manner of people and organizations this tiny group of malcontents insist that this is the worst place on earth and the end is neigh. They even hate it when the sun comes out because some people seem cheerful and that's not fashionable for them because we still haven't achieved a socialist utopia and we haven't eliminated the market economy. Things won't improve until we have free housing and money for anyone who wants it and free transit to all residences.

  • KWD

    2 years ago

    reified green

    The fact that everyone and every industry … from politician to coal baron … has co-opted the term “green”, renders it meaningless.

    The five criteria … health, economy, population, sprawl and energy … relate to quality of life. The claim that they can somehow be used to approximate a measure of greeness is a bit misleading ( I think the author acknowledges as much in “notes about data and sources”).

    Surely, if we are talking “green”, our interests should focus on that which makes a city the least environmentally harmful. Comparisons might have more validity if limited to:

    - the amounts of actual green space, i.e. intact natural ecosystems;
    - hydrocarbon (gasoline, diesel and aviation fuel) useage;
    - watershed protection and potable water treatment measures;
    - sewage treatment;
    - recycling programs; and
    - landfill volumes.

    Comparisons would be done on a cost and volulme per capita per unit area of city.

    “Greeness” and effluence are inversely proportional.

  • patrickC

    2 years ago

    Bronze

    What matters is how green is your region, not your center city. Seattle REGION sprawls much worse than Portland region.

  • stepheno

    2 years ago

    I don't think we're

    I don't think we're surprised at all that your home town came in second, lol. It's a very silly comparison due to the fact that the majority of the information is weak as the areas used for comparison are not similar. I think the most unfortunate bit about this article is not about the twisted statistics, it is using the 'green' label. Green is nothing but marketing and says very little about actual sustainability.

  • Luck

    2 years ago

    Vancouver Green City

    I think Vancouver and other cities in BC are trying to be green. We have a long way to go as traffic in BC large cities is increasing. Our Provincial Gov has over spent spent more dollars on 2010 Olympics than green programs. As we have noticed with electric train system they would rather build roads on highway 1 than a train system to link the outland BC communities. All Vancouver widened roads end at the ocean instead of other way around. Now we need to have an HST, more tax on everything to pay for all this road work and 2010 BC Olympics (3 billion+). With true unemployment at 12% in BC, more job lossses to come, plus a decline in tourism by incresing taxes, an increase in interest rates and no job stimulation by any government in BC or Canada 2010 should be interesting for the tax payer. The hell with green lets get the job stimulus going again or you can kiss the green and everything else goodbye. Again we see the canadian governments and intellect focusing on the wrong thing again and again.

  • Fii

    2 years ago

    Portland's tram is FREE in

    Portland's tram is FREE in the downtown core- and dog-friendly, I might add. The original reason I bought a second-hand car in Vancouver was to transport my dog to the beaches and the north shore to hike when he was younger. I realize most people buy cars for other reasons, but affordability of transit must be a major one. Vancouver has a long way to go to make transit affordable enough to really get people out of their cars.

  • freedomfilmfestival

    2 years ago

    Vancouver

    I'm never sure what the point in lists are. If you enjoy where you live and don't want to move, what's the point in knowing that you live in the greenest city or not. Pheobe

  • OhCanada

    2 years ago

    Green - you mean that GRAY smog that lingers above the city?

    It is true that Vancouver has probably the most parks I have ever seen in a city. Compared to Ottawa, Toronto and Montreal, Vancouver is green when I look at the trees and the parks, ocean and the mountains. But I'm just wondering - were the people making this comparison blindsided by the closeness of the ocean and the mountains. By just looking at the ocean and mountains would make one think that Oh, what a green city. Yeh, right.

    If I put on my European glasses Vancouver (and rest of Canada) is 15 years behind of any European city (a size of 1 million habitant or more) when it comes to public transportation. And I mean efficient public transportation. Just because there is a bus stop where you live that takes you to work in 10 minutes - that doesn't constitute to public transportation.

    To me a green city starts with a public transportation that is not concentrated to downtown only.

    • The discussion for this story is closed. No more comments can be added.