Frances Bula header image 2
← →

Two cities, two rapid-transit lines, a world of differences

August 15th, 2010 · 12 Comments

As promised, the first of my two stories in the Globe Saturday. This a comparison of the rapid-transit lines in Seattle and Vancouver, both celebrating a one-year anniversary this summer but with very different histories and outcomes.

I know this has already generated some comments elsewhere but for those who missed them …

Categories: Uncategorized

  • voony

    Reliability.

    Frequency for the Seattle LRT to SeaTac is similar to the one of the canada line to YVR (7.5mn peak period to every 20mn in evening).

    Yes speed and frequency are major argument, but reliability, especially when it come to serve an airport become key also.

    Unfortunately “geometrical” choice done in Seattle (understand, the at grade section, where the train interfere with road traffic) affect deeply the reliability of the Link which is quite poor as reported by several source (1).

    at the end, it looks like Seattle, with the Link, got all the bad of a subway (“boring” tunnel, “intrusive” viaduct, “excessive” cost…), without any of its advantages…

    on a side note, I think there is a confusion in the price of the ticket for the ride YVR-Vancouver, as well as the fare box recovery for the Seattle transit agency, which is something between 10 to 20%: in any case, much lower than the 53% reported in the article (which apply for Translink)

    that said 2 different things: Canada line is more a “utilitarian” investment when the Seattle Link is more of a “statement” one (a bit like the Bike lane in Vancouver in fact 😉 , what can be eventually needed to put transit forefront, so the “cultural” angle of the article is effectively well taken.

  • mezzanine

    Interesting article.

    Of note, I noticed you wrote this for the canada line:

    “The province eventually created a $2-million fund available to help the Cambie business association. But 38 businesses out of 275 shut down or left Cambie. ”

    …and this for seattle’s link:

    “Business owners who could prove they made less money during the five years of construction could get grants from a $15-million fund, and another $26-million was available for loans to promote economic development. As a result, 80 per cent of the businesses that existed before the line’s construction were still there five years later. ”

    But 38/275 stores affected = 14%. If anything, seattle link’s construction cuased more stores to go out of business, according to your data, but you presented data differently for each scenario.

  • voony

    (1) http://seattletransitblog.com/2010/05/21/st-1q-ridership-reliability-down-due-to-maintenance/

    you can also check some individually held “diary” at
    http://www.globaltelematics.com/pitf/LinkReliability2.htm

  • Bobbie

    I dunno, I think Translink fumbled on quite a few things.
    First, by not going elevated, they’ve basically said that the creme de la creme can dictate how public transit will be run.
    Second, by not going with Bombadier, Translink has now taken on the task of running two completely incompatible systems, BOTH using unique and proprietary equipment.
    Third, Translink has shown with this project what exactly is wrong with a private for profit company running public transit. 20 minute waits for trains at Aberdeen? Talk about rubbing the public’s face in it.

  • Tessa

    I’m going to second mezzanine’s comment. The moment I saw that it looked off. Apparently the cut and cover and dismissive reaction was no worse at keeping businesses alive in vancouver than the street-level construction and strong reaction in Seattle, which is actually quite telling on its own.

  • Lewis N. Villegas

    “…Before, that Cambie bus was just hell.”

    —Trasit rider interviewed by Frances Bula.

    It would be insightful to describe in detail the several levels of hell for that transit rider. For me, the first one is that the buses take forever to get you there. Even crowded subways move you at more or less the same speed.

    I expressed as a question at the Jarrett Walker lecture my impression that bus service on Vancouver’s arterials under-serves its ridership. BRT/LRT would provide a higher level of service.

    He mentioned stop and station spacing. But, we would all agree that walking an extra two to three minutes to BRT/LRT would not be an issue. I could use the extra exercise, and I am not along on that boat.

    The advantage of the driverless system, that must be grade-separated for reasons of safety, and I would argue should be subway—not elevated Skytrain—from consideration of the resulting quality of the urban spaces, does not apply.

    Buses have drivers. BRT/LRT carry more people per driver. Thus, we can move more people with fewer drivers.

    From considerations of staffing, on lines that already support heavy bus service (including Cambie), implementing BRT/LRT is very doable.

    I sense that the reason why people like grade-separated is that they are afraid to take back road space from the car.

    On our six-lane arterials, at 10,000 vehicles per day, a daily traffic volume of 60,000 vpd has a blighting effect on the fronting properties every bit as much as fronting an elevated track.

    By implementing BRT/LRT we would be removing 10,000 cars per lane occupied. It is not unreasonable to think that at least two traffic lanes would be used up by BRT/LRT or 24 to 36 feet of street R.O.W.

    That amounts to between 20k and 30k cars per day. BRT/LRT may be running at 5 minute intervals at peak, and 15 to 20 minute intervals off peak. That is relative peace and quiet.

    I think the mere mention of that scares the Dickens of transit planners. However, I think these resistances could be overcome in an open and transparent public consultation process.

    We can put it to the neighbourhoods that taking cars & buses off the road, and adding many times more trip capacity as BRT/LRT, will in fact introduce human scale, add safety, reduce noise & pollution, and make our arterials more livable.

    To do that requires a believable brand of urbanism. We’re working on that, but we’re not there yet.

  • mezzanine

    @Tessa, how much is the skytrain lobby paying you? 😉

    @Ms. Bula, another interesting comparison is the new Green Line in Portland, also opened in ~ summer 2009. It was built in the median of Interstate-205, perhaps a path of least resistance [1], but i suspect they will never have a cambie corridor debate for the green line as they are now realizing it would be difficult to get people and developers to do TOD by a highway. [2]

    “At the same time, [Metro Portland CEO] Jordan cited the I-205 MAX portion of the $575.7 million Green Line as a “missed opportunity” because more housing, retail and other redevelopment projects would have been built along 82nd Avenue if the line had been built there.

    “We need to optimize our opportunities,” Jordan said.”

  • mezzanine

    1 http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/09/11/portlands-new-light-rail-line-is-welcome-news-but-its-not-routed-as-it-should-be/

    2 http://portlandtribune.com/news/story.php?story_id=128146995734428400

  • Tessa

    @mezz. A girl’s gotta work. =D

    But you got to admit, it is interesting.

  • Morven

    It is all very well to compare the two lines after they were built. But were the projections and operating philosophies advanced before they were built borne out by the subsequent results?.

    From my viewpoint, did the planners and transport planners get it right in the first place in each case or did they massage the figures for political acceptability.

    Optimism bias is not unknown among both planners and politicians.

    What is the answer?
    -30-

  • Don Buchanan

    Hei Frances,

    Are you going to post your article on the VAG? It is exceptional for the new viewpoints it brings to the expansion debate!

    “Vancouver gallery faces staff revolt over funding of new buildings”

    Employees question whether expansion is wise when they are being laid off…

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/vancouver-gallery-faces-staff-revolt-over-funding-of-new-buildings/article1672895/

  • Satish Reddy

    Dear Ms Bula:

    I sure hope that you get key facts correct in your second article.

    (1) In Vancouver, the fare TO the airport is NOT $8.75. There is a $5.00 surcharge FROM the airport for people not having a monthly pass or faresaver tickets.

    (2) I don’t know where you got your fare recovery statistics from. From page 14 of the Sound Transit website

    http://www.soundtransit.org/Documents/pdf/about/financial/2010/Q1_%202010_Financial_Report.pdf

    it reported that farebox recover is around is between 15.5% and 23% for (Light Rail, Commuter Rail, Buses)