March 2, 2011 by Adron

Light Rail, Primary Arterial Transport

Skytrain is by far one of the best example of light rail done right in North America. It carries over 300k people each day and runs an actual profit on operations. No other system in North America can boast such an efficient, clean, and effective system.

The Sound Transit Central Link will likely become a very strong player in Seattle’s future transit. The ridership this fourth quarter was up 5%, almost entirely because of Sound Transit Central Link. Bus ridership stayed pretty much at the same level. This is the same thing that has occurred in every single system (except Buffalo, NY) that built a light rail line to act as an arterial – or even minor arterial – transport. The light rail, as people become familiar with it, regularly choose it over regular or BRT bus service, and a huge percentage of riders are choosing it over a car (i.e. they traditionally did not ride the bus or transit at all for that matter). Light rail is a very effective way to increase transit usage, and in the long run it also decreases operational costs for a transit authority.

Light Rail in Seattle is set to be exceptionally costly in capital costs, primarily because of the city’s decision to build most (over 90% of it) in huge tunnels, raised above road & ground level, or placed underground (dig and cover style). This has made the capital costs massive. However, in 20 years, especially with inflation kicking in, the light rail will most likely prove to have been one of the most intelligent transit decisions in Seattle in well over 30 years or so.

Why?

The net operational costs of the light rail per person carried and the net development that light rail encourages is light years beyond what BRT or general bus routes can provide. The light rail, operationally will fall to well below a 1/3rd of the cost of buses operationally. Even with capital costs as high as they are in Seattle these costs after inflation and time will become a negligible cost compared to what regular road damage and bus capitol and costs end up being.

Don’t believe me?

Vancouver’s Skytrain actually provides additional money for feeder buses and other transit because it operates profitably. The capital costs in that city where even higher than Seattle’s because of the automated (i.e. it is unmanned, no driver) and on raised infrastructure right of way. However even these capital costs start to be a minimal concern for existing lines over time, as the inflation and heavy utilization (over 358k per day on Skytrain in 2010) of the system continues the costs that are saved on roadways, lives saved (over auto usage), and additional things add up to be vastly higher than the cost of the infrastructure. In addition, the infrastructure isn’t exactly costing a ton of money after it is built, these systems (i.e. rail) last for decades upon decades, unlike most road systems.

Portland’s MAX Light Rail, the original 15~ miles or so, with operational costs and infrastructure capital costs included, is less than it would have been to provide buses to ply the entire distance on existing roadways. There is no way they could have managed the same ridership levels (over 30k per day on this single short line) with buses on existing roadways (the Interstate gets backed up every day, and has zero area to expand into – i.e. it is only going to get worse for drivers). With BRT they could have managed some ridership increases, but it would have been less than light rail and would have cost the city millions more than the light rail has if they could have gotten the same ridership increases. Today, the light rail along most of the original Blue Line has many lines feed into the primary corridor along the Banfield, bringing that 30k per day much closer to 40 or 50k per day and growing.

For more examples check out Denver (Rapidly growing system), San Francisco, New Jersey (Which includes connections with MTA & other systems!), Boston (The most efficient light rail in the US), Philadelphia, and San Diego for more light rail systems that have gained their respective transit agencies a decreasing cost in operations dollars per rider while increasing the quality and efficiency of the ride!

Don’t get me wrong, I praise light rail for all it’s strengths, but buses absolutely serve a significant purpose in any transit system’s mode options. Especially for less heavily traveled routes where light rail just makes no sense! BRT for those routes that need upgrading but have minimal capital outlay or will likely not achieve light rail capacity needs. Of course there is also those cities that are growing rapidly enough that they should bypass the light rail and step right into the big league of commuter rail or subway systems. San Francisco being one of those cities that complements each mode; heavy rail, subway (BART), light rail, streetcars, and buses.

Cheers to the cities that have had the insight, open minds, and intelligence to build out their systems. Boo to those cities that continue to falter in back woods thinking. They do the country a disservice and the betterment of all mankind suffers for it. Anyway, I’ve said this before, but the facts haven’t changed so I figured I’d repeat myself with this entry. 🙂

Until later… keep on rolling.

February 23, 2011February 26, 2011 by Adron

Wow, That Summarizes Metro’s Need to Get With The Program

Recently I posted an entry about how Metro just wasn’t holding up well with costs per ride. Metro is an amazing system, considering, but Portland and many other cities are cheaper & more efficient at carrying riders to their destinations. Making those systems a much better investment of the particular cities. Hopefully Metro is getting on top of this problem to come up with some GOOD solutions, which doesn’t mean expanding expensive bus service or continuing to server long range outlying areas. The cost efficiencies are not in serving the suburbs, which Metro does a LOT of these days. Add Sound Transit, Sounder, and some of the other modes that serve the far outlying areas and you run into even HIGHER costs!

Here’s the article that recently just backed up my notion that Metro needs more light rail, more urban transit, more town center focus, and better all around town center structures that are people oriented. Vancouver BC is proof, Portland is proof, and many other cities. Seattle could easily cut their costs by a 1/5, possible even by a 1/3rd if they got after a very aggressive timeline in adding truly efficient transit options (light rail, urban walkability, and other such things are prime examples to help ridership & efficiencies).

Here’s a graph.

Wow, Light Rail is Cheap

Some key links that show Metro IS at least heading the right direction.

Land Use and Development
Mixed Modes & European Style Trams (With a big picture of the light rail & streetcar crossovers in Portland)
Supporting Transit and Non-Motorized Travel Through Complete Streets – (With a picture of New York – proper awesome!)
Pedestrian Access to Transit

February 21, 2011February 21, 2011 by Adron

Lunch Grub and a Wondering Trip

I decided to take a trip north from downtown today via the #358. I then determined I could get some lunch around the Aurora Transit Center. After that I’d board one of the SWIFT BRT Buses to check out how legit the BRT Service is to Everett. Once there I wasn’t sure what I’d do exactly, but figured I’d jump on the Sound Transit #510 Express back to downtown. Well, most of that plan went down without a hitch, however a bit got added on to it.

Android Arrival Times

I checked the ETA of the #358 arrival with the Android OneBusAway App written by Paul Watts via my HTC Evo (This is an amazing phone btw, if you’re in the market for a phone). At about ten minutes before the estimated arrival I walked out and crossed the streets of Denny and Aurora. It can usually take about 6-8 minutes because of the all the lights and cross walk nonsense at this intersection. I boarded the #358 at 11:03am headed north at Denny and Aurora (Hwy 99). The bus took no time to clear the lights there and merge onto Aurora (99). The #358 Route travels north from the International District (i.e. Chinatown) all the way up Aurora Avenue (Hwy 99) to the Aurora Village Shopping Center, where the Aurora Transit Center is.

Aurora Village Transit Center

The ride is an ok one, even though the scenery for the majority of the trip is just sprawlling highway retail and light industrial with residential shoved in here and there. Away from the highway no more than a block though everything is residential, light and medium. Mostly it is single occupancy housing. However in almost every direction it is unfortunately trashy looking. The highway itself is just beat up and the storefronts along the highway look almost 3rd worldish. I can’t really say I was surprised since most of America actually looks this way and more is beginning to. The middle class only has more of this to look forward to. With sprawl at the intensity it is built out in the United States the more drain it will have on the middle class, pushing them either farther down into poverty or locking them into the mediocrity of it all.

The one hold out along the entire route is the Aurora Bridge across the waterway. The view is striking in every direction. When coming back into the city this way you can see the skyscrapers downtown peaking out of the hills. The rest of the trip really isn’t advised, unless you’re just up for exploring as I was today.

I made it to Aurora Village and had a cheese steak at Jersey Mike’s. After that I walked the couple hundred feet back to the Aurora Village Transit Center and boarded one of the SWIFT BRT Buses toward Everett. I noted a few specific things about the BRT Service.

The route map covers 17 miles, so it isn’t a short route.

SWIFT Route Map

When boarding, but before departure the first thing I noticed was the massive space consumed for the bike racks. There are three racks inside the bus. Only bikes can go on these, one can’t stand in the space or sit as they’re positioned in an awkward way.

The Awkward Bike Racks

The second thing I noticed was a minimal amount of seating. Compared to most of the 60′ buses there is almost 2x as much seating as on these BRT buses. I do understand though, these buses aren’t really oriented toward sitting, but instead they’re designed to quickly board and hustle you to your next stop. But this is the US, we’ve strewn everything all over the place, sprawling from one shoreline to the other. NOTHING is really close together in this country except in a few select cities and in a few select areas of those cities. We have built this nation from a position of logistical idiocy – which makes the fact that there are no seats for a 17 mile trip, that takes about 30 minutes, rather odd. Add to that an obesity rate for more than half the population, and you’re bound to have some poor fat person standing up, struggling not to fall over after a short period of time. But then again, I guess that’s why transit riders are often 2-3x more likely to be in good shape than automobile users. Anyway, I thought it odd that they have so few seats.

A better solution, than this type of bicycle rack would be to use hanging racks like on the light rail in Portland. Hanging bikes is a much better option than occupying space that otherwise people could use when there isn’t a bike.

The other thing I noticed was the odd configuration of the handicap area – which again consumes what would normally be about 6-8 seats or more – but I digress, I’m fully supportive of handicap access.

The entry and exit onto the vehicle was extremely smooth. As one would expect, by paying before you board it makes getting on and off much quicker. To make this even easier there are three large doors on the bus.

The Three Doors on the SWIFT Buses

Overall the ride was very smooth. Much better than the poor old beat up buses King County Metro uses for the #358 route. Of course, these are really new buses. Considering the not so great condition of a lot of the route these buses will most likely be just as clunky in 10-15 years.

SWIFT

On a somewhat less important note, I also observed that the SWIFT branding was really nice. Especially compared to the dark and humdrum color schemes of King County Metro. Their colors are rather depressing, but the SWIFT branding was lively and clean. On that same theme Community Transit appears to be doing a great job keeping these vehicles clean, as the bus was spotless when I rode.

Last but not least, this route being about as long as the #358 route, took about 2/3 as long. I think it was about 30 minutes for the 17 mile trip, which by any measurement is really quick along a 45 mph mixed corridor roadway.

After the ride I arrived at Everett and walked around the station and took some photos. I’ve included those below (more blog entry after the pictures too):

Sound Transit #510 from Seattle

Everett Transit #13

#510 Coming to the Transit Center for the South Bound Trip to Seattle

I-5 Crossing the Waterway into Seattle

After the arrival on the SWIFT in Everett I didn’t stay around long, possibly a total of 9 minutes before a #510 south bound arrived. I boarded immediately and off to Seattle I went. The trip wasn’t too exciting, a little traffic close to the I-5 Biridge, but all else was calm and tranquil. The overall trip on the #510 is smoother than the #358 or SWIFT, the express bus moving along at 50-60 mph on Interstate makes for a much smoother ride than the old Aurora 99 Highway.

I arrived back downtown and did some work at Zeitgeist Coffee. When done with the work I up and footed it around the area a bit and caught a lot of photographs. Here are a few of the better ones.