Last week, John Charles of the Cascade Policy Institute penned his latest missive against Milwaukie MAX. While I share concerns about the cost of the project, I view a comprehensive rapid transit network throughout the metro region as something which is vitally important–and which will become moreso as gas prices and environmental pressures in the future make driving an increasingly-expensive proposition.
The role of transit
Charles’ article starts off with an attempt to burnish his environmentalist credentials (which he seems to have recently rediscovered in his now-moot attempt to save trees on Lincoln Street, even though CPI usually sides with the chainsaws in such matters), recalling his days traveling by bus as a young activist, but then says this:
Times have certainly changed. Cars have become more efficient, and chronic urban smog has permanently disappeared due to improved auto technology. That’s the good news. But the bad news is that many transit agencies are no longer content to merely provide a service to those unable or unwilling to drive in a private vehicle.
There’s a lot of baggage in that paragraph. Specifically:
- The suggestion that modern auto technology has somehow solved the problem of both fossil-fuel dependence and air pollution. I’ll agree that it has helped on both fronts, but despite the fact that cars are generally more efficient than the hunks of Detroit steel that plied the roads during the 1960s, before the oil shocks hit, we still have both a significant oil-supply problem and a significant air pollution problem; one with potentially more serious side effects than smog. (Nor does Charles mention that Cascade routinely opposes attempts to beef up environmental laws).
- The notion that because the auto-pollution problem is now “solved”, the only sensible mission for transit agencies is social-service transit. Charles then goes on to excoriate TriMet for having more expansive service plans than the role which he thinks is appropriate.
The first bullet item is such obvious nonsense that I don’t think very many are fooled by it. The same efficiencies in design that have benefitted cars also benefit transit vehicles; and fixed-route transit can additionally benefit from externally-supplied electric power, which has zero emissions at the vehicle site (and even if the electricity is generated from burning fossil fuels, fixed powerplants are far better for the environment on a per-kilowatt-hour basis than are thousands and thousands of mobile combustion engines).
The second bullet item, though, sounds seductive and reasonable to many. (A few local advocates whom I respect and shall not name :), seem to respond positively to Charles’ piece). Appeals to social equity are laudable, and indeed so-called social service transit is, and should be, a fundamental part of TriMet’s mission. I wholeheartedly support OPAL and their efforts to create a more equitable fare structure (my alternate suggestions on how to do so in this post shouldn’t be construed as objection to the CFT proposal). There is a significant part of the population dependent on transit, and we should not fail them.
But switching to an entirely social-service model; wherein the primary purpose of an agency is to serve the poor, contains a trap. When agencies switch to a primary social-service role, and stop trying to serve the public at large by offering services which are competitive with the automobile–it isn’t long before the service is branded as welfare. (And you can guess what CPI thinks of the other parts of the social safety net). When this happens, political support can vanish, funding will disappear, services will be cut, and the service will become even less attractive–meaning that even more, it becomes the domain of the destitute. There are plenty of examples of transit systems in US cities which only offer subsistence transit–hourly runs at best, no seven-day service, overcrowded busses; and the notion that such systems ought to expand and provide reasonable service is considered laughable in the political cultures of these places.
While the one of the biggest factors in determining the quality and mode share for of transit is land use (New York is #1 for a reason, and it’s not because the MTA is known for efficient management), a big factor is civic engagement and popular support. Portland has excellent transit (for a US city of its size) in no small part because the populace supports it, and it enjoys popular support because the system is usable (and is used) by more than just the poor. The moral of the story: if you want good transit for the poor, you must provide good transit for the middle class. Otherwise, it will be cut to the bone.
One other reason to avoid social-service-only transit: It is often environmentally-unfriendly. While Charles didn’t include this particular canard in his article, other anti-transit activists have been known to repeat claims that driving is more fuel-efficient than taking transit. Jarrett Walker does a fine job of debunking this theory, but social service-focused systems (which often have little patronage outside of peak hours and lines) frequently run nearly-empty busses, and a car with one passenger is more fuel-efficient than a bus with one passenger. Well-patronized transit systems in large cities, on the other hand, easily outperform private autos on energy efficiency.
Light rail vs express bus
The other key claim in Charles’ article is that light rail, allegedly, offers a worse customer experience than bus. The basis for this claim seems to be the observation that MLR will provide a slower ride from Portland to Milwaukie than the express 99 bus, which makes the trip in about 15 minutes according to the schedule. The local-service 33, on the other hand, requires 25-30 minutes to make the trip. MLR is expected to make the journey in 25 minutes. On the surface, this seems like a bad deal for commuters, however there are two important factors to consider:
- Express service is only offered during peak hours. This isn’t an immutable property of the line–TriMet could run the 99 all day and on weekends if it chose, but the agency currently does not do so.
- Express service is only useful if you are in Milwaukie (or beyond) and are trying to get downtown. If you want to visit OMSI, or if you live in Westmoreland, the 99 is useless to you. Likewise if you want to travel in the reverse direction–if you live in the Pearl and commute to a job at Dark Horse Comics, you can’t use the 99.
- And most importantly, both local and express bus service, when running in mixed traffic, are unreliable. The schedule says you’ll get downtown in 15 minutes. It could easily be double that or worse; anyone who travels McLoughlin during rush hour knows that it is frequently a parking lot. Rapid transit in an exclusive right-of-way (which does not necessarily have to be rail) doesn’t get stuck in traffic jams, and thus can deliver far better on-time performance. This is not just an advantage that rapid transit has over local bus, but it’s an advantage that it has over the automobile–even if on most days the commute is smooth, people on a fixed schedule often need to budget additional time for those days when the highway is jammed.
Most of the rest of the article consists of broad accusations of incompetence against TriMet (and against government-run transit in general), and the usual assortment of free-market platitudes (a “a market-driven transit concept”) that one might expect from a Libertarian think tank. Charles seemingly pines for the halcyon days of Rose City Transit–and while the old private bus operators were treated shabbily by the law back in the 1960s, what really killed off Rose City Transit and the numerous other private transit companies that existed during the first half of the 20th century, was the massive adoption of the automobile and the buildout of auto infrastructure. RCT no longer had a viable business model (even if the fare increase it wanted in 1968 were granted, it was toast as a private concern), and private transit still does not, and won’t as long as driving as subsidized and cheap. I’ve no particular objection to privately-operated transit when and where it can make money, but calls for transit to be privatized and unsubsidized in this day and age are essentially calls for it to not exist at all. Given that we don’t expect the roads to make money (they’re viewed as a public good, and not as a profit center), the suggestion that transit ought to be held to a higher standard is patently unreasonable.
24 responses to “Responding to Cascade Policy Institute on the role of transit (and other issues)”
I would also like to add some things about the light rail customer experience…
1. Generally Light rail is smoother, and more steady than bus (with the exception of a couple drivers who are jerky in and around stations). This is true of all “rail vs. rubber” comparisons. A smother and more steady ride is preferred by most people, especially those with motion sickness or balance/instability problems.
2. Light rail vehicles provide better bicycle experiences, it is easier to get your bike on/off, they carry a couple more bikes than busses, you can sit/stand next to your bike, and it is out of the weather.
3. Light rail vehicles are more accessible to people in wheel-chairs or with strollers etc…
4. Light rail is quieter both on the train and in surrounding neighborhoods. After 3 years living on NE 15th with a bus stop in front of my house, let me say that bus noise is ANNOYING.
5. In my personal experience, light rail being a larger space with more capacity for external systems like AC and heating tends to have better ventilation, being generally (although not always) more comfortable and less musty/smelly.
There we go. Just my additions, so when we combine those with the reliability of a dedicated ROW – I would say that makes the extra ten minutes a little less of an issue.
Good list, John. I’ll add a benefit that extends beyond rush-hour commuting. TriMet’s LRT system serves many local attractions–the zoo, Rose Quarter, Expo Center, Jeld-Wen, Saturday Market, etc.–and is (generally) able to handle the large crowds associated with these destinations.
One area where buses have the advantage is the ability to reroute: a point that was hammered home last week when my MAX train was halted between downtown and Goose Hollow due to police activity. Fortunately, shuttle buses were on hand to help fill the gap–proving the two modes can work in tandem rather than being in mortal combat with one another.
Light rail vehicles are more accessible to people in wheel-chairs or with strollers etc…
This particular point doesn’t have to be true… Eugene’s EmX vehicles are pretty darned easily boardable, even if the dock-to-curb methodology is a bit odd for the operator.
Doing low-floor boardable correctly requires proper curb and platform design at all stations, but it is doable for buses.
MAX is a lot easier for the mobility-impaired to board at stations with platforms (just roll on) rather than stations without (there’s a small gap and the ramp will need deployment). Of course, the modern low-floor cars are still far better than the old Type 1s, which require an external lift for wheelchair access (this is why type 1s are always coupled with a Type 2 or Type 3, so the combined train is ADA-compliant without the lifts).
The hard part about boarding with an unguided bus is lining up the vehicle and the platform precisely. With trains and with guided busses, you get this essentially for free.
Good piece Scotty. Thanks. I think these guys hate MAX because it works so well and gives the lie to their vision of the world.
However efficient vehicles may be, there’s still the issue of traffic congestion. As well as things like parking.
Overall, a MAX line to Milwaukie may not be the best use of money. But until we have a marketplace where people who want to drive have to pay for (more of) their parking, pay for a portion of the Big Pipe projects, etc and where the Federal government doesn’t control transportation (including highway) funding, it’s not feasible to have a rational discussion.
Generally Light rail is smoother
Hybrid buses are even smoother than light rail. Unfortunately the majority of Portlanders wouldn’t know, since TriMet refuses to buy them (except for two in service and four on order…Eugene’s LTD has more hybrids in service than the entire Portland transit district.) There is no jerky acceleration or braking on a hybrid bus.
Light rail vehicles provide better bicycle experiences
From a bicyclist perspective I actually like buses better…don’t have to lift the bike, and your bike is upright. From a passenger persective, I hate bikes in the rider cabin, especially with bicylists who think they have a right to additional space onboard a crowded vehicle (nobody has the right to kick off an existing rider.)
Light rail vehicles are more accessible to people in wheel-chairs or with strollers
That’s a issue of the stop platform, not the vehicle. It’s not the bus’s fault that TriMet doesn’t invest in good bus stops. At a good bus stop, access is equal.
Light rail is quieter both on the train and in surrounding neighborhoods
See #1, hybrid buses are quiet but TriMet refuses to buy them.
light rail being a larger space with more capacity for external systems like AC and heating tends to have better ventilation
Old buses tend to be musty. New buses not so much. Of course if TriMet replaced its buses on the federal guidelines (12 years of age) it wouldn’t be a problem.
The problem isn’t so much bus versus rail, but rather TriMet’s own self-imposed bus versus rail distinction – specifically, discouraging the bus system by disinvestment and failing to purchase new bus designs that are proven elsewhere and eliminate nearly all of the drawbacks listed above – and are popular AND growing ridership in other cities.
Eric,
Trimet has several hybrids on routes around town (like the #8):
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1240/5106174489_24458b5035.jpg
And I think you are confusing “smooth acceleration” with “smooth ride”. A bus will never be able to match MAX’s smooth ride. It’s a function of the surfaces they are operating on.
I also disagree with your comments about bikes on transit. I too, commute by bike, so I have used both busses and MAX with my bike. Yes, you have to lift your bike onto the bus rack. You have to lift the entire back up off of the ground and onto the rack. It is not simpler than MAX, and I can guarantee that the majority of cyclists prefer to ride with their bikes, inside the vehicle.
I’ve ridden on busses and rail transit in many cities, and I always end up liking the rail transit more, due to speed, ride quality, or clarity of service. I know you would like Trimet to purchase expensive hybrid express busses like CTran did, but that’s just not going to happen.
My personal experience is that it’s generally easier to put my bike on a bus due to the fact that the front racks don’t involve any conflicts with passengers and are often less likely to be full than the MAX racks.
But of course MAX generally gets me somewhere faster :-)
The 800-pound gorilla Charles’ piece skipped is how land use and transportation are deeply interconnected.
A rail system creates a financial incentive for developers to invest in higher density development near stations, a bus system much less so. As you note in your piece, land use drives transportation uses, so if we have quality land use, the use of non-single-occupant cars can go way up.
Talking about big transportation investments without talking about their land use impacts is simply an incomplete conversation.
Charles piece didn’t skip that gorilla–however it doesn’t give the answer you probably would prefer. John appears to consider TOD a fraud on the public, and promotes the idea that the purpose of light rail construction isn’t about improved mobility outcomes at all; it’s greasing the palms of (and delivering pork to) well-connected developers, construction interests, and the like. Many pro-transit activists who post here have similar sentiments; its an argument that plays well with quite a few crowds.
While I don’t recall Charles ever stating this, many transit opponents on the right are hostile to denser urban forms (for a variety of reasons) and consider suburban sprawl to be the natural order of things. Many consider any attempt to encourage density to be “social engineering” (whereas continuation of existing policies is not) and view it as a threat. Ex-Portlander Randall O’Toole is infamous for supporting, despite his claims to Libertarianism, government regulations (such as parking minimums) which promote sprawl, on the grounds that these sorts of regulation are merely codifying “what the market desires”, rather than an attempt to alter it. To me, a distinction without a difference.
Ex-Portlander Randall O’Toole is infamous for supporting, despite his claims to Libertarianism, government regulations (such as parking minimums) which promote sprawl, on the grounds that these sorts of regulation are merely codifying “what the market desires”, rather than an attempt to alter it.
But, but . . . the Market does not require government intervention. That’s the entire point of libertarian ideology.
But, but . . . the Market does not require government intervention. That’s the entire point of libertarian ideology.
Ex-ACT-ly.
If Tri-Met has two in service and four on order, that rebuts the charge of “refusal,” since they’re obviously doing it.
Personally, I prefer my bike on MAX over the bus. It’s easier to lift it onto the hook than the bus rack. It’s also a lot faster since I don’t need to hold up the bus while I lift it up or take it down — I can actually hoist it when the MAX is underway, if needed, and pull it down while approaching the station.
Glad to see the interest in my Commentary. But most of you are not really focusing on what I wrote, you are getting off on tangents. My main point: why are we spending $205 million per mile for a train in a corridor already well-served by bus transit? TM will spend roughly $35 million just on the 3-block Lincoln Street destruction, which is more money than they needed two years ago when they cut service on virtually every line due to a $27 milllion operating fund shortfall. Is this how you would spend your own money if you wanted to improve transit for the most people?
As usual, some people are seduced by the “exclusive ROW for trains” argument. OK, take a look at TriMet’s own monthly performance reports. In 2002, the 12-month average on-time performance for LRT was 88.34%, compared with 83.0% for all bus. Not that big of a gap, actually, considering the supposed advantage of exclusive ROW.
But fast-forward to 2011: LRT on-time performance fell to 86.6% while bus dropped to 81.9%. So both dropped, but rail declined by 1.9% compared with 1.2% for bus. The reliability gap is not widening, it is narrowing.
Same for average speed. In 2002, average speed for LRT, 20.52 MPH. Today, 18.06. Bus, 15.81 in 2002, dropping to 14.53 in 2011. So bus speed declines 8% but rail speed drops 12%.
Again, the performance gap is narrowing, and was never that great to begin with. If you’re going to spend huge amounts of money on rail construction cost and tear up neighborhoods for years, the performance advantage for rail should be much greater, and should GROW over time, since buses are supposedly getting trapped in worsening road conditions. TriMet’s own reports show that is not the case.
Engineer Scotty asserts that McLoughlin Blvd is “frequently a parking lot.” That’s a big claim. I don’t commute on it, but every time I’ve gone over there at rush hour, AM or PM, it has been moving pretty well in both directions, from Milwaukie all the way to 17th street, at least.The measured vehicle throughput as reported in the EIS is relativley modest compared to lane capacity, so until I see real evidence I’m not buying the “Mcloughlin is gridlocked” argument.
For the foreseeable future, given the modest congestion on McLoughlin, we could run all kinds of express, semi-express, and local bus service from Milwaukie to Portland, with nice (even luxurious) buses, and serve more people with better service than LRT ever will, at far less cost.
I have to go to a meeting. I’ll have a few more responses later.
Chris I: Erik is right. TriMet has 2 hybrid vehicles in revenue service. That picture you posted is half the fleet.
Kris,
And I think you are confusing “smooth acceleration” with “smooth ride”. A bus will never be able to match MAX’s smooth ride. It’s a function of the surfaces they are operating on.
My wife will debate you any day on that. She refuses to ride MAX because of the lateral side-to-side motion that induces nausea. Yet, she rides the bus every day.
Just because a train is on rails doesn’t mean it’s smooth. It’s that TriMet spends millions and millions and millions on track maintenance, categories the cost as Capital so it doesn’t hit the “cost per boarding ride”, and short-changes bus maintenance (making the buses ride worse – shocks and tires and seats require regular maintenance) making the ride worse.
I know you would like Trimet to purchase expensive hybrid express busses like CTran did, but that’s just not going to happen.
And why not? It’s sad that either C-Tran or LTD are about one-fifth the size of TriMet, and either one of them has a hybrid bus fleet that is multiple times larger than TriMet’s.
A rail system creates a financial incentive for developers to invest in higher density development near stations, a bus system much less so. As you note in your piece, land use drives transportation uses, so if we have quality land use, the use of non-single-occupant cars can go way up.
Yet:
Orenco Station has not developed the kind of transit use expected. Rather, most roads in the area have been widened to accommodate greater traffic, including widening projects underway on U.S. 26.
Cascade Station was planning as a transit-oriented development; its two MAX stations are among the lowest used stops, while large parking lots have been constructed (not to mention additional roads and access points) to handle vehicular traffic.
AND:
“Transit-Oriented Development” projects ARE being built along bus lines – in Milwaukie, on S.E. Division, along Hawthorne, even in Sherwood.
Light rail isn’t attracting the development, it’s the tax breaks. Just look at the light rail line in St. Louis and East St. Louis and look at all of that “development” (of grass, weeds, and rubble). If light rail was such a catalyst for development, shouldn’t East St. Louis be development heaven? Why haven’t popular areas like around the Beaverton TC developed; why are there still several vacant lots in and around the MAX line in the Lloyd District; why is Tek Woods still undeveloped (yet a former manufactured home park removed from easy access to the MAX line is being developed as dense housing and mixed uses)? Why is much of the developable land adjacent to the Orenco stop unbuilt while land along Cornell is largely developed with the pedestrian stores and businesses (complete with ample parking)?
If rail transit didn’t even exist; the bus and its rubber tires would still be the enemy of libertarians.
While I am against streetcars because they offer no better service than what a bus offers and are insanely expensive and its luster will wear off soon; the entire Libertarian think tanks are just stirring the pot…like they always do.
Does John Charles really care about trees getting chopped down? Of course not! If it were trees getting chopped down for 16 lanes of “freedom,” you wouldn’t hear a word.
Erik H:
Some of the TOD projects you mention and their respective “failures” are due to their over-exaggeration to the role transit plays in creating these places, especially through its built forms (i.e. Beaverton Central with it’s attractive, yet odd, circular orientation towards the light rail stop). Many times these TODs are excluded and disconnected from their adjacent properties.
TODs can’t work in a vacuum.
The Pearl isn’t nice because it has a streetcar. It’s nice because it offers a quality urban experience. Building fronting the streets, parks, properly scaled sidewalks, material choice, etc.
We have it all wrong — build the beautiful spaces and attractive buildings first with transit in mind.
The idea that we can build transit and let the development follow is backwards (but doesn’t mean transit should be excluded in the discussion of development).
Planners need to rethink the TOD.
hybrid buses are quiet but TriMet refuses to buy them.
They are quieter than conventional buses, but not nearly as quiet as, say, an electric trolleybus or one of the newer (still somewhat experimental) all-electric buses. Rail transit vehicles are generally quieter than hybrid buses, but there are many exceptions and it can be a matter of personal taste. (Living near a tight rail corner will bring frequent wheel squeaks, living near heavy commuter rail has noises issues too, just ask Tualatin residents who pushed for a “quiet zone”.)
As for “refuse”, well you can certainly argue that they don’t play a major role in the fleet, but “refuse” is far too strong a term. TriMet held a widely-announced press event in July of 2010 to announce the hybrid bus purchase. You can argue (if you like) that it was just for show or some kind of token gesture, but definitely not a refusal.
Erik,
I evaluated the CTran hybrid purchase option for a graduate level class in engineering economics a few years ago. My group visited CTran to view the busses, collected purchase price and fuel economy information, and then compared it to the new non-hybrids that Trimet was buying, and to natural gas and hydrogen busses.
CTran is wasting money on hybrid busses. The hybrid system does not increase the fuel economy enough to offset the higher initial cost, particularly in the way CTran is using them (express routes with very little starting/stopping). We used a 30 year period, and even ran the calculation with $10 a gallon gas, and it still didn’t pencil out. Hybrids will be a good option in the future, once the initial cost comes down, and particularly when they are used on routes where they can take advantage of the technology.
Evan Manvel claims rail transit creates an incentive for developers to create higher-density development near light rail stations. That’s been the standard claim for over 25 years, Evan, but where’s the real evidence? Virtually all Portland-area TODs needed subsidies, because rail stations tend to have the exact opposite effect from what you assert: they repel developers.
Not becauase developers or property owners inherently dislike rail, but because the government-imposed mandates for high density and below-market parking allowances make the projects infeasible without subsidies.
Examples: Stadium Station Apts across from Jeld-Wen Field were only built because the land was flipped to the developer by PDC for $1. About half the budget for Center Commons at NE 60th and Glisan consisted of subsidies. Projects at Gresham Station have received cash grants and below-cost land deals. I could go on at length.
Second, your claim that land-use patterns determine transit use is over-stated. Yes, density and design both matter, but not enough to make a big difference. For example, I recently spent a lot of time doing field research out at Russellville Commons on NE Burnside at 102nd, since it is a showcase TOD on a line that now is 25 years old. Through public ownership of an 11-acre site, PDC managed to build a 3-phased project over a 15-year period that is built out to a density of 52 units per acre. Yet the MAX ridership during the morning peak is only 13% of all passenger-trips, and there are chonic parking problems there with every available on-street space taken due to inadequate off-street parking.
By a quirk of fate, a similarly-sized parcel of land north of Burnside between 102nd and 105th escaped the redevelopment plans of PDC/TriMet/Metro/Multnomah County over the past several decades, which makes for an interesting control group. The neighborhood is dominated by single-family homes on lot sizes typically in the 8,000 SF range. The grid system there is such that all auto trips in/out can be observed at two points, and all ped/bike trips to MAX are funneled through one sidewalk from NE Davis to NE 102nd.
We did observations there at roughly the same time we observed the Russellville project. What we found is that the TOD generated 100% higher transit mode split (13% to 6%, morning peak), but the density of the TOD is 10 times higher than the density of the NE Glisan neighborhood.
Russellville represented an all-out effort by local bureaucrats to create a successful urban TOD experience, and if 13% MAX mode share is the best they have to show for it, I think we need to re-think the whole concept. Especially because Russellville is not really scaleable becauase you can’t pour that kind of public money into hundreds of projects, which is what it would take to really make a difference.
I can also tell you that on the Westside, you can find examples where density had no effect. The Millikan Way LRT station is classic WA county business park development, all low density and no post-MAX TOD development, yet major employment campuses there have 6% mode share for rail, nearly double the split for Elmonica Station, which was a blank slate in 1996 and is surrounded by multiple high-density projects built in just the last 15 years under mandatory TOD zoning.
Many years ago, the 1000 Friends LUTRAQ simulations projected 28% transit share for Elmonica if rail was built, TOD zoning was imposed, and most westside highway construction was halted. All of those things happened, but peak-hour, weekday rail use is only 3.5% of all trips to/from the nearby projects. Computer simulations are nice, but we need to deal with reality.
I think the Portland experience shows that expensive LRT projects cannot be rationalized as being “catalysts for TOD.” They have to be justified as a superior form of people-moving transit, relative to bus service. I’ve yet to see that case made for the Milwaukie project, where bus service is faster, more flexible, and far less expensive.
John Charles wrote:
Glad to see the interest in my Commentary. But most of you are not really focusing on what I wrote, you are getting off on tangents. My main point: why are we spending $205 million per mile for a train in a corridor already well-served by bus transit? TM will spend roughly $35 million just on the 3-block Lincoln Street destruction, which is more money than they needed two years ago when they cut service on virtually every line due to a $27 milllion operating fund shortfall. Is this how you would spend your own money if you wanted to improve transit for the most people?
If your main point was that you don’t like MLR, and stuck to that main point, I probably wouldn’t have responded. As noted, I share the concerns about cost; I’ve been working in the background on a more substantial post on this, but it’s not ready for publication yet.
The portion of the comments I did respond to suggest a goal that goes well above and beyond mere objection to a project you perceive as a boondoggle, however.
As usual, some people are seduced by the “exclusive ROW for trains” argument. OK, take a look at TriMet’s own monthly performance reports. In 2002, the 12-month average on-time performance for LRT was 88.34%, compared with 83.0% for all bus. Not that big of a gap, actually, considering the supposed advantage of exclusive ROW.
A couple things here: 1) TriMet adds far more padding at timepoints for mixed-traffic bus than they do for rail. 2) The on-time percentage means the vehicle departs a timepoint no more than 1 minute early or five minutes late–other than these cutoffs, the OTP doesn’t consider how late a vehicle is (a bus that is six minutes late counts the same as one that is sixty minutes late).
But fast-forward to 2011: LRT on-time performance fell to 86.6% while bus dropped to 81.9%. So both dropped, but rail declined by 1.9% compared with 1.2% for bus. The reliability gap is not widening, it is narrowing.
Those appear to be August 2011 statistics, not any larger moving average–the monthly reliability numbers are quite noisy and shouldn’t be cited as evidence of anything (it was a bad month for MAX and a good month for the bus). Also, the opening of the Yellow and Green lines, and the increased contention for the Steel Bridge interlocks, may have had a slight impact on MAX reliability–when parts of a system are close to capacity, you’re more likely to have issues.
Same for average speed. In 2002, average speed for LRT, 20.52 MPH. Today, 18.06. Bus, 15.81 in 2002, dropping to 14.53 in 2011. So bus speed declines 8% but rail speed drops 12%.
Again, the opening of the Yellow Line, which doesn’t have any significant fast sections, explains the overall speed drop on MAX. Not sure about the bus numbers; were I to hazard a guess, the recent service cuts (and resulting additional passenger loads on the remaining busses) have something to do with it.
Again, the performance gap is narrowing, and was never that great to begin with. If you’re going to spend huge amounts of money on rail construction cost and tear up neighborhoods for years, the performance advantage for rail should be much greater, and should GROW over time, since buses are supposedly getting trapped in worsening road conditions. TriMet’s own reports show that is not the case.
MLR should help with the statistics; given that it runs grade-separated for most of its route, if that’s something that concerns you.
Of course, the damage to neighborhoods caused by MAX is generally temporary; whereas the damage caused by freeway construction is long-lasting. I’m not sure your position on freeways (you seem to be far less of a highway booster than Randall O’Toole is, which I appreciate), but surface rail integrates far better with urban environments than does grade-separated highways.
The way to get reliable transit on the cheap, of course, is to convert existing road space to busway–that can be done without expensive items such as rebuilding roadbeds, laying new track (or pavement), or installing catenary. But it’s politically difficult for obvious reasons.
Engineer Scotty asserts that McLoughlin Blvd is “frequently a parking lot.” That’s a big claim. I don’t commute on it, but every time I’ve gone over there at rush hour, AM or PM, it has been moving pretty well in both directions, from Milwaukie all the way to 17th street, at least. The measured vehicle throughput as reported in the EIS is relativley modest compared to lane capacity, so until I see real evidence I’m not buying the “Mcloughlin is gridlocked” argument.
I’ll have to go find congestion figures on the major inbound routes, and anecdotal evidence isn’t worth much, but I’ve found myself stuck on it many times when I’m in that part of town.
For the foreseeable future, given the modest congestion on McLoughlin, we could run all kinds of express, semi-express, and local bus service from Milwaukie to Portland, with nice (even luxurious) buses, and serve more people with better service than LRT ever will, at far less cost.
One of the problems with that is who pays the operating costs? A big issue with federal transit policy is that Uncle Sam pays money for capital improvements, but won’t pay money for operations. If you want to know a big reason why transit agencies around the country build out capital projects while shortchanging ops, this is probably the big one–the seals are doing the tricks that will get ’em fish from the trainer.
Evan Manvel claims rail transit creates an incentive for developers to create higher-density development near light rail stations. That’s been the standard claim for over 25 years, Evan, but where’s the real evidence? Virtually all Portland-area TODs needed subsidies, because rail stations tend to have the exact opposite effect from what you assert: they repel developers.
Rail stations repel developers? I haven’t seen ANY evidence of that, whatsoever. Developers build where its cheap to build, and if they can get free money from the government, they’re only happy to take it. But the suggestion that they prefer to build away from rail is rather novel.
Not becauase developers or property owners inherently dislike rail, but because the government-imposed mandates for high density and below-market parking allowances make the projects infeasible without subsidies.
Yes, and we know just how much developers hate places like the Pearl District.
In general, developers build properties that are a) inexpensive to build, and b) likely to sell well. The problem with many TODs, particularly infamous whipping-boy projects like Villebois and The Round, is not that they have (or lack) transit; it’s that they lack an overall value proposition compared to other properties. Urban density with urban amenities is attractive. Urban density with suburban amenities, not so much.
[snip]
Second, your claim that land-use patterns determine transit use is over-stated. Yes, density and design both matter, but not enough to make a big difference. For example, I recently spent a lot of time doing field research out at Russellville Commons on NE Burnside at 102nd, since it is a showcase TOD on a line that now is 25 years old. Through public ownership of an 11-acre site, PDC managed to build a 3-phased project over a 15-year period that is built out to a density of 52 units per acre. Yet the MAX ridership during the morning peak is only 13% of all passenger-trips, and there are chonic parking problems there with every available on-street space taken due to inadequate off-street parking.
Plopping a TOD around in the middle of sprawl does not a successful urban area make. That said–your 13% figure is of all passenger trips, which I assume includes things other than commutes downtown (or to other destinations than where the MAX goes). The share of MAX vs driving on trips where the two modes actually compete would be a more interesting statistic.
[snip]
I can also tell you that on the Westside, you can find examples where density had no effect. The Millikan Way LRT station is classic WA county business park development, all low density and no post-MAX TOD development, yet major employment campuses there have 6% mode share for rail, nearly double the split for Elmonica Station, which was a blank slate in 1996 and is surrounded by multiple high-density projects built in just the last 15 years under mandatory TOD zoning.
The neighborhood surrounding Millikan Way is not low-density; just south of the station are numerous lower-income housing complexes–numerous apartments, and at least one trailer park. Also, the Millikan Way station is a major commuting destination, with Tektronix, Maxim, Comcast, Nike, and Cedar Hills Crossing accessible from there. It also is a transfer point to the 62. Elmonica has no connecting transit, and while is in a somewhat high-density residential area (though the townhouses fronting Baseline don’t go very deep), there’s no destination employers near that stop.
Many years ago, the 1000 Friends LUTRAQ simulations projected 28% transit share for Elmonica if rail was built, TOD zoning was imposed, and most westside highway construction was halted. All of those things happened, but peak-hour, weekday rail use is only 3.5% of all trips to/from the nearby projects. Computer simulations are nice, but we need to deal with reality.
While the Westside Bypass was halted (how this would have affected Elmonica I have no idea), US26 has seen significant widening and other capacity/safety improvements in that time. The bottlenecks around Sylvan and OR217 have been eliminated; the highway is now 6 lanes out to Cornell/Bethany (the exit Elmonica residents would use) and the widening to 185th is nearing completion. In addition, the local streets in the area–Cornell, 158th, Walker, Baseline, Millikan, have also seen capacity improvements.
I think the Portland experience shows that expensive LRT projects cannot be rationalized as being “catalysts for TOD.” They have to be justified as a superior form of people-moving transit, relative to bus service. I’ve yet to see that case made for the Milwaukie project, where bus service is faster, more flexible, and far less expensive.
Again, only express bus is really faster than exclusive-ROW transit, and it’s a rather limited form of service. Personally, I’d be happy with a busway (a real one) down McLoughlin rather than light rail, but that’s not what got built.
A bit of advice: Barring some last-minute budget shenanigans in Washington DC, MLR is pretty much a done deal. It’s under construction already. Agitating against it locally may make you feel good, but it’s tilting at windmills. If you think that LR is a bad idea, I’d focus your energies on future corridors, such as the Southwest Corridor, where there is still ample time to affect the direction of the project in a productive fashion (and where difficult topography will have a bigger affect than along 99E).