[sustran] Yet another Response to Cox on New Urbanism, Portland , and , THE , ECONOMIST

[Eric Bruun]

Wendell, you simply do not know how the transit resources are distributed
in the Seattle area. Metro has a record-high vehicle-hour to revenue
vehicle-hour ratio of about 1.5 to 1 because of the extreme suburban
emphasis of the route system. The ridership is not much higher than
Portland either, considering that the service area is larger and
the CBD is much larger.

Most city routes in Seattle are on very poor 30 minute headways during the
base period, deteriorating to 60 minutes at night. Also, the bus tunnel is 
very poorly utilized, with few routes actually using it. As for the HOV
lanes on freeways, these are of little utility to intracity transit
routes. The very few bus lanes in downtown are not enforced, either.
By comparison, Portland has given over much more of its surface level
street space to bus transit, especially in the central area.

I make no claims that the light rail line in Portland makes much
difference, one little route is not going to transform an entire city.
Eric  

On Tue, 27 Jan 1998, Wendell Cox wrote:

> >Sorry for the delay in responding. I have been away. It is not
> >just a matter of personal taste when I say that Portland is better
> >for people who like to use transit. It is simply a fact that Portland
> >proper has more frequent and denser transit service than Seattle
> >proper. In the Seattle area, transit service is disproportionately
> >allocated to peak-hour peak direction service to suburbs. Also, Seattle
> >has very few places where transit is sped up with preferential treatment.
> >Also, Seattle is most assuredly a less "lovely" place to drive with
> >the limited travel corridors. The Texas Transportation Institute 
> >consistently rate Seattle in the top 6 for time lost due to congestion
> >delays.  So it is not just my subjective judgement when I say that
> >Portland is better in certain respects.  Eric
> 
> As regards preferential treatment of transit, the downtown bus tunnel does a
> pretty good job of that in Seattle. Actually, when you consider service area
> population, service intensity in Seattle (Tri-Met v. King Co Metro) is at
> least as high as Portland (VM/pop). Seattle has implemental a number of HOV
> corridors with bus service --- Portland has none. Portland's light rail line
> --- while having preferential treatment --- operates at 15 mph ---
> considerably slower than express buses on mixed flow  motorways. I suspect
> that in miles of priority right of way Seattle is now well ahead of Portland.
> 
> Most of the TTI based difference in traffic congestion simply reflects the
> relationship that existed in 1982, when the first data was collected. Light
> rail and UGB have had nothing to do with this.
> 
> Portland is delightful and so is Seattle. And none of it has to do with
> progressive planning or urban growth boundaries. Maybe someday it will...
> but I doubt it.
> 
> Best regards,
> Wendell Cox 
> WENDELL COX CONSULTANCY
> International Public Policy, Economics, Labour, Transport & Strategic Planning
> The Public Purpose: Internet Public Policy Journal
> http://www.publicpurpose.com
> Voice +1 618 632 8507; Fax  +1 618 632 8538
> P.O. Box 841- Belleville, Illinois 62222 USA
> 
> "To facilitate the ideal of government as the servant  of the people by
> identifying and implementing strategies to achieve public purposes at a cost
> that is no higher than necessary."
> 
>