[sustran] Response to Eric Bruun

Wendell Cox wcox at publicpurpose.com
Wed Jan 28 05:57:57 JST 1998


Eric...

1. The data doesnt indicate the 1.5 ratio --- look at 1995 NTDB. Data
indicates little difference.

2. Whether suburban emphasis is desireable or not is a matter of judgement.
As for frequencies, etc. there are also issues of route spacing. My
Seattle/Portland contacts disagree with your judgement and unfortunately
there is no source of compiled, objective data on this. Sounds like a good
project for the new national transit institute.

3. Seattle's ridership is 30 to 40 percent higher than Portland's if you
factor out the light rail-bus transfers. That is a difference similar to the
difference in service area population.

Best regards,
Wendell Cox

>
>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."
>> 
>> 
>
>
>
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."



More information about the Sustran-discuss mailing list