Greater Vancouver leads the Northwest in transit ridership, with somewhere between two and three times as many annual bus and train rides per person as Portland and Seattle.
So the obvious question: How come? Why does Vancouver do so much better in transit statistics than its southern neighbors?
If you're from Seattle, the "obvious" answer might seem to be Vancouver's SkyTrain light rail system, which carries about 66 million passengers each year. Seattle is working hard to expand its measly train system -- which currently consists of a lightly used commuter rail service and a 1.6 mile light rail line in Tacoma. But SkyTrain already carries about two-thirds as many passengers as all of King County's buses.
But SkyTrain can't be the only explanation for Vancouver's advantage over its southern neighbors. After all, Portland has MAX light rail, and a streetcar to boot -- and Vancouver beats the pants off of Portland, too.
If anything, the MAX system is more robust than SkyTrain: it has more track (71.5 km total, compared with SkyTrain's 49.5 km) and nearly twice as many stations (64 stations for MAX vs. 33 for SkyTrain). Still, SkyTrain claimed about 66.3 million boardings in 2005, while MAX had fewer than 33 million in 2006 -- which means that a typical SkyTrain station handles about four times as many passengers per day, on average, as a typical MAX station.
When you look at bus statistics, Vancouver's advantage is even more striking. SkyTrain has about twice as many riders as MAX -- but Greater Vancouver's bus system carries about three times as many passengers as greater Portland's buses. And even though greater Vancouver's population is about one-third lower than greater Seattle's, Vancouver-area buses provide one-third more rides than all of Puget Sound's buses.
(As a sidenote: It turns out that buses are the workhorses of all three cities' transit systems. Buses carry virtually all of Seattle's transit passengers, three-quarters of Vancouver's, and two-thirds of Portland's.)
What all this statistical mumbo-jumbo means to me is this: when it comes to encouraging transit, mode choice -- i.e., train vs. bus vs. streetcar -- isn't the most important factor in determining how many people use a transit system. Not at all.
Far more important is the layout of communities served by transit. In particular, compact neighborhoods can concentrate people and jobs near major transit routes, which helps make transit more convenient and cost-effective. As far as I can tell, Vancouver's transit advantage stems not from any particular feature of its transit system -- the type of trains it uses, or the frequency of bus service -- but mostly from its comparatively compact urban form.
To be clear: I am not trying to poo-poo transit expansion plans in Seattle or Portland. And I'm not trying to enter into any sort of bus-vs.-train debate. (Personally, the antipathy between the pro-bus and pro-train camps turns me off, since it seems to dissipate the energies of both sides.) What I am saying is that neither buses nor trains will get as many riders as we might hope -- unless we get our neighborhoods right first. That's where Vancouver's real transit advantage lies.
Learning how to count to 350
Weatherizing Portland
Comments
View as Flat
GreenEngineer Posted 9:56 am
15 May 2007
Permalink
publictransit Posted 10:47 am
15 May 2007
Unlike most U.S. cities, Vancouver follows the transit planning and service delivery principles generally followed in Europe, as summarized in a 1975 slide lecture
Permalink
SustainableGreen Posted 10:54 am
15 May 2007
This is a very interesting description of two cultures and political systems, and I think the explanation actually goes beyond mere urban design.
It appears that many major cities in the U.S. have mass transit systems of some sort and extent, but it is major old cities mostly in the East, which have systems that have the significant use. A history and traditional acceptance of mass transit is important here. It would seem that in the U.S. if the city does not have that tradition, acceptance is much less assured. Ridership suffers.
On top of this we have the political domination of the U.S. by the corporate oligarchy, and all the resultant developments. Prime example: Detroit, the oil companies, and the tire industry were practically found guilty in the 1950s in their conspiracy to buy up and shut down mass transit systems in many cities, to their own economic benefit. They still rule, and BushCo.'s regressive retrograde stance on AGW is proof.
So yes, urban design is important but it follows political and public will. Canada has the proper will, the U.S. does not.
Interesting topic.
David
Sustainability For Life
Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun!
Permalink
Dawn Pillsbury Posted 10:57 am
15 May 2007
We rode Skytrain during a trip to Vancouver and, despite it being a day containing a freak snowstorm, the service was quicker, smoother and more reliable than BART. The conducters were very friendly and knowledgable.
Being able to ride Skytrain regularly would be nearly enough motivation for me to move to Vancouver if I was prepared to grow gills.
Permalink
ken1 Posted 8:23 am
16 May 2007
It also begs comparison with Calgary's "Ride the wind" CTrain -- don't forget to compare Vancouver to the rest of Canada.
However, as others point out, the main advantage is city planning. Dense urban infill development of a peninsula (like SF, NYC). Vancouver has NO freeways running into it either, and there are active plans for reducing further auto use by citizens.
Check out Vancouver's sustainability site here:
And while you're at it, check out how major US cities fare compared to Seattle and Portland -- here! http://www.sustainlane.com/us-city-rankings/
You can rate how your own city is doing at sustainlane.com (it's not officially built in, but add your city as a "local business/ngo" and later they should make the category)
For instance, Oakland:
http://www.sustainlane.com/listing/D4QZMPDIVS4BC8QUTFUP8S ...
Enjoy!
Permalink
ken1 Posted 8:30 am
16 May 2007
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 1:50 am
17 May 2007
mostly from its comparatively compact urban form.
Have you ever been to Vancouver? It's very densely packed...and when the city ends, it's mostly country -- no endless suburban sprawl. Note that there are no "Interstates" dissecting their city. A highway gradually gives way to a boulevard and other city streets....so there is no impetus for people to seek cheaper homes far from the city center and "commute" by car.
The only measure for the success of mass transit is population density. In Seattle, there is only one area that would meet the threshold for traditional mass transit to be successful: Lower Queen Anne.
In other words, the route of the old monorail, with it's two station route, is the only viable mass transit.
John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"
You Read It Here First
Permalink
Ausgewandert Posted 5:27 am
17 May 2007
Almost a year ago now I came over to Europe, since then I've been in 3 cities (Hamburg, Berlin and London). I live in Berlin. In comparison, Vancouver's transit system is horribly ineffective and slow. While I lived there, I always preferred to take a car because it was so much faster. I suppose that if you live in Burnaby or New Westminster, that it might be quicker, but Richmond(until the new line is done) and the more further out regions, hah, good luck. The buses run every 30 minutes and they are often late/stuck in traffic on the highway like everyone in their cars, except the bus takes a longer route in the end.
I'm not saying Vancouver is wrong, and I give kudos for them being better than their southern neighbours. But don't kid yourselves into thinking that it can hold a candle to Europe, its not even a match.
Permalink
Werdna Posted 3:56 pm
21 May 2007
There are some simple reasons why Vancouver's seeing a jump in public transit, but other cities aren't.
Transit in Vancouver proper is already pretty good, so most people who live here and don't use it to get to work are either lazy or bike.
Prices here are the most expensive in Canada, which are as a rule more expensive than the US. Currently, we are paying about $1.30CAD/L (maybe about $4.00 USD/Gallon). Three months ago, it was about $1.00CAD/L.
Translink (the transporation authority) has recently added about 50 brand spanking new electric buses all with bike racks, making riding a lot nicer.
So, what I am saying is that in Vancouver, there is the potential for lots of increase (already good transit), there is an impetus to do so (cost), and doing so isn't so bad (new infrastructure).
However, the outlying suburbs are incredibly under-served by transit. And this is an entirely different issue.
Andrew Eisenberg
The gateway project is wrong---http://www.livableregion.ca/blog/blogs/index.php/
Permalink