In Praise of Fast Transit, Vital to Spreading Equality of Access in Large Metros
Vancouver’s SkyTrain Credit: _photographer
There are many metropolitan regions that are small enough that they can be traversed in a half-hour by car, even when avoiding freeways altogether. These are places where the commuting times of workers are physically limited by the fact that there simply are not jobs past a certain point, and where traffic isn’t concentrated enough to ever make congestion a problem.
Places that fit these conditions—most medium and small American cities fit the bill—offer their inhabitants access to virtually all jobs in the metropolitan area via automobile.
But the biggest regions, with populations of one million or more, are often too large to provide such easy mobility to their inhabitants. Sprawling growth makes getting from one edge to the other a time-consuming experience, while urban density and over-used freeway networks make congestion a major problem. Despite their immense populations and huge number of job openings, the difficulties of getting around in these cities reduce employment opportunities for a significant part of the workforce.
New York’s Southeast Queens is a case in point: despite being relatively close physically to the huge Manhattan business districts, average one-way commute times among all workers from the neighborhood are upwards of fifty minutes. Few subway stations, expensive commuter rail options, and a circuitous bus network spell long journeys to work for the neighborhood’s inhabitants.
This problem—repeated across the country—is especially serious for the poorer sections of every region’s population because job growth is typically concentrated in a region’s “favored quarter,” where the wealthiest inhabitants live, often far from affordable housing. The suburban dispersion of the poor, an increasing problem in both the U.S. and Europe, doesn’t help matters much—in fact, it may actually contribute to increasing the difficulty of finding a job. Thus, for low-income people, having strong transit links from one side of a big region to the other is essential to preserving equal mobility across income classes.
From this perspective, it’s difficult to understand University of British Columbia Professor Patrick Condon‘s recent call for slow transit in his home town, Vancouver.
Focusing on the Broadway corridor, which connects the University of British Columbia to City Hall and the city’s SkyTrain rapid transit network, Condon suggests that the city has a choice: Build one seven-mile extension of the rail line, at a cost of $2.8 billion, or construct 110 miles of streetcars modeled on those in Portland, Oregon.
According to Condon, streetcars are the more sustainable solution because they encourage people to limit their daily travel distances and facilitate the creation of walkable urban environments. By spreading the streetcars across the city for the same price as just one rapid transit project, you can provide transportation alternatives for people throughout the city, rather than just in one corridor.
Condon’s philosophy is attracting mainstream adherents: After spending decades focusing almost entirely on providing transit capital funds to just the biggest, fastest projects, under the Obama Administration the U.S. Department of Transportation has show itself to be a big supporter of slow and cheap streetcars. Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood has already announced grants for such projects in New Orleans, Detroit, Dallas, Tucson, and Portland—and he has established a special $280 million grant program specifically for inner-city “circulators.”
These kind of transportation tools are seen as essential to encourage the kind of “livable” communities that are the current ideal of many urban planners.
But, as Jarrett Walker points out at Human Transit, this argument only goes so far. For one, streetcars, as Condon freely admits, are slow, sometimes slower than equivalent buses, meaning that they won’t necessarily expand the ability of anyone to get around. In opposition to rapid transit, they do not benefit from entirely grade-separated rights-of-way. Meanwhile, Walker suggests that rapid transit stations, with huge numbers of users at all times of the day, are actually often better than limited-use streetcar stops at spurring development around stops.
More importantly, though, the limited speed of streetcar-type vehicles inhibits equity of access within a large metropolis like Vancouver. By advocating streetcars, Condon is implicitly arguing that people should stay in their neighborhoods for most of their trips; that they should find work, go shopping, and be entertained in their near surroundings. If people have to rely on slow transit, they simply won’t have the time to be making trips across the region. (Or, of course, they might switch to driving their private automobiles, which would defeat the point of the transit investment entirely.)
Though this approach would likely produce better ecological outcomes (less energy consumption per person as a result of reduced transport mileage), it would exacerbate spatial inequalities. Because jobs (especially well-paid ones) tend to be concentrated in the favored quarter, poorer inhabitants living far away from that zone would be isolated from employment opportunities and thus be deprived of chances for income growth. Or they would face devastatingly long commutes.
In the case of Vancouver, because the University of British Columbia is situated at the far edge of the region, providing only slow transit access to it basically shuts out a huge percentage of the region’s population to its benefits. If the Vancouver metropolitan area were smaller, it could be argued that streetcars could allow quick-enough transportation, but Canada’s third largest city spreads out over a huge area. Speed is essential.
I do not intend to suggest that the ultimate goals espoused by Condon are inappropriate: it makes sense to try to limit carbon emissions through a reduction in the use of vehicular transport, and encouraging walkable communities should be paramount in planning decision-making. However, without equality of opportunity throughout a large metropolitan region, the lack of fast transportation options could ultimately act as a stumbling block in working towards improved access to all.
Yonah Freemark is an Urban Leaders Fellow, sponsored by the Rockefeller Foundation. He writes the Grassroutes column for Next American City. He also writes The Transport Politic blog. Contact him at yonah@americancity.org
Look Out? Building a BRT line in California is No Simple Matter
Improving Planning Decision-Making, Thanks to an Infusion of Foundation Funds
Trains on Your Schedule
Op-Ed: In lieu of practical public transit, Los Angeles resorts to flying during Carmageddon
Alon Levy in New York on Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 5:19pm
Don’t forget that the $2.8 billion estimate comes from Condon himself, not from a reputable source. By general first-world standards, $2.8 billion for 11 km of subway crossing under only one older line is on the high side.
Don’t forget that Greater Vancouver’s transit mode share is 16% and Greater Portland’s is 6%, either. Why Vancouver would want to imitate the unmitigated disasters of American transit, I’m not sure.
Lucy on Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 9:54am
Streetcar and light rail or other fast transit serve different needs. Comparing a streetcar trip to a car trip using the commuting-trip framework misses the point.
Streetcars get ridership in dense urban areas by providing a faster overall trip than private automobile. In a dense area, you have to get your car out of wherever it is parked and then, after a short drive, find another place to put your car. Streetcars allow you to skip both parking-pieces of the trip, and have the same travel time as a car, making your real origin-destination trip shorter. Obviously, if the parking ends of the trip are minor compared to the middle piece, streetcar would not be the preferred mode.(Streetcars also win on the cost and hassle factors of driving and parking in dense urban areas.)
Debating which transit mode is “better” in the abstract is as pointless as debating whether we need “roads” or “rail.” Most cities need a mix of transit modes as well as a mix of other modes to address the complexity of urban activities. For example, the article focuses on work trips as the target market and then concludes, unsurprisingly, that streetcars will not meet the goals of job access for work trips at rush hours across the region. That’s true, but doesn’t provide much guidance on the best transit plan for Vancouver.
Dustin Granville on Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 12:20pm
“By advocating streetcars, Condon is implicitly arguing that people should stay in their neighborhoods for most of their trips; that they should find work, go shopping, and be entertained in their near surroundings.”
I think this is a mischaracterisation; one that is typical for arguments these types of issues. Instead, Condon is arguing that people should BE ABLE, OR HAVE THE OPTION, to stay in their neighborhoods for most of their trips; that they should BE ABLE, OR HAVE THE OPTION to find work, go shopping, and be entertained in their near surroundings.
Anyway, at this point of auto-domination, it hardly makes sense to attack streetcars in favor of rapid, because both are steps in the right direction in terms of equitable access, and each has its role in the transit metropolis. Additionally, it seems to me that not only are streetcars and rapid transit not mutally exclusive, as you make it sound; but they are synergistic.
Dustin Granville on Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 12:46pm
BTW, I very much appreciate your posts and writings in general, and it seems like a good deal of thought and criticical thinking go into them. Your post reveals an interesting ‘wrinkle’ the debate on transport modes and access to opportunites.
Alon Levy in New York, NY on Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 9:37pm
Dustin, what Condon is arguing is that Vancouver should mothball Skytrain expansions and only build streetcars with short interstation distances, as a way of getting people to take slower trips. He’s not saying that people should have the option to shop in-neighborhood, which is a statement about mixed-use zoning and pedestrian access; he’s making a much stronger, and less supported, statement.
Antnon in Vancouver on Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 11:24am
Interesting perspective but at the same time misguided
Transit has to be affordable and sustainable. Translink in Vancouver is already nearly bankrupt - over $12Billion in expensive infrastructure has been build with a medium capacity system - maximum 6 small bus length trains or 2 large size articulated busses lenths to there is no capacity increase except running at head-ways to one minute - which is just silly.
We certainly believe that in inner city (down-town) areas a subway warrants - but if you know Vancouver there are many existing right of ways of the old street car system of the 30"s that are now decorated by an expensive elevated concrete guideway - jungle with stations that are over designed and decorated by a number of glass towers void of people interaction and people places - a very poor example of urban planning.
They key in the debate is the cost of skytrain technology at $12 per ride versus $3 per ride for surface light rail (running on dedicated and shared right of ways. That is a huge cost difference. If we want to get people out of the car - then bring surface light rail in and reduce car traffic to create safer communities. But Vancouver wants it both ways Transit and highways running though cities. The issue is that transit in Vancouver is getting so expensive that the economics to switch modes from car to transit - is still and will always be in favour of cars.
As to the cost of Skytrain - as a former transit - rapid transit planner - Dr. Condon’s cost is about right - we have studies from Translink that were completed several years ago that hint to that amount. Face it Skytrain is expensive and communities must take a fiscal approach to their transit decision making. Time to get to basics
Anton K
Anton K in Vancouver on Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 11:32am
Shalom Alon
I do not believe that Patrick Condon is stating we should mothball the existing lines - that is an expensive proposition - month ball them and replace them with surface light rail? No we as a community Patrick and our community organization are saying ?time to rain-in” excessive transit spending and any future rapid transit plans should look at more affordable, fiscally responsible rapid transit solutions. I expect that you do not live in Vancouver. get to know what is going on - sky train has fare evasion in excess of $10 miilion per annum, Translink needs to be bailed again and again not with a couple of million but we are talking about $100’s of millions. We all have to live within our means - Translink should do the same. If budgets are limited and the ability to raise taxes is getting limited - that is if you want to have some form of affordable transit - then cost must be reduced - building an gold plated system is not the way to go.
mezzanine in Vancouver on Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 7:23pm
@Anton K,
Remeber, the main reason translink (vancouver’s transit authority) has a structural deficit right now is the recent expansion of the bus fleet into lower density areas, not because of metro construction, as per the comptroller-general of BC:
http://www.fin.gov.bc.ca/OCG/ias/pdf_Docs/transportation_governance.pdf
“The majority of the $130 million structural deficit faced by TransLink is a result of factors other than Canada Line, such as the increase in the operational cost of the bus fleet, particularly into lower ridership, geographically sparse areas.
…
We were advised that the expansion strategy created increased operational expenses where additional services were added to less populated regions. Ridership and associated revenue are lower on these routes, yet the cost of operating a bus is relatively constant.
…
Significant savings will likely be realized only through service rationalization as bus operational costs are a significant proportion of total overall operational costs.”
I’m not saying improved bus service is bad, give credit where credit is due.
MB in Vancouver on Mon, May 03, 2010 at 5:13pm
I would rather see improvements to the existing 140,000+ daily ridership on the #99 B-Line and #9 electric trolley bus service than to have a billion bucks wasted on streetcars in the Broadway corridor that will garner very little transit improvement, if any at all.
Condon proposes a billion dollar transit solution for a human-scaled urbanism problem that could come from the far less expensive and much easier strokes of a zoning bylaw and urban design pen, without tossing the exisitng bus service. He simplistically proposes that streecars will lead to small-is-beautiful urbanism, as though Vancouver consists of a random collection of separate villages by the sea.
In fact, the section of the Broadway corridor in question passes through six highly-interlinked neighbourhoods (three of them with a high-density population) and one major university which is the second largest employer in British Columbia. Moreover, Central Broadway is an important regional destination for employment and services, notably the largest hospital and health care complex in Western Canada.
If one wants a major improvement to transit service in the Broadway corridor, then a subway extension of the Millennium Line (1 km stops) coupled with improved #9 trolley bus service (2 block +/- 400m stops) will provide the highest quality of service and will address BOTH regional mobility and local access. Whatever is wrong with a quality of service first approach?
If one wants better urbanism more than anything, then get into politics and write zoning bylaws design guidelines and stop pretending you are a transit planner.
But, oh yes, the busses streetcars would replace on Broadway aren’t sexy, and we gotta pay the price to rectify this “problem”. Well, in reality save the streecars and their cousins, surface light rail and commuter rail, for corridors that aren’t already at their maximum capacity and where they don’t foolishly replace existing high-frequency bus service.
MB in Vancouver on Mon, May 03, 2010 at 6:40pm
@ Anton:
“Transit has to be affordable and sustainable. Translink in Vancouver is already nearly bankrupt ...”
Yes, it must be sustainable and affordable, but that does not automatically default to streetcars in every case. All modes of transit (and walking and bicycling) have their rightfull place, and all should compete with the private car. Prof. Condon (note he does not have a PhD) proposes scrapping the idea of a subway and SkyTrain on a specific corridor (Broadway) as a sweeping promotion of good urbanism. This is apples and mangoes. One does not beget the other. Urbanism and transit are separate but cohabitating issues. A Broadway subway does not in any way, shape, form or time need to lead to bad urbanism unless city planners and developers allow it to. Likewise, the black hole called Metrotown could have just as easily occurred with light rail as it did with SkyTrain.
—————
“We certainly believe that in inner city (down-town) areas a subway warrants - but if you know Vancouver there are many existing right of ways of the old street car system of the 30"s that are now decorated by an expensive elevated concrete guideway ...”
Broadway does not have a parallel rail corridor. And given its high density, its existing maxed out surface transit, its role as Western Canada’s second most active CBD, and the equivalent of a small city at the western terminus, a subway is as justifiable there as it is downtown.
—————
“They key in the debate is the cost of skytrain technology at $12 per ride versus $3 per ride for surface light rail (running on dedicated and shared right of ways. That is a huge cost difference. If we want to get people out of the car - then bring surface light rail in and reduce car traffic to create safer communities. But Vancouver wants it both ways Transit and highways running though cities. The issue is that transit in Vancouver is getting so expensive that the economics to switch modes from car to transit - is still and will always be in favour of cars.”
The central issue in the debate is quality of service. Cost is secondary, but is constantly promoted to first place—at the sacrifice of better service—by those who cannot see beyond the flaccid history of transit funding by senior governments. If the federal government played a leadership role over the decades like every other industrialized nation, then it wouldn’t be an issue.
Private cars are by far the most expensive mode of transportation to the public purse, to the tune of around $3.5 billion every single year in subsidies in greater Vancouver ($2,700 per car per year times 1.3 million cars. Source: LRSP, 1996). Ever heard of public roads, car-dependent suburbs and accidents that suck the life out of publicly-funded healthcare, emergencey and legal services?
You want to get people out of their cars at a higher rate then ever before in Metro Vancouver, then build a subway to UBC, connect it to the Millennium Line for seemless service, improve the #9 bus route, build the Evergreen Line (SkyTrain or light rail, I don’t care) and save your streetcars, light rail, commuter rail and 1,500 additional buses we’ll surely need for the day we’ll see triple digit oil prices again for communities outside of the inner city.
Moreover, a Broadway subway will last at least 100 years, perhaps 150, and will see at least 75 years of debt-free service with low operating costs (driverless). Can you calculate the cost per rider for 2050 when we have two million additional people here? I didn’t think so. And, as someone said on another blog (Alon?), show me one subway that has depreciated anytime in its century-plus lifespan.
I calculated the cost to operate my ‘93 VW Golf rustbucket on a relatively modest daily commute. It’s $12.40 a day in private costs, and $7.40 a day in public subsidy, for a total of $19.80 per day.
SkyTrain at $12 per rider doesn’t sound bad to me, and it’s surely going to drop as ridership increases. No other corridor has such high potential as Broadway. BTW, Condon is on record saying the Canada Line costs $50 per rider, and a Broadway subway would cost $50. These, apparently, are numbers supplied without linkable references for the purpose of peer review. He has a habit of pulling numbers from the air, and has been questioned by transit planning professionals for doing so.
Dichotoman on Tue, May 04, 2010 at 7:09am
Nuts,
Rail Enthusiasm is no match for financial pragmatism.
You don’t build these rail systems because you want to be the best steward of the public’s money. They are almost never a good investment.
Read up on Randal O’Toole’s work in this area.
MB in Vancouver on Tue, May 04, 2010 at 12:52pm
@ Dichotoman. Road / Auto Enthusiasm is one of the least pragmatic things ever invented for moving a human being from A to B from every angle, financial pragmatism, energy efficiency, land use .......
Randal O’Toole and Patrick Condon sparred in the Vancouver Sun pages in 2007. O’Toole was invited to Vancouver by the right-wing Fraser Institute, northern cousin to the Cato Institute of which O’Toole is an alumnus. Both private institutes (which receive very generous tax breaks, yet they are not churches or charities) are well known for their work denying climate change and are funded by industry with interests against urban smart growth initiatives and reducing carbon dioxide emissions, amongst other things.
I regret not saving O’Toole’s op-ed piece, but this is a direct link to Condon’s response, which certainly provides insight into the feet of clay O’Toole’s ideas are founded upon:
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/editorial/story.html?id=c7539d92-1e27-4c06-82f7-2d084ba88960&p=2
Ironically, Condon cites the usefulness of Vancouver’s existing transit (largely electric trolley buses) and arterial grid, but has now gone on to promote the replacement of existing transit with trams with near total exclusivity:
“An analysis completed by the UBC design centre suggests that the Greater Vancouver region has 1,000 km of underused arterials in existing communities where more than 700,000 of these new units could fit. Here, they could take advantage of our EXISTING transit and utility infrastructure, dramatically increasing the efficiency of both.” [emphasis mine]
I responded to O’Toole’s promotion of car (and therein oil) dependency and the eradication of the BC Agricultural Land Reserve in the form of a letter to the editor that was published the same week. Only 4% of BC’s entire land mass is arable, and the most productive agricultural soils are on the Fraser River delta that bounds Metro Vancouver. To have an idealogue travel from another country to tell us to erase 40 years of progress and adopt more widely the 1950’s model of large plastic homes in single zoned sprawling neighbourhoods resting on some of the most productive food growing land in the world was repugnant. James Kunstler said that the suburbs represent “One of the greatest misallocation of resources ever conceived” for good reason.
O’Toole has totally discredited himself. Unfortuneately, we’ll have to wait another year or two for triple digit oil prices to sink the arguements promoted by people like O’Toole. Be assured that progressive initiatives like smart growth, energy conservation, and the preservation of agricultural land near cities will bear fruit before this decade is through.
MB in Vancouver on Tue, May 04, 2010 at 1:11pm
“BTW, Condon is on record saying the Canada Line costs $50 per rider, and a Broadway subway would cost $50.”
Correction: Canada Line at $25, Broadway subway at $50. Note that these figures supplied by Condon are suspect.
Dichotoman on Tue, May 04, 2010 at 2:42pm
Funny I didn’t say anything about smart growth, walkable cities, or automobiles.
Only that rail systems only work if they are subsidized by the non-user.
I am a user of rail mass transit, and I am against subsidizing rail mass transit.
The capital investment is simply too great to ever be offset by user fees.
I ride on a train that passes underneath two and three story townhouses. Massive massive investment to bore these huge tunnels underneath these townhouses that will never be torn down so the density of the neighborhood (and therefore the ridership of the mass transit) will never increase. (Unless of course you build more homes further out - aka sprawl) NUTS!
MB in Vancouver on Tue, May 04, 2010 at 6:03pm
@ Dichotoman. You mentioned Randal O’Toole, not me. O’Toole is all about cars and maintaining low density suburban sprawl while knocking investments in passenger rail and complete communities.
The Expo Line here in Vancouver is now 25 years old. It cost about $1.5 billion (1985 Can $). It has stimulated at least that value again in dense, transit-oriented development in four cities that is ongoing. It has been one of the most successful economic development instruments ever devised here, though I remain critical of much of the architecture and urban design of a lot of the projects. It has paid for itself, and has one of the lowest operating costs and highest frequencies of similar rail projects due to its driverless, computer-controlled trains.
Not all passenger rail projects are bad. Overall, I’d say they are preferable to freeways. O’Toole makes the reverse distinction, which is nonsense.
Eric Doherty in Vancouver Canada on Mon, May 10, 2010 at 1:37pm
Condon has done us a great favor here in Vancouver by making an extreme augment, it has drawn considerable attention to the multiple options available. Without his slow network Vs fast spine approach other more moderate views would not be the middle of the road compromise.
The fact is that frequent stop transit is not on the table for the Broadway corridor as a replacement for the 99 express bus service. What is on the table is surface rapid transit (electric trolley bus rapid transit or light rail rapid transit) - both with about the same stop spacing as the express bus. Both would only be slightly slower than a subway, but would likely be in service a decade earlier since they are much cheaper. See http://www.livableregion.ca/blog/blogs/index.php/2010/04/16/broadway_rapid_transit_alternatives_lack
With these options the Skytrain light metro will probably be extended to the Olympic Village station, mainly as an elevated line to keep costs down.
The $2.8 billion (that is straight from the provincial transit plan) subway option is now one of the extremes.
MB in Vancouver on Tue, May 18, 2010 at 11:52am
In Europe quality of service takes precedence over technology and cost, and therein they have some of the most diverse transit modes and urban orientations toward transit in the world, from multiple billion Euro high speed intercity and transcontinental rail to slow trams, buses, riverboats and bikes. I would also suggest their transportation energy consumption and trip costs on a per capita basis are lower that the Vancouver car-saturated average, though I have not done the research to prove this.
Unfortunately, the debate here is now purposely couched in terms of one technology mode and cost BEFORE service, especially on sites such as the livable blog whose editor(s) actively participate in censorship of comments that do not reflect their own biases, and do so in the guise of “keeping on topic”. That is the only transit and urban blog that I have ever encountered that practices censorship of ligitimate comments.
Broadway is very unique in that it has both slow local service needs AND a fast mobility requirement for longer trips (one should not preclude the other), not to mention higher densities and a plethora of tightly-spaced existing pedestrian crossings that need to be respected. This reality is without a convenient existing parallel surface rail corridor.
To me the solution from a transit service perspective is obvious: A subway to UBC (possibly surfaced in the UEL) with an improved #9 trolley bus service, including tight stop spacing. The $3 billion cost is not unreasonable when existing and projected demand, urban characteristics and service quality are duly considered.
MB in Vancouver on Tue, May 18, 2010 at 12:18pm
A comment on funding.
The anemic funding for public transit by senior governments is a convenient device used by the “trams above them all” (TATA) lobby. But I suspect that even they will be greatly surprised at how much tram lines on major corridors will cost, especially if built to heavier engineering standards to meet the greater urban resiliency required in a carbon constrained world.
Patrick Condon in past publications said that a Broadway subway will cost the equivalent of giving every UBC student a Toyota Prius, but he failed to follow up with a creative analogy (or rhetorical trick) on providing an equivalent tram service.
Let me priovide one: A tram service on Broadway will have a cost roughly equal to giving every UBC student a brand new Mini Cooper. It so happens Coopers are as expensive or even more so than Prius’s. What Condon forgot is that the operating costs of trams in high-demand locations are more than the operating costs of SkyTrain, notably in the unionized rates paid to drivers. This is not a knock against unions (I am a member of one myself), but just an illustration that construction costs are only half the story. Operating costs are the other half, and there is a direct link between operating costs and quality of service.
One must consider that a subway with SkyTrain driverless trains will last over 100 years, with about 70 amorization-free and low overhead years of service. Yes, the capital costs are higher than light rail—but not as high as TATA lobbysts wil make out —but that is followed up with decade after decade of low operating overhead.
Now, the fact that our provincial government purposely abuses and molds local transit authorities into an unworkable form, and shares guilt along with the federal government for a lack of financial support for transit isn’t a sign that we live in a poverty-stricken society. It is a sign that politicians have priorities that are anathema to the 21st Century requirement for a more sustainable and resilient world.