The following is a true story:
I swooped into Vancouver B.C. last Thursday for a 10 -hour reporting trip and by late afternoon was running 15 minutes behind for my last interview. So I called the interviewee’s assistant, said I was flagging a cab and that I hoped to be there soon.
Why not take the bus, she asked. I responded, uncertainly, what with waiting for the bus and travel time—the meeting was about 3 miles away–who knew when I’d arrive. Then I glanced up from the phone booth—yes I was calling from a phone booth, that’s another story—and saw the bus in question, the #8 Fraser, which, it then dawned on me, had passed by twice in 15 minutes.
One Hour Later
The interview was over, and I needed to find the nearest SkyTrain--Vancouver’s light rapid transit system that connects to YVR International Airport.
Hop the bus on the corner, and you’ll get there directly, advised the guy I’d been interviewing.
But I was in a rush and skeptical.
“How often does the bus come?” I asked.
“Every five minutes.“
So I walked outside and climbed straight onto the #41 bus, which deposited me at the Oakridge Centre station. I took the escalator underground, where a digital sign indicated the wait time for the next Canada line train to YVR– 3 minutes.
Coda
On Saturday, the Oregonian published a story about new PBOT director Tom Miller and his “true choice” transportation vision—which would include, among other things, more frequent bus service so commuters wouldn’t languish at pdx bus stops.
I don’t know how this vision intersects with Tri-Met’s recent history of service cuts. But I do know what the slogan for Miller’s new policy should be. Every. Five. Minutes.
I like the idea of every 5 minutes for buses on busy lines. But there is no way tri-met buses will be able to keep to this schedule if Portlanders do not learn to EXIT TO THE REAR! Yes, I am shouting. What is it about the back door that bus riders do not like?
Your concerns and experience highlight issues that are critical in designing a transit system and encouraging/supporting its use.
Americans have designed their cities to favor or virtually require auto use, and the auto has over time been transformed into an extremely comfortable and inviting environment in which to ride. Driving allows one self determination on departure time, route, and number of stops; a high degree of comfort; the possiblity of transporting large amounts of stuff, or other vehicles; the ability to take on passengers.
Therefore, for Americans to begin using transit on a major basis, transit must provide clear advantages over the auto.
A transit system must be reliable and timely, convenient, comprehensible, and cost saving.
I think that TriMet’s bus and light rail system could be improved in achieving these criteria.
Reliability: Is the system reliable in schedule? Are the busses/trains frequent? Are the times logical/predictable? Are the trip times appropriate or fast? Is there express service?
I believe that TriMet’s system is poor in achieving these criteria. Busses may be frequent, but are the frequencies are not easily knowable, as in every “x” minutes for example. Frequencies reflect commute times but otherwise they do not really reflect times of demand. For example the system does not respond to non-commute event times such as sporting events, restaurant/bar and entertainment business hours, class or other institutional schedules in a viable way.
Timely: Routes are not designed so that destinations may be arrived at in an acceptable travel time. Bus routes are serpentine and not logical. Connections are primarily made in the central Mall. Frequent stops favor connectivity and accessiblity of the system, but are a negative in terms of travel times. There is no express service. MAX in particular suffers from a lack of express service and a route/stop design through the city center that serves as a major bottle neck for regional use.
Convenience: Is the system easy to access, and make travel comfortable and pracitical?
I believe TriMet fares well in this regard. The system is easy to access, the stops are well distributed in the region, the vehicles mostly comfortable. Both busses and trains allow for bikes, and accessibilitiy. High ridership in peak hours makes for crowded vehicles, but this is in part an advantage, like a crowded party. Buying a ticket is relativly easy at MAX stops. Route maps and schedules are provided. Monitors provide information on bus/train timing.
Comprehensible: Is the system’s route design logical and contextural, and therefore easy to understand, visualize and remember?
I believe the bus route design could be improved to achieve this criteria. Bus routes should follow major streets, and should stay on those streets towards a logical destination. Veering off is disorienting. For example, the number 14 follows Foster, then, rather than continuing on Powell, re-orients to connect with Hawthorne. This route does not reflect how one would logically move in the city. Travelling to North Portland/St. Johns is a connumdrum. Routes are in-direct and illogical. Does one take the 4, the 35, the 44 or the 75? None of them adhear to the logical design of the street system, which in turn was based on topography, grid format, and nodes.
Moving east to west or diagonnally is difficult. Could one make the trip between NW and SE in a timely fashion? Take the 17 for example. It connects NW 21st to SE Holgate. What do 21st and Holgate have in common? 21st is a vibrant neighborhood street… more like Division or Clinton, or Hawthorne, than Holgate. Riders have behaviors and lifestyles…. hence someone who lives in NW is more likely to find activities and social connections on Hawthorne than Holgate.
The MAX system is far easier to understand by comparison. Routes connect major nodes, and are logically placed in terms of major street routes and/or topographical features.
Cost: Obviously using transit can save money over driving. But if one must still use a car for most travel, the transit related savings is diminshed, and comparitively less attractive. For a real savings to be achieved, one must be able to substitue transit for an auto on a regular basis. The auto then becomes something one borrows (car share or rental service) rather than owns.
The bus system could be greatly improved by designing, naming and branding routes based on major streets, neighborhoods, quadrants, or nodes. Each quadrant could have a color code. Each route would follow the most logical and continuous streets. Nodes and significant destinations would be featured stops. Names may be more important than numbers. Hence one might chose to take a bus to North Portland knowing that its destination is St. Johns, by name, and knowing that it will follow Willamette Blvd, pass UofP, and arrive in the town center. Hence the 44 might use Mississippi, Killingsworth or Alberta, Greeley and Willamette Blvd, to create a route connecting neighborhoods to shopping, universities and hospitals, restaruant and entertainment districts easily.
A Hawthorne route could highlight Mt. Tabor. A NW Portland route, could highlight Forest Park.
Color coding busses, maps, signs etc would make the system easy to understand such as Green for NW (Forest Park) Rose for SW (The Washington Park Rose Garden), Blue for St. John’s (two rivers, lakes and wetlands) etc.
In terms of schedules, I think both time/activity sensitive scheduling and express service is critical. Bus and Max service should respond to work hours, to school hours, to entertainment schedules (sports/theatre/movie and event times; restaruant/bar closing times,etc.) Hence high frequency would occur in the am and pm at rush hour, but again around 7pm and mid-night to 2:30 am. It is possible that routes could be established based on times as well… What about Pub routes, that are specific to districts such as Mississippi, Alberta, NW Portland, and downtown, where there are large concentrations of venues? How can routes connect residences and schools in time and route?
Finally, express service for MAX is critical. The system is designed such that this may be difficult to achieve, given limitations of ROW, headways of trains, and so on, but I believe that these are problems to be addressed, not reasons to dismiss the idea or need.
Taking the train to the airport is an exercise in frustration. It is quicker to walk through downtown with luggage in hand, than ride the train.
Long trips, such as downtown to Hillsboro Governement Center can be made in comparable time by bike as by MAX.
Portland has focused on making bike use easier, and the increase in bike ridership is directy related to these efforts. The city and region needs to apply this type of energy, and creative thinking to the transit system.
You have just described a real “frequent” service system, not every 15 minutes as TRIMET used to brag about.
Frequent means every 8 minutes or less!
Service less frequent than that is NOT frequent service!
Rick,
A comparative history of pdx bike and transit activism would be an interesting read. Transit activism in this town seems to revolve around light rail, which only serves a limited constituency–not to mention, as you point out, that MAX is egregiously slow for a 21st century urban mobility system.
I live in the Olympic Village in Vancouver BC. I absolutely love the place.
It takes 8 minutes by fast walk to get to the Canada Line Olympic Village station. Add another 20 minutes for the trip to the airport by automated train and you’re done.
I used to drive to Vancouver International Airport. Driving like a maniac got me there in 30 minutes, and public transit is now faster. Not by much, but faster.
I LOVE OUR TRANSIT SYSTEM AND YOUR AMTRAK. I’m also a train junkie. There’s an Amtrak that takes four hours from Vancouver to Portland and vice versa and the Amtrak service is sensational. Same time as driving, and rivals flying.
Gotta love it.
I’m Jhenifer and I work for TransLink, the transportation agency in Metro Vancouver — and I just wanted to say it’s fantastic to hear our service worked so well for you!