Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I used to live in Chicago, and the CTA L system is the benchmark I look to when it comes to rail transit in a city. Currently, I live in Denver, and am very excited about the new RTD lines opening this year. I've heard that Portland's system is pretty good and almost in the same league as CTA's, and Seattle's is in its infancy. Between Portland's MAX system and post-Fastracks RTD, which do you think will be the better rail network? How do you think Seattle will compare to these two cities when/if its rail network is completed?
I vote for Denver. They got several rail lines, including a commuter line to the Airport and will someday have a circumferential line. Portland is enthusiastic about transit but mostly for close in locations. Of course its growth boundary limits distance. Seattle's growth potential appears to be to the east, yet no commuter or light rail is planned to serve the eastern suburbs.
Last edited by pvande55; 05-01-2016 at 06:18 AM..
Reason: Speling
Seattle relies, and will continue to rely, heavily on buses. I'm less familiar with Denver but several of pvande55's statements are factually incorrect regarding Seattle. First is the growth potential comment. In 2014, 80% of population growth in King County (which includes all of the southern and eastern suburbs but not the northern ones like Lynnwood) was in Seattle. The fastest growing areas are downtown area and Ballard and U District/Ravenna and not the eastern suburbs. There's not only plans to add light rail to the eastern suburbs but those plans are already in construction. Even when East Link and North Gate, both in construction, along with Lynnwood which is the final planning stages are completed, though, they aren't really going to alter that. There's no plans for a north-south lines that would run through Queen Anne/Fremont/Ballard/Phinney area. You couldn't really hit them all with one route anyway. West Seattle likewise, no plans. Instead those will be covered through expansions of the popular and much more cost-effective RapidRide bus system. For the too good to ride a bus types, Seattle's transit system won't work that well. It's doable but very much limits the neighborhoods you can go to.
Portland right now is pretty busy trying to pay for what it has. I don't think you'll see any expansions. The tax measures for them keep getting rejected which isn't all that surprising given they're squawking about how they'll be cutting bus service by 60% over the next ten years at the same time they put the hat out for more money to expand. It's more a figure out how to pay for what we have environment than an expansion one in Portland at the moment.
I've heard that Portland's system is pretty good and almost in the same league as CTA's,
Having lived in both cities I can tell you most assuredly nothing can be farther from the truth. Portland's public transportation service has been and is constantly being cut back. The best service exists for morning and evening downtown rush hour commutes only. Unlike Chicago's 24/7 service to just about everywhere, if you want to rely on getting around on it for anything other than that you will be very disappointed. Service during off hours is slow if it exists at all and there are only a couple of cross town buses. So one often has to got downtown and out again if the trip is to an area that parallels the original starting point. Then you have to hope there is a bus that serves the area to which you want to go from downtown. Think of a switchback trail.
Also, the best bus lines run in the most upscale high rent neighborhoods. Living downtown is the best option because most bus and light rail lines begin and end there so that's the place to be. The farther out you go in the city, and it doesn't have to be very far at all, the worse it is served by the public transportation system.
The light rail is good only if you live nearby or can manage to find a parking space in the ever more crowded parking lots.
FWIW, this is coming from someone who used Tri-Met for nearly forty years (38) while living in Portland and never owned a car so it's my own experience as I watched service decline over time. I lived in Chicago for around 30 years, (I was born there) and took public transportation there since I was a kid when my mom first took me on the streetcars.
Comparing Tri-Met to Chicago's massive CTA system is like comparing a diamond to a grain of sand.
The Census ACS shows a big lead for Seattle in transit commute share vs. either Denver or Portland, whether you count core cities (19% for Seattle vs. 10-12% IIRC for the other two?), counties, or metros.
That's the utility of buses vs. the sexiness of systems that are more train centered. I like trains too, so vote Denver and Portland higher than their ridership would suggest, but not above Seattle.
It's also about density. Denver and Portland are at a substantial disadvantage vs. Seattle in terms of the dense, transit-centered districts. This is a moving target because all three cities are booming with infill, but again, for core districts Seattle is doing the most of that as well.
Another factor is where higher ed is located. Everyone has close-in colleges and universities (PSU, Auraria, etc.) but the University of Washington is a different scale. In fact it's also grown heavily recent decades while it's had a policy of not adding parking and instead focusing on transit aided by the U-Pass, and most people arrive by transit, bike, or foot.
How do you think Seattle will compare to these two cities when/if its rail network is completed?
I think Seattle is the poster child for cases where fixed rail is a costly and ineffective transit solution. In addition to prodigious natural barriers not shared by either Denver or Portland (deep Puget Sound on one side, deep Lake Washington on the other, a big freshwater lake in the middle, and more hills than San Francisco) the city's density falls like a rock once you're outside the current system corridor (including the UW and Northgate areas), so the sort of high-density origin/destination points needed for effective rail solutions don't exist. As with any transport system, the "last mile" is a huge issue in Seattle, compounded by the geographic features mentioned above.
Case in point, the core of Seattle's current employment growth is in an area wholly excluded from fixed rail planning. With current (voter-dependent thus doubtful) expansion planning, this area (South Lake Union) won't receive rail access until 2030 (translated, 2040+ given the transit agency's track record) by which time the area might very well have matured and gotten obsolete itself. What happens when Amazon goes all e-commute, or the brogrammers marry off and have kids? There are no new schoolrooms planned in Seattle, no multi-bedroom housing being built in the city... Lots can happen in 20 years, y'know. Like a lot of mature cities, the "traditional" downtown Seattle CBD (the current hub for all the transit spokes) is becoming more a residential than an employment core. Want to get to SLU from Bellevue in 10 years? Bus, train, trolly, or bus, train, hike a mile. Ain't gonna happen with two or more mode splits.
A couple of miles away, a major Bellevue employer, Expedia, has purchased an empty complex built for Seattle's last "boom" industry, biotech, on the city's waterfront. When all of those employees go to work in a couple of years, that site, too, will still be 20 years away from rail transport.
Buses, meanwhile, have near infinite flexibility and scalability, don't require a dozen years of engineering and right-of-way acquisition, and can be on the road in months rather than decades. A little paint, signage, computer signalization, and you've got BRT corridors that don't depend on grade separations, tunnels, pricey stations with escalators and geegaws, etc.
The losers in this scenario? The engineering and environmental firms, the lobbyists and contractors who will profit from the billions of dollars the taxpayers will cough up. Plus ça change...
Having lived in both cities I can tell you most assuredly nothing can be farther from the truth. Portland's public transportation service has been and is constantly being cut back. The best service exists for morning and evening downtown rush hour commutes only. Unlike Chicago's 24/7 service to just about everywhere, if you want to rely on getting around on it for anything other than that you will be very disappointed. Service during off hours is slow if it exists at all and there are only a couple of cross town buses. So one often has to got downtown and out again if the trip is to an area that parallels the original starting point. Then you have to hope there is a bus that serves the area to which you want to go from downtown. Think of a switchback trail.
Also, the best bus lines run in the most upscale high rent neighborhoods. Living downtown is the best option because most bus and light rail lines begin and end there so that's the place to be. The farther out you go in the city, and it doesn't have to be very far at all, the worse it is served by the public transportation system.
The light rail is good only if you live nearby or can manage to find a parking space in the ever more crowded parking lots.
FWIW, this is coming from someone who used Tri-Met for nearly forty years (38) while living in Portland and never owned a car so it's my own experience as I watched service decline over time. I lived in Chicago for around 30 years, (I was born there) and took public transportation there since I was a kid when my mom first took me on the streetcars.
Comparing Tri-Met to Chicago's massive CTA system is like comparing a diamond to a grain of sand.
What is the general frequency of trains in Portland? Here in Denver, it's usually every 15 minutes at best and every half hour at worst, and some of our newer lines are limited to 15 minutes by design because there are sections where there's only one track. This was definitely a disappointment for me after having lived in Chicago.
Portland right now is pretty busy trying to pay for what it has. I don't think you'll see any expansions. The tax measures for them keep getting rejected which isn't all that surprising given they're squawking about how they'll be cutting bus service by 60% over the next ten years at the same time they put the hat out for more money to expand. It's more a figure out how to pay for what we have environment than an expansion one in Portland at the moment.
Portland is actually in the planning stage for a new line in the southwest corridor, granted it will be years before construction ever begins, but it is in the works. Also right now Trimet is now updating it's current system to help with on time numbers and reduce issues they have been having recently.
I haven't heard anything from Trimet about cutting bus service by 60% over the next 10 years, do you have any links or information about that? That seems like some very steep cuts to make for a system that is really good as it is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sidburn
What is the general frequency of trains in Portland? Here in Denver, it's usually every 15 minutes at best and every half hour at worst, and some of our newer lines are limited to 15 minutes by design because there are sections where there's only one track. This was definitely a disappointment for me after having lived in Chicago.
Portland runs at every 15 minutes with two car trains. Seattle does a more rapid system that varies depending on time of day with the busiest time being under 7 minutes a train and running 3 car trains. The Seattle system runs more like a modern day rapid transit line.
I vote for Denver. They got several rail lines, including a commuter line to the Airport and will someday have a circumferential line. Portland is enthusiastic about transit but mostly for close in locations. Of course its growth boundary limits distance. Seattle's growth potential appears to be to the east, yet no commuter or light rail is planned to serve the eastern suburbs.
Makes you wonder why they're even bothering to open the first branch of it this summer. I mean, who's going to use it?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
