La Paz Gondola’s Amazing Numbers

On the 2nd anniversary of La Paz, Bolivia’s gondola system they shared some numbers. And they’re amazing (quoted from the article, emphasis mine):

  • 43,248,826 passenger trips between May 29, 2014 to March 31, 2016 (22 months)
  • ~60,000 riders per day with a daily network record ridership of 162,465
  • At 10km (3 lines), it would be tied with the Newark Light Rail as one of America’s shortest American rapid transit lines.
  • However, it transports more daily passengers than 72% (26) of Light Rail Transit/Streetcar systems in the US
    6,500 daily boardings per kilometre. In comparison, this mean that Mi Teleférico’s average daily boardings per kilometre is 17% greater than the highest average daily boardings per kilometre for LRTs in the US (Boston’s MBTA light rail: 5,368)
  • 99.3% availability (Red Line: 99.4%, Yellow Line: 99.2%, Green Line: 99.3%)
  • 2 accidents on cable car (due to falling tree and user behaviour) vs. 9,181 traffic accidents in La Paz (2015)
  • >100% farebox recovery ratio / 0% subsidy. Median farebox recovery ratio in US stands at ~35%
  • ~US$21 million in revenue (Bs150 million)
  • ~US$500,000 in tax contributions (Bs3.6 million)
  • ~US$1.3 million in advertising revenue (Bs8.9million)
  • 1397 direct jobs generated
  • 4899 indirect jobs generated
  • Time Savings: 1,200 years (2015)

The city is planning to expand from 3 gondola lines to 10.

Jobs Belong in the City

Modal Split Snip

Last week Matthew Johnson posted an excellent piece regarding Regional Growth Centers and why Ballard isn’t one.  The short answer is that Ballard doesn’t have enough employment, and losing this classification amounts to losing 100s of millions of dollars in federal transit funds.  In other words, there’s a large financial incentive to would-be Regional Growth Centers to add jobs.

I argue that this is a backward incentive.  Job growth outside of the core is fundamentally poorly served by transit in our hub-and-spoke system (just try to get to Ballard from the East side, or the islands, or even from some places north on transit).  But what’s worse is that job growth outside the core helps build sprawl.  People choose housing based on a combination of lifestyle, cost, and transportation ease.  Make it easier and cheaper to live further from the city, and builders will build further from the city.  Every job added to a suburb, even a Regional Growth Center style suburb, potentially adds a home further out into sprawl.

King County should remove this job-based requirement, and let growth centers be centers of residential growth.

Bring Gondolas to the Georgetowns

There was a great article in CityLab last week about Washington DC’s Georgetown and how it would be a great idea to add a gondola.  Comparing it to a streetcar:

“For half the price [of a streetcar line], a gondola running down K Street could serve seven times the capacity. A gondola could deliver people at twice the speed at rush hour. It could be built in a fraction of the time.”

Which sparked an idea to bring a gondola to our Georgetown in this Washington.  The Georgetown neighborhood in Seattle is a bit rough, but has many of the right components for a walkable center – small slow crocked streets, retail with narrow storefronts, a community college, breweries, interesting historic sites, and a chocolate factory.

So here’s the idea.  Run a gondola from Georgetown to Othello Station, with a stop at the main entrance to Boeing Field and a stop at Van Asselt Community Center on top of Beacon Hill.  This would give our city easier access to Georgetown, it would connect Boeing Field with Seatac by transit, and would give Beacon Hill residents a new route down to Link.

This of course is just one of many east<–>west connections we can make in Seattle that could make sense.

(FYI: 12mph at 1.8 miles that’s a 9 minute trip end to end, maybe with another 3 minutes worth of slowdowns at stations)

A Gondola Amenity Station for SLU

It looks like Bogota may copy Medellin’s concept of putting community amenities at gondola stations.  These include libraries, community centers, police stations, medical clinics, theaters and other community amenities that the neighborhoods needed anyway.  Although this adds* to the apparent cost of a gondola line, it spreads out the reach of these community resources, and gives some cost savings in combining two projects into one.

I think a similar strategy would be a great idea for the Queen Anne – SLU – Capitol Hill line.  The Capitol Hill station would connect to a light rail station and the Queen Anne station would land in one of Seattle’s largest amenities.  But South Lake Union is a new and quickly growing neighborhood without any amenities at all.  It could use a school, a library, or a community center.

And I should add that this strategy could also be useful for other forms of transit.  It would have been nice to add something on top of the Beacon Hill station, for example.

* This is an understatement.  “Only 6-7 % of the total cost of the Metrocable went to the transit system and infrastructure itself.”

A Quick Trip to SF

Streetcar Instrument Panel

Lessons from SF’s transit system from a trip this weekend:

1. Love the streetcars on the Embarcadero. Old, beautiful, and every one is packed. Unless there’s some bottleneck in capacity they need more. They were somewhat infrequent, which is strange when trolleys are leaving passengers on the curb.

2. Ditto cable cars. But I’m sure if they could add cars to the line they would.

3. Found myself being a change fumbler on the streetcar. Didn’t have enough change ($2.25), so I put in a $5. The bus driver said I way overpaid and should have asked her first (not clear what she could have done – sign says “exact change”). Gave me two transfers – as if that helps me. Lesson: at least for tourists, cash payment can be good. I paid more than double (happy to do so), and didn’t actually cost any time (stood aside while I figured this out).

4. After I paid my $5, a woman behind me handed me a handfull of change and asked me to pay it and get her a transfer. Dropped it in the slot and it was $0.47. Driver asked who did that and passenger just looked down until another passenger pointed her out. Then she asked for a transfer and the driver said “not for $0.47!” Lesson: yeah, stuff like that happens everywhere.

5. Bike share! Because my family was on the streetcar I had just missed, I thought I’d rent a bike (rack is at the station) and try to catch up. It was $9, but would have been worth it for the experience. After having to press countless buttons including my phone number, zipcode, etc (all on an unresponsive touchscreen) the next streetcar was approaching and I cancelled out (which still took 3 unresponsive button presses).  Lessons: Price not competitive, user interface needs a lot of work and lost me as a customer.

Potential Gondola Ridership

El renacimiento de los teleféricos

For every gondola idea I’ve posted here I’ve been careful not to plan a line in the same place where it would make sense to build rail. A subway is more permanent, faster*, and generally has much more capacity than gondolas. Yes, gondolas are potentially much cheaper, but cost shouldn’t trump good design if we can afford it. Because of this, I think gondolas are best run as feeder branches to a subway system, or on its own in areas that doesn’t make sense for rail.

This said, I would like to call your attention to the city of La Paz Bolivia, and its first gondola line, Línea Roja. In their opening month they served 1,000,000 passengers, or around 36,000 riders per day. This is well beyond Seattle’s Central Link’s opening numbers, and it took Link over 5 years to reach one million riders in a month. La Paz is on course to build a total of 8 lines.

Of course there are a dozen reasons this line isn’t comparable to Link, or anything we would build in Seattle. And it hasn’t changed my opinion that gondolas belong mainly as branch feeder lines if we can afford real grade-separated rail. But occasionally the issue of capacity comes up, and I think La Paz shows we don’t have to worry about it.

* depending on frequency and distance

Seattle with an 80m Sea Level Rise

There was recently a Grist article about Andrew Thaler’s easy technique to visualize sea level rise.  His maps show the near complete loss of some cities with the worst-case 80m sea level rise.  This is roughly the level at which the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have completely melted, along with the world’s glaciers. I’m not a climate scientist, but WUnderground has a good description of the current (3.1mm/yr) and predicted future sea level rise.  They describe the IPCC’s prediction for “most likely” rises of 0.8 to 2 m by 2100.  I include this to say the 80m level is a long, long time from now and only if things go terribly wrong.  But for entertainment purposes, here is Seattle at 80m sea rise, with more after the jump:


Boeing Field no longer looks like the best use of land.

Continue reading “Seattle with an 80m Sea Level Rise”

The Seattle Transit Gender Gap

Earlier today Frank posted an article about designing cities to help serve women and their transportation needs.  I thought I’d take a look at numbers for Seattle’s current mode splits.  All numbers are from the 2012 American Community Survey, and the percentages you see are the total number of commuters of a given mode and gender over the total number of commuters of any mode in that gender.

First, let’s look at the similarities.  There are similar numbers of commuters overall, with only 7% more male commuters than female (189,929M, 176,274F).  Male and female Seattleites drive in almost identical proportions (49.3%M, vs. 49.2%F).  They walk to work in similar proportions (10.1%M, 9.7%F), and work at home in similar ratios (7.2%M, 6.8%F).  But when we start looking at transit, the numbers start diverging.

Looking at “public transportation” as a group, women are well ahead of men (21.5%F, 18%M), and they keep this advantage when looking at buses in particular (20.5%F, 17.4%M) and “subway or elevated” (0.5%F, 0.3%M).  Even carpools have women leading men (9%F, 8%M).

Where men lead in alternative commutes is bicycling (5.6%M, 2.5%F) and taxis (1.8%M, 1.3%F).

Of course, one weakness of the ACS is that it only tries to capture commutes.  Like Vienna, it seems common in Seattle to have traditional gender roles of women running more errands than men, which might explain the 7% difference in number of commuters.  I’d love to see a study here that captures all trips, not just commutes.

As an aside, I’ve always found it interesting that our STB meetups seem to have many more men than women, and all of our regular writers here are men.  Considering women dominate Seattle’s transit scene, it’s strange that we’re missing out on the female perspective or even a female voice.  If you have something to contribute, send it to us at contact@seattletransitblog.wpcomstaging.com.

Camping by Bus: Tolt MacDonald Park

Container
Shipping Container Cabin

Living in the Seattle area means having access to nature, even by bus.  There are blueberry farms you can ride to, hiking trails, and recently I discovered a campground with a bus stop at the entrance.

King County’s Tolt MacDonald Park is unlike any campground I’ve experienced.  It’s very close to the Seattle area, and just outside the city limits of Carnation.  From the campsite it’s a 13 minute walk to the grocery store, complete with Starbucks.  I wouldn’t be surprised if pizza delivery was available. Continue reading “Camping by Bus: Tolt MacDonald Park”

New Technology might make Queen Anne Subway Station Easier to Build

VSM

Girona, Spain – Shaft excavation under extremely confined conditions.

Last year King County tried out a new technology for the first time on US soil in Ballard. It’s called a Vertical Shaft Machine (VSM), and it’s a little like a Tunnel Boring Machine (TBM), but gravity makes the process easier. A TBM is a complicated machine that bores horizontally, pushing its way forward, carrying dirt out the side, and carrying concrete sections in. A VSM, however, can remove soil using a pumped water slurry. Also, concrete sections are simply added to the top, dropping down as the machine digs deeper. This results in a much simpler operation than a TBM, yet one that’s faster, safer, and requires a smaller footprint than traditional shaft construction. King County Project Representative Marty Noble says “In the 35 years I’ve been in this business I’ve never seen a shaft constructed in such difficult soil and ground water conditions and turn out as well as this one.” He says that caisson shafts are normally limited to 60-70 feet in depth but the VSM shaft was 150 deep and is “the best looking shaft I have ever seen.”

The Ballard shaft was only 9 meters wide, but could such a technology be used for building subway tunnels? The shaft built to reach the Beacon Hill station was 15 meters wide. Sebastian Berblinger of Herrenknecht, the maker of King County’s VSM, says that they currently build 16 meter wide VSM’s and have plans for up to 33 meter VSMs in the research and development stage. Sebastian tells me that a 16 meter wide VSM can generally build an 85 meter deep shaft, which would more than cover the depth we’d need for a Queen Anne station (Uptown has an elevation of around 43 meters, and the top of the Counterbalance is around 114 meters). And it could build it fast – up to 5 meters deep per work shift. VSMs have been used to build subway lines in Italy, Russia, and a high speed rail line in Spain.

Of course there would be other technical issues with a deep subway station such as elevator speed and capacity. But it’s encouraging that this new technology has the potential to make the physical depth of construction a smaller problem.