Decisions about where and when we make transit investments are some of the most important decisions facing our community today. Our choices will influence land development, travel patterns, the economy, public health and our very quality of life.
TriMet’s Transit Investment Plan (TIP) seeks to provide a framework for how transit investments will be made. The TIP is a five-year plan that is updated annually that establishes the priorities for where TriMet will expand service, on-street amenities and customer information. The TIP provides local governments with a guide for their planning processes so they can leverage our investment with transit-related infrastructure such as sidewalks and safe street crossings. The TIP is becoming the basis for partnerships to improve transit service and access to that service throughout the region. The 2005 TIP has just been released.
Our region has much to be proud of in the transit system we have today. Since 1998, TriMet boosted the number of Frequent Service lines providing 15-minute or better service, seven days a week, from four to 16. Today, more than half of all bus rides are on the Frequent Service network. Innovative partnerships in Washington County are adding new sidewalks, pedestrian islands and shelters to complement Frequent Service on TV Highway.
In May 2004, the Interstate MAX Yellow Line from the Expo Center to downtown opened four months early and served 3.9 million rides in its first year of operation. Weekday ridership is up 92 percent compared to the former bus line on Interstate Avenue and the number of business has increased by 50 percent.
These investments in our system are encouraging new riders to try public transportation. Overall, ridership increased 2.5 percent in FY2004, bringing the annual number of rides provided to 91.1 million. Our ridership is growing because we have made wise investments in the transit system, connecting people with jobs, recreational opportunities, shopping and to other people.
One measure of performance is to look at how we compare to other transit systems around the country. In terms of overall population served, we rank 29th in the country. However, in terms of number of riders, we rank 12th. On weekends, our ridership ranking is even higher, serving more riders than much larger transit agencies in Seattle, Denver and San Jose.
While we have been able to make significant transit investments in the past few years, we will not be able to expand service this year because of the continued slowdown in the economy. In addition, the high cost of diesel fuel is stretching our already limited resources. To address the ongoing budget problems we are doing three things. First, we are continuing to look for internal efficiencies. For example, we have made great strides in improving the fuel efficiency of our buses, to the point that we believe we are the most fuel efficient transit agency in the country. Second, we had a mid-year fare increase in April that will help offset record high diesel prices. Finally, we are making some strategic schedule changes and adjustments on low ridership trips to reduce costs while still meeting the needs of our riders.
Even with limited resources we have many opportunities on the horizon. We are finding new ways to improve customer service through innovations. For example, actual arrival time of buses at all 7,800 bus stops is now only a phone call away through our 503-238-RIDE line.
TriMet is committed to providing high quality transit service that meets the needs of all our riders. We will work hard and make good choices to maintain our quality of life and provide more transportation options for the entire region.
8 responses to “TriMet’s Transit Investment Plan”
Thanks for posting this.
In a quick scan, I didn’t see any notes about switching some of the bike racks on busses to carry three bikes (new rack designs provide for this). This is something our members mention to us on a somewhat frequent basis, as busses are often showing up with both bike spaces already taken.
Does TriMet monitor the usage of bike racks on busses? Are those numbers publicly avaiable?
Jaime Lerner, ex-three term mayor of Curitiba, Brazil (and two term governor of the state of Parana) visited Portland last month as part of the Illahee Lecture series. His administration created a rapid transit system based on new designs of high capacity buses using existing roads cleared of autos instead of fixed rail. He said they did this not because they thought it was better (at first) but because they had no money to even think about subways and light rail.
Given the changing attitude to funding transit on the federal level and general antipathy to higher taxes for just about anything, I wonder whether we should look at such a bus based rapid transit system to complete a network of high quality transit that could transition to rail over time or, if money remains a problem, be integrated into the light rail system.
On the radio right now (Oregon Business on OPB) they are discussing the impact of rising fuel prices on the economy of Oregon, stating that we are exporting 5% of our gross state economic product to pay for gasoline. And this is expected to rise considerably. What might seem radical today (clearing lanes of autos at rush hour to make room for high capacity buses) may become common sense when more people want to stop spending so much of their personal income just to get to work and the store.
The question is: Do we wait for the crisis to create public demand or do we make plans that will undoubtably create public outcry before the crisis arrives? When we are talking about 20 to 50 year plans, we are bound to find new and scary trends to wrestle with. Metro will soon begin a new process for updating the Regional Transportation Plan which we hope will allow the public to understand and help answer these tough questions.
Rex –
Take a look at aspects of the new “TIP” report. There are proposed “BTR-type” improvements for some frequent service lines, such as the 33.
The problem with BRT is that the cost savings are easily lost unless you sacrifice already existing lanes. (Look at the outcry when Interstate MAX took away vehicle travel lanes on Insterstate Ave.)
Basically, BRT boils down to this:
1. Long buses with multiple boarding doors.
2. “Station” style bus stops with ticket machines. (Similar to most MAX stations)
3. Dedicated right-of-way for a significant portion of the route.
With #1, the long buses carry about as many persons as a single MAX-style light rail car. If your capacity requirements are high enough that you need what a 2-car MAX train can provide, your labor costs and associated operations costs have doubled because you need 2 drivers where MAX only needs 1. Long buses are, of course, more specialized and more expensive (but still cheaper than rail cars) but don’t last as long as rail cars. Switch to using regular buses to save capital costs and well, your capacity gains are nil.
With #2, your station infrastructure, maintenance, and security costs are exactly the same as light rail. Take away the ticketing machines, then station dwell times become just as long as regular bus, much longer than rail.
With #3, if you take away existing lane capacity (anyone want to propose removing lanes from SE McLaughlin?), drivers become angry (just as some did with light rail on Interstate Ave…). If you build dedicated highway lanes for BRT, your initial capital costs go way up (not as high as rail, though), and long term maintenance of concrete/asphalt is more expensive than rail.
Take away any of those 3, and you don’t really have “BRT”, you just have “BT”. And if your do build all 3, and your “BRT” is successful, as cities that have tried this have already discovered, they wind up expanding their systems to rail anyway. (See: Ottawa).
The newest BRT system in the United States, by the way, is in Las Vegas. A couple of years of experience with their system should give us an idea of how BRT could work in other American cities.
– Bob R.
BRT was considered in the South Corridor study.
There is no realistic way to transition from Buses to MAX. You would have to shut down the BRT in order to install the MAX and once you have a huge BRT ridership that becomes unrealistic.
But the idea of bus only lanes is not that different than HOV lanes – you might even call them Very High Occupancy Vehicle (VHOV) lanes. I think the problems are the same as we had with HOV on the Banfield. It was politically difficult to defend semi-empty lanes and harder still to get them fully utilized immediately.
The one place where this might work is across a new I5 bridge from Vancouver. Having buses share the light rail corridor would make sense and allow for direct service from Vancouver to the airport and the Columbia Corridor where many of the trips across the bridge originate or end.
Of course if the freeway bridge is expanded there won’t be enough demand for that transit to make it viable.
Ross Williams July 22, 2005 06:02 PM:
BRT was considered in the South Corridor study.
There is no realistic way to transition from Buses to MAX. You would have to shut down the BRT in order to install the MAX and once you have a huge BRT ridership that becomes unrealistic.
JK:
Why would you want to go from a high capacity transit system to an overpriced toy like MAX? The highest capacity transit lane in the country is a bus line in NYC. I forgot the number, but it is one bus every few seconds – beats any rail by a wide margin. And it is fast, flexible and affordable, unlike toy trains.
End JK
But the idea of bus only lanes is not that different than HOV lanes – you might even call them Very High Occupancy Vehicle (VHOV) lanes. I think the problems are the same as we had with HOV on the Banfield. It was politically difficult to defend semi-empty lanes and harder still to get them fully utilized immediately.
The one place where this might work is across a new I5 bridge from Vancouver. Having buses share the light rail corridor would make sense and allow for direct service from Vancouver to the airport and the Columbia Corridor where many of the trips across the bridge originate or end.
Of course if the freeway bridge is expanded there won’t be enough demand for that transit to make it viable.
JK:
Well that says it all about transit:
If you let people have a choice transit loses!
And for good reason. People don’t like wasting their time, standing up, packed like sardines, against total strangers, making a 15 minute trip in ½ hour, in a hot, overcrowded cattle car, after waiting 10 minutes for the train to arrive, in the rain after driving to a park and ride because the local bus is slow and overcrowded, in anticipation of a 5 minute walk to their destination after getting out of the cattle car
Instead they prefer door to door service in air conditioned comfort with people of their choosing, listening to their favorite music and sipping their favorite drink. Even if the twits at Metro succeed in making the automobile slower than transit, transit will still lose because of this.
Build the freeway bridge and let the people be free!
End JK
JK: Why would you want to go from a high capacity transit system to an overpriced toy like MAX? The highest capacity transit lane in the country is a bus line in NYC. I forgot the number, but it is one bus every few seconds – beats any rail by a wide margin. And it is fast, flexible and affordable, unlike toy trains.
The highest ridership bus line in New York City is the MTA line # M15.
The combined M15 and M15 Limited (stops at fewer places along the line) deliver about 67,000 rides per day.
If you define “capacity” in terms of corridor ridership, the M15 does not carry as much individual NYC subway lines. Very, very impressive ridership for a bus line, yes, but not better than NYC’s rail lines.
In fact, right here in Portland, which is obviously quite a bit different from NYC, with a much lower population and much lower population density, the Eastside MAX Blue line (Gresham to Galleria) delivers 48,800 weekday rides. (In a corridor about 2.5X as long but with much, much lower population.)
But here is the interesting thing: The M15 is considered the bane of NYC commuters… they run many buses on short headways, so the wait times at stops are short, but the buses are caught up in NYC traffic, even with curb and lane improvements.
The M15 route is 6.1 miles long. At the 4-6PM rush hour, it takes a southbound M15 bus, travelling on 2nd Ave from 126th St. to Houston St. 73 minutes to complete the route. That’s a 5mph average. The “Limited Stop” M15 does a bit better at 60 minutes, a speed of 6.1mph.
Even in MAX’s very slowest stretch, Skidmore Fountain to Galleria, MAX moves twice as fast as that.
So, if you define “capacity” as passengers per mile per hour, MAX does better.
Not bad for a “toy train” in a medium-sized city.
JK: People don’t like wasting their time, standing up, packed like sardines, against total strangers, making a 15 minute trip in ½ hour, in a hot, overcrowded cattle car
Sounds like you are describing the M15, not MAX.
Incidentally, all MAX cars are air conditioned. The original series cars were updated to have air conditioning in the late 90’s.
– Bob R.
Ker-Snap! Booya!
Sorry.
I,m not sure this is the place to make my comments but here I go. I have complained to tri met about the foul laungage from our students who is our next generation. My grandson does not need to hear the N word over and over to the point we got off the bus.I live in the area of a popular high sch.I pray this message gets to Mr.Hanson.We need some help from your security to monitor the 54 & 56 line when the drivers are not allowed to do anything unless it is a threat