HYN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We need to make investments into transportation infrastructure but the big issue is how to pay the capital cost and the grim reaper - the on going maintenance cost.

We all can see that the cost of most transportation infrastructural investments are going up in cost at a greater rate then inflation.

This tells me that if well thought out and justified projects that reflect a real return on investment are delayed we maybe making a terrible mistake by not coming up with the finances and moving ahead. I am just a pragmatic conservative!

In Portland, UR Districts have been used to jump over the financial road blocks and fund significant transportation projects but is has been at a cost.

Sam Adams has proposed Halo type LID's that cover a greater number of properties.

We can use the standby "Gas Tax" but it has been a hard sell.

We can use Vehicle Registriation Fees, not tax ha, ha!

We can use incidents of travel fees that can be charged to each property and/or entity for access to properly maintained streets.

I'd like to see a discussion of the viability of continuing to allow high density development in neighborhoods already stressed by a shortage of parking, without requiring new parking infrastructure if that development is within 500 feet of transit.

I think 2007 will be one of the biggest years in PDX history. Decisions on the Columbia River Crossing final package; the I-405 Loop study by the city is due in October; the state is working the Dundee Bypass/I-205/Sunrise study; the start of major construction for MAX on I-205; the decision on the next streetcar expansion.

Busy Year!

Plus less funding is coming from a federal government that hasn't balanced a budget in five plus years.

The decision on tolling will be the biggest decision of them all.

Ray

Reuters has an article on controlling traffic in Paris (aiming to reduce pollution) by using transit (particularly light rail) as a way to reduce the amount of road surface. It has reduced car traffic and annoyed cyclists while avoiding a congestion tax (which would have raised money for the city). A decent example of how not to operate, I think.

Reuters article: "Paris seeks to squeeze drivers out of city"

I found this particular paragraph in the Reuters article rather interesting:

"The tram, which opened earlier this month, is a key project of Paris Mayor Bertrand Delanoe, a Socialist, and his Green deputy in charge of transport policy, Denis Baupin, in their bid to force drivers out of their cars and onto public transport."

It sounds similar to what I have called the "socilaist agenda" of PDOT and the City of Portland to control the way people live and move about.

One of the buzz words that continues to run a drift in today’s politics is “sustainability”. But left out of the sustainability framework is forward financial thinking. With all the subsidies and tax breaks being handed out by the government, the percentage of people paying transportation taxes and land owners paying property taxes in narrowing.

Every time a person rides a bicycle or uses transit instead of driving, they help themselves to a subsidy rather than helping to pay for the pavement they are moving about on. Every time a developer is granted a property tax abatement, or property tax dollars are siphoned off for urban renewal, it has a negative impact on schools and other city services.

With the population in the Metro area growing in leaps and bounds, there is a growing need for more transportation infrastructure and increased government services. Instead of adding taxes on a narrowing the tax base, the tax base must be broadened. That means the inclusion of bicyclists being directly taxed to pay for bicycle infrastructure, transit users paying a greater share of the costs of providing transit service and motor vehicle taxes being redirected to pay only for motor vehicle infrastructure. Each mode of transport must come closer to financial self-sustainability to pay for the infrastructure used. It means that property tax abatements must be eliminated, new development must be financially self-sustainable and the land mass in urban renewal districts must be reduced to truly blighted areas. Furthermore, financial sustainability it must mean that large corporations pay a larger share of the revenue collected at the state level - far greater than the current five to six percent of total revenue collected at today’s level. Financial stability to obtain financial self-sustainability requires a market based economy, not the current propped up and subsidized economy Portland and Oregon now have.

The debate over who gets the larger subsidy, individual motor vehicle users or transit, bike and pedestrian facility users, is stale.

I think a discussion of how to realistically create alternative transportation connections to job centers in the suburbs would be a good topic. The discussion of light rail/street car to Kruse Way seems to ignore the question of how someone would get from the transit stop to their ultimate destination. Or where they would go to lunch without a car to take them there.

In Damascus the region has the chance to use land use to concentrate job development where high quality transit is achievable. But what about the existing isolated suburban office parks. Perhaps the next street car should be in the Sunset Corridor.

Ross W., Damascus boundries are very large and what Metro has put into place with this push of the UGB out into this area is criminal.

My wife and I just drove Sunnyside Road from I-205 out to Damascus and took the loop back using the 212/224 corridor. It is not preaty but this is what we get from Metro. Thank god for what Clackamas County has done with their investments into Sunnyside Road.

The proposed Sunset Corridor is desperately needed and their is ROW dedicated for rail/transit in it. I would like to see it as commuter rail in this corridor and have it go all the way to Sandy initially and then get extended up the mountain. This can get people out of cars in Highway 26 in the long run.

It is not preaty but this is what we get from Metro.

As far as I know, Metro hasn't done anything in Damascus other than include it within the UGB. All the planning and current development has been managed by Clackamas County, including the transportation planning. Some of that is now going to be turned over to the new City of Damascus, created by the voters there.

My point was that Damascus can avoid the problems in other suburbs by integrating a multi-modal transportation system into the land use plans. Existing suburban development doesn't have that luxury.

There are a lot of suburban job centers that are basically inaccessible to those who use transit. Even where the transit is there, many lack the pedestrian facilities to connect the job centers to them. And their isolation from other commercial centers makes an auto mandatory to access other services.

Has the thought ever occurred to anyone on this board that maybe a good majority of people actually WANT to live in a low-density, auto centric, neighborhood? That maybe they WANT to own three gas guzzling SUVs, commute 20 miles to work, water their lawns, and shop in a strip mall?

I propose an experiment. Let market forces decide what types of developments happen in Damascus. Charge each new home or business a development fee to pay for infrastructure. Build a nice mile by mile grid of 6 lane roads and a good freeway and we will see how popular it will become.

Just to be clear, the purpose of this thread is to PROPOSE topics for future posts, it is not to debate these ideas :-)

I propose an experiment. Let market forces decide what types of developments happen in Damascus.

I think a thread on what a true "free market" approach would produce would be interesting. Of course that means the decision on where to have roads and what kind needs to be left up to the market as well.

I concur with Ross' just comment just above this one...

AND...

Let's have a topic on
"How to allow the market to have larger input so real competitive and user based choices can appear within the transportation industry again."

and

"How to prevent Government from too drastically containing, manipulating, and distributing the costs of some to the costs of many for minority use methods of movement."

and

"Dispelling the myths: Why Streetcars weren't destroyed by the big bad oil guys, why rail provides more throughput (or not), why Streetcars provide reason to invest where busses and other modes do not, and other such things that people new but interested in transit usually don't grasp (and some that have been in it for a long time still don't)."

...anyway, you could open up a forum, and have a forum on...

what forum topics do you want listed...

Have people vote on topic choices, implement the most wanted. It'd be kind of like a market place for forum choices. :o

Chris Smith Says:

Just to be clear, the purpose of this thread is to PROPOSE topics for future posts, it is not to debate these ideas :-)

Party pooper
JK

Okay. How the government with the 1938 Public Utilities Holding Company Act killed off the streetcars.
M.W.

Conversations about different forms of transportation that we could pursue here in the Portland Metropolitan Area! One such idea for this discussion would be talking about the O-Bahn Busway. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adelaide_O-Bahn)

My suggestion for a topic is: The true financial costs of providing bicycle infrastructure in Portland & how much is that equates to per commuter/everyday bicyclist. Roland in Sam’s office claims a budget figure of less than $800,000.00 per year. That figure however does not include staff time, some bicycle infrastructure costs within multi-modal projects, bicycle infrastructure maintenance including street sweeping costs, and money spent by Metro, Multnomah County and the State. Somebody would have to do some digging and calculating to come up with the total figure so the true amount can be uncovered beneath the shell game being played that continues to be played to hide bicycle infrastructure spending.

Another topic could be: The true financial costs of providing transit service.

I also like the idea of a free market based economy vs a propped up subsidized economy as it applies to both housing densities and transport mode.

Another idea is a discussion of real demand vs a political agenda. Where is the true demand for more infrastructure, motor vehicle, freight, transit, pedestrian and/or bike? Again this may require some digging that would include increases and percentages for auto usage, transit usage, and bicycle usage, the distance of most trips per mode, etc. Such a discussion might also require breaking it up to various parts of the City, metro area or a specific corridor.

Finally, yet another topic could be to break down the PDOT budget. As a prerequisite, this would require looking at where the dollars come from, and how those dollars are then spent. As an example, street lighting comes from the general fund, but most other dollars spent on transportation do not.

Not so much a topic, but an inquiry to this bunch of transportation wonks: Why are US intercity railroads still using wooden ties (sleepers)? As far as I can tell, every other developed nation is using concrete sleepers, which, while adding some cost upfront, undoubtedly lower maintenance costs and reduce derailments. The idea that we run the monstrously heavy and frequent freight trains of today on railbeds held together with rotting timbers just boggles my mind.

Some topics:
how to get high capacity transit in the Barbur corrior.
how to get more trips, especially shorter ones, onto bikes.
how to eliminate free employee parking where industrial/employment land is in short supply.

Please submit bus trolley and articulated bus put into your webpage that makes testiomial allowance to all audiences into this webpage as well as it helps for you get in campagin, please. Please help me to increase concerns in Portland/Vancouver area. Thank you for help, David

Yet another topic: how to implement a direct bicycle tax and charge bicyclists for bike storage/parking and on transit.

I would suggest the bike tax question be discussed first...i.e. Should we imposed a direct bicycle tax, etc.? If yes, then how...

Before any thread on the topic “how to get high capacity transit in the Barbur corridor” is discussed. The need for need for high capacity transit in this corridor should be discussed with a look at any proposed way to pay for it, and if such a proposal will only gum up the works of Barbur Boulevard for the transport taxpaying stakeholder user motorists and freight carriers that currently use the thoroughfare. As an example, reducing the number of travel lanes like was done on Interstate Avenue, or having transit blocking any of the current number of travel lanes when stopping for passengers will have only have a negative effect for travel in the corridor. Furthermore, I-Max, for example, had a neural effect on regional air quality, but indirectly created negative consequences to air quality on at ground level on Interstate Avenue itself.

Similarly, questions must be asked related to any conceived need to eliminate free parking before the how to question is asked.

Another topic that might be interesting would be Is tolling to some destinations building a wall that many will not cross, and how will that affect doing business in those areas?

Here are a few more:

Where and when do transit gum up the streets other modes use?

Where should bicycle lanes actually be placed (if at all), on main thoroughfares or parallel less traveled streets?

As proposed and designed, are bicycle boulevards really worth their price tags? Is the demand really there or just hyped through political agendas?

Yet another topic narrowed from a previous post; Should TriMet charge a fee for bringing bikes on board Max and carrying bikes on busses?

And finally, what part does socialism, attempts to move people from using one mode of transport to another and controlling how the public moves about play in politics? How are politically motivated tax codes altered and used attempting to achieve this goal?

Here is another idea for a topic: “Street lighting”. The City of Portland has what is called cutoff lighting on most thoroughfares. Unlike the street lighting in most residential neighborhoods, this cut off type of lighting produces light and dark areas on the street pavement creating a safety factor whereby pedestrians in dark clothing crossing streets in the shadowed dark areas can not be seen by motorists. The shadows. dark and light areas are particularly noticeable where no lighting from surrounding buildings also helps light the street. PDOT has been placing additional pedestrian scale lighting in some high pedestrian areas that does increase visibility, but it also doubles the energy use where the new lighting is added. In some areas, such as on NE 60th Avenue at the Max station, even with additional lighting, the problem of pedestrians crossing the street in the shadows still exists. It seems there should be compromise solution that is batter than just adding more lighting that uses more energy. .

On the other hand, many areas in downtown Portland have what can be viewed as excessive lighting. As an example, the intersections around Pioneer Square each have two ornamental light standards on each corner with two light fixtures each. That is a total of sixteen street lamps per intersection. Again this can be viewed as a waste of energy when there is considerably more lighting in place than is needed to meet safety requirements. Part of the problem here lies within a city policy of where to place the ornamental lighting on downtown streets. Somewhere, there should be a compromise solution here too.

Here is a link to an article by Dimitry Orlov which should be read by anyone interested in transportion:

http://tinyurl.com/2dllnw

It should be good for plenty of lively discussion.

So now, Chris, your $100.00 a year Streetcar pass ALSO gets you on the Tram. Sweet.

Too bad, for me, ONE round trip ticket weighs in at $1.70 (bus & stretcar); $4.00 (tram); $1.70 (bus and streetcar)...or $7.40 for ONE visit up Pill Hill.

Discrimination raised to a whole new level.

And while MY employer pays the Tri-Met payroll tax OHSU's docs don't, for further public subsidy.

How crazy are we going to let this get?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070212182617.htm
(click link above for the entire article)

Habitat Matters: 'Walkable' Communities May Make Elders Healthier

Some of a neighborhood's features -- the length of its blocks, how many grocery stores or restaurants are nearby -- may be more than selling points for real estate agents. A new study suggests such factors may work to beat back obesity in older people by increasing a neighborhood's "walkability."

Why don't we have a 24 hour transit system?

I missed the last train from Beaverton to downtown tonight, and while I could have just gone back to work, and then gotten on the first train of the day 3 and half hours later, I biked over the hill, (it only takes about half an hour longer than the train,) but neither of those were my first choice, I would have rather waited half an hour and gotten on another one...

Admittingly the system doesn't move very many people late at night, and most of the time the people that are on those trains/buses aren't the most, "respectable," (they are safe enough, but they aren't the middle class that rides the train at rush hour.) The exception is the late night trains on Friday night, which tends to be more than 50% female...

Also, The fact that there are very few trains/buses that are still running at 2am when the bars close must be having a significant effect on the number of drunk drivers on our streets, so it seems like the city/country/state should be interested in having a system that runs overnight too, (even if they had to subsidize it.)

The other thing, by the time the last bus run has run, and then headed back to the garage, it is almost time for the first bus to head back to the end of it's route to pick up the morning passengers, so even if ridership at night isn't very high, the cost of providing those additional hours isn't that great either.

I would like to address (3) points put out by terry parker
a) free-market enterprise : objects like work-bicycle, work-auto, commercial-autofreight, work-bus, work-train, rec-auto, rec-bicycle, rec-walk, ... become seperate taxable entities. Each entity is supported by the people who use it or support it. Business/political groups can each subsidize its own entity as to their own business/political direction. The city or metro can oversee metrics that surround each entity (number_users/day, cost_of_basematerial, upkeep_on_basematerial, maintenance_staff, design_staff, financial_staff, ...) and they could make rational decisions based over gis view-graphs over all data for all projects. This would allow a common language for all projects. This would allow the projects to communicate to each other and to be able to access forecasting/simulation programs that further augment the planning/design process. terry, if this was your idea, i think it is exactly what i was thinking :-)
b) high-capacity transit : again exactly right on. we need high capacity bullet trains between PDX and Salem/Eugene/GrantsPass to the south and Vancouver/Olympia/Seattle/Vancouver to the north. The sooner the better and cost is no object. Fund it however. Again we might differentiate and run (2)lines, one for commercialfreight and one for work_recreation (which includes vacations). Run it off electric and use the best technology we can muster.
c) lighting : Kona, HI has Mauna Kea, which is one of the best observatories in the world. It also has an ordinance in Kona on the type of lighting that it can use for street lights. I think every city should adopt this same type of lighting. They are low wattage and not as bright to telescopes which means they are easier on our eyes but seem to be bright enough for cars. I don't know exactly the details but it would be worth it to explore. They have also done some great research in solar and thermal energy production but that is another topic. :-)
cheers,
mike dill

In re: Trimet safety/rider services - it seems to me that Trimet customer service should be available during all service hours. Even weekends, since now they're nearly as busy as weekdays.

Also, while the transit tracker is VERY useful, when it says the bus is "scheduled at" a certain time, instead of "arriving in x minutes" it seems to me to have a very good chance of not actually showing up at all.

Trimet having a transit emergency line would be great for those of us who unfortunately get stranded by our commuter buses out in the wilds of Tualatin & Wilsonville - and probably for a lot of other areas as well.

http://portlandtribune.com/news/story.php?story_id=117555338463866200

"Growth Guru comes to Portland"

Some bunch of people who call themselves the Executive Club are hosting a talk by a Mr. Wendell Cox. Apparently he is a professional anti-transit, anti-planning pundit. He's coming here to explain what we've done wrong that makes Portland such an awful place. =)

I actually only know what I've read about him on the Shift list. Make this a thread and let's discuss the guy's qualifications to live in Los Angeles and complain about Portland's planning.

A good piece on auto tyranny here:
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/05/15/car-nage/#more-1060

Oh those tyrannical cars are at it again! What would you suggest - a return to the horse and buggy days? You'll like this - while I was doing some genealogical research I read about how a horse went on a rampage and ran over a guy smashing his skull. It happened on the corner of 3rd and Oak! Read the Oregonian 1/22/1886 on page 4 - the tagline is "Killed in the Street". There will always be accidents no matter what form of transportation we use. We can't just live in fear and object to everything imaginable. We need more forward looking thinkers in this debate not just all those marching to the drumbeat that cars are BAAAAD. The recent Penn and Teller's B.S. about the energy crisis was quite interesting.

I wonder if the horse naysayers of the day spent any time or money studying over events such as these:

"Oregonian – 22 January 1886
KILLED IN THE STREET.

A runaway Team Strikes Geroge F. Tribou, Crushing his Skull - Death Eases in a Few Hours.

George F. Tribou, a pioneer resident and well known contractor of this city, met with an accident yesterday from the effects of which he died in a few hours. He was going down Third street on his way to the Portland General hospital where he was engaged in fitting up the baths connected with that institution, and was walking along the car track, as the sidewalks had not been cleaned. The delivery sleigh of the German bakery was coming down the street several blocks behind him, when from some cause the tongue broke loose from the sleigh and the spirited horses ran away down the street dragging the driver out of the sleigh and pulling the reins out of his hands. They overtook Mr. Tribou a short distance below Oak street. He evidently did not hear them till they were almost upon him, when he turned his head and was struck at that instant by the end of the pole on the right temple. The blow crushed in the skull, allowing the brains to ooze out. Several persons rushed to his assistance, and finding that life was not extinct carried him to the Portland General hospital. An examination showed that human help was of no avail and that death was inevitable.
Mrs. Tribou was at once notified of the dreadful affair, and instantly repaired to his bedside, where she remained till the end came- at 1:20 P.M. Mr. Tribou has been a resident of this city since 1857, and was about 54 years of age. He leaves a wife and infant son, the latter very ill and not expected to recover. He was one of the organizers of the volunteer fire department, and was a member of Multnomah engine company No. 2 as long as it existed. He was an honest and industrious man and a good citizen."

Google Maps has extended its interface with Trimet. It looks like you can now zoom in and see bus stops all over Portland - you can click on them for tracker information. I did a blurb on my blog about it that includes a screenshot (not sure if it is generally available yet).

Just something to think about--it is very possible to get from Portland to Salem on transit, even out to outlying Marion and Polk Counties using transit.

For example, I go from Dallas (about 20 miles west of Salem) to my best friend's home in Laurelhurst at least once a week.

Total transit time: 2:28:00. Total time to drive: 1:45:00. Cost difference: just a couple bucks each way. Stress difference: immeasureable.

So how? Catch CARTS route 50 to Salem, Cheeriots 1x from Salem to Tualatin, TriMet 96 Tualatin to Downtown, then #20 Burnside.

Wait times:

Salem: 4 minutes
Tualatin: 8 minutes
Downtown: 4 minutes.

I tried to figure out how to get from Portland to Eugene this way once, just using local public transit. Also Portland to Seattle.

Couldn't work it out either way.

There's an interesting article on Alternet about fare-free public transit.

A good discussion to have might be: how do we improve bus service in the Portland area? Not only does the LRT vs. bus issue ends up dominating almost every bloody thread these days, but bus service is a vital, but underappreciated part of the city's transit; it would be wonderful if just a bit of the creativity that goes into the planning of streetcars and such went into the most used form of transit. I'll admit that I doubt the ability of certain posters to not make it in to another battle royale over bus vs. MAX, but with some policing, it might be valuable.

Chris -

How about a "light rail vs. bus" thread, combined withstrict policing of other topics to "take it over there" whenever "certain posters" change the topic?

How about a "light rail vs. bus" thread

I think what is needed is an "anti-rail" thread since there isn't anyone arguing against better bus service.

it would be wonderful if just a bit of the creativity that goes into the planning of streetcars and such went into the most used form of transit.

I agree.

Any chance of opening the door wider for new threads, so a reader can start a thread without much formality?

I realize that this might transform the blog into something more like an Internet forum, but (as far as I know) there is no forum on this subject in Portland. Being new (1 year) in town, I often have questions that I think would be pertinent, but no open forum to post them to.

I dunno if the blog software enables non-contributors to start threads. If not, how does one become a contributor?

Thanks in advance!

Mike

Mike,

We regularly publish guest posts that raise interesting subjects. Feel from to e-mail ideas to me.

Chris

I realize that this might transform the blog into something more like an Internet forum, but (as far as I know) there is no forum on this subject in Portland. Being new (1 year) in town, I often have questions that I think would be pertinent, but no open forum to post them to.
I'm aware of one site that's sorta like that, but you have to sign up and/or be a member of the social 'networking' community it's on in order to start new threads.
I thought about starting my own site/forum (outside of Portland Transport) specifically about riding public transit in the region, but haven't because of concerns about time, cost (my guess is enough people would visit that free services would turn it away, and not enough would visit that would attract advertisers & pay for itself), and post quality.

Could we discuss the feasibility of extending MAX or streetcar up alongside Cornelius Pass Rd., where the original Oregon Electric line used to be. It would create great opportunities for development given the number of people projected to move here within the next two decades.

btw, I saw that on Urban Planning Overlord.

Ed,

The OE never truly went up Cornelius Pass - that railroad was called the United Railways, and went to North Plains, Banks, and eventually Vernonia.

The OE did indeed control the United Railways as a subsidary for many years, and in fact the railroad remains pretty much as is (to Banks; beyond Banks is the "Banks-Vernonia Linear Park" (a rail-trail). Burlington Northern actually attempted to abandon the rail route in the early 1990s and even plated over the Cornelius Pass Tunnel after two trestles were severely damaged; Metro was trying to buy the land to use as a rail-trail. However the Portland & Western Railroad opted to buy the line, eliminating the abandonment process and Metro's attempt to buy the right-of-way.

The two trestles were replaced and the tunnel reopened.

As to where the "original OE line" went, it roughly followed I-5 south out of downtown Portland to Multnomah Blvd., then west to Garden Home. Garden Home was a junction of the OE mainline southwest to Greton (crossing the SP), then on the current "Oregon Electric" to Tualatin, Wilsonville, Salem, Albany and Eugene; a second line (the Forest Grove Branch) travelled northwest along the "Oregon Electric Right-of-Way Park" to Beaverton, crossing the SP near the intersection of Lombard & Farmington, and then following the current MAX line west of Beaverton Central all the way to Hillsboro; and the existing Forest Grove Branch from Hillsboro to Forest Grove, terminating downtown near Pacific University.

The OE used the United Railways to connect freight traffic with its parent the Spokane, Portland & Seattle Railway after the 1930s, when its own line through downtown was abandoned (along with that of the Southern Pacific). Without the United Railways, the OE would have been physically disconnected from its parent railroad, and thus effectively unable to handle freight traffic. Since passenger service ended in the early-to-mid 1930s, the railroad would have certainly died.

As for use for a MAX line, there's a ton of problems:

1. There's virtually no population density.

2. The logical route to serve any population - the cutoff from Helvetia (Bower Junction) to Orenco has largely been wiped out due to development. A new subdivision is built where the wye was at Orenco; until about two years ago you could see the old grade. Today, only a line of trees marks the spot. Development further north has obliverated the grade, and a recent expansion of the Cornelius Pass/US 26 interchange wiped out the location of the grade. Only a short stretch from US 26 to the old crossing with Cornelius Pass Road remains intact; along with north of Helvetia.

3. The line still hosts freight trains; where would they go? The next suitable railroad line is the one through Beaverton/Tigard/Lake Oswego/Milwaukie; and there would be massive complications in allowing P&W access to Union Pacific and BNSF's rail lines (in general the labor unions vocally oppose such attempts, claiming allowing lower paid shortline railroad crews on the mainline tracks will contribute to a reduction of jobs).

4. Adding more freight traffic on the above-mentioned lines would make restoring commuter rail traffic more difficult, and would cause operational problems to the Beaverton-Wilsonville Commuter Rail line (train congestion).

Although I once saw a concept to build a MAX spur line on this route up to U.S. 26, with a large park-and-ride lot at the end (essentially for Banks and North Plains commuters to just jump off the freeway and catch a train). IMO, that wasn't such a bad idea.

Although I once saw a concept to build a MAX spur line on this route up to U.S. 26, with a large park-and-ride lot at the end (essentially for Banks and North Plains commuters to just jump off the freeway and catch a train). IMO, that wasn't such a bad idea.

I concur. This would serve the "true" purpose of MAX, in my opinion. Future commuter rail lines (or BRT) serving the region should be designed in this fashion, as well (big P&R lots near highway exits).

I highly recommend this video:

http://bakfietscargo.blogspot.com/2007/08/blog-post.html

Doing a blog on transportation, public health and urban environment issues. You can find it at...

STREET DIRT

Is heavy rail rapid transit in the metro area's future?

Heavy rail? My guess is that the question is about 100 years too late. The same question is being asked for heavy rail from metro through McMinnville to Valley Junction. It won't happen in our lifetime. It is mainly a function of cost, efficiency and population projections.

http://www.columbian.com/news/localNews/2007/10/10072007_Reports-on-new-bridge-due-Feb-1.cfm

Article from the Columbian about the CRC. Nothing new really, just mentions the DEIS will be released on Feb 1.

Is heavy rail rapid transit in the metro area's future?

Isn't the Washington County Commuter rail heavy rail? Whether it will reach a point where there is enough traffic to warrant multi-unit trains or not is a question. If it is extended to Salem there might be enough ridership to support that.

I am 100% in support of commuter rail type lines versus MAX and Streetcar for an elect few and relatively small geographical area. I would like to see the commuter rail go south to Albany and west to Grand Ronde. I think I heard the year 2012 mentioned for completion of the Wilsonville - Salem one.

Thanks,

--GREG--

I meant heavy rail in the subway sense, like BART.

Oh....

That would never fly here.. There would need to be about 10x more population to support a NYC like system in the Portland area. I think one improvement would be to put the entire MAX and Streetcars underground throughout downtown so they don't "gum up traffic" any more.

Streetcars don't make sense underground in most cases. MAX, on the other hand, needs to go subway in the core.

I don't think Portland will ever get heavy rail rapid transit, but I can't imagine why we'd need it. MAX would do a fine job as a Metro system as long as they can speed things up in the core. Which means fewer stations and a subway,

I just wanted to inform the Portland community about a new environmentaly friendly transportation product my company has designed and made in Portland: the Metroboard Electric Skateboard. A great way to get around town for short range alternative transportation. Please check out the website: http://www.metro-board.com for more info. Comments are welcome

http://www.oregonlive.com/oregonian/stories/index.ssf?/base/news/1193622932249580.xml&coll=7

I think that the above link would be a good topic.

Also http://www.trimet.org/tip

Regards,

YOU WANT A TOPIC...HERE IS A TOPIC

Pointing to statistics that show much of Gresham's crime occurs near the MAX light-rail lines, Mayor Shane Bemis announced Friday that city police officers will begin riding the trains starting Wednesday.

Law enforcement services on MAX are currently provided by TriMet officers, but Bemis said he consistently hears from constituents that they do not feel protected.

"It's time to take matters into our own hands," he said. "We're going to . . . protect our citizens so people feel safe riding the system." He cited "TriMet's failure to realize they have issues."
Advertisement

Discussion of commuter protection began at a Gresham public safety summit in March, Bemis said. City statistics show that 84 percent of gang crimes, 40 percent of fights and 42 percent of drug crimes occur within a quarter-mile of the tracks.

"Not to mention vandalism, business burglaries and the fare inspections that aren't happening," he added.

Does TriMet have any contingency plans when it comes to fuel shortages?

Also, how would TriMet deal with the crush loads of people wanting to use transit when, for example, gas becomes very expensive?

A problem has appeared with Transit Tracker. It has been there for at least a month. Basically, the system is not aware of certain late night trips. For instance, if you phone or surf to T.T. tonight to track the ~1:10 AM #4 trip at N. Vancouver & Ivy, it simply does not appear. As far as T.T. knows, the next trip is "scheduled at" ~5 AM Monday.

You can sample trips from around the system that are on the road after 1 AM. 12-Sandy from SW 4th and Washington, #20 from SW Cedar Hills and Walker: Neither of these trips is trackable.

I have tried elicit a fix or at least an acknowledgment from TriMet. They are usually very responsive no matter how minor the problem, but I can't get any information from them this time.

Yeah, maybe I've impressed them as a crank with my repeated e-mails. But I think this is an important problem! The T.T. system might be rendered useless if just a small portion of its information is consistently inaccurate; people will lose trust in the whole system. Further, riders who depend on it might be misled to believe they have to take a cab or wait four hours for the next trip.

And I would hate it if TriMet came to resemble certain East Coast big city transit agencies, in which stuff like this never gets fixed because the agency acts apathetically, with no sense of accountability to the public.

Can Portland Transport publicize this Transit Tracker issue, or put me in touch with someone at TriMet who will truly take action on it?

Dante, I've alerted some of my TriMet contacts to your concerns.

Chris

Yes, after midnight TT just goes all funky. I've been trying to catch a bus downtown after midnight on a Friday, (when there are still a lot of lines running,) and TT will only tell you about the 5am ones...

Thank you, Chris. If you get a response, please post it here.

Dante, the TriMet developer would like to know what channel you were sending your feedback through.

Chris, I e-mailed three times and called once. To protect the spammable, I am going to message you privately with more details, if that's OK.

The Transit Tracker developer writes: Sorry for the slow, nearly non-existent response. Thanks to Chris Smith's help from your comment on his site I was made aware of the issue. I hope to be getting this sort of feedback asap from now on.

The glitch is fixed. Hurrah Tri-Met! Hurrah Portland Transport!

Please start a thread for serious discussion of the overall fare structure. Just eliminating Fareless Square doesn't go far enough -- it may solve one problem but create others. It's timely right now to discuss the structure holistically, with reference to

-- commuters
-- central-core (Westside and Eastside) residents
-- casual users
-- brief visitors like convention-goers and tourists

I'm working on such an overall discussion, and would like to post it in the right place. If you start a thread, I can follow up there.

Mike Feldman

I'd like to start a thread to specifically discuss the possibility of introducing hybrid, double-decked buses to Tri-Met's fleet. Apparently, London has already ordered them (according to this article: http://blog.wired.com/cars/2007/12/new-york-city-o.html)

Not only would they provide additional capacity per driver, they would lower emissions. Maybe there could also be more room for bikes, using hooks inside the bus?

Given that most bus usage is commuter traffic, inbound in the morning, outbound at night....and, given that we've got these gigantic park-and-ride lots that stand empty and useless at night, and, given that, for a morning or evening commuter run, Trimet now spends as much mileage and almost as much time in non-revenue deadhead runs to the beinnings of morning commuter runs or to a garage from the ends of evening commuter runs.....and given that maintaining huge bus lots at the three garages can't possibly be without costs of its own....why doesn't Trimet use the park-and-ride lots to station its buses overnight, and just use the garages for, like, when a bus needs fixing? Has anyone ever looked into the economics of this....or is all this deadheading a guaranteed benefit of the operators' union contracts?

I think you'd have to provide overnight security for the buses at the park & ride lots ... leave them sitting around unfenced and unsupervised and they'd become a target for tagging.

Also, buses are often swept/vacuumed, washed and refueled after a run, and also mechanically inspected, so a lot of them are going to need to head back to the garage anyway.

By the time you juggled the logistics and the security, you might not be saving much money.

- Bob R.

Let's talk about the EPA putting a kibosh on States' rights with their recent decision to not allow California emissions standards. I think its outrageous and totally unacceptable that the feds would be so obstructionist on California's (and 16 other states') lead and trailblazing in this effort. They should have incorporated the California standards in the recent energy bill legislation but I guess it was still a giant step in the right direction!

Bob R.; (1) If bus-washing and vacuuming were to occur at the Park & Ride lot, Trimet wouldn't have to pay extra for security;
(2) an amount that Trimet would consider "not much" would support most of us lavishly....

Elee -

But at that point you're paying to have bus-washers (and equipment) at the park & ride lot who duplicate services already offered at the garage. (Please also note there are already multiple garages, 2 on the eastside and 1 on the westside.)

I don't see what kind of major savings you're going to find with this idea.

For an overview of regular bus maintenance and cleaning operations, see TriMet's Bus Vehicle and Fleet Facts page:

TriMet's Bus Maintenance Department works 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

Each night when a bus returns to the garage it receives the following standard treatment:

• refueling
  
• fluid levels checked
  
• interiors swept out
  
• exteriors washed (except during freezing weather or when water conservation measures are in effect)
  

- Bob R.

There are EPA restrictions on where exactly you can and can't refuel, (on a regular basis,) so they would need special containment equipment at the park and rides. Likewise for all the other fluids in the bus, and the soap from washing them should be kept out of the river...

The other question is what to do with the driver, the garages are on good bus lines, but a lot of the park and rides are only served by the buses that would end up pulling in there, so drivers would all have to drive to work, (and hope the park and ride isn't full. :-)

I think they could eliminate a lot of the deadhead hours by running them all night, but that is just me.

Thanks Bob R. and Matthew, I suppose someone at Trimet must have thought of this already....but it certainly seems there ought to be a way of reducing (1) the nonrevenue service time and mileage for deadheading to the beginning of every route, at the far edge of the service area, each mornimg, and (2) get some use out of all those acres of asphalt that sit idle outside dayshift work hours....

How is the value of a ride analyzed. I realize that is a wide open question, but at some point the cost of a ride should reach a prohibitive point? My question centers around the study being conducted for the Yamhill County (McMinnville to Milwaukie) passenger rail.

A figure of $250 million for the initial cost of the project would not be surprising. Yet, from the 1998 study (Yamhill County Commuter Rail Study), the projected ridership is 1,580 per year in 2015.

How, where does a government body draw the line on what is an accepted cost per rider?

Correction: Projected ridership is 1580 per day in Year 2015.

I think Elee is on the right track, thinking about the expense that TriMet vehicles spend on non-revenue moves between Garages and start/end points.

Does it make sense for TriMet to have three heavy garages and parking lots for its nearly 650 busses (namely - Merlo Garage for the westside, Center Street for the central city, and Powell Garage for the eastside)?

Fueling facilities, supervisors' offices, and so on doesn't take that much room, and some busses do have to drive a considerable distance from these garages prior to starting a run. Maybe it would make more sense to develop several outlying points where busses spend the night - i.e. one in Hillsboro, one in Beaverton, one in Tigard, one in Oregon City/Clackamas, one in Gresham, along with Center Street and possibly one in Northeast Portland. Busses that need heavy repairs would be brought to a central garage (i.e. Center Street) but for daily operations would be based out of a different point, each of the outlying points basing only 50-100 busses each.

It would be interesting to see this in a cost/benefit analysis. According to TriMet's most recent ridership statistics, its bus fleet operates a total of 1,481,460 revenue hours - but a total of 1,967,016 vehicle hours. That means that 25% of a busses' time is spent in non-revenue moves to/from the garage or between two unlinked routes.

(MAX, in comparison, is slightly better at only 20% non-revenue hours.)

It can be noted that TriMet does do one thing right - many Westside routes operate in conjunction with the 67-Jenkins/158th Avenue route. This is the line that directly serves Merlo Road. By doing this, a bus could leave Merlo, make a run on the 67 to PCC Rock Creek, back to Merlo, then to Beaverton, and then start a run on another route - while entirely "on route". The bus can do the same in reverse - upon arrival to Beaverton TC, make a run on the 67 to Merlo, optionally to PCC Rock Creek and return to Merlo, and then enter the yard and end the day.

I don't know if TriMet does the same thing with the 9-Powell Route (to Powell Garage) or with the 17-SE Holgate or 70-12th Avenue routes to Center Street.

NEW TOPIC REQUEST:

TriMet just released FY2007 ridership statistics:

Bus ridership numbers are as follows (comparisons are to FY2006):

Vehicle Hours up .6%
Revenue Hours up 1.5%
Vehicle Miles down 2.1%
Revenue Miles down 3.6%
Passenger Miles down 7%
Originating Rides down 0.6%
Boarding Rides down 0.5%

Passenger Miles are essentially at the same level as FY1999.
Originating Rides are at the same level as FY2001.
Boarding Rides are at the same level as FY2001.

In most of these categories, this is the second year in a row that ridership is down on the bus service.

The fact that vehicle hours are up despite the loss suggests that TriMet vehicles are spending more time on the road - and given my personal experience with busses that are continually late, it's likely that TriMet is simply having a hard time keeping busses on schedule. I don't believe all of this is simply attributed to "traffic", but is also due to overcrowding (which results in busses having to slow down as well as longer bus stop times) and reliability issues. This statistic also results in higher labor costs, and in particular overtime costs.

Traffic could be an issue, and the answer is not automatically "LIGHT RAIL!" but technologies and roadway improvements to help busses move through traffic; such as dedicated bus lanes, better bus stop designs, and more implementation of queue jumper lanes and Opticom links between busses and traffic signals.

Can we have a discussion on the possible streetcar loop options in the Pearl District as part of the Eastside Streetcar Line? The Northrup vs. the Lovejoy (Hoyt St. turnaround)?
And how would this line operate initially? As a seperate line that requires a transfer to Downtown in the Pearl?

I'll try to pull something together on the 'Northrup Loop' question later in the week.

Thanks

I second Erik Halstead's notion of a thread on Trimet's annual figures. To my these figures suggest that, regardless of how much Trimet spends on self-promotion, its buses will only attract the (numerically fairly constant) population that has no other choice. I submit that the commuting population on the whole is quite accurate and perceptive in making its transit choices. Those who attach a value much above minimum wage to their commuting time, quite accurately reject the buses as presently operated.

BTW this puts a really cruel obstacle in the way of many hardworking citizens: If one has no car and wants to be a reliable worker, one has to allow absurd amounts of time for the daily Trimet lottery. God save those with children or parents to care for, or second jobs, or anything else that might compete with Trimet's daily levy of hours-out-of-the-day.

Hey erik and elee;

did you ever see my little rant about "dont get rid of your car yet?" the perils of relying on public transit:
http://amargul.blogspot.com/2007/12/dont-get-rid-of-your-car.html

Al M---Excellent rant......except, if it's an accurate description of reality, can it still be a "rant"? B/c unfortunately my friend.....you are just TELLING IT LIKE IT IS

hehe;

elee,

(sshh! dont tell em that!)

(awful quiet around here?)

this came off my other site:

Bus Travel Makes a Comeback in the U.S.

All Things Considered, December 24, 2007 · Buses are back. A new study
shows a significant increase in intercity and interstate bus travel for
the first time in nearly 50 years.

Nicer coaches, on-board movies and internet service are helping reshape
the poor image that many travelers had of Greyhound and its
competitors.

High gasoline prices and airport delays are also helping to revive the
once moribund intercity bus industry.

"Traffic could be an issue, and the answer is not automatically "LIGHT RAIL!" but technologies and roadway improvements to help busses move through traffic; such as dedicated bus lanes, better bus stop designs, and more implementation of queue jumper lanes and Opticom links between busses and traffic signals."

>>>> The answer should have never been light rail in the first place here in Portland right from the beginning (1970's).

What we should have done are things like HOT lanes, POW busways, etc. We would have had a nice flexible transit system that would have attracted a greater number of passengers, increasing transit's share of the market.

Instead, we are now stuck with all-stop "snail rail," necessitating longer travel times with additional transfers, and valuable real estate wasted on big park and ride lots.

I still think the blue and red lines were well worth it. The yellow line will eventually prove its worth.

If they had really been thinking, they would have put the max over or under downtown Portland.

Green line is a waste, street car a perk for the rich, and lets not start on the $70mil escalator for the doctors and professors of OHSU.

http://www.oregoncitynewsonline.com/opinion/story.php?story_id=119869460674243500

Why is the green line more/less a waste than the yellow, red, or blue Al M?

Because the blue line is connecting various cities.

Red line serves the airport pretty efficiently.

Yellow line, eventually, will connect Vancouver to Portland.

But the green line connects what?

Clackamas town center to downtown?

Sorry, no comprendo.

That's one for the bus service at zero cost.

some of you might enjoy my new video production:

BOB NEWHEART: BUS DRIVER SCHOOL

http://busemergency.blogspot.com/2007/12/bob-newheart-comedy-genius.html

http://savetheinternet.com/=faq

Did anyone read the Portland Tribune yesterday? It had the courage to print a big guest editorial questioning the "need" for another freeway bridge over the Columbia River. Lots of good points there, that I wish I had seen before on this blog.....like, for example, why should Oregonians subsidize the auto dependency of Washington commuters.....and why should we be facilitating their car commuting, when they vote down/won't work with out transit agencies/plans?

"For Change, Reduce Trips," right?

It was written by Lenny Anderson, who frequently contributes to Portland Transport.

I've met him in person before... he knows what he's talking about.

why should Oregonians subsidize the auto dependency of Washington commuters

There is a VERY simple solution to this, one that doesn't require any input by Washington residents:

1. Pass a sales tax of at least 7.5%. That eliminates any "shopper's incentive" to come to Oregon.

2. Make Washington residents pay "resident" income tax, as opposed to "non-resident". That way they are taxed at the same rate as someone who lives south of the river - which is far greater than north of the river.

Of course this would likely require abolishing the property tax, and the sales tax would essentially be a city/county tax - which would greatly benefit Multnomah, Washington and Clackamas Counties.

It would, however, harm counties like Columbia, Yamhill and Polk Counties.

"Did anyone read the Portland Tribune yesterday? It had the courage to print a big guest editorial questioning the "need" for another freeway bridge over the Columbia River."

This is my post on the trib regarding congestion 'tax'.

CONGESTION PRICING=TAX!

PUT ME ON THE NO SIDE!

Thanks Jason B., I gathered from the Trib that the writer is pretty informed.

Sorry Al M, this time I can't agree with you. Those are MY roads they're clogging, and the roads didn't build themselves for free. It's also MY airshed they're gassing; not only do I pay taxes for medicare for asthmatics, but I accept other increased costs i.e., my heating costs more if I can't ignore the costs of my emissions. So why don't Washington commuters pay their fare share?

Cause Elee;

NEW TAXES ARE NOT THE ANSWER!

Give raises to some bureaucrat?
Get more 'managers' to study the problem?

SAY NO TO ANY NEW TAX(S)!

It's also MY airshed they're gassing

Are you a PGE customer? If so, are you willing to pay a tax to cover PGE's (and your) impact created by pollution from the Boardman Generating Plant to the Washington side of the Columbia Gorge and Washington's Columbia Plateau?

Are you willing to pay for the impact of pollution that is created in Portland, but drifts north across the Columbia River?

And are you willing to pay a fee each time you touch the Washington state line, to cover any impact that you create on the state?

Finally, since Washington subsidizes the Amtrak service between Portland and Seattle (and owns several of the trainsets), are you willing to pay an additional fare to ride Amtrak's Cascades service simply because you are an Oregon resident?

Erik asks questions of someone else, but just for fun I'd like to include my own answers.

Are you a PGE customer?

No. Pacific Power.

If so, are you willing to pay a tax to cover PGE's (and your) impact created by pollution from the Boardman Generating Plant to the Washington side of the Columbia Gorge and Washington's Columbia Plateau?

To the extent that a tax (or other regulatory structure) is implemented to reduce power plant pollution, I'm willing to pay my fair share. In fact, I already pay more for Pacific Power's voluntary clean energy program (which is a mixed bag of solutions, but mild progress nonetheless.)

Are you willing to pay for the impact of pollution that is created in Portland, but drifts north across the Columbia River?

In a relatively equitable system, yes.

And are you willing to pay a fee each time you touch the Washington state line, to cover any impact that you create on the state?

Why don't you describe this system in more detail ... would there be a corresponding fee for people entering Oregon? How would your proposal be equitable?

Finally, since Washington subsidizes the Amtrak service between Portland and Seattle (and owns several of the trainsets), are you willing to pay an additional fare to ride Amtrak's Cascades service simply because you are an Oregon resident?

Can you show that a disproportionate number of the users are not Washingtonians, in relation to the contribution? Perhaps the solution is not to tax people based on their place of residence but their point of origin. For example, charge more for northbound boardings out of Portland.

Similarly, a toll on a new CRC crossing is not actually a toll on Washingtonians ... it is a toll on all users of the bridge, regardless of where they reside.

There was an article in yesterday's Oregonian about municipalities offering incentives of various sorts to be "green". I laughed when I saw one city gave incentives for "live close to your work". My experience with Portland is that when I tried that I instead ended up being punished by paying outlandish rent and having to pay exorbitant fees to house my car. If they really want people to play that game, they need to make it worthwhile to do so. Portland is just an average place but they make it out to be some wonderful green utopian Mecca. It's good but not wonderful like the NY Times would make you believe.

Answers for Erik H:

(1) I'm a PGE customer, so I pay my portion for the impacts of the PGE Boardman power plant. Remember, I said my heat (and in this instance, other electric conveniences) costs me more than it would if I could simply ignore the environmental costs? I also participate in my utility's voluntary green power schemes;

(2) I'm willing to pay for my drifting pollution, see #1 above, and also pay the costs of limiting/minimizing/mitigating the impact of my activities that generate drifting pollution. Like, for example, buying products that caused pollution in their making and transport, and, for example, paying the cost of minimizing/mitigating the impacts of hauling them away and disposing of them;

(3) I'm willing to pay my portion to limit/mitigate/minimize air pollution in general, whether it drifts to Washington or not;

(4) I already pay lots of fees, without ever (physically) touching Washington. Every time I buy a product that is made in, or transported across, Washington, some of my retail price goes to fees to maintain Washington's infrastructure and minimize/mitigate environmental impacts;

(5) If Washington places a toll on its roads, obviously I'll pay the toll if I choose to drive there;

(6) If part of my retail price for an Amtrak ticket goes into Washington fees or taxes, that's fine too.

Now that I've answered these questions, and the answers weren't particularly surprising or interesting......were these supposed to be rhetorical questions? Were they supposed to make something obvious to me or others? I don't get it. Somebody explain to me.

I take issue with Terry Parker's comment that each time I climb on a bicyle I am helping myself to a subsidy and robbing the government on needed revenue to maintain the roads.

Most state funding for road projects comes from the general fund. (Funding for many bike, pedestrian or transit specific projects come from grants or pots of money that the federal government has earmarked for those uses alone.) And last I checked it is property and income tax that feeds the bulk of the general fund.

As an employed bicyclist who owns a home I contribute roughly the same amount as car driving non-bicyclists in my similar tax bracket. Let's see, this year I paid nearly $4000 in taxes to the State of Oregon and close to $7000 to the Federal Government. I also paid just over $2500 in property taxes this year.

Of course this amount is pre-tax filing time and I anticipate a refund, but there is no deduction for driving less.

While I have issues with our state gas tax as well, a few cents tax per gallon of gas is a fair means of distributing the burden. Those driving larger and heavier vehicles, with lower gas mileage pay slighly more per year for their usage based on a level of consumption, their impact on the system overall (the old republican idea that user pays).

I drive about 2000 miles per year. I live close to work and frequent local businesses for my shopping and daily needs. I can easily bike to work, and walk for most errands in my neighborhood. By bicycling I directly reduce wear and tear on the roads, free up a little additional room for those who must drive, and I pay gas taxes and registration fees. How are my choices in budgeting my income like helping myself to a subsidy?

so I pay my portion for the impacts of the PGE Boardman power plant

No, you don't.

You want Clark County residents to pay for the "impact" to Oregon roads - you want them to pay a higher fee than what is assessed for Oregon drivers to pay for the use of the same road, using the same vehicle, etc.

Does Washington take a determination of what the cost is that is created by the pollution caused by the Boardman Generating Plant, and then assess a fine to PGE to cover the costs of that pollution - the health care costs, the environmental impacts, etc.? No. You are **not** paying your full impact costs simply by being a PGE customer.

(4) I already pay lots of fees, without ever (physically) touching Washington. Every time I buy a product that is made in, or transported across, Washington, some of my retail price goes to fees to maintain Washington's infrastructure and minimize/mitigate environmental impacts;

Hmmm. The same argument is true of Washington residents, so what is the argument for making them pay another fee when they have already paid?

(6) If part of my retail price for an Amtrak ticket goes into Washington fees or taxes, that's fine too.

That's not the point - the point is since the argument is for Oregon to charge a fee that is essentially a fee only for Washington residents to cross the bridge, how would you fee about WSDOT charging an "Oregon" fee only for Oregon residents who use WSDOT funded Amtrak trains?

For example, if you rode a train from Portland to Seattle, an Oregon resident might pay $70.

However, a Washington resident boarding in Vancouver on the exact same train/class of service to Seattle would only pay $35.

Most state funding for road projects comes from the general fund.

Barbara,

I suggest you review this website which shows in detail where ODOT's revenue comes from, and where the money goes:

http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/2006AnnualReportFinStmtsFinal.pdf

As you can see on page 17 (per Acrobat), here is ODOT's total revenue stream:

Motor Fuels Taxes: $417.9M
Federal Revenues: $357.9M (this is the federal gas tax)
Weight-Mile Taxes: $265.1M
Vehicle Taxes (registrations): $207.6M
Drivers License Fees: $39.6M
Other Transportation Taxes: $2.7M
Charges for Services: $32.4M
Other Sales Income: $10.7M
Investment Income: $15.1M
Business License Fees: $5.8M
Rents: $6.1M
Other Revenues: $8.0M

There is no general fund dollars going to ODOT.

In years past, ODOT did receive approximately $10M biennually, all of which went to support the Amtrak Cascades runs in Oregon. However the Legislature changed the funding so that the sale of customized license plates (which used to fund roadside litter pickup programs) now funds Amtrak Cascades. Therefore, ODOT receives no general funding from the State of Oregon.

Can you show that a disproportionate number of the users are not Washingtonians, in relation to the contribution?

Let's see. The peak traffic flow is southbound in the AM, northbound in the PM.

Doesn't take a rocket scientist to show that most people drive from north to south in the morning (Washington to Oregon), and in the morning is when most people drive from home to work. Therefore, home must be in Washington and work must be in Oregon.

Most people drive from work to home in the evening, and the peak travel pattern is northbound (south to north, Oregon to Washington) in the evening. SO again, work must be in Oregon and home must be in Washington.

So it would show that such a fee on the Interstate Bridge would disproportionately affect Washington residents who work in Oregon.

Therefore it would not be unreasonable for Washington to assess a similar "impact" fee that would target Oregon residents who enter Washington. Amtrak Cascades is a good place; as well as targeting everyone who walks off of one of the Horizon Shuttle flights between Portland and Seattle; or a "tollbooth" at the north end of any Columbia River bridge.

the implications of Zipcar taking over Flexcar -- they just pulled many car locations out of LA, keeping only the ones associated with university campuses:

http://www.thegoodhuman.com/2008/01/23/thank-you-zipcar-for-removing-all-the-cars-from-my-neighborhood/

What does Portland have to look forward to?

Very nice film on BRT in Bogota here:
http://www.streetfilms.org/archives/bus-rapid-transit-bogota/

it appears that the TVMs on WES will only accept debit/credit cards, unless there are conductors on board selling tickets which i have not heard of, i dont this is cashless system will work.

You can purchase a ticket from the machine at the station (debit/credit card only), or from neighborhood ticket outlets including Safeway, Fred Meyer and Albertsons stores. Tickets and passes can also be ordered online in the TriMet Store.
http://www.trimet.org/wes/index.htm

I'm more concerned about the schedule posted on that page. The trip takes 27 minutes each way, and schedule shows a 10 minute layover at Beaverton and a 26 minute layover at Wilsonville, so it will take 3 trains to service the corridor... However, (as far as I know,) the trains are two cars long and they can't do 1 car operation because there isn't a cab at each end nor is there is a place to turn around either, which means they need 6 cars, (three powered, three trailers,) at minimum. A spare for when they are doing maintenance on one of them is generally a good idea too.

And I thought they only bought 5 cars...

While trying to figure out if I was mistaken about that, I ran across something that said they were only planning on buying 4 cars:
http://www.trimet.org/pdfs/commuterrail/wccrhistory.pdf

http://wweek.com/editorial/3414/10384/#comments_add

Tri-met is cracking down on ticketless MAX riders. They are doing this in spite of a high number of non-working ticket machines and validators throughout the system.

This is obviously irrational, but is happening regardless. The issue needs to be addressed and resolved.

The ticket machines are indeed the scourge of TRIMET.

However, I had the opportunity to speak with an actual technician who repairs these things.

He had some interesting things to say on the subject:

http://amargul.blogspot.com/2008/01/master-ticket-tech-speaks.html

https://secure2.convio.net/free/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=241

privitization fails

OBAMA

[Moderator: Link fixed. Al, you just need a space between the "a" and the "href", otherwise it was fine.]

that was supposed to come out as a link:

http://blog.oregonlive.com/mapesonpolitics/2008/02/obama_adopting_the_pdx_transpo.html

[Moderator: Corrected, see above.]

Megabus.com, the low-cost bus line that has been making waves in the
Midwest since 2006, will begin service in Memphis on March 28.

What gets the line noticed -- besides its midnight-blue buses -- is
its $1 advance-sale tickets, part of its long-term marketing strategy.

"Booking in advance gets you fares as low as $1, but our top
fares are still competitive with all transportation modes to major
cities," president and chief operating officer Dale Moser said in a
conference call Thursday that announced expansions into Memphis,
along with Columbia, Mo.; Madison, Wis.; and Champaign, Ill.

Megabus offers four to eight $1 seats on each route. After those
seats are sold, tickets go up in increments of $5 and $8, he said.

Maximum fare between Memphis and Chicago will be $65. People buying
two-week advance tickets can expect to pay $20 to $45, said company
spokeswoman Amanda Mullin.

In comparison, two-week advance tickets to Chicago were selling for
$55 on Greyhound's Web site Thursday.

Megabus's two daily routes to Chicago will depart from the MATA bus
terminal at Auction and Main at 10 a.m. and 11p.m., arriving in
Chicago about 10hours later, with no more than three or four stops.

The no-frills carrier (one piece of checked baggage per customer,
please) says it can offer low prices because all booking is done
exclusively online.

The company, a subsidiary of Coach USA, started in Scotland in 2003.
It has expanded several times since, including service to six cities
on the West Coast it serves from its Los Angeles hub.

Joe Schwieterman, a professor at DePaul University, says intercity
bus service is seeing a resurgence for the first time in decades --
particularly between large cities.

He credits Megabus for making bus travel "respectable for higher-
income groups" because it avoids "the dingy bus stations and
innumerable stops."

"Chicago and New York (have) become a hotbed of new service for a
surprisingly young demographic," he said. "Unlike a generation ago
that felt stigmatized by riding the bus, college students and young
urbanites see it as somewhat hip. They can bring their electronic
communication and entertainment devices and avoid the hassle of
airports."

Memphis presents a challenge because of Megabus's 16 markets, it is
the most distant from Chicago.

"Evidence is mixed if travelers will sit on the bus a full eight
hours," Schwieterman said. "We're seeing routes within 300 miles as
having the greatest growth."

Memphis passengers will be able to connect through Chicago to any of
the Midwest markets, but not to the West Coast cities.

Locally, Megabus will compete with Greyhound and Delta Bus Lines,
which operates in the Mississippi Delta with an interline Greyhound
agreement.

Moser played down the competition, saying the company's biggest
challenge "is getting people out of their cars," he said.

"Better than 55 percent of our customers say they left their car at
home to take our service," he said.

Gas prices are playing an enormous role, as are longer waits at
airports and the unpredictability of air travel.

The problem, of course, is that buses don't have the room that trains
and planes have for moving about.

"Come prepared for the monotony of sitting in a coach for the better
part of the day," Schwieterman said.

"And bring your own food."

-- Jane Roberts: 529-2512

Red-light Cameras Increase Crashes, Florida Researchers Find

ScienceDaily (Mar. 12, 2008) — Rather than improving motorist safety, red-light cameras significantly increase crashes and are a ticket to higher auto insurance premiums, researchers at the University of South Florida College of Public Health conclude. The effective remedy to red-light running uses engineering solutions to improve intersection safety, which is particularly important to Florida’s elderly drivers, the researchers recommend.

“The rigorous studies clearly show red-light cameras don’t work,” said lead author Barbara Langland-Orban, professor and chair of health policy and management at the USF College of Public Health.

“Instead, they increase crashes and injuries as drivers attempt to abruptly stop at camera intersections. If used in Florida, cameras could potentially create even worse outcomes due to the state’s high percent of elderly who are more likely to be injured or killed when a crash occurs.”

Red-light cameras photograph violators who are then sent tickets in the mail. Hillsborough County Commissioners unanimously agreed earlier this month to install the cameras at several major intersections in the county. The devices could be adopted by more cities and counties if Florida legislators pave the way by changing a state law this spring.

The USF report highlights trends in red-light running in Florida, summarizes major studies, and analyzes the automobile insurance industry’s financial interest in cameras. Among the findings:

* Traffic fatalities caused by red-light running are not increasing in Florida and account for less than 4 percent of the state’s yearly traffic deaths. In contrast, more than 22 percent of the state’s traffic fatalities occur at intersections for reasons other than red-light running.
* The injury rate from red-light running crashes has dropped by a third in less than a decade, indicating red-light running crashes have been continually declining in Florida without the use of cameras.
* Comprehensive studies from North Carolina, Virginia, and Ontario have all reported cameras are significantly associated with increases in crashes, as well as crashes involving injuries. The study by the Virginia Transportation Research Council also found that cameras were linked to increased crash costs.
* Some studies that conclude cameras reduced crashes or injuries contained major “research design flaws,” such as incomplete data or inadequate analyses, and were conducted by researchers with links to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. The IIHS, funded by automobile insurance companies, is the leading advocate for red-light cameras. Insurers can profit from red-light cameras, since their revenues will increase when higher premiums are charged due to the crash and citation increase, the researchers say.

Langland-Orban said the findings have been known for some time. She cites a 2001 paper by the Office of the Majority Leader, U.S. House of Representatives, reporting that red-light cameras are “a hidden tax levied on motorists.” The report concluded cameras are associated with increased crashes, the timings at yellow lights are often set too short to increase tickets for red-light running, and most research concluding cameras are effective was conducted by one researcher from the IIHS. Since then, studies independent of the automobile insurance industry continue to find cameras are associated with large increases in crashes.

Red-light running can be reduced by engineering improvements that address factors such as signal visibility and timings, wet roads and traffic flow, the USF researchers say.

The researchers suggest local governments follow the state’s lead in designing roads and improving intersections to accommodate elderly drivers, which would ultimately benefit all drivers.

The report " Red-Light Running Cameras: Would Crashes, Injuries and Automobile Insurance Rates Increase If They Are Used in Florida?" was published in March 2008 in the Florida Public Health Review, the online journal of the college and the Florida Public Health Association. Etienne Pracht, PhD, and John Large, PhD, were the other authors of the USF public policy report.

Adapted from materials provided by University of South Florida Health.

The link to the article Michael copied here is:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080311151159.htm

Some other headlines on the same page as that article are also related:

"Study Indicates Speed Cameras Could Curb Road Deaths"

"New Study Shows Drivers Using Cell Phones Twice As Likely To Cause Rear-end Collisions"

Here is my version of the trip Bob and I made on the light rail:

http://amargul.blogspot.com/2008/03/is-max-safe-you-decide.html

I was pleased to see to day in the Tribune that Fred Hansen wrote a rebuttal to Eric Halstead's opinion piece.

http://www.portlandtribune.com/opinion/story.php?story_id=120699417903725300

I am especially happy to see that we have such a high number of miles between road call(18,000 on average fleet wide!)
Also, I am looking forward to seeing the new busses when they arrive in June of THIS year. I am hoping that they purchased the redesigned ones from New Flyer...it would help with P.R.

http://www.freightlinertrucks.com/trucks/find-by-model/m2e-hybrid/

In short, why doesn't the City of Portland own 20 of these. (You know, they're made here in Portland, they're hybrids so they are "green", etc.)

I do know that PGE owns at least one.

I've seen PGE's. It is an amazing piece of technology, not because of the fuel economy or anything like that, but simply because it is quiet when the bucket is running. I imagine the operators love it, (not having to yell over the volume of the engine is probably a nice change for them,) but simply riding past on my bicycle I was impressed.

Why they love Portland:

Starring Tom Potter, Sam Adams, Chris Smith, Fred Hansen.

http://amargul.blogspot.com/2008/04/why-we-love-portland_16.html

http://cartky.org/node/60

According to the FHWA, the annual vehicle-distance travelled in the USA has stopped climbing, and is actually going into decline. The graph is pretty darn dramatic.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/04/24/autos/carless_in_america/index.htm

-------------------------------------
Drive out of poverty with a car
A good, reliable automobile can make the difference in getting up from the bottom, and some groups want to give a leg up.
By Peter Valdes-Dapena, CNNMoney.com staff writer
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- If filling your tank with $3.60 a gallon gas is a serious economic hardship, ask yourself this: What if you didn't have a tank to fill up?

Wendy Mitchell of Middlebury, Vt. is a single mom who moved there from Florida in 2006 looking for better schools. Within months, she said, her Chevrolet Blazer blew a rod and, without a job or much savings, she was left without a car at the beginning of a rural New England winter.

"I was totally devastated," she said.

Despite car-ownership costs, including insurance, repairs and fuel, the majority of even the poorest Americans own cars, according to U.S. Census data - and for good reason. In this country, life without one can be difficult at best and unmanageable at worst.

Even cities with solid public transportation networks are set up to do one thing well: move people in and out of central business districts. "It takes a long time if you aren't doing exactly that," said Margy Waller, executive director of the policy research group Mobility Agenda.

And these days, she pointed out, the best jobs usually aren't in the center of the city.

Cars and kids
Employers cite transportation problems as the second-most common reason for losing entry-level workers, said Waller. The number one problem is child care.

"By giving them a car, we take care of both," said Martin Schwartz who runs Vehicles for Change, a non-profit group that provides donated used cars to carefully screened applicants in Maryland and Virginia. The cars aren't free. They cost recipients about $900 to $1,200, but that's still much less than retail value, and they come with a six-month warranty.

Vehicles for Change is one of about 150 non-profits around the country that provide low-cost used cars to the needy, according to Opportunity Cars, a national network of such groups.

Good News Garage is another group. Operating in four New England states, it found and fixed up a 1996 Honda Accord for Mitchell.

"I cried that day," Mitchell said of getting her car.

It now takes her about 30 minutes instead of more than an hour, she said, to get to her $8 an hour part-time job at the Boys and Girls Club of America. And now she can do something with her kids, she said, other than leave them at home once she manages to get them there, which she used to do on foot or by hitching rides.

A measurable impact
The groups say their work really makes people's lives better, and doesn't just give them an easier way around. Good News Garage cites data from an informal survey of its clients conducted by a local graduate student.

According to the survey, 61% of Vermonters who had received cars from Good News Garage said they reduced their dependence on the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, a federal aid program, as a direct result of having a car. More than half said they had stopped using TANF altogether.

And 60 percent of Good News Garage customers said they had gotten a job because they had a car, while 83% said they were able to keep a job because of it.

Lifting a burden - or adding a new one?
Some urban experts say these programs seem like they're helping needy individuals, but really they're just saddling them with the added costs of car ownership.

"The cost of urban sprawl has come to roost on working households and low-income households," said Scott Bernstein of the Center for Neighborhood Technology in Chicago. A better solution, he suggested, would be improving mass transit and giving businesses more incentives to move nearer to transit lines - or to provide their own commuting services.

"I'm not saying anybody should denied something," said Bernstein, "but lets face it, there's nothing fictitious about the gas price crisis." Another short-term solution, he said, is to provide shared cars rather than helping individuals to own cars.

The CNT operates one such service in Chicago - iGo car sharing - that allows members to use a car for $6 to $8 an hour. There are similar not-for-profit services in Philadelphia, San Francisco and a few other U.S. and Canadian cities.

But, for many individuals, there isn't much alternative to simply owning a car, even in big cities, car-ownership advocates say.

Philip Schools, a recovering drug addict, lives near Baltimore and works at a Home Depot. He said used to spend up to six hours a day simply getting to work and back on mass transit.

Getting a used Buick from Vehicles for Change cut his commute to a half hour each way and has allowed him time, he said, to work on starting his own lawn maintenance business to earn more money.

Almost as important, said Schools, it has given him a sense of personal responsibility while giving him an opportunity to build a credit history. "It's not just about the vehicle," he said, "It has other component parts.

The front page of NYTimes.com has an article called "Gas Prices Send Surge of Riders to Mass Transit". Doesn't mention Portland, but notes that public transit use is increasing at one of its fastest rates despite the economic downturn, a time when it would otherwise be falling (at least based on past experience).

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/10/business/10transit.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

I created a few Portland transit focused widgets a while back, on both iGoogle and Netvibes. One is for Trimet buses and uses the Trimet API to get arrival information for up to five stops. Another is a bike/transit/drive directions widget (using Google Maps and bycycle.org) which simplifies directions searches. And then there is the zipcar widget which uses an iframe around the zipcar mobile reservations site.
The Netvibes widgets will work on several platforms, including iGoogle, Apple Dashboard, Opera, Windows Vista beta and Windows Live beta
People are welcome to use and suggest enhancements.

Take a look:

iGoogle versions:
http://www.google.com/ig/authors?author=trimetgadget%40sohigian.com

Netvibes versions:
http://eco.netvibes.com/users/33602

Now that we have a better understanding of who will be leading the city, county, and region over the next several years, how about a thread covering transportation issues that might not be in the candidate-elects' mindset, and/or how transportation issues affect other, more prominent portions of their campaign platform? (Or would something like this turn into another thread of fighting, bus vs. rail, or global warming vs. natural change in climate arguments that this site seems to have a lot of lately? Can anyone else agree to disagree and move on?)

http://blog.wired.com/cars/2008/05/half-bus-half-t.html

I love it.

There's a post at BlueOregon whining about TriMet.

http://www.blueoregon.com/2008/06/trimet-fare-inc.html

http://www.frepubtra.blogspot.com/

worthy of discussion imo......

more:

irresistible

well that never works for me so here is the link:

http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/features/viewpoints/story.html?id=83b9fe79-5098-47d1-a32f-22b9751e1767

Chris,

After reading through the posts regarding TriMet and Gas Prices, it occurred to me that many of your subscribers could benefit from an education on Impervious Surfaces. I was wondering if you would find it prudent to start a discussion on the main page.

Thank you,

Michelle Lasley

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/21/business/21amtrak.html

Record prices for gasoline and jet fuel should be good news for Amtrak, as travelers look for alternatives to cut the cost of driving and flying.

It goes on to detail the problems rail is facing. It seems very on topic here.

I found your website and noticed how it offers a lot of great information about Portland Transportation. I think I have some more information that your users would benefit from. My name is Michelle and I work for a California based company called Beat the Traffic. We are trying to spread the word about our website and I think your users would really appreciate if you added a post about it or a link to it.

Our website, www.beatthetraffic.com, contains free up to the minute traffic information on easy to use maps. It features color coded road speeds and intuitive symbols representing the latest road construction, car accidents, closures, special events, and anything else drivers would want to know. Travel times and traffic forecasts are also available.

We already have 29,000 unique users every month, but we are trying to get the word out to new areas as we continue to expand our coverage of cities across the US. Please help us spread the word while helping your users find this valuable tool by adding a link on your website. Check out our website and feel free to contact me with any questions.

Thank you,

Michelle Rodrigues

Found this in the hometown West Linn Tidings today:

http://www.lakeoswegoreview.com/opinion/story.php?story_id=121443074183675200

Any updates on the LO Streetcar situation (other than the cranky people)? I ride the 35 four days a week, so I'm pretty interested.

I just found this on CNN:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/26/congress.energy.ap/index.html?iref=mpstoryview

The House approved financial help Thursday for mass transit systems facing a surge in riders because of high gas prices...

The House voted 322-98 to authorize $1.7 billion over the next two years to lower fares and expand operations as more riders flock to public transit. The transit measure, which must be considered by the Senate, marks the first time federal money would be used to support local mass transit operating costs.

I wonder if TriMet will qualify for any of that?

Interesting. APTA puts 2007 transit ridership at 10.3 billion boardings. If we assume 10.5 billion for the next two years, that's 21 billion boardings. If the $1.7 billion 2-year appropriation is divvied out equally, that subsidizes transit agencies by about 8 cents per boarding, which is actually quite significant. (For example, in TriMet's case, perhaps a 15 cent fare increase would have sufficed for the same level of service, instead of 25 cents, or service hours on crowded routes can now be expanded...)

Locally, they're busy trying to put together the funding for the EIS work. In any event, the EIS can't practically start until 2009, because all the TriMet and Metro staff who do that kind of work are busy working on the Milwaukie line.

Honestly I'd like to see a few of our "tax and spend" types push for some big mass transit packages to help finance new-build construction.

Though, operational costs being covered allows for debts to be paid faster, reducing interest paid, so it also works.

I'd love to hear a Presidential candidate mention high speed rail or some other major transportation plan in their platform.

I'd love to hear a Presidential candidate mention high speed rail or some other major transportation plan in their platform.

Here's a Reuters article about transportation infrastructure from the Obama campaign:

http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed7/idUSN2635223420080626

Anyone got a good link to articles for the McCain or Barr campaigns?

Yea Bob, here is one for the McBush, errr, I mean McCain campaign.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/06/19/bush-bashing-bus-to-hit-the-road/

I think this would be worthy of a new thread:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25265682/
The article is titled "America's Fastest Train Moves Ahead."

"Could America’s fastest train whisk us away from $4-a-gallon gas guzzlers?

Thanks to a $45 million infusion from a transportation bill signed by President Bush in early June, there could someday be a magnetic levitating train, or “maglev,” soaring from Disneyland to Las Vegas at a maximum speed of 310 mph — 180 mph on average."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25265682/

Re: MagLev Train.
There is also a video, from Siemens, you might wish to post with the article if you put it on the website:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=weWmTldrOyo

What's 17,000 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2? UC Professor Michael Prather says that a gas used in LCD displays, nitrogen trifluoride or NF3, if released into the atmosphere would be much more harmful pound for pound than carbon dioxide.

Here is a link:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/07/03/2293369.htm

How come your not posting anything about the real life war going on in Portland?

http://blog.oregonlive.com/breakingnews/2008/07/driver_arrested_after_targetin.html

Al, the two recent road rage incidents are being thoroughly covered on other blogs, especially bikeportland.org, so I didn't feel the need to weigh in...

OK Chris-

btw- do you ride around on a scooter?

Al

Occasionally :-)

But it's up for sale on Craigslist right now...

I think I saw you today at Zupans...

Wasn't sure and was in a rush so I didn't say hi!

I wish I could have got a picture of you on that scooter!

It was classic!

Well, you lost your chance. The scooter sold tonight :-)

I'm a recent new reader here, so apologies if I'm plowing any old ground with my suggestion.

Some recent comments, by me and others, have made reference to the what I'll call the rail/bus dilemma, for lack of a better name (if there *is* a better name for this in transit circles, I'd love to hear it). This dilemma refers to the notion, seemingly accepted as true and unavoidable by transportation planners, that rail will attract more riders than an equivalent bus service. By "equivalent" I mean similar amenities, similar schedules, similar transit times.

The questions are:

* Why is this so? Perceptions that rail/bus services AREN'T (and can't) be equivalent, or that rail is inherently faster than bus?

* Class-based issues--the perception that more "riff-raff" rides the bus, and so those with a choice avoid it; but that trains are nicer. (Of course, with the recent MAX attacks in Gresham, is the oft-repeated perception that MAX brings crime to communities--the transit/crime linkage is hardly new or unique to Portland. The Georgetown neighborhood in DC reportedly has no Metro stop, despite one of the lines going nearby, because the locals were afraid that all sorts of undesirables would infiltrate the neighborhood were it to get a subway stop).

* Permanence of route is often cited as a reason; you never know when your bus line (especially one gasoline or diesel busses that need no trolley infrastructure) may go away; whereas rail ROWs represent significant capital infrastructure that isn't so easily altered on a whim.

* I'm sure that such a thread will entertain a few remarks about how the real purpose of rail is to drive up construction costs to the benefit of well-heeled political patrons--services that use existing infrastructure don't result in multimillion dollar contracts for developers, and so forth. While such charges may have a grain of truth--it ain't unique to Portland, or to transit. And such charges are often made without any specific evidence, and are awfully hard to rebut.

* And finally--to what extent can, and should, planners attempt to counteract such notions? Erik H. complained that the streetcar is sleek and stylish, but that the Tri-Met bus fleet is ugly; should Tri-Met replace its bus fleet to look nicer?

Scotty,

I'd say that it's more the long term operational costs that are normally mentioned as the bonus of rail. Overall, per passenger mile it's pretty cheap once the construction costs are justified.

A lot of people I know like the trains because their routes are easier to remember. Nothing sinister, but they go to the major population centers, destinations, and are easy to remember.

2) It's not just riff-raff, but for my parents when they visited, it was the predictability. They loved the streetcar because of the features that could be given to other modes, but haven't yet.

If every bus was a low floor, AC'd, with better predictability and clean we'd probably see better ridership. I live near several routes, and plan for the one that gets the new buses when possible.

Erik makes good points about how TriMet should upgrade its buses. Personally I love the Streetcar and MAX, but I agree with him that TriMet should look at upgrading buses faster, adding more service, and other options that are much cheaper than MAX extensions.

Keep building out the MAX, but I'd also like to see more efforts in making buses more appealing. The Buffalo (NY) Subway has a higher ridership per mile than the MAX, and they have some of the ugliest trains on the planet. Being a subway may help them in that regard.

(Example: http://www.flickr.com/photos/73428745@N00/872162967

Here's an article I saw today about an economic stimulus package by building infrastructure:

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN2234393420080722

This part in particular caught my eye:

Oberstar said he had also recommended spending $4.07 billion on other transit projects, $250 million on the nation's passenger rail system, Amtrak, and $675 million for aviation - primarily airport projects.

$4 billion in federal money spread out 50 ways is $80 million each. I'm sure population would be factored in so we probably wouldn't get $80m exactly, but I'm wondering what would be our highest priority transit programs (statewide) if we suddenly were given $80m federal dollars for transit only?