looks like your tribune link is not complete...

http://www.portlandtribune.com/news/story.php?story_id=117918210199176000

Here's another take on it that we had in today's DJC:

www.djcoregon.com/viewStory.cfm?recid=29428&userID=1

Any such study needs far ranging public participation that should have quantitative representation based on the current transport mode use split, and not just the present status quo stacked deck participation Metro attempts to front as a cross section citizen advisory process.

"Are you ready to pay a regional gas tax, motor vehicle registration fee or property tax to ease traffic congestion in the Portland area?"

Nope. I like traffic congestion -- it keeps the pressure on people to walk, ride a bicycle or take transit. Let me put it another way: No new freeways. Bottleneck removals, OK.

However, I would be willing to tax myself at a higher rate to pay for more transit improvements, to remove I-5 from the East Bank of the Willamette, to build out the regional bicycle network, to institute a regional commuter rail network, and maybe to lay a better grid system of primary (non-freeway) roads across the more suburban parts of the region, so that local and arterial streets have more connectivity.

Thoughts?

How about we just decide that everyone pays for what they use for:

1. Homeowners and businesses pay for local access streets and on-street parking (user fees in some areas (parking meters),

2. CBDs pay for parking garages, along with user fees.

3. A weight-mile based fee for all motor vehicles, which includes an "urban area" surcharge and a congestion surcharge.

4. Tolls on freeways and certain non-freeway routes (i.e. Valley-Coast routes, Valley-Eastern Oregon routes)

5. Bicycle annual fee for bikeway improvements

6. Parks fee, which includes funding for pedestrian paths

7. Transit fees, including higher fares for "premium services" (i.e. express service, Streetcar and MAX service), higher fares in congestion. Property taxes for those in transit-oriented centers. Everyone living within a transit district pay a minimum fee; those who receive more transit service pay a higher rate. (Or a payroll tax, also graduated upon how much transit service is available to the specific worksite).

8. No free parking for government business. (Businesses already have to pay to own/maintain their own parking lots.)

Erik, would your proposed bike fee mean we could finally kick the pedestrians off the Esplanade?

Well if it's funded by "park fees" then the park authority (Portland Parks & Rec) could make the determination as to whether it'll be a pedestrian-only facility; if it's funded by "bike fees" then it'd be a bike path.

My guess is that it'd be a park facility funded through bike fees as well, so it would continue as a joint-use facility.

If pedestrians and bikes are such a problem I propose the Germany solution - paint a line down the center, with half of it being pedestrians and half being bikes.

However, the U.S. has one problem - it doesn't enforce the law. In Germany, being on the wrong side of the line can result in fines (or a riot).

Homeowners and businesses pay for local access streets and on-street parking

Why should they be charged and not the users? Especially the parking, since people who use private parking or don't drive don't use it. In general, I agree with having people pay for what they use.

As for the road fee, I just hope they don't decide to use a bond measure to pay for the roads part. That kind of thinking (subsidies) is what got us into this mess.

I don't think the "punish the car-owners" is the right approach. It's just leading to resentment and is counterproductive. They need more freeways in this town. They need to quit funding studies for study's sake! Just look what a mess it has become the last 10 years. The MAX has done very little, if anything, to actually reduce the congestion. In addition to more freeways I would build more bike paths, put in more buses (esp the long kind) and put in priority HOV lanes for the buses to use in one lane, another HOV for personal multi-occupancy vehicles to use and a priority lane for freight trucks. I would also look at building passenger only tracks for the Amtrak all the way from Eugene to Vancouver BC and then use that route for more frequent commuter type service, especially Salem - Seattle. They need to wake up and smell the roses that this town is growing faster than they can handle and put some real solutions in place not more multimillion $ studies and glossy brochures.

I think it's a popular misconception that the purpose of transit is to "relieve congestion."

The purpose of transit is to provide mobility options for people, to encourage economic development, and to connect parts of the region with one another.

Congestion, quite simply, is a sign of a healthy economy. Up to a certain point, which I don't think the Portland region has reached, congestion is just a sign of a pulse in a healthy patient. Sure, the pulse might be beating slower or faster, but it's there.

For instance, nobody ever expected that Westside Light Rail would remove cars from Hwy 26. All it would do is provide the option to not drive to a greater segment of the population. As its success has proven, a larger segment of the population has chosen to not drive than was originally predicted. Hwy 26 has not experienced a drop in traffic volume, however, due to the growth in the population of the region and the growth of the economy (which has grown, I believe, from pre-1998 to 2007).

Congestion management seems like a much more reasonable approach. The region's highway and freeway system is, with the exception of a few bottlenecks and old facilities requiring some re-thinking, built-out.

The same cannot be said for the regional transit network, which is just in the early stages of being constructed. It took 50 years (or more) to build the regional highway/freeway system. I think it's reasonable to expect 50 years of growth on the regional transit system (including all types of rail and other transit improvements).

How about we just decide that everyone pays for what they use for:

Agreed, why do all these motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians out after dark get free use of all those streetlights while the rest of us pay their way? We ought to put coin-operated meters or some sort of electronic transponder device on streetlight poles so the people getting the light have to pay for it! </sarcasm>

At some point we have to say these things are for the larger benefit of the community, and the larger community is going to pay for it. It just gets silly (and raises administrative costs) to start nickel and diming people for every little public service they recieve.

The same cannot be said for the regional transit network, which is just in the early stages of being constructed.

Excellent point, we're just 21 years into having any MAX, and 30 years since the transit mall opened. We've been building this city for over 150 years, so it is kind of a blip in the larger scheme of things so far.

Why should they be charged and not the users? Especially the parking, since people who use private parking or don't drive don't use it. In general, I agree with having people pay for what they use.

Because if you're a homeowner that has on-street parking in front of your house, you are using it. On the other hand if no on-street (i.e. "public", "free", "subsidized") parking is available you shouldn't have to pay for it, because you can't use it.

I guess, if you could prove to the city that you are not and will not have anyone in your home park on the street that you could apply for some sort of exemption.

As for charging the users, well we can charge the users (and how do we propose that, meters everywhere? What if your relatives from outside the area want to visit and they can only park on the street?) or what is causing the demand for parking (the homes and businesses). It'd be easier to charge the homes.

I think it's a popular misconception that the purpose of transit is to "relieve congestion."

Someone better tell TriMet that they are helping to promote this misconception.

From TriMet's "Fact Sheet" (http://www.trimet.org/pdfs/publications/factsheet.pdf), the number one bullet point benefit of TriMet is "Easing Traffic Congestion".

Number two is Clean Air (of which it mentions congestion again by stating "Each weekday, MAX eliminates 69,000 car trips off our roads, easing traffic congestion and helping keep our air clean."

On page two under "Connecting Communities":

TriMet’s 44-mile Metropolitan Area Express (MAX) light
system with 64 stations connects the cities of Portland, Gresham, Beaverton and Hillsboro,
Portland International Airport. MAX provides 33% of weekday transit trips and: removes cars from our roads and helps keep our air clean, continues to attract riders, is a catalyst for transit-oriented development—than $6 billion in development has occurred within walking distance of MAX stations since the decision to build in 1980, helps preserve neighborhoods and our livability.

Note, very first bullet point (again) is removing cars from roads (reducing congestion).

Erik, the problem with your idea is that it probably will encourage under-consumption of transport than is socially beneficial. Cheap and effective transit options have positive economic externalities to users.

In other words, good transit options encourage economic growth, but users won't see the direct benefit, so they won't pay for it on their own. So then you get no growth.

The same cannot be said for the regional transit network, which is just in the early stages of being constructed. It took 50 years (or more) to build the regional highway/freeway system. I think it's reasonable to expect 50 years of growth on the regional transit system (including all types of rail and other transit improvements).

Then why are we de-investing in quality bus service? TriMet has been around since 1969, so that's 38 years since Rose City Transit shut down. Yet we are seeing few new busses, and many of TriMet's own touted "investments" (according to their Fact Sheet) have either been reversed or the implementation is hardly complete:

1. Frequent Service bus lines - 16 of them, many of which do not offer frequent service throughout the day, or on weekends/holidays, or on the entire route.

2. Transit Tracker readerboard signs - removed from transit centers (available only on MAX)

3. Bus Shelters - the only new bus shelters I am aware of are downtown. I have not seen a new bus stop installed, unless it's to replace an old shelter.

4. Schedules at bus stops - they're outdated and not replaced/updated.

5. Signal pre-emption - Of the dozens of traffic lights my bus route goes through, only a couple have signal pre-emption in place. Most do not.

Erik was comparing MAX to the bus system again:
"1. Frequent Service bus lines - 16 of them, many of which do not offer frequent service throughout the day, or on weekends/holidays, or on the entire route.

The last MAX Red line of the day leaves Beaverton TC at 10:30pm, and after 11pm the Blue and Yellow becomes every half hour. (MAX is listed on the frequent service page on TriMet's website too.) The entire TriMet system doesn't have the ridership late at night to justify any more service than that, (if you hadn't noticed, the entire city pretty much shuts down at 11pm.) That isn't exactly a secret to anyone that has ever ridden any part of the system at that hour...

"2. Transit Tracker readerboard signs - removed from transit centers (available only on MAX)"

A few days ago you were telling us that TriMet should have fired the person that tried to get them installed in the first place. Pick one.

"3. Bus Shelters - the only new bus shelters I am aware of are downtown. I have not seen a new bus stop installed, unless it's to replace an old shelter."

You only ride in Tualatin and Downtown, so I think that means that 50% of the shelters you've seen are new. It looks like a glass half full or half empty thing, I guess. (And, I know of a some new shelters in N Portland.)

4. Schedules at bus stops - they're outdated and not replaced/updated.

And so are a lot of the ones on the MAX stops.

5. Signal pre-emption - Of the dozens of traffic lights my bus route goes through, only a couple have signal pre-emption in place. Most do not.

And how many had pre-emption 5 years ago? 0? It sounds like they are upgrading the lights, which would be considered investing money in the bus system or something like that. That sounds like a good thing actually.

Erik was comparing MAX to the bus system again:

No I wasn't.

In fact, the referred to message made only one reference to MAX, in that the Transit Tracker signs were only available at MAX stations, when they used to also be available at transit centers to provide bus times (which they are no longer).

Every other point was a direct response to TriMet's own Fact Sheet, available at http://www.trimet.org, in that TriMet alleges "investment" in the bus system (again, no reference to MAX) that are half-truths or not truths at all.

1. Frequent Service Bus Lines - I made no comparison to MAX, only a complaint that when TriMet claims a bus line is "frequent service" that often that the claim is untrue. (In fact I just found out yesterday that a bus line that used to run every 20 minutes between Washington Square and Portland is now every 30 minutes, and service that used to be every 10 minutes from Raleigh Hills to Portland is now 15. That is a service reduction.)

2. Transit Tracker signs. This is the only time I made a reference to MAX. (And I think this is a great idea, except that TriMet relied on a communications system that was extremely expensive and therefore had to be removed from bus transit centers. Therefore how can TriMet consider it a bus improvement if it doesn't exist? That's akin to saying that TriMet invested in a particular MAX station, but the station is closed and trains don't stop there/passengers can't board there. Ironically, there are two MAX stations that are closed - does TriMet count them as actual MAX stations for "investment" purposes?)

3. Bus Shelters. I could name numerous stops that should have a bus shelter but doesn't. I also know of plenty of stops that have shelters that I never see anyone at, regardless of the time/day. (And yes, I do ride at different times of the day.)

4. Schedules. Made no reference to MAX here. But thank you for bringing up the fact that MAX schedules are wrong too.

5. Pre-Emption. This has absolutely nothing to do with MAX. (I'd hate to see what would happen if MAX couldn't preempt a traffic signal. Actually we found out a couple years ago in Hillsboro when a MAX train hit a fire truck on its way to an emergency, but at least that was operator error; can't blame TriMet on that one. And I think that operator was fired, too.)

Apparently my critics have now decided to accuse me of making comparisons/statements I didn't make. So much for working together to have a productive dialogue on how to improve transit, increase transit use and decrease auto use.

Frequent Service bus lines - 16 of them, many of which do not offer frequent service throughout the day, or on weekends/holidays, or on the entire route.

Except for Line 15 beyond 92nd, all "frequent service" bus lines have 15-minute frequencies during Sunday daytimes. However, I agree that evenings (everyday) are hit & miss and that only about half of the lines are frequent end-to-end.

As for parking meters, I agree that they aren't practical in low-density areas. (The same goes for tolling every street) But it would sure get people to re-consider using their vehicles. And you could justify having less parking and narrower streets, leading to less runoff and maybe some deed-able land.

1. TIP, page 29 says: "Elements of Frequent Service: On weekdays, 15 minute or better service should begin no later than 6:00 a.m. and continue until 10:30 p.m. On weekends, it should begin by 8:00 a.m. and continue until 10:30 p.m....Service on these lines before 6:00 a.m. and after 10:30 p.m. may not be as frequent as every 15 minutes." That isn't a secret, (although the fact that you only found that out a week ago tells me how often you really ride the bus.)

I'm not sure what your point is about the other bus route, it wasn't frequent service to begin with, and they change bus hours around all the time. And I don't know which route you are referring to anyways, because there are a lot of routes that serve those two places, but is it listed on page 19 of the TIP? That might explain it...

2. You still haven't rectified how exactly you think that someone who took a risk by trying to improve the system, only to have it not work out, should be fired, and how you think someone in TriMet should take that risk again...

3. Humm, sounds like there are too many shelters then? I'm totally confused by your point now. (But the new shelters that I've seen tend to be fairly heavily used.)

4. It is a poor implementation problem, not a "deinvestment in the bus system" problem like you claim. (Did Rose City transit have schedules at the bus stops? Were they up to date all the time?)

5. Signal pre-emption on bus routes has expanded faster than Tualitan's population. How is that not a good thing?

Matthew,

I'm not sure what your point is about the other bus route, it wasn't frequent service to begin with

Lines 54/56 ARE a "Frequent Service" line from Raleigh Hills to Portland.

See: http://www.trimet.org/bus/frequentservice.htm

That said, service DECREASED from 10 to 15 minutes east of Raleigh Hills, and DECREASED from 20 to 30 minutes west of Raleigh Hills.

You still haven't rectified how exactly you think that someone who took a risk by trying to improve the system, only to have it not work out, should be fired, and how you think someone in TriMet should take that risk again

I have very clearly indicated methods for which TriMet could have implemented the system without using an expensive cellular network, using existing data radio infrastructure already in use by TriMet for BDS and by various law enforcement agencies.

Humm, sounds like there are too many shelters then?

No, but can you tell me that the actual number of stops with shelters have increased? Neither can TriMet.

It is a poor implementation problem, not a "deinvestment in the bus system"

What is the difference? Poor implementation means money that could be used to invest in better service is not, it's been wasted. If you spend a dollar on something, that's a dollar not being spent somewhere else.

If TriMet spends $150 per bus stop pole (including the cost of labor to install it), multiply it by the 7,625 bus stops that TriMet states they have (again, according to TriMet's fact sheat on their web page), that's $1,143,750. That doesn't include ongoing maintenance for the bus stop signs, maintaining the shelters, etc.

$150 is reasonable given that TriMet purchased custom, multiple color signs and a custom shape sign, custom sign posts, and the signs cannot be mounted on other signposts like the old signs could be (and were often attached to power poles, existing signposts, etc.) Again, this is $1,143,750 that can not be attributed to increased ridership, improved transit reliability, or other positive attributes towards the bus network. Based on the fact that the FTA covers 90% of the cost of a new transit vehicle, the cost of the bus stop signs meant that TriMet couldn't have used the $1,143,750 towards the 10% local match to purchase 38 new busses (40' low floor busses, at $300,000 each).

Signal pre-emption on bus routes has expanded faster than Tualitan's population

What kind of comparison is that? That would only make sense if every signal pre-emption was installed on every Tualatin traffic signal. But TriMet is the TRI-COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT OF OREGON, not the City of Tualatin bus. Has Signal-Preemption grown faster than the area? (And even if it grew faster than Tualatin's population, has bus service in Tualatin grown with Tualatin's population? Since 1970 Tualatin had a 3200% increase in population, has bus service increased in that same level? Since 1980 500%. Since 1990 nearly 200%.)

Has Signal Preemption improved schedule reliability across TriMet's network? (What about the queue jumper lane at Capitol Highway eastbound at Terwilliger, I noticed yesterday that it was taken out of service.) Does TriMet have a list of every route where signal preemption is installed on the majority of signals on the route, and a comparison of schedule reliability before and after?

On weekdays, 15 minute or better service should begin no later than 6:00 a.m. and continue until 10:30 p.m..

The keyword there is "should". If you look at the schedules or at the TIP (Transit Investment Plan), many lines do not have that level of service. For example, Line 33-McLoughlin leaves Portland only every 30 minutes after 7-7:30PM.

As for the new signs, they are more visible, especially from behind. However, even I was surprised to see them out at some stops that didn't seem to serve much on Boone's Ferry Road near Wilsonville. And I do agree with questioning whether it was the best use of funds.

Also, I remember that a couple years ago (due to fuel prices), they did cut back on many lines, including frequent service ones. See, for example (especially the 14 & 15), http://web.archive.org/web/20050306033747/http://www.trimet.org/schedule/alerts/index.htm

The keyword there is "should".

I agree - the minimum actual characteristics of a line branded as "frequent service" should be well-publicized and consistent so that when a person chooses a route that includes a "frequent service" bus, they know if they should consult a schedule first. Although I don't think everything must run "frequent" as late as 10:30pm, 7:00 seems pretty early to me.

- Bob R.

2. If TriMet put an employee in charge of implementing your suggestion, and then realized that that method is expansive as well, should they fire him too? Or should they fire the person that listened to your suggestion and told the person to implement it?

4. You didn't read the entire VTPI document about transit tracker, did you? Those new signs combined with the schedules, should result in an about a small but noticeable increase in ridership because they they increase the quality of the waiting environment. I'm not going to quote it all to you, go read it yourself. (Also, note that bus ridership is increasing: it is just that TriMet keeps taking the best routes and turning them into MAX lines, and then putting those bus hours into more marginal use.) Your 38 buses, operating during rush hour alone would run about $5M each year, (if they operated them more hours than that, obviously, it would be more money.) My point is, they could replace the schedules in the signs once a week for that kind of money.

5. Your original point was about Tualitan, so I thought that was what you wanted to know. However, "Has Signal-Preemption grown faster than the area?" Yes. It is a simple logic exercise: If signal pre-emption has grown faster than the population of a city that has grown 3200%, then has it also grown faster than an area that has grown slower than 3200%? (Signal Pre-Emption has grown from 0 in 1970, to more than 0 today, a growth rate of infinity.)

Electronic tolls would solve a lot of problems. Put toll gates on freeway ramps, viaducts, bridges and tunnels throughout the region. Set the toll rates to increase as traffic grows, and you get automatic demand-responsive pricing. That (a) pays for the road system, and (b) creates automatic incentives to avoid peak hour trips.

Tolls could fund road repair and improvements while simultaneously reducing congestion.

(Signal Pre-Emption has grown from 0 in 1970, to more than 0 today, a growth rate of infinity.)

At risk of making a "personally-directed comment", the American Heritage Dictionary defines "infinite" as:

Having no boundaries or limits.
Immeasurably great or large; boundless: infinite patience; a discovery of infinite importance.
Mathematics
Existing beyond or being greater than any arbitrarily large value.
Unlimited in spatial extent: a line of infinite length.
Of or relating to a set capable of being put into one-to-one correspondence with a proper subset of itself.

Either one is incapable of a simple mathematic question, or one is outrageously crediting TriMet for something that no longer exists. (Besides, you can't multiply something into zero, because the answer is always zero, nor can you divide something into zero, because dividing something into zero generates an impossible result. But the answer isn't "infinity".)

You didn't read the entire VTPI document about transit tracker, did you? Those new signs combined with the schedules, should result in an about a small but noticeable increase in ridership

Should? Should?!! So in other words there is no proof!

I will go to www.trimet.org and find out for myself.

http://www.trimet.org/pdfs/ridership/busmaxstat.pdf

Interestingly, from FY05 to FY06, bus originating rides decreased from 48,373,200 to 47,732,400. Boarding rides decreased from 63,906,000 to 63,129,600. Vehicle hours decreased from 2,033,544 to 1,953,420 (proof that bus service has declined). Average weekend originating rides decreased from 159,000/daily to 157,600/daily. Average weekend boarding rides decreased from 209,200/daily to 207,400/daily.

Hmm. I can read. I can go to TriMet's own website. I can see that bus ridership is DOWN. Would you like to spin those numbers to meet your pre-conceived notion of "success" or would you like to finally admit that your beloved transit agency, the infalible TriMet, actually is seeing a decrease in riders, despite all of this "investment" in fancy half-moon, three-color bus stop signs, schedules, and the no-longer-present Transit Tracker signs? Never mind the fact that gas prices hit $3.00/a gallon in FY06. Never mind all of the newfound attention to global warming, carbon emissions, etc. Everything was in TriMet's favor, and ridership is down.

This is in stark contrast to our bus-only friends up north, King County Metro:

http://www.metrokc.gov/kcdot/news/2007/nr070108_ridership.htm

The early numbers are in - and it looks like King County Metro Transit set a new record for ridership in 2006 with a preliminary estimate of 103.2 million passenger boardings. This is based just on the number of trips taken on Metro bus routes, and does not include more than an additional 3.2 million trips taken by passengers traveling in vanpools and via transportation services for people with disabilities.

“Overall, we saw about a 4.3 percent real increase in bus ridership last year compared to 2005,” said Metro General Manager Kevin Desmond. “The combination of more jobs and higher gas prices are likely the two biggest reasons we saw for more people riding the bus, but improved transit connections were also a factor.”

BTW, King County Metro's numbers don't include the successes found by Pierce Transit, Community Transit, Everett Transit, Intercity Transit, or Sound Transit.