Census Survey puts Portland Transit Commute Share at 13.3%


According to this CNN Money article on the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey, Portland now ranks among the top 10 transit commuter cities with a commute share of 13.3%.

The article also notes that the survey puts the share of bike commuters at 3.5%, about eight times the national average.

I’d like to see the survey questions and data, and learn more about the geographic areas covered, but at least in relative terms this seems to indicate that the steps Portland has been taking to improve transit and bike networks have had an impact.


123 responses to “Census Survey puts Portland Transit Commute Share at 13.3%”

  1. It’s a census survey, so it’s available on the census.gov website.
    There’s a couple of news releases on the site in the “New on the Site” section, one specifically pertaining to Portland (the held a press conference earlier today about the high transit use here), and another has a different take on the survey – that despite the findings, 77% of America as a whole still drive alone to work.
    BTW, over at http://www.census.gov/acs/www/index.html, it seems to have answers to a lot of your questions, but in grand Federal bureaucratic form, it takes forever and a day to locate the information, and the search box is of no use.

  2. The problem with that survey is that it only allows you to choose one mode. On most days, (today for instance,) I bike about 8 miles and ride MAX for the other 7, but if it is raining hard, or I’m not feeling very well, or something, I will either ride a bus for 7, and MAX for 8, or ride my bike for 2, and then MAX for about 14 miles… So am I a bike commuter, or a public transit user? The census bureau doesn’t let you select 50-50… And it is important that people like me get counted for both, I can’t bike the entire 15 miles, (easily: the west hills are in the way, so it doubles my commute,) and I’d probably own a car if I didn’t/couldn’t bike on a regular basis, (TriMet shuts down after midnight, but I’m usually still awake at that hour.)

    The ECO survey that I filled out for Westside TMA lets you specify your commute in greater detail.

  3. Here’s a couple interesting things from the article:

    * 13.5 % of Boston residents walk to work. That percentage slightly more than the percent of Portlanders that take transit, and way more than the national 2.5% average that walk.

    * Portland’s transit use is just a few percent ahead of Los Angeles (13.5 % vs. 10.3 %). Is that bad for Portland, or good for LA?

  4. Not really that impressed. Portland should be able to do A LOT better. At 13.3% we’re somewhat behind Seattle (17%), and they don’t even have an operating light rail line yet). We can’t even touch San Francisco (32.7%).

    We would need to almost triple the number of transit commuters to beat #2 ranked Washington D.C. (37.7%). But if we can double it, we’ll be in the top five nationally. That may be attainable.

    What can we learn from the nine cities ahead of us to move up the list?

  5. >> “What can we learn from the nine cities ahead of us to move up the list?”

    We’re doing well, but just off the top of my head, I believe that the top 6 cities all have at least one grade-separated heavy rail line as well as a commuter rail system. And both those modes seem to be generally faster than buses or rail that operates on streets.

    Of course, speed is not the only thing that’s important in good public transit, but the faster public transit becomes the more useful it becomes when compared to driving in cars.

  6. What can we learn? Well, other than NY and Washington, we’re the only other “border city” on the list. NY has volume working for it, as well as an insane amount of density and transit that most other cities could not afford. How many multi-billion dollar subways is Portland building in the next ten years?

    Washington has government jobs, and is a city that many employees don’t want to live in, to boost it’s numbers. San Francisco has a lot of density also, as well as very dense neighbors in Oakland and San Jose. Is that a fair comparison to Tigard and Vancouver?

    As far as Los Angeles being almost on par with Portland, it makes sense. Los Angeles is overall a very dense city with excellent transit options, much like Portland. Also, like Portland, it has many under-served suburban areas to lower it’s numbers.

    I find Matthew’s point very interesting though. Am I a solo commuter, if half my drive is done alone? For the other half I’m carpooling with someone who uses the MAX to meet me, but am I a solo driver, or a carpooler? Is my carpool rider a transit rider, or a carpooler?

    How about when I was working from San Diego County in Los Angeles County, usually driving to my office in San Diego County alone, then carpooling 3/4 of the drive to LA? The stats didn’t let me state it that way, so I’ve always listed myself as a solo commuter. To confuse things more, how about when I drove sometimes, took buses other times, and still often walked to work? How do I classify myself in that case?

    It makes me think that the stats in the article are somewhat useless for a realistic comparison. Other than the cities at the very bottom or the pinnacle of the rankings, I just can’t show much faith in the way these numbers were calculated to differentiate Los Angeles from Seattle or Portland.

  7. All those cities ahead of Portland have horrible traffic, which is really what motivates people to take mass transit.

    Portland has developed a strong mass transit system to complement its roads, and thus the traffic just isn’t that bad, at least compared to Boston, Seattle and DC, etc…

  8. All those cities ahead of Portland have horrible traffic, which is really what motivates people to take mass transit.

    Portland has developed a strong mass transit system to complement its roads, and thus the traffic just isn’t that bad, at least compared to Boston, Seattle and DC, etc…

  9. Dave said:

    “It makes me think that the stats in the article are somewhat useless for a realistic comparison. Other than the cities at the very bottom or the pinnacle of the rankings, I just can’t show much faith in the way these numbers were calculated to differentiate Los Angeles from Seattle or Portland.”

    >>>> Me neither; I wouold like to know there methodology.

    I do know that transit accounts for 44% of the trips to the Portland CBD. Rex Burkholder said last December that only 10% of all commuter trips in Multnomah County were by transit. For the whole region, I’ve heard 7-8%. I believe Rex would havr a better scoop on the real story than CNN.

  10. “Washington has government jobs, and is a city that many employees don’t want to live in, to boost it’s numbers.”

    Washington is a very desirable city that a huge amount of people want to live in, near their jobs, making it one of the most unaffordable cities in the country.

  11. i would like to see a comparison of these transit numbers to pre-war housing development. i have a feeling that there will be a strong correlation between pre war settlement % in a city to transit numbers.

    then it would be interesting to see if portland is beating the odds with that correlation: as in, does it have disproportionate transit use compared to % of pre-war development.

    i think that might be the best figure to find out if we are doing transit and TOD right.

  12. Several people are questioning the validity of the data because it doesn’t break out people who use multiple modes of transit, or they have different patterns. The people at the Census Bureau are not idiots. They know how to do surveys in such a way to make the data meaningful. Also, the issues that people are bringing up are the same issues that people in other cities would have, and thus the error rate or fudge factor should be evenly distributed or at least statistically insignificant when comparing cities.

  13. Actually, the people at the Census Bureau (or at least the ones in charge right now) ARE idiots. They’re the geniuses who believe that Salem is not close enough to Portland to be in our metro area, but Olympia and Seattle? A-OK. And it’s not just Portland. They pulled the same crap in the SF Bay area, Los Angeles (apparently Riverside and San Bernandino aren’t in the LA area) and Cleveland. Coincidentally, all very Blue cities. Hmmm, go figure.

    So yes, they ARE idiots.

  14. The Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is a well defined area, includes Multnomah, Washington, Clackamas, Yamhill and Clark Counties.

    It does NOT include Marion County.

    Some local statisicians are beginning to separate Yamhill County out; but the Census Bureau still counts Yamhill County in with the Portland metro area.

    Yes, Seattle’s MSA includes Tacoma and Everett. So? Are you jealous?

    If you have a beef with it, whining and bitching about it and resorting to name-calling isn’t going to do a damn hing. Contact the U.S. Census Bureau. Here’s their website: http://www.census.gov

  15. Seattle has a larger population, I don’t know why people are confused by the fact they have higher ridership percentage. They have buses, ferries, streetcars, commuter rail, express buses, and a monorail. Sounds pretty good to me. When they get light rail started, which is really soon, the percent would probably resemble more SF percentage. Having been there recently, they have the best buses. It is amazing! They do buses well that is for sure.

  16. “The Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is a well defined area, includes Multnomah, Washington, Clackamas, Yamhill and Clark Counties. It does NOT include Marion County.” -Erik

    Uh, that’s exactly my point, Erik. Maybe I wasn’t clear. Not only is Marion County in the greater Portland area, but so is Columbia, Cowlitz and Polk Counties. I might even include Skamania County as well. All of them are within an hour of downtown Portland and clearly within its sphere of influence. My problem is how the Census Bureau is completely inconsistent in how it will assemble some metropolitan areas and dissemble others (Portland, SF, LA and Cleveland being the most glaring examples).

    “If you have a beef with it, whining and bitching about it and resorting to name-calling isn’t going to do a damn hing (sic). Contact the U.S. Census Bureau. Here’s their website: http://www.census.gov“ -Erik

    ROFLMAO !!!!!!
    You have GOT to be kidding me!! Now if THAT’S not the pot calling the kettle black, I don’t know what is.
    Here’s a tip for you, Erik. TriMet’s website: http://www.trimet.org
    Go knock yourself out, have a ball. Let us know when you’ve solved all of Trimet’s problems for them.

  17. “The Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is a well defined area, includes Multnomah, Washington, Clackamas, Yamhill and Clark Counties. It does NOT include Marion County.” -Erik

    Uh, that’s exactly my point, Erik. Not only should Marion County be included in Portland’s metropolitan area, but so should Columbia, Cowlitz and Polk Counties. Possibly even Skamania. All of them are within an hour of downtown Portland and clearly within its sphere of influence. My problem with the Census bureau is how they are inconsistent about how they assemble some metropolitan areas while they dissemble others (Portland, SF, LA and Cleveland being the most glaring examples).

    “If you have a beef with it, whining and bitching about it and resorting to name-calling isn’t going to do a damn hing (sic). Contact the U.S. Census Bureau. Here’s their website: http://www.census.gov ” -Erik

    ROFLMAO!!!
    You have GOT to be joking. Now if THAT’S not the pot calling the kettle black, I don’t know what is. Here’s a tip for you, Erik. Trimet’s website: http://www.trimet.org
    Go knock yourself out, have a ball. Let us know when you’ve solved all of Trimet’s problems for them.

  18. Erik. Maybe I wasn’t clear. Not only is Marion County in the greater Portland area, but so is Columbia, Cowlitz and Polk Counties. I might even include Skamania County as well. All of them are within an hour of downtown Portland and clearly within its sphere of influence.

    Based upon what? Because you said so?

    Obiviously, the Census Bureau has a reason how it determines Metropolitan Statistical Areas. In fact, had you taken the time to go to http://www.census.gov and searched for “Metropolitan Statistical Area”, you’d find a definition for what an MSA includes.

    Because you’re too egotistical to actually admit that you’re wrong, I’ll do your homework and copy the answer for you:

    The U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is responsible for developing the standards for defining metropolitan and (now) micropolitan statistical areas, and for the applying these standards with decennial census data. The Census Bureau provides research support to OMB for the development of standards prior to each census, and provides analytical and operational support in defining statistical areas.

    There have been important changes in the way in which counties are included in a metropolitan statistical area:

    In developing the 2000 standards, OMB eliminated several measures of “metropolitan character” from the criteria to identify outlying counties. These measures took into account the settlement pattern of potential outlying counties by assessing population density, percentage of population that was urban, presence of urbanized area population, and population growth rate between censuses. Both OMB and the interagency advisory committee felt that settlement structure was no longer a meaningful measure of the degree to which a county was linked socially and economically with an urban center. As a result, outlying counties are included in a metropolitan statistical area solely on the basis of commuting ties.
    There was a change in the minimum percentage of commuters needed for inclusion in a metropolitan statistical area. In the past, the standards employed a sliding scale that took into account population density of the county when determining the minimum amount of commuting necessary โ€“ the higher the density of the county, the lower the commuting percentage (as low as 15 percent) and vice versa. The standards also employed a minimum population density threshold, and for the more sparsely populated counties, the other measures of metropolitan character mentioned above also came into play. As a result, some sparsely populated counties that had very strong commuting ties to adjacent metropolitan areas were excluded, while more densely populated counties with weaker ties were included.
    The 2000 standards employ a single, minimum commuting threshold of 25 percent. Under the 2000 standards, sparsely populated, predominantly rural counties may be included in a metropolitan statistical area if at least 25 percent of the workers who live in the county work within the central county or counties (that is, the county or counties containing the urban core of 50,000 or more population) of the metropolitan statistical area.

    A county can also be included if at least 25 percent of the jobs in the county are filled by workers living in the central counties of the metropolitan statistical area. Most outlying counties qualifying based on the more traditional commuting pattern toward the urban center, but there are a few counties, often with unique employment bases, that qualify based on commuting from the core to the outlying area. Tunica County, Mississippi, which has a large number of casinos and hotels, is a good example of this latter category โ€“ over 25 percent of the jobs in Tunica County are filled by workers who live in the central counties of the Memphis metro area.

    The other effect of the changes in the outlying county criteria was that some counties previously qualified for inclusion based on 15-25 percent commuting now no longer qualified. These counties dropped out of their respective metropolitan statistical areas, but most were identified as the central counties of micropolitan statistical areas โ€“ a new category of area adopted by OMB and based around urban centers of 10,000 to 49,999 population. Many of these counties had previously qualified based on the lower commuting threshold of 15 percent because they had higher population densities.

    Their densities were higher because they contained urban centers of at least 10,000 people; their commuting rates were lower because those urban centers tended to provide employment for a large percentage of the resident workforce. These areas are now identified as separate statistical areas in their own right. And, for many of these areas, the social and economic ties with the adjacent metropolitan statistical area are now signified by the presence of a combined statistical area โ€“ another new type of geographic area adopted for Census 2000 โ€“ that encompasses adjacent metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas that have meaningful linkages.

    By the way, you’ll notice that I use http://www.trimet.org frequently as a source for my data to validate points I bring up on this webpage. Do you care to throw out any more childish, immature rants at me, seeing that you can’t form a logical argument without calling someone names?

  19. “childish, immature”…”without calling someone names.”

    Well, I pretty much can’t add anything to that.

    Bob, to answer your original questions, the place the article is referring to is the city of Portland. I’m assuming the numbers they are comparing us to are also places like the city of Boston, not the Boston Metro area…

    Here are the other numbers that I can find:
    Portland MSA is 6.2%
    Multnomah County 11.9%
    Washington County 5.9%
    Clackamas County 3.0%
    Clark County 2.5%
    Beaverton is 8.8%
    Hillsboro is 7.2%
    Vancouver is 3.4%

    George, I’d love to see that too, but we have to go back to the 2000 data to get it. The ACS data is pretty rough, they only survey ~1% of the population, so that means they found 30 people in Hillsboro that took public transit out of the 420 they asked, so a fairly large margin of error… The 2000 data is from 16% of the population.

  20. Matthew –

    Thank you for the additional figures for various counties and the Portland MSA.

    What is interesting to me, with the possible exceptions of Clackamas and Clark counties, is that the transit commute responses far outweigh the typical low percentage numbers bandied about by anti-transit critics.

    – Bob R.

  21. The numbers from 1990:
    Multnomah County 9.6%
    Washington County 3.8%
    Clackamas County 2.2%
    Clark County 2.0%

    I’d say something about what I thought that data shows, but I’m fairly sure people would just accuse me of being a railfan. (It will be interesting to see Clackamas County’s numbers in 20 years.)

  22. What a fascinating link, JK: the “Antiplanner” makes conclusions about bike commuting, walking, and population distribution by linking to two files which DON’T include data about biking or walking.

    – Bob R.

  23. “Are you jealous?”
    “…childish, immature…”
    “…seeing that you can’t form a logical argument without calling someone names.”
    “…you’re too egotistical to actually admit that you’re wrong…”
    -Erik

    So, according to you, I’m jealous, childish, immature, egotistical and incapable of forming a logical argument without resorting to name calling. And that’s just in this thread. What names have I called you Erik? Let’s see….. none. Sounds like the pot/kettle thing again.

    Thank you for cutting and pasting half of the Census Bureau’s website, as if I haven’t been to their site a thousand times before. I’m well aware of the moronic changes the Bushies made after the 2000 Census, which is why I called THEM idiots (fact). Note that I never called YOU an idiot. You’re a very intelligent man or I wouldn’t bother even addressing you. So I will continue to challenge your assertions, whether you like it or not. But in the meantime, I’d really appreciate it if YOU refrain from calling ME names. You’re not hurting my feelings, I’ve been called much worse, it just doesn’t belong in this blog.

    Thanks.

  24. Jim,

    Your article you’ve posted uses outdated employment information for Portland. Within the article, there is a claim that Portland lost 5% of it’s workforce, and as proof links to a several year old employment report even when more current employment reports are readily available clearly showing that this claim is no longer applicable (the recession is over).

    Please use current data and update your article.

    http://www.portlandalliance.com/news_and_pub/press_releases/05_14_07_Census.pdf

    You’ll probably choose to leave this bit of employment information out, as it would reflect poorly on your anti-Portland website, but I think its relevent to note that last year downtown employment increased by 1,579 employees, 41 new businesses, 90% of all business entities reporting a stable or improved climate, 42% of downtown workers use mass transit, with an additional 5% arriving by bicycle.

    regards,
    Dan

  25. Aaron – did the MSA definition for Portland/Vancouver, prior to 2000, include Marion County (or Skamania, Hood River or Cowlitz Counties)?

  26. Rex Burkholder said in Dec. 2006 that ~10% of all commuter trips in (transit rich) Multnomah County were by transit. That means that close to 90% must drive, which I think is pretty piss-poor for a place that claims to be such an “innovator” in alternative transportation.

  27. Nick –

    Rex’s quote was made before the new Census numbers were available. As Matthew already pointed out, Multnomah County is now at 11.9%.

    I consider being in the top-10 for transit commutes to be pretty darn “innovative”. Of course I want to see that percentage increase more, but it has indeed been increasing over time.

    I’m sorry you view the region’s top-10 performance as “piss poor”. I guess it’s one of those glass half-empty half-full kind-of arguments that nobody can win, except that in this case our glass is nationally recognized and heavily scrutinized.

    – Bob R.

  28. “That means that close to 90% must drive.”

    No, not at all. First of all, 3% of the county bicycles, 4% walk, 5% work at home… 75% of people drive.

    Slightly unrelated, but since Jim K is reading, I should point is out once and for all:
    The data for the county is:
    Car, truck, or van: 244,583
    -Drove alone: 206,858
    -Carpooled: 37,725
    –In 2-person carpool 30,636
    –In 3-person carpool 4,406
    –In 4-person carpool 1,497
    –In 5- or 6-person carpool 437
    –In 7-or-more-person carpool 749

    Assuming that the 5 or 6 person carpools were all 6 people, that the 7 or more person carpools had 749 people, and that all the people started and ended at exactly the same place, (that the carpool didn’t pick up those people over a couple of miles,) then the number of cars on the road at rush hour are:
    206858 + 30636/2 + 4406/3 + 1497/4 + 457/6 + 749/749 = 224,095 (rounded down to full cars for all the numbers,) and those cars had 244,583 people in them, for an average occupancy of 1.09.

  29. Matthew calculated: “an average occupancy of 1.09”

    Gasp! Do you mean to infer that urban driving habits might be different in terms of vehicle occupancy than rural driving habits, and that using statistics which average both might not be fully appropriate for direct comparisons with transit? Astonishing! ;-)

    – Bob R.

  30. Amazing isn’t it?

    I also didn’t know this until a couple years ago, but apparently most people don’t actually get the EPA estimated mpg out of their cars*. A combination of bad driving, bad maintenance, and turning the AC** on is to blame… The reason I bring this up, when you start comparing things like the average gas mileage of US cars, based on the EPA quoted mpg, to the actual gas mileage of the TriMet bus fleet, based on their fuel purchases and odometer readings, it isn’t a valid comparison.

    *I regularly did 30 mpg in my ford ranger in mixed city/highway driving. I think the EPA numbers are 25/28 or something for that thing.

    **I never owned a car with AC, my parents never had AC when I was growing up, so I’ve always been like: “AC? That must be for luxury cars.” This is part of the reason that Erik’s complaints about buses without AC doesn’t do much for me… I was hot while waiting for bus, the windows on the bus open, and the bus is moving, and the result is that I’m cooler on it than I was at the bus stop, so I’m happy… Us hairless apes have sweat glads for a reason, although some deodorant tends to make you more popular with the people that are near you.

  31. Matthew –

    At least the 2008 EPA figures should be a bit more accurate… they are supposed to take into account more realistic driving behavior and more frequent AC use.

    It least in the case of our car and the way it is driven in our household, the EPA ratings will go from being 20% too generous to being spot-on.

    See:
    http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/ratings2008.shtml

    – Bob R.

  32. That is really really sad. My old Ranger was 23/28, and it has gone down to 20/26. Besides the fact that it isn’t that much trouble to get it to do 30 in the first place, (change the oil, clean the air filter, check the tire pressure, don’t floor it off of stop signs/lights, obey the speed limit. Very basic stuff,) the fact that in the hands of an average person it only does 23 doesn’t give me a lot of hope for the future…

    (Also, colder temps&AC? Last time I checked, when it is cold outside, you turned on the heater, not the AC.)

  33. This is part of the reason that Erik’s complaints about buses without AC doesn’t do much for me… I was hot while waiting for bus, the windows on the bus open, and the bus is moving, and the result is that I’m cooler on it than I was at the bus stop, so I’m happy… Us hairless apes have sweat glads for a reason, although some deodorant tends to make you more popular with the people that are near you.

    I can’t control whether other people take care of their own personal hygiene.

    But I do expect TriMet to provide a service and to serve its ridership equally. If TriMet can afford to put air conditioning in 100% of the MAX fleet, TriMet can afford to put air conditioning in 100% of the bus fleet. What’s wrong with providing equal service and equal amenities?

  34. If TriMet can afford to put air conditioning in 100% of the MAX fleet, TriMet can afford to put air conditioning in 100% of the bus fleet. What’s wrong with providing equal service and equal amenities?

    Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that MAX car air conditioning retrofits were specifically funded as part of the West-Side MAX extension, authorized by voters in 1990 and opened in 1998 with the newly-retrofitted air conditioning.

    Has TriMet made bus fleet purchases since 1998 which did not include air conditioning?

    TriMet has recently proposed the idea of asking voters to approve new funding which includes upgrades to the bus fleet and increases in frequent-service routes.

    – Bob R.

  35. ^ Wow, I must be the coolest person then (and the best driver!). My old 1986 Honda Civic hatch 1.5L is now rated at 26 mpg; I used to regularly get between 38-44 mpg in city/highway driving.

    And for a car that I bought for $2 grand…

  36. Bob, you’re missing the point.

    The point is that TriMet is supposed to budget funds annually for bus replacements (which, by the way, are generally 80% paid for by the federal government).

    TriMet robbed that fund (I prefer a stronger word, but that seems to offend some people for an unknown reason) to pay for the last two MAX extensions (Red and Yellow Lines) that weren’t voter approved. It’s well known that TriMet’s contingency reserve fund has been depleted (which has been confirmed to me by at least two TriMet employees), TriMet has had to cancel orders for busses, and TriMet is three years behind on its fleet replacement plan, because it has failed in several years to order any replacement busses.

    It doesn’t matter that voters approved the blue line extension; that did not change TriMet’s enabling legislation in 1969 to create a bus system and to invest in bus service. Not once did voters vote to disinvest in bus service and fully fund a light rail system. Not once did voters decide that the bus service should be cut back.

    Voters didn’t vote to reduce bus capacity by eliminating the articulated busses; TriMet publically acknowledged shortly afterwards that the decision to eliminate articulated busses was a bad decision (although the specific busses, the Crown-Ikaruses, weren’t exactly popular, newer articulated busses are much more reliable and more customer-friendly), and placed an order for a new fleet of artics. Why was that order cancelled? Because TriMet ran out of money (because it had spent the money on MAX) and then claimed they didn’t need artics. (Does anyone in Service Planning or Capital Planning ride the bus?) Why did TriMet, which had stated they would buy 50 busses a year, every year, not order busses for three years? And why hasn’t TriMet added any new bus routes since opening Westside MAX?

    If TriMet is going to ask voters for permission to, well, do their job that they’ve already been told to do back in 1969, then something is seriously wrong with the agency. Then again, since bus ridership is down and Seattle’s transit system (which is almost entirely bus service) is growing, that just underscores that something is wrong here in Portland.

    Frankly, when Los Angeles is doing better than Portland at transit, well, that’s an embarassment.

  37. Bob, you’re missing the point.

    No, I entirely see what you are saying and I agree that there have been cutbacks in bus programs. (I’ve even detailed in past posts just how many service hours were cut back, so you can’t accuse me of not acknowledging that fact.)

    I just think that the strategic decisions TriMet made to invest in new rail service while delaying some other purchases and tightening some other budgets will prove to be wise decisions in the long run, even if the current situation is a bit lean on bus service.

    TriMet robbed that fund (I prefer a stronger word, but that seems to offend some people for an unknown reason)

    A stronger word than “robbed”? Heck, if even “robbed” applies it sounds like you’ve got a serious lawsuit brewing. Are you saying what TriMet did was illegal? Call out the lawyers and you can correct the imbalance you’ve been frequently criticising with a lawsuit. Problem solved.

    But a stronger word than “robbed”… hmmm… better call Dateline NBC then, I guess. ;-)

    – Bob R.

  38. “Aaron – did the MSA definition for Portland/Vancouver, prior to 2000, include Marion County (or Skamania, Hood River or Cowlitz Counties)?” -Erik

    Prior to 2000, sometime in the early ’90s, the Portland-Vancouver PMSA (FIPS Code 6440) and the Salem PMSA (FIPS Code 7080) were combined into the Portland-Salem CMSA (FIPS Code 79).

    http://www.bls.census.gov/cps/bmetro96.htm

    Then in 1998, they changed the FIPS Code number for the Portland-Salem CSMA from 79 to 6442.

    http://www.census.gov/population/estimates/metro-city/98mfips.txt

    As you can see from this last link, the Portland-Salem CSMA includes not only Multnomah, Clackamas, Washington, Yamhill and Clark Counties, but also Marion, Polk and Columbia Counties.

    Cowlitz County was not included, but should have been. That’s based on the fact that the majority of the population in Cowlitz (Kelso/Longview, Kalama and Woodland) are less than an hour from downtown Portland and right on I-5, the N-S spine of the metro area. Also, it parallels Columbia County on the other side of the river.

    Skamania County is more of a stretch and it’s solely my opinion that since the majority of the residents of Skamania are centered on Hwy 14 from the Clark Co line to Stevenson, WA, again within an hour, that it should be included also.

    Hood River was never on my list of counties.

  39. Frankly, when Los Angeles is doing better than Portland at transit, well, that’s an embarassment.

    Los Angeles has over 71 miles of rail transit routes, including two heavy rail subway lines. The LA Red Line subway alone carries 2/3 as many boardings as the entire TriMet bus system.

    Comparatively, Los Angeles’ Orange Line BRT busway runs about the same length as the original MAX Blue Line, but only carries a bit over half as many daily boardings, and cost $330 million to construct. (Just over a year after the busway opened, sections had to be closed down to reconstruct crumbling pavement.)

    You’re comparing TriMet now to two larger metro areas which have invested more heavily in all forms of transit, including rail.

    – Bob R.

  40. And why hasn’t TriMet added any new bus routes since opening Westside MAX?

    I don’t know about routes, but TriMet bus revenue hours increased pretty steadily from FY1987 to FY2004, and the FY2006 cutbacks are still to levels higher than FY2000.

    Overall bus revenue hours increased 36% from 1987 to 2004, but you’ve been told that before.

    You seem to be fuming disproportionately about two years of modest cuts.

    It doesn’t matter that voters approved the blue line extension; that did not change TriMet’s enabling legislation in 1969 to create a bus system and to invest in bus service. Not once did voters vote to disinvest in bus service and fully fund a light rail system. Not once did voters decide that the bus service should be cut back.

    TriMet’s “enabling legislation” came originally in the form of a city council resolution on January 14th, 1969. There have been many city council resolutions since then regarding TriMet and light rail service, including from cities other than Portland. Why do you discount all subsequent city council action on transit and rail issues?

    As far as “enabling legislation” in state law goes, Oregon Revised Statutes section 267 governs Mass Transit Districts and Transportation Districts. The law specifically mentions light rail in numerous places and sets out various rules for light rail funding and operations.

    So, do you want the legislature to repeal rail from ORS 267 and the City Councils of Portland, Gresham, Beaverton, Hillsboro, Milwaukie and other involved communities to repeal their resolutions regarding rail?

    – Bob R.

  41. Erik, I don’t think you understand my original point. I don’t think AC is that big of a deal, I feel the same way about it that you feel about replacing the bus stop signs.

    “What’s wrong with providing equal service and equal amenities?”

    It isn’t possible in the real world.

    Long after the last high floor bus is retired, they will still be running type I cars. If you’ve ever tried to get a large stroller onto a high floor MAX car by yourself, you might know that it is rather hard. (We are assuming the operator will wait for you if you are in a wheelchair, but strollers are generally up to the owner to get on in time.) The alternative to carrying it up the stairs is to run to the other end of the platform, (while the train is loading/unloading a bunch of people, all while pushing a stroller,) so that you can get onto the low floor car… In other words, for a lot of people, low floor cars are a big deal…

    What would you suggest they do in order to provide equal service for all? That they replace all the type I cars the minute they replace the last high floor bus? (At a cost of about $80M.) Or keep 1/3rd of the bus fleet as high floor buses around until the type I cars wear out, (which would be 2020 at the earliest.)

    And isn’t having some of the buses low floor, while others are high floor not equal in the first place? Or what about the fact that some routes run more often than others? That isn’t equal either. And some buses are more crowded than others, (would you rather get on a mostly empty bus, or a standing room only one?) You can’t make actually make both frequencies and crowding the same on all the buses in the network, it is impossible, even if you had billions of dollars to throw at the problem.

    Of course, there is one way to provide truly equal service to all and that is to provide no service to anyone.

    “But I do expect TriMet to provide a service.”

    Well, then I guess you are going to accept that it may not always be exactly equal.

  42. “I just think that the strategic decisions TriMet made to invest in new rail service while delaying some other purchases and tightening some other budgets will prove to be wise decisions in the long run, even if the current situation is a bit lean on bus service.”

    >>>> Wise decisions? NO WAY, in my opinion as a heavy Trimet user. It seems that every time a new
    rail line goes into operation around here, the system just becomes more dysfunctional. Just wait and see how the revamped bus mall will play out, with a top speed of 15MPH, as I have read.

    BTW, putting buses that were previously on the mall over on Jefferson and Colombia looks like a sure ridership-killer; I have ridden the #6 and #45 and see it first hand. A consequence of rail improvements?

  43. putting buses that were previously on the mall over on Jefferson and Colombia looks like a sure ridership-killer; I have ridden the #6 and #45 and see it first hand. A consequence of rail improvements?

    I am not sure what you mean by this. Can you explain more?

    I think the new bus mall is going to work just as well as the old one did, I don’t get how it will be much different…

  44. BTW, putting buses that were previously on the mall over on Jefferson and Colombia looks like a sure ridership-killer; I have ridden the #6 and #45 and see it first hand.

    The 6 didn’t even run on the mall prior to construction.

  45. Dan Says: Your article you’ve posted uses outdated employment information for Portland.
    JK: Care to provide a link to the actual data? The 2005 report that I use on DebumnkingPortland.com still seems to the be the latest census on that site, but Iโ€™m sure youโ€™ll let us know when the new one is posted. See portlandalliance.com/public_policy/reports_studies.htm

    Dan Says: Please use current data and update your article.
    portlandalliance.com/news_and_pub/press_releases/05_14_07_Census.pdf
    JK: I generally try to avoid using puff pieces on my web site.

    Dan Says:You’ll probably choose to leave this bit of employment information out, as it would reflect poorly on your anti-Portland website, but I think its relevent to note that last year downtown employment increased by 1,579 employees, 41 new businesses, 90% of all business entities reporting a stable or improved climate, 42% of downtown workers use mass transit, with an additional 5% arriving by bicycle.
    JK: You have chosen to leave out this part of that nice little puff piece:
    During 2006, the number of employees located in the I-5/I-405 loop increased by
    1,579 over 2005, for a total of 84,697. While the number is still short of the 2001
    total (86,769)
    , this was the biggest annual increase since the economic downturn.
    (Bold added)

    Notice that the downtown employment is still down by 2072 from 2001-2006, but Iโ€™m sure that all those new โ€œbusinessesโ€ will be hiring lots more minimum wage workers and after a few more years will catch up to 2001. BTW, those minimum wage workers do appear to help increase TriMetโ€™s ridership as the family wage jobs move out of town, only to be replaced by financially strapped people stuck on transit.

    Thanks
    JK

  46. “The 6 didn’t even run on the mall prior to construction.”

    >>>> But it ran on the mall, before Interstate MAX was opened in 2004, from Madison St. up to Union Station.

    I surmise that this reroute was done to encourage riders to transfer to the Red and Blue Lines that cross MLK and Grand to get to many destinations downtown (e.g. Pioneer Place & Square).

  47. VR:

    For example, about twice a month I take the #45 bus to Multnomah Village. It runs every 60 minutes. When I use to board it a 5th & Salmon, there were a number of people (not a lot) on it.

    NOW, I walk 4 more blocks to board it, and many times there are only about 3 passengers! I figure that the ridership has declined by more then half since it started running on Jeff. and Columbia. In any case, the decline is striking.

    Last week I was coming home from Kenton on the #6 (which used to run on the Mall prior to IMAX); this line carries, even at 9 PM. But coming across the river to downtown, there were 3 people left on the bus! And I was the only one left after 3rd and Main.

    And the reason I took the #6 instead of the Yellow Line is that I did not feel like being subjected to marauding juveniles on the train in the evening.

    ERIK IS RIGHT. Rail mania is killing the bus system.

  48. But it ran on the mall, before Interstate MAX was opened in 2004, from Madison St. up to Union Station.

    I surmise that this reroute was done to encourage riders to transfer to the Red and Blue Lines that cross MLK and Grand to get to many destinations downtown (e.g. Pioneer Place & Square).

    You’d surmise incorrectly, because it just isn’t true. Perhaps you are remembering a different route, but as far back as I can tell the 6 has been on a cross-mall route (on Salmon and Main prior to Mall construction):

    http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.tri-met.org/schedule/r006.htm

    For example, about twice a month I take the #45 bus to Multnomah Village. It runs every 60 minutes. When I use to board it a 5th & Salmon, there were a number of people (not a lot) on it.

    NOW, I walk 4 more blocks to board it, and many times there are only about 3 passengers! I figure that the ridership has declined by more then half since it started running on Jeff. and Columbia. In any case, the decline is striking.

    While this decline in boardings may or may not be the case, in my own equally anecdotal experience on the 45 (it is the best regular route behind the 92 Express to get to/from downtown and my parents’ house in South Beaverton) there is a ton of turnover all along the route. Often lots of people will get on and off in Hillsdale, Multnomah Village, Garden Home and Washington Square. I will often be the only one still on the bus who got on downtown by the time we get to Washington Square. And at no time would I have been the only person on the bus. So the “fact” that fewer people are boarding downtown doesn’t necessarily mean the route is doing poorly.

  49. Nick, if you are traveling from Kenton to downtown, there are three options, all of which run every 15 minutes. Given that the CEID is a big part of the city, in fact, quite a few riders get off there, (as you noticed,) it seems like they should have a least one of the options serve the CEID, so they do… The fact that the option you used was the one that went through the CEID, and therefor, didn’t run down the mall doesn’t mean that “Rail mania is killing the bus system” or anything like that. What it really means that you got on the wrong bus… Let me give you some advice: Next time, get on the #4, it goes right down the mall.

    (And if the goal was to make it hard to get from the blue or red line to the the #6, why do they have it end at the Goose Hollow MAX station?)

  50. So, Nick, it all just comes down to us posting our individual experiences and having that pass for data? Well, my experience is that the move has created created greater demand for the bus I ride.

    Your comments regarding youth are a dead give away that we shouldn’t take you seriously.

  51. Why do you discount all subsequent city council action on transit and rail issues?

    Bob,

    Name ONE city council, county commission, or state legislative measure, that suggested reducing bus service. Just one.

    I am not saying, nor have I stated, that developing light rail in and of itself is a negative. But by TriMet all but eliminating new support, and by reducing support for existing services, for bus transport, that is an inequality.

    You state yourself that bus service hours are at the same levels since 2000 (was increased, then decreased). But MAX service increased twice (Red and Yellow Lines), plus there are two major expansions under construction now. Are you suggesting that after the Green Line is built, that TriMet will resolve the inequality by focusing 100% of service planning and capital funding towards bus service for eight years to make up for it? Of course not, TriMet will continue its path of disinvestment in the bus fleet/bus service, while planning the next MAX line.

    Judging from your most recent post, it appears that you fully support taking tax dollars from everyone, but only spending those tax dollars on a select few area residents (of which I assume you are a beneficary of said spending). I’m sure you will find that Oregon has a long history, through the initative process, of punishing government agencies that abuse their powers in such a way. Wouldn’t you rather TriMet be proactive and provide quality transit service to everyone within its service district, or would you rather play Russian Roulette until a statewide vote is put up that would restrict TriMet’s legal authority – where much of Eastern and Southern Oregon would have the power to tell Portland how to operate (through a repeal of ORS 267, and/or Constitutional Amendments that restrict the ability of a governmental body to increase taxes without a public vote, and/or a Constitutional Amendment that restricts the ability of a governmental body to fund new projects/new services without a public vote?)

  52. Hawthorne said:

    “Well, my experience is that the move has created greater demand for the bus I ride.”

    >>>> What bus line do you ride and when do you ride it? (on Jeff/Columbia)

    As for the “clientele” problems on MAX during the evening, this has been duly commented on over the years–in fact, there was a big thread on this blog several months ago. So maybe it’s YOU who should not be taken seriously for being so dismissive of the issue.

  53. “Dan Says: Please use current data and update your article.
    portlandalliance.com/news_and_pub/press_releases/05_14_07_Census.pdf
    JK: I generally try to avoid using puff pieces on my web site.”

    Funny that you mention this Jim, considering the employment data from your article is ALSO a Portland Business Alliance census. Our data sources on this topic are the exact same; you just chose to use an older census instead of using the most recent.

    Anyways, I’m sorry your website is full of puff pieces. I have faith that the quality of your website will improve in the future.

  54. Dan Says:
    JK: I generally try to avoid using puff pieces on my web site.”

    Funny that you mention this Jim, considering the employment data from your article is ALSO a Portland Business Alliance census. Our data sources on this topic are the exact same; you just chose to use an older census instead of using the most recent.
    JK: No, theyโ€™re not. My data source is a report with a more complete set of numbers and historical data. Yours is merely a press release – the puff piece. You source has very limited, mostly selected data to show a point. (But they do get points for mentioning that employment is still below a few years ago.) Be sure to let us know when they release the full report & Iโ€™ll use it.

    Dan Says: Anyways, I’m sorry your website is full of puff pieces. I have faith that the quality of your website will improve in the future.
    JK: You are wrong again, DebunkingPortlamd.com is mostly based on highly credible government and industry data. You guys just donโ€™t like it because it shatters many of your delusions such as:
    high density reduces congestion. It doesnโ€™t.
    high density reduces commute times. It doesnโ€™t.
    high density reduces pollution. It doesnโ€™t.
    high density is cheaper. It isnโ€™t.
    mass transit saves energy. It doesnโ€™t.
    mass transit saves money. It doesnโ€™t.
    mass transit reduces pollution. It doesnโ€™t.
    automobiles are massive subsidized. They arenโ€™t, transit is.
    an artificial shortage of land doesnโ€™t make housing un- affordable.

    Thanks
    JK

  55. As a supporter of rail transit, I will happliy concede to Erik that TriMet’s old high-level buses totally suck. I ride them on the 8 sometimes, through Irvington, the richest neighborhood in town. Can we move on?

    Dan,
    I see that you are attempting to engage in a rational debate with Jim Karlock. You must be new to this site or you wouldn’t be wasting your time. He will never admit that anything he has ever said is even open to interpretation, much less facutally questionable. My advice is to just let him vent and then ignore him, as I plan on doing when he accuses me of a personal attack.

  56. My advice is to just let him vent and then ignore him, as I plan on doing when he accuses me of a personal attack.

    Well, that at least would be accurate. If you are going to ignore someone you just do it. Announcing that is just an excuse to engage in ad-hominens.

    Jim Karlock (has anyone else thought how ironic his name is) is entitled to his opinions and beliefs. They are contrary to those of most of us here and seem, to many of us, to be poorly supported. That said, as long as he follows the rules he can post here and deserves to be treated with respect. Whether you agree with him or not, he is devoting a great deal of time and effort into trying to make Portland better, at least better from his point of view. There is nothing wrong with that.

  57. I will happliy concede to Erik that TriMet’s old high-level buses totally suck. I ride them on the 8 sometimes, through Irvington, the richest neighborhood in town. Can we move on?

    Well, we can move on, if we’re content with having a bus system that provides 65% of the transit boardings, and serves the vast majority of TriMet’s service territory, that is outdated, inconvenient, and unfriendly to passengers.

    Do we want to sit around here and continue to see our transit ridership drop? Do we want to continue to see the suburbs drop out of TriMet, as we have with Canby, Sandy, Wilsonville, and Molalla – and see suburbs like Forest Grove, Sherwood and Tualatin, all of whom have significant property tax and payroll bases leave TriMet (with their money)?

    I thought this forum was to discuss how to improve transportation, but it seems that a large number of people on this forum are happily content to see bus service decline into irrelevance. That’s fine, but what’s 1/3rd of 13.3% Do you really want Portland’s transit share to be less than 5%? We might as well stop trying to be like Vancouver, BC and San Francisco, and start to look “forward” to cities like Detroit and Oklahoma City for our visioning process.

  58. “Do we want to sit around here and continue to see our transit ridership drop?”

    Transit ridership has risen, both in number of riders, and in terms of percentage of the population. If our sitting around has anything to do with it, we should sit around more.

    And yes, part of the increase is in the bus system: See the very best bus routes, like the #5 were converted to light rail, so light rail posted big gains. The service hours of those buses were put to more marginal uses, so ridership in the bus system should have dropped with the shift in bus hours. But, it didn’t. (Jim K has trouble with that lack of drop too.)

    “and see suburbs like Forest Grove, Sherwood and Tualatin, all of whom have significant property tax and payroll bases leave TriMet”

    If Tualatin dropped out of TriMet, it would be even harder for you to get to work downtown than it is now, and you know it. For all your complaining about your commute, you want to suggest doing something to make it worse?

  59. If Tualatin dropped out of TriMet, it would be even harder for you to get to work downtown than it is now, and you know it. For all your complaining about your commute, you want to suggest doing something to make it worse?

    If Tualatin dropped out of TriMet, Tualatin could form its own transit district – as has Wilsonville, Canby, Sandy and Mollalla have already done.

    Wilsonville businesses fund the transit system and operates a fare-free local system, AND got a tax break in doing it (Wilsonville’s transit tax is 0.33%, vs. TriMet’s transit tax of 0.6518%, plus property tax). Wilsonville has more transit service now than it ever had under TriMet, including Saturday service, crosstown service, and routes to Canby and Salem.

    Canby’s transit system has a 0.6% transit tax and offers service to Woodburn, Wilsonville (partner with SMART), and Oregon City – six days a week, all fare free.

    Tualatin is, through its Tualatin Tomorrow community visioning process, considering launching its own transit system outside of TriMet. While Tualatin does have the 76 bus on Sundays (hourly) which, if we use the examples of Wilsonville and Canby might be a loss, Tualatin would likely gain several intra-town routes, Tualatin-Sherwood service, and service south of the CBD on a regular basis throughout the day.

    With the Tualatin Chamber of Commerce’s van service currently to downtown Portland, the Chamber and the City would likely join together and operate a service that would replace the #96 bus.

    So, how would that make my commute worse? Having reliable service? Having access to city services? Having a more friendly fleet (since Tualatin would be eligible for federal funding for new busses at a higher percentage than Portland)? Likely having a fare-free system, or a fare that is less than TriMet? Tualatin businesses having to pay less taxes and having more bus service for their employees?

  60. Erik:

    Why is there 7 day direct service from Portland to Sherwood but not Tualitan? I could never figure why the #12 was not split into two branches in Tigard.

    Is there more demand to go to Wash. Sqaure and Beaverton than downtown Portland?

    Also, if Tualitan forms its own transit district, what would be the story concerning service to Portland?

  61. All I can say is the Streetcar is terrible not to mention a complete sham! I was in NW the other day and it was much quicker to take the 15 bus than the streetcar. Why even have it at all if it’s so slow? A bus is more economical and definitely quicker.

  62. All I can say is the Streetcar is terrible not to mention a complete sham!

    Yes, that is about all you have been saying, for months now.

    I was in NW the other day and it was much quicker to take the 15 bus than the streetcar.

    I would imagine so, because the 15 has a completely different route which entirely bypasses the Pearl District. You’ve already made your feelings clear about the Pearl District: You’ve suggested the entire district be torn down. But for the thousands who live and/or work there, the streetcar is a better option than the #15 because, you know, it actually runs through the neighborhood. And for any one south of Salmon, the streetcar is a better choice than the #15, too.

    Why even have it at all if it’s so slow? A bus is more economical and definitely quicker.

    A bus serving thee same route would be no faster, and would cost more to operate due to the capacity limitations of buses. The streetcar carries more people than even an articulated BRT bus, and even the streetcar runs full to capacity much of the day.

    Clearly, many people seem to want to ride the streetcar, and to ride it to the neighborhoods which it serves.

    But, don’t take my word alone for it: The westside #15 you rode only gets about 2,800 weekday boardings, while the streetcar gets over 9,000. Between the two points where the #15 and the streetcar routes intersect, the #15 only has 1,400 boardings.

    Sticking exclamation marks after your factless assertions doesn’t make them any less untrue.

    – Bob R.

  63. The streetcar carries more people than even an articulated BRT bus, and even the streetcar runs full to capacity much of the day.

    So does the line 12 bus (run at capacity much of the day), so why is TriMet completely neglecting the line 12 bus, which is arguably more in line with TriMet’s mission as a regional transportation provider, and spends some $3 million a year in subsidizing the City of Portland’s Streetcar line?

    If the Streetcar is doing so well in terms of ridership, then it seems as though the City shouldn’t need a subsidy for it, and TriMet should be providing more capacity on the line 12 which serves the communities of Sherwood, Tualatin, King City, Tigard, Portland (Southwest, downtown, Northeast, Parkrose), Fairview, and Gresham?

    Maybe it’s time to shelve the next four Streetcar expansions until every line 12 bus is equipped with a articulated, low floor air conditioned bus (to be on par with Streetcar), and virtually all stops upgraded as well (to be on par with Streetcar, of which EVERY stop has to be “first class” regardless of actual ridership, such as the Harrison Roadway stop which is utterly pointless.)

    Then, apply those principles to other bus routes and it would make a positive contribution towards increasing Portland’s transit ridership, instead of focusing the region’s transportation dollars on the Streetcar line (which, in today’s Oregonian, a Pearl District developer now wants a parking garage for a transit-oriented development. Where’s the outrage? Why can’t all those employees ride the Streetcar?)

  64. Erik,

    I absolutely agree with you about the #12. Sometimes I take that one out to Sherwood and its sometimes packed like a sardine can.

  65. “would cost more to operate due to the capacity limitations of buses. ”

    Hey, I was just playing Devil’s advocate. I think the Streetcar is great. I’m really excited for it to come down 7th so I, too, can pay Pearl District prices to live “close to my work”.

    Can you substantiate the point that Streetcar is cheaper and faster than a bus? How much does the streetcar cost to put in and operate? How much would a bus cost to put in an operate? Why not run a bus on the catenary wires instead of putting in tracks?

  66. So, Greg, do you also “absolutely agree” with Erik that the streetcar is well utilized and “first class”?

    Congrats also to Erik to identifying the one, and only one, genuinely underutilized stop along the entire streetcar route and using that to argue that therefore all bus stops (regardless of ridership, I presume) should also be upgraded to those levels.

    I suppose it wouldn’t help much if Erik were to know that I’ve in fact been arguing in written comments to PDOT and Commissioner Adams that certain high-ridership bus stops which lack adequate shelters and/or access should be upgraded. Erik wants “virtually all” bus stops to be upgraded because of one underutilized streetcar stop.

    Regarding subsidy of the streetcar, Erik, it’s been pointed out to you countless times that TriMet’s contribution is in proportion to what a bus would cost to operate in the same corridor.

    Where’s the outrage? Why can’t all those employees ride the Streetcar?

    Erik, you’re not one of those people that insists everyone be forced to get out of their cars and that 100% of people must ride transit, are you? I know the transit-hater-lobby likes to argue that such people exist, but before your post today I’ve never thought that such people actually existed.

    – Bob R.

  67. OK Bob R.,

    I admit – I’m not a transit hater at all. In fact, it serves a genuine purpose, especially those who have no other option due to health reasons…. AND I RIDE IT TOO. GASP!

    I just question the methods.

    Now in response to your questions:

    “So, Greg, do you also “absolutely agree” with Erik that the streetcar is well utilized and “first class”?”

    No, I was talking about the #12 BUS , NOT streetcar.

    I would advocate for a complete moratorium on all LRT and Streetcar until the bus system is brought up to the same standards as the “first class” (as you put it) Streetcar.

    BTW, are they going to do anything about vagrants bringing their pet pit bulls on it?

  68. Can you substantiate the point that Streetcar is cheaper and faster than a bus?

    Greg, it was you who were asserting that the streetcar was completely uneconomical… shouldn’t you already know the costs involved before making such a declaration? Nevertheless, I will try to address your questions.

    Regarding speed:

    The streetcar has an acceleration profile faster than a diesel bus (3mphps)… one of the common complaints from streetcar riders is that the streetcar accelerates too quickly (I’m not kidding)… although this is probably mostly due to the initial lurch. The newest streetcars which just went into service seem to accelerate a lot more smoothly from a full stop.

    The streetcar boards from 3 doors rather than 1, and can also board from either side which allows for center-lane running where possible (which is usually faster than right-lane running) although articulated buses can also be ordered with multiple boarding doors. More doors = faster boarding.

    The streetcar has a quickly-deploying wheelchair ramp, faster than front-boarding kneeling buses and comparable to a BRT-style bus with side deployable ramps.

    If the bus, when compared with a streetcar, is to serve all the same stops and passengers, the combination of factors listed above adds up to faster streetcar service.

    How much does the streetcar cost to put in and operate? How much would a bus cost to put in an operate?

    At today’s prices, approximately $12.5 million per track mile. The initial streetcar loop cost less than that (concrete and steel prices have gone up faster than inflation in recent years).

    A Portland-style streetcar costs $2.5 million, and carries as many people as two standard 40′ transit buses ($354,000 each) and 30% more than a BRT-style articulated bus ($960,000 each.) Streetcars typically last much longer than a bus before needing replacement.

    To meet today’s streetcar capacity (until very recently served with 7 streetcars), you would need 14 regular buses or 9 BRT buses. Assuming those buses would be replaced about twice over the life of a streetcar, you’re looking at:

    7 streetcars: $17.5 mil
    42 standard buses: $14.9 mil
    27 BRT buses: $25.9 mil

    If you are really good with maintenance and stretch the lives of the buses as far as possible, you could probably do with fewer replacements and get the costs down, but as Erik has told us many times, any bus older than 12 years is unacceptable.

    The capital infrastructure costs (track and catenary) of a 5 mile loop, amortized over time, work out to $2mil or so per year. For a bus operation to be cheaper, the cost of the additional operator hours, and the cost of pavement maintenance, has to be less than $2mil per year, which is theoretically possible.

    But the other side of the economic coin is this: Do buses and BRT systems attract as much development (and future property tax revenue) as streetcars? Do they attract the type of density that facilitates convenient pedestrian trips which reduce dependence on other modes? I think the development patterns around the streetcar prove that the answer to both of these questions is “yes”, and in addition to that, rail transportation clearly attracts more riders than buses.

    Why not run a bus on the catenary wires instead of putting in tracks?

    I actually think trolleybuses are a good compromise and work well especially in residential areas and hilly neighborhoods. They have been used successfully in Seattle, Vancouver BC, and San Francisco, but those cities also have rail transportation networks as well. The question is about deploying the appropriate mode for the desired service and development patterns.

    – Bob R.

  69. BTW, are they going to do anything about vagrants bringing their pet pit bulls on it?

    I agree that they need more security and staff visibility, especially in Fareless Square. But, when you saw the pit bulls, did you make any effort to inform the operator?

    – Bob R.

  70. “when you saw the pit bulls, did you make any effort to inform the operator?”

    I wasn’t in the same car as the operator so how should I have done that, unboard from the train at the stop and sprint up to the front car so I could inform him? Do you think he would have taken the time to get off and take a look? I thought they had video cameras all over the system so why didn’t someone at the ops. center dispatch a policeman to come arrest the pit bull owners?

  71. …so how should I have done that, unboard from the train at the stop and sprint up to the front car so I could inform him?

    Well that’s one way to do it, but it doesn’t require sprinting. Simply exit the front door of the rear car, then board the rear door of the front car, and walk on up at your leisure.

    But, there’s an easier way: There are numerous intercom boxes located throughout the train. TriMet actually encourages people to use them (when asked at meetings) but unfortunately they are labelled “Emergency” which may deter some folks from reporting non-emergency problems. They should be relabelled “Use for Emergencies and to Report Violations” or a similar more inclusive wording.

    I don’t mean to be dismissive with this, because I personally have been involved in situations where the intercom boxes were not accessible without moving through an altercation (and those closest to the intercoms apparently were uninterested or unaware). TriMet should install intercoms at the car ends by the operator doors, as well as the existing boxes near the entry doors.

    My ultimate security suggestion to TriMet:

    One staff person can easily make the “round trip” of Fareless square (by riding one way, walking to another boarding platform, and riding the other way back) within 1 hour. In one direction at peak hour, there are 16 trains running through fareless square, at other times less.

    A visible staff person (does not have to be security, just a customer service representative) could be on 20-25% of all fareless trains, walking amongst the cars, reporting violations to the operator or to security (or simply politely asking for the activity to stop), all day using 6 full-time shifts and a couple of part-time shifts. That level of coverage, maintained over time, should be sufficient to inform riders who regularly engage in undesirable behavior that they are going to get caught.

    Such staffing would probably require at least $300,000 per year… this should be considered a required part of the cost of operating fareless square, part of any future fareless square proposal.

    – Bob R.

  72. I rode the streetcar once. Although it was pretty and had a particular charm not found on a transit bus, I found no practical benefit it had over a normal bus:

    *Most of the capacity on the streetcar is stand up room. Buses tend to have more seating [especially on the older high-floor models].

    *The streetcar requires expensive specialized infrastructure to operate. It cannot move around obstructions, and it cannot be extended without major street reconstruction [not a quick process either].

    *The streetcar cannot pull over to let traffic pass. It must stop in the road, blocking other traffic.

    *Stops must be extensively planned ahead of time, and low ridership stops are not easily moved or removed.

    *The streetcar seems to be quite sluggish around even the slightest curve. Buses don’t do so well on turns either but they do not need to slow to a crawl for a slight curve in the road.

    *Whats up with the stop in the middle of the road past Front Av?

  73. Anthony wrote: I rode the streetcar once.

    And on this one ride you came to all your conclusions. My, what an exhaustive analysis.

    Most of the capacity on the streetcar is stand up room. Buses tend to have more seating [especially on the older high-floor models].

    The seating capacities I listed were based on the same amount of available square footage per passenger, regardless of vehicle type. You can choose how to allocate seating within that square footage. The reason that low-floor vehicles (including buses) have less seating than high-floor models is to allow room for wheelchairs to maneuver. Erik can tell you all the other virtues of old high-floor buses. :-)

    *The streetcar requires expensive specialized infrastructure to operate. It cannot move around obstructions, and it cannot be extended without major street reconstruction [not a quick process either].

    See above for a description of streetcar trackway costs and a comparison of vehicle costs between buses and streetcars.

    You are incorrect about “major street reconstruction”… the streetcar system in Portland was constructed with a shallow cut method which is less disruptive and requires fewer utility relocations than light rail construction.

    It is true that the streetcar cannot move around obstructions, but that doesn’t turn out to be a major problem in practice: The clearly defined trackway generally prevents obstructions from occurring in the first place. Streetcar service reliability/availability has been quite high.

    *The streetcar cannot pull over to let traffic pass. It must stop in the road, blocking other traffic.

    The streetcar operates on one-way multi-lane streets for most of its alignment. Vehicles may pass in the other lanes. If you replace streetcars with buses and make the buses “pull over”, then speed of operation slows. That’s why many bus stops in Portland have been upgraded to have extended curbs. (Contrary to Erik’s remarks about the City of Portland neglecting bus stops, on streets such as Sandy, Alberta, and Hawthorne which have seen recent streetscape upgrades, numerous bus stops have been upgraded as well.)

    *Stops must be extensively planned ahead of time, and low ridership stops are not easily moved or removed.

    Yes, stops are extensively planned ahead-of-time, but they can be moved if really needed. So far, on the Portland streetcar route, there is only really one “low ridership” stop. The streetcar, unlike MAX, operates like a bus in this regard: It does not stop at unoccupied platforms unless someone on the streetcar has requested a stop.

    *The streetcar seems to be quite sluggish around even the slightest curve. Buses don’t do so well on turns either but they do not need to slow to a crawl for a slight curve in the road.

    There aren’t any “slight” curves in the streetcar system except on the Harrison Connector and at the approach to Gibbs… and the streetcar runs just fine on those curves. Try running an articulated bus around the tight curves along other parts of the route (such as Block 153 near PSU), and see how well it does.

    *Whats up with the stop in the middle of the road past Front Av?

    Maybe Chris can shed some light on the planning behind that one. But if nobody boards/alights there, the streetcar does not stop.

    – Bob R.

  74. One other time I was riding the MAX and as it was crossing the Steel Bridge a fight erupted and one guy got bludgeoned nearly to death. I would say that there is a certain element that fareless square attracts. I think they should get rid of fareless square altogether and make everybody pay the $2 to ride! That would be a deterrent in itself and then they could use that money to further deter these scumbags from riding the system. I live in fareless square and it’s very embarassing when my family comes to visit and have to be subjected with the cursing and nasty people on board. The truly destitute (poor, elderly, etc.) should get some sort of assistance if they couldn’t afford it.

  75. Bob,

    According to your stats, how much money could they make if everybody actually paid to ride?

  76. Bob R. said:

    “But the other side of the economic coin is this: Do buses and BRT systems attract as much development (and future property tax revenue) as streetcars?”

    >>>> This is a spurious argument, as applied to the Pearl and South Waterfront (and Portland in general), IMO. They were set to go in any case because the city would have made the deals with the developers. Also, witness the 4-story buildings going up along Belmont, Hawthorne, and Division, which have no rail. In fact, the whole “developing” SE refutes the rail development BS.

  77. I have a feeling that the streetcar is a LOT more expensive to operate than we have been told. There was a big stink about this a while ago on Cranky Jack’s blog, where he was accusing whoever ran the streetcar would not come forth the operating costs.

    IMO, you could have bought some new “green” buses and hyped them like the streetcar–this being Portland, the public would have fell for it.

  78. Bob,

    Thank you for misrepresenting my points.

    1. I did not state that a bus older than 12 years old was unacceptable. The Federal Transit Administration sets standards for vehicle durability and it states 15 years. In order for a bus to meet federal funding guidelines, it must go through a simulated test that determines whether it will be able to withstand 15 years of heavy duty transit use.

    Despite the FTA providing 80% funding for new busses, TriMet has refused this “free federal money”, and spent the 20% matching funds on non-bus projects. This has resulted in TriMet’s fleet age becoming older, more mechanical breakdowns due to older busses, and an inequality between the bus and rail fleets that even you acknowledge (one out of three busses is inferior to the rail fleet by lacking low floor access and air conditioning).

    2. So long that TriMet funds “first class” stations for every rail station (Streetcar and MAX), every bus stop can have the same amenities such as shelters, benches, lighting, and Transit Tracker signs. Do any Streetcar stops compare to a bus stop, being only a sidewalk extension and a sign? No, every stop was invested upon, while many bus stops (even some well-used stops) aren’t even ADA compliant, lack shelters and benches, have substandard lighting (a security concern), and as already mentioned – NO bus stop has TransitTracker or NextBus displays.

    How much did the Harrison Roadway Streetcar stop cost to build? How much would have been saved if that stop was never built to begin with? Unlike a bus stop that can be easily relocated, that stop is there permanently and that money is sunk. Maybe the City of Portland owes that money back to whoever paid for it?

    3. TriMet would not be required to provide service to the South Waterfront or anywhere else along the Streetcar line. If TriMet is required to do so then TriMet is equally required to provide cross-town service in Tualatin, and local service in Forest Grove, Cornelius, Tigard, and other communities within the service district.

    TriMet also already provides service to SoWa and the Pearl District, and had even before these massive tax subsidized developments were even conceived. So no new transit service was required.

    4. You are incorrect about “major street reconstruction”… the streetcar system in Portland was constructed with a shallow cut method which is less disruptive and requires fewer utility relocations than light rail construction.

    While not attributed to me, the Streetcar system still required substantial reconstruction and utility relocation. Bus service requires ZERO such construction. Although you plainly state the vehicle cost “benefit” of Streetcar to bus, you conveniently ignore the cost of building the Streetcar track and the associated costs of sidewalk improvements, utility relocations, street repaving, new traffic signals and utility poles, trees and other landscaping, etc.

    Bus service requires few if any of those costs.

    5. Try running an articulated bus around the tight curves along other parts of the route (such as Block 153 near PSU), and see how well it does.

    Seattle has successfully used articulated busses on steep grades and sharp curves throughout downtown Seattle. TriMet drivers who formerly operated the artics often commented on how easy it was to operate the busses.

    Articulated busses frequently made 90 degree curves when in use with TriMet, including the curve from 5th Avenue to Barbur Blvd., turning on and off of Burnside, into and out of the Beaverton TC, and at other points in the system.

    And finally,

    6. Erik, you’re not one of those people that insists everyone be forced to get out of their cars and that 100% of people must ride transit, are you? I know the transit-hater-lobby likes to argue that such people exist, but before your post today I’ve never thought that such people actually existed.

    No, I’m one of those guys that insists that if someone sells me a development that receives tax breaks, and demands investment in the Streetcar, that those developers accept that they need to demand that they have less parking and use Streetcar more.

    Instead, these developers that pushed Streetcar down our throats not only got the Streetcar but want more parking garages – at taxpayer expense.

    Why should I invest in more Streetcar, knowing that it isn’t helping overall transit ridership, and that the Pearl District now wants more parking???

  79. Erik,

    In watching the board I find Bob to be pretty fair and it looked like he captured what you stated fairly. You write from a pretty emotive place, so maybe that prevents you from always expressing what you mean clearly.

    As for this point, “So long that TriMet funds “first class” stations for every rail station (Streetcar and MAX), every bus stop can have the same amenities such as shelters, benches, lighting, and Transit Tracker signs.”

    Well, at face value this is true. This is true for almost anything that entails progress. To move away from the bus/rail debate, the analogy would be that we should not upgrade certain freeways when there are still unpaved roads in the region.

    It’s not tenable to think that everything will be equal. One, we can’t afford it and two, things are not equal- people are spread differently in different densities, etc.

    It’s an ideal but pretty simplistic view of the world, which is probably why it hasn’t been implemented.

  80. Erik Halstead said: “Bob, Thank you for misrepresenting my points.”

    I’m just calling them as I read them… I’m sorry if your various points don’t congeal for me, I’m sure it must be my problem and not at all yours. Please forgive me.

    1. I did not state that a bus older than 12 years old was unacceptable. The Federal Transit Administration sets standards for vehicle durability and it states 15 years.

    I stand corrected… I Googled around and the actual claim you’ve made was indeed 15 years. It still serves to prove my point that streetcars are rather economical because they last significantly longer than buses.

    (one out of three busses is inferior to the rail fleet by lacking low floor access and air conditioning).

    You may have a point about air conditioning (although voters directly approved the measure which funded the retrofit of air conditioning onto MAX when the westside extension was built), but 24.8% of MAX vehicles are also high-floor. (And still going strong after 20 years.)

    2. So long that TriMet funds “first class” stations for every rail station (Streetcar and MAX), every bus stop can have the same amenities such as shelters, benches, lighting, and Transit Tracker signs.

    Good grief, Erik… the bus stop in front of my house, according to TriMet, has only 9 daily boardings (I believe it to be higher based on personal observation, but still). I would not expect TriMet to put a shelter here.

    And Transit Tracker? I thought you wanted the person who deployed Transit Tracker to be fired. But I don’t want to “misconstrue” what you have written from memory… I Googled it and on May 13th you were decrying Transit Tracker’s implementation as a “prime example of government waste” and asking if anyone had been fired for it… now you want it everywhere, just because streetcar stops are “first class”.

    While not attributed to me, the Streetcar system still required substantial reconstruction and utility relocation. Bus service requires ZERO such construction.

    Actually, bus service requires concrete pads at bus stops (otherwise the cost is shifted to street maintenance), and equivalent service calls for curb extensions and shelters (which HAVE been added during streetscape projects, as I already mentioned, along Alberta, Hawthorne, Sandy, etc.) That’s more than “ZERO”.

    Although you plainly state the vehicle cost “benefit” of Streetcar to bus, you conveniently ignore the cost of building the Streetcar track and the associated costs of sidewalk improvements, utility relocations, street repaving, new traffic signals and utility poles, trees and other landscaping, etc.

    Thank you Erik for misrepresenting my points.

    I clearly stated the infrastructure and annualized financing costs. Go read it again. $12.5 million per track mile, I said. Not only did I identify those costs, I did so BEFORE getting into a discussion of vehicle costs. Who is “conveniently ignoring” who?

    Seattle has successfully used articulated busses on steep grades and sharp curves throughout downtown Seattle. TriMet drivers who formerly operated the artics often commented on how easy it was to operate the busses.

    A. I never claimed that articulated bus service was “unsuccessful” around tight corners. I claimed that it would be comparatively slow, like the streetcar.
    B. I’ve talked directly to operators who have the opposite opinion about articulated buses.

    Articulated busses frequently made 90 degree curves when in use with TriMet, including the curve from 5th Avenue to Barbur Blvd., turning on and off of Burnside, into and out of the Beaverton TC, and at other points in the system.

    Nobody ever denied that. The argument was about speed.

    I’m one of those guys that insists that if someone sells me a development that receives tax breaks, and demands investment in the Streetcar, that those developers accept that they need to demand that they have less parking and use Streetcar more.

    Well you’re in luck, Erik, because the City of Portland has proposed unbundling parking from developments (buyers may choose how many, if any, spaces to buy), and they are resisting the demand to publicly finance a new garage in the Pearl District, although prior commitments may require that it get built.

    It is interesting to note that a 700-space above-ground parking garage costs over $21,000 per space to construct… one of the many subsidies that automobiles receive. But I thought Portland was anti-car (I know, Erik, you didn’t claim that, but so many people have…)

    Instead, these developers that pushed Streetcar down our throats

    I seem to remember that it was the city council and citizen advisory committees that recommended the streetcar. I’m sure the developers liked it, too, as do 10,000 daily riders.

    Why should I invest in more Streetcar, knowing that it isn’t helping overall transit ridership,

    Really, 10,000 riders aren’t helping overall transit ridership? Gosh.

    and that the Pearl District now wants more parking???

    Actually “the Pearl District”, via the neighborhood association, is OPPOSED to the new parking garage. They seem to think the streetcar is just fine.

    – Bob R.

  81. Wait, the FTA says that the minimum acceptable lifespan for a transit bus is 15 years, and yet because TriMet doesn’t replaced them after exactly 15 years, that means that they are somehow ignoring the bus system? Wow. Will they be ignoring Light Rail when the type I cars are over their minimum acceptable lifespan too, or are buses just special?

  82. Bob,
    Thanks for your patient and thorough answers to our little group of nay-sayers.
    If you don’t like Streetcar, you probably don’t like many other delights that life offers. Too bad. Streetcar was born in the Central City Plan and brought to life with the hard work of residents of NW, the Pearl (before it even had the name), the Westend, etc. It was most definitely not TriMet’s idea, but came from the neighborhoods and has been implemented on our behalf by the City and Portland Streetcar, Inc.
    From the looks of things at yesterday’s Eastside Streetcar meeting, we will be breaking ground on that soon. When property owners, agencies, community leaders and elected local and congressional folks are in lockstep on a project, there is not much that can slow it down, not even the FTA. One, Two, Many Streetcars!

  83. Good grief, Erik… the bus stop in front of my house, according to TriMet, has only 9 daily boardings (I believe it to be higher based on personal observation, but still). I would not expect TriMet to put a shelter here.

    But why did we build a “first-class” Streetcar platform for the same level of service?

    I agree that low-usage stops shouldn’t have the same level of amenities, but EVERY MAX stop and EVERY Streetcar stop has the same amenities regardless of ridership, even if the ridership at a given stop is practically nil. And there are two MAX stations that aren’t even in use, one that is fully built (Cascade Station East) and one that is partially built (between PGE Park and Library/Galleria).

    If we can afford to build “first-class” stops with little use, we can afford to make every bus stop a welcoming environment to help improve transit ridership. If we’re going to play the “excuses” game, then let’s remove those unused stations, let’s shut down MAX stops that don’t have adequate ridership and tell those passengers to walk to the next stop, and reallocate resources in line with what bus riders are expected to do.

    And Transit Tracker? I thought you wanted the person who deployed Transit Tracker to be fired. But I don’t want to “misconstrue” what you have written from memory… I Googled it and on May 13th you were decrying Transit Tracker’s implementation as a “prime example of government waste” and asking if anyone had been fired for it… now you want it everywhere, just because streetcar stops are “first class”.

    Once again Bob, you’re misrepresentating what I stated.

    I have said (and Chris, please be aware that I am being FORCED to repeat my point, so I hope you will apply your rules equally to those who misrepresent me) that the person who designed Transit Tracker to use a technology that is based upon a cellular signal (and thus costs $40 a pop) should be fired.

    That said, there are plenty of technologies out there that can enable a Transit Tracker to work without a cell phone; the MAX Transit Tracker boards don’t use cell phone technology. So why can’t bus stops have Transit Tracker, when most of them have some type of landline phone service available close to it?

    Actually, bus service requires concrete pads at bus stops (otherwise the cost is shifted to street maintenance), and equivalent service calls for curb extensions and shelters (which HAVE been added during streetscape projects, as I already mentioned, along Alberta, Hawthorne, Sandy, etc.) That’s more than “ZERO”.

    Do you REALLY want me to photograph hundreds of bus stops that don’t meet your definition of a bus stop, but DO meet TriMet’s definition?

    I clearly stated the infrastructure and annualized financing costs. Go read it again. $12.5 million per track mile, I said. Not only did I identify those costs, I did so BEFORE getting into a discussion of vehicle costs. Who is “conveniently ignoring” who?

    No, I’m not ignoring your points. This is what you stated:

    At today’s prices, approximately $12.5 million per track mile. The initial streetcar loop cost less than that (concrete and steel prices have gone up faster than inflation in recent years).

    A Portland-style streetcar costs $2.5 million, and carries as many people as two standard 40′ transit buses ($354,000 each) and 30% more than a BRT-style articulated bus ($960,000 each.) Streetcars typically last much longer than a bus before needing replacement.

    To meet today’s streetcar capacity (until very recently served with 7 streetcars), you would need 14 regular buses or 9 BRT buses. Assuming those buses would be replaced about twice over the life of a streetcar, you’re looking at:

    7 streetcars: $17.5 mil
    42 standard buses: $14.9 mil
    27 BRT buses: $25.9 mil

    The actual cost for the Streetcar service is not $17.5 million, it’s $17.5 million PLUS $12.5 million – or $30 million, because you’ve neglected to include the cost of infrastructure that isn’t required with the standard bus. You’ve also neglected to include standard articulated busses, rather focusing on the BRT bus (BRT and articulated are not one and the same, in fact there are non-articulated BRT busses).

    I seem to remember that it was the city council and citizen advisory committees that recommended the streetcar. I’m sure the developers liked it, too, as do 10,000 daily riders.

    Did the residents of Lent recommend the Streetcar? Did the residents of Outer Southwest recommend the Streetcar? Are they paying for it?

    There are thousands of riders on the line 12 bus, is it OK that the line 12 riders get substandard transit options (old busses without air conditioning and frequently are late/crush load conditions) but Streetcar gets money thrown at it?

    I guess it’s OK that if you benefit from the Streetcar that it’s OK to ignore everyone else, and it’s OK that their money is being used to subsidize your toy train that you refuse to pay fares for (because Streetcar is largely fare-free, and fare evasion is rampant on the non-fare free area). And it’s OK to discriminate against those who can’t live in the Pearl for any reason, whether it be income based or logistical.

    How about this: I’ll support your Streetcar, if you support my bus. Can we agree on that? Or do you insist that busses are unworthy of investment, and continue to favor TriMet’s and Metro’s disinvestment policy?

  84. Erik, here we go again:

    Regarding the bus stop in front of my house, with 9 boardings, which I feel does not need a shelter, Erik wrote:

    But why did we build a “first-class” Streetcar platform for the same level of service?

    There is ONE, exactly ONE low utilization stop along the Portland Streetcar, which has been identified and acknowledged in this thread… the one along the Harrison connector. I don’t have stop-by-stop info with me right now, but I’ll bet you a TriMet all-day pass that it sees more than 9 daily boardings. Nearly every time I’ve ever walked or ridden through there, there has been a boarding or alighting.

    I agree that low-usage stops shouldn’t have the same level of amenities, but EVERY MAX stop and EVERY Streetcar stop has the same amenities regardless of ridership, even if the ridership at a given stop is practically nil.

    I’ve just looked over the Fall ’06 boardings for all MAX lines, and all but two of the stations (unless I missed something) have a minimum of 300 daily boardings, the majority over 1000. Practically nil?

    The only station with less than 300 boardings was Mt. Hood avenue, totalling about 130, which I expect will change this summer when businesses in the Cascade Station development open.

    And there are two MAX stations that aren’t even in use, one that is fully built (Cascade Station East) and one that is partially built (between PGE Park and Library/Galleria).

    The Cascades station is currently open, actually.

    Where is this “partially built” station that you are referring to? I’ve walked through there before and don’t remember it, and looking at satellite photos right now I don’t see anything unusual.

    If we can afford to build “first-class” stops with little use, we can afford to make every bus stop a welcoming environment to help improve transit ridership.

    Actually, I do not agree that we can afford to build “first-class” stops with little use, nor do I think that we are setting out to build “first-class” stops with little use. You’ve been able to identify EXACTLY ONE low-utilization stop on the streetcar, and two low-utilization stops out of the entire MAX system.

    If we’re going to play the “excuses” game,

    I’m not playing that game. So drop the “we” stuff.

    then let’s remove those unused stations,

    Which unused stations? The “partially built” one which apparently has no shelters or ticket machines or signs… what would you “remove”?

    let’s shut down MAX stops that don’t have adequate ridership and tell those passengers to walk to the next stop,

    Actually, here I’m with you. I’ve advocated many times in this forum and at public meetings that certain MAX stops should be consolidated to improve performance. I think from what I’ve read here over the years that most PortlandTransport contributors agree in principle that some MAX stations should be consolidated.

    I wrote: “Actually, bus service requires concrete pads at bus stops (otherwise the cost is shifted to street maintenance), and equivalent service calls for curb extensions and shelters (which HAVE been added during streetscape projects, as I already mentioned, along Alberta, Hawthorne, Sandy, etc.) That’s more than “ZERO”.”

    Erik wrote back: “Do you REALLY want me to photograph hundreds of bus stops that don’t meet your definition of a bus stop, but DO meet TriMet’s definition?”

    No Erik, I was pointing out that bus service isn’t being ignored, the city is making those improvements with its own money along corridors that get upgraded streetscapes. Your contention all along is that bus service is being neglected and ignored, especially by those who live in Portland, but the facts on the ground prove you wrong.

    Erik continues:

    The actual cost for the Streetcar service is not $17.5 million, it’s $17.5 million PLUS $12.5 million – or $30 million,

    Yes, Erik, I included those costs. That’s where you got the figures from. Thanks for re-quoting my figures while accusing me of “ignoring” the figures.

    because you’ve neglected to include the cost of infrastructure that isn’t required with the standard bus.

    No, Erik, I included the annualized costs and even conceded that in theory the higher operational costs of bus drivers may still be less than the annualized infrastructure costs.

    For freaking sake, Erik, I included statements at least partially favorable to your case and yet you still accuse me of misrepresenting you and ignoring the costs of streetcars.

    You’ve also neglected to include standard articulated busses, rather focusing on the BRT bus (BRT and articulated are not one and the same, in fact there are non-articulated BRT busses).

    I included the cost of the BRT bus because there are recent examples of those costs in Oregon (Eugene), plus the BRT bus is most comparable to the streetcar in terms of capacity and operational flexibility, having multiple boarding doors on both sides of the vehicle which allows for center-platform boarding, making the stops cheaper to construct (gasp!) and allowing for faster operations.

    If you have a source for a quote on recent costs of a “standard” articulated bus, I will be happy to include it in future comparisons.

    Did the residents of Lent recommend the Streetcar?

    I don’t know. I do know that residents of Lents (there’s an “S” on the end) were actively involved in the planning process for the MAX Green Line along I-205 and the Lents Town Center station.

    I guess it’s OK that if you benefit from the Streetcar that it’s OK to ignore everyone else,

    You make two false assumptions:

    1. That people who don’t “directly” benefit from the streetcar are largely opposed to it and
    2. That people who support the streetcar are ignoring everyone else.

    and it’s OK that their money is being used to subsidize your toy train that you refuse to pay fares for

    My toy train?

    (because Streetcar is largely fare-free, and fare evasion is rampant on the non-fare free area).

    I’m not sure what you’re accusing me of, but I’ve always paid my streetcar fares when using the system and have in fact assisted new users with fare payment. A couple of months ago, after joining the streetcar CAC, I received an annual streetcar pass, so I don’t buy streetcar fares directly anymore. However, nearly all of my transit trips downtown are via a cash fare on TriMet which is a valid transfer to the streetcar. I rarely, rarely ride “fareless”.

    And it’s OK to discriminate against those who can’t live in the Pearl for any reason, whether it be income based or logistical.

    What a bizarre notion.

    How about this: I’ll support your Streetcar, if you support my bus. Can we agree on that?

    Erik, I’ve said time and time and time and time and time again (usually in direct response to you, thanks for reading) that I support more and better bus service, system wide. I realize that TriMet has made some cutbacks to bus and MAX in the 2 most recent fiscal years (after nearly 20 years of continuous service growth), but as I have stated I feel that in the long run these temporary measures will have been worth it.

    Or do you insist that busses are unworthy of investment,

    I don’t know, Erik, why don’t you go over everything I’ve ever written and tell me if I ever said that buses were “unworthy of investment”. Go ahead. I do research every time I respond to your factless assertions, maybe you can do some research this time.

    You seem to be constructing this parallel world in which everyone hates Tualatin and is your enemy, but this simply is not the case.

    – Bob R.

  85. Where is this “partially built” station that you are referring to? I’ve walked through there before and don’t remember it, and looking at satellite photos right now I don’t see anything unusual.

    Between 12th and 13th, on both Morrison and Yamhill. The sidewalks and curbs are MAX-station-ready. Install benches, shelters and ticket machines, and there you go.

    then let’s remove those unused stations

    I can’t imagine why any rational person would want to “remove” those particular “unused stations” since “removal” would entail tearing up and rebuilding the sidewalks and curbs, spending probably over a hundred thousand dollars for a purely cosmetic makeover: make sure that the sidewalks look like “regular” sidewalks instead of “MAX platform” sidewalks.

  86. djk –

    I agree about the sidewalk platforms. Plus, I seem to remember that all of the sidewalks on Morrison/Yamhill up to I-405 got the “brick” treatment at one time… it would make sense, and not cost significantly more, to configure some of them to be the correct dimensions to match a future MAX station at the time of construction. Drat, planning strikes again.

    – Bob R.

  87. I’ve been riding the Westside Blue line since it opened, and I think one of the things that should be pointed out is that for the first few years Beaverton Central, (also known as The Round, or at the time, “the big hunk of rusting steel with shredded plastic blowing off of it”,) was a very underused stop as well. Now it isn’t, in fact I remember an article in the O last year that said that between Beaverton Central and Beaverton TC on morning rush hour, the train was consistently over capacity…

    Cascades station was in a middle of a field when they built the Red line, and I’m fairly sure that TriMet knew it. The economy promptly crashed after the Red Line opened, and now, a few year later, that field is developing. If it continues to be an underused station after the area is developed, that would be one thing, but I don’t expect that it will be.

  88. There is ONE, exactly ONE low utilization stop along the Portland Streetcar, which has been identified and acknowledged in this thread… the one along the Harrison connector. I don’t have stop-by-stop info with me right now, but I’ll bet you a TriMet all-day pass that it sees more than 9 daily boardings. Nearly every time I’ve ever walked or ridden through there, there has been a boarding or alighting.

    So is nine boardings a day the guideline for installing shelters, benches, and NextBus displays? If so, my old bus stop in Tualatin would be due for a major upgrade as it has far more than nine boardings a day (and it has a bus stop sign, and is a non-ADA compliant stop).

    No Erik, I was pointing out that bus service isn’t being ignored, the city is making those improvements with its own money along corridors that get upgraded streetscapes. Your contention all along is that bus service is being neglected and ignored, especially by those who live in Portland, but the facts on the ground prove you wrong.

    So is it a regional priority, through Metro, to ensure that all bus stops are upgraded over X number of years? Is it a regional priority, through allocating federal transportation dollars, to fund this? Is Metro and TriMet investing their capital spending dollars towards improving bus service?

    I’m hard pressed to find it in TriMet’s planning documents and budget, and Metro’s documents make so few references to busses that we might as well not have bus service in this region.

    I included the cost of the BRT bus because there are recent examples of those costs in Oregon (Eugene), plus the BRT bus is most comparable to the streetcar in terms of capacity and operational flexibility, having multiple boarding doors on both sides of the vehicle which allows for center-platform boarding, making the stops cheaper to construct (gasp!) and allowing for faster operations.

    If you have a source for a quote on recent costs of a “standard” articulated bus, I will be happy to include it in future comparisons.

    Why, yes.

    Source: http://www.ltd.org/search/showresult.html?versionthread=91a9a11313910620861b5f2c1d51daff

    Price of a New Flyer D60LF bus: $463,561. About $100K more than a 40′ bus. About half of the stated cost of a “BRT” bus.

    Granted, these are straight diesel busses and not hybrid busses. According to King County Metro (source: http://transit.metrokc.gov/am/vehicles/hy-dieselrollout.html ), a New Flyer DE60LF costs about $645,000. However according to the same source, investing in hybrid technology will save King County Metro $3.5M annually, with the money reinvested in Metro’s Six-Year Transit Plan.

    1. That people who don’t “directly” benefit from the streetcar are largely opposed to it and
    2. That people who support the streetcar are ignoring everyone else.

    Has the Streetcar supporters gone to TriMet/Metro meetings and called for more transit investment elsewhere, such as more and better bus service? Have Streetcar supporters acknowledged that the “Streetcar Loop” is already well served by transit, and maybe to better serve the region that those few dollars would better be served on regional priorities?

    Has Metro called upon extending transit, building more bus lines, investing in and buying more busses to support service increases, and called for obtaining more federal funding for this purpose?

    Has TriMet planned on new bus lines, and improving service along existing lines?

    The answer is NO, NO and NO. Instead we’re planning more Streetcar lines, more MAX lines, and meanwhile we’re watching bus ridership decline and Portland’s transit ridership proportion is hardly “cream of the crop”.

    I don’t know, Erik, why don’t you go over everything I’ve ever written and tell me if I ever said that buses were “unworthy of investment”. Go ahead. I do research every time I respond to your factless assertions, maybe you can do some research this time.

    I have also asked for you to support your claims of supporting bus service and you consistently refuse to do so. Silence is golden.

    You seem to be constructing this parallel world in which everyone hates Tualatin and is your enemy, but this simply is not the case.

    Again, I have asked for this statement to be proven and I am met with silence.

    TriMet refuses to invest in bus service.

    Metro refuses to invest in bus service.

    Prove me wrong. Until such time that 65% of TriMet’s ridership gets more than 10% of TriMet’s capital budget, and more than 0% of Metro’s federal transportation dollars, I don’t see the value in investing more into Streetcar that serves a very small portion of the region’s transit service district, and is a very small percentage of overall transit use.

  89. “Metro refuses to invest in bus service.”

    Er, dude, Metro does not invest in transportation.

    “Prove me wrong.”

    OK.

    Next? I mean after the deep breathing?

  90. I have also asked for you to support your claims of supporting bus service and you consistently refuse to do so. Silence is golden.

    Erik, you’ve really gone over the top this time. “Silence is Golden”? How many dozens of times do I need to tell you I support more bus service? Are you being willfully ignorant or just trying to stir up trouble? Seriously… you’re really being obtuse.

    Nevertheless, I will try and break through this phantom “silence” you seem to be perceiving with more references.

    PLEASE PAY ATTENTION THIS TIME, THANK YOU…

    Let’s start with this one, just to set the tone:

    April 12, 2007:

    • It sickens me that rather than have a discussion of what could be improved, rather than engaging with those of us who happen to support some rail projects to also lobby for better bus service, you dismiss all of us with a constant refrain about religious devotion to a hobby.

    June 21, 2007

    • I support more and better bus service, system wide.

    April 15th, 2007:

    • In any case, I have stated before that I believe better suburb-to-suburb (“regional center” to “regional center”) bus service is required, and such routes would not use the mall, so there is no excuse in these cases not to expand using articulated fleets.

    October 23, 2006:

    • That being said, I have proposed here before that if demand rises to sufficient levels in the future, articulated buses could run on the LEFT side in what is to become the auto lane (or “multi-modal” lane as it is officially called). BRT-style buses with boarding doors on both sides could be used, and would not disrupt the operational pattern of 40′ buses and LRVs.

    July 2, 2006:

    • However, I do think there is room for articulateds in the future. … If transit use continues to grow, mall capacity can be supplemented by operating left boarding buses in what is now the continuous auto lane …

    December 15, 2006:

    • I would be very supportive of a bridge that could carry buses as well as trains

    May 15, 2006

    • I’d try and work suburb-to-suburb rapid bus in there somehow, basically forming a ring to connect the outer suburbs, perhaps funded on an experimental basis to determine demand patterns.

    Those are just a few examples… must I keep digging, and will you keep ignoring?

    – Bob R.

  91. Is Metro and TriMet investing their capital spending dollars towards improving bus service? I’m hard pressed to find it in TriMet’s planning documents and budget

    From TriMet’s TIP Executive Summary, pages ii and iii:

    FY 2006 – June 2005 – July 2006

    • Installed 10 shelters and replaced 20
    • Install solar-powered lighting at 45 stops
    • Deployed 39 new buses
    • Frequent Service buses served 56.7% of bus riders in FY05.

    FY 2007 – June 2006 – July 2007

    • Open Milwaukie Park & Ride
    • Install 35 new shelters
    • Automate announcements on low floor buses
    • Add hours of service to line 9-Powell
    • Construct access improvements along line 57-TV Hwy/Forest Grove

    FY2008 to FY 2011 – June 2007 – July 2011

    • Add buses and light rail vehicles to address projected passenger crowding
    • Improve Rose Quarter bicycle access
    • Add Frequent Service to complement Commuter Rail, I-205 investments
    • Extend hours of Frequent Service on 4 existing lines

    – Bob R.

  92. From TriMet’s FY2007 Transit Investment Plan, Page 20:

    Table 3.5
    Proposed Low-floor Bus Deployment FY2006-FY2010

    • 10-NE 33rd Ave
    • 10-Harold
    • 77-Broadway/Halsey
    • 44-Capitol Hwy
    • 40-Mockโ€™s Crest
    • 52-Farmington/185th Ave
    • 31-Estacada (Proposed Frequent Service)
    • 1-Greeley
    • 1-Vermont
    • 70-12th Ave
    • 62-Murray Blvd
    • 96-Tualatin/I-5
    • 35-Macadam (Proposed Frequent Service)
    • 76-Beaverton/Tualatin (Proposed Frequent Service)

    Routes are listed in priority order. Deployment will be based on peak pullouts, garage assignment, timing of bus purchases and sidewalk conditions.

    Also, from Page 74, regarding new bus purchases:

    • FY 2008: 55
    • FY 2009: 55
    • FY 2010: 56

    That’s 166 buses in the next 3 years (plus the 39 purchased in FY 2006), which will bring the fleet to 79% low-floor buses. (Which, even with the new MAX cars coming on-line with the Green Line, means a GREATER PERCENTAGE OF LOW-FLOOR BUSES THAN LOW-FLOOR MAX CARS.)

    – Bob R.

  93. Let me let you in on a little secret. I don’t live in the Pearl, and I support the streetcar. And not cause think that they will one day run it up my street, they won’t. I do hope for one day they will replace the #4F with trolley buses, (SB 848 would be great in that regard, but unfortunately it seems to have stalled,) but that is another story.

    “Has the Streetcar supporters gone to TriMet/Metro meetings and called for more transit investment elsewhere”

    Yep. I want them to expand MAX to Vancouver, and I’ve said so…

    “such as more and better bus service?”

    Well, not explicitly, but in order to make MAX to Vancouver work, C-Trans would have to actually invest in some more bus hours. The reason I didn’t bring that up at Metro is because Metro can’t do anything about that.

    “Have Streetcar supporters acknowledged that the “Streetcar Loop” is already well served by transit, and maybe to better serve the region that those few dollars would better be served on regional priorities?”

    I’m worried that the streetcar loop may be competing with MAX for federal dollars, so yes…

    “Has Metro called upon extending transit

    I’m fairly sure that would sum up Metro’s position, yes.

    Has TriMet planned on new bus lines, and improving service along existing lines?

    I don’t know of a new line offhand, but I do know that one of the bus lines near my house got two more evening rush hour departures out of downtown in the last 6 months…

    “The answer is NO, NO and NO.

    If you weren’t going to wait and listen to my answers, why did you ask in the first place?

    meanwhile we’re watching bus ridership decline

    Bus ridership has been going up since TriMet took over Rose City Transit. And I’ve said this before, and you either are ignoring me, or don’t understand, but when you take a good bus route, (like the #5,) turn it into a light rail line, and distribute the bus hours to less productive routes, and yet total bus ridership stays constant, the ridership on the buses serving the same route as before has actually increased.

    and Portland’s transit ridership proportion is hardly “cream of the crop”.”

    Top ten in the nation isn’t good? We could do better, don’t get me wrong, but…

  94. “Erik, you’ve really gone over the top this time. “Silence is Golden”? How many dozens of times do I need to tell you I support more bus service? Are you being willfully ignorant or just trying to stir up trouble? Seriously… you’re really being obtuse.”

    >>>> Erik, give Bob a break on this one. While he and disagree on whether Portland should rail operations at all, I find that he is not an outright rail freak (e.g., bus hater) like many others (and boy, have I known a lot of them).

    My take on this topic is that as long as Trimet had money, it was expanding bus AND rail service. When resources got tighter, the rail cabal in Trimet made sure money went to rail (e.g., Green Line), at the expense of buses. However, there have been a few increments with buses, such as evening service on #9 Powell.

    A big gripe I have when it comes to this subject is that whenever a new rail line goes into operation around here, buse service is degraded in many instances, usually by reroutes and/or additional transfers.

  95. A big gripe I have when it comes to this subject is that whenever a new rail line goes into operation around here, buse service is degraded in many instances, usually by reroutes and/or additional transfers.

    Are those buses retired and the drivers fired? Or are the buses and drivers redeployed to enhance bus service elsewhere in the system?

  96. djk

    In recent years, TRIMET has actually had problems filling all of their driver positions. This means that there is no need to fire anyone once a new rail line goes into service. In fact, during the cold and flu season this past year, a few trips were even cancelled due to a lack of available on-call drivers.

    Even if there were enough drivers, things would probably even themsleves out. Drivers with seniority would be promoted to rail drivers for the new line, and other bus driver positions would open up.

    Neither of these scenarios will be an issue when the Green Line to Clackamas is opened. There aren’t any plans to discontinue bus lines, although some trips may be assigned to different routes.

  97. that the person who designed Transit Tracker to use a technology that is based upon a cellular signal (and thus costs $40 a pop) should be fired.

    I don’t know if you’ve priced business phone lines recently, but a cellular data plan is relatively cheap compared to a land line. (The cheapest one on AT&T’s website, for instance, is $50/month. You can get a quantity discount, but only if they are all going to the same location.) And that is before you add the cost of digging up and repaving a transit center in order to install the line between the nearest telephone pole and the sign. The fact that the streetcar, (as well as hundreds of other transit agencies,) had the same problem, and came up with the cell phone idea as well might tell you that it is actually a good idea…

    That said, there are plenty of technologies out there that can enable a Transit Tracker to work without a cell phone; the MAX Transit Tracker boards don’t use cell phone technology. So why can’t bus stops have Transit Tracker, when most of them have some type of landline phone service available close to it?

    MAX transit tracker uses the network that they put in to run the signals, and given that bus lines don’t have a fiber network attached to them, that comparison isn’t very interesting.

  98. Er, dude, Metro does not invest in transportation.

    Then why is Metro the designated agency to distribute transportation dollars in the region?

    From TriMet’s TIP Executive Summary, pages ii and iii:

    You’ll also note that TriMet’s bus purchase plan is three years behind schedule, is not keeping up with busses that need to be retired, and does not increase the number of busses in service.

    (From the TIP):

    Automate announcements on low floor buses

    Fiscal Year is almost over, and this is NOT happening.

    Add buses and light rail vehicles to address projected passenger crowding

    Again, TriMet’s own bus purchase plan does not account for adding any new busses.

    That’s 166 buses in the next 3 years (plus the 39 purchased in FY 2006),

    Which accounts for the 1400, 1600, 1700, 1800 and 1900 series busses that need to be retired within the next two years (the 1400 and 1600s are actually two years past retirement age).

    Again, there is no plan to increase bus service; and there is no plan to order articulated busses or 30′ busses for neighborhood service.

    Bus ridership has been going up since TriMet took over Rose City Transit.

    Yes, because since 1969 through the early 1990s, TriMet actually invested in bus service. TriMet did buy hundreds of new busses, built the original transit mall, built park and ride lots, etc. Since the mid-1990s, investment in bus service has ground to a halt and bus ridership is declining.

    So today we are failing to expand service to those areas that can’t/won’t have light rail, and we’re investing hundreds of millions of dollars in a very limited area. We’re doing little to help relieve congestion, because MAX service is heavily dependent (especially on the westside) upon Park and Ride users who must drive from their homes to the MAX line (and thus adds to local congestion). Traffic has steadily increased on the parallelling freeways to MAX and has never decreased. There are huge gaps in the region that have little or no transit service, and there is no will to improve that situation – rather to focus on providing more expensive LRT/Streetcar to placate developers who also want tax breaks to build properties.

    TriMet’s investment in bus service is less than 10% of its total capital spending budget. Metro doesn’t even recognize bus investments in any of its transportation plans. As Bob pointed out, the City has taken the time to improve bus shelters in conjunction with Streetscape projects, but otherwise nil on that front either.

    I have zero faith that TriMet can successfully manage LRT/Streetcar projects at the same time as investing an appropriate amount into bus service. Seattle, Vancouver BC, and even Eugene, have made numerous investments into their bus systems and they are seeing ridership growth. Is Portland destined to be a city where transit access is only afforded to those who live on the light rail line, or is Portland going to be a city that is the leader in transit accessibility and availability, providing a comprehensive program of light rail in high-density corridors, Streetcar in the downtown core, and regional, commuter, local service and neighborhood bus routes throughout the region?

    I’d rather we take the “whole-picture” approach but our local leaders would rather ignore busses and hope they go away. Clearly from Metro’s perspective, they would.

  99. Erik, you’re moving the goal posts. Your original statement was: “Has TriMet planned on new bus lines, and improving service along existing lines? The answer is NO, NO and NO.”

    The TIP document clearly contradicts your assertion, so now you’ve shifted the argument to whether the TIP is being fully implemented or whether it’s good enough. That’s a fine discussion to have, and one we should be having under calm, rational terms, after all the verbal bomb throwing is over.

    You seem to blame Light Rail for everything. Even though light rail received more cutbacks than buses during the recent budget squeeze, and even though TriMet is buying many times more buses than light rail trains in the near future. (Even if you roll the clock back to 2004 to include the LRV purchases for Interstate MAX and include the future Green Line LRVs, TriMet is still buying 6.5X as many buses.)

    You keep accusing me of saying things I didn’t say, and then accuse me of not saying things that I did say, and you are now badgering TriMet for doing things you accused it of absolutely not doing at all.

    – Bob R.

  100. djk said:

    “Are those buses retired and the drivers fired? Or are the buses and drivers redeployed to enhance bus service elsewhere in the system?”

    >>>>> Enhanced service? Let me give you a few examples:

    –When MAX opened to Hillsboro in 1998, many bus riders lost their direct service to downtown, and had to take feeder buses to MAX stops, resulting in additional transfers and longer travel times.

    –When Interstate MAX opened, the #5, which provided local service along Interstate Avenue and one seat rides to Janzten Bezch and Vancouver, was discontinued. Now some riders have to walk several more blocks to a MAX stop or do an additonal transfer at Lombard. The #6 bus, with an indirect zig-zag route, replaced the #5, with considerably longer trip times to points north of Lombard. All this for an LRT line that is, at best, 4-5 minutes faster from Pioneer Square than the LOCAL bus line it replaced.

    –Shifting of bus lines from the bus mall to SW Jefferson and Columbia Streets: many blocks south of Pioneer Sqaure, and thus more incovenient to many riders. Result: a big ridership killer, as I have seen with my own eyes. (In fact, I plan to ride the #45 this afternoon.) I understand that Trimet intends to keep many or all of them on this routing permanently.

    As I use the transit system at least 4-5 times a week, and have been affected by “enhanced” service as a result of LRT, I think I know of what I speak.

  101. When Interstate MAX opened, the #5, which provided local service along Interstate Avenue and one seat rides to Janzten Bezch and Vancouver, was discontinued. Now some riders have to walk several more blocks to a MAX stop or do an additonal transfer at Lombard. The #6 bus, with an indirect zig-zag route, replaced the #5, with considerably longer trip times to points north of Lombard. All this for an LRT line that is, at best, 4-5 minutes faster from Pioneer Square than the LOCAL bus line it replaced.

    Nick, when the Yellow Line opened, 75%+ of the existing #5 bus riders saw an improvement in travel times. 3%+ saw no change. The remaining 20% were indeed inconvenienced by longer travel times and/or transfers, but the new C-TRAN service this summer has reduced that burden.

    Additionally, ridership in the common corridor between the #5 and the Yellow Line has more than doubled… not from forced transfers or feeder buses, but from genuine new riders. (And those new riders are overwhelmingly NOT fareless.)

    See:
    http://portlandtransport.com/archives/2007/05/dispatches_from_1.html

    – Bob R.

  102. “Erik, you’re moving the goal posts.” -Bob R.

    That’s because you keep proving him wrong, Bob. Professional contrarians like to be challenged, they just don’t like to be proven wrong with facts. So in order to keep the argument going (because confrontation is what they live for), they need to reframe it. No matter what you say, Erik, and several others here, will always find something wrong with the way Trimet is handling bus and rail transit. Is Trimet perfect? No. But show me a city whose transit system is. My suggestion to them is they should go work for Trimet as transit planners and work to correct all of the injustices they see from inside the belly of the beast.

  103. The TIP document clearly contradicts your assertion, so now you’ve shifted the argument to whether the TIP is being fully implemented or whether it’s good enough. That’s a fine discussion to have, and one we should be having under calm, rational terms, after all the verbal bomb throwing is over.

    You seem to blame Light Rail for everything. Even though light rail received more cutbacks than buses during the recent budget squeeze, and even though TriMet is buying many times more buses than light rail trains in the near future. (Even if you roll the clock back to 2004 to include the LRV purchases for Interstate MAX and include the future Green Line LRVs, TriMet is still buying 6.5X as many buses.)

    Bob, I’ve read the TIP.

    There is ONE mention of a new bus line. ONE. A local route in Tigard, which is undefined.

    There are routes that are scheduled to receive more frequent service, but there is no way to do so with the same number of busses. The number of busses TriMet has programmed to purchase in the next three years merely keeps up, with a two year delay, the number of busses TriMet has to retire. Which means any service increase MUST be met with a corresponding decrease on another route. Which brings us to the several pages in the TIP that discuss “underperforming routes”. But there’s NOTHING in the TIP that discusses “performing” routes, not to mention routes that are so successful that require more service above and beyond Frequent Service.

    In other words, TriMet’s bar is 15 minute service with a 40′ low floor bus. If traffic demands more service, too bad so sad. That’s not the attitude that Vancouver, BC and Seattle, Washington have. Heck, even Eugene and Spokane know better.

    Nowhere else in the TIP discusses improved bus service. Nada. There’s discussion on new bus stop signs (yawn), and about 20 or 30 shelters (out of 7,625 bus stops, only 1,100 have shelters already, leaving 6,525 stops without shelters, 20-30 new shelters is less than 1% of the overall shelters. If we applied the same “investment” to MAX, we’d add one new ticket vending machine somewhere, and that’s it – for an entire year of capital investment.) And several points of “investment” in the TIP have come and gone, such as automated stop announcements (was supposed to launch this year but did not), and several frequent service lines that were supposed to launch this year have not (in fact TriMet did not add any Frequent Service lines this year despite the TIP.)

    Your claim that TriMet is investing more in bus service than LRT is strictly by the number of vehicles, but not by capacity or by dollars, and doesn’t take into consideration the number of years. TriMet plans to purchase 150 busses over what, four years? At what capital cost? $52.5M. Meanwhile, TriMet has spent that much if not more annually on LRT projects, and as soon as one project is done it has another one lined up. So $52.5M, divided by four years, is $13M. A fraction of the spending afforded LRT projects.

    So, while I-205 gets a MAX line, the Transit Mall gets torn up, and the Red Line will now become a MAX line to a shopping center – where’s the improvements to crowded bus lines like the 12-Barbur? Or the 76, which is often standing room only in the mid-day? Or the 57? Or any number of bus routes that are frequent service, and overcapacity? Are we supposed to wait 15 years until we might get MAX? (Too bad for the 76, of course, they’ll get their weekday rush-hour only commuter train, but too bad for the mid-day crowd; and too bad for the 57 since they already have MAX.)

    What about the passengers who want to board a bus but have a mere three person shelter for the rain, at a busy stop – say, Tualatin City Hall? Or any of the PSU stops? Or any stop along the 57 route? Or Barbur & Bertha? All stops that routinely have more than a handful of passengers, but too bad when it’s rainy.

    Your assertion that Light Rail received more cutbacks…maybe in the operating section, but not in planning. How many Light Rail planners got laid off after 2001? How many light rail projects got cancelled after 2001? How many light rail capital projects got deferred after 2001? The bus replacement fleet is two years beyond schedule, are maintenance projects on the original Blue Line, and overhaul work on the Type Is, two years behind schedule? Of course not.

    Show me that TriMet is investing in bus service, and providing needed capacity upgrades. Show me that bus passengers are treated equally as MAX passnegers. Show me that TriMet is financially committed to bus service on an equal to MAX service, both in operations and in planning. Yes, when TriMet spends all of its money on light rail planning, that is money that doesn’t go to bus operations and replacements, even though TriMet is guaranteed an 80% federal match on bus replacements. Heck, the feds even paid the entire cost of the hybrid system for Seattle, despite an added $200K per bus – Seattle didn’t pay a penny more. But I guess riding in a cramped bus that can’t take on more passengers and is running 15 minutes late is acceptable performance for a “frequent service” line that is supposed to have busses every 15 minutes, not two busses back-to-back every 30 minutes.

  104. Erik said, “show me…”

    Frankly, you don’t seem very interested in being shown. You seem to have a mindset which is not very amenable to facts.

  105. I think the problem may be too many facts (which I thought Trimet was loathe to provide, BTW, but I digress….) combined with tons of anecdotal evidence (personal observations) and a definite bias against rail transit.

    2 and 2 is 4, but 2 and 2 is also 22. Different conclusions, it just depends on your perspective.

  106. I see we’re playing a lot of “shoot the messenger” but there’s still no facts. I’ve provided, despite Aaron’s assertion otherwise, plenty of facts from TriMet’s own documentation showing the clear disparity between rail investments/spending and bus investments/spending (or lack thereof).

    It seems that nobody, other than Bob, wants to even attempt to prove otherwise, rather to criticize me for not being a suck-up to the Streetcar and MAX band. However I have clearly pointed out that some of Bob’s arguments are in error, and it seems that the only way to challenge when I challenge facts with facts, is to shoot the messenger and engage in childish name-calling.

    So, Mr. Hawthorne and Mr. Aaron, are you going to show me the facts, or are you going to continue to bad-mouth me because I don’t buy into your empty arguments? Do you want to show me information from TriMet that shows that TriMet is interested in bus investments? Do you want to show me that Metro has, in its federal flex dollars, programmed spending for bus investments? You can’t, because it doesn’t exist. TriMet’s bus “investment” is limited to replacing busses that should have been replaced two years ago, and new bus stop signs. Wow. (Now, what was the bus ridership increase for last year?)

    I’d like to heed Bob’s suggestion that we discuss the facts that TriMet has been neglecting bus investments in, in his words, “That’s a fine discussion to have, and one we should be having under calm, rational terms, after all the verbal bomb throwing is over.”, but it seems that Mr. Hawthorne and Aaron have no desire to discuss anything under calm, rational terms – but to project “verbal bombs” towards me.

  107. Whatever Erik. I wasn’t attacking or bad-mouthing you…. but you take everything so damned personally. There’s just no talking to you. So later dude…

  108. Argue with yourself for a while, maybe you can convince yourself that you’re right (or wrong, or whatever it is you’re trying to accomplish here).

  109. I feel so left out. I seem to have neither personally attacked Erik, nor “incorrectly” argued with him, I didn’t even get named in his post…

    What did I do wrong?

  110. “It seems that nobody, other than Bob, wants to even attempt to prove otherwise, rather to criticize me for not being a suck-up to the Streetcar and MAX band.”

    >>>> I HAD EXACTLY THE SAME REACTION, and was thinking of posting it. What contributions have these other posters besides Bob made to the discussion, other than to personally criticize another poster for not “sucking up” to MAX and streetcar?

    This reminds me of when I was in railfan clubs, and saw visceral dismissal of any other modality for anything but rail–mocking anything to do with buses, monorails or “people movers.”

    Well, I for one, certainly do not “suck up” to MAX and streetcars–in fact, I think they are inappropriate altogether for Portland to begin with, and I having been using bus and rail transit exclusively for a half-century. But I’ll get probably get flamed anyway.

  111. Nick,

    You also seem to misunderstand. What I said was… “Different conclusions [based on the same facts], it just depends on your perspective.”

    “Show me” how that is disrespectful to ANYONE. Are you saying we don’t all have different points of view?

    If you’re gonna get flamed for anything, it’s for calling the rest of us “suck ups”. I don’t suck up to anybody (except my in-laws) and just because we happen to feel that MAX and Streetcar ARE right for Portland, doesn’t mean we agree with everything Trimet or Metro does.

  112. “I feel so left out. I seem to have neither personally attacked Erik, nor “incorrectly” argued with him, I didn’t even get named in his post… What did I do wrong?” -Matthew

    Buck up, Grasshopper! When the time is right, you too will be accused of incorrectly arguing with Erik.

  113. Aaron, thank you, that makes me feel better.

    Nick said:
    “in fact, I think [streetcars] are inappropriate altogether for Portland to begin with”

    A whole bunch of developers in the 1900s felt otherwise, and made a bunch of money in the process. “Begin with” actually describes it perfectly, the city was more of a town until the streetcars came along…

  114. I’d bet that downtown PDX however has an average closer to 30% for people this side of I-205 and Beaverton and downtown. Seriously, with 90 thousand carried a day, that’s some serious in and out with the majority coming downtown.

  115. “A whole bunch of developers in the 1900s felt otherwise, and made a bunch of money in the process. “Begin with” actually describes it perfectly, the city was more of a town until the streetcars came along…”

    >>>> But this is 2007, not the early 1900’s.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *