Portland Transport

Hard Times Ahead for TriMet?

Indications are that TriMet’s payroll tax revenue has been strongly impacted by the recession. As a result, TriMet is looking at a 5-8% service reduction.

The upcoming public process around fairless square will also be used to gather public input on these cuts.

Let’s hope for a white knight: congressman Oberstar added several hundred million dollars in transit operating funds to the federal stimulus bill. Cross your fingers that it will survive the Senate and the conference committee!

Chris Smith

, ,

124 responses to “Hard Times Ahead for TriMet?”

  1. Chris Smith wrote: TriMet is looking at a 5-8% service reduction.

    WES budgeted cost: $117.5 million.
    WES actual cost: $166 million.

    Difference? $48.5 million. (29.3%)

    But I’m sure WES (or MAX) won’t see any cutbacks, it’ll all be bourne by bus riders, once again. TriMet already announced cuts to the bus capital spending program to employees, but no cuts to any other capital spending programs.

  2. But I’m sure WES (or MAX) won’t see any cutbacks, it’ll all be bourne by bus riders, once again.

    I’m glad you’re sure, but actually the TriMet representative who spoke about this at the Streetcar CAC meeting specifically mentioned reduced MAX service, especially outside of peak hours/late night. There may also be a 50% reduction in the planned number of shuttle trains serving the mall loop when it opens.

    Plus, in case you didn’t know, there’s a difference between capital funds (WES) and operating funds.

  3. “But I’m sure WES (or MAX) won’t see any cutbacks, it’ll all be bourne by bus riders, once again.”

    Good to hear. Although I might lose 12:30 run on the 35G, losing the midnight run of MAX would be far more annoying.

    Speaking of which, last night at about 2am, (when the MAX aren’t normally running,) I saw a type 4 train going though Beaverton. Any guess on when those will be put into revenue service? Are they saving them up and not going use them until Sept 10th, or what? They could put them in the Blue line at rush hour right now, (where the train is overcrowded already,) and that would free up some Type 2&3 cars to add to the Yellow so we could run 2 car trains, (instead of 1 car ones that overcrowded.) Or, at least, that is what I’d do…

  4. “Indications are that TriMet’s payroll tax revenue has been strongly impacted by the recession. As a result, TriMet is looking at a 5-8% service reduction.”

    Not only should Fareless Square be eliminated, but this reduction in revenues from payroll taxes is also an opportunity for TriMet to raise fares system wide with the goal of becoming more financially self-sustainable. Covering only a low 20 something percent of the operating costs from the loose change received through the farebox is simply not good enough.

    Additionally, not only has WES been both a costly venture that has grossly under priced fares, but the new MAX light rail cars also have costly defects that are being hidden from public view. My understanding is that some of the equipment on the cars must be relocated by TriMet so the cars can be used throughout the system. Additionally, the cars have a vast number of software problems that need to be corrected before they can be placed in service. Taxpayers should be asking “who is minding the store?”

  5. Matthew –

    Here’s an Oregonian blog post about the Type IV MAX LRV testing from December.

    It quotes Mary Fetsch as saying they hoped to have some in service by mid-to-late January. I’m assuming that deadline was a bit flexible. :-)

    I’m speculating, but if they’re worried about impending service cuts, they may indeed have decided to wait until rail service begins on the mall before deploying the type IVs.

  6. Any bus line with cost per ride over $5 should be on the table. MAX Yellow line has the highest c/r of the three MAX lines at $1.91. But non-peak trips on every line will be at risk, rail or bus.
    Any idea out there of projected cost per ride on WES? Keep in mind that this project was touted by Washington county electeds as a low cost rail option…about $10M per mile vs light rail at $50-$100 per mile. How will it stack up on the operational side?

  7. Erik Halstead Says:

    But I’m sure WES (or MAX) won’t see any cutbacks, it’ll all be bourne by bus riders, once again. TriMet already announced cuts to the bus capital spending program to employees, but no cuts to any other capital spending programs.

    Cuts are going to be shared across the board, including MAX service. WES? Probably not, since there is almost nothing to cut.

    The last sentence is patently untrue. Again, cuts in the capital budget are across the board. In fact, one of the only items to be spared at this point is the purchase this year of new buses.

  8. Ahh. Thank you. (Good time to be testing them too. It was snowing that week.) Of course, it is possible that some of them are in revenue service now, there are almost 50 trains running at rush hour, and unless I had nothing better to do than stand on the steel bridge and watch them go by, I could easily miss if a few of them were Type 4s.

  9. “But I’m sure WES (or MAX) won’t see any cutbacks, it’ll all be bourne by bus riders, once again.”
    JK: That is the usual practice for most systems around the county. The keep rail and devastate he bus system, causing an overall loss of ridership.

    Just another example that proves that Light rail costs too much and does too little. Is this truth finally starting to set in?

  10. JK: No. But thanks for asking.

    If you have any factual basis for your statements, please document that transit agencies without rail are more financially self-sufficient right now.

  11. “please document that transit agencies without rail are more financially self-sufficient right now.”
    JK: That is NOT the statement that I made.

  12. Erik Halstead Says:
    WES budgeted cost: $117.5 million.
    WES actual cost: $166 million.”
    JK: Can you give me the source for this.
    PS: I have a earlier cost estimate at $103.5 million

    Thanks
    JK

  13. Terry Parker: I was under the impression that Fareless Square is paid for by businesses in the area served by the Square, so getting rid of it won’t do anything to improve TriMet’s financial situation.

    I’m for getting rid of Fareless Square anyway, don’t get me wrong, I just think it’s important that if we’re looking to make cuts in the budget that we know what cuts will make the most sense.

  14. It wasn’t your exact statement, JK, but what Unit requested would be a means of proof that your as-yet-unsupported statement is true or untrue.

    If you assert that rail costs too much, and that the “usual practice” of transit systems with rail systems is to “keep rail and devastate he bus system, causing an overall loss of ridership”, then it makes sense to compare with agencies which DO NOT offer rail service at all, and see if the cutbacks in service and the ridership impacts are similar or different.

    Regardless of methodology, thus far you’ve provided no evidence for your claim.

    We might look to the Eugene-Springfield area for an example of an established bus-only transit system…

    The Lane Transit District (LTD) has been looking at cutbacks since at least last November, according to this article: Bus riders appeal to LTD to keep routes in place

    Bus riders pleaded with the Lane Transit District Board Monday not to cut their routes, as the public agency weighs one of the biggest cuts in its 38-year history to address rising costs and stagnant revenue.

    The board plans next week to approve cuts equivalent to eliminating four major routes, most of which would take effect next fall. Officials said after Monday’s meeting that they’ll continue to evaluate the cut list, but preserving service in one part of the system likely means taking from it somewhere else.

    Here’s an editorial about the LTD service cuts in today’s Register-Guard:

    It’s nothing short of absurd that the district lacks the resources it needs to avoid what may prove to be the largest service cuts in its nearly four-decade history. The reductions are coming as more people are riding buses and as the district, as are many others across the country, is experiencing capacity problems.

  16. Bob:We might look to the Eugene-Springfield area for an example of an established bus-only transit system…
    JK: But it has an expensive, showcase, busway. Not as wasteful(?) as rail, but still far more expensive than simply running buses on shared right-of-way (roads, no HOV lanes) where the costs can be spread over many users.

    You need to look where there is ONLY ordinary buses.

    The reason that buses replaced streetcars almost 100 years ago is that they were more flexible and lower cost. It is amazing that modern planners still haven’t learned this.

    As to my original comment, it was based on statements by a processional, CPA, transit system auditor at one of the American Dream Conferences. (He was one of the litigants in the LA consent decree that forced LA to quit shortchanging the bus system to build rail. That dramatically raised ridership.)

    Thanks
    JK

  18. First of all, TriMet isn’t the only agency in the country facing problems. The New York Times did an article saying that NYC “is considering steep fare increases and its deepest service cuts in years to help close a $1.2 billion deficit” and that many other agencies are in trouble.

    fairless square

    Shouldn’t that be “Fareless Square”? :)

    WES? Probably not, since there is almost nothing to cut.

    Could they go down to having one conductor per train? Or is Portland & Western not willing to do that (besides the fact that the operating rules have already been agreed upon)? I know it would put possibly twice as much work on the person with the two car train, but its not really different than a high-seniority bus operator on a easy, lowly-used run getting paid more than one on a late-night Line 4 bus or an afternoon Line 72.

  19. Regarding bus vs. rail funding, I’d like to note what’s just before the piece of the article I quoted:

    “Charlotte, N.C., whose new light-rail system is the envy of transit planners around the country, and which is enjoying its biggest ridership levels since “the days of streetcars,” according to Keith Parker, the transit system’s chief executive, will be running its new trains less frequently, raising fares and cutting back on bus service.” Rail is apparently attracting many new riders, but it will be cut too.

  20. “The reason that buses replaced streetcars almost 100 years ago is that they were more flexible and lower cost. It is amazing that modern planners still haven’t learned this.”

    100 years ago? They were still building streetcars like crazy 70 years ago. I just read an interesting study on San Fransisco on them converting streetcars to buses in the 1950s, (and then back to streetcars again in the 1990.) Ridership was declining so the companies were laying off operators. But by switching from streetcars to buses, the union could keep more jobs around, (because it required twice as many operators to move the same amount of people,) therefor slowing the layoffs. Basically switching to buses was a make work scheme, (which accelerated the losses of the transit companies, and soon after they had to be nationalized.) So no, it wasn’t lower cost, it was actually more expensive, and that was entire reason to switch.

  21. Jason McHuff Says:

    First of all, TriMet isn’t the only agency in the country facing problems. The New York Times did an article saying that NYC “is considering steep fare increases and its deepest service cuts in years to help close a $1.2 billion deficit” and that many other agencies are in trouble.

    There may be a transit agency in the country that isn’t in financial straits but I have yet to hear of one.

    Oooh, visual aids

    WES? Probably not, since there is almost nothing to cut.

    Could they go down to having one conductor per train? Or is Portland & Western not willing to do that (besides the fact that the operating rules have already been agreed upon)?

    I’m not sure P&W gets a vote; off the top of my head, I would guess that this is a union rule. And if they did, I wouldn’t call that a service cut.

  22. But it has an expensive, showcase, busway. Not as wasteful(?) as rail, but still far more expensive than simply running buses on shared right-of-way (roads, no HOV lanes) where the costs can be spread over many users.

    JK, you’re conflating capital costs (the busway construction) with operating costs. Also, about 40% of EmX’s operation is in shared highway right-of-way.

    On the operations side, LTD may have to reconsider it’s fareless policy for EmX, just as TriMet is opening up a re-evaluation of Fareless Square.

  23. OK, JK, here’s an agency with no fancy BRT service and no rail service: Cherriots in Salem… which has just ended ALL Saturday service and eliminated positions.

    Here’s a Statesman Journal article from January: Cherriots bus service no longer offered on Saturday

    Excerpt:

    The district also took deep personnel cuts, laying off five employees, while eliminating 11 bus drivers positions, five administrative positions and three maintenance positions […]

  24. It could be worse.

    Despite an 8 percent increase in ridership last year, in March the St. Louis mass transit system will cut nearly half of its bus service, lay off close to 600 of its workers, and reduce service on its MetroLink light-rail routes.

    Vinyl hoods reading, “We regret due to a lack of funding, service to this stop is suspended,” will be draped over transit stop signs where service will be stopped.

    Still, when over 70 percent of major transportation – funding measures on ballots this past year were approved throughout the country – injecting some $75 billion into 23 transportation systems – St. Louis voters rejected Proposition M (52 percent to 48 percent ), a half cent sales tax increase that would have gone to fund the city’s struggling system.

  25. 100 years ago? They were still building streetcars like crazy 70 years ago.

    I’ll repeat that cause I was at work when I skimmed Jim’s post. Thank you Matthew, I’ll be in San Francisco in 2 weeks and plan to use the F line (the streetcar.)

    I hope I get a new streetcar than the one’s I’ve already been on. One I rode was built in the 60’s even.

    I think an investment to a standardized Smart Card-type system is a great idea. I love the idea of tapping my debit card to get on a bus rather than need to pay $2.50 to use an ATM, then need to break a $20.

  26. Doug, you may be correct that Fareless Square at least in part, and along with the Transit Mall, is paid for by businesses in the area served by the Square – but Fareless Square also significantly adds to fare evasion and unfairly allows people from the affuant Pearl District to commute to the CBD as a freebee.

    Jason, I think the key words in your comments about Charlotte, N.C. is that the transit agency is “raising fares” – something TriMet needs to do to become more financially self-sustainable – then if necessary, establish a low income discount program for those individuals and families who actually need a lower fare.

    Matthew, unlike what Sam and others are proposing with their outdated 1920’s vision of a web of streetcars; much of the San Francisco streetcar/street rail system is on private right-of-ways (some built decades ago), and on low traffic volume streets rather than creating congestion mixed with motor vehicle and motor freight traffic on “high traffic volume” streets.

  28. Bob R. Says:

    Well, clearly TriMet has some work to do compared to the private sector… while TriMet charges $2+ for a single ride, US Airways is now charging $7 for an on-board pillow and blanket.

    JK: How many miles do you get for the dollar on US Air compared to Trimet?
    (Since you did apples to oranges.)

    Thanks
    JK

  29. Fred Hansen, where is your leadership?
    You disappear during the worst storm in 75 years, you hand out money to bankrupt companies on the sly, now you hit us with this!
    —————————–

    A real leader would have made the following statement.

    “I regret that I have mishandled pubic funds at the same time that payroll taxes have taken a steep drop, so today I and all of my executive staff are taking 8% cut in our huge salaries. ”

    “All of our unnecessary expenses are being eliminated. 25% of supervisory staff is now going go get out from behind their desks or trucks and start providing direct services to our riding public either as rail or bus operators.”

    “Over the past 3 years we have hired many extra assistant station managers who will now be let go. There will be one station manager who will take over all the business of each garage and will no longer be attending any career enhancement seminars.”

    “We will no longer create shifts for our operators that cause them to fall into physical distress attempting to meet work hours that no human being should be expected to attempt which then leads operators to sick leave.

    “Scheduling will be informed to create schedules that will allow operators to function in a healthy environment so as reduce sick leave.

    “We will slash our wasteful overtime practices by re devising our methods of filling runs.”

    “We will immediately institute a hiring freeze on non essential personnel, which includes everyone but bus and rail operators.”

    “The training department will be cut by 1/2 and those people will once again be serving the public.”

    “After we have done all of these things, we will look to reducing service to the citizens themselves.”
    ————————————

    That’s what a real leader would do.

  30. Since TriMet’s primary priority role in the community is to transport people; to offset a decline in the payroll tax and as a step towards financial self-sustainability, TriMet needs to start charging an extra fare to transport a bicycle. Not only is there a cost to provide the special racks to handle bicycles on transit, but on Max and Wes bicycles take up space that otherwise could be occupied by passengers. There should be no more free passes for bicycles on TriMet.

  31. TriMet needs to start charging an extra fare to transport a bicycle.

    ACTUALLY-

    That is not a bad idea!

    Go back to the bike ID card, a yearly fee would be fine, $25 sounds about right.

  32. How many miles do you get for the dollar on US Air compared to Trimet?

    Keeping this “apples-to-apples”, there aren’t a lot of short trips on US Air which compare to TriMet trips.

    However, the lowest discount fare on a trip from Washington, DC (DCA) to Baltimore (BWI), about 35 miles by air, was $108 before taxes. ($136 after). That’s $3.08 per passenger-mile.

    TriMet’s system cost per passenger-mile for buses in FY08 appears to be $0.96, and for rail appears to be $0.46.

    Now that I have your attention, you’ve still posted ZERO evidence to back up your original assertion:

    That is the usual practice for most systems around the county. The keep rail and devastate he bus system, causing an overall loss of ridership.

    All you’ve said is that you heard something from some guy, who you did not name, at a conference.

  34. From the editorial: When Fareless Square was created in 1975, it was designed to improve air quality, strengthen the downtown and pry people out of their cars.

    Well, yeah, but . . . what really accomplished that was the creation of the Transit Mall, not necessarily free rides.

    I think some people fail to take into account the coming changes on the Mall. When they suggest that removing free bus rides will inconvenience people, they’re not taking into consideration the fact that MAX will run (frequently) all the way from PSU down to Union Station. Some buses used to go all the way through, but only an experienced rider would know which, or where the buses were headed.

    Other critics have taken offense at the idea that bus riders are being snubbed, but this would actually improve times on the Mall, by limiting boardings to outbound passengers rather than people riding a stop or two. And the operators’ ability to weed out freeloaders is not to be sneezed at.

  36. [Moderator: Boldfaced text, from an attempt to start another fight over moderation, removed.]

    Bob R.: in case you didn’t know, there’s a difference between capital funds (WES) and operating funds.

    Where did the $48.5 million WES cost overrun come from, since it didn’t come from a dedicated capital funds source…

    Jeff F.: WES? Probably not, since there is almost nothing to cut.

    Eliminate the free Wi-Fi?
    Eliminate 1/3rd of trains (and the associated labor costs) and simply run two train sets, both as two-car trains?
    Eliminate free parking?

    Jim Karlock: JK: Can you give me the source for this.
    PS: I have a earlier cost estimate at $103.5 million

    Before it was $103.5 it was $80 million.

    Jason McHuff: Could they go down to having one conductor per train? Or is Portland & Western not willing to do that (besides the fact that the operating rules have already been agreed upon)?

    Jeff F.: I’m not sure P&W gets a vote; off the top of my head, I would guess that this is a union rule. And if they did, I wouldn’t call that a service cut.

    The Conductor is mandated by the Federal Railroad Administration. Federal law says he must be there. Which simply adds to the inefficiencies of WES – two crew members, two engines (and thus twice the fuel consumption), twice the capacity of a 40′ bus… A single-car WES train is equivalent to two buses in every way.

    (I have no idea, but it’d be interesting if it were possible to shut down one engine.)

    Jeff F.: this would actually improve times on the Mall, by limiting boardings to outbound passengers rather than people riding a stop or two. And the operators’ ability to weed out freeloaders is not to be sneezed at.

    And how is MAX different? Everything said above applies equally to MAX, so making Fareless Square applicable to MAX only does not achieve any goal.

  37. Bob: Now that I have your attention, you’ve still posted ZERO evidence to back up your original assertion:

    That is the usual practice for most systems around the county. The keep rail and devastate he bus system, causing an overall loss of ridership.

    All you’ve said is that you heard something from some guy, who you did not name, at a conference.
    JK: Am not sure he would want his name used. His is CPA who has extensive experience with transit system finances.

    You could look around a bit. San Jose comes to mind.

    Thanks
    JK

  38. You could look around a bit. San Jose comes to mind.

    I and others have looked around and we’ve posted multiple examples contrary to your assertion. In order to prove “usual practice” you’re going to have to provide sufficient examples to show a trend. “You could look around a bit” is a bit lacking.

  39. San Jose comes to mind:

    VTA’s total monthly system ridership for bus and light rail was 3,510,788, an increase of 7.9% over December 2007. These latest statistics complete a year of steady ridership growth for VTA’s bus and light rail services. VTA’s system ridership has shown an increase every month of 2008 with the twelve month trend of system ridership increasing 6.2% over the previous twelve month period. […]

    Monthly bus ridership was 2,702,800 an increase of 7.8% from December of last year; Light rail recorded monthly ridership of 807,988, a 8.4% increase from last year; […]

    And:

    So far, the VTA has avoided cutting service or increasing fares on buses or light rail. But that may not last, as sales tax revenue that cover the cost of running its fleet plunged $6.1 million from July through September.

    “Some negative impacts will be unavoidable,” said board chair Dolly Sandoval. “The board has not yet talked about any specific measures to close any revenue gaps, but I suspect this will be on our agenda for the next few months.”

    So, at best, it remains to be seen what constitutes “usual practice” in San Jose and how that might intersect with your assertion.

  41. Erik:

    Jeff F.: WES? Probably not, since there is almost nothing to cut.

    Eliminate the free Wi-Fi?

    Well, we were talking about cutting service, and at any rate, cutting WiFi wouldn’t make a gnat’s difference in the budget.

    Eliminate 1/3rd of trains (and the associated labor costs) and simply run two train sets, both as two-car trains?

    Thanks for proving my point. You can’t cut WES service without gutting it.

    Eliminate free parking?

    Now there’s a budget buster. Parking at Wilsonville . . . oops, that’s City of Wilsonville. Parking at Tualatin, about 150 spaces; another 100 at Tigard; another 50 at Hall/Nimbus. Oh, and zero at Beaverton TC. All this would accomplish would be to make WES even less efficient that you’ve already deemed it.

    Jeff F.: this would actually improve times on the Mall, by limiting boardings to outbound passengers rather than people riding a stop or two. And the operators’ ability to weed out freeloaders is not to be sneezed at.

    And how is MAX different? Everything said above applies equally to MAX, so making Fareless Square applicable to MAX only does not achieve any goal.

    It doesn’t apply to MAX at all. MAX has multiple doors in each car and they’re much wider than bus doors. Buses can load one person at a time, while a MAX train can easily load a dozen in the same period. And you know very well that MAX operators do not have anything to do with fare collection.

  42. Terry, If you want to charge to transport a bike then you better install parking meters at the park and rides.

  43. MAX has multiple doors in each car and they’re much wider than bus doors. Buses can load one person at a time, while a MAX train can easily load a dozen in the same period.

    In addition, MAX has to spend time waiting at the station for the next traffic signal cycle in order to leave–extra time that can be used to load extra passengers. Buses, on the other hand, don’t have to wait if they’re only (de)boarding a few passengers (unless the operating rules dictate it because of the trains sharing the street). And then there’s the fact that MAX has a lot more room for extra riders.

    However, as I commented on the Fareless Square post, MAX will be of no help to those who want to go from halfway between two stations to halfway between two other stations.

  44. Jason McHuff Says:

    However, as I commented on the Fareless Square post, MAX will be of no help to those who want to go from halfway between two stations to halfway between two other stations.

    This is true, but you would have to be a savvy and lucky rider to catch just the right bus to get you to that destination, always assuming it served your origin. And bus stops will be spread out more than they were on the old Mall as well; a little walking is likely no matter what you board.

  45. Bob R. Says: JK, you’re conflating capital costs (the busway construction) with operating costs. Also, about 40% of EmX’s operation is in shared highway right-of-way.
    JK: Usually there are bonds that have to be paid, even if service has to be cut to ZERO! Once you have to cut service, which do you cut, your expensive showpiece, that you lied to the public to get approval to build, or the bus? (Please do not try to feed me that crap that rail costs less than bus to operate – rail costs too much & does too little.)

    BTW, you drug us off of my original statement. Please stick to responding to that:

    JK: That is the usual practice for most systems around the county. The keep rail and devastate he bus system, causing an overall loss of ridership.

    Thanks
    JK

  46. What I’d like to see are the actual, concrete options. Things like what exact transit service would represent a 8% cut, what fares would look like with an increase to cover the 8%, and other things, knowing full and well that decreasing service and/or raising fares may result in further revenue loss.

    Specifically, things like:

    “If TriMet cut entire routes to balance the budget, lines 2-Hypothetical SE Portland Route, 3-Hypothetical Suburban Route, and 97-Hypothetical Express Route would have a final day of service on (insert date here). Eliminating line 3-Hypothetical Suburban Route service would leave an estimated (this many) people within the TriMet district without alternate transit service of any kind.”

    “If TriMet cut low ridership portions of routes to balance the budget, service would be eliminated from all bus and rail lines, all days of the week at (insert a time) PM. Additionally, the low ridership Heckandback Rd. loop of line 11-Harry Big Toe Blvd. will be eliminated. (Repeat with exact information for all other affected routes.)”

    “If TriMet raised fares to balance the budget, cash fares would be raised (insert number of cents and/or dollars), and pass prices would be raised (insert number of dollars). This figure assumes a (this many) percent decrease in ridership due to unaffordability, as well as the increased costs of fare enforcement, and legal services if TriMet had legal action taken against it from ‘watchdog’ groups and/or poverty and/or other activism groups.”

    I’m now wondering if the public meetings that were scheduled for later this week were postponed so that additional materials pertaining to these cuts will be available at them.

  47. you would have to be a savvy and lucky rider to catch just the right bus to get you to that destination

    I was thinking of a rider who wants to travel 5 (or maybe 10) blocks down the central mall (where no buses turn off) from one X (or B) stop to another X (or B) stop. In that case, a rider should be able to take any bus that stops at that stop. But if they want to go beyond the central mall, they will have to know where the bus turns off the mall (e.g. Madison/Hawthorne Bridge or Burnside).

    bus stops will be spread out more than they were on the old Mall as well

    That is one of my complaints about the new mall. (I realize that it is required due to MAX sharing the lanes).

  48. Jason McHuff Says:

    bus stops will be spread out more than they were on the old Mall as well

    That is one of my complaints about the new mall. (I realize that it is required due to MAX sharing the lanes).

    It’s also part of streamlining, getting the buses down the Mall more quickly. Third and Fourth have looked like that since 2007, without any trains.

  49. JK: That is the usual practice for most systems around the county. The keep rail and devastate he bus system, causing an overall loss of ridership.

    Not really. Buffalo for example did a great job of building a very incomplete rail “system” (6 miles, one line, highest ridership per mile in the US though), and destroying bus service.

    Other cities restructure the buses to use the rail (like LA, San Diego, San Francisco, etc.) Yes, some cities remove bus investment significantly, but many use buses as a way to get people to the rails.

  50. Let’s hope for a white knight: congressman Oberstar added several hundred million dollars in transit operating funds to the federal stimulus bill. Cross your fingers that it will survive the Senate and the conference committee!

    Let’s not hope for the white knight. We can’t keep bailing everyone out. I’m really concerned where all these trillion dollar spending packages are taking us. Cutting back some service is not such as bad thing. Who says Max has to run every 15 minutes on all lines after the evening rush hour? 20 or 30 service is fine. Especially since so there is so much overlap between Gateway and Beaverton TC.

  51. Arron said: “If you want to charge to transport a bike then you better install parking meters at the park and rides.”

    Right along with installing parking meters for bicycles downtown – and installing parking meters for bicycles in all other areas where parking meters exist for cars and trucks – and installing parking meters for bicycles on all bike racks and bike lockers at transit stations – so on and so forth!

  52. JK writes: “BTW, you drug us off of my original statement. Please stick to responding to that:”

    That’s entirely untrue. Throughout this thread I’ve asked you to provide proof for your original statement, including re-quoting you multiple times. Here, I’ll do it again:

    That is the usual practice for most systems around the county. The keep rail and devastate he bus system, causing an overall loss of ridership.

    So far, as already noted, you’ve provided zero proof for that statement. None at all.

  53. Terry, I imagine we’ll never see eye to eye on this subject. I for one am not opposed to paying in to the system to receive better service whether it be for my bike, my car, etc., but I have the resources to do that. I rent a Bike locker at a transit center. I wouldn’t be opposed to paying a little more for better bike facilities on transit in general, but like I said I have resources that many transit riders do not.

  54. you’ve provided zero proof for that statement. None at all.

    He can’t because it isn’t true.

    Bob, why do you even bother?

  56. Bob R. Says: That’s entirely untrue. Throughout this thread I’ve asked you to provide proof for your original statement, including re-quoting you multiple times. Here, I’ll do it again:

    That is the usual practice for most systems around the county. The keep rail and devastate he bus system, causing an overall loss of ridership.

    So far, as already noted, you’ve provided zero proof for that statement. None at all.
    JK: And I already responded with:
    As to my original comment, it was based on statements by a processional, CPA, transit system auditor at one of the American Dream Conferences. (He was one of the litigants in the LA consent decree that forced LA to quit shortchanging the bus system to build rail. That dramatically raised ridership.)

    Then you attempted to disprove this by pointing to systems without rail doing OK – NOT relevant.
    You also brought up Eugene’s BRT – again NOT relevant.
    You also brought up last years ridership increase on one line. A one year, recession caused, blip is not NOT relevant.

    I assume you know Trimet, though by many to be the best LRT system in the country, already cut service improvements to pay for rail? See: localdailynews.com/news/story.php?story_id=118065302018049900

    Thanks
    JK

  57. From ti.org/antiplanner/?p=973 :

    Washington Metro expects to have a $154 million deficit next year. It hopes to cover half of that by cutting 313 jobs and “trimming other administrative expenses.” The rest will have to come from service cuts, so it is proposing to shut down the subways at 10 o’clock at night.

    Lets hear it for rail!!
    JK

  58. JK –

    When somebody tells you something at a conference, a statement which is itself evidence-free, and you repeat it here, that’s still not proof.

    And then you say…

    Washington Metro expects to have a $154 million deficit next year. It hopes to cover half of that by cutting 313 jobs and “trimming other administrative expenses.” The rest will have to come from service cuts, so it is proposing to shut down the subways at 10 o’clock at night.

    Which is the exact opposite of your original assertion that “usual practice” was to “keep rail and devastate he bus system”. Hint: Showing evidence of _rail_ service cuts is not proof of _keeping rail_.

    Then you attempted to disprove this by pointing to systems without rail doing OK – NOT relevant. You also brought up Eugene’s BRT – again NOT relevant.

    I explained exactly why those were relevant at the time. If you don’t buy my explanation, that’s fine. It still doesn’t change the fact that you’ve provided zero evidence of your original claim.

    You also brought up last years ridership increase on one line. A one year, recession caused, blip is not NOT relevant.

    Good grief, JK, it was in direct response to _you_ bringing up San Jose. If you don’t want me to talk about San Jose, DON’T BRING IT UP IN THE FIRST PLACE. Sheesh.

    Unless you have something real to contribute to this thread like, you know, evidence, please don’t waste our time any further.

  59. Bob:And then you say…
    JK: That was an aside, not presented as evidence of anything except rails excessive cost.

    Bob:Unless you have something real to contribute to this thread like, you know, evidence, please don’t waste our time any further
    JK: Why didn’t you follow that advice several messages ago?

  60. Why didn’t you follow that advice several messages ago?

    I did… I posted my assertions, my references, and my reasoning. And yet still we have nothing from you.

  62. jim karlock:Lets hear it for rail!!

    ws:Let’s hear it for the billions of dollars in backlogged road/bridge repairs that need to be made in this country! I hope those “user fees” kick in anytime.

  63. ws:Let’s hear it for the billions of dollars in backlogged road/bridge repairs that need to be made in this country! I hope those “user fees” kick in anytime.
    JK: Road users pay their own way thru gas taxes licenses and user fees. It is transit users that are the freeloaders. See portlandfacts.com/Roads/RoadSubsidy.htm and
    portlandfacts.com/Roads/Docs/Delucchi_Chart.htm and
    portlandfacts.com/Transit/Cost-Cars-Transit(2005).htm

    Thanks
    JK

  65. Except the entire 45,000 mile interstate system (cost of over 100 billion dollars) was a huge subsidy. Mass transit would be in great shape too if it got that kind of up-front capital investment too.

    Railroads also pay property taxes, which was a huge reason for our nation’s degrading railroads and “support” for trucking.

    How much property taxes do highways have to pay again?

    If you want to talk market forces, then let’s do it. Of you can keep posting your methodologically flawed data all day.

    [Moderator: Personally-directed remark removed. JK wins some kind of prize for drawing so many personally-directed remarks from others, but nonetheless such strongly-worded jibes will continue to be removed.]

  66. Jeff F. wrote: Well, we were talking about cutting service, and at any rate, cutting WiFi wouldn’t make a gnat’s difference in the budget.

    It is a service provided by TriMet, and it it costs (per TriMet figures provided to me) several thousand dollars just to operate.

    If something needs cut, why is Wi-Fi somehow exempt from cutting? (Not to mention that it is not TriMet’s duty to provide free internet access to anyone.)

    Thanks for proving my point. You can’t cut WES service without gutting it.

    How is operating the same level of service (four cars in service), but only with two trains/two crews, “gutting” it?

    Certainly, if this is “gutting” service than where is the call to reinstate the TriMet bus service cuts of about a year or two ago where a number of bus lines had their frequencies cut from 30 minute to 45 minute headways (the 45 and 62 were victims of that “gutting”)?

    Buses can load one person at a time, while a MAX train can easily load a dozen in the same period. And you know very well that MAX operators do not have anything to do with fare collection.

    Funny.

    I’ve seen a bus load a lot more people than one at a time.

    A more correct statement would be, “A TriMet bus, operating under existing constraints which are unlikely to be found in most other major metropolitan transit districts, can only load one person at a time.” Go to Seattle sometime. Their buses open three doors in the Tunnel, you can board and exit through any door and the doors are MUCH wider than any door on a TriMet bus.

    And a bus Operator does not collect a fare from a fareless zone passenger, so that argument is moot.

    (The issue could also be rectified by installing reliable TVMs at bus stops downtown and requiring riders downtown to purchase fares off-board; a concept used in many BRT systems.)

    The problems that are cited are not problems, except in TriMet’s little world of “how to operate bus service” which any of America’s top 20 transit agencies would prove wrong in 10 seconds.

  67. I just heard that the WES went down today?
    A bus bridge was used!
    This came from a max operator.

    HARD TIMES AHEAD FOR TRIMET!

  68. Erik H.

    How is operating the same level of service (four cars in service), but only with two trains/two crews, “gutting” it?

    Scarcely running the same frequency with that configuration and as it is it runs every 30 minutes.

    A more correct statement would be, “A TriMet bus, operating under existing constraints which are unlikely to be found in most other major metropolitan transit districts, can only load one person at a time.” Go to Seattle sometime. Their buses open three doors in the Tunnel, you can board and exit through any door and the doors are MUCH wider than any door on a TriMet bus.

    Which has absolutely zero to do with TriMet and the Mall. The bus doors are what they are, and moving the goalposts like that is just silly. We were discussing the difference between buses and MAX on the Mall, not some configuration of bus architecture that doesn’t exist here.

    And a bus Operator does not collect a fare from a fareless zone passenger, so that argument is moot.

    My original statement: And the operators’ ability to weed out freeloaders is not to be sneezed at.

    More goalpost moving. If the buses are not picking up free riders, then everyone getting on the bus has to buy a fare or provide proof of having valid fare. So, obviously, it’s not a fareless zone passenger.

  69. Go to Seattle sometime. Their buses open three doors in the Tunnel, you can board and exit through any door and the doors are MUCH wider than any door on a TriMet bus.

    OK, I don’t feel like looking up the specifics of Seattle’s buses, but I have read some blog posts from Seattle that say that their pay-as-you-get-off-outbound system causes problems. And I know that there’s a report showing that TriMet experimented with different fare payment procedures in the 80’s (also see Fareless Square history) and found problems. And regarding the buses, its not easy to change them.

    And a bus Operator does not collect a fare from a fareless zone passenger, so that argument is moot.

    But a bus operator does check fares, and allowing people to bypass that by saying they’re riding Fareless and then blend in with a crowd of paying passengers and ride beyond the square lowers the effectiveness of that fare checking–specifically, it means that for an operator to keep a bit of control of their bus by knowing if everyone has paid their fare, they have to keep track of who’s riding “Fareless” and see if they’re still on when the bus leaves the square (and/or confront those suspected of cheating).

    Versus on MAX, there’s no fare-checking as people are boarding, so no opportunity to make sure everyone has a valid fare is lost. Instead, its just a matter of having the Fare Inspectors only check fares outside Fareless Square.

    In other words, someone taking MAX beyond Fareless Square without paying is no different than someone getting on MAX at a non-fareless station without paying. But there is a difference between someone riding beyond the square on a bus and getting on a bus at a non-fareless stop: the latter has to face the operator.

  70. ws Says: Except the entire 45,000 mile interstate system (cost of over 100 billion dollars) was a huge subsidy.
    JK: That’s not the way I heard it: I heard that it was paid for by road user fees not general revenue. (Unlike transit which IS paid for by the general public.)

    (Note to skeptics: Instead of asking me to prove this, why don’t you prove exactly who paid for it. Usual rules apply – no unsupported claims.)

    While you’re at it , why don’t you look up the total money that has been supporting mass transit to back up your claim of what 100 Bil would do for transit. I only bring this up because the cost of MAX is approaching the total cost, as stated by some city officials, of Portland’s road network

    Thanks
    JK

  71. JK:“That’s not the way I heard it: I heard that it was paid for by road user fees not general revenue.”

    ws: 90% of the interstate system was matched by federal dollars, and 10% by states. These bonds were to be paid off by highway user fee taxes in the future (fast forward today, and the Highway Trust Fund

    The gas tax started in the 30s and went into the general tax fund. It wasn’t until the 1950s when the talk of the interstate system came to being, were 100% of gas taxes put into the highway trust fund.

    The final cost of the 43,000 mile interstate system was 119 billion (a 1991 report concluded).

    http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/interstate/faq.htm#question9

    The highway trust fund is currently in jeopardy and needs more funds. Not to mention that funds are not matching the repair costs of our over-built infrastructure.

    At the time, mass transit was completely a private endeavor and did not receive that kind of federal investment help or market share as the new highway systems did.

    Coupled with the fact that highways did not have to pay the same taxes and had fewer regulations than rail (which definitely helped the trucking industry); the “choice” of the automobile/highway building was an easy one.

    The crux of my argument is that the automobile has received an unfair share in the transportation market and do not appropriately pay for their externalities. I only expect that you being the “free-market” guy that you are would recognize this.

    JK:“I only bring this up because the cost of MAX is approaching the total cost, as stated by some city officials, of Portland’s road network”

    ws:You’re saying the total cost of Portland’s MAX is that of the total cost for Portland’s road network?

    I’m sure we’d like to see some numbers on this statement.

  72. YIKES!!! TriMet posts an official news release regarding their budget:
    http://trimet.org/news/budgetcuts.htm

    It looks like Friday the 13th will be the unlucky day we learn the specifics, as well as the open houses regarding the service. I take it this takes the place of the open houses announced about a month ago that were scheduled for this week, but I haven’t seen anything on the TriMet site for about two weeks now.

    Two of the “general ideas” they give:
    Discontinuing low-ridership routes, primarily on lines where alternative service is available. This could mean discontinuation of a dozen lines.

    Reducing frequency or span of service on several bus routes in off-peak hours.

    Is anyone able to answer ahead of time if 10-Harold, 44-Mocks Crest and/or 74-Lloyd District/SE could join 5-Interstate and 95(X)-Tigard I-5 Express on my list of favorite canceled bus routes?

  73. If you look at the Transit Investment Plan, (7MB PDF See page 110,) it tells you which lines are low ridership. Both Harold and Mocks Crest are on the first page, and Lloyd District is on the top of second page, so I’d assume they aren’t targets for cuts. What I’m worried about though is that they might cut service from those routes without cutting the route entirely, so for instance, the last Mocks Crest bus runs at 9:30 right now, and it could be cut back to 7:30 or something, and after 7:30 you’d have to ride the Lombard bus and walk further instead…

  74. ws Says: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/interstate/faq.htm#question9
    JK: You missed the next two answers. Key points:

    but Congress retained the Federal-State matching share of 90-10 as a reflection of the Interstate Construction Program’s importance to national goals. (In the western States with large amounts of untaxed public land, the Federal share could be increased to 95 percent.)

    Congress rejected this plan, but adopted a proposal to finance the Interstate System on a pay-as-you-go basis with revenue from highway user taxes. The revenue was credited by the Department of the Treasury to the Highway Trust Fund established under the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956.
    …
    The Highway Trust Fund financing mechanism established in the 1956 Act satisfied President Eisenhower’s “self-liquidating” demand. As a result, construction of the Interstate System did not contribute to a Federal deficit.

    So, there you have it: The interstate was a 90-10 split with the 90% coming from federally collected fees on highway users. Most of the states probably did the same. For perspective, we need to recall that transit is around 80% paid by non users. Does this confect with what you read on some anti auto web sites? Maybe you should quit reading those sources – they lie.

    But there’s more:
    (In 1982, the Highway Trust Fund was divided into a Highway Account and a Transit Account, which also receives some highway user tax revenue.)

    Repeating the point: In 1982, highway user fees started being stolen for transit.

    ws Says: The crux of my argument is that the automobile has received an unfair share in the transportation market and do not appropriately pay for their externalities.
    JK: Transit externalities are not much less (if any) than autos. For instance gas autos do not emit cancer causing soot like diesels do (including WES!). Autos do not emit the mercury, thorium and uranium of coal powered rail. Both diesel buses and autos depend on oil in about equal amounts per passenger mile. To the extent that the greens have blocked USA oil extraction, we have gotten into foreign entanglements. Without the green blockage, we probably would be close to self sufficient in oil. (Please save us from endless BS about the quantities of oil available in various off limits areas. Nobody knows and no one will no know until extraction is permitted.)

    ws Says: JK:”I only bring this up because the cost of MAX is approaching the total cost, as stated by some city officials, of Portland’s road network”

    ws:You’re saying the total cost of Portland’s MAX is that of the total cost for Portland’s road network?

    I’m sure we’d like to see some numbers on this statement.
    JK: Sam once said Portland’s road system was valued at about $4 billion. When we complete I205 & Milwauke & maybe Vancouver (I forget if this is in the number) the region will have wasted $4 Billion on toy trains, where for that amount of money we could have a congestion free city AND a more effective transit system.

  75. “Sam once said Portland’s road system was valued at about $4 billion.”

    A single bridge over the Columbia costs $4B. Maybe you misheard him…

  76. If you look at the Transit Investment Plan (… page 110…)
    I’ve read the TIP and I’m very familiar with that table. The word that tipped me off here is the “where alternative service is available” comment. At the same time, they could be referring to the portion of 153-South End Rd. that’s also served by Canby’s CAT, or short-turning 6-MLK before Hayden Island and tell folks there to use the C-TRAN 4, etc.

    The Oregonian also ran a front-page article today:
    http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2009/02/trimet_may_cut_service_to_cope.html

  77. Matthew Says: “Sam once said Portland’s road system was valued at about $4 billion.”

    A single bridge over the Columbia costs $4B. Maybe you misheard him…

    JK: Portland does not own the interstate highway system. Why would the head of PDOT, include highways owned by the state and feds in his count of value?

    Thanks
    JK

  78. Why would the head of PDOT, include highways owned by the state and feds in his count of value?

    Why would JK compare MAX, a regional multi-County transit system, to the city of Portland’s local, non-highway road system, in the first place?

  79. Bob R. Says: Why would JK compare MAX, a regional multi-County transit system, to the city of Portland’s local, non-highway road system, in the first place?
    JK: First, we all need to understand that the MAX “system” consists of three “roads” Burnside/Banfield; Interstate ave and Sunset. After the next phase it will add two more “roads” McLaughlin & I205

    Just these five roads of rail will cost as much as all the streets and roads that Portland owns. These streets & roads carry many times as many people as the MAX and they are paid for by road users and do not require tax money to subsidize the users (except in UR districts where city money is relieving developers of their responsibility to pay for roads, as is the usual practice in the rest of the city.) Further Trimet buses get to use these roads for free, eventhough they are the single biggest cause of road degradation.

    I am surprised that you had no comment on the proof that so many people are wrong about who paid for the interstate highway system. Not to mention the theft of highway fees to support tranist.

    That rhetoric has become a staple of the car haters and it turns out that their information source lied to them! (If I had gotten suckered like that I would be very suspicious of any additional information coming from those sources. )

    Thanks
    JK

  80. I just want to note that my TriMet budget ideas (among others) are to combine the 10 and the 70 (since the 10 is already going to be cut back to Rose Quarter) and to eliminate the 65.

    The former eliminates the extra service on Multnomah (the MAX Green Line will be added to the Blue and Red Lines just south on Holladay). The latter can replaced with transfers to the 39 (and the 44, 45, 54, 55 and 56 if the 64 gets moved to Terwilliger/Barbur). And if the 92 doesn’t get chopped, maybe have it stop at Capitol/Terwilliger for South Beaverton-Marquam Hill riders.

    And regarding the Interstate Highway System, if the federal gas tax that has been the user fee going to them went instead to pay for the costs of oil defense, I’m not sure there would be enough left to fund the highways.

  81. JK says:

    That rhetoric has become a staple of the car haters and it turns out that their information source lied to them! (If I had gotten suckered like that I would be very suspicious of any additional information coming from those sources. )

    I’m guessing he doesn’t see the irony.

  82. Douglas K. Says: (If I had gotten suckered like that I would be very suspicious of any additional information coming from those sources. )

    I’m guessing he doesn’t see the irony.
    JK: What irony?
    I am pretty careful about having solid data before making definitive statements (as opposed to “I read” or “I heard” or, in this case, Sam said.)

    I make a few mistakes, the smart growthers/car haters seem make few accurate statements.

    Do you see irony in that?

    Thanks
    JK

  83. This whole situation is pathetic.
    So easy to solve.

    1-GET RID OF THE GREEN LINE, won’t affect anybody cause nobody is using it!

    2-Get rid of the WES, early enough in operation that whoever is using it can go back to whatever they were doing before it started.

    3-Get rid of freeloaders square.

    4-Stop paying for the Disneyland ride called the street car and make Portland pay the whole thing since it was there idea.

    Problem solved, we can probably INCREASE service now!

    Oh yea, one more thing, Fred gets a 10% pay cut and is sentenced to ride the 72 for an entire day of operations!

  84. FRED says we are 13.5 million short.

    TRIMET MARKETING DEPT= $7.6 mil (WHY do we need a marketing department?)

    OFFICE OF GENERAL MANAGER= $2.4 MIL

    MEDIA RELATIONS (?)= $300K

    STREET CAR= $5.4 MIL

    Thats $15 million plus change left over.

    Get rid of WES and the Green line and we can ADD SERVICE TO EXISTING ROUTES!

    This whole thing is bogus, just like the bailout baloney.

    They feed us cow dung and we are forced to eat it!

  86. I am pretty careful about having solid data before making definitive statements

    No, you really aren’t.

  87. Douglas K. Says:I am pretty careful about having solid data before making definitive statements
    No, you really aren’t.
    JK: Please prove this. Don’t forget the qualifier “definitive” as opposed to a “I heard” type of statement.

    Thanks
    JK

  88. Please prove this.

    Scroll up.

    Your very first comment in this thread (in case you’ve forgotten) was:

    That is the usual practice for most systems around the county. The keep rail and devastate he bus system, causing an overall loss of ridership. Just another example that proves that Light rail costs too much and does too little. Is this truth finally starting to set in?

    That sounds like a “definitive” statement to me, in fact a whole series of definitive statements, finally capped off with a declaration of “truth”.

    And all you’ve been able to show for it since then, when proof was demanded, was “i heard”.

  89. And all you’ve been able to show for it since then, when proof was demanded, was “i heard”.
    JK: Yeah, Bob, from a professional CPA that has worked in the transit industry for many years, including upper management. He is far more credible than anyone around here.

    Sorry that you have problems accepting the reality of the harm that rail does to transit systems.

    Thanks
    JK

  90. jim karlock:

    Sorry that you have problems accepting the reality of the harm that rail does to transit systems.

    One would think that, if true, that would be relatively easy to document. Coming from someone with an frequently-expressed agenda, “I heard” doesn’t cut it, no matter whom you allegedly heard it from.

  91. from a professional CPA that has worked in the transit industry for many years, including upper management. He is far more credible than anyone around here.
    An anonymous, unverifiable source has zero credibility, particularly when cited from an ideologue who plays fast and loose with the facts to justify whatever predetermined conclusion he’s trying to push.

    Even if this unidentified expert actually exists, nobody here is about to take your word for what he said, or — given your penchant for cherry-picking data — trust you to pass along the information honestly and objectively. Sorry that you have problems accepting the way the world works, but that’s the reality. You’ve spent years demolishing your own credibility, to the point that nobody takes you at all seriously.

  93. That is a lot less painful than I thought it would be. Going to 2 cars trains all the time on the Yellow was something they needed to do a long time ago, and even if that means losing our extra train at rush hour, that is okay. And there are some cuts on the 17-St Helens that will annoy some people in St Johns, but those are the ONLY service cuts in North Portland. (If I lived in the suburbs I’d be annoyed, but I don’t, for a reason.)

  94. TriMet has posted the proposal

    Well, they finally did it. What I find shocking is cutting the 33. And not having the Green Line run every 15 minutes after 7 PM seems a little harsh too. Those waiting times will seem worse if there’s no Transit Tracker displays (though hopefully trains will run on-schedule). But what would affect me (though something I can live without) is the changes to the 17 (which would occur in NW Portland, not St. Johns).

    I’ll go through the detailed PDF lists in another comment.

  97. Jeff F Says: One would think that, if true, that would be relatively easy to document.
    JK: One example of rail harming other services:
    Despite that, TriMet cannot substantially increase bus service for at least another five years because of commitments to help fund new rail lines and increases in senior and disabled citizen services.
    http://www.localdailynews.com/news/story.php?story_id=118065302018049900
    (You can lean more about this and other Portland follies at PortlandFacts.com)

    Jeff F Says: Coming from someone with an frequently-expressed agenda, “I heard” doesn’t cut it, no matter whom you allegedly heard it from.
    JK: And how often am I wrong (as opposed getting a lot of flack for countering popular delusions with accurate information)?

    Thanks
    JK

  98. Douglas K. Says::
    an ideologue who plays fast and loose with the facts to justify whatever predetermined conclusion he’s trying to push.

    — given your penchant for cherry-picking data —

    You’ve spent years demolishing your own credibility, to the point that nobody takes you at all seriously.
    JK: Looks like another of Portland’s progressives cannot find flaws in my clams and decided to resort to personal attacks. So typical of a person who is constantly wrong. (You really have to quit believing all the claims in alarmist greenie fund raising letters.)

    So typical of a “progressive”. Where have all the real liberals gone?

    Thanks
    JK

  99. One example of rail harming other services:

    JK, that’s not actually your original assertion (I’m not going to re-post it for the dozenth time), especially given the context of your assertion being a direct reply to Erik (have you forgotten)?

    You’ve moved the goalposts yet again. You haven’t moved them very far, but you’ve moved them nonetheless, without ever acknowledging that you’ve failed to prove your original definitive statement.

  100. JK: One example of rail harming other services:
    Despite that, TriMet cannot substantially increase bus service for at least another five years because of commitments to help fund new rail lines and increases in senior and disabled citizen services.

    Your contention has been that transit agencies refuse to cut rail and simply devastate bus service. The article has nothing to do with that at all, but reports that commitments to rail projects AND the need to expand LIFT service have tied up capital funds.

    Also note that TriMet’s plans are to cut rail and bus service, which refutes your claims.

    JK: And how often am I wrong (as opposed getting a lot of flack for countering popular delusions with accurate information)?

    Your conclusions are frequently wrong, JK. Right off the top of my head, the most obvious error has been your contention that trains are more dangerous than automobiles because of the number of people killed by MAX. Your claim that automobiles are safer ignores the fact that the people killed by trains are outside the vehicle, while people killed by automobiles are almost always traveling in them at the time — as a form of transportation, rail is quite obviously safer than automobiles. You fudge the numbers, JK, in order to “prove” a point.

  101. Jeff F Says: …the most obvious error has been your contention that trains are more dangerous than automobiles because of the number of people killed by MAX. Your claim that automobiles are safer ignores the fact that the people killed by trains are outside the vehicle, while people killed by automobiles are almost always traveling in them at the time
    JK: Sorry, you don’t get to choose which deaths are counted. I use the standard that transportation professionals and U.S. Government uses (except the anti cat zealots).

    Counting all deaths directly related to a mode of transportation is the standard. By that standard light rail kills many more people than cars. Buses kill less than either, by about 1/3-1/2. That means that ½ – 2/3 of the people killed by MAX would be alive today if the Goldschmidt goons had chosen to expand the bus service instead of waste billions on toys.

    I am constantly amazed by some peoples lack of caring about making transportation more dangerous.

    Jeff F Says: — as a form of transportation, rail is quite obviously safer than automobiles. You fudge the numbers, JK, in order to “prove” a point.
    JK: No – you choose a non standard way of accounting.

    Thanks
    JK

  102. It’s fine to use a standard method of counting.

    It is not fine to reach a conclusion while casually disregarding the methodology behind the conclusion.

    I’ve seen your list of deaths before… your list includes people who clearly were not passengers, people who climbed over barriers, etc.

    By including such people in the list, you create a false impression of the risks posed to a normal passenger.

    You’re taking advantage of differences between methods of counting deaths to reach an unfounded conclusion. In some circles that’s called being disingenuous.

  103. Bob R. Says: It’s fine to use a standard method of counting.

    It is not fine to reach a conclusion while casually disregarding the methodology behind the conclusion.

    I’ve seen your list of deaths before… your list includes people who clearly were not passengers, people who climbed over barriers, etc.
    JK: That is the standard way. Why are you having trouble with that? Those people would also be counted in highway deaths if they climbed over a fence and got hit by a car.

    Bob R. Says: By including such people in the list, you create a false impression of the risks posed to a normal passenger.
    JK: It is not a false impression. It is the same method for both trains and cars. But keep in mind that trains, like cars, are not just a danger to occupants. They also kill innocent bystanders, like the mentally ill woman who was disoriented and killed by MAX. A bus would probably have been able to stop or swerve in time.

    Bob R. Says: You’re taking advantage of differences between methods of counting deaths to reach an unfounded conclusion. In some circles that’s called being disingenuous
    JK: No I’m not – you are trying to use a non-standard accounting method to make you favorite toy look safer. Sorry, you don’t get to do that . and further don’t accuse me of being disingenuous because I use a standard method of counting.

    Thanks
    JK

  104. to make you favorite toy look safer

    This is on reason why people don’t take you seriously, JK. You routinely attach derision and insult to your assertions.

    Also because you keep moving the conversational goalposts. (And it’s now been 8 days since your original comment in this thread, which you still haven’t proven.)

    Regarding deaths again, I’ll grant you the example of the mentally-ill woman… I believe she was a passenger or potential passenger.

    But other examples don’t count. Sorry that’s “non-standard” for you… you see, I’m able to look at the situation and reach a conclusion based on reality, not just cherry-picking numbers. The first MAX death, as I recall from your list, was before passenger service even opened, and the guy was a motorist who abandoned his broken-down automobile and climbed over a fence.

  105. PS… How about showing a bit of intellectual consistency and either proving your original 8-day-old definitive statement, or retracting it? Hmmm?

  107. Counting all deaths directly related to a mode of transportation is the standard. By that standard light rail kills many more people than cars. Buses kill less than either, by about 1/3-1/2. That means that ½ – 2/3 of the people killed by MAX would be alive today if the Goldschmidt goons had chosen to expand the bus service instead of waste billions on toys.

    By that reasoning, do we get to blame your advocacy of automobile-oriented development for the deaths of the people who could have been saved if only we’d banned cars and gone entirely to buses? Does that make any group that implements your particular set of transportation policies “JK Goons”?

  108. Sorry, everyone, for all these comments in a row (if anyone is still watching, anyway), but JK left out one other important thing about his statistics, something which must repeatedly be brought up.

    JK’s statistics include both urban and rural miles driven. The number of traffic fatalities in rural miles is of course much lower than urban, and this brings the average down. But light rail passenger-miles are primarily urban, with short average trip lengths.

    This makes JK’s numbers an apples-to-oranges comparison, and is one kind of cherry picking when it comes to reaching a data-based conclusion.

  109. Bob R. Says: But other examples don’t count. Sorry that’s “non-standard” for you… you see, I’m able to look at the situation and reach a conclusion based on reality, not just cherry-picking numbers.
    JK: Please quit falsely accusing me. I am using an industry wide, nationally recognized, standard method, you are proposing a non-standard method. That makes you the “cherry picker”.

    As to being able to look at the situation – why do you want to ignore the many dead people caused by MAX, just because they didn’t happen to be inside the vehicle? Do you advocate ignoring deaths of MAX riders getting on or off the trains? Do you advocate ignoring the deaths of MAX passengers killed by MAX while walking to the train? DO you advocate ignoring deaths of people on the ground from plane crash? Do you advocate ignoring deaths from building collapse during an earthquake – after all the shaking did not kill them – the falling building did.

    Bob R. Says: The first MAX death, as I recall from your list, was before passenger service even opened, and the guy was a motorist who abandoned his broken-down automobile and climbed over a fence.
    JK: Had he climbed over a fence and got hit by a car, it would have been counted as a car death. Why do you want to ignore such deaths if they are by train and not by car?

    The nationally reported death statistics are deaths due to a particular mode of transport, not deaths WITHIN vehicles. You want to use only deaths within vehicles. Fine. Just don’t try to pawn it off as being the accepted method or telling the full story.

    And don’t accuse me of cherry picking or being disingenuous for using standard methods.

    Thanks
    JK

  110. And don’t accuse me of cherry picking or being disingenuous for using standard methods.

    It is cherry picking if the standard methods don’t provide an accurate picture. Standard methods are important for gathering data so everyone knows what that data means. But reaching definitive conclusions is more complicated, especially when your data sets include non-comparative data. (The inclusion of rural miles in your automobile statistics when transit primarily serves urban miles, for example.)

    Standard counting methods are the start, not the end of the process.

  111. why do you want to ignore the many dead people caused by MAX, just because they didn’t happen to be inside the vehicle?

    I don’t, and it’s insulting of you to say so.

    However, I don’t view an unimpaired, non-passenger person climbing over a fence as a death “caused” by MAX. Right there you are taking what may arguably be involvement and turning it into causation.

    Similarly, if someone climbed over a fence and ran down an airport runway as a plane was taking off, and got killed, I would not say that the death was caused by aviation, and I’d argue that the death doesn’t count when trying to decide if it’s safe to take a trip by air.

  112. Bob R. Says: However, I don’t view an unimpaired, non-passenger person climbing over a fence as a death “caused” by MAX.
    JK: Its like a swimming pool – so dangerous that it has to be fenced in and if someone breaches the fence and gets hurt it is still the fault of the pool (or toy train.)

    Bob R. Says: Right there you are taking what may arguably be involvement and turning it into causation.
    JK: No rail, no death.

    Thanks
    JK

  113. No rail, no death.

    That’s as silly as saying “no road, no death”.

    Its like a swimming pool – so dangerous that it has to be fenced in and if someone breaches the fence and gets hurt it is still the fault of the pool (or toy train.)

    There you go again with the “toy train” silliness, too. Incidentally, what international standard of counting do you use to obtain the “toy” qualifier? Last time I checked, MAX as a bit larger than N or HO scale.

    In my view, it’s the fault of the person who climbed over the fence, not the fault of the pool.

    I thought libertarians were supposed to be about personal responsibility, anyway… what gives?

    And if someone jumps off a bridge and into the river, is it the fault of the bridge, the river, or the person? (My point is that the question is quite subjective… you may tout your conclusions as being objective, but you’re merely taking a data set and jumping to what is actually a subjective conclusion — and then going beyond that to accuse anyone who doesn’t agree with your subjective decision as being non-objective.)

  114. Last year, I bicycled (legally) across the Fremont and Marquam bridges, as well as others, taking a moment to walk around at the top and enjoy the view. I noticed on both freeway bridges (don’t know about the others) that there were numerous suicide counseling hotline signs posted.

    No bridges, no death?

    Better tell the CRC planners to pack it up and go home.

  115. Bob R. Says: There you go again with the “toy train” silliness, too. Incidentally, what international standard of counting do you use to obtain the “toy” qualifier? Last time I checked, MAX as a bit larger than N or HO scale.
    JK: Toys cost too much and do too little. A perfect definition of light rail.

    Thanks
    JK

  116. The Oregonian, Sunday, Dec. 14, 2008:
    The agency handed $5.5 million to the nearly bankrupt Colorado Railcar Manufacturing on top of $17 million awarded to the company for four specialized cars. TriMet expected to easily reclaim $3 million of the extra payments, but a court fight jeopardizes that hope.

    The Oregonian, Friday February 13, 2009, 9:23 PM:
    TriMet needs to cut $13.5 million from its budget. The service cuts would save $6 million. Planned 5 percent budget cuts across all departments would save the rest.

    Lets do the math: $5.5 million+$17million = $23.5 million for the Hansen’s WES toy.

    TriMet is $ 13.5 million short.
    $23.5 million- $13.5 million= $10 million
    Without the wasteful WES, Trimet would have $10 million extra, instead of being $13.5 million short. Sort of makes my point about the cost of rail reducing service.

    As I said the cost of rail forces transit agencies to cut service, mainly bus:
    The Oregonian, Friday February 13, 2009, 9:23 PM:
    The plan calls for cutting 12 bus lines from throughout TriMet’s service area, affecting an estimated 1 percent of its weekday ridership. But it also would cut weekend service to 13 more bus lines, reduce the frequency of more than 20 lines and redirect five bus routes.

    In addition to complete elimination of 12 bus lines, the toy train will have off hours service reduced. As I said, buses service gets the majority of the cuts.

    Thanks
    JK

  117. JK, if you’re going to claim to be using a standard, you have to apply the standard in the same manner as the source. That is, Bureau of Transportation Statistics:
    Transportation Fatalities by Mode.

    2007 Total Fatalities: 43,032
    Highway Fatalities: 41,059
    Total Transit Fatalities: 214

    Notice they aren’t conflating this with miles traveled.

    Distribution of Transportation Fatalities by Mode.

    Auto passengers 38.4%
    Light truck passengers 28.8%
    Pedestrians struck by motor vehicles 10.8%

    Light rail transit .05%

    We can even toss in heavy rail (subway) .07%

  118. $17 million awarded to the company

    I think that’s the money that came from the Feds. If so, it couldn’t be used for service.

    As for safety, its a lot easier to avoid a train that can only travel on a track and in two directions than an automobile that might instantly decide to turn right into you. In addition, a train generally won’t cause injuries to those inside if it hits an auto or something; not so for an auto hitting another auto.

  119. Jeff F Says: Notice they aren’t conflating this with miles traveled.
    JK: Of course transit deaths are small in absolute numbers because the passenger miles are also small. The universally accepted method is to compare a ratio to account for differing usages. That is why we use passenger-miles.

    If you compare only absolute deaths, mountain climbing, sky diving and bull riding look safe. Probably even safer than transit.

    Thanks
    JK

  120. Of course transit deaths are small in absolute numbers because the passenger miles are also small. The universally accepted method is to compare a ratio to account for differing usages. That is why we use passenger-miles.

    And once again JK ignores the fact that the numbers he has chosen to use include rural miles, which are NOT comparable to the urban miles served by transit. JK has, from the beginning, been mixing-and-matching, and is not, as he claims, sticking to one methodology.

    This is why, as I have tried to explain very slowly to JK, you have to take a good look at the methodology before making blanket subjective conclusions.

    Toys cost too much and do too little.

    I guess I look back on my childhood toys a bit more fondly, and got a bit more utility out of them, than others may have.

  121. JK, all of your 5:24pm comments do nothing to prove your original assertion. Stop moving the goalposts. Maybe you should go back to the top and read again what Erik said and what you said in reply, and then try and prove the thing that you actually said.

    Thanks,
    Bob R.

  122. JK:

    JK: Of course transit deaths are small in absolute numbers because the passenger miles are also small. The universally accepted method is to compare a ratio to account for differing usages. That is why we use passenger-miles.

    It’s obviously NOT universally accepted, JK, or the Bureau of Transportation Statistics would be using that method.

    Look it up, JK. What is the leading cause of accidental deaths in this country?

  123. Jeff F Says: It’s obviously NOT universally accepted, JK, or the Bureau of Transportation Statistics would be using that method.
    JK: You are looking at data. Don’t you know the difference?

    Thanks
    JK

  124. Okay. I’m not the moderator nor a long time poster but I’ve been around long enough to understand that the Bob R. and JK thing in this thread has gone nuts. You have both made your points. Continuing to argue isn’t going to change anything. I’m sure you’ll return to the crux of this subject in the future but for now…enough. My 2 cents.

    [Moderator: Aaron’s advice is indeed wise, and he gets the (next to the) last word. This thread is now closed.]