From my perspective, this sort of came out of the blue. Portland Afoot has been doing a very good job of following the details.
But there’s one bit of logic in the timing that I can understand. TriMet is applying a “maintain existing revenue streams” approach. This was applied with lottery bonds. When the West Side MAX lottery bonds were paid off, TriMet convinced the legislature to continue the same bond repayment stream, now directing it to the bridge for the Milwaukie project.
I’m assuming the same logic applies here: the voters have been giving TriMet $8/100,000 for years, TriMet would like them not to stop.
107 responses to “The TriMet Ballot Measure”
From my perspective, this sort of came out of the blue
Same here. I haven’t totally been following things, but I think I would have at least seen a headline in the Google alerts I do glance at or heard it from somebody else.
I might say more later, except that the cost seems like peanuts, as in more people paying to ride might provide the same funding. And TriMet should not be paying any money for sidewalks since they should be a basic right.
BTW, even though I’ve been checking for this post, I still got a Google Alert about it first.
Thanks for the nod, Chris. When you and Jason are surprised, I know I don’t need to feel bad for being surprised myself.
Apparently TriMet put out the call to the disability-rights folks on this last week.
I am 100 percent in favor of transportation access and I’m glad the access advocates are involved. But if TriMet had actually wanted informed public debate before today’s vote, they might have notified *somebody* else prior to 4:30 p.m. on the day before the meeting.
I’m afraid my conclusion is that in this case they did not want informed public debate.
imo, light rail is a waste of tax payer money. support better parking and more efficient and cheaper parking.
cars.
I have worked at TriMet for 15 years in both bus and rail operations. I was surprised to read that the district wishes to seek bus replacement funds through a tax measure. Already, the federal government will match a significant amount to replace buses that have met their useful life of 500,000 miles or 12 years. The 1400, 1700, 1800, & 1900 numbered buses obviously meet the 12 year mark and I suspect they all meet the 500k mark. I have ridden many of our newer buses and, quite frankly, the amount of cleaning and care they do not recieve concerns me. Our rolling stock, in comparision to neighboring transit districts, looks horrible. Even our newer buses are dirty inside and out; scrapes and minor body damage seem to go unrepaired. I wish our new general manager much luck restoring and rebuilding the bus division, even if at the expense of future rail lines or new train sets.
Is the $250 million MLR lottery bond stream the same as the $150 million West Side MAX?
The more important point was made by OPAL member Jon Ostar at yesterday’s TriMet board meeting.
“What we’re doing – what you’re doing, essentially, is requiring voters to pass bonds for absolutely essentially service, essential infrastructure, basic infrastructure. Things that we have payroll tax revenue to pay for. But instead, we’re now using that payroll tax revenue to pay for non-essential service – light rail – and requiring voters to pass bond measures to pay for essential service. I think that we have it backwards.”
Michael has it right as well.
I would like to see a full and honest discussion of the advantages of halting MLR and CRC rail in favor of a lengthy expansion of bus and lift service region wide.
There is enormous need as detailed by the OPAL members at the last 3 board meetings.
Jon spoke about a new study they have completed that was quite impressive as well.
Chris, Bob or Michael can you get that?
I have to disagree somewhat with Mr. Ostar’s logic on the uses of payroll tax vs. property tax.
For the most part, basic bus service does tend to serve more localized routes of travel, neighborhoods, smaller business districts etc. that aren’t necessarily generating a large quantity of jobs (small business as a whole yes, as individual entities, not so much). But, light rail tends to serve larger employment centers – in theory and somewhat in practice. So, it does make sense to use at least some payroll tax to fund light rail, and it is appropriate to use some property tax to fund basic bus service. We should never exclude one source of funding or the other from being applied in this fashion.
And light rail can be essential, especially when issues of equity in economic and neighborhood development are concerned. The last light rail project (north/south) was rejected twice by ballot measure, but when it was finally completed using other non-ballot generated funds, provided a huge benefit to East Portland residents who trend poorer, and have much less access to basic services. From an environmental justice standpoint, the north/south green line alignment was a huge win, that helped correct an inequity that was actually being reinforced at the ballot box.
But overall, I applaud TriMet for intentionally targeting funding to improvements to have a what I consider to be a universal benefit. For certain, the improvements primarily provide greater ease of access for older adults and people with disabilities. But, when we improve the system for these populations, we improve the system for everyone – stop times are shorter, buses are more comfortable, service is more complete.
Cora,
Are you serious?
“provided a huge benefit to East Portland residents who trend poorer, and have much less access to basic services.
From an environmental justice standpoint, the north/south green line alignment was a huge win”
That’s just about the most insulting claim you could have made against OPAL’s veiw of east Portland transit service.
I hope they respond in kind.
On TriMet’s insolvency.
“Asking Cynthia Chilton who is on the Citizens Advisory Committee tasked with evaluating TriMet’s budget (which showed retiree medical costs increasing 18 percent each year) whether that type of benefit structure is sustainable she said no.
“I don’t think there’s any question that it’s not sustainable,” she said
Granted, the numbers are high due to rising medical premiums and new rules that require more detailed reporting but it’s also because of baby boomers. TriMet’s retirement age has dropped to 58 and 40 percent of employees plan to take advantage of that within the next 10 years.
And those benefits for life? In 2001, TriMet paid out $3.2 million for 515 union retirees and dependents. Eight years later, it’s 905 people and nearly $10 million. That’s almost $11,000 per person and again, for people who do not work there.
“That’s just not doable,” said Chilton. “You can’t run a transit agency or most business enterprises with that kind of a burden.”
“Unfortunately for employees, the name of the game with benefits is always a question of how much are we going to have to give up this year?” said Chilton.
“You can either renegotiate your compensation and have an actual job or you can cling to some utopian version of benefits for a company that’s bankrupt,” said Charles.
Charles said all of this should come as no surprise. In 1994, then TriMet board president Loren Wyss resigned in outrage over the union deal and sent a scathing letter to the editor calling it the “greatest coup in the history of public employment in our city.”
“That’s just about the most insulting claim you could have made against OPAL’s veiw of east Portland transit service.”
I don’t know how a completely accurate statement can be insulting to anyone. Its pretty obvious that people who live along Interstate and I205 served by the south/north are not wealthy suburbanites.
The only way these lines do not serve the poor is that they provide connections to some of the better paying jobs in the region. And, of course, the people who have better paying jobs are, by definition, not poor.
That is a conundrum anyone who has actually worked for poor people understands. If they are successful in improving their lot, they aren’t poor any more. Which makes them no longer worthy of help in the minds of the self-righteous.
Steve, it’s time to tone done the indignant incredulity. It’s gone on far enough.
I go around the bend with other commenters here from time to time (just ask Just Saying), but leaping on every comment as though it was some kind of great insult to the senses isn’t the way to engage Cora or any other commenter.
Steve,
I’m not sure how my disagreement on the issue of light rail undermines OPALs efforts to improve bus service. What I’m trying to point out is that it is irrational to take an absolute stance that light rail does not benefit the poor and that only bus service meets their needs. Just like any other citizen, people of color and people with modest incomes benefit from a complete, accessible transit system in their neighborhood.
You have to look at transit corridor projects and funding formulas individually to decide if that particular project benefits, has a neutral impact or negatively effects disadvantaged populations. And, most importantly, you have to ask people what they actually would prefer in each scenario instead of assuming, or steering them toward one particular position or alternative with hyperbole.
I live within walking distance of the Holgate MAX station. From what I can tell, of the four MAX stations in my neighborhood, it sees the most use, and a people from a really broad range of demographics use it. I have neighbors that used to drive (to Hillsboro), that now take MAX and help reduce congestion and pollution in my neighborhood – which is a huge win. I used to be a daily rider of the 17, but now I can take MAX and reduce some of the overcrowding on that line. Plus, I ride my bike a heck of a lot more now that I know I can get home on MAX in a lot of situations, if I tire out or have a break down. I also see a lot more people in my neighborhood out on their bikes and walking now. Overall, it’s been well worth the investment.
QUOTE>>>>> The more important point was made by OPAL member Jon Ostar at yesterday’s TriMet board meeting. “What we’re doing – what you’re doing, essentially, is requiring voters to pass bonds for absolutely essentially service, essential infrastructure, basic infrastructure. Things that we have payroll tax revenue to pay for. But instead, we’re now using that payroll tax revenue to pay for non-essential service – light rail – and requiring voters to pass bond measures to pay for essential service. I think that we have it backwards.”
Cora,
Be wary of libertarians who presume to speak on behalf the poor. While poverty advocates often agitate against rail, the reasons they often do so (concerns about gentrification, concerns about sacrificing service to poor communities in favor of service to wealthier suburban areas; concerns about defunding “basic service” in favor of non-mobility-related amenities in order to attract “choice riders”) are different than the reasons the political right agitates against rail (it’s too expensive).
And while I’m not mentioning or singling out any commentators here–I can think of quite a few well-known glibertarian transit opponents who come into transit-friendly communities such as Portland and argue against capital improvements, invoking social justice grounds as a reason why a transit authority should focus on POBS (plain old bus service) instead of building rail or busways or whatever–and then go into cities where subsistence bus service is the only transit that exists, and argue for defunding of THAT, often on the grounds that it’s inefficient (as social-service transit often is), and/or is de-facto “welfare”.
It’s a common game that the right-wing likes to play. De-invest in government services, then complain that because the resulting service sucks, agitate for getting rid of it altogether.
Don’t assume that just because you’re not the fattest deer in the forest, that the wolf is your friend.
I’d rather put $125 million to building stuff than buying stuff. Say, put half of it toward the budget hole in Milwaukie MAX to get that project off the ground, and the other half to improving bus stops throughout the system.
Buying new buses isn’t going to generate jobs here. Given the current state of the economy, that really should be the main concern.
Almost nothing is better for poor folks than density, because travel will always cost money. To the extent that light rail induces density, it’s good for poor people.
I’d rather put $125 million to building stuff than buying stuff. Say, put half of it toward the budget hole in Milwaukie MAX to get that project off the ground, and the other half to improving bus stops throughout the system.
Sorry, but I couldn’t disagree more. Frankly, the last thing that TriMet needs right now is to be burdened with another “built” thing that consumes money to operate. I personally am against giving TriMet any more money until they reevaluate their investment priorities, but if they get this bond, it should go toward investments that reduce their operating costs, like buying new (and, ostensibly, cheaper to maintain) buses.
I understand the jobs argument, but something has to be done about the sustainability of TriMet’s finances, and soon.
What about buying Hybrid buses? TriMet has 4 on the way. Mary F. at TriMet say the hybrids cost about $100k more than a regular bus.She say they don’t have the money to buy more.But if they get the bond, why not? Seattle has over 200 hybrids.
I’m voting in favor, but I can understand why some folks might be skeptical.
They had loads of stimulus, none of it went into buses.
Of course the easiest way out is to get voters to say, ‘YEA, LETS GET THAT, WE NEED IT’.
And we do need it, but its pretty dubious the way they go about things around here.
In accordance with my management I am required to make the following statement:
The blogger known as “Al M” does not now, nor has he ever, represented Trimet, Trimet bus drivers, or ATU 757.
The thoughts, opinions, ideas, and body odor are of myself; they do not reflect the thoughts, opinions, ideas, and/or body odor of my company, my friends, my neighbors, my fish, my roses, my dog, or my trash. All rights reserved, all lefts reserved.
(And if anybody actually really thought I did represent Trimet, seek professional help!)
Sorry, but I couldn’t disagree more. Frankly, the last thing that TriMet needs right now is to be burdened with another “built” thing that consumes money to operate. I personally am against giving TriMet any more money until they reevaluate their investment priorities, but if they get this bond, it should go toward investments that reduce their operating costs, like buying new (and, ostensibly, cheaper to maintain) buses.
Rather than focusing on capital vs operations, or bus vs rail, I think a better statement of your sentiment would be as follows:
“Frankly, the last thing that TriMet needs right now is to spend more money trying to increase ridership or capacity. I personally am against giving TriMet any more moeny until they reevaluate their service priorities”.
For many, this is what the debate is: TriMet is trying to increase system patronage and capacity. In the absence of external factors which discourage auto travel (like, say, $4/gallon gasoline), doing so requires improving its service offerings in some fashion. Doing that requires decreasing its expense base, as like virtually all North American transit agencies, the farebox recovery ratio is less than one–TriMet requires a subsidy, from a revenue source which doesn’t scale with regard to riders. One way to both a) attract new ridership, and b) reduce the expense base for those new riders, is to build rail–which costs a lot leas to operate per passenger at high load. However, the FRR of rail, while better than bus, is still less than one–thus any new services will likely result in reduced service elsewhere, unless sufficient redundant bus service can be eliminated to make up the difference. (Which may be the case; if you can eliminate 8 busses per hour in the McLoughlin corridor, you’ve paid for 15-minute MAX service. Truncating the 33 gets you halfway there…)
Of course, if you consider the present service adequate, and attracting new riders unimportant, and capacity improvements more likely than not driven by political concerns (empire-building, patronage, or even outright graft), then it’s a legitimate question to ask whether spending a billion and a half is worth a miniscule (or non-existent) increase in operational efficiency. If, on the other hand, you consider it important to have a comprehensive rapid transit network (particularly one that doesn’t get stuck in traffic, runs on electricity rather than fossil fuels, and is attractive to the “I hate busses” demographic), then spending the money is worthwhile. And if you think that $5 (or more) gas is around the corner and in a few years time everyone will be clamoring for better and faster transit service, and the demand will be higher than TriMet can possibly meet with its current ops budget, fleet, and workforce–then building rail now is essential.
This discussion excludes any issues with bonding revenue streams to pay capital costs.
Oh Bob, we’re just chatting.
Cora,
I think you are watering down the OPAL message. Scotty too.
Light rail costs too much leaving bus services starved and facing perpetual cuts. If you had heard OPAL’s testimony the last 3 TriMet board meetings you would be clear on this.
OPALs efforts to improve bus service have focused on the needs that are not being met, and cut, because of light rail sucking up all of the means to meet them.
The Green Line was not net benefit for the poor. It was at the expense of bus service and many other services where funding was taken.
Of course poor people use MAX. But in effect, for every poor person you see boarding a new MAX line, many more others suffer with less transit and other services because if it.
You are indeed countering their message.
What I’m trying to point out is that it is absolute that light rail, while benefiting some, costs the many.
Furthermore light rail has the same detriment as many bus lines in poor neighborhoods as pointed out by OPAL. That is there isn’t adequate service to the served corridor such as with East County where there is no N-S service from 122nd to Gresham.
With light rail eating up so much revenue from so many sources the only future is reduced bus service connections not more.
It cannot be denied with talk about “a complete, accessible transit system in their neighborhood”.
The Green line did not “complete” anything. Neither did any previous line. Far from it. It sacrificed bus service along with the potential for more.
“You have to look at transit corridor projects and funding formulas individually to decide if that particular project benefits, has a neutral impact or negatively effects disadvantaged populations. And, most importantly, you have to ask people what they actually would prefer in each scenario instead of assuming, or steering them toward one particular position or alternative with hyperbole.”
Now that’s a twist. The only reason the green line exists is because politics and hyperbole drove it forward. Even while critics pointed out the flaws in the corridor, funding formulas, who it would serve and effects on disadvantaged populations. And it matters who it is you are asking what they actually would prefer.
They certainly did not want MAX there and now we see planners discussing what a bad location it is. BIG surprise.
We have a survey/poll in the McLoughlin area showing they do not want MAX but instead their highest priority is public safety/law enforcement and local bus service improvements for better connectivity, locally. They have the same problem as East Portland. They are poor and without E-W connections to corridors.
Just because from what you see about MAX stations in your neighborhood is a really broad range of demographics use, doesn’t mean it is a net benefit.
The degree in which it reduces congestion and pollution in your neighborhood is not even measurable.
It”s convenient for you so it must be a good thing for all?
That’s a really lousy measurement of the investment’s worth.
Scotty,
Spending nearly $2 billion on the short MLR , which will deplete other service, is horrible approach to trying to increase ridership or capacity. It will serve realtively few for relatively short distance and result in service cuts. It won’t even expand service to the area it serves. It will be like adding a bus line stuck on rails without any other service added to the area.
Scotty, “Be wary of libertarians who presume to speak on behalf the poor.”
While I’m not a libertarian your two motivations are exactly the same.
OPAL’s concerns are mostly derived from MAX costing too much and devouring funding for essential services.
That is no different than the reasons the political right agitates against rail, it cost’s too much.
I’ll speak for the political right and say I, we, am in complete agreement with OPAL. Specifically and to the very details in their testimony to TriMet over the past 3 board meetings.
There is no sense in attempting to drive a wedge in the middle of that agreement. Wedging is futile.
The straw man who’s suposed to be “fighting subsistence bus service transit” is just that.
It’s a common game that the left wing likes to play.
Make out the right as bogeymen to defend the left’s gross misappropriation and casting all of our critique as a plot to get rid of all government.
The fact is if TriMet were turned over to John Charles or myself it would not disappear.
It would be cleaner and safer while serving far more people, in more neighborhoods for less money.
Rail advocates are anti-transit.
It’s not even complicated as OPAL points out. Stop with billion boondoggles, fix the mad unfunded liabilities, get rid of the rail/development bureaucrats and provide a healthy & safe bus system.
Now am I really scheming to get rid of transit?
Michael on the notion that light rail “induces density” it does not. Additional resources taken form other government programs attempt to induce what MAX does not.
The net results is fewer services for those who need them the most. And that density that’s attempted is never affordable for poor people unless even more subsidies are used.
Milwaukie Light Rail will go as the land purchase went yesterday. As the board discovers more of the unraveling chaos it will be suspended and eventually canceled.
Scotty –
That’s a pretty good summary.
Oh Bob, we’re just chatting.
Steve, when you come back at someone (especially someone who is just joining the discussion) with the likes of “Are you serious? […] That’s just about the most insulting claim you could have made […] I hope they respond in kind.”, that’s not “just chatting”. None of that was necessary to make your point. Lighten up, that’s an order. Thanks so much in advance.
So after another conversation with Carolyn Young, I’ve sorted out an error I made yesterday (confusing operations with service levels) and one they made (neglecting the costs of issuing a bond).
Bottom line: Between $50 million and $62 million from this bond issue would essentially go into TriMet’s general fund, at which point it could be used for whatever.
Here’s PA’s complete-for-the-moment page on the ballot issue, for future reference.
Quick FYI, this is a history of TriMet bus purchases.
Hi Jason,
Not sure who runs the bus roster, but fleet 45, the detroit diesel series 50 powered Flxibles, 1844-1853, were retired.
That fleet list is on Dave Stubblefield’s site. He has moved to the Seattle area and hasn’t been updating his site a lot. In addition, I have heard that the Flexibles were at the top of the retirement list.
Its interesting to see how many new buses were added over time. In 16 years from 1970 to the opening of the first light rail line in 1986, Trimet purchased 158 new buses. Over the next 14 years it purchased 721 new buses, while adding two additional light rail lines and operation of the streetcar. In the last ten years it has added 351 new buses while opening another additional two light rail lines and a commuter rail line.
Introduction of light rail, far from resulting in cutbacks in bus service, has coincided with dramatic improvements. We thought Portland had pretty good bus service in the 1970’s, but it pales by comparison to today’s bus service.
Its also clear from the data that bus purchases in the last decade have not kept up with the pace of the 1990’s. If you consider that an increasing percentage of transit trips are being taken on light rail, that might be expected. But they need to modernize the entire fleet into low floor, accessible units as soon as possible. The idea that people are still having to use out of date lift technology is unacceptable.
Hopefully the voters won’t get distracted by people quibbling over the details and approve the bond measure.
Cora Potter Says: The last light rail project (north/south) was rejected twice by ballot measure,
JK: Is that the green line down I205?
I wasn’t aware that that line was ever on the ballot, or a superset of same.
Which election?
Thanks
JK
Portland Afoot has a good summary of the past TriMet ballot measures.
What was voted down were FUNDING packages for a comprehensive north-south line (roughly a combination of the Yellow line and the proposed Milwaukie line).
Both the Yellow Line and Green Line were built without requiring the voters to provide new funding.
This is a good example of the stuff that gets critics like me bent out of shape.
“Both the Yellow Line and Green Line were built without requiring the voters to provide new funding.”
IMO that has always been a disingenuous way to twist around the denial of a public vote to sound like it was doing voters a favor.
Not hardly. It was prohibiting a vote and forcing voters to provide new funding without their knowledge.
That scheme which denied the right to vote forced voters to provide new funding to replace the many millions effectively stolen from basic services.
The yellow, red and green lines all used many millions through the UR/TIF ponzi that robs from education, police and other basic services.
Leaving that TIF hole that had to be then filled with higher or new taxes and fees. Without the voting public ever really knowing.
The vast majority of which still do not know because of the perpetual campaign to prevent them from knowing.
This is how it works
http://bojack.org/images/urbanrenewalgraph.pdf
All told it was easily over $150 million taken from services without public awareness.
Metro approves $1.74 million to study Barbur Boulevard, East Metro corridors. Story here.
The Barbur study is no surprise; it’s long been known that Barbur is the next mass transit corridor after Milwaukie.
The East Metro corridor–which is NOT Powell–is a bit of a surprise; it looks at connectivity issues between US26 and I84 in the Gresham area.
IMO that has always been a disingenuous way to twist around the denial of a public vote to sound like it was doing voters a favor.
Not hardly. It was prohibiting a vote and forcing voters to provide new funding without their knowledge.
Uh, no vote was “prohibited”–THAT suggestion is disingenous. A vote was not necessary, as the government agencies involved were simply acting within the scope of their lawful authorities. additional taxes, OTOH, DOES require a public vote. For a vote to be “prohibited”, there would be need to be an active attempt to refer the matter to voters which was successfully opposed. There was none.
Now you may have a negative opinion of the wisdom of how the Yellow and Green lines were funded–that’s OK, and in some cases I may be inclined to agree with you–but quit pretending it was illegitimate. It wasn’t.
And the public had plenty of opportunity to object should they choose. These things can be referred to the voters, or become issues the next time elected officials stand for election. However, I haven’t heard anybody campaigning on the issue of Yellow or Green financing.
And spare me the BS about uneducated voters being kept in the dark. We’ve a free press, including more than a few prominent media outlets which take a skeptical eye towards transit infrastructure. When voters act the way YOU like, you sing high praises to the Will Of The People, and frequently act as though such votes constitute a mandate greater than the text of the measure voted on (for example, treating the defeat of a statewide LRT tax levy as a referendum on the merits of LRT itself). But when the voters act in the way you DON’T like, you trot out the “sheeple” argument.
I tell you what. Rather than complaining here, why not circulate a ballot measure requiring that new discretionary capital projects over a certain amount–say, a billion–must be voted on by the people (regardless of funding) before advancing beyond a certain point? Such a thing might well pass, and I’m sure that there are plenty of professional ballotsmiths (besides Bill Sizemore, whose busy trying to stay out of jail) who would love to fund and circulate such a measure.
For some reason, the blog engine isn’t treating multiple paragraphs surrounded by <em> tags correctly. The second paragraph in the prior post, “Not hardly. It was prohibiting a vote and forcing voters to provide new funding without their knowledge.”, are Steve’s words and should be set in italics.
[Moderator: 2nd paragraph fixed. The blog software, Movable Type, tries to be “helpful” by cleaning up unclosed tags at the end of a paragraph, believing that you forgot to close them. Usually causes more problems than it fixes. – Bob R.]
the UR/TIF ponzi that robs from education, police and other basic services
What I really think you need to do is go to the state legislature and argue that urban renewal funding has been misused. Specifically that the definition of “blight” has become too lenient. Or require approval of new urban renewal.
However, I would want other transportation/development cost issues fixed first, such as the fact that school districts have been prohibited from asking developers who create the need for new school capacity to pay for it. And same goes for other services.
the blog engine isn’t treating multiple paragraphs
It’s been mentioned here that you have to do each separately.
Jason,
The state legislature did partially address the misuse of TIF last session. Creating the concurrence requirement that recently helped kill Tualatin’s plan and now has the UR world in a near tantrum. There is BIG panic in Beaverton and McLoughlin/Clackamas County.
Never mind the definition of “blight”. It long ago was morphed into meaning anything.
As for you concern for developers paying their share. Don’t you think we should start with the UR developers who partner with cities and get subsidies, tax abatements, and waved SDCs?
Scotty,
My oh my.
Why evade the point by going off on the word “prohibited”.
Prohibited, prevented, or denied a vote, take your pick. But stay on the point of it.
That’s exactly what took place. An end run around having to face voters again.
And your comeback is the obvious intent “a vote was not necessary”? OK.
As for the “it was all legal” Perhaps. Maybe not.
Yeah I have a negative opinion of how the Yellow, Green and RED Airport lines were funded. I also have negative opinion about the cooked up process and campaign that steers them to approval. All the claims of what they’ll do etc.
I’m glad you at least somewhat agree about the funding.
I’m not pretending it was illegitimate. I’m claiming it was certainly illegitimate and unethical. If not out right illegal in some cases. Especially Airport MAX with the no bid contract and scurrilous other details with Bechtel, Trammel Crow, The Port/ Mike Thorne and Goldshmidt Imeson and Carter, Urban Renewal and on and on.
I’m pretty convinced there was illegality involved. But certainly the public was never told but a short lovely story about the whole thing.
The public was given a rose colored presentation all along the way.
That’s why it is so dirty.
But through other chapters and SoWa the methods grew emboldened and now we’re finally having some public officials and campaigns object in the wake of those methods and the finances becoming more brazen.
Allen Alley calling for a halt to MLR, and the sheriff and fire chiefs objecting etc. There’s a lot of mention out there in the campaigns.
Of course voters were kept in the dark. The press helped immensely. I battles the coverage for years. It was sickening how distorted and supportive it was for the regime.
Now which one has been anything but rarely and only to a token degree skeptical?
Talk radio was it.
Then you go off about my take on how voters act?
Don’t change the subject. This is about letting them vote. Not voters acting the way I like.
Try and stick to the point. I never suggested they were sheeple for not knowing about the funding schemes used to circumvent their voting.
So I never trotted out any “sheeple” argument. You made that up as a substitute for what I did say.
Then you tell me to stop complaining here and go take on a ballot measure. Funny.
Who needs a ballot measure?
Look around at what’s going on.
The UR/TIF gig is about down the drain, MLR funding is unraveling, land purchases are delayed and the federal grant application is at risk.
Metro declared publicly that the Green line was built in the wrong place and crime continues to eat away at MAX’s faux shine.
North Interstate is following the same development stagnation at Eastside and Westside MAX.
The cost of MLR and the CRC has soared to intolerable levels and a broad spectrum of the public has had enough of lousy step child bus service taking hits.
And what is the regime doing? TriMet is going after a levy to pay for essential services, their in a labor dispute from years of promises they coud never fund and
Michael Jordan, speaking for the panicked establishment, is out there calling on cities and counties to grab cash from wherever they can to keep the “projects” coming. He’s even recommended cities use Portland’s stunt and raid water and sewer utilities.
I’ll keep my prediction that MLR never gets built and the CRC either never gets built or it won’t have LRT.
start with the UR developers
No, because urban renewal is the workaround and not the real problem. Specifically, if the marketplace encourages people to develop where it is cheapest to provide infrastructure and services (which is in already developed areas), there would be less arguments/excuses/whatever for urban renewal.
Also, it can make sense to wave SDCs (systems development charges) if a development is forecast to have less impact because of using less resources (e.g. a more pedestrian-oriented one that’s near good transit and/or walkable stores)
Allen Alley calling for a halt to MLR
First of all, I’ve never heard of him. But seeing that he’s a Republican businessman, I’m not sure that says much.
a labor dispute from years of promises they coud never fund
Huh. I read that it was just about some language that is claimed to not be in the first proposal. Some of the language may be about health care and other costly things, but it doesn’t make a difference what it is.
Talk radio was it
Maybe because (at least some) talk radio tends to be more tabloid-like and less fair and honest?
crime continues to eat away at MAX’s faux shine
Yes, blame MAX for allowing people to get around easier. If you’re worried about crime, petition the city to restore the concrete bunker at Kelly Butte, because things happening is a result of going outside in this world and taking chances. (Not to mention that the economy has itself had a huge effect on shoplifting and other crime).
North Interstate is following the same development stagnation
Are you sure that its not because of the general stagnation caused by the economy? And I’ve read that many businesses opened up there and have seen many new buildings.
Steve,
If you think something illegal was done–such as a no-bid contract where bidding was required–spell it out in detail. But the vast majority of things you’re complaining about, the public officials were well within their rights to do. Again, the wisdom may be disputed; but the legality, not so much.
Quite a few local media are frequently critical of TriMet, though none of the mainstream sources I’m aware of have called for MLR to be postponed. The Oregonian‘s new publisher has turned the paper’s editorial page several notches to the right (on economic issues, at least), and nary an article goes by on Transit without at least one juicy quote from John Charles. Local TV news thrives on “someone got mugged near a MAX platform” sensationalism. The Trib isn’t an amen choir for TriMet either; and even the Willamette Week, a left-leaning paper, frequently takes the powers that be to task.
But I stand by my observation that when the voters agree with you, you like to claim a mandate for a proposition larger than the measure in question, and when they don’t, you complain that they are inadequately informed.
Regarding your predictions:
You may be right about MLR–the cost may delay the project or cause a significant change in scope. Much of that is due to factors external to TriMet. I think you’re wrong about the CRC–the feds and the states want it too bad, and unless there is a significant waiver of process, the city of Portland will need to sign off on the project–which means that there will be dedicated rapid transit infrastructure on the thing, most likely light rail.
My oh my. Why evade the point by going off on the word “prohibited”.
Steve, if you don’t want people to get hung up on certain words, don’t engage in hyperbole in the first place.
“Prohibited, prevented, or denied a vote, take your pick”
Right, they are all equally misleading.
“I’m pretty convinced there was illegality involved.”
And a lot of better informed people are pretty clear there wasn’t. You have gone off on the mere suggestion that the Clackamas County Sheriff might have put political spin on his crime data. And now, based on no evidence at all, you are claiming there was a criminal conspiracy involved in extending light rail to the airport.
I don’t think the shine has come off light rail. But in an economic downturn where people’s confidence in the future is shaken, there is naturally going to be a lot more heartburn about large investments. That is true of private industry right now and it is also true of the public.
If you go back to the arguments against the first light rail line in the early 1980’s, a similar period economically for Portland, you will hear much the same noise. But there are a lot of people in Portland who can’t imagine what the region would be like if public officials had listened to those voices and turned their backs on the future.
Metro approves $1.74 million to study Barbur Boulevard, East Metro corridors
Scotty, thats probably the talked about Blue Line extension to MHCC and Troutdale. Looks like they are taking a wider look at the area to include Fairview and that real old PTC interurban route that went through Ruby Junction (and north across the current Blue Line). I could also see this corridor being bus given the difficult routing east of the Blue Line terminus in Gresham (assuming it was an extension and not a Blue Line branch).
– – – –
How about the sudden elimination of all stops on the #15 on Thurman? Absolutely no hearings, just effective immediately yesterday evening. Buses have run on this route and terminated here since 1950 when the streetcar was busstituted. Apparently now all of a sudden its unsafe. I understand its only been since Montgomery Park opened, what 15 years ago??, that the line also terminated there.
This is a perfect example of the issue with buses that they can disappear overnight… Here today, gone tomorrow. How many riders riding yesterday knew that evening would be the last run?
I wonder how much of this is due to the bike-left turning bus crash like the glisan/broadway crash months ago.
Oh, just a silly thought I guess…..
Lake Oswego did pretty well in buying the Westshore line; much better than any other recent acquisition for a commuter light rail line. There are tracks going all the way out to Tualatin and then to Tualatin/Sherwood. Can they make use of those through some cooperative agreement with the owner?
Also… it is 2.4 miles from CC Milwaukie to West end of Sellwood Bridge—-where there could be a station combined with the new, improved junction planned for the bridge, and that combined project would help stabilize that ground, which has minor movement once every several decades or so.
Then…. now that the streetcar is being manufactured here could they increase the top speed to something suitable for the suburban commuter? 50 mph, perhaps?
Then we would have a good portion of what the combined $3 billion Milwaukie and Tigard max lines would be for what? 100-200 million?
Is it OK to think outside the box? Run this whole system on biodiesel and skip the catenary wires?
Scotty,
The idea of digging through the stale muck of any past corruption or incompetence is useless.
But certainly there have been many more indications of impropriety on those past projects than with the Sheriff’s crime issue where there are none but the convenient speculation.
Too bad it wasn’t Haliberton instead of Bechtel. Perhaps some of the Portland left would have been paying more attention.
Your observation on my take hypocrisy on voters is not an observation at all. It’s a concoction.
As for the local media their token mention of Charles and crtiqing is far from their uniform echoing of the Message.
Bob,
How is it you blame me for the people getting hung up on certain words? My point was clear.
That point was a vote was avoided. Literally “prohibited”? Of course not. The lesson on “Prohibited” was pointless.
Your advise is an impossible task with the ease at which people divert from or alter my point.
I can’ even make the point that don’t care what word is used.
JS,
.
“Prohibited, prevented, denied, avoided, did not require or any other expression all work for me.
None of which are particularly misleading to any meaningful degree.
Up against the massively misleading campaign to produce these projects it’s squat.
You can make all the presumptions about prior finances and contracts and on the sheriff’s crime position you want.
I did “go off” on the baseless suggestions about the sheriff and the crime reports because I know better. His motives, approach and information is nothing like your mischaracterizations.
You had no knowledge of the sheriff or the background when you made your specualtions.
Do you have any familiarity with the Airport MAX/Cascade Station schemes? Other than the PDC/Port/TriMet/Metro talking points? I presume you do not..
But even if you did I suspect you’d automatically dismiss any indication of impropriety.
The ease at which you disregard all concerns flies in the face of person or group addressing TriMet and all of the current challenges.
For instance, blaming all of the fiscal problems on the current economic downturn is to weak for words.
Comparing the current unraveling of many things to arguments against the first light rail line in the early 1980’s is immense denial.
A conclusive case can be made that our region, transit system, livability and fiscal stability would be far greater today without any of the LRT and failed and costly mixed use/TOD experiments.
Yet public officials are still chasing that vision seemingly oblivious to all of the prior failures.
Consider Jordan’s comments this week regarding the Greenline.
But first, do all of you remember member the pitch that the proposed 205 MAX would “spur development along 82nd”.
Critics at the time rejected that as total bunk.
Now Jordan essentially admits that it was total bunk. Other rail supporters now criticize the line for it’s poor location isolated between a freeway and commercial development.
Even after attempts to spur with the $25 million additional UR immediately flowing into the area soon after the final fed funding was secured the plan failed like so many others.
Now those (Metro/TriMet) who were misleading and were told they were, are advocating spending millions more to keep trying to do what the Green Line and prior millions did not.
That entire scenario is identical to the Eastside MAX 25 year story. Millions chasing millions while clinging to the fatally flawed vision of fixed transit and subsidized density.
Same goes for the Round and many other locales.
And now we’re supposed to do the exact same thing with MLR, CRC and planning for Barbur/99?
Fortunately there are many more people, groups and officials finally coming our and rejecting that effort.
As the proponents seek more revenue streams to raid the oppostion will surge and the agenda will collapse.
Of course I could be wrong.
All that “incompetence” that has resulted in an enormously popular light rail system that is the envy of many places all over the country. It has helped make Portland one of the most attractive cities in the country. We need more incompetence like that.
The I-205 line was built because the Clackamas County Commission during the planning process insisted that any south line connect to Clackamas Town Center. The original route through Milwaukie was not politically viable because of opposition from local citizens. (How is that for not ignoring the will of the people?)
I-205 became the preferred alternative with the Milwaukie route being a second phase of the south plan. If it were not for the insistence of Clackamas County that light rail serve Clackamas Town Center, the Milwaukie line would have been the only one built.
Of course I think that’s nonsense.
First the idea of the “enormously popular light rail system”. Popular with who? The relatively very few who it’s convenient enough to use regularly and the victims of the perpetual brochure campaign?
It’s not the envy of other places but other rail enthusiasts who just want it too.
Honestly, I wonder how you would tell them it has helped make the Eastside more attractive after 25 years? Because those transit users who live out there and testify at TriMet hearings wouldn’t agree with you.
What part of the region do you live in? Other than in brochures how has MAX made Portland one of the most attractive cities in the country?
Is Beaverton and Hillsboro better for it? Not hardly. They’re living the same reality as the Eastside
My God imagine what Beaverton would be like without the Round?
http://www.oregonlive.com/beaverton/index.ssf/2010/08/the_rounds_tenacious_tenants_survive_their_winter_of_discontent.html#comments
Have you commented on any of these failures?
On I-205 line, now it’s the Clackamas County Commissions fault?
Neither line was ever viable and still isn’t. And Clackamas people never wanted MAX, Milwaukie people don’t want MAX.
Politicians, planners and activists do.
The opposition from local citizens be damned.
Ignoring the will of the people is the centerpiece of central planning.
The McLoughlin Area Plan survey by Clackamas County showed clearly that the citizens do not want it. And their highest priority is public safety and law enforcement. And just like East county they want better bus transit for more service with more local connections.
Unreliable survey?
If it were not for the insistence of TriMet, Metro their favored politicians and rail activists neither Clackamas County or Milwaukie would have LRT.
victims of the perpetual brochure campaign?
Steve, knock off the hyperbole. Really. Last chance … or go away.
On I-205 line, now it’s the Clackamas County Commissions fault?
Who said anything about “fault”? Are you prepared to argue about things which people have actually written?
And, for that matter, just what are you trying to argue here? That the Clackamas County Commission wasn’t actually somehow involved in approving the Green Line?
enormously popular light rail system
If something is used 125,000 times a day isn’t popular, than what is?
Also, its not truthful to say a vote was prevented/avoided/whatever when a vote would not normally be held. Should urban renewal districts be put to a vote? That’s a valid opinion, and I’ve read of votes related to urban renewal authority (in Beaverton and Troutdale I think). But having direct votes on lesser issues drags things down compared to using proxy votes by elected officials. However its not right to say someone avoided doing something its generally not done.
Yep, you’re “just chatting”, going on and on…
re elections, while the South/North light rail ballot measure (for a property tax) failed in the region, it passed easily in Multnomah county and by a landslide in Portland…all but two precincts in Portland along the proposed alignment voted “Yes.” I think this provided mandate enough for the URA $…basically property taxes…to be applied for the local match for both Interstate and Mall/I-205 MAX lines. That said, an argument could be made that its time to go to the voters for property tax measures for Milwaukie, Barbur and an extension to Hayden Island. I would prefer replacing buses in these corridors as MAX provides better service at lower cost per ride.
Jason McHuff Says: enormously popular light rail system
If something is used 125,000 times a day isn’t popular, than what is?
JK: How about the area road system that is used 30-50 rimes more and has only tiny subsidies compared to the 80% subsidy for TriMet.
Thanks
JK
Lenny Anderson Says: That said, an argument could be made that its time to go to the voters for property tax measures for Milwaukie, Barbur and an extension to Hayden Island. I would prefer replacing buses in these corridors as MAX provides better service at lower cost per ride.
JK: MAX costs a lot more than buses when you consider all costs and compare similar
lines. The bus costs $0.94 per passenger-mile (0.93 operating cost only) and MAX costs $1.11 per passenger-mile ($0.39 operating cost only). Although you may like to consider only operating cost, the full cost must be paid by Trimet. See: http://www.portlandfacts.com/top10bus.html
Thanks
JK
It is time to open the transportation market in Portland and end the monopoly the Trimet has. Maybe it is time to contract out much of the services provided by Trimet and let private industry run the system.
It is time to open the transportation market in Portland and end the monopoly the Trimet has. Maybe it is time to contract out much of the services provided by Trimet and let private industry run the system.
It is time to open the natural space market in Portland and end the monopoly that the Parks Dept. has. Maybe it is time to contract out much of the services provided by the Parks Dept. and let private industry run the system.
It is time to open the book market in Portland and end the monopoly that the Library System has. Maybe it is time to contract out much of the services provided by the Library System and let private industry run the system.
I reworded your quote with those two examples to make a point, not to mock… in both examples, the analogy doesn’t quite fit, because parks and libraries, while government run, government subsidized, and for the public benefit, aren’t monopolies. The same goes for TriMet.
It also doesn’t mean that libraries and parks _couldn’t_ be privatized. But really we need to see a proposal which honestly examines how the whole thing would operate, the pros and cons, etc. Same goes for the idea of privatizing public transit.
Portland has one of the better transit systems in the country. Is there really some reason to make dramatic changes to the way it is delivered? I don’t think so.
lets break the monopoly of our road system, how can we have one publicly run road system for the entire country!?!?!?! lets have multiple separate competing privately owned and operated road networks that pay property tax like everyone else.
Bob R. Says: … while government run, government subsidized, and for the public benefit, aren’t monopolies. The same goes for TriMet. (Bold added)
JK: Last I heard it was against the law to:
start a new bus system to compete with Timet..
start a taxi company.
operate a jitney in competition with Trimet.
Therefore Trimet IS a monopoly.
Hopefully Bob T. will add his personal knowledge to this.
Thanks
JK
“The McLoughlin Area Plan survey by Clackamas County showed clearly that the citizens do not want it.”
It shows nothing of the sort.
Here is a poll from the business journal:
http://www.bizjournals.com/portland/poll/index.html?poll_id=8288&ana=e_du_pub
It confirms virtually every poll ever done on light rail in Portland. It is extremely popular. And if you look at transit use, it has accelerated significantly over time whereever light rail has been added. People have voted with their seats.
Bob T? You mean Bob Tiernan? (The libertarian one, not the Republican pol…) Is he still around?
I kinda miss the old times on or.politics, esp. when local politicos like Jack Roberts would show up. Randall O’Toole and Wendell Cox would also make regular appearances, back before they became well-known lobbyists.
I’m not aware of any places where unregulated transit work. I am aware of places where regulated, private-sector transit works well (Hong Kong comes to mind), but HK has incredible density, and is probably not the model that many hardcore libs have in mind.
@True Libertarian Patriot –
While your point is appreciated, the moderator notices that you’ve used multiple identities on this site in a relatively short period of days. While this site does allow posting by pseudonym, please stick with only one… The use of sockpuppets can get you suspended or banned.
@EngineerScotty –
or.politics? Wow, that takes me back.
(Yes, I used to be there debating the very same Bob T.)
All hail Usenet. Death to Usenet. Long live Usenet and its creator, Al Gore. (ducking)
one that I have heard described as an example of a failure of the free market
“One that you have heard as described”??? Boy, that sure proves the existence an entire popular movement in thought.
Still off-topic. Still not applicable.
We used to have a regular or.politics lunch out in Garden Home, and Bob T, Bill Schatzer, myself, and a few other regulars would often show up.
Then the spammers turned Usenet into Uselessnet, and then I went and got married and had kids. :)
But I do miss the good old days of Web 0.0 :)
area road system that is used 30-50 rimes more
Well, the road system goes much more places. If you actually look at a fairer comparison (e.g. a single MAX-served corridor), you’ll find that the difference is not that much. Even back in Spring 2007, almost 12,000 people a day rode MAX in just one direction along the Sunset Hwy. If you look at more recent numbers and both directions (and include people who only ride to Washington Park), I think you’d find that MAX carries about 25,000 trips a day in the corridor.
has only tiny subsidies compared to the 80% subsidy for TriMet
As I have said many times, there are many, many costs of driving that drivers do not directly pay for. Washington County has road projects funded by property taxes, Portland has a billion-dollar sewer project funded by sewer users but 40%+ needed because of road runoff, virtually all parking is 100% subsidized (and often required by zoning) and none of the costs of wars (if they are at least partially because of oil) comes from gas taxes. And I’m not sure that all of the Federal spending on roads comes from the gas tax.
And the 80% includes little-used “social service” bus lines, discounts given to students/youth/elderly/disabled and other things which have nothing to do with full fare paying MAX riders.
the full cost must be paid by Trimet
Huh, I’ve seen many capital costs get paid for by other sources like the Federal government.
Last I heard it was against the law to
When TriMet has healthy enough ridership that some can be given to competition, we can debate that.
Lastly, I used to partake in Usenet somewhat, though only relatively recently. And it’s hard for me to believe that Bob Tiernan on Usenet is not Bob Tiernan the Republican Party head.
No, the Bob Tiernan from or.politics is definitely NOT the GOP head, who was active in GOP politics back in the 1990s and infamous for his demagoguery. Usenet Bob T. is a staunch Libertarian, who had no use for the Oregon Citizens Alliance and other GOP culture-warriors of the 1990s, and made it clear that he was not the GOP politician. As I’ve met Usenet Bob Tiernan on several occasions, and I can vouch he is definitely a different person.
Now it’s possible that the GOP Bob T. made an appearance on Usenet; though I doubt it.
We used to have a regular or.politics lunch out in Garden Home
Although I have close relatives with a century farm not too far (well, OK, outer Scholls Ferry Rd) from Garden Home, I was in Corvallis during those Usenet years and didn’t make it to the lunches.
And while I’m reminiscing about Libertarian Bob T. I should mention his truck. At the time, he drove a white compact pickup with the following bumpersticker:
“Because I and 217 other cars are on the road, one smelly bus is at home.”
Just to keep things on topic. :)
Because I and 217 other cars are on the road, one smelly bus is at home
I don’t remember that exact statement, but I do remember that he turned TriMet’s statement around like that.
And I wish they were the same, since I’d be happy if the Republican Party promoted a person that said so many crazy and wrong things.
In all fairness, especially since I recently admonished others from calling certain groups “nuts”, please refrain from characterizing other persons as “crazy and wrong”. There’s plenty of other blogs for that.
please refrain
My apologies. Those may have not been the best of words, but I think he would say things that at least weren’t fully truthful because they did not take into account the whole situation, and in general things that seemed outlandish to me.
Jason McHuff: And I wish they were the same, since I’d be happy if the Republican Party promoted a person that said so many crazy and wrong things.
JK: You haven’t been to good the accurate claims department lately.
Thanks
JK
Bob –
You need to make the distinction between describing a person as “crazy and wrong” and describing the ideas they express as “crazy and wrong”. They are not the same thing. Saying “that’s not true” is not the same as saying someone “isn’t being truthful” or that they are a “liar”. In the same way that saying someone’s comment is disingenuous is that the same as saying the are disingenuous.
If you focused on eliminating the personal instead of the language selected you would eliminate a lot of stuff you allow that is not helpful to civility. You would also let people reveal themselves by speaking with their own voice – for good or ill.
“In the same way that saying someone’s comment is disingenuous is that the same as saying the are disingenuous. ”
OK Try that again:
“In the same way that saying someone’s comment is disingenuous is not the same as saying they are disingenuous. ”
Bad example… unless by complete accident or fluke, calling a comment is “disingenuous” is making a statement directly about its author:
Now, I have told people here at various times to stop being disingenuous — it’s rude and counter-productive to be disingenuous, just as it is to demean and belittle opponents.
I do not claim any kind of superpowers or clean moral slate in this arena. On other blogs where the climate and expectations are different, I can get right down in the muck with everyone else. But here we do have a certain set of standards and a are trying to create a safe and sometimes event pleasant space. This space is intended to be more of a polite dinner conversation rather than a barroom ruckus. (Barroom ruckuses are great, too, just not here.)
“Disingenuous – Not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does.”
Bob – I think that statement is disingenuous :). But no statement can be disingenuous by the definition you just provided, only a person with intent can meet that definition.
You are really making my point. There is a difference between describing a statement as disingenuous (“giving a false appearance of simple frankness” – Websters) and accusing the speaker of being disingenuous (“giving a false appearance of simple frankness” – Websters). And that apparently fine line is not insignificant.
You allow a lot of incivility here by allowing personal attacks that don’t use any of the magic words you seem to think are required to make them uncivil. There are repeated comments here accusing people of being less than candid, including your own, that drive away people who are not interested in personal bickering and consider personal attacks uncivil regardless of how they are worded.
People also get turned off by pointless meta debates over moderation style and parsing over the true implications of using a descriptor such as “disingenuous”. So I suggest we both drop it.
There is an escalating hierarchy of ad-hominem contents.
1) Suggesting that an opponent is wrong about a particular claim. This is somewhat implicit whenever a contrary claim is advanced, but sometimes can be made explicit. “That’s not true”, “you’re wrong”.
2) Suggesting that a particular claim or argument is ill-formed, fallicious, illegitimate, or dubious–in a matter which suggests that rather than merely being ill-informed, the opponent may be playing fast-and-loose (but confining the suggestion to a particular claim). “That claim is disingenious” is one example. Questioning the veracity of a third-party source (“I don’t believe anything that Cascade Policy Institute says”) is another.
3) Questioning the competence of an opponent to comment on a subject: Claims such as “You don’t know what you’re talking about”; “you aren’t an expert on that topic and are spouting nonsense”. This category does NOT include claims that an opponent is unintelligent, see below.
4) Questioning the motives or ideology of an opponent: “You don’t care about transit; you just want a lower tax bill”; “transit supporters really trying to force everyone into Soviet-style block housing”, etc.
5) Directly impugning the intelligence or integrity of an opponent. “You’re a liar”, “you’re an idiot”, “anyone who thinks X is a moron”.
6) Off-topic personal insults. “You’re a f*ggot”, “You’re a f*****g redneck”, etc. While some denigration of political leanings are more in category 4 (when relevance can be demonstrated), many insults are entirely irrelevant to the topic at hand, those go here.
This hierarchy only considers the meaning of words, not the tenor–use of profanity or uncivil tone can render otherwise legit arguments out-of-bounds. But it seems to me that categories 1-2 are otherwise OK; 5-6 ought to be banned outright, and 3-4 tolerated only in limited amounts.
[Moderator: In the interest of restoring an on-topic discussion, further debate over the meaning of words and comment moderation policy and/or implementation removed. – Bob R.]
To rescue this thread from meta-hell, a few recent editorials in The Oregonian are worth mention.
Yesterday, the O editorialized on the upcoming ballot levy, which is the subject of this thread. At this point, the paper is neither endorsing nor condemning the ballot measure–agreeing in principle with TriMet’s strategy WRT to the measure; but questioning two things:
* Whether or not use of general obligation bonds to buy busses is appropriate–usually they are used for capital items with a longer lifespan than the bond repayment period (busses only have a design life of 15 years, though TriMet frequently keeps them in service longer than that).
* Complaints about TriMet’s ability to control costs. Unlike the discussion here, focusing on the merits of large capital projects such as MLR, the paper’s criticism is essentially a belief that TriMet doesn’t bargain hard enough with its unions. Reading between the lines, it appears that the paper’s decision to endorse the tax levy will depend greatly on the results of the ongoing contract negotiations (and likely arbitration) between the agency and ATU Local 757.
Today, the O proposes a statewide Energy Commission.
At any rate, the first editorial is more evidence that the Oregonian isn’t an amen choir for the agency.
Jason McHuff: If you actually look at a fairer comparison (e.g. a single MAX-served corridor), you’ll find that the difference is not that much. Even back in Spring 2007, almost 12,000 people a day rode MAX in just one direction along the Sunset Hwy.
JK: Woop-de-do! That three lane (one direction) freeway carries that many people in TWO hours. Even Burnside street carries more people than that (26550 cars)!
For comparison to that BILLION dollar toy, Canyon road is listed as 141,000 cars in 2001.
Jason McHuff: As I have said many times, there are many, many costs of driving that drivers do not directly pay for. Washington County has road projects funded by property taxes,…
JK: The total road subsidy is around ½ penny per passenger-mile compare to transit’s subsidy of around 61 cents. See: ti.org/antiplanner/?p=500 (If you disagree, please provide alternate numbers.)
Or, if you prefer, 1.1 cents per passenger mile, using pew research data. See ti.org/antiplanner/?p=2199
Jason McHuff: .. Portland has a billion-dollar sewer project funded by sewer users but 40%+ needed because of road runoff, virtually all parking is 100% subsidized (and often required by zoning) and none of the costs of wars (if they are at least partially because of oil) comes from gas taxes. And I’m not sure that all of the Federal spending on roads comes from the gas tax.
JK:
* Road runoff. We would still have roads, without cars. The densification has caused much more road building and impermeable surfaces.
* Parking costs are tiny and paid by users of the stores that have large parking lots. Using data form an anti-car web site, we can see a typical WalMart pays $0.21 per hour to let their customers spend tens or hundreds of dollars per hour. see: portlandfacts.com/parkingsubsidy.html
* Oil wars: 1) Transit uses oil too – buses more per passenger-mile than small cars, so if you want to reduce oil imports get people out of buses and into cars. 2) More importantly, we would defend the world’s oil supply even if we didn’t import any as a practical necessity.
* As to the Federal spending on roads: Not only does it ALL come from road users (as opposed to gas tax), but it pays 18% to transit.
According to U.S. Department of Transportation:
# Highway passenger transportation system paid significantly greater amounts of money to the federal government than their allocated costs.
# Transit received the largest amount of net federal subsidy
See: http://www.portlandfacts.com/roadsubsidy.htm
Please accept the fact that road subsidies are tiny compared to transit subsidies.
Jason McHuff: (Quoting JK) the full cost must be paid by Trimet
Huh, I’ve seen many capital costs get paid for by other sources like the Federal government.
JK: Trimet said they spent the amount of money I claimed. See the data they provided to the Feds (National Transit Database ) here: portlandfacts.com/top10bus.html
If you don’t like it, call the Feds or Trimet.
Jason McHuff: (Quoting JK) Last I heard it was against the law to
When TriMet has healthy enough ridership that some can be given to competition, we can debate that.
JK: There is nothing to debate, You claimed Trimet is not a monopoly and I proved it IS.
Thanks
JK
All that “incompetence” that has resulted in an enormously popular light rail system that is the envy of many places all over the country. It has helped make Portland one of the most attractive cities in the country. We need more incompetence like that.
Do you actually believe everything you read?
It is time to open the transportation market in Portland and end the monopoly the Trimet has. Maybe it is time to contract out much of the services provided by Trimet and let private industry run the system.
I guess you really don’t know your transit history. Rose City Transit went out of business. Study after study has shown that relying on the “private sector” (word used loosely)to provide public services leads to deterioration of service quality, especially in the area of transit. There was an extensive study done in Britain, where apparently the ‘private sector’ has taken over many transit functions, it has been deemed a complete failure.
Portland has one of the better transit systems in the country.
Again, do you believe everything you read? I can tell you from first hand knowledge, there are plenty daily users of Trimet would not agree with that statement. If you live in the west service area, you would definitely understand the folly of that statement. Portland proper has nothing to complain about however, apparently that is the only place that matters.
I am aware of places where regulated, private-sector transit works well (Hong Kong comes to mind), but HK has incredible density, and is probably not the model that many hardcore libs have in mind.
Scotty, did you see that study on the private transit going on in Britain? It was not good.
The Oregonian newspaper is a rag, it’s editorial board is rabid anti union anti working man/woman.
In their distorted view of Trimet’s situation its all the employees health care that is to blame for the mess. Not the endless rail expansions, not the bungled futures contracts, not the bailouts, not the executive pay and bonuses, nope, its the employees health insurance that is the problem. That editorial board has no credibility.
(The blogger known as “Al M” does not now, nor has he ever, represented Trimet, Trimet bus drivers, or ATU 757.
The thoughts, opinions, ideas, and body odor are of myself; they does not reflect the thoughts, opinions, ideas, and/or body odor of my company, my friends, my neighbors, my fish, my roses, my dog, or my trash. All rights reserved, all lefts reserved.
And since Erik Halstead has given up this particular blog, I think his comments are worth considering:
The problem with TriMet’s little scheme is that they’re asking voters to cover up a huge mismanagement. TriMet, like all transit agencies, would usually hold funds to cover their share of bus replacements – depreciation.
The problem with TriMet, and we have no more than Fred Hansen and an absent Board of Directors to thank, is that TriMet raided this fund for multiple light rail projects, giving the money away to the City of Portland for the Streetcar, and of course WES.
After the defeat of South|North, TriMet found ways to build light rail lines that didn’t require voter approval. After all, TriMet had this little savings account that was supposed to be used to replace buses after 12-15 years. (And the federal government routinely pays 90% of the cost…shouldn’t be that difficult for TriMet to leverage it, right?) So, a little money went to the Airport line, some to the Interstate line, some to the Portland Streetcar, some to the I-205 line, some to the Mall line, and some to the WES line.
Just one problem: TriMet ran out of money. Oops. And apparently the feds are onto TriMet’s little scheme – why else would TriMet be asking voters to pay the full cost of new buses, when the feds would normally pay 90%?
Unfortunately I have no doubt in my mind that this is more calculated and sinister than one seems to believe on the surface. TriMet has no intention of this measure passing. TriMet knows that public opinion is heavily against it. TriMet knows it has huge financial issues. And…remember…TriMet normally would only have to come up with 10% of the cost but it’s asking voters for 90 times more. TriMet is turning this matter into a referendum on the bus system. Don’t pass this measure, and TriMet will use it as proof that the public does not want the bus system and will start taking drastic steps to shut down much of the bus system, except for a handful of routes. (After all, there’s no way TriMet can continue to run much of its bus system if 300 buses have to be retired due to age; and a good number of those buses were made by a company that doesn’t even exist anymore.)
The public is not that dumb. The public appreciates the bus system, even if they don’t ride it personally – they know people who do ride it, either by choice or of necessity. They might use it when the car is broke, or for a special occasion. Their kids might use it. But they are not going to be fooled into paying for something that they already paid for. They have for years trusted TriMet to maintain its system as a good steward of public funds, and TriMet has proven that it failed. Sure, TriMet can build a light rail line. But at no time did the public expect, or anticipate, that TriMet would not be able to maintain the bus system and provide the new services – that was the job of TriMet’s management to ensure that new services would not impact old services.
The Oregonian, finally coming to its senses that the bus system is important to Portland, has got it right. TriMet needs to come clean. And frankly, an investigation into Fred Hansen’s “leadership” of TriMet needs to be conducted with the potential of fraud and other misconduct charges. There was no problem with buses before his tenure, and the new guy seems to understand that there’s a major problem. There’s only one man inbetween – and that’s none other than Fred Hansen.
Al –
For general reasons, but in particular because Erik has chosen not to participate here, it’s not fair to him to post his comments here without a link to the original source. People who wish to debate or discuss his comments should be able to do so where Erik is actually commenting.
It’s generally fine to excerpt a comment or article and link to where it came from.
Woop-de-do!
Knock it off.
That three lane (one direction) freeway carries that many people in TWO hours. Even Burnside street carries more people than that (26550 cars)!
OK, just for comparison’s sake, how much would it cost to add another Sunset tunnel for automobiles and widen US26 in the gully up to Sylvan Hill in order to accommodate the peak traffic that MAX carries through that corridor?
Bonus: Include the cost of adding freeway lanes across the Willamette and up and down the Willamette Valley to accommodate all those extra cars converging on I-5/I-405 from US26.
Not that any of this has anything real to do with the merits of TriMet’s ballot measure, you know, the topic of this thread.
“Do you actually believe everything you read?”
No. I don’t believe a lot of the nonsense posted here for instance. [Moderator: Personally-directed remark removed. Precisely what I warned about re: commenting about Erik. – Bob R.]
I think most people familiar with transit service in similar sized cities, and even many larger cities, would say that Portland is way ahead of them. The numbers on the level of transit use in Portland reflects that. It doesn’t have a heavy rail commuter system (WES doesn’t count), but its bus service and light rail are both very good.
As for the west side, its transit service reflects the amount of transit use. If OPAL wants to look at the real economic justice issues its the money spent on empty buses in the suburbs that could be spent to improve service elsewhere. Even at rush hour, almost everyone in the suburbs has a seat. That is certainly not true in Portland.
The problem on the west side is the lack of street grid and pedestrian connections. It makes the use of transit difficult and providing direct fixed bus route connections difficult. Light rail, by contrast, is used because it has its own, direct, ROW.
And apparently the feds are onto TriMet’s little scheme – why else would TriMet be asking voters to pay the full cost of new buses, when the feds would normally pay 90%?
JK: Simple. Trimet is using that as an excuse. They fool the voters into a tax, then hit up the feds for the new buses and use the 125 mil to cover up their mismanagement.
Thanks
JK
Bob R. Says: OK, just for comparison’s sake, how much would it cost to add another Sunset tunnel for automobiles and widen US26 in the gully up to Sylvan Hill in order to accommodate the peak traffic that MAX carries through that corridor?
JK: You don’t need a tunnel – just widen the road. Or add a lane to Burnside – it already caries about 3 times as many people as MAX. (G)
Bob R. Says: Bonus: Include the cost of adding freeway lanes across the Willamette and up and down the Willamette Valley to accommodate all those extra cars converging on I-5/I-405 from US26.
JK: Make that 1/3 of one lane, because that is all that MAX removes from the freeway, by Trimet’s claims (and CRC, and the Oregonian october 29, 1998) after you adjust for people moved from buses to MAX. See:
portlandfacts.com/transit/railattractsdrivers2.htm
Bob R. Says: Not that any of this has anything real to do with the merits of TriMet’s ballot measure, you know, the topic of this thread.
JK: It all has to do with how to best spend transportation money. Perhaps $125 million would produce more public benefit if applied elsewhere. Perhaps getting low income people into cars (cascadepolicy.org/wheels-to-wealth/). Perhaps relieving congestion (a good start would be bus turnouts, so they don’t block traffic.) Or maybe pay for a chunk of the Sellwood bridge?
Or, maybe let people keep their money and spend it on their families.
Thanks
JK
JS: Portland has one of the better transit systems in the country.
Al: Again, do you believe everything you read? I can tell you from first hand knowledge, there are plenty daily users of Trimet would not agree with that statement. If you live in the west service area, you would definitely understand the folly of that statement. Portland proper has nothing to complain about however, apparently that is the only place that matters.
Al, he said “in the country”. Compared to most developed cities in Europe or Asia, no, but being “one of the best transit cities in the country”, when that country is the US, is kinda like being one of the smarter guys on the football team, if you catch my drift. As far as overall transit quality goes, Portland is definitely in the second half of the top 10–with most of the other metros who are better being much larger ones. (New York, LA, Chicago, Boston, DC, Bay Area). The only smaller US metro area I can think of which is comparable would be Honolulu–an extremely dense city with a relatively large population of poor people, and one where it’s very expensive to drive.
This isn’t to say that by worldwide standards, Portland is good–we aren’t. But by US standards, we are. (If you disagree–name the cities you think are better, and why…)
Make that 1/3 of one lane, because that is all that MAX removes from the freeway, by Trimet’s claims (and CRC, and the Oregonian october 29, 1998) after you adjust for people moved from buses to MAX. See: portlandfacts.com/transit/railattractsdrivers2.htm
No, JK, you don’t get to use statistics from 12 years ago when the line first opened, and then eliminate all former bus riders (allegedly) from your stats because you don’t want to count them, by your standards, and then declare that MAX _today_ carries only 1/3 of one lane. That’s a bold combination of cherry-picking and goal-post moving, and has scant little to do with the original question.
They fool the voters into a tax
It’s interesting that you agree voters can be fooled, but assert that in totality, participants in the so-called “free” market collectively make rational and efficient decisions (see: vhs v beta). [sarcasm] No marketer of goods ever tried to “fool” the market. [/sarcasm]
Bob R. Says: No, JK, you don’t get to use statistics from 12 years ago when the line first opened, and then eliminate all former bus riders (allegedly) from your stats because you don’t want to count them, by your standards, and then declare that MAX _today_ carries only 1/3 of one lane.
JK: How about the SECOND section of my reference which is based on a 2006 Trimet FactSheet (8 years after the Westside line opened) which claims that:
“Westside MAX provides the transportation capacity equivalent to another 1.2 lanes in each direction on the Sunset Hwy.”
Thje logical analysis is presented as foi;llows:
* 2/3 of MAX riders would be on a bus if MAX had not been built (as shown above: “Of the 5.415 total transit users, 3,642 (67%) were previous transit users…”)
* Therefore MAX carries a number of people equal to 1/3 of the number of people on 1.2 lanes of the freeway. 1/3 x 1.2 = 40% The number of cars removed is 40% of one lane / 1.3 people per car = 31% of one lane of US-26
* MAX only reduces traffic by 31% of one lane of freeway, according to Trimet’s own data.
JK: You also ignored the third section:
The Portland/Vancouver I-5 Transportation and Trade Partnership used 18% and 31% as the percentage of rail riders that would be in cars if light rail wasn’t built. See here for the method used.
So, I think I’m on solid grounds claiming that about 2/3 of the MAX riders were formally bus riders (feel free to present credible contrary evidence – perhaps that Trimet survey taken in the early days of I84 MAX that showed similar numbers and was kept from the public.) Once you accept that fact, the rest of the claim is simple arithmetic:
MAX removes about 1/3 of ONE LANE of traffic from I84 and US26.
Bob R. Says: That’s a bold combination of cherry-picking and goal-post moving, and has scant little to do with the original question.
JK: I plead innocent for cherry picking as 2/3 of the references are later and consistent with the disputed one. Of course the original question is Trimet’s claimed need for more money which raises the question of what service do we get for the money they have spent.
Thanks
JK
JK,
The problem is that you have left over movement of people that you are ignoring basically 1 lane of traffic worth of people are just being tossed out the window because you are not claiming them to bus service (because they are no longer riding the bus) and you don’t count them as MAX riders (because they were previously ridding the bus). This is throwing the statistics out of balance.
This would be the same concept as if someone repaved a road that 1000 cars drove on each day and then claim that the road is only used by 2 cars a day. You can’t just ignore riders because they used to take a different methods.
Also try sourcing things that aren’t at the highly biased “PortlandFacts” website.
Thanks,
RG
Robert Getch Says: Also try sourcing things that aren’t at the highly biased “PortlandFacts” website.
JK: Have you found any factual errors at that site, or just things that you don’t like to hear? Like Federal data on the cost of transit. Or perhaps Federal data proving the lack of a Federal subsidy to cars while there is a big Federal subsidy to transit. Or Federal data showing big dense city’s transit is no better than Trimet (which suggests increasing density does NOT make transit work better). Or the fact that there are only 1650 transit commuters across the Columbia river and 81,000 auto/truck commuters, but the ratio of proposed spending between transit and auto is no where near the 1:49 ratio, more like 1:2. Or perhaps Europeans use private cars for 78% of their motorized travel and transit is losing market share.
Thanks
JK
For general reasons, but in particular because Erik has chosen not to participate here, it’s not fair to him to post his comments here without a link to the original source
OREGONIAN
Even at rush hour, almost everyone in the suburbs has a seat
Yea, and some of them can just walk after 9pm and on weekends, “That is certainly not true in Portland.”
This isn’t to say that by worldwide standards, Portland is good–we aren’t. But by US standards, we are.
OK Scotty, I defer to your understanding of the issue over mine. I look at this issue from the eyes of my passengers, maybe that is tunnel vision, but that is where my point of view is focused.
And I’m quite certain that Erik would approve of me cross posting his comments in any event.
Then ask him or have him come post his comments himself so that people can reply directly.
[Moderator: Further debate over the cross-posting of comments from willful non-participants removed. – Bob R. This is not “ignorethemoderator.com”.]
I think TriMet has a fundamental problem of not caring about their “look” – when they were seeking input on ways to spend their stimulus funds, I thought it would have been nice to see TriMet roll out the blue and yellow paint scheme for the entire fleet of both buses and trains – some of those buses you see on the road (1400s, for example) look like they still have the original paint from 20 years ago. Even TriMet’s newest buses, the 2900 series, seem to already be showing signs of aging, which doesn’t seem to bother TriMet as they continue to put those damaged and dinged up buses on the road.
If TriMet is looking at getting 150 buses, let’s make sure that there is budget in place to properly maintain them, both mechanically and in physical appearance. It’s a big component of what makes a transit agency move into that “top 10” category. One can even look to C-Tran, which just got those Gillig high floor buses in 2003, and has already begun to repaint them in their new black and grey color scheme – when was the last time we saw a red stripe TriMet bus get repainted? When it was in a wreck?
Speaking of top 10 transit agencies, Honolulu doesn’t have the newest fleet – in fact it has one of the oldest along with TriMet, but they are constantly ensuring that those buses are looking and running as though they are new.
(An article on their rehab program for now 15 year old buses still on the road on page 15: http://www.thebus.org/AboutTheBus/Newsletter/expressummer.pdf)
How about the sudden elimination of all stops on the #15 on Thurman? Absolutely no hearings, just effective immediately yesterday evening. Buses have run on this route and terminated here since 1950 when the streetcar was busstituted. Apparently now all of a sudden its unsafe. I understand its only been since Montgomery Park opened, what 15 years ago??, that the line also terminated there.
This is a perfect example of the issue with buses that they can disappear overnight… Here today, gone tomorrow. How many riders riding yesterday knew that evening would be the last run?
I wonder how much of this is due to the bike-left turning bus crash like the glisan/broadway crash months ago.
TriMet’s service disruptions page says it has to do with the unassisted three point turn that was required at the stop closest to the top of Thurman. I’ve seen people do some stupid things around 15 buses that were turning around there, so it’s probably a good idea if it is slightly inconvenient for me.
To mention some of the things that Bob R, etc haven’t said regarding Jim’s comments:
*A three lane freeway is much wider than a rail line. A single track takes up the width of about one lane.
*Even if drivers did pay for all road projects (and I know Salem has bond-funded projects too), as I’ve been trying to say there’s other negative effects of driving too
*I think you’d find that there’s less pavement per person in denser areas. Many Pearl District streets are two lanes just like in the suburbs.
*Your page says that the $0.21 does “not include property taxes”. Given that land is land, taxes per space should be cheaper when it can be split with things above or below it. But I believe that parking is treated favorably compared to buildings. Moreover, the market price for parking is well over $0.21/space hour and people don’t spend “tens or hundreds of dollars per hour” per space at Walmart.
*Real mass transit does not use as much oil as small cars. And MAX doesn’t use any. Also, as I said before, its not possible to “get people out of buses and into cars” when there’s already lots of congestion and limited parking or people shouldn’t drive.
*When did I claim that TriMet isn’t protected from other operators taking away their existing passengers and increasing their need for subsidies?
*When road use is mentioned, is that measured at a single point like the 12,000 (really 25,000) was? And the (close to) billion-dollar Westside line also serves people a long ways away from those single points.
*You cannot ignore/subtract the previous bus riders Even if MAX resulted in zero additional people taking transit, it was still a huge improvement for existing riders and transit efficiency, and moreover, the buses would otherwise be ON THE FREEWAY.
In other words, even if MAX did only “remove about 1/3 of ONE LANE of [auto] traffic from I84 and US26” it also removes many buses, too
*The reason why programs give low-income people cars is because transit service is poor. If transit was actually feasible for them, all that would do is increase congestion, pollution and other negative effects.
Also, regarding Thurman St service, my 1950 map does show it just ending, but my 1978 TriMet Ride Atlas seems to show it going off of Thurman and ending in a loop, at from what I can tell the Salvation Army’s place.
One idea would be to have it go the other way using Aspen Ave and Franklin Ct (really a full size-street). Google Maps view of the area.
Jason McHuff Says: *A three lane freeway is much wider than a rail line. A single track takes up the width of about one lane.
JK: You are ignoring the fact that that 3 lane freeway carries as many people in 2 hours as a whole day of MAX. A single track still carries less people than a single lane of freeway. And if all people were in transit vehicles in both cases (apples-apples comparison) the single road lane would carry many time the light rail line. In any case, Trimet’s claim breaks down to their light rail lines removing less people than ONE lane of a freeway from the freeway. At a cost that would build several lanes of freeway. Light rail costs too much, does too little.
Jason McHuff Says:*Even if drivers did pay for all road projects (and I know Salem has bond-funded projects too), as I’ve been trying to say there’s other negative effects of driving too
JK: So what, most people feel the savings in time and money and convenience is worth it. Or do you think people drive too much?
Jason McHuff Says:*I think you’d find that there’s less pavement per person in denser areas. Many Pearl District streets are two lanes just like in the suburbs.
JK: What is the problem with pavement that serves people’s needs? And the streets are congested, unlike most residential streets.
Jason McHuff Says:*Your page says that the $0.21 does “not include property taxes”. Given that land is land, taxes per space should be cheaper when it can be split with things above or below it. But I believe that parking is treated favorably compared to buildings. Moreover, the market price for parking is well over $0.21/space hour and people don’t spend “tens or hundreds of dollars per hour” per space at Walmart.
JK: Are you trying to claim that the average shopper that spends an hour in Walmart spends less than $10??
Jason McHuff Says: *Real mass transit does not use as much oil as small cars.
JK: What is “real mass transit”?
Perhaps the biggest transit system in the country: ….NYC: oil usage equivalent to 25 – 30 PMG
Maybe second biggest: ………………………………………….LA: oil usage equivalent to 22-26 MPG
Maybe the third biggest:………………………………….Newark: oil usage equivalent to 23-28 MPG
Which of these three biggest transit systems in the county is not “real mass transit”?
Calculated from Federal data at: http://www.portlandfacts.com/top10bus.html
Jason McHuff Says: And MAX doesn’t use any.
JK: MAX is powered by dead fish (hydro), coal which puts uranium & thorium into the atmosphere, nuclear, dead birds (wind) and a bit of solar
Jason McHuff Says: Also, as I said before, its not possible to “get people out of buses and into cars” when there’s already lots of congestion and limited parking or people shouldn’t drive.
JK: Transit does not carry enough people to reduce congestion, except in the central city where most people are well paid government workers who can afford pay their real cost of their transit.
Jason McHuff Says:*When did I claim that TriMet isn’t protected from other operators taking away their existing passengers and increasing their need for subsidies?
JK: Where did I say you made such a claim?
Jason McHuff Says:*When road use is mentioned, is that measured at a single point like the 12,000 (really 25,000) was? And the (close to) billion-dollar Westside line also serves people a long ways away from those single points.
JK: I mentioned Burnside. It is not in the US26 canyon. The number I gave came from a PDOT map basically at the foot of the west hills. I think it is all day, both directions.
Jason McHuff Says:*You cannot ignore/subtract the previous bus riders Even if MAX resulted in zero additional people taking transit, it was still a huge improvement for existing riders and transit efficiency, and moreover, the buses would otherwise be ON THE FREEWAY. In other words, even if MAX did only “remove about 1/3 of ONE LANE of [auto] traffic from I84 and US26” it also removes many buses, too
JK: Sure busses take up a little of freeway capacity. But MAX is still freeing up much less than one lane of a freeway and it costs many times more than a lane of freeway.
Jason McHuff Says:*The reason why programs give low-income people cars is because transit service is poor. If transit was actually feasible for them, all that would do is increase congestion, pollution and other negative effects.
JK: Not really. A car lets a person reach a far wider selection of jobs in a given amount of time. That results in a better job and less time away from their family.
See: http://www.portlandfacts.com/cars_improve_living.html
Thanks
JK
MAX is powered by dead fish (hydro), coal which puts uranium & thorium into the atmosphere, nuclear, dead birds (wind) and a bit of solar
JK, are you advocating for the removal of dams now? I thought you were pro-nuclear development? Care to compare the environmental damage of developing the tar sands you’ve promoted before?
If you’re going to be contrarian, please be helpful to our readers and point out that which you’re arguing for which you actually believe, and that which you’re just taking an opposing position for whatever reason.
Bob R. Says: (Quoting JK)MAX is powered by dead fish (hydro), coal which puts uranium & thorium into the atmosphere, nuclear, dead birds (wind) and a bit of solar
JK, are you advocating for the removal of dams now?
JK: Just stating facts. Nothing more there.
Since you bring it up – do you favor removing dams and if so, what do you suggest as a replacement power source and how would it affect the cost of power?
Thanks
JK
Since you bring it up – do you favor removing dams
For the record, I support the limited removal of dams largely in line with what has been happening recently, combined with incentives for increased energy efficiency.
But, since you brought it up (gee, you forgot to mention the gulf oil spill re: fish killing), all of what you mention about the collateral damage caused by energy production just goes to show that just about anything we do in the modern world has a consequence environmentally, which is why the government (we, the people) has an important role to play in regulation and harm mitigation.
Of course, the entire nuclear power industry wouldn’t exist if it weren’t for governmental liability guarantees. No private insurer can afford to pay out in the event of a major nuclear incident.
Personally, I used to be very pro-nuclear, but in recent years I’ve seen just how fast a regulatory regime can unravel, and just how many well-positioned people in politics are quick to insulate industry from basic safety regulations, so at this point lets just say I’m highly skeptical but willing to be convinced by improvements in technology which reduce risk.
Of course, none of this really has anything directly to do with the TriMet ballot measure.
This web site is pro-transit. If this were a pro-birth control blog, occasional arguments from an anti-birth-control perspective might occasionally be entertained, but turning every single discussion into an argument with those with an anti-birth-control agenda would be highly counter-productive for the theme of the blog.
So, as a moderator, I reserve the right to limit future discussions to the primary topic and in keeping with the theme and audience of the blog, rather than letting them so quickly devolve into the same tired, often copy-and-pasted arguments.
From The Rules:
One idea would be to have it go the other way using Aspen Ave and Franklin Ct (really a full size-street). Google Maps view of the area.
Jason, those roads are way steeper than they look on the map. I’m honestly not sure a TriMet bus can handle it. Even if they can, I’m not sure the ‘influential’ types who live along there would go for it.
Since its true that many of the same arguments seem to be repeated, and since I don’t use cut-and-paste, I’ve decided to start a Transit Myths and Facts page. I’ll try to add more to it as I go.
I think the question should be, is the payroll tax for operational subsidies only, or should it be expected to cover the operational subsidy PLUS the capital improvements?
I’ve refrained from posting on this because the disappointment aroused by this ballot measure was well beyond my comfort zone.
It may not have been intended, but this measure feels like extortion or something akin to the old protection racket. If we don’t approve it, TriMet will say that we really don’t want buses after all. If we do approve it, TriMet, Metro, et al will feel free to “invest” in ever more speculative and complex projects which have less and less likelihood of ever paying off by any meaningful measure.
Not good.