As TriMet prepares for a projected budget shortfall of $12 million to $17 million for the next fiscal year, the agency has launched an excellent on-line tool where people can see the budgetary choices involved. This is a great way to force people to think about the real tradeoffs inherent in any budget-cutting exercise, getting us beyond simplistic one-size-fits-all proposals.
Before I dig into the proposed budget cutting mechanisms and lay out my choices, let’s just make one thing clear: these cuts will be painful no matter how they are carried out. After major service cuts two years ago and rising demand for public transit, this is not the time to be cutting once again. Transit advocates need to forcefully push the legislature to support new taxing authority for transit, especially options that do not rely on the payroll tax, which is so susceptible to the currently stagnant economy. Voters need to support these new taxes if they want to maintain, restore, and eventually expand the transit system that allows so many people the choice to travel without a car.
TriMet has identified three main reasons for the current budget shortfall. First, payroll taxes lag behind projections by $3 million as the region has failed to add as many jobs as expected when the tax was instituted. The payroll tax rate increases a tiny amount each year, but it’s not enough to make up for the huge number of jobs lost in recent years or the decline in average wages.
The second reason is uncertainty about future federal operating grants. The deficit-obsessed US Congress is looking for any way to cut their own budget, and transportation grants will certainly be on the chopping block. TriMet really doesn’t know by how much these grants might be cut, but they are estimating $4 million to be safe.
The third and most important factor is the failure of TriMet and the union to come to terms on a new contract. TriMet projects a $5 to $10 million shortfall due to the rising costs of health care and wage benefits, and notes that these costs will continue to rise over time if the union does not accept some kind of benefit reduction. I believe the union needs to be willing to make a shared sacrifice to preserve service levels. Last year Seattle King County Metro’s union agreed to a three-year contract that preserved 130,000 hours of bus service by reducing automatic wage increases and allowing more part-time drivers to cover peak-only service. Metro employees also pay 20% of their health care premium, while TriMet employees pay 0%. We can argue (and I’m sure we will) about the need for generous worker benefits, but on the other hand there is little point in having good benefits for a shrinking number of workers driving a shrinking number of buses and trains.
OK, on to the show! The budget tool identifies a number of ways TriMet could save money, and invites users to choose options until they hit $17 million in savings. Here were my choices:
Raise Fares by 25 Cents = $6 million
After so many fare increases recently, this seems like a terrible idea, but the fact is raising the fare is still the most effective way to raise a lot of revenue without a huge impact on ridership. The tool has options for 20 cents and 40 cents as well. 25 cents seems the most reasonable to me, since the resulting fare would be $2.35 for a 2-zone trip, well in line with major transit agencies nationwide. As much as we complain about fare increases, transit is still pretty cheap in Portland compared to many cities. This does have a major equity impact, but I would prefer to see a greater focus on distributing free or reduced tickets to those in need than provide a low fare to everyone regardless of ability to pay.
Eliminate Transfers and Add a New Day Pass = $3 million
This is an interesting idea. Basically with the base fare you only get a single trip with no transfers. Any transfer requires purchase of a new day pass priced at twice the normal fare. Since pretty much every trip requires a return trip at some point, this would basically have zero impact on most people and would actually benefit heavy users of the system. It would cost more for people making one-way trips with a transfer, surely a tiny percentage of trips. I suspect the main reason this would generate so much revenue would be the reduction in fare-cheating using old paper transfers and the faster boarding time from more use of the day pass.
Eliminate the Free Rail Zone = $2.7 million
Rumored to be eliminated for quite awhile now, I wholeheartedly support this idea. Transit is worth something and should not be free, even for tourists. TriMet has made it very easy to buy day passes and weekly passes for visitors to Portland, so there is little reason to keep this going any longer. Portland Streetcar will probably be removed from the Free Rail Zone in the near future anyway, leaving MAX as the only free service. The downtown business association has protested any removal of the FRZ, but if they want it so badly, they should really pay for it since they are the primary beneficiaries.
Sell ads on TriMet websites and TransitTracker by Phone = $0.3 milion
Sure, why not? They do this anyway on the texting service and it has never bothered me. Every little bit helps.
Charge for parking at high-use Park & Ride locations = $0.1 million
This is another no-brainer that is controversial for no good reason. If a public parking lot is filling up to the point where many people can’t find a spot, it is time to start charging for that service. I’m not sure if this very low number is due to TriMet’s unwillingness to charge very much or if it reflects generally low demand at most park-and-rides.
Run Red Line between Airport and SW 11th Ave only (except rush hours) = $0.9 million
TriMet offers three options here: do nothing, save $0.9 million by running the Red Line only from Downtown Portland to the Airport, or save $2 million by running it only between Gateway and the Airport. I thought about the third option, but requiring an extra transfer for pretty much all travelers seems like it would be a huge disincentive to taking transit rather than driving. Since getting to downtown is very easy by transit from most of the region, using the Red Line from downtown would only require a single transfer for most people. This would mainly have a negative impact on people traveling between Beaverton and Downtown Portland, who would be stuck with less frequency during non-peak times.
Eliminate redundant bus service = $1.8 million
Ah, music to my ears! TriMet’s system is rife with redundant or overlapping bus routes that cater to a rather selfish desire for doorstep service straight to downtown at the expense of overall system usefulness. To pick one example off the top of my head, the 9 through Alberta is twelve blocks from the 8, runs much less frequently, and takes ages to wind through narrow residential streets on its way down to Broadway. Most people are better off walking or taking the 72 to the 8, and based on ridership that is what most people do. That segment of the 9 is very redundant.
Once on Broadway we have a case where the 9 and 77 overlap. My sense is that the 9 is much more useful than the 77 at this point. I appreciate that the 77 is a crosstown, but it is strange to have a route that comes very close to downtown but not quite (instead meandering painfully through the Pearl) sharing the road with a route that does go downtown by a more direct path. I say merge the 77 (Halsey, Broadway) with the 9 (Broadway, Downtown), eliminate the northbound tail of the 9, and eliminate the entire NW portion of the 77 (redundant with Streetcar, and NW 25th doesn’t merit service when NW 23rd and NW 21st already have it). I don’t know whether these are the kinds of changes TriMet has in mind, but in any case there are many other examples, especially in the SW.
TriMet offers a variety of other service-cutting options (less frequency and span on MAX, less frequency and span on low-ridership buses, and elimination/reduction of several routes) that sound like more of what we have had to endure the last couple years. At least they are not talking about cutting the core higher-frequency bus lines, but at this point they have already cut service too much. It is hard to ask for that 25-cent increase in fares while cutting basic service.
Adjust LIFT service to correspond with regular bus/MAX service = $0.4 million
This is the one I am most uncomfortable with, but I had to hit that $17 million mark somehow. This would reduce TriMet’s role to what is required by law, which is to provide LIFT service only during the hours they run regular bus service to an area. Evening and weekend service would be cut to many parts of the region which only have weekday bus service. I do support the LIFT program and would hate to see it cut, but on the other hand there could be other ways to fund it. I have always thought paratransit should be funded by separate social service funding sources rather than being the responsibility of transit agencies. TriMet currently has what us planners like to call “multiple, conflicting, and vague” goals. They are charged with running an efficient, high-ridership service, but they are also told to run an inherently inefficient and low-ridership social service for equity purposes. This makes budgeting very difficult–how much weight should they give to each goal? I would like to see city, regional, and state leaders step in to find a separate funding source for LIFT service.
Reduce annual contribution to Portland Streetcar = $0.3 million
This one was pretty easy for me. The Portland Streetcar is a city amenity and an urban development tool, but it does nothing to enhance mobility, which is the primary purpose of TriMet as a public transit agency. For this reason I generally don’t see why TriMet has any business supporting the Streetcar, and this seems like a reasonable reduction. The City of Portland needs to stand up to the short-sighted business interests who successfully opposed the use of parking meter revenue to support the streetcar, not continue to ask TriMet for operating funds.
Finally, TriMet promises to continue to Find ways to improve internal efficiency, saving an unspecified amount. My sense is that they have already achieved most of what is possible through internal efficiencies, but I know many feel differently, especially when it comes to executive compensation. Shared sacrifice should be felt by all.
I would add a couple other suggestions. One would be to Charge a Peak Fare of 25 Cents. This is used in Seattle by King County Metro and it makes a great deal of sense. It charges more during the time when more service is needed, helping to pay for all those expensive peak-only buses and extra runs. It also encourages people who have some choice about when to travel to choose non-peak times, reducing overcrowding during the peak. Perhaps this could raise enough revenue on its own to reduce the need for a normal fare increase.
Another suggestion would be to Restructure the Bus Network. Much of this would be covered under eliminating redundancies, but there are other examples of short, relatively pointless routes that could be combined to get more ridership and possibly require less layover time. For example, why do the 70 and 73 both stop at the Rose Quarter Transit Center? Combined they would make an excellent crosstown route that would address the terrible lack of connections between inner SE and inner NE. This could probably be revenue-neutral or even revenue-positive.
Well, this was a fascinating exercise, and I encourage all of you to contribute to this interesting method of public outreach. I hope we can have a spirited and civil debate in the comments about our choices and about TriMet’s budget woes moving forward. TriMet will also hold several open houses in February to get feedback on this process.
66 responses to “TriMet Launches “Cut The Budget” On-line Tool”
How about increasing ads inside the bus and at stops? Inside the busses, it`s typically just ads for Tri-Met itself. Also, remarkably few of the bus/ MAX shelters have billboard ads compared to other cities I`ve seen.
How about increasing ads inside the bus and at stops? Inside the busses, it`s typically just ads for Tri-Met itself. Also, remarkably few of the bus/ MAX shelters have billboard ads compared to other cities I`ve seen.
I just filled out the form and started with a comment about how they need more ads anywhere they can get them. As a pseudo-governmental agency they should just take any ad thrown at them. There’s a lot of money in political ads, especially when the demographics at a given stop can be somewhat predictable.
I’d also like to seem them cash in on some of their land banks. Sell off either long-term leases, or some land itself, and work with Metro to give FAR or height bonuses to enhance the value. Chances are if TriMet owns land they can sell it will be near transit, and be worth the premium for higher-density development for the developer.
I just want the fares to not require dimes/nickes. $2.25 or $2.50 is fine, just not $2.15 or $2.35.
Oh, and find a way to take my debit or credit card on a bus and I’ll ride twice as much.
“allowing more part-time drivers to cover peak-only service”
This would be one of the best things to do, along with allowing short peak period shifts.
Not only would it save money, it would also make it possible to offer better service, when the economy improves. Sometimes you just need an extra bus for 2 hours in the afternoon.
With the number of unemployed people in the area, and with hours being cut, can’t the union support some part-time work and sorter shifts?
“Charge for parking at high-use Park & Ride locations = $0.1 million”
If Trimet’s parking lots can only generate $100,000 per year, they should be developed or immediately be sold off to the highest bidder. Most of the lots are as large as a full city block, and should be worth $1 million to $10 million depending on location and zoning.
Even a $5 dollar a day parking fee should net $250,000 per year for a 200 space lot. Trimet has thousands of parking spaces total, and should either be making millions on parking, or should sell the land to someone who can get some value out of it, and provide something to get to on the train.
Red line “Save $2 million by running it only between Gateway and the Airport”.
O.M.G. – if they are considering this, they could have built it without the crazy, very slow loop which is required so that trains can get to Gateway and then head west. Instead, they could have just built a straight shot into Gateway, which would have saved $millions, and would save at least 60 seconds off of every Red Line trip.
Actually, I think it would be a great idea to run the Red Line from the Airport to Clackamas, and have almost all trains to Downtown be Blue Line trains. But to make this (nearly) painless, we need to add a 4th track thru the station, to the west of the 1st platform, so there could be cross-platform transfers, in both directions, from AIrport-Clackamas trains to Blue Line trains.
If we could get a TIGER grant or some other capital funding, for a few million dollars, we could save millions in operating costs every year, while actually making service to downtown faster and more reliable for everyone. People coming from Clackamas (or the Airport) would have to get out of their seats and walk across the platform to another train, every time, at Gateway Center, but the transfer would be timed precisely so it would not take any time.
This would simplify the system, make the Blue Line more reliable, and make it easier to increase the frequency of trains thru Downtown on the Blue/Red line tracks, since it would be jus one service. Some Blue LIne trains could still run short routes from Beaverton to Gateway.
How about charge more for LIFT fares? They’re among the lowest the nation and it might encourage some people who are misusing it to just use regular transit.
They definitely need to charge for higher use park and rides. I would really like to see the numbers on that estimate. It’s ridiculous that they charge for secure bike parking, but the $20,000 per spot parking garages are free.
Some suggestions I put in last night:
Raise “Honored Citizens” fares proportionately, to the extent allowed by law; i.e. if full fares go up 10%, “H” fares should also go up 10%.
Washington County’s $2 million annual WES contribution is set to expire next year and Wilsonville is singing the blues about its $300,000(?) subsidy. If either goes away or is reduced, TriMet should pull the plug on WES if the amount refunded to the FTA would be less than WES’s annual loss. Sometimes, a turkey is just a turkey.
If not, TriMet should charge a real premium fare for what is a premium service.
Insist that PSI/PBOT have 100% parity with TriMet’s fare structure; i.e. no all-day riding for the price of a single regular ticket and no $100 annual pass w/OHSU tram privileges. PSI and TriMet should be able to come up with a single-zone annual pass for $500 – $600 that would be good on both systems. One possibility would be an even lower cost pass good only in zone 1. It’s obscene that streetcar riders pay only about 10% of ops costs while PSI panhandles for TriMet subsidies.
Once the Gibbs Street bridge is open, reroute the southbound 36 back to the traditional alignment on 1st, Kelly, and Hood while converting the line into an express between PSU and the LOTC stopping only at Gibbs and either Boundary or Pendleton. Keep the northbound 35/36 on Macadam instead of rerouting them to a time-wasting alignment in SOWA.
Clarification: TriMet should pull the plug on WES if the ANNUALIZED amount TriMet would have to refund FTA would be less than WES losses. The total amount we would owe the feds at this point would be much greater than WES losses in a year.
OMG!
Where do I start?
How about the shameless propagandizing political opinions:
Instead we must engage in all-or-nothing interest arbitration, a forum in which it is extremely difficult to make significant changes no matter how out-of-line union wages and benefits are.
How about an across the board 10% pay reductions for everyone getting over $100K
How about stopping the expansion which will eventually lead to bankruptcy.
And there already is part time operators there, getting screwed by the way dealing with long work days due to split shifts.
Sure, they want to change the benefit package, no problem, negotiate it with our union.
Macfarlane doesn’t believe in cooperation, he believes in totalitarianism.
In the end it will be the riders that get the most screwing, less service, more crowded conditions,higher fares.
And TRIMET’s MINISTRY OF PROPAGANDA ,funded by millions of dollars of tax dollars, will keep on spitting out disinformation.
Anybody even bothered to look at the exorbitant use of overtime here to keep things going?
How many executives has the head tyrant hired this past year? All with huge salaries and generous benefits?
No, even the authors at PORTLAND TRANSPORT swallow the hype hook line and sinker that lays the whole problem on the union.
God Americans are dumb, even the so called “liberal” Americans.
And this management is lucky we have here a dysfunctional (or fat) union, you quoted Seattle, well guess what, there is PUSHBACK up there.
Al,
Do you think overtime should be curtailed, and more drivers hired (including more part-timers)? Ideally, from a budget point of view, all TriMet operators would be working 40 hrs/week; above that you start having to pay time and a half (and at some point start running into safety issues if drivers work excess hours); below that, the fixed cost of health insurance begins to make the arrangement lest cost-effective. Both OT and part-time workers are necessary to handle the unbalanced loads needed to supply transit service, but both are inefficient.
At any rate, and speaking for myself, I noted over in the open thread that this online tool seems to be a bit heavy on the anti-ATU propaganda.
Thanks for pointing that out Scot, OK, I take back the accusation that all the authors of this blog swallowed the anti union hype.
The inefficiencies at this organization are
PROFOUND!
This whole “tool” is nothing but SHAMELESS propagandizing.
Pathetic, truly pathetic, about what we have come to expect from the Trimet version of NAPOLEON, aka Macfarlane.
TriMet: Job Descriptions
Charge for parking at high-use Park & Ride locations = $0.1 million
$100,000 is all they expect to get from charging at all the park and rides?
Are they on drugs or just bald faced liars?
I resent the accusation that I “swallowed the anti-union hype.” I am by no means anti-union, but from what I can see the union has not been willing to make significant sacrifices. I invite any reasonable union supporter to offer a rebuttal. These anti-management rantings are not helpful and certainly aren’t going to convince anyone who, like me, is struggling to understand the situation. What exactly is TriMet doing that the union hates so much, and that makes the union unwilling to pay health insurance premiums and deal with flat wages like most workers do? Don’t go on about executive compensation–salaries over $100,000 are perfectly reasonable for high-level positions in a transit agency. Below a certain level it becomes hard to attract good people who are massively in debt from their education. These aren’t billionaire fatcats from Wall Street we’re talking about. I’m perfectly willing to be persuaded, but someone other than our resident ranter will have to do it through reasoned argument. I also don’t agree that TriMet should somehow avoid talking about this on their website. If the union is going to point out to the public the problems with management, why shouldn’t management point out problems with the union? That just makes sense. We need to have a public conversation about both management and the union making a shared sacrifice in the face of declining revenue.
I resent the accusation that I “swallowed the anti-union hype.” I am by no means anti-union, but from what I can see the union has not been willing to make significant sacrifices. I invite any reasonable union supporter to offer a rebuttal. These anti-management rantings are not helpful and certainly aren’t going to convince anyone who, like me, is trying to understand the situation. What exactly is TriMet doing that the union hates so much, and that makes the union unwilling to pay health insurance premiums and deal with flat wages like most workers do? The argument about executive compensation don’t sound convincing–salaries over $100,000 are perfectly reasonable for high-level positions in a transit agency. Below a certain level it becomes hard to attract good people who are massively in debt from their education. These aren’t billionaire fatcats from Wall Street we’re talking about. I’m perfectly willing to be persuaded, but someone will have to do it through reasoned argument, not ranting and insulting. Al, please read the Portland Transport Rules for Civil Conversation. You are clearly violating at least 4 of them. Also remember that Portland Transport does not speak with one voice, and my opinions are my own.
I also don’t agree that TriMet should somehow avoid talking about this on their website. If the union is going to point out to the public the problems with management, why shouldn’t management point out problems with the union? That just makes sense. We need to have a public conversation about both management and the union making a shared sacrifice in the face of declining revenue.
I like the idea of turning the Red Line into an airport-to-Gateway shuttle for the next few years, but not permanently. We can restore full Red Line service to Beaverton in the future when funding improves.
And I’ve gotta say, charging for parking at major park-and-rides SHOULD generate a lot more than $100,000 per year. $100,000 divided by 260 days per year yields $384 per day for the ENTIRE system. Either they’re planning to charge almost NOTHING to park or they expect the cost of collecting payment to eat up most of the proceeds.
Gateway has 300 spaces. Sunset has 630 spaces. The Main Street Park and Ride by Mall 205 has 426 spaces. Parkrose/Sumner has 193 spaces. Those lots alone have 1549 spaces according to Tri-Met. I understand all of those fill up pretty early in the day. Get a net profit of $1 per space per day on just those lots, you bring in over $400,000 per year. Get $2 per space per day profit on the most popular lots and $1 on some of the not-quite-as-popular ones and there’s the potential to fairly easily bring in $1 million per year.
As for the Free Rail Zone, zefw is right — the cost should be borne by the downtown businesses that benefit from it. If a coalition of hotels and major retailers get together and come up with $2.7 million per year to keep the service, by all means keep it. Otherwise, drop it.
I disagree with the idea to shorten the red line from Beaverton to Gateway. This segment is the busiest in the system, and benefits from the decreased headway times. The blue line trains on this segment are already highly utilized. You would need to add extra blue trains to make up for the lost capacity. How much would we be saving?
Your entitled to your opinion and so am I.
I get pretty enraged when I see intentional distortions followed by “media” spitting back the nonsense without question.
Manipulation of public opinion is a serious thing,
TRIMET is the poster child of government waste, they have no intention of actually facing the REAL problem or offering fair solutions.
The employees and the public have to eat @#*& at the hands of these technocrats who only care about their paychecks and their power.
I like the idea of cutting redundant bus service in theory, but in practice, my idea, your idea, and TriMet’s idea of “redundant” probably are not the same. I’m somewhat reluctant to submit “yes, I’d like you to choose the option of cutting redundant bus service” without any mention of what exactly that entails. Likewise with the park & ride option — why would I want them to only consider a “nominal” fee? Good lord. Charge market rates for parking if you’re going to bother charging.
Basically, I worry that TriMet will use the feedback they get without publicizing that it is “forced choice”. They can say “60% of participants thought we should cut redundant bus service” or “there is wide support for a nominal parking charge” and they won’t point out that maybe people would have been equally happy to support market rate parking (or not) or that some people might not have chosen the redundant service if they knew what it meant. I’m not sure I’m willing lend them my voice for that purpose.
I like the idea of cutting redundant bus service in theory, but in practice, my idea, your idea, and TriMet’s idea of “redundant” probably are not the same. I’m somewhat reluctant to submit “yes, I’d like you to choose the option of cutting redundant bus service” without any mention of what exactly that entails. Likewise with the park & ride option — why would I want them to only consider a “nominal” fee? Good lord. Charge market rates for parking if you’re going to bother charging.
Basically, I worry that TriMet will use the feedback they get without publicizing that it is “forced choice”. They can say “60% of participants thought we should cut redundant bus service” or “there is wide support for a nominal parking charge” and they won’t point out that maybe people would have been equally happy to support market rate parking (or not) or that some people might not have chosen the redundant service if they knew what it meant. I’m not sure I’m willing lend them my voice for that purpose.
What are your ideas of “redundant” bus service. Alexis is right- each person might assume it’s referring to the other person’s service, not their own. So, why not say “yes”. TriMet was reluctant to change their routes significantly when Fred Hansen was general manager. Maybe things have changed because of the budget situation and now they realize that they need to look more at changing the route structure and not focus on reduced frequency.
Here’s my list:
1. too many lines in northwest Portland- nothing changed since streetcar went in a decade ago. One of these lines could be taken out entirely and everyone would still have access to quality transit.
2. too many lines in Northeast Portland go the same place trough or end in Lloyd District. Plus, streetcar is coming and will cover part of Line 9 route. Should connect either Line 8, 9 or 10 to Line 70- better service and save money.
3. Service on Vancouver-Williams is close to relatively good service on MLK and Mississippi- connect Mocks Crest to Fremont or run across to hook up with 27th or 33rd Ave service.
4. Eliminate 10-harold and run adjacent lines more frequently
5. Too many lines come in to downtown Portland from Southwest. End them outside downtown and run them more frequently
6. Consolidate service in east Portland and Gresham. Discontinue lines 23 and 25 and run Line 77 more often. Also, combine service and improve frequency on 181st. All Line 12 trips should go to Gresham.
7. Consolidate service in Milwaukie- discontinue Line 28 and run Line 31 more often.
8. Eliminate lines gong into transit centers on Westside- Lines 47 and 48 could just connect to Line 89 and run east-west.
What are your ideas of “redundant” bus service. Alexis is right- each person might assume it’s referring to the other person’s service, not their own. So, why not say “yes”. TriMet was reluctant to change their routes significantly when Fred Hansen was general manager. Maybe things have changed because of the budget situation and now they realize that they need to look more at changing the route structure and not focus on reduced frequency.
Here’s my list:
1. too many lines in northwest Portland- nothing changed since streetcar went in a decade ago. One of these lines could be taken out entirely and everyone would still have access to quality transit.
2. too many lines in Northeast Portland go the same place trough or end in Lloyd District. Plus, streetcar is coming and will cover part of Line 9 route. Should connect either Line 8, 9 or 10 to Line 70- better service and save money.
3. Service on Vancouver-Williams is close to relatively good service on MLK and Mississippi- connect Mocks Crest to Fremont or run across to hook up with 27th or 33rd Ave service.
4. Eliminate 10-harold and run adjacent lines more frequently
5. Too many lines come in to downtown Portland from Southwest. End them outside downtown and run them more frequently
6. Consolidate service in east Portland and Gresham. Discontinue lines 23 and 25 and run Line 77 more often. Also, combine service and improve frequency on 181st. All Line 12 trips should go to Gresham.
7. Consolidate service in Milwaukie- discontinue Line 28 and run Line 31 more often.
8. Eliminate lines gong into transit centers on Westside- Lines 47 and 48 could just connect to Line 89 and run east-west.
TransitPortland you have some interesting ideas there!
TransitPortland does make great points. I would love for us to talk more openly about what TriMet could do to really reorganize bus service to get more out of their limited dollars. Two years ago they chose the politically expedient route of across-the-board cuts (even to the core network!), which was a mistake. This is their chance to do better, since it would be very hard to further reduce frequency on the busiest routes.
1. Agreed about NW Portland. As I said, the 77 is pretty pointless. The 15 and 17 are ok since they serve the two main streets and go different places, although the 17 and the streetcar are somewhat redundant.
2. Agreed on NE Portland. We need to together the NE and SE–right now only the 6 and 75 go through, and they are over 30 blocks apart. The streetcar will only follow the 9 for a short segment, so the 9 should probably stay, but maybe it should hit Rose Quarter TC and Steel Bridge rather than Broadway Bridge once the streetcar opens. The 8 needs to stay–it connects the heart of Albert to downtown and it is relatively fast. I think 70 should interline with the 6, but it sounds like TriMet is not cool with that, so the 73 might be the next best thing. Or the 70 could combine with that crazy northern tail of the 9 to hit Alberta. Longterm we need buses down NE/SE 20th and NE/SE 28th to fix the grid down there.
3. What a great idea to connect the 44 and 24! I’ve been puzzling over what should happen with the relatively pointless Fremont line. The 44 doesn’t run very frequently anyway, so it could hook up with the similarly low-demand 24.
4. Agreed on the 10, it is a weird relic of the streetcar system. Ladd’s Addition should not have a direct bus to downtown when they have the 4 and 14 on each side.
5. SW would be a great place for a really frequent premium bus service like the BRT-lite that I wrote about awhile back. A lot of the bus routes could connect to one or two trunk routes, simplifying everything.
6. I don’t know much about this area, but I know those two routes you mention have very low ridership. I agree about the 77, and I think they should just combine the 77 and 9 and run it a lot more frequently. Does the 12 really get enough ridership that far east? I’ll have to look into that.
7. Milwaukie service will need heavy reorganization when light rail opens, so they will probably wait until then.
8. Good idea!
I like Joseph’s idea of running the Red Line from Clackamas straight up to the Airport and I wish TriMet would have included that as an option. Then the Green could just run from Gateway to PSU. However, frequency would still be lower from Beaverton to Gateway, which would be too bad but maybe not the end of the world. Remember that they are only proposing to do this during non-peak times!
It would be interesting to actually calculate what TriMet could make from parking fees. It’s terrible that they only included an option for a “nominal” fee. There must be a lot of political pressure going on here (as there always is when parking is involved).
Hooking up the Red Line to the airport and the Green to CTC might be operationally difficult, due to the need for the train to reverse direction at Gateway. Useful, certainly, but might pose issues for operations; depending on how easily and quickly the driver can shut down the cab at one end, walk to the other cab, and start up again. (I’m more concerned about procedural hurdles more than anything else).
Oh, Al, why whine about TriMet execs making 6 figures when a few bus drivers are up there too?
And not to rehash an argument from last year’s thread about unions, but I complained about many overpaid TriMet employees and didn’t get much support from fellow commenters.
Looks like something’s got to give now. People will start asking questions when their fare is raised (again).
The common logic might be to blame overboard rail development. Sure, that’s an issue, but at least people get something out of it tangibly.
If anything, TriMet is not being anti-union enough.
Seriously, nothing has irked me more (during this “recession”) than unions whining about having to scale back when many Americans have made deep sacrifices — and many Americans are unemployed and would be jump at the opportunity to make half of what some overpaid TriMet employees make.
Oh, Al, why whine about TriMet execs making 6 figures when a few bus drivers are up there too?
Ya, I think there were 3 that did that. Of course they worked 13 out of every 14 days of the year!
I doubt the pencil pushers do that.
So ws, how long have you been listening to GLEN BECK?
I suppose he is a hero to you.
Oh well, vote Republican, maybe you will get the Amerika you and the rest of people like you want.
Oh yea, there is plenty wrong with unions and work rules for sure, but the enemy (imo) are the technocrats who’s sole purpose is too deflect blame from them on anything else they can find, especially working class people.
See GREECE for a preview of what is heading to the LAND OF FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY!
Let’s keep things on the level here, gents. Since each of you got a lick in before we mods noticed, I’ll let the above remarks stand; but any further incivility will be bleeped.
As noted previously, it is unfortunate that the mostly-non-union private-sector working class finds itself fighting for scraps with the unionized public-sector working class. Unfortunately, the structural remedies available to fix that problem are beyond the scope of TriMet.
@ES, I kept it civil. I don’t know where I violated any rules that I know of.
I’ve voted mostly D, notably Obama in the last Pres elections (thanks for the logical fallacy, assuming I must be a Republican rather than argue my point I have posited, and reasoning of why many Americans are angry at unions).
When you’re a fairly recent college graduate like me, and you’ve been unemployed and underemployed most of the recession and you hear about a union whining about not getting a mandatory wage increase (who are already paid good wages) when you’re in the situation that I and many others are in, you get insulted.
Many people would kill for the jobs — and work for less and still make a decent living — that the unions have protected for many years.
That’s my story and I’m sticking to it.
Many people would kill for the jobs — and work for less and still make a decent living — that the unions have protected for many years.
Don’t worry brother, as soon as the POWER ELITE is done destroying unionized labor and have removed most benefits from every working class person then you will be able to get a Low pay, no benefits job.
In the meantime they are counting on the lower class to drag down the middle class while they (power elite) enjoy the show and laugh all the way to the banks watching the ignorance of the people doing the dirty work for them.
Does it take stroke of brilliance to be aware of the absolute insanity of the institutional structure that is placed for all to witness?
Behold, a billion and a half dollars for a MAX line where bus service is already provided.
In the next sentence:
TriMet prepares for a projected budget shortfall of $12 million to $17 million for the next fiscal year
How can both be true?
Can it be some sort of strange coincidence?
Or is there something far more sinister at work here?
Whatdayathink?
I know what I think….
Yes, TriMet’s overzealous rail development is an issue. I can admit that. But can you admit that the union is making the agency financially unstable?
As a rider, I would like a safe ride where fares are enforced. I rarely see an inspector, although they’re doing a better job.
TriMet can barely hire a dozen fare inspectors for half a million dollars in salary and benefits.
To me, that’s a problem, unless people on here think a fare inspector should get paid more than a police officer’s median income (which they do).
http://oregoncapitolnews.com/govdocs/metro/trimet-salaries/?organization=&job=0342%257CFare%2BInspector&like-first_name=&like-last_name=&total=&campaign=1&page=1
It’s tough to hide from the truth.
But can you admit that the union is making the agency financially unstable?
No brother WS, I cannot admit that.
What is obvious to me is that the banks have siphoned trillions of dollars from our pockets, that the war is draining the life out of our country, the corporate profits are at unheard of levels, all the while the meme is the UNIONS DID IT!.
While unionism is full of flaws (I point out many of them if you look at my blog) unionism is not the problem with the budgets.
Regarding the health care, which is what all the commotion is about, we have a criminal immoral system of health care in this country which bleeds the citizenry dry.
None of the problems are created by the unions or the union members.
Fraud and corruption may be part of unionism, but fraud and corruption are part of EVERYTHING!
I fear you have fallen for the power elite propaganda, I feel sorry for you.
Don’t you find it a little odd that in every single western country, the the exact same meme is being played out?
Why does China and Mexico have all the production jobs?
Because they have no unions!
Workers work for peanuts just to stay alive.
Mo money in profit for the power elite.
Come on man, you say your a college graduate, start using your power to think in abstractions.
The Story of Your Enslavement
The Story of Your Enslavement -full version
You have a point there, Scotty. It is very unfortunate that they did not build the Red Line to be more flexible in the future. That sharp turnaround is really obnoxious anyway–they should have done it like the Yellow Line and turned it left and required a short walk rather than building that hairpin-turn single-track overpass. They could run the Green and Red together if they built a short stub onto that overpass and added a crossover to the tracks, but of course that would cost a lot to build and might not be worth it. On the other hand, I don’t know if it would be a huge deal for the driver to switch to the other end at Gateway–they have three tracks so it seems like it would be doable.
But I will give you one point…
Where is the union?
Do we (the public) ever hear from them?
Do they bother defending us (and themselves) in a public forum such as this?
NOPE!
They are nowhere to be found except at union meetings.
I don’t have much use for our union to be honest.
They are just another level of wasteful bureaucracy just like Trimet management.
The only thing I realize about the union is that without them we as workers have no protections against a management who’s ethical practices are questionable.
Actually MOB protection would be of more value than union protection but all we have at our disposal is union protection.
TriMet is the poster child of waste and bloat, incredible the kind of bloated bureaucracy and wasteful union work rules we have here.
Actually, its the worst of both worlds, unionism and government.
@Al
1) I never said get rid of the unions (i.e., “union busting”). Rather, my argument is people are making sacrifices. Are unions doing the same? When I look at some of the payscales and retirement packages of many public employees to that of an average, professional citizen, I have to object.
70k for a fare inspector? Get real, dude.
2) What do bailouts have to do with the warped payscales of other professions and agencies in comparison at TriMet? Again, you’re participating in a logical fallacy; these two entities have nothing to do with one another.
3) Corporate profits, for some corporations, are *probably* at high levels because of increased labor productivity and not spending it due to uncertainty and limited demand, and also preparation for a credit crunch in which capital is limited. Just a guess.
Al and WS, it would be nice if you could just get each other’s emails so you can continue your endless argument elsewhere. It’s really getting in the way of substantive discussion of the issue at hand. My comments about unions were simply a way to explain why the shortfall is happening. Right now, like it or not, the shortfall is real and it is up to us and the rest of the public to convince TriMet to make the right decisions, rather than simply cut service across-the-board and raise fares for everyone. Can we agree on that?
I don’t understand.
The topic at hand is the budget.
It seems the cost of keeping the union fed is a salient point, not to mention you mentioning it in your initial thread.
If you want to arbitrarily enforce selective rules on what can and cannot be discussed on here, then go ahead. But I have maintained an on-topic discussion here.
Your’re the mod, but PT has been very good about self-moderation and allowing a dissenting POV to speak their minds in an intelligent manner.
I’m not sure you want to ruin what’s been an overall good experience for many on here.
Please refer to my previous comment. I made a polite request, not an enforcement of rules (I’m not a “mod” anyway). I explained that I only mentioned the unions as background. TriMet and the union are in arbitration, which means union benefits cannot legally be considered as a way to close this budget gap. It is something to think about for the future, but it is kind of pointless to argue about it now as if we could do something about it right now.
I give moderators permission to remove whatever posts you want to.
Somebody attacked the union, it’s my right to defend the union.
I’m done with this topic, I think I have covered everything I need to say about it….
Operators are the cost center for TriMet operations, hence the value of switching more riders to MAX from buses; and hence some of the opposition.
Unions representing public employees need to recognized that they are not fighting shareholders for who gets how big a piece of the company pie. Their value is to insure fairness in how work is managed, i.e.grievances.
Compensation issues should be in the hands of the governing board of a public operation whether elected (school boards) or appointed (Port of Portland, TriMet). If public employees believe they deserve higher compensation they need to appeal to the public at large to elect or have appointed board members that support that view.
I wish that more of the ardent advocates for public employee unions would go to work organizing unions in the private sector where we certainly need more.
What we really need to do is make it so health care doesn’t have to be bargained over. Recognize that health care is as essential as education, but insure success by giving everyone an account that allows them to either pick the pick the comprehensive insurance plan they want or pay for care directly as they go.
And I do have lots of thoughts on how TriMet could improve, as well as the suggestions being raised here.
And I do have lots of thoughts on how TriMet could improve, as well as the suggestions being raised here.
I want to see those Jason!
@zefwagner:
You seem to have a real liberal definition of what constitutes a “pointless” bus line. May I suggest you divulge the specifics of your daily commute on here? Because I don’t think you would suggest that any of the lines that you ride on are “pointless”.
Real people depend on these lines for their livelihood. Take a look at the 77. It provides east-west transit access from Pearl and Northwest to N/NE Portland including a major jobs center in Lloyd District, of which there are few alternatives at this point in time. The Upper Pearl, in particular, suffers from pretty scarce transit options with the exception of the Streetcar and 77, and now you propose taking one of those lines away by cutting the 77 west of Union Station. Furthermore, the 77 serves Montgomery Park which the Streetcar does not, so the lines are not completely duplicative. I know the Eastside Streetcar opens next year but personally, I would only be in favor of truncating the 77 once there are no-transfer Streetcar trips from NW 23rd to Lloyd Center, and hopefully further out to Hollywood.
How about the 44? The 44 is the most efficient service to University of Portland and St. Johns, and runs along relatively fast Willamette Blvd. Cutting service north of Fremont would be a terrible decision. You would force U-P riders to take the slow, circuitous 35 and St. Johns riders to take the even slower (and hopelessly overcrowded) 4, or force an extra transfer to the 75, which pokes along Lombard. We need to be expanding transit options to these destinations to serve a large portion of Portland’s transit-dependent population, not curtailing them.
I will agree with you on one thing: north-south bus service in SE has a large gaping hole between 11/12th and 39th. There is a pressing need for bus service along 20th and/or 28th Aves. Maybe if TriMet had bothered to put a Banfield MAX station at either of those locations, the situation would be different.
Here is ATU 757 on this:
Amalgamated Transit Union -Local 757
Also this:
Problem: Leadership, bad decision-making
Fix: Total shakeup and change in top management
Problem: Private paratransit contractors too expensive
Fix: Bring in-house and immediately save over 7 million dollars
Problem: Management Positions
Fix: Reduce top heavy management positions to 2006 levels, save 5 million dollars
Problem: Appointed Board of Directors, rubber stamp management actions
Fix: Elected Board accountable to the taxpayers
Ah, that’s more like it! Thank you for providing some real solutions-oriented ideas. It makes a lot of sense to operate paratransit in-house. People often think that private contractors always will be cheaper, but it’s all in the details and it looks like this is a case where it is not saving TriMet money. I’ve heard bad things about First Transit in the past, based on their extensive operations both here and in the UK.
Surely there are some management positions that could be cut, although I would have to see a similar audit to be convinced. Was management at the proper levels in 2006, or were they understaffed?
I agree that the board should be accountable, but I don’t think they should be directly elected. Can you imagine how politicized every bus and train line would become? The DBA could just donate massively to every candidate and they would get their Free Ride Zone and then some. I think we need either the Sound Transit model, where the board is made up of elected officials from the area like Mayors and Commissioners (so they are being elected not solely based on transit), or have them be appointed by local elected officials like the Metro Council. Metro Council has the power at any time to take over TriMet.
Something else nobody’s mentioned here yet: a rather stealthy announcement that old TriMet tickets will EXPIRE April 30, 2012!
http://trimet.org/oldtickets
IMHO, this is totally unacceptable! Anyone who rightfully purchased tickets should be able to either continue using them, and/or be allowed to exchange them for the new PC ones at any time in the future. To give another example, I have a long distance phone card that says “your minutes never expire,” even after the company who issued it was bought by another company!
Problem: Appointed Board of Directors, rubber stamp management actions
Fix: Elected Board accountable to the taxpayers
I guess I was just a bit ahead of my time. :)
In addition, it should also be required that such candidates run under whichever ORS that requires that candidates spend/receive no more than $350. AND require that at least one member at all times is a non-driver with only an Oregon ID card.
I could go on, however I’d be writing this post all night (I’m on a borrowed computer and don’t have all night). Hope everyone has a happy (insert your preferred holiday/non-holiday of choice here)!
or have them be appointed by local elected officials like the Metro Council. Metro Council has the power at any time to take over TriMet.
~~~>YUP!
Budget “choices” | MAX FAQs
My Post:
TRIMET’S SMOKE AND MIRRORS CAMPAIGN AGAINST THE PUBLIC AND EMPLOYEES
Perhaps the zone spread should be increased. There’s only a 30c difference between a 2 and All Zone fare. Made sense when it was 90c/$1.20 (33% diff.) but now it’s pathetic at $2.10/$2.40 (14% diff.)
Perhaps the fare increase should both raise the zone spread to 50c and move to 25c increments, such as $2.25/$2.75 or $2.50/$3.00.
Or maybe there should be more zones (each suburb could be its own zone).
I don’t think transfers should be totally eliminated, but maybe should go back to some of the old-time restrictions: no round trips, must be used on first available bus, etc. That way people could still get to a destination on one fare but giving away/selling transfers would be harder.
BTW, IIRC about 1990 ads were printed on Tri-Met transfers: I remember one was a 2-for-1 coupon on personal pizza at some pizza place. Ads which offer something are a good thing!
Charging for P&R: Great idea!
Raise the Honored fare to exactly 50% of the general public fare (rounded down to the next quarter if need be – 12c increments aren’t worthwhile).
Abolish the Youth discount or lower the age for having to pay adult fare to 12. Schools should be encouraged to participate in pass programs similar to what the colleges have.
Charge extra for Express buses, though I know there are so few in the Tri-Met system that this may not raise much money.
This would probably be illegal, but turn Tri-Met into a rider-owned co-op with voting rights proportional to fares paid in the last year (for simplicity’s sake, perhaps limit to passholders).
A rider-elected board would probably take problems more seriously.
“This would probably be illegal, but turn Tri-Met into a rider-owned co-op with voting rights proportional to fares paid in the last year (for simplicity’s sake, perhaps limit to passholders).
A rider-elected board would probably take problems more seriously.”
Sounds crazy…but I like it.
I’m amazed at the wealth of knowledge about transit from everyday bloggers and commenters. The real question is, why not do something similar to this!?
Connecting 44 to 24 is not a bad idea. Back in the 1980’s and 1990’s route 41 used to go direct from PCC Sylvania to Gateway TC.
If that happens, it is possible, however, they may reduce service to to 35-40 min headway between PCC and Gateway. Which means No weekend service on the Fremont portion, or have it set 40-45 headway, 60 at night
However, if you did that, what are you going to do with route 44 Mocks Crest? Connect with Route 43 Taylors Ferry and do 60 minute headway between St. Johns and Washington TC on Weekdays?
Someone mentioned about adding a zone for the subards, ? Tri-Met used to have a 5-zone structure before it cut to a 3 zone structure back when very first light rail was in service back in September 1986. Adding additional zones in my opinion may cause more headaches than it is now. Like why you want to put Gresham or Hillsboro as Zone 4. Forest Grove, possibly Estacada as Zone 5?
Look at the zone structure for Golden Gate Transit which is based in Marin and Sonoma Counties. May ending up more for distance based and some people may not like it. Plus, they are rasing fares by 5% every year.
OK.. in addition, put new fare boxes. Look at Charriots Transit in Salem, OR. Eventhough, they are a small agency, but they just installed new fare boxes. The electronic “tap” or magnetic is not setup yet, it is ready to go, should the transit agency is ready to do a disposible “tap” card for all day tickets.
Schools in the pass program. Lets see, the Oregon energy credit which subsedised funds for use on transit for High school has expired and will not be renewed. Yes, it is possible, but schools especially in the Portland area needs to work with Tri-Met for this since there are NO school bus options in the Portland area with the exception of the westside of the city (Lincoln, Wilson). Where school bus still exist due to areas not served by a public bus areas (close to LO city limits, parts of council crest, skyline blvd, etc).
Raise the H/C to 50% of value. Hmm.. Tri-Met has already agreed not to increase fares for H/C until at least 2013. Recently last spring/summer, there are a hearing to raise LIFT fares to an exorbinat amount, a round of seniors/disabled came to the hearing (most in wheelchairs) fought against the idea stating it too much strain into their budget and most on a fixed income. Board decidded to recind the increase at that time.
To increase the H/C fare would breach the agreement and put more strain as it is. Refering back to Golden Gate Transit as an example.
For no round trip ticket return, need to rebrand the paper transfer or an electronic media/magnetic transfer for this to happened. For paper transfer, need to punch route taken and direction similar to the old C-Tran transfer policy many moons ago/Greys Harbor transit/TTC in Toronto. For magnetic, similar to Golden Gate Transit/ or DDT/Smart in Detroit.
Exchanging old for new tickets. This is nothing new since other transit agencies are upgrading ticket/electronic ticket.
In Toronto at the TTC, they’ve changed their shape of tokens and eliminating adult ride tickets which if you could exchanged them, you couldn’t.
IN Oakland, CA, AC transit is converting all funds to Clipper Card only. so I had to exchange all of my old 10 ride tickets, paper tickets, and tokens to a clipper card.
In really things are changing.
My thoughts on TriMet and the budget issues:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AV9dp5-9hus
National single-payer health care (like Canada) or an NHS (like the UK) would have eliminated many of these budget problems. Missed opportunities….