As noted in the Open Thread, TriMet’s board approved the agency’s Fiscal Year 2013 budget at today’s board meeting, a somewhat controversial proposal that included the abolition of Free Rail Zone, a fare hike and a flattening of the fare structure, and another round of service cuts. The good folks at OPAL were out in force, advocating for their alternate budget which included (as the big ticket items) a significant reduction in TriMet’s Streetcar subsidy, and a far smaller contingency plan.
I have my concerns with the OPAL proposal–in particular, reducing the contingency fund does not strike me as wise, given the uncertainty around TriMet’s labor situation. Were the contingency fund to be reduced and then TriMet to lose, an additional $5M or more in service cuts would have to be imposed. If TriMet prevails, the money not spent this year can be used to offset necessary cuts next year, or even restore service. And a good argument can be made that the Streetcar contribution represents a contractual obligation of TriMet that can’t be cut. (Whether this was a wise idea in the first place is another matter, but that’s water under the bridge).
However, TriMet would be wise to treat presenters at its board meetings with greater respect, even if it ultimately rejects their advice. The agency seems to have developed an affinity for procedural shenanigans to cut off debate that they don’t want to hear, such as trying to exclude the OPAL proposal from consideration as it wasn’t on the agenda. Perhaps its the case that the board made up its mind long ago, feels that further discussion of the matter is a waste of everybody’s time, and is only holding a public forum due to the requirements of open meetings law–but this no way to run a railroad. The people of OPAL are TriMet’s friends and customers. Unlike some others who show up and testify at TriMet board meetings, OPAL wants to improve the agency and its service, not undermine and/or abolish it.
With that in mind, some longer-term advice for the agency. Some of this is stuff I’ve written before, but it bears repeating.
Constrain capital projects
Notice that I’m not saying “stop” or “embargo” or “moratorium”. “Constrain” is a less restrictive term. But there are specific issues–real and perceived–with parts of the region’s capital spending on transit–which have caused some critics of the agency to regard all capital spending as suspect.
Major capital projects ought to be subject to the following conditions.
- To the extent that projects depend on either TriMet’s operating revenue and/or bonding authority, they ought to have a positive return on investment. Buying new busses is an example of an obvious win–it’s far more cost effective to keep a fleet within its service life than it is to scrape along with busses that break down all the time, may not have parts available, and lack modern amenities (or need to use wheelchair lifts for ADA compliance). This is even true if the agency has to borrow money to buy the vehicles.
- Conversely, if a project is funded mostly or solely from grant monies, be very mindful of what strings may be attached to those grants, particularly if the service is not expected to serve a great number of riders. Many FTA grants for new capital projects require continuous operation of the service for a long period of time, which reduces the agency’s ability to respond to downturns or other adverse conditions. And if the project is a boondoggle–a certain Washington County commuter rail line comes to mind–this can be an expensive mistake to make. If TriMet is to make service commitments, it should ensure that it is on routes/corridors where it expects to need to provide that service. A key objection to the Streetcar subsidy is that TriMet might choose to reduce service on the Streetcar corridors to implement budget cuts, on the grounds that it’s a lower-priority service, but is prevented from doing so and thus has to cut bone instead.
- Projects should not result in reduced or less attractive transit service for the majority of affected users. This doesn’t mean that routes should never be reconfigured, but adverse effect should be minimized–particularly loss of service altogether, loss of service span, or significant reductions in speed or frequency. If one-seat rides are replaced with transfers, then the transfers ought to be timed or frequent.
- Projects that are being primarily for reasons other than improving transit service or efficiency (such as economic development, garnering Federal grants, land use/placemaking, or improving environmental outcomes), in particular, need to be done in such a way to avoid adverse effects on existing transit service and customers. Many elected officials, not charged with operating TriMet, seem to like leveraging the agency for FTA grants. While this often has a net benefit for the overall economy–FTA grants are essentially “free money”–the political sponsors of these programs may not always be mindful of the potential impacts on those who depend on the service. In the worst cases, they may not care–they may not have transit riders as part of their constituency (or riders may be constituents who can be easily marginalized). As the transit provider, TriMet needs to act as gatekeeper to ensure that it projects are in the best interests of the riders that it is charged to serve. TriMet, first and foremost, is in the transportation business, and its primary focus needs to be getting people from A to B.
More transparency, please
This should go without saying, but sunlight is the best disinfectant. Anywhere there’s a black box, there will be people wondering what is hiding inside the box. Other than Human Resources data or information concerning ongoing negotiations, bids, etc.–there’s very little information at TriMet that merits secrecy. TriMet is not the State Department; nor is it a public corporation that needs to keep trade secrets safe from competitors. As much internal planning, forecasting, and other data as possible should be made public–and “made public” ought to include “downloadable from the Internet”. This includes things like primary source data for published reports, so others can check the agency’s work. No need to spend money on fancy web infrastructure–simply putting this up on an FTP site will suffice; those of use in the activist/journalist business will be happy to assist with cataloging and arranging the interesting stuff.
A Culture of Ridership
This topic heading may sound too buzz-wordy (management-speak is full of platitudes about cultures of this or that), but it’s an important point, and one that it can be argued, subsumes all the others made in this article: TriMet needs to focus on its riders. Period. Not on being a conduit for federal funds. Not on transit oriented development. Not on technology. TriMet needs to focus on ridership and service. Other goals may be important, particularly environmental outcomes (and transit plays a big part in this!) but these are things that TriMet should not be the owner of. TriMet needs to own transit–that, and nothing else, is its raison d’etre.
And if necessary, TriMet needs to have a management structure which reinforces that. Right now, the TriMet board answers to the governor, meaning there’s a loss of focus on the needs of the Portland metro area. And the board has long consisted of business and political leaders, often with little or no transit knowledge. While many of these folks are certainly competent in their fields, it isn’t a stretch to suggest that many are appointed in large part due to their connections, their status as “community pillars”, and the overall gravitas of their resumes, not because of specific qualifications in the field of public transit or an ability to represent the interests of riders. And in some cases, the appointment may give rise to the appearance of a conflict of interest, such as is the case when real estate interests find themselves seated on the board.
And this, if I may make the suggestion, is an area where OPAL and other rider advocates may help. Metro seems to not be interested in taking over TriMet (though they have legal authority to do so), and legislative changes to TriMet’s organization structure are likewise not on the radar. If an agency which truly represents the interests of riders is the goal, then governance which is congruent with that goal would be a highly beneficial thing.
37 responses to “Some (more) friendly advice for TriMet”
TriMet would be wise to treat presenters at its board meetings with greater respect, even if it ultimately rejects their advice.
Agreed. (I was once told my contributions were not appreciated.) If the board doesn’t like the comments from the general public, then they should reconsider why they’re in public service; period.
Metro seems to not be interested in taking over TriMet (though they have legal authority to do so)
You mention this one month after an election including, among other positions, several Metro Council positions. This message being one month late simply adds to the distortion.
I recall that Portland Afoot asked the new Metro Councilors whether they favored taking over TriMet and the answer was still no. It may be that Metro fears the added bureaucratic nightmare of managing TriMet. My solution would be to keep TriMet as its own agency but have the Metro Council appoint the board instead of the Governor. This would ensure local accountability. This kind of system might require new legal authority, I’m not really sure.
Good piece of work here Scott.
The only thing I take issue with is Mcfarlane (that is NOT what I call him at my site btw) budgeting for a win with the union.
He had no business doing that, and he knows it.
He should have created his budget with the current contract, and if they won they have extra bucks, not assume that they were going to win.
This man has serious ethics problems.
BTW- at this meeting the president did not announce, as they usually do we are not required to take public testimony.
Trimet was specifically set up so the voter can not influence it.
It’s pathetic that we have to put with this, but then again, it is gubmint.
@al: I would disagree that planning for a likely contingency constitutes bad ethics–if TriMet thinks ATU will win the arbitration, and given how it’s gone so far, that seems likely–including that prediction in one’s budget strikes me as reasonable.
Otherwise, we’d be back here doing this all again. We may be back here anyway.
@zef: Would a Metro take-over be better, or would amending state law concerning mass transit districts to permit a directly-elected transit district, independent of the State of Oregon, Metro, or any municipal government? The “special district” model of governance works well for things like school districts and water districts and such. For those critical of TOD, I’ve yet to hear of “education oriented development” or “park oriented development” or “fire station oriented development”–these sorts of agencies focus on servicing existing demand, not future demand. The boards that staff special purpose districts are more likely to be representatives of users of the service. Governors, legislators, mayors, and councilors who have plenary taxing authority and general government powers seem to be more susceptible to special-interest capture than are those in charges with more esoteric and limited functions of government.
The over-use of special districts can lead to inequitable differences in quality of service–this is a problem for school districts, where rich districts offer a better education than do poor ones. Transit balkanization is a problem in some cities, especially if the agencies engage in turf wars. But if we assume that such a change would only be a change in TriMet’s governance, not in its scope, we’d still have the advantage of a well-integrated transit system.
In related news, libertarian anti-transit scold Randall O’Toole takes a few swings at Portland mayoral candidate Charlie Hales.
Scott what I am saying is that Mcfarlane created his budget with a win against the union.
Do you understand my point? He should not have done that, he should have created his budget with current contract.
Why did he do it this way?
TO MAKE THE UNION THE BAD GUYS
And that my friend is an ethics problem
Which budget do you mean? FY12?
Last year, McFarlane seemed confident of a win against ATU757. You remember the interview back in 2011, he pretty much assumed a win and basically accused the union of stalling.
Since then, it appears he has learned a thing or two about labor arbitration and the Oregon state Employee Relations Board. Which is why the tone has changed–not just in the budget assumptions, but in the public posture to the union (and the occasional threat to undo the vital-worker designation for public transit employees and force a strike).
The solution to all of this, unfortunately, is more robust and through health care reform (stuff more robust than Obamacare). The union and TriMet are essentially fighting over who has to eat the rising costs of healthcare.
You remember the interview back in 2011, he pretty much assumed a win and basically accused the union of stalling.
Mcfarlane is a BS’r!
Al,
Are you just upset that you might have to take the heat for the next round of cuts if the union wins? Sure, if McFarlane had budgeted for a union win, he would look like the bad guy either way. Now the union will need to answer for any additional cuts.
Maybe the union could focus more on getting rid of dead weight and encouraging healthy lifestyle choices to bring healthcare costs down?
The healthiest activity a bus driver could do is not drive a bus.
A note on just a couple of items –
Both TriMet’s and OPAL’s proposals included $5 million in contingency in case ATU wins in arbitration with TriMet, and OPAL’s recommendation was not to reduce the contingency. It was to increase the contingency from $10 million (FY 2012 budget) to $15 million to address the labor arbitration. TriMet was proposing a $10 million increase to $20 million, while OPAL and partners argued that the second $5 million was not well explained and would be better spent preventing a nearly 20% fare increase.
Also, I haven’t seen it in the news reporting, but all the advocacy led to a decision by the TriMet board to spend an additional $1 million on a program that provides discount tickets for low income riders through social service agencies. It’s not enough to address the impact of the fare increase, but it’s something.
OPAL would be more effective if it did not make the artifical distinction between bus and rail riders. Many TriMet riders, if not most, are both; its a system. And rail investments here, unlike LA, serve the less well off parts of the region…Rockwood, outer SE, N. Portland, putting their residents within reach of good jobs on places like Swan Island.
And they need to show some backbone with the union and their benefits package. It is unacceptable that transit riders get service cuts when ops are paying next to nothing to cover their health insurance. Most transit riders share in the cost of their health insurance, if they have it. Public employees need to step up.
A minor correction concerning LA’s rail lines.
The first two lines (the Red and Purple lines) serve Hollywood and environs, and drew criticism and a lawsuit for not being equitable.
Several of LA’s light rail lines now serve poor neighborhoods. The Green Line serves many poor parts of south LA, and the Gold Line serves much of East LA.
Maybe the union could focus more on getting rid of dead weight and encouraging healthy lifestyle choices to bring healthcare costs down?
~~~>The union REPRESENTS its workforce, TRIMET hires them. WAKE T/F UP! And funny how the public never criticizes the most powerful of public
workers unions,The police union
The healthiest activity a bus driver could do is not drive a bus.
~~He got that right!
Also, I haven’t seen it in the news reporting, but all the advocacy led to a decision by the TriMet board to spend an additional $1 million on a program that provides discount tickets for low income riders through social service agencies
~~~>at least they threw you a bone, that’s quite an accomplishment no doubt!
And they need to show some backbone with the union and their benefits package. It is unacceptable that transit riders get service cuts when ops are paying next to nothing to cover their health insurance
~~~>Lenny Anderson is always Lenny Anderson. And there is a big difference between the bus and rail!
Rail suffered no cuts in service.
Furthermore Lenny, what do you know about driving transit. It’s a job that kills you so don’t sit on your high horse and say they need to step up! Why doesn’t FRED HANSEN step up and return half of his $15,700/month pension.
Look, these sock puppets are the worst. They make excuses for Mcfarlane, then approve $111,000,000 dollars in additional debt. And in the same breath they RAISE FARES AND CUT BUS SERVICE.
I have lost all respect for the board of sock puppets. (not like I ever had any respect for them, but this last meeting was totally despicable.)
The argument goes one step further in this rail nonsense.
People like LENNY sit wherever they are and whine about our benefits.
But building a light rail line @ 250,000,000 a mile you have no problem with?
Get T/F outtahere!
Rail service has seen some cuts in service, and with a cost per ride at a fraction of bus service, it only makes sense to invest in more rail. If only to reduce the number of operators required to provide service, as operators are the cost center of the system. Too bad the “militants” at the TriMet local of the ATU don’t go to work for Coach America and organize their operators. They really need it.
But no whining here, I just hate to tell Swan Island transit riders that they could get less service while their operators don’t pay a dime for health care.
al, it’s not “whining” about benefits to point out that Tri-Met employees have a gold-plated benefits package that is eating up Tri-Met’s operations budget. And it isn’t union-bashing to suggest that Tri-Met employees should be responsible for part of their own health care out-of-pocket — the same arrangement that nearly every other public OR private employee has.
Whether the Milwaukie light rail line is a good use of CAPITAL dollars has nothing — NOTHING — to do with the operations budget or health care. And by the way, who here has “no problem” with $200 million per mile? I remember a lot of commentors here (myself included) questioning the price tag and why it cost so damn much. I don’t recall anyone arguing the price was reasonable.
Its disappointing that this discussion descends at times to name calling. I’m not interested.
Thanks for more detail on LA. My point is that we built our first light rail line to Gresham…not too upscale a place by way of Rockwood, even less. Some have charged that it was the downfall of the latter, others that lightrail gentrified N. Portland. Neither is true, but that’s another discussion. But all the current MAX lines with the possible exception of the westside Blue line reach into communities of working class people and connect them to jobs in places like Swan Island. And the last decade has seen a significant increase in the number of Frequent Service bus lines to all corners of the region. The challange is bus service to areas with low density and auto oriented urban form. Some are not sustainable with few riders and an operator that costs the same as a MAX driver.
Operators are not only a major cost center, but they are also the human face of transit and one of the joys of bus riding. A bus that arrives on time with a friendly greeting from the Op is a real upper. A former operator in the Scheduling department was the guy who launched the 85 Swan Island in ’95; it was operators with support from their supervisor, a former operator, who urged TriMet to extend the 85 to Mock’s Bottom in ’04.
We try to get operators to re-sign the 85 Swan Island so they can get to know our riders and visa versa. It just makes a huge difference in the quality of the “product.”
That said, the organized employees of TriMet need to step up and be part of the solution and share some of the pain with their riders on this one. Yes, the work is hard, but so is operating a paper machine at St. Helens papermill, and I am sure that the members of AWPPW there understand that if the mill is struggling to make it, they are going to have to give a little. For them the alternative is the closure of the mill or the shutt down of a paper machine. Public unions have the luxury of no such threat, so they just need to find a way to take the high road and help keep an essential public service whole.
Even the Westside MAX serves a great number of poor communities and neighborhoods: There are many trailer parks along the line (all of them existing prior to the line’s opening). Keep in mind, Westside MAX west of Beaverton runs on an old freight ROW, so the adjoining land was for a long time not considered desirable for housing.
OPAL would be more effective if it did not make the artifical distinction between bus and rail riders. Many TriMet riders, if not most, are both; its a system
TriMet would be more effective if it did not make the artificial distinction between bus and rail riders. But it does each and every single day, but giving enhanced service and amenities to rail riders and opening up the pursestrings for virtually unlimited rail investment, while telling bus riders that their stops can’t be afforded a modest investment like a new bus shelter or a concrete pad for ADA access, or a bus that isn’t 22 years old and constantly breaking down, or a bus that has air conditioning for the summer…or maybe even having bus schedules and maps available at the bus stop…
The distinction is REAL. And TriMet is to blame for inflicting it – not OPAL who is standing the ground for bus riders who have put up with it for far too long. 40% of MAX vehicles aren’t without air conditioning; 7/8ths of MAX stops aren’t just signs on the side of the ballast.
with a cost per ride at a fraction of bus service, it only makes sense to invest in more rail.
And that is due to budget games – TriMet routinely shifts costs off of the rail operations budget, that the equivalent bus expenditure is treated as operating (such as replacement vehicle costs which are rightfully a capital cost no matter what)…TriMet’s excessive borrowing costs for light rail construction are treated as operating and then shared with bus, so bus riders are forced to pay for rail costs. TriMet’s insistence on disinvestment in the bus fleet requires bus riders to pay for increased maintenance and downtime, and more fuel consumption – TriMet could be a leader in buying fuel-efficient hybrid-electric articulated buses – this would allow TriMet to increase service while decreasing costs (including labor expense – reducing 15 minute bus service to 20 minute with articulated buses is still an increase in seats, but with a 25% drop in labor expense – and with articulated buses it is a greater than 25% reduction in fuel expense – while providing better service.)
Instead…TriMet’s more interested in playing politics and catering to the pro-rail crowd, at the expense of the integrated transit system. To use Lenny’s own words – “Many TriMet riders, if not most, are both; its a system.” Therefore, how can Lenny justify investing only in rail, without investing in the system as a whole – it is Lenny himself that is perpetuating the rail versus bus divide.
That isn’t name calling, that isn’t a personal attack. That’s using the statements given in this very forum. And it’s a fact TriMet’s bus fleet is disinvested in, and is among the oldest, least reliable and least fuel efficient in North America – TriMet has even admitted as such in public statements.
I wanted to highlight this very interesting pro-direct-election argument from Scotty. I’ve never heard it elsewhere:
“For those critical of TOD, I’ve yet to hear of ‘education oriented development’ or ‘park oriented development’ or ‘fire station oriented development’–these sorts of agencies focus on servicing existing demand, not future demand. The boards that staff special purpose districts are more likely to be representatives of users of the service.”
P.S. Lenny, I think OPAL has definitely moderated its bus-vs-rail language and attitude over the last two years, though it continues to use the “Bus Riders Unite” brand name and to fall on the rail-skeptic side of the transit advocacy world. I also think they sometimes dip into anti-rail ideology when it’s useful, though.
As organizers, OPAL cuts off its nose to spite its face by dividing its potential base from the get go. They should be organizing “Transit Riders United.” And I would fully support them. That said, it could well be that they choose to focus on bus service as a lead issue, but again, bus riders use rail and visa versa. It is a shame for them to line up with the anti-rail (actually anti-transit) yahoos in Clackamas county for political reasons. And they need to establish independence from the ATU.
re bus service, I think the growth in FS service came under Hansen’s tenure, and new buses are on the way. Its difficult to take seriously the charge that a train that carries 300 does not have a better cost per ride than a bus that carries 30, not matter how you keep the books. I presume the FTA sets the standards for that. Anyway, we need both buses and trains to make the system work. We have bus lines everywhere, but still no trains in the SE (its coming) or SW (next!) corridors. When we do, more than half the riders on TriMet will be on MAX.
and with a cost per ride at a fraction of bus service
~~~>OK Lenny, you tell me how many years does it take to make the rail ‘cost effective’ after installation via tax dollars? It’s cheaper per ride because Trimet won’t use articulated 60 foot buses.
I just hate to tell Swan Island transit riders that they could get less service while their operators don’t pay a dime for health care.
~~~~>OK so obviously that will have to change won’t it. Which is too bad because Trimet did the right thing giving us decent health care. But the world wide race to the bottom is unstoppable apparently. But really, the exec’s all get a free pass with this nonsense. The whole world focuses on the unions. I sure smell conspiracy and manipulation of the truth in order to incite class warfare
t’s not “whining” about benefits to point out that Tri-Met employees have a gold-plated benefits package that is eating up Tri-Met’s operations budget.
~~~>Get T/F outahere with that “golden plated” media hype. We get crappy pensions and the problem as Scott has mentioned is a crisis in American health care, its not a Trimet problem but Trimet is dragged into it. I would propose that are pay and benefits be equivalent to Seattle. So raise our top pay $3.00 and cut our health care. I say again, you don’t know how it is to drive a bus. I suggest you look at the OPAL presentation to see the falacy of the TRIMET executives budget baloney.
That said, the organized employees of TriMet need to step up
~~~>As I said, the race to the bottom cannot be stopped
Even the Westside MAX serves a great number of poor communities and neighborhoods:
~~~>I got news for you, 65% of transit dependent riders which are mostly economically disadvantaged, ride the buses. The cuts in bus service hurt the weakest citizens. And Trimet won’t even charge for the park and rides? What downright gall.
In conclusion let me be clear The bus service has been getting whacked since Fred Hansen got here. Trimet does the dividing as Erik says.
Take a look THIS CHART.
Bus service stopped growing when Fred got here in 1998/99 and has gone down since then.
The chart is one way to visualize the bus service vs the MAX.
And MORE PEOPLE ride the bus than the MAX- so you tell me, what should be cut?
I would argue strongly against direct election of a transit board. Why? Because unlike parks, or water, or schools, which all have a goal of universal access, transit is a product that simply can’t be available for everyone at a decent cost and in a sustainable way. Because transit is so dependent on density to be successful, a directly elected board would be far too tempted to extend empty bus lines to all corners of the district, even more so than TriMet does now. Imagine how easy it would be for special interests to get their own personal bus line just by pressuring board members or paying into their campaign funds. That’s not a recipe for good policy. Board members should be relatively free from direct political pressure, but should also be somehow locally accountable. That’s why I favor either a locally appointed board or a board that does not only run the transit agency. In King County (where Seattle is), for example, the county council is also the board for Metro. They are accountable, but they also serve many roles and are better able to resist pressures for improper transit services.
Jim Howell says Trimet is doing it all wrong
John Charles also has some friendly advice for Trimet
I especially like Steve Schoops friendly advice for
Trimet
I’ve seen governance structures proposed where riders (i.e passholders) have some influence than non-riders have.
Whether that would be a legal arrangement for a public entity, I don’t know.
What gets cut are buses than not very many people ride, and there are a lot of them. Its pretty amazing how many bus lines cost us, the public, more than $5 for each ride.
re “artics”….I would rather have a 40′ bus every 15 minutes or better than at 60′ bus every 20. Anyway, larger buses could only make sense on FS lines, which aren’t the problem anyway.
I expect with the election of the former Mayor of Tigard to Metro (with no opposition, and he a big MAX fan) that things will get busier on the SW corridor. Folks that live out there need to get busy to see than transit gets its own right of way, regardless of vehicle type. I can’t see SW Portland settling for BRT (Bad Republican Transit).
while telling bus riders that their stops can’t be afforded a modest investment like a new bus shelter or a concrete pad for ADA access
How much would that cost for 8,000 stops, and how many large transit agencies have that at every single stop? How many riders use (or would use) the average bus stop vs. MAX station? How many MAX stations are there in a typical distance vs. bus stops?
excessive borrowing costs for light rail construction are treated as operating and then shared with bus
Do you have proof those costs actually get put in the bus category?
reducing 15 minute bus service to 20 minute with articulated buses
Is that a good thing or bad thing? Lenny seems to think the latter.
least fuel efficient in North America – TriMet has even admitted as such in public statements.
Where?
What gets cut are buses than not very many people ride, and there are a lot of them. Its pretty amazing how many bus lines cost us, the public, more than $5 for each ride.
~~~~>Oh I thought you were talking about that albatross called the WES!
What is that?
$18-$20 a ride, and that’s with record ridership.
Lenny doesn’t quite understand the concept of regional coverage.
That means you can get places on transit-its got nothing to do with ridership.
But Lenny and most Americans are now focused on money, which is sad because the same country that takes our taxes, by the billions, and gives billions of tax breaks to corporations and rich people, then spends trillions on foreign war to kill innocents, don’t want to pay for bus service or health insurance to American citizens.
You can’t get much sicker as a society than that.
Plenty of money to kill- no money for its citizens.
All your of you anti union people are basically just suckers, and I really believe that.
The Plan to Blame Unions For Everything
Hey, I’m pro-union,especially in the private sector where we need union militants the most,…I just think you guys need to pay a little something for health care. What’s the big deal in that? Relax!
Or lobby the legislature to raise the TriMet tax, or start an initiative petition for a property tax measure to pay for TriMet employee health care. I might even vote YES.
And by all means tax the rich, break up the banks, and get everyone onto a single payer health insurance plan. ASAP.
re WES, talk to the Washington County board of supervisors about that one, not TriMet. I am sure if TriMet planners had had their say, it would have been a full deal MAX line, not a cut rate, part time affair it is. And don’t forget WES started running just about the time the Bush super recession got going, and the country was shedding hundred of thousands of jobs every month thanks to criminal banks, massive tax cuts for the rich and a totally unwarranted, unfunded war in Iraq. All of which is, as well, the source of our local budget struggles at TriMet…fewer people working and making less. All that said,
as I sit down to write yet another $2000 plus check for 3 mos. health insurance, I think the ops and mechanics at TriMet can afford a $100 a month for theirs.
.I just think you guys need to pay a little something for health care.
When I left Trimet I was paing $330/mo for my healthcare as a part time employee. That was the last year, before that I was paying $165/mo.
(it actually went down when I retired as a full timer)
It’s not that I don’t understand what your saying but the health care crisis is national in scope!
The human tendency is too go with “i don’t got that, why should anybody” but that is totally wrong thinking!
It should be how do we the rest of America the kind of coverage that Trimet operators have?
Not the other way around “how do we drag down the Trimet employees to the level of health insurance we have”
You drag one sector down you make it easier for nobody to get up.
And if you take a universal angle approach, the money they are arguing about is chump change when it comes to all of our cumulative taxes.
And I have made the following statement many times, and will make it again.
If all the Trimet non union employees making over 100k yearly took a 15% reduction in their pay, then it would be equitable
See the executives have given nothing!
They are following the template that has been laid out at the highest levels of mass manipulators.
I am not going for any universal templates.
This is the exact same issue around the whole world.
It’s not Trimet specific. How can the same problem affect different organizations and different countries exactly the same?
The public is being played for suckers and they are buying into it hook, line, and sinker.
“Get T/F outahere with that “golden plated” media hype. We get crappy pensions and the problem as Scott has mentioned is a crisis in American health care, its not a Trimet problem but Trimet is draged into it.”
No, it is gold plated.
In my entire 20 year career with 10 different companies, I have never had private industry offer health coverage as comprehensive or cheap as yours.
To cover my spouse and single child I currently pay over $200 every two weeks for coverage with a $3000 deductible. The plan with a low deductible cost $400 every two weeks.
So tell me again why Tri-Met operators couldn’t vote to take on a little more of their own insurance costs?
It’s not anti-union to expect that a union may need to give *somewhere*. That is why it is a *negotiation*.