Author Archive | EngineerScotty

Updated 4X: WE HAVE A DEAL! TriMet, ATU 757 ratify contract agreement

Breaking news:  ATU Local 757 has ratified the tentative contract agreement; TriMet’s operators are now operating under a contract (excluding those retroactively imposed by OLRB) for the first time in, seemingly, forever.  The deal is retroactive to November 2012, and expires in November 2016.  The deal will produce savings for the agency of $50M compared to the current collective bargaining agreement; don’t know how it compares to TriMet’s earlier proposals.


 

 

 

 

Terms of the deal have not been announced, but multiple sources are reporting that a tentative deal between TriMet and it’s operators’ union, the Amalgamated Transit Union Local 757, has been struck.

I have not seen any official release or announcement from the ATU; will update this post if I find one.

Terms of the deal, which must be approved by both the TriMet board and the ATU rank and file, have not been disclosed.

After years of acrimony, and bickering over pointless things (on both sides), it’s nice to see a deal struck rather than imposed in arbitration (assuming this gets ratified).  Better employee relations make for better service, if nothing else.

Update:  A statement from the ATU, posted on the “Transit Voice” Facebook account:

TriMet and the Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 757 have reached a tentative labor agreement on a new contract. The parties reached this agreement after 45 sessions with the assistance of State Conciliator Janet Gillman. The agreement sets the terms of a new Collective Bargaining Agreement for four years through November 30, 2016. Additionally it resolves two cases pending before the State Court of Appeals as well as cases pending at the State Employment Relations Board. The agreement is subject to ratification by both the TriMet Board of Directors and the membership of the ATU. The parties bargaining teams will be recommending the details of this agreement soon with their Board and membership.

Update 2:  Someone ATU President Bruce Hansen  appears to have postedleaked the contract terms to a Twitter account.

Update 3:  The authenticity of the Twitter account @BruceHansen11 appears to be in question; indeed, given that the terms of the contract are supposed to be confidential, a leak from ATU management would be unlikely.  A certain former bus driver (and former PT contributor) is not happy with the deal, and appears to believed that the leaked terms are genuine.

Making BRT faster

No, I’m not talking about travel speeds.  As Portland currently has no BRT, there’s nothing to make faster (other than existing local bus service, over which any decent BRT would be an improvement).

Instead, I’m talking about rolling out BRT faster.

Right now, Portland has two BRT (or potential BRT) projects that have advanced passed the line-on-a-map-in-a-planning-document phase:  The Southwest Corridor, and the Powell/Division project.  (There’s also the Fourth Plain BRT in Vancouver, being planned and built by C-TRAN).

A few other ideas have been discussed in significant detail; probably the most prominent of these a proposed BRT line along TV Highway between Beaverton and Forest Grove (or at least Hillsboro).  TV Highway has been the subject of a corridor study  which included BRT as a recommendation (and it’s been on numerous planning maps since), but there is no project to actually build out BRT in the 57 corridor.

Powell/Division’s project timeline calls for it to begin service in 2020.  A firm timeline for the SWC doesn’t exist yet–the start of the DEIS phase has been delayed–but given the scope of the project, we’re looking probably at a decade or more before service opens.  Major capital projects, particularly those that seek Federal funding, simply have long lead times.

But Portland transit riders can benefit from improved bus service today.  (Improved rail service as well, but this article is focused on the bus system).

There’s probably not much to be done about big capital projects–the politics and red tape involved is not likely to go away.  But are there ways to bring BRT on board without large capital outlays?

Some thoughts, after the jump.

Continue Reading →

Rethinking transit on the west side

 

No, this is not a post about the Southwest Corridor project, though that is certainly a relevant topic here.  Instead, it’s an update on the Service Enhancement Plans covering the west side of town, both the Westside SEP (covering Beaverton, Aloha, Hillsboro, Cornelius, Forest Grove, Cedar Mill, Cedar Hills, and Bethany), and the Southwest SEP (covering SW Portland, Tigard, Durham, King City, Tualatin, Sherwood, Lake Oswego, and West Linn).  TriMet published the Westside plan last year, and Portland Transport examined it then.  Now, TriMet has published a draft vision for the Southwest region, and is seeking public comment.  While the Southwest SEP draft anticipates somewhat the Southwest Corridor project, it doesn’t include it.  Oh, and the SW map also drops a few more hints (and contains a few revisions) of plans for the Westside.

The obvious caveat:  This is a vision document, not something for which there (necessarily) exists funding to pay for.  Both plans include substantial increases in service hours–and there are many things in these documents that have long been on TriMet’s published wishlist, but never delivered by the agency.

This article will focus a bit more on the Southwest changes, but highlights of the Westside plan are also included–especially where it appears things have changed.

Continue Reading →

Decision time for Powell/Division

Tomorrow, September 29, Metro will host a combination steering committee/open house on the Powell/Division project, in which staff recommendations will be presented.  Not too surprisingly, staff recommendations include:

  • Bus instead of rail (LRT or Streetcar).  This is expected, as the proposed budget and timeframe for the project is simply not compatible with a rail solution, having numerous rail projects happening during the Great Recession (and its numerous service cuts) has made rail a bit more politically difficult, and many preliminary documents and materials have referred to it as a “BRT” project.  At this point, various grades of BRT are being considered, ranging from “dedicated busway” to “frequent service bus plus”.  Even at the low end, the solution calls for 1/2 stop spacings, vehicles larger than a 40′ bus, stations with amenities, and faster boarding (which I assume means fare collection that does not involve the driver).
  • The proposed alignment would be to cross the river using Tilikum Crossing, then use Powell out to at least SE 50th, transitioning to Division between 50th and I-205 (TBD), and Division to Gresham, with a possible connection to Mount Hood CC, with several different alignments possible in Gresham.  A transition at SE 82nd seems to have quite a bit of public support.
  • Riders want a service that is “discernibly quicker” than the existing 4 and 9 bus lines.

Among the next steps are consideration of various potential station areas along the route, and potential impacts/changes to local transit.

A big pile of documents can be found here.

 

Almost October Open Thread

A long nasty project at work has finally wrapped up; apologies for the extended absense.

  • Tualatin voters passed a public-vote-on-light-rail measure earlier this month.  Unlike a similar recent measure in Tigard, this one only affects LRT and not BRT, and does not require the city to issue pointless statements that it is “opposed” to light rail.  Tualatin’s mayor has indicated that any major capital improvements involving city funds would likely be referred to the voters regardless.
  • A major steering committee meeting tomorrow (9/29) for the Powell/Divison Project, one that is likely to narrow the scope of the project somewhat.  A separate post will cover this.
  • Last week there was a Portland Streetcar derailment, when a switch leading to the garage under I-405 was not properly closed, causing a N/S car to jump the tracks when reaching said switch.   A technical question:  MAX signals are designed to inform operators of the position of upcoming switches, and most (if not all) of the primary operational switches are electronically controlled and integrated into the signalling/dispatch system; a MAX operator will (or should) know if he’s about to be routed onto a siding or into a yard.  Does the PSC signalling infrastructure have the same safeguards?
  • A new hassle for the poor and credit-challenged (or at least those who have cars):  electronic repossession (or remote disabling) of automobiles.