Open Thread for March 2010


Following our new practice, we’ll open a new thread for your thoughts each month. What’s on your mind?


61 responses to “Open Thread for March 2010”

  1. When is Oregon going to get serious about funding passenger rail? What will it take to prioritize this funding in our transportation bills as Washington has done in a relatively better way?

    Should we be talking about high(er)-speed rail when talking about a new CRC crossing?

  2. God, Al, please get a tripod!

    Chris, I’ve got a Biria as well, maybe the same model as yours. If the video wasn’t jumping around like a landed fish, I could get a better look without getting sick.

    Only problem with the bike is that the wheelbase is a tad longer than normal and it doesn’t fit well on a TriMet bike rack.

  3. Chris, I only tried it once and sat at the front of the bus waiting for it to fall. I’ll try cramming it down in the rack next time.

  4. God, Al, please get a tripod!

    At the risk of violating our own policies, but without putting much of a value judgment on the topic, let me just say (with the deepest possible affection and admiration, given the circumstances) that Al’s video blogging style is completely in harmony with his textual blogging style. To apply a video tripod to the mix would create a false dichotomy — at least until someone invents the textual equivalent of a tripod for blog comments. :-)

  5. (And besides, until the city officially changes its policy, the use of tripods in public parks and Pioneer Courthouse Square without a permit is still prohibited. Are you people trying to get Al arrested?)

  6. God, Al, please get a tripod!
    ~~~>Can I carry one of those in my pocket Jeff?
    —————————-
    that Al’s video blogging style is completely in harmony with his textual blogging style. To apply a video tripod to the mix would create a false dichotomy — at least until someone invents the textual equivalent of a tripod for blog comments. :-)
    ~~~>See, Bob really does understand me! Bob I am constantly impressed by your perception ability!
    ——————————
    So, you’re saying that Al is the Blair Witch of portlandtransport.com? :)

    ~~~>I see you’ve made the national blog news
    Scotty, maybe its getting time for you to host your own blog!

  7. I’m too lazy to host my own blog. Much easier to respond in the comments than produce article-worthy content. :)

    Though I was a bit surprised that my article at HumanTransit got picked up by Streetsblog…

  8. Speaking of other blogs, o-live’s Hard Drive blog has several gems today:

    One, a discussion of the two-operator issue on WES, contains a figure for just how expensive the thing is to run: $50.47 per train mile. (MAX is $16.20 per train mile; I assume both figures came from sources at TriMet).

    Two, new transit apps at TriMet’s website.

    And on the lighter side, a new user for horses, and from across the pond, the world’s laziest dog owner.

  9. Speaking of other blogs, o-live’s Hard Drive blog has several gems today:

    Ah yes, my old Pal Joseph Rose, we go way back together!

    I read him regularly, one of the last reasons to read the Oregonian.

  10. I was thinking of suggesting in the article that bus drivers ought to dress up like the Easter Bunny and pass out candy to children as they board–but doing so would violate the no-food-or-beverages policy that most agencies have.

    :)

  11. [Moderator: Bizarre off-topic comment removed. Yes, this is an open thread, but it should at least have something tangentially do to with Portland and/or urban transportation. – Bob R.]

  12. Have streetcar trailers ever been discussed in Portland?

    The streetcar platforms were designed for single cars at the insistence of the neighborhoods involved. I suspect if we re-polled the neighborhoods at this point they would have a different opinion.

    As we expand beyond the Loop we should re-examine this issue – but longer platforms mean more parking removal, and that’s ALWAYS controversial.

  13. So, why isn’t the ‘Made in USA’ streetcar being used? I live and work on the streetcar line, and have yet to see it anywhere other than sitting under I-405.

  14. We are in discussion with Oregon Iron Works about replacing the propulsion system in the prototype vehicle with an American-made (Rockwell) system to help develop a made-in-USA propulsion option for future vehicle purchases.

    In short, we’re using it as a testing platform rather than for revenue service at the moment.

  15. The proposed “three corridors” alignment for the I-5/99W connector plan, has apparently hit a bit of a snafu; one not entirely unexpected.

    Many residents of Tualatin don’t want it. Specifically, the northern corridor, along Tualatin Road and across the Tualatin River via a new bridge north of downtown, connecting to Boones Ferry.

    This doesn’t surprise me–I have long been a bit astonished that one “leg” of the Three Corridors plan involves building a new arterial route through a residential neighborhood, and a city park.

    Many planners and officials at the meeting insisted that nothing is going to be done for a long time–there’s no funding, and much planning has not been done (no DEIS or EIS, in particular). What kind of amazed me, though, is that planners openly admitted that the Three Corridors recommendation did not even attempt to consider factors such as existing use or local impact; it was simply based on traffic count analysis–where could they put a road and get most bang for buck?

  16. What’s on your mind?

    Well, today the Transit Riders Union became 50% smaller, as someone named Jason Barbour exits.

    In other transit news, TriMet isn’t the only agency raising fares. C-TRAN and TriMet are discussing revamping the fare reciprocity structure (which currently allows riders to use All-Zone TriMet passes on some C-TRAN routes and All-Zone C-TRAN passes on TriMet routes).

    All-Zone passes would no longer be accepted on both systems, instead riders would need a new $99 “Regional Fare” to ride both TriMet and C-TRAN. C-TRAN is also looking to raise most other fares by a nickel and Express Fares (on routes 105, 134, 164, 177, 190, and 199) to $3.25 (+25¢) for one ride or $115 monthly (+$10).

    This proposed information starts on page 52 of their board packet for the upcoming March 9th Meeting:
    http://c-tran.com/board_meeting_files/March_9_2010_agenda.pdf (PDF, 2.91 MB)

  17. When looking for information about the bus crash in Arizona over the last week, I happened across this item from one of their sites:

    http://www.azcentral.com/12news/news/articles/2010/03/04/20100304publictransit-CR.html
    Bus drivers in Phoenix, AZ, are being assaulted for being ordered to follow “existing” policies requiring refusal of service to someone who doesn’t pay the entire fare. I seriously doubt the reader comments on their site would work around here.

    Thought I’d mention this here since occasionally there are people that think it would be a great idea to strand people for being even a nickel short, even if it’s pouring down rain, or icy/snowy, a hundred degrees with high humidity, etc.

  18. [i]Jason Barbour Wrote
    All-Zone passes would no longer be accepted on both systems, instead riders would need a new $99 “Regional Fare” to ride both TriMet and C-TRAN.[/i]

    NO! What about people who just want to do it a few times! I am a photographer and do some of my best work over in Vancouver. This would be the worst thing they could ever, ever, ever do. So pretty much every time you want to transfer Tri-met to C-Tran, you can’t, or have to pay an extra $3? That’s like a week’s savings for a teenager!

  19. Jason, I think the transit agency needs to publicly say that to avoid people exploiting it as a loophole. Hopefully they’ll show some discretion when it comes to actually punishing a driver for letting it slide.

  20. NO! What about people who just want to do it a few times! I am a photographer and do some of my best work over in Vancouver. This would be the worst thing they could ever, ever, ever do. So pretty much every time you want to transfer Tri-met to C-Tran, you can’t, or have to pay an extra $3? That’s like a week’s savings for a teenager!
    JK: Don’t forget they are just asking you to pay a tiny amount more of the actual cost of riding transit. If they charged the actual cost, it would be around $10 per one-way ride. (Perhaps Bob will want to refine this calculation, I just took 5x the $2.00 fare.)

    Be glad that even with the increase, you are only paying a tiny percentage of your actual cost and thank car drivers & taxpayers for the other 80% of your ride’s cost.

    Thanks
    JK

  21. Perhaps Bob will want to refine this calculation, I just took 5x the $2.00 fare.

    Sorry, JK, since you presented this assertion with no data and no explanation of your methodology, I’ll just start fresh rather than “refine”.

    TriMet lists an operating cost per boarding ride for buses of $2.88.

    An occasional rider who pays a full cash fare for a single ride is covering the vast majority of the operating costs.

    Looking at things in aggregate, rather than anecdotally, TriMet’s stats show an operating cost fare recovery ratio for buses of 27.4%, not 20% as you imply.

    C-Tran’s cost figures are higher than TriMet’s, so a C-Tran fare does not cover as much of the operating costs as a TriMet fare. However, with the proposed C-Tran fare hike and the occasional rider needing to pay a separate full C-Tran fare, that again will cover the vast majority of the operating cost.

    So in the example of the hypothetical teenager whom you were lecturing, that teenager is actually covering closer to 80% of the cost under this scenario than the 20% that you assert.

  22. 1. Because of things like fareless square (now the “free rail zone”), discounted passes, passengers utilizing more than one vehicle to make a journey on a single fare, people making complete round-trips on a single fare before it expires, etc. This is basic stuff, you know it already.

    2. Because I specifically singled out buses for this example, not system-wide averages.

    There is no denying that public transit, as a whole, is subsidized. That doesn’t change the fact that your original example was way off, wherein you had the hypothetical cash-fare teen paying 20% of $10, but the proposed scenario would actually be closer to 80% of $6 or $7.

  23. By posting the link to the information, I didn’t mean to freak anyone out. I’m thinking they’re at the very early stages of the process and we’re not even seeing anything resembling a finished product. They haven’t even started an outreach process yet. And, as usual, I’m hearing this from C-TRAN first.

    The report even recognizes that charging people twice would not be an advantageous situation, especially if someone is low-income (which brings up a good point, C-TRAN has a low-income pass where someone who uses/qualifies for other social services could get a further reduced pass, where TriMet doesn’t).

    IMO, in the 8 years or so I’ve been familiar with C-TRAN, I’ve found them very honest and open when it comes to the data and information they use to make decisions such as these. When they did their last major fare increase in early 2005 (the one that established “Premium/Express” fares charged on the Portland Express routes, including their 157, which I forgot on my earlier list), what they adopted was different than even the original proposal and even the consultant’s report, after a 2 or 3 hour public hearing and about 3 or 4 hours of board discussion over two monthly meetings.

    Be glad that even with the increase, you are only paying a tiny percentage of your actual cost and thank car drivers & taxpayers for the other 80% of your ride’s cost.
    Actually, most of the money for C-TRAN comes from their ½% local sales tax. The car tab money went away after I-695 was invalidated but the Washington State Legislature lowered the fees anyway. Someone from Oregon concerned about how they’re funded need only purchase lunch there to help out.

    I was going to continue regarding the farebox recovery figures and overall cost, however Transit Surfer says the bus I’m waiting for will be here in about 16 minutes and my notebook battery is running down. I’ll be back later.

  24. Bob R.
    1. Because of things like fareless square (now the “free rail zone”), discounted passes, passengers utilizing more than one vehicle to make a journey on a single fare, people making complete round-trips on a single fare before it expires, etc. This is basic stuff, you know it already.
    JK:
    Using Trimet’s BusMaxStats from FY09:
    Operating cost /Boarding ride= = $2.88 (of course you should be using system cost, then add in capital, but we’ll follow your line of reasoning)
    Fare recovery ratio (operation cost) = 28.5%

    This implies that actual fare per boarding is 2.88 x 0.285 = $0.82. But the farebox price is $2.00 for a 2 zone fare. Are they really giving away that many free rides?

    Only a small part of the difference is due to transfers:
    Boarding rides = 49.970.400
    Originating Rides=66,153,600
    Ratio: 1.32, so, on average, each trip takes 1.32 buses.

    Can you give us more details?
    On the surface it appears that all they have to do is charge $2.88 per boarding to not require a public subsidy? Why can’t this be done?

    Thanks
    JK

  25. Since I was looking at Trimet’s FY09 data I checked the per mile cost:

    Bus Passenger-miles=246,091,392
    Bus Boarding rides = 66,153,600
    Calculate average ride = 3.70 mile

    Operating Cost per bus boarding ride= $2.88
    System Cost per bus boarding ride = $3.39

    Calculate Bus Operating cost per passenger- mile = $0.78
    Calculate Bus system cost per passenger- mile = $0.92

    Thanks
    JK

  26. A standard annual 2-zone pass is $825.

    If we assume for a moment that a pass-holder rides round-trip to work 50 weeks of the year and never on weekends (and never for lunch), that still works out to 350 daily round trips using 2.6 vehicles daily (on average), so 910 boardings or a passenger contribution of $0.90 per boarding.

    Let’s not forget that an Honored Citizen pass is $275 (used to be free when I was a kid), and that the bulk of those riders are not going to be driving around if we gave them cars, and taxis aren’t cost-competitive for most trips.

    Of course, the cost figures don’t reflect all the underlying reasons. Close-in, busy bus lines are generally far cheaper to operate (on a per-boarding basis) than lines serving low-density suburbs. Our region has made the decision to at least attempt to serve a wide area, including low-density suburbs, with basic transit. That requires a subsidy. That’s one reason why C-Tran’s operating costs per boarding ride are higher than TriMet’s, because the areas served are primarily low density.

  27. AL M Says: Calculate Bus Operating cost per passenger- mile = $0.78
    Calculate Bus system cost per passenger- mile = $0.92

    COST OF MIDDLE EAST WARS PER MILE
    JK: Good point. Especially since buses use more imported oil than small cars per passenger-mile, so we should be encouraging people to move to small cars, not transit.

    Thanks
    JK

  28. Bob R. Says: A standard annual 2-zone pass is $825.
    JK: But what % of trips are on annual passes?

    Do you have a complete breakdown of the various fares costs and % of uses of each?

    Thanks
    JK

  29. JK, you have never, ever proven that claim about “small cars” for the trip types most taken by transit, nor have you ever presented a mechanism as to how “we” should “be encouraging” people to move to those cars. Please stop making this unsubstantiated claim, it’s like a broken record. (Attn Kids: “Broken record” as in a scratch on a vinyl disc analog audio recording which causes a momentary subset of the recording to be repeated endlessly, not “Broken record” as in a laudable human achievement.)

  30. Do you have a complete breakdown of the various fares costs and % of uses of each?

    You’re perfectly welcome to pour over TriMet’s annual budget reports. I’m not going to do all the homework. I merely had to show how your original assertion was way off base.

  31. And another thing… In the past you have completely denied that the cost of wars in oil-producing nations (i.e., Iraq) should be counted in any way as an externalized cost of the automobile. And yet here, by making (yet again) the small cars vs. buses argument, you are implicitly going along with the idea of externalized costs of oil consumption.

    Either you believe this now (and it would be just nifty if you could explain this shift in positions), or you’re making an argument from a position you don’t actually believe (without clearly indicating the contrarian, devil’s advocate nature of your post), which is something you were warned not to do anymore just a few weeks ago.

  32. Bob: Either you believe this now (and it would be just nifty if you could explain this shift in positions), or you’re making an argument from a position you don’t actually believe (without clearly indicating the contrarian, devil’s advocate nature of your post), which is something you were warned not to do anymore just a few weeks ago.
    JK: No, I am just turning his (presumed) argument back on to him. That has no statement about my feelings in the subject.

    Thanks
    JK

  33. Bob: we aren’t in Iraq or other “oil-producing nations” because of oil. If we were, we could just take it— all of it— and there would be nothing anyone could do about it.

    We also have plenty of oil within our own borders that has been locked up by environmentalists for decades— including the Oregon coast.

    Not saying the oil economy doesn’t have its problems— but oil is definitely not scarce enough to go to war over… yet

  34. JK replied: No, I am just turning his (presumed) argument back on to him. That has no statement about my feelings in the subject.

    Then knock it off. Don’t be disingenuous. Make it clear in your arguments whether you’re just being contrary, or are arguing something that you actually believe. It’s one of the reasons that people get so frustrated with your comments. If you don’t like it, go blog somewhere else.

    Anthony wrote: “we aren’t in Iraq or other “oil-producing nations” because of oil.”

    Support for this statement? We aren’t in those nations, not even a little bit because of oil? Then why, exactly?

    If we were, we could just take it— all of it—

    That would be kind of obvious and war-provoking, don’t you think?

    and there would be nothing anyone could do about it.”

    Anyone, anywhere? Seems to me that the locals have come up with a number of alternatives for “anything” in recent years.

    It’s this kind of militaristic swagger that gets us into trouble (and not to mention gets people killed.)

    We also have plenty of oil within our own borders that has been locked up by environmentalists for decades— including the Oregon coast.

    “Drill baby drill” has not yet proven to be an effective political message, so at least for the time being, the people (in general) are electing politicians who pledge to protect the environment and our coastlines.

    And, based on Al’s link: Total cost of Iraq war so far == over 1,400 starter light rail lines (@$500mil) or 7,000 starter streetcar lines (@$100mil) or over 1.2 million hybrid buses (@$600k).

  35. Anthony:“We also have plenty of oil within our own borders that has been locked up by environmentalists for decades— including the Oregon coast.

    ws: Not really…any such oil extraction infrastructure would be cost prohibitive right now. There’s actually plenty of available offshore drilling right now — oil companies aren’t going after it because it costs too much to set up.

    Americans consume 20 million + barrels of oil a day. Even at its peak, ANWAR would only produce ~1 million barrels a day after refinement. Oil is also a global commodity; it’s bought and sold on the global market — so that does not mean that any such oil drilled in the US stays in the US. Even if we had more drilling in the US, that does not mean you’re not consuming foreign oil from corrupt Middle East.

    Meanwhile, other nations are trying to be the next America consumption wise w/ way higher populations than us (and our population is increasingly consuming more oil everyday).

    So yeah, go ahead and drill away at the scraps. It won’t solve much and just delay the inevitable.

  36. Bob: That doesn’t change the fact that your original example was way off, wherein you had the hypothetical cash-fare teen paying 20% of $10, but the proposed scenario would actually be closer to 80% of $6 or $7.
    JK: Ok, lets reword my statement to this:
    IF transit riders had to pay their full cost, a 2 zone adult fare would be (based on Trimet’s factsheet.pdf which shows 22.6% funding from “passenger revenue”):

    $8.85 instead of $2.00 for 1 ticket
    $88.50 instead of $20.00 for book of 10
    $21.02 instead of $4.75 for 1-Day pass
    $86.28 instead of $19.50 for 7-Day pass
    $168.14 instead of $38.00 for 14-Day pass
    $331.86 instead of $75.00 for 1- Month pass
    $3650.44 instead of $825.00 for 1- Month pass

    Can I take the liberty of shortening this to a simple statement that the full cost of that $2 ticket would be $8.85 and a year pass $3650?

    Thanks
    JK

  37. Can I take the liberty of shortening this to a simple statement that the full cost of that $2 ticket would be $8.85

    No. Come on, JK, this is basic math. Why do we have to go over this again and again every few months?

    TriMet’s _bus_ operating cost per boarding ride is $2.88. At an average of 1.32 boardings per originating ride, that works out to an average of $3.80 per bus journey.

    So, for your scenario, a single fare should be $3.80. If you want to use system costs instead, that comes out to $3.39 x 1.32 = $4.47. You’re still off by about double.

    And keep in mind that’s talking about buses only. MAX has a much lower operating cost per boarding ride. A single-fare MAX-only rider already fully covers the operating cost of that boarding ride, and nearly covers the system costs.

    We’ve gone from you being off originally by a factor of about 4 to a factor of 2. That’s progress, I guess.

  38. Bob, your method relies on a number of assumptions about rider patterns and only captures the “system cost” not all costs. It also neglects the mix of the various fare rates and. Most of all, if one uses your method, applied to all fare rates and the mix of rates actually paid, do we end up with Trimet’s 22.6% fare recovery for the whole system? I’m sure you will agree that is a lot of work and the end result MUST be 22.6% or it is wrong compared to Trimet’s stated recovery.

    So, I just started with Trimet’s number. I have to assume it includes the actual mix of fare rates and captures ALL costs and thus can accurately be used to project these actual costs to a mix of fares that are accurately reflects these actual costs.

    If one fare rate is unfairly treated by this method, then Trimet is not proportioning the costs accurately between the various fare rates. (For instance single fares are probably more expensive to sell than yearly passes.) Further if you identify one fare rate that is projected too high by this method, then another(s) must be too low since the total must end up at 22.6%. So any arguments really will come down to which fares are too high and which are too low after my projection – overall they have to be accurate.

    What is wrong with this method?

    Thanks
    JK

  39. What is wrong with this method?

    What’s wrong with this “method” is that it produces results which are demonstrably wrong, and can be proven wrong with just a couple of mathematical sanity checks. If you run around promoting a single-fare price of $8.85, then you’re incorrectly asserting that transit costs that much to deliver a complete journey. It does not. Stop spreading disinformation.

  40. JK: If we lower the $8.85, then we must raise one of the other fares to make the final result stay at 22.6% overall.

    What do you suggest raising to make it come out to the correct result of 22.6%

    Thanks
    JK

  41. If trimet only ran the bus lines that were profitable, and canceled all the suburban lines that are there for “equity”, then a number of things might happen:

    1. trimet would not be seen as rolling welfare, changing perceptions and expectations of the system in a concievably positive fashion

    2. trimet would have more money for rail expansion: existing bus lines could be upgraded to streetcar or light rail, express lines could be added during commute hours, perhaps the downtown subway we all want, etc.

    3. unserved suburban areas could develop private or even community- based jitney or minibus services,this sort of enterprise or community organizing could be very empowering in depressed areas

    in any case throwing money away on bus lines nobody rides is insanity, perhaps jk would agree with this

    Other things I’d like to say:
    a.the eastside loop seems stupid, I hope it doesn’t sour portlanders on the potentials for streetcars. replacing lines 6, 12, 14, or 15 might have been a better start

    b.the green line sould have been elevated over 82nd ave.

  42. Suburban communities are withdrawing from the trimet service area. So far, Willsonville, Canby, and Sandy have departed.

    Trimet regularly runs what seems to be poorly planned lines in order to maximize payroll tax revenue, not to serve customers.

    Id like to see Trimet limited to regional travel only, and have the counties and/or cities plan, fund, and operate their own routes.

    We could have a unified branding, numbering scheme, and fare structure to eliminate confusion.

  43. It’s a stretch to call either Canby or Sandy “suburban”–you drive through a fair bit of countryside to reach either.

    Wilsonville’s a different matter; though when Wilsonville pulled out, it was an employment center with a minimal residential population–at one time sporting more jobs than residents–and it too was separated a bit from the core. Now, it’s legit to call Wilsonville a suburb, albeit a third-ring one.

  44. Anthony Says: Suburban communities are withdrawing from the trimet service area. So far, Willsonville, Canby, and Sandy have departed.

    It’s not as if this was a growing movement, though. SMART was formed in 1989, SAM in 2000, and Canby departed in 2002.

    Opinions and comments are entirely those of the author and not approved or condoned by TriMet

  45. It’s not the full single-ticket fare which is the basis of the passenger revenue v. total cost ratio; it’s the average fare collected.

    According to TriMet’s complete January monthly performance report (not the abbreviated one on-line) the average originating fare collected was $1.106 while the system cost per originating ride was $4.75. Since some people transfer, the cost per boarding ride was $3.73.

    I think TriMet’s darkest days are still ahead. The next group of transit projects (streetcar loop, Milwaukie Max, and especially the LO streetcar extension) don’t have nearly the rosy prospects that Green Line has, and even it inevitably adds to TriMet’s operating deficits. [BTW, about 40% of Green Line’s weekday ridership is entirely within the FRZ.]

  46. It looks like I totally jumped the green flag on the C-TRAN fare increase. Their open houses start next week:
    http://c-tran.com/alerts/detail/id/89
    The PDF linked on that page which includes the details doesn’t contain anything about discontinuing accepting TriMet All-Zone Fares.

  47. The other day, I responded to the questions asked by the League of Women Voters for their Voters Guide, one of them was: “What are your priorities for transportation in light of the City’s recently-adopted Climate Action Plan?”

    I don’t know how many positions in or related to the City of Portland they asked this of.

  48. Looking for an inexpensive, fun family event this weekend? Head over to The Bike Show at the Oregon Convention Center! This event has activities for parents, kids and bikers at all skill levels. More details can be found at http://pedalnationevents.com/

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *