Update:
The FTA has responded to Cascade’s letter, and disagrees with Cascade’s contention that the MAX Green Line is out of compliance with the Full Funding Grant Agreement. The FTA’s response is here. Quoting from the response:
In recent years, TriMet, like many transit agencies across the country, has been impacted by the decline in economic conditions. FTA recognizes that light rail projects are long-term investments that may experience one or more economic downturns during their lifecycle. While the duration of almost any downturn is uncertain, transit agencies are often faced with service reductions as a way to temper immediate financial impacts until conditions improve. Such temporary actions are not typically viewed by FTA as a breach of contract. Section 19(a) of the FTA FFGA discusses “default” in terms of “…substantial failure [emphasis in original] of the Grantee to complete the Project in accordance with the Application and this Agreement will be a default of this Agreement.” TriMet is not in “substantial failure” of completing the project nor is it in default of the FFGA as a result of recent service reductions.
The original text of this article is after the jump.
Well, not really–but it sure seems that way.
Two weeks ago, the libertarian think tank took exception to what it believes is insufficient service hours on the federally-funded MAX Green Line, and sent a sternly worded letter to the Federal Transit Authority on the subject.
In the letter, the CPI noted that the Green Line is operating with 33% fewer service hours than originally intended; claiming this to be a violation of the Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA), a contract which is negotiated between a transit agency and the FTA concerning the dispersement of federal funds. An FFGA generally specifies the terms and conditions for designing, building, and operating the project in question. An agency which violates an FFGA, by (for example) not using the funds for the stated purpose, or failing to operate the service once built, may be found in violation–and agencies which remain in violation after being notified of such, may have to forfeit or refund federal funding.
That the Cascade Policy Institute cares so much about the needs of MAX riders may come as a surprise to readers of Portland Transport–many of whom have been led to believe that CPI doesn’t like light rail. But there it is, in black letters, John Charles requesting that Uncle Sam intervene on behalf of beleaguered Green Line users, who are being deprived of service hours promised by TriMet:
We ask that the FTA take steps to enforce the terms of the contract by requiring that TriMet operate the Green Line at 100% of the originally planned service levels, or pay back one-third of the total federal grant funding used for capital construction, as authorized in section 19(a) of the FFGA, as well as Chapter VI, Section 12 of FTA Circular 5010
How times change.
It was only last fall, it seems, that the Institute was busy opposing another MAX project, the Milwaukie line, in its written publications, by claiming, among other things, that it would reduce bus service. It was only last fall that we were treated to the spectacle of ATU 757 members cheering on John Charles after a rousing anti-MAX speech before the TriMet board, in which he gleefully promoted the theory that MAX epansion was a grave threat to bus operations. But here we have the CPI demanding that TriMet increase MAX service, or else be subject to what would essentially be a penalty of over $100 million–“one-third the total federal grant agreement”–either of which would require cuts in service elsewhere, likely including bus service.
Did the CPI have a change of heart? Did John Charles become a trainspotter this spring, and suddenly develop a deep love for our light rail system?
Don’t be silly. However, we’ll get to CPI’s likely angle later. First, we shall consider a more important question:
The unanswered question
Is TriMet in violation of its promise to the FTA, as the CPA letter and press release alledge? More to the point, is TriMet in jeopardy of any penalties, including those proposed by CPI in its letter?
Portland Transport made an inquiry with TriMet as to this matter, and the agency shared with us the following memo which general manager Neil McFarlane sent out to the board of directors in response to the CPI announcement:
The Cascade Policy institute has released via press release a complaint they have filed with FTA – alleging that we are not in compliance with our Green Line Full Funding Grant Agreement – and that FTA should embargo future federal funds. I want to assure you that TriMet is in full compliance will all aspects of the FFGA for the MAX Green Line. The contention continues that since we opened the line with 33% less service than originally planned – we were not in compliance. Obviously, FTA will need to provide their own response. The initial service level has not been an issue raised by FTA. I am sure that FTA understands the long-term nature of our light rail projects (they are planned with a 20 to 25 year horizon and a 50 to 100 year life), as well as the difficult decision we and other transit providers have had to make to survive the great recession.
The memo then goes on to tout increasing ridership on the Green Line–information which, while encouraging, does not address the issue of FFGA compliance (the FTA cares that about whether the trains run and how often, not so much who rides them).
TriMet spokesperson Mary Fetsch, in a followup, further stated:
The FFGA does not specifically describe LRT frequency levels. The document is focused on the construction of the project, schedule and costs. […] It notes that the Grantee will operate and maintain its entire system at an adequate and efficient level of service. TriMet had intended to operate the Green Line with 10 minute frequencies during peak periods and with 15 minute frequencies during off-peak hours. Due to the deep recession affecting the Portland area, we have reduced service throughout the system and are operating the Green Line with 15 min peak and off peak service. TriMet has communicated with FTA about reductions in transit service as a reaction to the recession.
TriMet worked with community to reduce service and balance accessibility with the need for cost cutting. We believe that the temporary reductions in Green Line services are a responsible reflection of the economic realities.
Fetsch also provided us a copy of the South Corridor FFGA (PDF).
Defaulting on an FFGA can be serious business, and can result in agencies being required to pay back grants. Prior to the Green Line opening, some transit users suggested that TriMet delay its operation in lieu of service cuts elsewhere–advice which, if followed, would undoubtedly constitute a FFGA violation. Likewise with the frequent calls to mothball WES (though in that case, it might come close to making financial sense… you can do the math at home).
At any rate, Neil informs his board–in plain language–that ” I want to assure you that TriMet is in full compliance will all aspects of the FFGA for the MAX Green Line”–but then softens his stance by noting that the FTA will “have to provide their own response”–which is not as reassuring as his initial stance. Michael Anderson contacted the FTA and asked them for clarification of the matter; and they indicated that they would issue a response, but gave no indication of what it might be.
So is the Green Line in compliance?
As far as I can tell…. probably. But there is certainly a chance that the FTA might issue an objection.
Unpacking the FFGA?
The FFGA is a standard contract executed between the FTA and a transit agency, upon substantial completion of a project’s planning and design. The process for getting federal funding is long, complex, and nasty… but the FFGA itself is mostly a standard form (a sample agreement with the variable terms left blank can be found here). CPI alleges that TriMet is violating sections 2(d) and 12(b) of the FFGA. Both sections are generic boilerplate, and read as follows:
[Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 5309, the purposes of this Agreement are to] establish the Grantee’s financial commitment to the Project including its obligation to fund the Local Share, its obligation to Complete the Project with a specified amount of Federal assistance, its obligation to achieve revenue operation of the Project by a specified date, its obligation to pay all costs necessary to Complete the Project that are in excess of the Estimated Net Project Cost, and its obligation to finance the future maintenance and operational costs of the Project;
and
With the Execution of this Agreement, the Grantee assures that it has stable and dependable funding sources, sufficient in amount and in degree of commitment, to operate and maintain its entire mass transportation system at an adequate and efficient level of service, including the future operation and maintenance of the Project without additional Federal assistance beyond the amounts set forth in the Financing Plan. The foregoing assurance does not preclude the Grantee from altering service through contracts with private providers of mass transportation services.
TriMet has successfully funded the Local Share (of construction funds), and has successfully completed the project construction and opened the Green Line on schedule. CPI’s accusations seem to rest on the contention that TriMet has failed to “finance the future maintenance and operational costs of the Project” and/or to maintain “stable and dependable funding sources, sufficient in amount and in degree of commitment, to operate and maintain its entire mass transportation system at an adequate and efficient level of service, including the future operation and maintenance of the Project without additional Federal assistance beyond the amounts set forth in the Financing Plan.”
The FFGA does not specify minimum levels of service that TriMet is required to maintain. CPI seems to contend that since the level of service is 33% less than that contained in planning documents, this constitutes a breach. TriMet begs to differ, claiming that the service reductions are a reasonable response to economic conditions, and that the service currently provide (15-minute all-day service on weekdays, lesser service on weekends) is a reasonable amount which provides a “adequate and efficient” level of service. Recent history seems to support TriMet’s version of things–I’m unaware of any instance of an FTA grant being rescinded, or the FTA ordering service increases on a project, due to service cuts that nonetheless left a viable service in place.
But what if the Green Line were in violation?
But what if the FTA were to agree with CPI, and decide that TriMet is in violation? Section 19 of the standard FFGA contract deals with breaches:
(a) Substantial failure of the Grantee to Complete the Project in accordance with the Application and this Agreement will be a default of this Agreement. In the event of default, the Government will have all remedies at law and equity, including the right to specific performance without further Federal financial assistance, and the rights to termination or suspension as provided by Section 11 of the Master Agreement, “Right of the Federal Government to Terminate.” The Grantee recognizes that in the event of default, the Government may demand all Federal funds provided to the Grantee for the Project be returned to the Government. Furthermore, a default of this Agreement will be a factor considered before a decision is made with respect to the approval of future Grants requested by the Grantee.
19(b) deals with nonperformance during the construction phase, and is not germane to this discussion.
(c) In the event of a breach of this Agreement by the Grantee and before the Government takes action contemplated by this Section, the Government will provide the Grantee with ninety (90) days written notice that the Government considers that such a breach has occurred and provide the Grantee a reasonable period of time to respond and to take necessary corrective action.
Several things to note: First, a breach must be “substantial” for a default to occur–even if one were to conclude that the service levels stipulated into planning documents are incorporated into the FFGA and thus form a minimum baseline service which must be maintained, an argument could be made that service which isn’t quite as good but which is still useful does not constitute a substantial breach. Secondly, the FTA has to notify TriMet in the event it considers the agreement breached, and give the agency 90 days to correct. TriMet has been operating at the present service levels for over a year and a half, the FTA is well aware of this (as TriMet, like all transit agencies receiving federal funding, must file regular operational reports), and they have not objected. Finally, while repayment of granted funds and exclusion from future grants are remedies which are available to the government in the event of an uncured breach, CPIs “theory of damages” (that since service hours have been reduced by 1/3 for slightly over 18 months; TriMet should remit 1/3 the capital costs) seems to have no legal basis: the Green Line is designed to operate for decades, not months or years, thus a 1/3 remittance based on a short-term service decline is not based on any reasonable damage calculation.
The worst thing that would likely happen to TriMet, as far as I can tell, is if the agency is informed if it is in violation, they would then reallocate service to bring the Green Line into compliance. This would probably result in service cuts elsewhere, and the agency and the CPI would trade a few barbs in the media, but TriMet is unlikely to permit itself to run afoul of the FTA for very long. Life will go on, at least in the short term.
But as hinted above–I suspect that this is not about Green Line service levels.
Derailing the Milwaukie line
Right after the Charles letter issues demands concerning the Green Line, it alson contains the following (emphasis in original):
We also request that until one of these actions take place, FTA withhold all capital funding for future TriMet rail projects, including but not limited to the $1.5 billion Milwaukie light rail line and the $932 million rail extension to Vancouver, WA.
My suspicion is that this maneuver isn’t about improving Green Line service at all (that train, after all, has already left the station), any more than CPI’s habit of trying to chat up transit workers and poverty activists in opposition to MAX is about improving bus service. While CPI does sometimes offer meaningful criticism and advice for the agency, such as this comment on the proposed fare increase (I don’t agree with all of it, but I consider it fair comment); CPI is organizationally opposed to publicly-subsidized and/or publicly-operated transit. Unlike OPAL or other critics of TriMet, who agree with the agency’s fundamental mission but disagree with its execution of strategy, and wish to reform TriMet, CPI’s CPI’s stated goal is to replace public transit with a “market-based system where roads, bridges, transit and airport facilities are operated (and possibly owned) by private vendors who charge user fees that vary based on supply and demand conditions.” In other words–to get rid of TriMet. This posture makes it harder to take operational criticisms of the agency seriously–especially when it takes seemingly inconsistent positions as to the mix of services the agency ought to provide.
CPI has been steadfast, however, in its opposition to the next train to leave the platform, Milwaukie MAX–or to virtually any increases in funding for the agency, seemingly for any purpose. I believe that when it comes time for the FTA to disperse funds for MLR later this year, once final engineering is complete and construction is ready to begin, CPI will be there to object–claiming that TriMet isn’t sufficiently financially viable to run the project, or that the actual service levels that TriMet intends to deliver will be less than what was outlined in MLR’s funding proposal. I don’t suspect these endeavors to be very successful–TriMet enjoys a good reputation with the FTA overall, and transit providers all over the country have been cutting back service–but I suspect them to be tried.
The libertarian alternative?
Some libertarians may object to my dismissal of CPI’s goals and concerns. “Market-based solutions” sounds good in theory, after all, and in fairness, CPI also takes positions against publicly-subsidized roads. (And bashing the gubmint is a popular pasttime, even among liberals). Some libertarians (not all) make grandiose claims about how all will work smoothly in Libertopia once the shackles of government are discarded–and consider the superiority of privatized, unsubsidized transit to be manifest and not a legitimate subject of debate. But for many, the quality of (current) public services is a secondary concern–the primary concern is reduction of government; a restructuring which is seen as an end goal in itself, not as a means to some other specific purpose. And if the “jitney” idea doesn’t work out, and transit goes away altogether? Tough–if the free market can’t provide a service at a profit, then obviously there is little need for it and it shouldn’t be provided. If the hidden hand of capitalism smacks you on the backside, so be it.
There aren’t too many examples of “market based transit” functioning in the developed world. Hong Kong has successful (and profitable) private transit operators, but the HK government is heavily involved in their finance, regulation, and operations. Routes are assigned by franchise, fares and schedules are fixed, and uniform standards of service are imposed on the franchisees. For lower-usage routes, HK does have less-regulated services which resemble jitneys; but the main trunk routes (and the bus system) are highly regulated, and there is no lawful competition there. And the government and private enterprise often gets highly entangled when it comes to new project planning, at a level which would likely be considered corruption here. Hong Kong is also insanely dense, and ownership of automobiles is highly expensive and inconvenient–it’s an excellent transit market, in other words, no matter the organizational arrangements.
Of course–if you’re really cynical, you might suspect that the real point of the so-called libertarian agenda (I say “so-called” because it is often supported by players who are quite clearly not libertarians) is not any sensible notion of liberty or freedom, but to shift the costs of providing public services from taxpayers, particularly the wealthy, to the working stiffs who depend on the service. A cynic might also suspect that another goal is to bust public sector unions like ATU. (Members of the union might give more careful consideration to who they shower with applause, as quite a few of CPI’s backers would love nothing more than for all of you to lose your jobs). And the really cynical might even suspect the point is to kneecap a potential competitive threat to petrochemical interests. To be clear, I don’t have any reason to suspect John Charles’ bona fides–many libertarians I know are sincere in their beliefs and despise corporate handouts and cultural warfare (and the shooting kind as well) every bit as much as progressives do. But as far as some of the entities who provide much of the funding for libertarian think tanks are concerned, I’m nowhere near as charitable. Quite a few energy interests and moguls fund CATO, for instance. I don’t know who funds CPI specifically–they do not disclose this information.
But regardless–calling for an increase in transit service is a rather interesting position for a libertarian think tank to take.
66 responses to “Cascade Policy Institute ?s MAX Light Rail?”
Say what you want about libertarians, but many pro-transit riders can see what government intervention and policy geared towards highways and sprawl have done to cities and transit in America.
If Cleveland can get away with their Waterfront Line which opened in 1996, I think TriMet is safe…
In November 2008, RTA reduced service on the Waterfront Line to weekday rush hour periods and weekends only due to low ridership. In April 2010, RTA completely eliminated weekday Waterfront Line service. The train now only runs on the line on weekends from 9:15 a.m. to 6:15 p.m. with service every 30 minutes.[2] Service on the line is increased as needed during special events taking place within the vicinity of the line. Thus, many trains now use Tower City as the western terminus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_and_Green_Lines_(Cleveland)
WS,
Obviously, there’s much to dislike about the status quo–and many thoughtful libs are more than happy to point out how the current regulatory regime has brought as to where we are. (Others, such as ex-Portlander Randall O’Toole, like to claim that suburban sprawl is the organic product of the free market, and its just the other development patterns that only arise in the presence of government interference).
But criticizing the proposals of Libertarians doesn’t imply a tacit acceptance of the status quo, whatever it may be. I completely reserve the right to defend the notion that government has a role to play in infrastructure, while debating what that role ought to be (and objecting to proposals and policies I think wrong-headed). Just because I’m not a lib, doesn’t make me bound to support and embrace every silly or stupid law that gets passed somewhere. My support for our current scheme of governance (with a few tweaks) is not because I consider it perfect–it ain’t–but because I consider it better than many of the alternatives.
33%? Really? Who is doing the math over there at CPI? Going from 10 to 15 during peak and maintaining the same off-peak cannot possibly equate to a 33% reduction…
I’ll just ignore your initial silly premise about Charles supporting MAX.
CPI is certainly opposed to TriMet’s (government) operated public transit. But not public transit entirely. Which is always the straw man TriMet rail-transit advocates use. Were it not for the multi billion misadventure of MAX and stretcars CPI would likely not even be addressing TriMet.
Your pitch is as phony as claims that public charter school advocates want to destroy public education.
The fact that there are many fully funded public transit systems that are operating like CPI prefers is also lost in your rhetoric and your attempt to defend TriMet’s worst in the nation management and operation that McFarlane blames on the “great recession”.
TriMet’s most severe problems have nothing to do with the recession. And McFarlane’s claim that TriMet’s challenges are no different that all other transit agencies is of course dishonest to say the least.
“In other words–to get rid of TriMet”. That’s your spin to cast out the impression they want transit shut down.
Isn’t the FTA is being defrauded by TriMet’s claim of the local match for Milwaukie Light Rail?
It certainly isn’t secured or even likely. Then there’s the use of federal funds as part of the local match by using $204 million in Metro federal flex funds.
As for the ATU, TriMet management promised a $ billion in benefits they have no money for. Is that good for the union? Good for transit? Good for bus riders?
TriMet’s agenda has run off the rails and is now engaged in reckless endangerment of not only it’s own operation but is raiding other revenue streams of the funding and payroll for essential services. They call it financing. It’s excessive and irresponsible borrowing against existing revenue that is already committed or needed for existing infrastructure and services. It’s the gross negligence of the Sellwood Bridge on steroids.
All of which is made worse by the conspiring to prevent public votes on these costly projects the public would never approve of.
So once again your attempt to taint the only source of honest assesment of TriMet fails.
How bad has the regime you support gotten?
http://couv.com/issues-viewpoint/tiffany-couch-crc
Chris,
You got to parse the statement from TriMet carefully. 15 minute headways are maintained most of the day on weekdays (frequences are lower in the early morning and late evening); but headways are considerably longer–20 to 30 minutes–on weekends.
Given that TriMet hasn’t contested the 33% figure, I have no reason to believe it’s not accurate–even though I haven’t done the math myself.
Steve: I’ll just ignore your initial silly premise about Charles supporting MAX.
It’s a rhetorical device, Steve. Ignore it to your heart’s content.
Steve: CPI is certainly opposed to TriMet’s (government) operated public transit. But not public transit entirely. Which is always the straw man TriMet rail-transit advocates use.
I’ll tell you what. Replace “public transit” with “publicly operated/financed transit”; as the term “public transit” does have some ambiguity (does it mean “operated by the government”, or “open to the public”). My essential claim is that CPI is opposed to the government operating or subsidizing transit services, which you seem to agree with–though if you still think CPI’s position is being misrepresented, feel free to clarify it further.
Steve: Were it not for the multi billion misadventure of MAX and stretcars CPI would likely not even be addressing TriMet.
Perhaps, perhaps not. Certainly, the fact that TriMet spends lots of money on large capital projects makes it a more important issue for CPI.
Steve: Your pitch is as phony as claims that public charter school advocates want to destroy public education.
There are some supporters of charter schools that do take a fundamentally hostile posture to government-run schools; others who don’t.
Steve: The fact that there are many fully funded public transit systems that are operating like CPI prefers is also lost in your rhetoric and your attempt to defend TriMet’s worst in the nation management and operation that McFarlane blames on the “great recession”.
Examples? And what does “operating like CPI prefers” mean, anyway?
Steve: TriMet’s most severe problems have nothing to do with the recession. And McFarlane’s claim that TriMet’s challenges are no different that all other transit agencies is of course dishonest to say the least.
Many other transit agencies have been making service cuts. Many have legacy pension and healthcare costs that are become increasingly burdensome. Quite a few around the country have closed altogether.
Steve: “In other words–to get rid of TriMet”. That’s your spin to cast out the impression they want transit shut down.
Quite a few libertarians want precisely that–and sing the praises of privately-operated jitneys (and suggest the only reason that such things aren’t a lucrative business is due to government interference and competition). There’s quite a few hymns to the jitney at CPI.
Steve: Isn’t the FTA is being defrauded by TriMet’s claim of the local match for Milwaukie Light Rail? It certainly isn’t secured or even likely. Then there’s the use of federal funds as part of the local match by using $204 million in Metro federal flex funds.
No. The FTA won’t disburse funds until the requirements for such are met–and then it will disburse them on an as-needed basis, as construction costs are accrued. The bulk of the local funding is secure, having been appropriated by the relevant authorities; only the Clackamas County portion appears to be at any risk for being rescinded by voter referendum. There’s no proposals before the Metro Council or the Oregon Legislature to revoke MLR appropriations.
Steve: As for the ATU, TriMet management promised a $ billion in benefits they have no money for. Is that good for the union? Good for transit? Good for bus riders?
As has been explained previously; TriMet isn’t in any danger of not paying benefits that come due any time soon. Changes in accounting rules no longer prohibit pay-as-you-go accounting of this stuff and so TriMet has to explicitly carry the pension obligations as a long-term liability on its books, or else set aside funds in a reserve account.
Steve: TriMet’s agenda has run off the rails and is now engaged in reckless endangerment of not only it’s own operation but is raiding other revenue streams of the funding and payroll for essential services. They call it financing. It’s excessive and irresponsible borrowing against existing revenue that is already committed or needed for existing infrastructure and services. It’s the gross negligence of the Sellwood Bridge on steroids.
So says you.
Steve: All of which is made worse by the conspiring to prevent public votes on these costly projects the public would never approve of.
What public votes were “prevented”? Are you suggesting that there is a legal requirement that any and all large capital projects be referred to voters prior to approval? While you can argue that this ought to be the case; it isn’t currently the law. The voters retain the right of referendum at many levels of state or municipal government; if project opponents wanted to try and kill the project by referring the state’s funding share to a vote, you might have succeeded in 2010. (It’s likely too late for that now).
Steve: So once again your attempt to taint the only source of honest assesment of TriMet fails.
I’m terribly sorry that it didn’t meet your approval.
We all read of the 20-year requirement to keep WES operating. What’s the source for that, especially in light of Jon’s comment? Is 20 years the standard or do different New Starts projects have different ‘guarantee periods’?
Caveat first: I work for TriMet and have for more than 25 years. Nothing I write here has been vetted, approved or created by TriMet — these are my own observations and opinions.
I take issue with the statement that TriMet is the “worst managed” transit system in the country or that the financial problems are not a product of the economy. I’ve posted a link to this particular site repeatedly, because it has details to refute those claims and a very helpful visual aid with their map.
http://t4america.org/resources/transitfundingcrisis/
http://tinyurl.com/nomoTM
5. Over the past decade passenger fares have been raised at a rate 35%-42% higher than inflation, yet the agency asserts this has not been enough. In addition, the agency has been granted two payroll tax rate increases by the state legislature, one of which has been implemented since 2005. In absolute terms, TriMet’s various sources of revenue – operating and capital grants, passenger fares, and payroll taxes – have grown at rates far in excess of inflation, as noted below.
TriMet Financial Resources, 2004-2012 increases 103.44%
http://tinyurl.com/nomoTM
“Clearly TriMet does not have a revenue problem, it has a spending problem. The agency needs to impose fiscal discipline before asking riders or taxpayers for more money through generalized fare increases.”
by JC @ CPI
Over the past decade passenger fares have been raised at a rate 35%-42% higher than inflation
How much of that is fuel costs, which have also increased faster than inflation as a whole?
How does this compare to fares and fees in other transportation sectors?
And finally, what’s so wrong, from a small-government perspective, of transit agencies asking the actual users to pick up more of the tab? I thought one of the main complaints all these years is that transit riders pay so little into the system?
Steve, since the TinyURL service allows custom aliases, can we take the selection of “nomoTM” in your link to mean “No more TriMet?”
This whole topic would be easier to discuss if you’d just stick to the subject instead of going on a long rant about Cascade’s views on transit generally or who funds Cato Institue (as if that’s relevant).
My complaint to FTA is that TriMet took all the federal money, then reneged on its end of the deal to operate the train as promised. TriMet itself admits in numerous documents (including the FY 12 budget)that service is 33% below what was promised. I didn’t have to do the calculation. So knowing that, the question remains, is 33% variance a “violation” of the FFGA?
Chris Smith says no. My response is: if you subscribed to cable TV service and you paid for 90 channels, but you only got 60, would you just take it, or would you call up the company and demand 90? I’m pretty sure that most people not suffering from a self-esteem problem would do the latter. So why do local TriMet cheer-leaders think that a variance of 33% is “good enough for government work?”
The whole notion of how light rail is a 50- or 100-year “investment” and therefore we should ignore current service levels is utter nonsense. TriMet took the money; they are not providing the service. That’s a violation.
It’s interesting that no one from TriMet has yet responded to my letter. McFarlane trys to claim that he found out about this via a “press release”, but I emailed him and all his board members a copy of my FTA letter the day after I snail-mailed it to FTA. And I never released it to other parties until TriMet had a chance to see it first.
But even more interesting is his lame response. This is his best shot? He never denies any of my claims, he just says FTA has never raised an issue with him. Of course not, FTA is co-dependent with TriMet. I expect them to cover for TriMet, otherwise they would be admitting that they have provided inadequate oversight of federal tax expenditures.
McFarlane’s answer is akin to saying “move along, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.” TM bureaucrats live in a totally fake world where they can say anything they want and get away with it.
The notion that TriMet service on the Green Line is suffering because of “the recession” is comical, as I point out in my FTA letter. TriMet has been awash in cash since the payroll tax rate increase went into effect in 2005. The fact that local journalists and bloggers keep buying this argument just reveals how little homework most of them do.
The Green Line never made any sense, and was a total waste of money. But TM took the federal cash and made promises, so they should keep those promises. Fred Hansen went around the Capitol in 2003 selling the payroll tax increase as necessary for operations of the Green Line, got his increase, and then turned the tax increase into a profit center, as I noted in my FTA letter. I was there in 2003 and heard him make all those promises.
At today’s TM board meeting, Clair Potter confirmed that NONE of the new payroll tax money from 2005-2010 went to new bus service (which is now 13% below 2001 levels), and LR service overall has been cut by 10%. This is the greatest disappearing act since Houdini! Vast sums of money have gone into the TriMet black hole, never to be seen again in the form of useful service!But Portland Transport bloggers can be counted on to defend TriMet anyway.
It’s all very simple, folks; TriMet should either provide the service they promised, or pay back part of the money they took from the feds. And FTA should absolutely tell TriMet that the FFGA for Milwaukie is on hold till the Green Line mess is cleaned up.
This is not about the vast, right-wing conspiracy to privatize transit. It’s about enforcing contracts. If TM can’t even run existing trains properly, at service levels promised to funding agencies, they should stop with the grandiose plans for the most expensive slow train in Oregon history. Obviously their “business plan” is not working.
John Charles
Based on a few conversations with John Charles, I think his personal position is that TriMet should remain as a public institution that passes the full cost of its operations to its riders, with a state-funded voucher system to reduce the burden somewhat on low-income riders.
He also supports jitneys, but as a supplement and competitor to public transit (including, for example, use of TriMet’s park and rides) rather than a full replacement. On those terms, I think I support jitneys, too.
Started my post before I saw John was weighing in himself!
About his comment: Potter did indeed say this morning that 0% of new revenues have gone to bus service, but also that 50% have gone to LIFT service. John knows this was the context, and I’m a little surprised to hear him say LIFT service isn’t “useful.”
Are we conflating “plan” or “goal” with “promised”?
To turn the analogy around, if I’m paying for Cable TV and I’m promised a “basic tier” but not how many channels are in that tier, and when I get the service the number of channels is lower than expected, do I have a contractual leg to stand on so long as the major networks and news channels are present?
I’m aware of one Satellite provider which promised accessibility to various networks. As a matter of practice, they provided both east-coast and west-coast feeds of those networks, which meant a lot of channels and really good scheduling choices. Over time, especially with the advent of HD, some of those choices have been eliminated. We still get just as many networks, but only one of the coastal feeds for some of them.
Is that a failure to fulfill a promise, even though which feed or how many feeds was never contractually spelled out?
What Mr. Charles has (as of yet) failed to do is show where on paper a clause is written in a federal agreement which TriMet is somehow violating.
And Mr. Charles fails to address Scotty’s relevant point: Why must TriMet pay back 1/3 of the money for a project with a multi-decade lifetime based only on the level service provided during the first year or two? Suppose TriMet is guilty, wouldn’t the penalty be prorated?
It’s about enforcing contracts.
Show the specific terms in the contract.
If TM can’t even run existing trains properly,
Define “properly”. What does CPI consider proper levels of light rail service?
at service levels promised to funding agencies,
Show the promise, in writing, made to the funding agencies.
they should stop with the grandiose plans for the most expensive slow train in Oregon history.
So you support high-speed rail? If Milwaukie MAX were fast enough for your standards, would you no longer oppose the cost of the project?
I note that in a Cascade Policy Institute editorial regarding WES Commuter Rail from March, 2010, Mr. Charles advocated the following:
(Snark: Why is there no middle ground here? Can’t they condemn the region to massive operating deficits until the agreements are fulfilled, and then cancel? Infinity seems like a wide timescale to make a prediction. Entropy must outweigh normal operations at some point.)
Seriously: Wouldn’t terminating WES service violate agreements with the funding agencies, as has been alleged by CPI for the Green Line?
Why is a reduction in service frequency on the Green Line a punishable offense which requires federal attention and advocacy for our region to be penalized, while shutting down WES (presumably a genuine violation of actual agreements) something to strive for?
On a cost-per-boarding basis, WES is indeed far, far more expensive to operate than MAX, but the proposed penalty that CPI is advocating for the Green Line, in real dollars, is greater than the capital expense of building the entire WES project.
This whole thing is ridiculous. John, maybe you need to go after Delta airlines for down gauging their A330 to a 767 for PDX-AMS while still accepting $3.5 million from the Port of Portland. That’s a 10% service cut!
Michael, my comment about “useful” service is in the context of what Fred Hansen asserted repeatedly in 2003. He said we need a payroll tax increase in order to operate the Green Line for 20 years. That was his selling point and legislators bought it. He never mentioned anything, verbally or in writing, about diverting the money to LIFT service. So Fred got his tax increase (plus another one in 2009), spent only a small part on the Green Line, then reduced service on that line and all the others.
Of course LIFT is “useful” to its clients, but TM has plenty of other revenue sources to pay for that, including the PR tax money from the underling tax rate.
John
JC: This whole topic would be easier to discuss if you’d just stick to the subject instead of going on a long rant about Cascade’s views on transit generally or who funds Cato Institue (as if that’s relevant).
Perhaps they would be better addressed as separate topics. OTOH, the notion that Cascade should be off-limits for criticism, or that its (or Cato’s) financial backers are irrelevant, doesn’t wash. Conservative media routinely criticize progressive advocacy groups like 1000 Friends, and often attempt to impugn the motives of public officials, programs, and advocacy groups by suggesting that they are in the tank for their political patrons and/or funding sources–indeed, a major theme of criticisms of TriMet (from both right and left) is that the capital projects are mainly about pork-barrel politics and only superficially about mobility.
Why should libertarian think-tanks not be subject to the same scrutiny? Especially ones whose “issues” page highlights the subjects of education, environment, land use, transportation, entitlement, health care, and tax/budget–all of them areas of concern where the Libertarian position tends to agree with the corporatist one advanced by the GOP? Why doesn’t the CPI give equal time to issues such as free speech, drug prohibition, police brutality, war and peace, the surveillance state, civil rights, and such? You’d win a lot of praise from progressives were you to criticize the Portland Police Union with the same vigilance that you use to go after the NEA and the ATU.
CS: My complaint to FTA is that TriMet took all the federal money, then reneged on its end of the deal to operate the train as promised. TriMet itself admits in numerous documents (including the FY 12 budget)that service is 33% below what was promised. I didn’t have to do the calculation. So knowing that, the question remains, is 33% variance a “violation” of the FFGA? Chris Smith says no. My response is: if you subscribed to cable TV service and you paid for 90 channels, but you only got 60, would you just take it, or would you call up the company and demand 90? I’m pretty sure that most people not suffering from a self-esteem problem would do the latter. So why do local TriMet cheer-leaders think that a variance of 33% is “good enough for government work?”
Speaking for myself, the first threshold is “is there an “adequate and efficient” level of service”: If TriMet were only running two trains a day, or failed to operate the service altogether, you would have a point. But TriMet is providing an adequate and efficient level of service, by any objective standard.
And as noted in TriMet’s response, the FTA is well aware of the current levels Green Line service.
What level of service do you think is necessary to avoid being out-of-compliance?
JC: The whole notion of how light rail is a 50- or 100-year “investment” and therefore we should ignore current service levels is utter nonsense. TriMet took the money; they are not providing the service. That’s a violation.
It’s relevant to your theory of damages. If TriMet were to cancel service altogether for a given Sunday, and then resume service at 100% therever after, should they be required to refund the entire federal match? After all, in this hypothetical, they provided 0% of the “promised” service for an entire day.
JC:It’s interesting that no one from TriMet has yet responded to my letter. McFarlane trys to claim that he found out about this via a “press release”, but I emailed him and all his board members a copy of my FTA letter the day after I snail-mailed it to FTA. And I never released it to other parties until TriMet had a chance to see it first.
Why should they respond to you?
JC: But even more interesting is his lame response. This is his best shot? He never denies any of my claims, he just says FTA has never raised an issue with him.
He stated, as quoted above, “TriMet is in full compliance will all aspects of the FFGA for the MAX Green Line”, in a letter to his superiors on the Board. TriMet fully admits that their service levels are 33% less than that contained in planning documents. They simply disagree with your contention that this constitutes a violation.
JC: Of course not, FTA is co-dependent with TriMet. I expect them to cover for TriMet, otherwise they would be admitting that they have provided inadequate oversight of federal tax expenditures.
Then why bother sending the letter in the first place, if you think its going to the bottom of the birdcage at FTA?
JC: McFarlane’s answer is akin to saying “move along, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.” TM bureaucrats live in a totally fake world where they can say anything they want and get away with it.
Sounds to me like a lot of conservative political circles as well–but surely you can come up with a more substantive argument than this. You’re venturing into tinfoil territory, John.
JC: The notion that TriMet service on the Green Line is suffering because of “the recession” is comical, as I point out in my FTA letter. TriMet has been awash in cash since the payroll tax rate increase went into effect in 2005. The fact that local journalists and bloggers keep buying this argument just reveals how little homework most of them do.
I’ve kept rather busy reading TriMet’s financial statements of late, so I like to think I’m reasonably well-informed on the topic.
JC: The Green Line never made any sense, and was a total waste of money. But TM took the federal cash and made promises, so they should keep those promises. Fred Hansen went around the Capitol in 2003 selling the payroll tax increase as necessary for operations of the Green Line, got his increase, and then turned the tax increase into a profit center, as I noted in my FTA letter. I was there in 2003 and heard him make all those promises.
A profit center? Here you claim that TriMet is rolling in the dough, and is operating a “profit center”; while elsewhere, including in much of Cascade’s TriMet criticism, it is suggested that the agency is teetering on the edge of bankruptcy (in particular due to its pension obligations).
Can’t be both.
JC: At today’s TM board meeting, Clair Potter confirmed that NONE of the new payroll tax money from 2005-2010 went to new bus service (which is now 13% below 2001 levels), and LR service overall has been cut by 10%. This is the greatest disappearing act since Houdini! Vast sums of money have gone into the TriMet black hole, never to be seen again in the form of useful service! But Portland Transport bloggers can be counted on to defend TriMet anyway.
Two words: Health care. But CPI apparently opposes reform of that, too.
JC: It’s all very simple, folks; TriMet should either provide the service they promised, or pay back part of the money they took from the feds. And FTA should absolutely tell TriMet that the FFGA for Milwaukie is on hold till the Green Line mess is cleaned up.
I’m sure the FTA is perfectly capable of coming to its own conclusions.
John Charles is an interesting guy.
I remember, long ago, when he arrived in town from back east as director of the Oregon Environmental Council. He urged members to bring “covered dishes” to OEC get-togethers.
John turned out to be quite a covered dish himself–a closet Libertarian!
I am fine with that. In this country one can espouse anything one desires, except overthrowing the federal government by force and violence. But i don’t get the whole ideology thing. In any ideological system the most extreme point of view seems to be the most consistent, and therefore the most logical. From what little I have bothered to learn about libertarianism and about communism both seem to advocate anarchy as the ultimate goal.
I am not on board with that. Read Aristotle, Dante, Machiavelli, Locke, Adam Smith, the Declaration of Independence, the preamble to our Constitution, JC: It is a good idea for normal people, not just business people, to come together to do useful stuff. “…promote the general welfare…” Clearly the framers of our Constitution intended to create a welfare state.
If only commercial interests were permitted to organize, in their pursuit of wealth and power, that would be social Darwinism, which currently seems to be the official doctrine of the Republican Party, and Goldman Sachs Democrats too .
Dumb Charlie never wrote, “…survival of the fittest…” That was Herbert Spencer. Andrew Carnegie and his robber baron buddies used to pay bad Herbie to steam across the Pond to confirm their economic and social oppression of normal and highly productive citizens as ethically permissible and morally superior. Libertarian to the core.
It seems to me that the basic problem here is absolute elevation of individual rights over social responsibility. This extremism is the basic argument of both our gun fans and our abortion fans: we may do whatever we desire, regardless of its effects on others; then, of course, we may demand that others support our every need and fancy.
Can’t build much of a country on that, John.
Jim, your comment on libertarianism (and other isms) is amusing but is venturing too far into the personal when it comes to Mr. Charles. Let’s stick to issues and not make this about personalities. Mr. Charles is already getting quite a grilling on the issues front.
First of all, I do think the post is somewhat of an attack piece and goes beyond just discussing the issues. But Mr. Charles has a long way to go for me to say its undeserved.
And overall, it seems kind of silly to argue whether a service should run every 15 minutes or every 30 minutes (or 10 vs. 15 minutes), which is what the argument really boils down to. People may be having to wait longer, but the service is still running, and running st all the times it was planned to run.
Payroll tax and fare revenues have both gone down due to less people working and less people riding transit to work.
And as for Milwaukie MAX operating funding, is there 100% certainty that it will be there? No. However, seeing that bus service will be able to be replaced, and that there’s an expectation (see the FY 12 budget message) of a lot of new fares, as well as increased payroll tax rates, it looks promising.
The Green Line never made any sense, and was a total waste of money
Making trips (between Gateway and Clackamas) take 1/3 the time, a full half-hour less, doesn’t make sense? And providing relief to the highest used (by far, I think) bus line? Plus the fact that there was an existing, unused right-of-way?
TM has plenty of other revenue sources to pay for [LIFT service], including the PR tax money from the underling tax rate
Well, LIFT usage (and cost per use) has been growing fast, as in possibly faster than the base tax revenues have been rising.
a public institution that passes the full cost of its operations to its riders
This is what really gets me. He thinks that transit shouldn’t be subsidized (which is a valid opinion, though costs like reduced fares and paratransit are mandated) BUT seems to ignore subsidies and favorable policies given to car users. I don’t see him going after things like parking mandates, free on-street parking, the passing of the costs of road runoff treatment (like a portion of the Big Pipe) to stormwater ratepayers, development limitations and regulations that limit density (and the number of potential transit riders along a route), tax policy that discourages denser development, street designs that prioritize through traffic at the expense of pedestrians (read: transit riders), taxpayer-funded defense of oil supplies, subsidies given to new suburban development, etc.
Overall, I believe that, if those things didn’t exist and the marketplace was truly functional, there would be high transit ridership, and transit could pay for itself.
Cascade does, in principle, come out against zoning. Their “mission statement”, as it were, on land use reads:
In practice, though, it seems Cascade’s focus and advocacy is on ending Oregon’s land use laws designed to protect rural lands from being turned willy-nilly into subdivisions; which is consistent with libertarian ideology. (Cascade also lobbies on behalf of the Dorothy English’s of the world–landowners within the UGB who find their property zoned for green space). Cascade seems to say utterly nothing, however, about the rights of developers to turn existing single-family housing in places like Bethany or Tualatin, into multi-family housing or low-impact commercial uses (such as bank or a dentist office) that might be beneficial.
And Cascade routinely likes to criticize Portland’s construction of bike infrastructure–a type of transportation infrastructure that Libertarians ought to appreciate. As Zach Dundas notes in the above article:
Bike lanes are cheap; they don’t have a big footprint, they aren’t a nuisance to neighbors, and they have an operating budget of dang near zero–you would think that libertarians would want more of them, instead of more roads (And some do!) But the libertarians that do actually uphold libertarian principles across the board, seem to find it harder to get funding for their activities, and thus (like your friendly neighborhood bloggers here at Portland Transport) toil as volunteers. (There are many find libertarian blogs out there on the net; we’ve previously linked to several of them). The folks with large amounts of money to bankroll political causes and lobbyists seem to prefer–how shall we say it–a certain selectivity in coverage.
So apparently everyone is ok with TM delivering 33% less service than promised when they signed the FFGA. How big does the number have to get before you think there’s a management problem?
JC
So apparently everyone is ok with TM delivering 33% less service than promised when they signed the FFGA.
Complete nonsense. First, you start with the false premise that just because some here do not rush to judgement against TriMet that we therefore agree with the current level of service. Second, and most importantly, you have not yet demonstrated, with documentary evidence, that TriMet has violated any particular “promise” made in the FFGA.
Please document your claims, and please avoid ascribing false motives. Thank you.
FWIW, irrespective of any promises to the FTA… I’d rather have cuts on a new service (assuming it remains viable, as it does in this case) rather than deeper cuts elsewhere. That’s just my two cents, though, and not grounded in any FFGA requirements.
It was only last fall that we were treated to the spectacle of ATU 757 members cheering on John Charles after a rousing anti-MAX speech before the TriMet board, in which he gleefully promoted the theory that MAX epansion was a grave threat to bus operations.
~~~>They were cheering that specific idea, not the man, and certainly not the organization.
(Any enemy of my enemy is a friend of mine)
…………………….
As for the ATU, TriMet management promised a $ billion in benefits they have no money for. Is that good for the union? Good for transit? Good for bus riders?
~~~>The specific problem here is the health insurance industry and our corporate governments refusal to institute either a single payer or strictly regulated insurance industry
………………….
All of which is made worse by the conspiring to prevent public votes on these costly projects the public would never approve of.
~~~>There is a kernel of truth in that statement.
………………
What public votes were “prevented”?
~~>Actually the yellow line was defeated at the polls but they built it anyway. I don’t remember anybody asking me about the green line or the WES, in other words the public gets no say.
………………..
I take issue with the statement that TriMet is the “worst managed” transit system in the country or that the financial problems are not a product of the economy.
~~~>Obviously Trimet is hardly the “worst” and it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand if the payroll tax depends on people being employed, and there are less people employed, then there would be less money available to Trimet.
But Trimet’s insistence on this never ending growth cycle has played a large role in creating this huge hole (supposedly). You can’t add service without increasing your payroll, and increasing the payroll means more expenditures, duh!
………………….
How much of that is fuel costs,
~~~~>Don’t forget the boneheaded move which locked Trimet into higher gas prices for the term of that contract. Cost the agency millions.
………………..
McFarlane’s answer is akin to saying “move along, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.” TM bureaucrats live in a totally fake world where they can say anything they want and get away with it.
~~~>Uh, me thinks he has hit the nail squarely on the head!
……………
The Green Line never made any sense, and was a total waste of money.
~~~>Gotta agree again, putting in that rail line to the Clackamas shopping center really was NOT a necessary addition to the Trimet system, anymore than that joke train to Wilsonville was. Now all the rest of the riders of Trimet are stuck paying for all the dung for who knows how long!
……………
I’m no fan of John Charles, but I am also not so stupid as to take every single point he says and dismiss it just because it came from him.
I think the “think tanks” are pursuing an agenda that has as its particular focus transit bashing.
I see plenty wrong at Trimet, lots of things should be changed, there is no doubt about that.
The first thing this place has to do is stop adding to a system that they cannot support in its current form!
The thoughts, opinions, ideas, and body odor are of me; they do not reflect the thoughts, opinions, ideas, and/or body odor of my company, my union, my friends, my neighbors, my fish, my roses, my dog, or my trash. All rights reserved, all lefts reserved.
Actually the yellow line was defeated at the polls but they built it anyway.
On an entirely different alignment, a much shorter/smaller project, and with different, legal, means of funding that didn’t require a vote.
And that “defeated” vote, Measure 32 in 1996, also happened to include statewide highway funding. It was about 50/50 rail and roads. So if that was a vote against light rail, it was also a vote against highways.
Let me know when we got to vote on the I-205 widening near Stafford Road, the 217 widening currently wrapping up, the I-5 widening over Delta Park, the I-5 widening at Wilsonville, etc. (And I support, or at least I’m neutral, regarding all 4 of those projects. But when was I asked?)
I just can’t wait to vote on the whole CRC package. When was that scheduled again?
We’ve just had a big debate over the Sellwood bridge where those who advocated that Clackamas County voters NOT approve funding for the bridge now say that did NOT mean that the bridge shouldn’t be built.
So apparently in some cases voting “NO” on something doesn’t mean you want the project stopped, just retooled.
And retooled the Yellow Line was. (Yoda says).
So apparently in some cases voting “NO” on something doesn’t mean you want the project stopped, just retooled.
And retooled the Yellow Line was. (Yoda says).
I didn’t get to vote on the war either, yada yada yada.
Say what you want about John Charles, I always enjoy his SHOW!
Actually the yellow line was defeated at the polls but they built it anyway.
The yellow line was built entirely within the City of Portland. And Portland voters voted “YES” on the S/N line three times: 1994, 1996, and 1998. If a city’s voters say “yes” to taxing themselves to build a light rail project three times in a row, that’s a pretty strong sign of support. And a pretty good reason to build it notwithstanding opposition from voters elsewhere.
Let me know when we got to vote on the I-205 widening near Stafford Road, the 217 widening currently wrapping up, the I-5 widening over Delta Park, the I-5 widening at Wilsonville, etc.
Let me know when we get to vote on the CRC. Please.
The FTA response reflects the same lack of due diligence as shown in reviewing the original TriMet grant application in the first place. TriMet has not been particularly affected by the recession; as I showed in my original letter, all TriMet revenue sources have increased substantially in the past 6 years. The $60 million in “new” payroll tax revenue specifically authorized by the legislature in 2003 was more than enough to operate the Green Line properly.
The fact that TM is operating the Green Line at 33% below planned-for service levels is strictly the result of the agency’s own financial mismanagement, not “the recession.”
Furthermore, TM’s published 20-year forecast shows that the lack of servic is not just a temporary problem; it will be a chronic problem, notwithstanding the fact that a second payroll tax rate increase will kick in beginning 2014.
TriMet lied to the legislature, lied to FTA, and continues to lie to the public about the cause of service reductions. The entire TM board should be replaced by the governor for failure to carry out its fiduciary responsibilities.
JC
The FTA response reflects the same lack of due diligence as shown in reviewing the original TriMet grant application in the first place.
Were the FTA to take your complaint seriously, you’d be heaping praise on them. But now that they’ve essentially told CPI to get lost, they lack “due diligence”. If the FTA is that incompetent, in your opinion, then why bother in the first place?
The $60 million in “new” payroll tax revenue specifically authorized by the legislature in 2003 was more than enough to operate the Green Line properly.
The payroll tax increase was intended to pay for the new service; but when other revenues went down compared to costs, something had to give. I have a feeling that if TriMet had opened the Green Line at 100% of planned service levels, you wouldn’t be praising the agency for honoring its “commitments”–you’d be hammering them for cutting service elsewhere. Likewise with the second payroll tax bump–its to fund MLR; without MLR the state likely wouldn’t have authorized the payroll tax increase.
TriMet lied to the legislature, lied to FTA, and continues to lie to the public about the cause of service reductions. The entire TM board should be replaced by the governor for failure to carry out its fiduciary responsibilities.
What do you suppose is the “cause” of service reductions? (I put the term in quotes because there are many causes; only some of which have anything to do with capital projects). At any rate, the term “lie” is a rather strong one. You’ve made a reasonable case that the revenue assumptions in planning documents don’t match the actual numbers; you’ve done utterly nothing to demonstrate bad faith or intentional deceit on the part of TriMet.
If the FTA is that incompetent, in your opinion, then why bother in the first place?
In the spirit of contrarianness, I’ll take that one on: If you believe an agency to be unresponsive (or worse, incompetent or corrupt), one way to prove your point is to file some sort of claim and then use the response, or lack thereof, to prove your point.
In this particular case, where proving the point requires specific evidence, CPI has failed, but that doesn’t mean (from their perspective) it wasn’t worth trying.
TriMet has not been particularly affected by the recession
Isn’t true that both payroll tax and fare revenues have both gone DOWN when they normally increase? It certainly has for LTD.
all TriMet revenue sources have increased substantially in the past 6 years
Even if that’s true, haven’t expenses risen too, such as health care and LIFT service?
Would you be willing to support getting jurisdictions to provide sidewalks/crosswalks/etc so that people have the liberty to get to regular transit service, or creating a real health care marketplace by having the government give everybody their own spending account?
The $60 million in “new” payroll tax revenue
Was it really a certain amount of revenue the legislature authorized, or a tax rate which could theoretically bring in a certain amount of money under certain ideal conditions (which haven’t existed)?
carry out its fiduciary responsibilities.
How about the fiduciary responsibility of getting back as much taxpayer dollars taken by the Federal government as possible?
Overall, what’s so wrong with service running every 30 minutes instead of every 15 (or 15 instead of 10)? With the Green Line, that’s what we’re talking about.
“you’ve done utterly nothing to demonstrate bad faith or intentional deceit on the part of TriMet.”
Far from all of the ways and just off the top of my head.
TriMet deceit:
The Westside Commuter rail was designed to reduce traffic on I-5 and 217.”
It will use an existing rail line.
There will be a Washington Square stop.
The 205 MAX will spur development along 82nd avenue.
Light rail has leveraged $8 billion in development.
MLR will create 14000 jobs.
The Independent Auditors report is apples, oranges and grapefruits put together to make an unreasonable number.
The $27 million in cuts last year was due to the economy. [not the $27 million increase in cost of benefits]
TriMet heard only in July 2010 of a 50% match instead of 60% for MLR.
OHSU donated $15 million in SoWa land for MLR.
TriMet is donating $10 million to OHSU’s Life Sciences Collaborative Complex.
Should the feds care about how TriMet has ginned ginned up the false representation of a local match?
Steve S. Says:
“TriMet deceit:
The Westside Commuter rail was designed to reduce traffic on I-5 and 217.
It will use an existing rail line.
There will be a Washington Square stop.
The 205 MAX will spur development along 82nd avenue.
Light rail has leveraged $8 billion in development.
MLR will create 14000 jobs.”
The first 3 are false. Trimet didn’t push the WES project, Washington County did. And besides that, it DOES use an existing rail line, the “Washington Square” station was ALWAYS on the west side of 217, and WES was never designed to reduce traffic on 217 and 5, just provide an alternative for commuters along that corridor.
It’s way too early to tell if 205 MAX will spur development on 82nd, or whether MLR will create 14,000 jobs.
And I’m not sure where you got the 8 billion dollar figure, but regardless of the ACTUAL figure (which would be pretty difficult to precisely quantify), light rail has indeed spurred billions of dollars of development, either directly or indirectly.
Re: 82nd Ave/ 205 LR corridor development trends:
Just from my personal experience (ie I live 4 blocks off 82nd), and my wonkish scanning of land-use notices, there is new development happening on 82nd since MAX has arrived.
The big ones I’ve personally seen:
– Eastport Plaza now has filled about 75% of their previously vacant or under utilized storefronts since MAX opened
– WalMart is adding a 20K sq ft grocery expansion
-Multiple buildings on 82nd between Flavel and Main have undergone expansions or facelifts including a couple of new medical centers and numerous smaller retail spots and restaurants/bars
-PCC’s SE campus will have a huge expansion
– Lents town center finally has a real coffee shop, and most of the vacant storefronts are have tenants on the hook/ planning their tenant improvements
-New infill homes (nice ones) have steadily continued to be constructed in the areas around the Holgate station. In addition, a lot of the properties that were previously short sales are being properly renovated and cleaned up- some with VERY NICE upgrades.
Aaron
Every one of those are directly from claims made by TriMet.
Do I have to actually go round them up becasue you have no memory?
TriMet said specificllyand repeatedly that the Westside Commuter rail was “designed to reduce congestion on I-5 and 217”. I challenged that in public, stating there was no such designing at all, only to get the blank stares and ridiculous assumption that congestion reduction should occur.
TriMet and people here repeated that it would save mnoney by using existing rail lines.
TriMet hyped it, and it was repeated here, how convenient the y “Washington Square” station would be.
Cora is dreaming up things. None of those Cora quotes were spurred by MAX at all. No 205 MAX spurring of development along 82nd avenue has occured and Metro executive Michael Jordon said last summer the Green Line should not have been build next to 205.
Light rail hasn’t leveraged $8 billion in development. That’s a whopper.
MLR will never create 14000 jobs. That’s another whopper. It’s already been diminished with stakeholder admission that it includes every full, part time, and temporary job from pre- planning to follow up maintenence.
And it excludes the job losses from plundering funding form existing payrolls and jobs caused by UR, Lottery, TriMet revenue bonds and Metro fles funds.
Your contention that Trimet didn’t push WES is a farce and new creation.
TriMet led the process with hiring of Joe Walsh who led the propoganda that included everything I mentioned.
Why on earth would anyone think teh gren line would spur development?
All MAX does is spur the money pit of spending to try and spur what it never does.
The $8 billion figure has repeated so many times lately, including form Neil McFarlane last week and Bernie Bottomly at the CRC Independent Review committeee, that I find it curious you don’t know know it is being used. Never ind tha number was only $3 billion a few short years ago.
Light rail hasn’t spurred squat. It spurred spending. And perpetual money pit is everywhere MAX goes. The Round and Rockwood prime examples.
Much of the so spurring by MAX includes many goverment buildings like the BPA headquarters and Oregon State offices building in the Lloyd District. Did MAX spur those in any way? Only in a RailVolution break out session.
Here’s some old comments here:
[my additions]
http://portlandtransport.com/archives/2005/08/washington_coun.html
“The 14.7-mile commuter rail line would use existing freight tracks”
[TriMet’s] “Mary Fetsch Says:
Since the Washington County Commuter Rail line will use existing freight tracks, “.
August 4, 2005 7:38 AM
“cab Says:
Good post Hank, This is what scares me. A layman can see this is not a well thought out project and yet the “experts” are pushing it. Who is going to ride this? What are the advantages? Where could they actually go to? I’m all for transit, but projects like this have the potential to do more harm then good for the perception of transit. We spend 77 [166 million] million on something that doesn’t work people are going to take it out on projects they would be benificial.”
Ross Williams Says:
“The main problem with the Washington County corridor is the lack of destinations near the line.”
“Ross Williams
“- the commuter rail will help to spur the needed improvements. Downtown Beaverton provides direct connections to light rail in addition to serving the regional center. The Washington Square station connects to a major job center which has significant transportation challenges.”
“Ron Swaren- To Ross: SMILE meetings have been focusing in on the Sellwood Bridge issue and Mult. Co. Comm. Rojo de Steffey, visiting on July 6, promised to abide by our proposal to remain two lanes on the bridge. Bechtel rep. was also there and got exceedingly grilled about Bechtel’s motive in tenedering the offer to Mult. Co. Using renovation of other bridges for comparison the $90 M figure should be half or less( Ross Island, much bigger, was $35 M). The questionable parts are the W. and E. approaches which came from an Old Burnside bridge and are only concrete and, of course, the deck and sidewalks. The main truss span is steel, was designed by Gustav Lindenthal and was fabricated in 1925, so it should not pose a problem, IF we remain at two lanes. Therefore, there should be a major savings over the projected $90 M., with streetcar tracks, to boot.”
Steve S. Says:
“Aaron
Every one of those are directly from claims made by TriMet. Do I have to actually go round them up becasue[sic] you have no memory?”
Steve, I remember perfectly, thank you very much. You, however, are forgetting that WES was a Washington County project, not a TriMet project. TriMet was given the operational responsibilities after it was built and has since tried to promote it as best it can. If you’re looking to place blame on someone for WES’s lackluster performance, blame Washington County. There are plenty of other things you can (and undoubtedly will) bash TriMet for.
Aaron,
You’re lack of memory in reinventing history is astounding.
TriMet led the entire campaign to advance the commuter rail through planning and full funding approval, long before construction started.
Incluing hiring a full time front man named Joe Walsh.
I attended some of Joe’s power points, lectures & Q&As (one at PSU) and challenged his falsehoods.
Where were you? Kansas?
And TriMet used all of the same misrespresentations to advance the Green Line, Milwaukie Light Rail and now the LO Streetcar and CRC/Light Rail.
Washington county had little to no role in conducting or overseeing any of the planning, design, engineering, public involvement, communication or construction.
Your attempt insulate TriMet from any blame for the WES boondoggle is one big fail.
http://portlandtransport.com/archives/2006/10/washington_coun_2.html
About the project:
“Using existing Portland & Western freight tracks,
Cost of the project is $117.3 million, with the federal government providing 50 percent of the funds. [$166 million] & [Mcfarlane knew then 50% was the fed match]
Weekday ridership is expected to be 3,000-4,000 trips estimated by 2020, [1400 current trips=700 riders]
Posted by Mary Fetsch, TriMet at 9:45 AM ”
October 20, 2006 2:13 PM
Ron Swaren Says:
by using exisiting rails a lot of startup costs have been eliminated. [every piece of railing, every rr tie and all the ballst were replaced along with added spurs]
http://portlandtransport.com/archives/2005/08/washington_coun.html
TriMet General Manager Fred Hansen. “He led the Oregon delegation in making sure this project will serve the cities of Beaverton, Tigard, Tualatin and Wilsonville.”
Background
The 14.7-mile commuter rail line would use existing freight tracks to add transit service in the heavily traveled I-5 and Hwy 217 corridor.
Steve,
I won’t waste any space defending WES. I’ve been routinely critical of the project, and consider it an expensive mistake. While, as Aaron points out, it was mostly Washington County’s baby (and county government twisted TriMet’s arms); TriMet isn’t off the hook for it. It was a cluster-you-know-what of the highest magnitude.
But none of the examples you cite provides evidence of lying–which requires someone state something that the know (or believe) is false. Bad guessing, wishful thinking, back-scratching, and hyperbole–certainly. Happens on projects all the time–the CRC is full of it.
But lying? That charge requires a high burden of proof of an intent to deceive; and you haven’t offered any. Hanlon’s razor applies.
And besides–WES wasn’t the type of big capital project that tends to involve pork-barrel politics and the shenanigans that frequently go along therewith. If anything, the problem with WES is that they tried to do things on the cheap, pretty much across the board, and as a result built a wholly inappropriate solution to the transportation needs of the corridor.
Steve S. Says:
“Aaron, You’re lack of memory in reinventing history is astounding. TriMet led the entire campaign to advance the commuter rail through planning and full funding approval, long before construction started.”
And again, you’re refusing to acknowledge that this was NOT Trimet’s project. This wasn’t even on their radar when Washington County (and Beaverton and Tigard and Tualatin and Wilsonville) pushed this project forward. It has since become TriMet’s headache and yes, they’ve tried to put lipstick on this pig, with little success. But regardless, your 3 initial comments about WES are still false.
“Where were you? Kansas?”
No, actually Tigard.
“And TriMet used all of the same misrespresentations [your opinion] to advance the Green Line, Milwaukie Light Rail and now the LO Streetcar and CRC/Light Rail.”
Wow, TriMet did all that? I didn’t know they were all-powerful. I guess Metro, Portland, Clackamas Co, Multnomah Co, Lake Oswego, Milwaukie, Vancouver, ODOT and WsDOT had nothing to do with any of these.
“Washington county had little to no role in conducting or overseeing any of the planning, design, engineering, public involvement, communication or construction.”
Steve, none of those steps would have happened in the first place if Washington County hadn’t initiated and forced the whole process.
“Your attempt insulate TriMet from any blame for the WES boondoggle is one big fail.”
TriMet has made a lot of questionable decisions, IMO, and I’m happy to point them out as I see them. But WES was not one of them. Blaming Trimet for WES is like shooting the messenger, they did the best with what they were told to do. And blaming TriMet for everything under the sun is just nonsense, or as you put it, “one big fail”.
Oh but wait, is TriMet to blame for the rising sea levels too?
Scotty and Aaron,
You guys are in denial. The many distortions TriMet has and is using is deliberate misinformation. If you feel better not calling them lies, well big surprise.
Aaron how are these false claims repeatedly made by TriMet “3 initial comments about WES are still false.”
TriMet and news stories repeatedly claimed the Commuter rail was designed to reduce traffic on I-5 and 217..
I showed you Mary Fetch and commenters here claiming it would save money by use existing rail tracks.
And throughout the entire promotion the convenience of a “Washington Square” station was used.
Only after it opended did the staiton change it’s name.
Claiming that all of the handling, hype, promotion and propoganda by TriMet was against their will is asinine.
And there is no doubt Washington County involved TriMet early on with discussions about feasibility and from there it became a TriMet dominated project by every possible measurement.
Wherever the orginial thought started is meaningless.
TriMet showed zero resistance and went to the nth degree, “doing the best they could”, utilizing every technique they use today to get around every hurdle in moving it forward.
The identical rhetoric is being used to advance LO Streetcar, CRC/light rail and Milwaukie Light Rail.
Now the same misrepresentations are ushering out the barbur/99 MAX.
Commuter rail was designed to reduce traffic on I-5 and 217..
Well, if someone used to drive but now find that WES makes transit viable, doesn’t that result in reduced traffic?
save money by use existing rail tracks
How about going and pricing a brand-new transit right-of-way from Beaverton to Wilsonville for us, so we can see if it really would be cheaper?
Overall, I remember a time when TriMet said they didn’t know what role they would have in the next steps of the project.
And how much of the cost problems are because of the FRA prohibiting lighter, readily-available cars and single-person crews which are used elsewhere?
Steve S. Says:
“Aaron how are these false claims repeatedly made by TriMet “3 initial comments about WES are still false.” TriMet and news stories repeatedly claimed the Commuter rail was designed to reduce traffic on I-5 and 217.”
Well, according to your own response earlier, 700 riders are using WES daily. That’s 700 fewer cars on I-5 and 217. So traffic was in fact reduced. Where is the “lie”?
“I showed you Mary Fetch and commenters here claiming it would save money by use existing rail tracks.”
Again, where is the “lie” here? Using existing freight tracks DID in fact save money.
“And throughout the entire promotion the convenience of a “Washington Square” station was used. Only after it opended did the staiton change it’s name.”
Seriously Steve? You’re mad that they changed the name of the station? That’s really grasping at straws. The station never moved, it was always gonna be right there at Hall Blvd. And it’s very convenient for hundreds of people who work and shop closeby. I guess you don’t understand that “Washington Square” is not just the mall, it’s the Metro regional center that includes the commercial area west of 217… exactly where the station is located.
“And there is no doubt Washington County involved TriMet early on with discussions….. Wherever the orginial thought started is meaningless.”
And therein lies your problem. You’re blaming TriMet for helping to carry out what Washington County and the 4 cities along the corridor demanded. I don’t know why, but it’s obvious you have a chip on your shoulder about TriMet…. everything is TriMet’s fault. It makes it hard to believe anything you say about them.
Aaron Hall,
It appears you don’t really have any familiarity with the WES process..
You’re hopelessly wrong and are not reading with any comprehension.
There never was any “design” to reduce traffic. Claiming WES was “designed to reduce traffic was a bald faced lie.
Saying the 700 riders are now 700 fewer cars on I-5 and 217 is another whopper. I see you have adopted TriMet’s approach. Make shat up.
I showed you Mary Fetch and commenters here claiming it would save money by use existing rail tracks.”
Aaron says—“Again, where is the “lie” here? Using existing freight tracks DID in fact save money.”
I already pointed out the lie. WES did not use any of the existing rail tracks, any of the existing RR ties or any of the existing ballast. All of it was replaced as planned when they were lying about it.
TriMet lied in claiming there would be a Washington Square station to promote WES a a convenient way to use transit to go shopping.
I could care less what they call it now. But it certainly isn’t convenient for any shoppers.
But you claim it’s “very convenient for hundreds of people who work and shop close by”. Really? Have you counted the station use?
I know all about the future “Washington Square – Metro regional center”. Let me know when that all comes together.
As or your contention that the cities and WA county demanded/forced TriMet to embellish, lie, propagandize and manipulate the WES into approval and construction I’ll just laugh.,
TriMet did more by far than anyone else to make WES happen.They deserve nearly all of the blame.
No you don’t know “why”. But you’ve fabricated a strawman chip on my shoulder to lean on. Cute.
The problem is TriMet did the same thing with the Green LIne and now with MLR and CRC/Light Rail. One lie after another with billions at a stake.
Steve,
Enough, please, with the accusations of lying.
You’re welcome to dispute what TriMet says, and there’s ample evidence in the transit literature that “congestion relief” is a poor justification for building transit. (If you add parallel transit to a freeway, it seldom reduces congestion on the freeway for the same reason that widening the freeway doesn’t help either: induced demand).
We make it a point not to accuse transit opponents of lying–preferring to stay within the realm of fact and argument, rather than venturing to claims of bad faith (which are rather hard to substantiate). There are quite a few nationally-prominent transit opponents who I suspect are little more than paid shills for the petrochemical industry; but I avoid accusing anyone of such by name. (I’m not referring to anyone who is a contributor to this forum).
As far as some of your specific complaints go: It was long known that track upgrades would be required, even though the same ROW was used. If you think “using the same tracks” in that context is misleading, you’re welcome to think so–but then, intellectual consistency would require you to concede that repaving a freeway is no different than building a new one. Replacing tracks and ballast on an existing rail line is a lot cheaper than building a new one from scratch, which also requires acquisition of the ROW and construction of the railbed.
You’re hopelessly wrong and are not reading with any comprehension.
Cora is dreaming up things.
Do I have to actually go round them up becasue you have no memory?
Claiming that all of the handling, hype, promotion and propoganda by TriMet was against their will is asinine
You’re lack of memory in reinventing history is astounding.
Where were you? Kansas?
You guys are in denial. The many distortions TriMet has and is using is deliberate misinformation. If you feel better not calling them lies, well big surprise.
Given that Steve S. is still allowed to post here after all the above, it appears that Rule 2 and Rule 5 are no longer in effect. So I guess there’s no reason I shouldn’t point out that [tasteless insult removed.]
[Moderator: Point taken. Steve has been warned in the post above–any more personally-directed remarks from him will result in a comment vacation. While I can’t speak for Bob or Chris, I wasn’t feeling well over the weekend and thus was not online to police the blog. That said, no reason to escalate things–send us email if you think someone is getting out of line; sometimes we miss things especially if there’s a large volume of posts — ES]
Figures… I largely took a break from blogging over the weekend and celebrated my birthday. I’d tell you how old I am but that would be telling the answer to the ultimate question.
Scrolling up, yes, I see that Steve was again running afoul of the rules, sorry I didn’t step in.
Happy Birthday, Bob! (The ultimate question being: What’s 6 times 7?)
Don’t feel too bad, I just hit the big four-oh a few months back. :)
“Big four-oh”? Snicker. Try the Big six-oh. Puppies.
Steve S. Says: “Aaron Hall, It appears you don’t really have any familiarity with the WES process.. You’re hopelessly wrong and are not reading with any comprehension.”
Actually, I followed the WES process from the beginning, so don’t tell me what I am or am not familiar with, Steve. And if you think I’m unable to comprehend your arguments, perhaps it’s because I find them thoroughly incomprehensible (and laughable too, but that’s just my opinion, of course).
I’m not going to go through and rebutt all of your nonsensical (my opinion) statements again because you obviously are so self-assured of your TriMet conspiracy theories that nothing I or anyone else says will change your mind. That’s pretty sad. But I am curious….. is there anything TriMet says that ISN’T a lie? And how is TriMet responsible for the poorly planned CRC and LO Streetcar projects?
OK. So now we have another rule?
No offending TriMet by pointing out they lied?
Wendell Cox and Randall O’Toole are not paid shills for the petrochemical industry.
Neither is John Charles depsite the bogus claims CPI is funded by Koch money.
It may have been “long known that track upgrades would be required” but TriMet never once told the public and instead repeatedly claimed WES would be “using the same tracks”.
If that was the only departure from the truth we woudn’t be discussing it.
As for rule 2 and 5 it appears your sensitivity gets adjusted up when convenient.
I could easily find Aaron as offensive as any of you perceive me.
Even after he was shown no existing tracks were used he comes back with:
“Again, where is the “lie” here? Using existing freight tracks DID in fact save money.”
What a perfect example of a fatally flawed conversation and a pattern of treatment I get here.
The bottom line is WES was a horrible mistake that was advanced with a untruthful campaign by TriMet.
Rex Burkholder has admitted the project did not get adequate scrutiny.
But defenders of TriMet circle the wagons while doing the same thing all over again.
However I do like your new found skeptisism about extending light rail to Vancouver.
I hope you provided something usefull for it’s opponents.
Can’t we occassionaly have heated arguments without trying to shut them down?
… not paid shills for the petrochemical industry … Neither is John Charles depsite the bogus claims CPI is funded by Koch money.
Steve, you’re complaining about the wrong web site.
I just did a search of all published content and comments on Portland Transport and found no hits (except your own comment, above) matching the following keyword pairs: Charles Koch, CPI Koch, Cascade Koch.
Can’t we occassionaly have heated arguments without trying to shut them down?
Blowing smoke is not the same thing as generating heat.
One can have a heated discussion without directly insulting others. Someday you too can learn this skill.
PS… Searching for “cox” and “shill” did indeed turn up exactly one comment from two years ago. It was referencing George Will but also included an unflattering reference to Cox. Would have been a rule violation today but back in 2009 we were more lax. But one single comment out of tens of thousands does not prove your point — quite the contrary, actually.
“using the same tracks”
Did they actually say that the exact same pieces of steel would be used–that no upgrades would be needed? The word “tracks” can refer to a rail line, and not specific rails.
TriMet should have referred to it as “resurfacing”, “upgrading”, “rehabilitating” or “reconstructing”, to borrow from common terms which are often used when describing highway projects — all while also not using the word “replace”, which seems to be the issue here.
And one other thing: As I asked before, shouldn’t much of the scorn for WES be directed at the FRA, which insists on having costly, two-person crews, and who’s regulations resulted in the costly, unique rail cars?
What if TriMet could run the line in a lower-cost fashion using lower-cost cars like is done elsewhere (as long as the signal system can mitigate the heavy freight trains that can also be on the line)?
“One can have a heated discussion without directly insulting others. Someday you too can learn this skill.”
I’ll never develop your obfuscating, dancing and “moderator” skills, which are insulting as anything I ever post.
But we battle on.
That’s what enemies do. :)