On “Railfans”, the CRC and Institutional Momentum


One of our readers likes to use the term “railfans” to describe the coalition of interests that keeps our Light Rail and Streetcar system developing.

A slightly less malevolent term that is sometimes used is “Light Rail Mafia”.

I suppose as a member of the Streetcar Board and someone who while serving on various advisory committees at Metro has consistently advocated expanding the rail system, I’m a member of the group.

Now the conspiracy theorists sometimes suggest we’re doing this to line our own pockets. I don’t accept that explanation. Certainly in my case, as an unpaid volunteer, I’m not making any money (but I do think I’m improving my livability).

If there is a Light Rail Mafia, it’s motivated by a genuine conviction that we’re pursuing the best policy interests of the region.

But having good motives doesn’t always make us right. There is no question that our institutions develop patterns of behavior and competencies that have a momentum of their own, which can sometimes color decision making.

An example would be the initial dismissal of Streetcar as a viable transit option. It took ten years for the City of Portland to get the first Streetcar alignment from concept to implementation. Part of this was simply the idea being new, but part was definitely ingrained attitudes among transit planners, some of whom called it dismissively a “donkey trolley.”

They’ve come around, but it took a lot of persistence.

I think it’s fair to ask the same question about current decisions. For example, we have not seriously evaluated trolleybuses. I know many of us (myself included) believe they will not generate the same development benefits that rail does, but it’s also a fair criticism that we haven’t done a deep analysis of this.

We’ve spent a lot of energy here lately on the CRC discussion. I think the same mechanics are at work. We have assembled a large professional team that has deep experience building big capital projects. It should not be shocking that their answer is a large bridge. I don’t think this is a conspiracy, or dishonest. I think they are sincere in their belief that they are professionally advancing the best policy options.

But that doesn’t make them right, and it especially doesn’t mean we should accept their judgements uncritically. The role of citizens in these processes is to ask the inconvenient questions and challenge staff and policy makers about whether there isn’t a better way.

As a junior policy maker myself, I’m happy for all of you to keep challenging me!


28 responses to “On “Railfans”, the CRC and Institutional Momentum”

  1. I’m happy for all of you to keep challenging me!

    Not a problem, Chris. The pleasure’s all mine. :-)

    Seriously…you do a great job here, and I’ve found this web site to be the most informed and informing place to discuss transportation issues. Thanks.

  2. I agree! Chris’ site is awesome! I don’t always agree with his philosophy but I commend him for his passion on the subject and the great work he’s done on this site.

    –GREG–

  3. We have assembled a large professional team that has deep experience building big capital projects. It should not be shocking that their answer is a large bridge. I don’t think this is a conspiracy, or dishonest. I think they are sincere in their belief that they are professionally advancing the best policy options

    I agree entirely. Which is what makes them so dangerous – they aren’t acting in bad faith. While most of them are not as arrogant “Mr. Tired”, they all have blinders created by years of experience with a particular range of solutions. And most people tend to stick with what they know.

    I think it is also important to realize that there are, in fact, institutional conflicts of interest. Fred Hansen manages the Regional transit agency with a large staff committed to light rail. He is not on the task force because he is Fred Hansen, he is there to represent his institution. And the other institutional players understand and respect that. If CTRAN and Trimet say the transit solution is light rail, none of the other agencies are going to oppose them. And frankly they shouldn’t. The transit agencies are the ones that have both the expertise and the responsibility for managing transit in the region.

    Likewise, ODOT and WashDOT do not build local bridges. In fact when the idea of a local bridge first came up the regional WashDOT staff were overheard disparaging of it even being discussed. “If Vancouver and Portland want a local bridge they should build one, that isn’t our job and that isn’t what this process is about.”

    The problem is that while there are institutional advocates for light rail and a big freeway bridge, there aren’t any strong institutional advocates for things like commuter rail or transportation demand management. Nor are there strong institutional advocates for neighborhood livability. No one is going to give neighborhoods several million dollars to model traffic impacts on their communities.

    If you look at the LUTRAQ study, you can see what happens when you provide an independent analysis of transportation needs. In 1990, every leader, Democrat or Republican, in Washington County was convinced along with ODOT that the Western Bypass was absolutely necessary. They weren’t even willing to discuss alternatives. Today the bypass has almost no support among leadership. LUTRAQ demonstrated it would cause more problems than it would solve. The bypass is alive only as a dream of the real estate speculators who got caught with a lot of productive farm land when the project was abandoned.

  4. Typical response. Why do you think Trimet, WSDOT and ODOT are not adocates of TDM or commuter rail? They are. Their studies have shown that those 2 solutions will not come close to meeting the project’s stated purpose and need. A new bridge with LRT or BRT does.

  5. Why do you think Trimet, WSDOT and ODOT are not adocates of TDM or commuter rail?

    Who said they weren’t advocates? Trimet administers the regional TDM program. They are clearly its advocate, but TDM is not their institutional focus so they aren’t “strong institutional advocates”. Likewise Trimet is involved, no matter how reluctantly, in the Washington County commuter rail project. But again it is not their institutional focus. ODOT has bike and pedestrian programs, but those are not their institutional focus.

  6. reconsider the underwater tube, all weather, ship passings are not a problem… no need for a bridge
    [another one that is] works well in San Francisco Bay, and the Posey tube, Oakland to Alemeda…or the tubes in New York…

  7. As a life long “railfan,” but severe critic of the rail program in Portland, let me state categorically that I never even entertained the idea that railfans were out to line their own pockets.

    You see, I have known a lot of railfans during my time spent in the Electric Railroaders Assoc. (and
    other groups), and a lot of them are very intelligent and well-informed. The problem is that they have this little “hobby,” which leads them to have an irrational attachment to steel railed transport modalities.

    I get the distinct vibe that railfans have infiltrated/influenced Metro/Trimet, so these agencies are absolutely determined to set down rails whereever they can, in a region that is not
    really a fit for light rail (remember Mr. Fregonese’s famous quote in 1995?). Just remember, I was not I who originated the term “rail cabal.”

    Sorry guys, I surmise all this because I’ve been active in the hobby, and I am familiar with the mentality of the beast. My problem today, is that I am dependent on Trimet for transportation, and have come to see things from the point of an end user, not as a railfan.

    Regards to everyone here, and many thanks to Chris for the good work with this blog.

    Nick

  8. Nick –

    I don’t mind being called a “railfan”, but I just don’t see how you get to the conclusion that railfans have “infiltrated” TriMet and other agencies.

    I’m sure that railfans and transit buffs are attracted to work in that field. This is a natural process. The aviation industry is full of “aviation buffs”, just as the Broadway stage is has a high percentage of theatre lovers, and Silicon Valley is just overrun by computer geeks.

    One goes from being a buff to working for an agency or private company by having job skills and long-term job performance (with the usual caveats, job politics, organizational inertia, etc.)

    There is no railfan conspiracy.

    (There is, however, a Broadway Musical conspiracy.)

    – Bob R.

  9. There was an interesting piece on NPR this AM on the institutional bias of food safety studies by honest scientist funded by the food industry. Bias is a fact of life.
    I think the same can be said for the DOTs or any other agency or industry. Ultimately this stuff gets reviewed by pubic opinion and often the federal courts, but wouldn’t it be wise to de-couple a project as big and as impactful as the CRC from the DOTs and their consultants? The DEIS should not only be inclusive of mid-range options, but it should be performed by a completely independent organization, not by staff of either DOT or the CRC staff.

  10. Lenny –

    I think there was some effort by Metro’s transporation and land use folks to take responsibility for the initial study, but that was vetoed by WashDOT. Of course Metro has its own politics and bias.

  11. Lenny said:

    “There was an interesting piece on NPR this AM on the institutional bias of food safety studies by honest scientist funded by the food industry. Bias is a fact of life.”

    And Ross said:

    “Of course Metro has its own politics and bias.”

    That’s why I view any Trimet/Metro “studies” and “statistics” with a lot of scepticism. The bias of the party doing the study or statistics is the first thing that should be taken into account. And we all know where Trimet and Metro stand on light rail.

  12. But the bias of Metro, if not so much TriMet, is driven by the voting public. We elect the Metro Council and expect them to so, within reason, what we want them to do…get a regional rail system up and running. The City of Portland is bias towards MAX and Streetcar because the folks we have elected…three mayors for 6 terms of office… have been 100% behind lightrail.
    Metro’s study of the Milwaukie corridor after the defeat of South/North did not include MAX…it had everything but MAX. It was relentless citizen demand that put it back in the mix, and the data raised it to be at least as cost effective at BRT, which our fellow citizens…yourself not withstanding…look upon as a glorified bus, not the real deal.

  13. I view much of the planning that takes place today as identifying preconceived projects, then finding a way through study efforts to validate that concept and eliminate competing concepts. Both the Eastside Streetcar using the Broadway bridge, MLK and Grand Avenues no matter how it may congest other traffic, and the Columbia Crossing fit this bill, the latter with one twist. The Washington preconceived concept for the Columbia Crossing is a big new bridge. The Oregon preconceived concept is to have light rail extended into Vancouver. Therefore the two preconceived concepts had to be merged. Once the combined concept emerged, all study efforts were directed at validating the concept and knocking out other options. This is why middle ground proposals, including making use of the existing bridges, have not been brought forward.

    As for terms, a railfan is a broad term for the most part that applies to people who enjoy real trains, That may or may not include streetcars and trolleys. I am a railfan as it applies old steam locomotives and steam trains. The more appropriate term in the rail community for people who favor electric powered trains, streetcars and trolleys is “juice fans”. There is also a term that has been used in all aspects of railroading and can also be applied to bicycling where people can not get enough of their particular interest. They are called appropriately “foamers”. Not intended as a criticism of anybody, but the question must be asked; are there too many streetcar and bicycle foamers currently in the planning process thereby upsetting the balance of transportation policy?

  14. “If there is a Light Rail Mafia, it’s motivated by a genuine conviction that we’re pursuing the best policy interests of the region.”

    That is EXACTLY what was said by the highway people of the 50s. All about a genuine conviction that they where persuing the best policy interests of the region.

    EXACTLY why I don’t support “pet projects” of politicians when they come in and take over an industry (such as happened in the past, whether one sees it as good or bad). It becomse totally NON market/needs/desire based except for the small minority that ends up in power and in some areas where a subset of interested persons pushes for the particular “pet projects”.

    Today we have light rail, streetcar, and a decent bus system. Who is to say that in 10 years (it has happened) a major reversal of attitude won’t occur and we go about tearing up our tracks again and start pushing floating busses or some other preposterous system. This is the problem when politics become involved and one get preference over another.

    On a completely seperate note, the real solution to all of these problems is zoning/planning and density, not increasing travel or building more transit systems. The only way this will be done in a market relevant way where people support it is if they get loaded with the REAL COST OF TRANSPORTATION which does not happen. More than 50% of the population pays much less than their share of usage. A percentage of that pays even less for theirs, then on the other side there is a percentage that pays their share of usage, then there is the group that pays drastically more than their usage. It’s not fair, it’s not good for usage trends, it isn’t good for the environment (because ALL modes have disadvantages), etc., etc., etc. The simple fact of the matter is people need closer to the things they need, and a better reality associated with their REAL costs instead of PERCEIVED costs.

    As I stumbled upon earlier, there is NOT a transit solution anywhere. They are ALL band aids until real costs are associated. It’s simple economics.

  15. we all know where Trimet and Metro stand on light rail.

    What institutions don’t stand there with them? Expansion of light rail is a regional consensus on the Oregon side of the river, the only arguments are over who gets it first. That doesn’t mean the consensus is correct (I think it largely is), but it is going to be tough to find someone who doesn’t start with that point of view.

  16. we all know where Trimet and Metro stand on light rail.

    What institutions don’t stand there with them? Expansion of light rail is a regional consensus on the Oregon side of the river, the only arguments are over who gets it first. That doesn’t mean the consensus is correct (I think it largely is), but it is going to be tough to find someone who doesn’t start with that point of view.

  17. The Washington preconceived concept for the Columbia Crossing is a big new bridge. The Oregon preconceived concept is to have light rail extended into Vancouver. Therefore the two preconceived concepts had to be merged. Once the combined concept emerged, all study efforts were directed at validating the concept and knocking out other options

    For once I agree with you. But I think it is important to realize that doesn’t mean the preconceived ideas were wrong. It does mean that they have to be defended on their merits, not because the process exhaustively vetted all the alternatives. The preconceived ideas need to be questioned and the process, if it has any merit, ought to have armed their proponents with the answers to those questions.

  18. Terry said:

    “Not intended as a criticism of anybody, but the question must be asked; are there too many streetcar and bicycle foamers currently in the planning process thereby upsetting the balance of transportation policy?”

    Terry, you hit it right on the head. I strongly sense that this is a big part of the problem with the agenda here in Portland that is really going to screw up the whole transit system and the region along with it.

  19. The problem arises when TriMet and the region got hooked on light rail back in the late 70s, and declared it to be the “solution to all problems”. Such was compounded when, although the vast majority of TriMet’s operations are buses, so much of TriMet’s planning efforts have nothing to do with improving bus service and everything to do with Light Rail – so much that most express service has been eliminated; many long distance busses (Portland-outer suburbs) have been scaled back or in some cases eliminated, and many busses have been relegated to nothing more but shuttles to feed MAX in an effort to boost MAX ridership by offering riders no alternative.

    Don’t get me wrong – MAX is very successful at moving people from Gateway (a good eastside transit center) to downtown; from Beaverton to downtown (a major transit center and employment/residential center). At both centers there are lots of busses that can combine ridership into a single larger capacity vehicle on a frequent headway, providing both efficient service, and effective service.

    However, we now have Airport MAX that is proud to serve an unused station and an underused station – both have been in existence since 2001; we have Yellow Line MAX that was successful at eliminating the number of locations where someone could access mass transit, and we have the far west and east ends of the Blue Line that are more known for crime rather than successful mass transit.

    In my neck of the woods, we have commuter rail under construction that will serve a minority of commuters; while service to downtown Portland remains poor and underdeveloped; total bus failures (i.e. busses which fail to leave the garage; busses which breakdown en route) or late/tardy busses are the normal, not the exception. Never mind the fact that I can’t get to my own town’s city center, so much for building communities if I’m not linked to my community by public transit.

    I do consider myself a railfan, but I know we need to focus on the need of moving people from where they are to where they need to be. I also know that TriMet has made it implicitly clear that they don’t care about bus service – and I challenge Fred Hansen to publicly state so, or do something about it. I’d personally like to see TriMet recommit itself to “the total transit system” by declaring a two-year moratorium on LRT planning/construction (after the Clackamas Town Center project and Portland Mall project, obiviously) and focus 110% effort on ensuring the sustainability of the bus system. Once both systems are on par, we can get back to talking about transit, without placing “bus” or “rail” but rather “what is the best method of moving people from point ‘A’ to point ‘B’?”

    Or, TriMet is welcome to concede bus service and focus on nothing but being a regional LRT system – and let each individual city focus on local bus service (as Sandy, Molalla, Canby, and Wilsonville have all done.)

  20. Erik,

    Thoughtful post…I have read comments similar to yours regarding bus service, cut backs, service failures, and TriMet’s purported focus on LRT. However this has not been my experience. This is not to say that I don’t think bus service could be better, just that in my experience service has been pretty good. So in the end we have my “experience” and the experience of others that I read about. My question is what the data says (if it exists) about these things, what TriMet says, and what that means. Do you have any sources for what you have posted?

  21. In Fiscal Year 1987 (when MAX first opened), TriMet provided 1,120,632 revenue hours of bus service. In 2005, TriMet provided 1,516,296 hours of bus service, an increase of 35% over when MAX began.

    Clearly, over the years as a whole, TriMet has gradually increased bus service. However, some routes may have been cut back while service on other routes was expanded.

    In the budget crunch of FY2006, TriMet cut bus revenue hours back about 4%, falling back to about FY1999 or FY2000 levels. At the same time, MAX revenue hours were cut back 5%, so buses were not penalized more than MAX.

    Furthermore, the number of passenger-miles travelled per originating ride has not changed significantly over the past 20 years, which indicates that the majority of passengers are not facing increased travel distances due to transfers.

    As for individual decisions about individual routes, there is a lot of room for debate. But as for overall service areas, it is simply untrue that bus service has been curtailed in favor of light rail.

    – Bob R.

  22. It’s worth noting that in the last few years TriMet has made a significant commitment to expanding its frequency service bus lines (headways 15 min or less).

    I realize these lines may not be fast (like the #12), but they provide an important type of reliable service in key corridors around the region.

  23. Airport MAX that is proud to serve an unused station and an underused station

    In the FY2005 TriMet route and passenger census, the PDX Airport station had 1527 boardings per weekday. This exceeds some of the busiest Red Line stations in the system — Lloyd Center (1188 Westbound), Pioneer Square (1370 Eastbound), Beaverton TC (1224 Eastbound).

    Additionally, the Parkrose/Sumner TC had 780 weekday boardings (Westbound), which is about average for all of the stations.

    – Bob R.

  24. I think the point made about the Red Line is that it makes a big huge turn to stop at two stops that in essence, are not used. Primarily because of bad “Urban Planning” and PDC mismanagement of the space out there by the airport… …and some parts to do with the downturn of Portland’s economy into the worse economic system in the country for a few years.

    Fortunately those wrongs seem that they might be righted eventually by private enterprise finally moving into that area and helping along the stuggling Urban Planner ideals of that zone.

    Which I must say, is a damn good thing that private enterprise is finally moving into the area. Now the problem is, what will happen to the interstate area just east of the area that will most likely provide transit for 80-95% of the shoppers that will be coming into the area. Adding another 1000-10000 cars a day couldn’t possibly be a good thing to an already growing congestion problem.

    Also to mention, it’s nice to see high boarding numbers at stations in the 700+ per day range. Sure wish Amtrak could get that type of return at more of their stations. They’d turn a profit at that rate… :o

  25. Over the last few years, we have seen bus routes that had always been on 15 minute headways go to 30 minutes so that TriMet can free up “hours” to shuttle routes; bus routes that truly are redundant (like the 63 and 83); and routes that have tried to build MAX ridership (I believe 46 and 47 are both on TriMet’s “low performing” route list.)

    Never mind that a few years ago we had articulated buses. TriMet claimed they added more service to account for the loss in capacity; I never saw it. While the 57 was largely replaced by MAX, the 12 wasn’t – and is routinely crowded even in well off-peak hours. TriMet’s solution? “Well we’re thinking about a Barbur Blvd. MAX.”

    Here’s a solution. Call New Flyer. Order 50 D60LFs. Delivery in 12 months.

    TriMet had the order, and they cancelled it. Why? BECAUSE THE CAPITAL FUNDS WERE SPENT ON LIGHT RAIL! That’s a fact – they blew the capital budget because voters turned down the bond requests – so TriMet paid out of their own pocket. In order to do that, they had to cancel existing bus orders.

    So it’s true – many areas did get increased bus service. Beaverton, Hillsboro, Portland, Gresham and Milwaukie – all to be specific. Oregon City and Lake Oswego also have quite a few bus routes with regular service.

    The last time I checked all employers pay the same rate, and everyone who is assessed property tax for being in TriMet’s district pays the same. So why does Sherwood get nothing more than 30-60 minute service and an express bus? Why does Tualatin get nothing more than a quasi-express bus, a 20-30 minute headway bus, and one bus to Lake Oswego that is rush-hour only and the 12 that cuts through a corner of town? Why does Tigard have no local busses?

    TriMet’s answer is commuter rail. Tell that to someone who needs to travel on a Saturday. Tell that to someone who needs to travel on a Sunday, or a holiday. Tell that to someone at 7:30 PM, or 1:00 PM. What’s TriMet’s answer then?

    I want TriMet to prove that it is providing equitable service to every part of its service district. If TriMet can seriously, honestly tell me that Tualatin/Sherwood/Tigard is better served with its current service level, and two of its goals are to reduce congestion and improve mobility, then I want to know what planet they are living on. Surely they’ve never driven the dozens of congested roads in our area (99W, Durham Road, Tualatin-Sherwood Road, Nyberg Street, Hall Blvd, Greenburg Road, Boones Ferry Road, 72nd Avenue…), and have never tried to get from one part of Tualatin to the other. TriMet is THE REGIONAL transportation provider. If it doesn’t want to do the job, fine by me, just admit it, pull back its boundaries, and turn in a few busses to the cities that it is pulling out of.

  26. I think part of the problem is that suburbs aren’t transit-friendly. There’s plenty of free parking and the pedestrian environment isn’t good. They want to put service where people will ride it and don’t think Tualatin fits the bill. However, Line 78 IS next to get upgraded to Frequent Service, partly as a commuter rail supplement.

    And “underused station” = Mt. Hood Ave.; “unused station” = Cascades.

  27. Over the last few years, we have seen bus routes that had always been on 15 minute headways go to 30 minutes so that TriMet can free up “hours” to shuttle routes;

    Which routes are those? I thought the opposite was happening, that they were upgrading routes to 15 minute service at the expense of less frequent, lower performing routes.

  28. To be fair, Trimet has greatly increased service on many lines since I first moved to Portland in early 2001, and I have directly benefited from this. I especially appreciate its operating 15 minute headways also on on Sundays, as I use the buses 7 days a week.

    But there is a fair amount of deadwood in the system: #23, #25, #27, #39, etc. Some of these are MAX “feeder” lines, and their performance should be taken into account when you hear people crowing about how great MAX is at attracting ridership.

    BTW, it’s #76, not #78, that is due to be upgraded to frequent service. #78 will be Lake Oswego – Tigard only. Also, #83 was abandoned a while back.

Leave a Reply

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