It’s hard to think of a more assertive alternative transportation advocate then Rex Burkholder.
Yet now in elected office and chair of JPACT, which sets transportation policy for the region, he’s getting criticized for not being bold enough by some advocates. This is highlighted in an interview in the Daily Journal of Commerce today.
My two cents: Rex is doing an excellent thing in making the Regional Transportation Plan “outcomes-based.” But it’s also true that the politics is the art of the possible. And I’m concerned that the “community building” track of the RTP is far too mobility-oriented, because of the influence of interests that are still in denial about issues like global warming and peak oil. I’m also worried that the RTP timelines will not allow for the detailed modeling and analysis of many scenarios that would really help us understand how to optimize the outcomes.
But I’m still rooting for Rex.
24 responses to “The Challenges of Governing”
Being that he seems pro-market solution, albeit a Government Monopolized one as has been proferred by the Corporate/Business/Inidividual fearing ilk of society – things seem positive.
The question is, how much REAL market pricing will go into effect. Eventually either privately run or publicly run market price chargers are going to have to go into place.
…one step closer to pay per use, even if a little bit skewed. :)
Chris – do you realize, seriously, how many transit users there would be if roadways all of a sudden had a “cost”!! :) Better get some more MAX LRVs, Streetcars, and a ton more busses.
Being that he seems pro-market solution
I think that is probably a correct conclusion about Rex’s position and I am not sure the market gets us to the best balance. I think there are some uses to pricing as a means of managing demand, but that idea can easily turn into public subsidies for facilities that only benefit those who pay a fee to use them.
The simple truth is that tolls can’t pay the full cost of new capacity. At least that appears to be the case where most roads are not tolled. So if you add capacity and then toll, you end up paying for a facility mostly at public expense that only benefits those who pay the toll.
On the other hand, adding a toll to existing capacity that is overused and then using the money to pay for alternatives for those who don’t pay the toll, is a win win. The folks paying the toll get a less congested road and the folks using the alternatives are able to avoid the congestion entirely.
I’m concerned that the “community building” track of the RTP is far too mobility-oriented
I think that is right, but I would not be too quick to absolve Rex and the other Metro folks of responsibility for that. The world has moved a long way since Rex and David Bragdon were transportation advocates. While wrestling with immediate specific issues at metro, they can’t be expected to keep up with those changes.
Rex defense of the CRC is a good example. Its very similar to the flimsy excuses progressive leaders in Washington County gave for backing the Western Bypass in 1990. It took organized community opposition, an investment by 1000 Friends in alternative analysis and some courageous leadership from the Governor to transform that project from a “done deal” to be justified into a public policy question to be evaluated. And finally to transform “the art of the possible” into a consensus that the bypass should not be built. Now previous supporters of the bypass are explaining why it is a bad idea.
It would be a serious mistake to think that supportive political leadership at Metro, who are responsible for the possible, will lead those sorts of transformation. No matter how much experience they had as advocates before they went into politics.
I agree, regardless of a councilor’s personal position or activist history, pro-market talk is fluff without a plan of action. I have so far failed to see a viable plan for pricing from anyone at Metro or any other planning agency in the state.
Adron Says: Chris – do you realize, seriously, how many transit users there would be if roadways all of a sudden had a “cost”!! :) Better get some more MAX LRVs, Streetcars, and a ton more busses.
JK: Be careful what you wish for, if transit users also had to pay their full way, bus fare would be around $8 since users now pay only about 20% of the ACTUAL operating cost. They would be even higher if MAX construction costs were included.
Thanks
JK
It would be interesting for someone to estimate how much TriMet loses from the federal mandates to reduce fares for disabled and elderly persons on buses and trains; given current TriMet ridership patterns, my back of the envelope estimate is $10-$20 million per year. They already spend more than $25 million annually meeting the Federal ADA mandates (source: http://www.ntdprogram.gov.) By all rights, the funding to support these discounted fares and the ADA program would come out of social service funding, since that’s what they are doing, providing what is clearly a social service to people who can’t drive.
Let’s say Portland transit ridership doubles as U.S. society begins to put into place a combination of carbon emissions taxes, putting a price on most “free” parking, plus a small beginning to account for the various externalities not paid for directly in the act of driving. Let’s also assume that demographics stays the same as now, e.g., no significant change in population, employment, etc.
Doubling of patronage on the bus system would probably require an 80-90% increase in service levels costing $160-$180 million per year, assuming an increase in overall load factors, but as there’s virtually no economy of scale in bus operations, unit costs will not decline significantly unless service was put out to bid and wages were cut (I’m sure Karlock, Halstead and Tiernan would be for that, but I digress.) TriMet may be able to increase total fare revenues by three-fold compared to current bus fare revenues (source: NTD reports cited above), assuming that discounted fares are covered by non-transportation sources. Overall, I’d expect 60%-70% of the doubled system bus operating costs covered by fares (including compensation for “concessionary” discounts), perhaps 80%-90% with services put out to bid.
First time bus capital costs would be around $300 million for the larger bus fleet and additional bus yards, etc. Added vehicle replacement costs of around $200 million for the additional 600 buses would recur every 12 years or so.
On the rail side, there IS a significant economy of scale because a very large portion of rail costs are fixed, e.g., track maintenance, overline maintenance, station operations, security, etc. Doubling of MAX service would perhaps increase total operating expenses by 50%-60% to around $100 million/year. Since MAX already covers about 34% of operating expenses according to NTD (FY 2005 report), obtaining non-transportation funding for the discounts and higher auto expenses could allow a raise in average fare, perhaps raising $100 million+ in fares, operating at or slightly better than “break even.”
Of course, doubling the MAX fleet would require another $300 million plus $100-$200 million for added storage facilities and electrical capacity. Capacity across the Steel Bridge would also have to be expanded, either by putting two additional tracks on the structure, adding MAX lanes to one of the existing roadway bridges, or constructing a new LRT bridge over the Willamette.
Compared to the current situation where auto externalities are rarely ever directly charged to the act of driving–dollar for dollar–transit subsidies would support 3-5 times as many riders, and land owners would gain major economies by not having to provide nearly as much parking. Transit-oriented development would operate in the same manner in which developers don’t fully pay for the government-funded roads in the suburbs now.
A historical note: the major reason that the private sector, and local government in some cases, were more than willing to subsidize the capital costs of transit infrastructure, even before the automobile was a significant factor, was that it was needed to provide access to land, and therefore facilitated developer profits–a function replaced by government-funded roads during the 1920’s. In New York City, the city was willing to bear the heavy cost of extending the subway system because it indirectly gained huge tax revenues from the rapid spread of development away from Manhattan along the subway extensions well into the 1940’s.
Let’s say Portland transit ridership doubles as U.S. society begins to put into place a combination of carbon emissions taxes, putting a price on most “free” parking, plus a small beginning to account for the various externalities not paid for directly in the act of driving.
JK Please continue your speculation to how low income people will be affected (I assume the rich will simply pay more):
Will they have more or less time with their families?
Will they have an easier time getting to work, dropping the kids at day care?
Will their lives be better or worse?
Will they find more or less job choices within a given commute time?
Will their income go up or down?
Thanks
JK
The outcome of the proposed RTP is more taxpayer dollars being spent and wasted to provide subsidized transport infrastructure for the mobility of only a very small portion of the region’s population. The so-called “community building” is a totally biased network of the various aspects of anti-auto culture. Taxpaying and stakeholder motorists are discouraged from participating in a less than open and bias process that refuses to recognize their needs. Paying little or nothing for the infrastructure used, and feeding off the taxes motorists pay, many alternative transport advocates are the ones in denial – denial of the need for more roadway capacity to maintain a vibrant and healthy economy, and denial they should be paying more of their own way. To maintain this mindset, Rex, Metro and PDOT have an informal litmus test of sorts that aligns members of transport advisory and standing committees to keep true motorist representation from being a part of any formal process, thereby underwriting spending policies that allow the anti-motor vehicle agenda to move forward at the expense of motorists. This is nothing less than the stacked deck process that Chris and others have criticized took place with Portland’s appointed Charter Review Committee Therefore the outcome of the RTP process is predetermined and not subject to enough true public debate.
Furthermore, the transport planning process still has a downtown centric focus rather than equally addressing needs on truly regional basis. The comment Rex made in the article; “Because right now, (when) you widen a highway, people say, “Now I can live further away from downtown” is proof of that point. Another comment, this one specifically related to Highway 217; “The idea there was to build a third lane with existing financing, but it would be 2089 before there was enough money” also demonstrates the lack of regional priorities to move people and goods without having to travel through the central city. For the past 30 years downtown Portland has been recipient of taxpayer subsidy after taxpayer subsidy after taxpayer subsidy to keep it viable. That should be more than enough for downtown Portland to stand its own two feet and start paying its own way. Additionally, all this out of direction travel concentrated on an inadequate roadway system not only negatively affects the regional economy, but high emission levels in the core of Portland are a direct result of over congested roads due to limited capacity.
And then finally there is an immediate need to address freight movements. Rex said: “Well, part of it was a lot of pressure out there from the freight community saying, “You’re not paying attention to us. We see changes we don’t like.” … Because of their pushing, we’ve done a lot more study.” Well, they still are not listening and studying very well. So far it has been like requiring freight carriers to navigate around the tip of South America rather than accommodating them with a Panama Canal. Narrow roadway lanes, curb extensions, transit vehicles blocking traffic to load and unload passengers in travel lanes and the streetcar routes on MLK, Grand, Burnside and Couch are all have a negative impact and are detrimental to the movement of freight. Yet all this social engineering continues. The most cost efficient way to meet the needs of freight carriers is to increase roadway capacity by creating additional routes, adding lanes on freeways where bottlenecks exist and making all HOV lanes full service lanes; and by stopping the costly mad dash to restrict the flow of arterials with narrow lanes, curb extensions and transit vehicles stopping in traffic.
Once again the opportunity to improve the current siyuation by opening the market to other providers is ignored and at no, or little cost to the taxpayer.
Where’s the imagination and innovation?
MW
“if transit users also had to pay their full way, bus fare would be around $8 since users now pay only about 20% of the ACTUAL operating cost.
Not on bus trips which are well-used and not if riders should only have to pay for their own seat and not subsidizing the empty ones. If usage of a half-full bus doubled, the costs would not double.
Please continue your speculation to how low income people will be affected
They will do better, because more riders would make better transit (e.g. more frequent, faster, wider coverage) feasible.
“Now I can live further away from downtown”
This concept also applies to widening 217 for the people who work near Kruse Way. Also, it would be interesting to compare downtown subsidies vs. taxes given the amount of large projects there.
The most cost efficient way to meet the needs of freight carriers is to increase roadway capacity
No. The most efficient way would be to encourage people to use existing capacity more efficiently by reducing subsidies for things like “free” parking, the Big Pipe and oil defense.
opening the market to other providers is ignored and at no, or little cost to the taxpayer.
But what if a new provider takes away riders from a taxpayer-financed one? Maybe if we had a marketplace where transit was well-used, there would be enough riders to go around.
as there’s virtually no economy of scale in bus operations, unit costs will not decline significantly unless service was put out to bid and wages were cut (I’m sure Karlock, Halstead and Tiernan would be for that…
The reason why there is “no economy of scale” is that busses use an existing, shared infrastructure – it’s the same exact infrastructure used by cars, trucks, etc.
You’re right – you can add more trains onto an existing track, and you’re already maintaining that same track. You can just as easily add more busses on the same road, and you’re not maintaining the road (because it’s shared infrastructure). So the “economy of scale” argument falls flat on its face because it’s irrelevant.
As for a true “economy of scale” argument that multiple rail vehicles could be coupled together to form one long train; well TriMet backed itself into a corner here. MAX platforms can only accomodate two car trains; and trains any longer will be blocking downtown Portland streets. Meanwhile, TriMet refuses to add bus capacity by adding articulated busses; they are also refusing to look at BRT projects in which multiple bus routes can be operated from downtown Portland to an outlying point as a single rapid/frequent service; then dispersing out to multiple destinations.
As for private contracting of bus services, what’s wrong with that? If we’re so worried about Portlanders being able to earn a decent wage, own their own home, etc. – maybe we should look at the housing situation first; followed by attracting employers and jobs to Portland that are not of the creative type (that tend to import many of their workers anyways); followed by eliminating illegal immigration and the jobs that used to be good paying jobs, but have been reduced to minimum wage because no illegal alien is going to complain; followed by attracting manufacturing jobs that have largely disappeared from Portland (that pay good and stimulate the economy by fostering the sales of the same product as well as the service industry to support it).
TriMet is not an employment agency.
Jason writes : “But what if a new provider takes away riders from a taxpayer-financed one? Maybe if we had a marketplace where transit was well-used, there would be enough riders to go around.”
These new providers would obviously be doing a better job. Providing a better service at maybe a lower price. And why not copy that??
MHW
These new providers would obviously be doing a better job.
Not necessarily. That’s not how the market works. They could easily raise the costs for everyone, make a profit for themselves and provide the same or worse service.
If we allow other providers to take over certain lines/areas, there would still be a monopoly. If we allow real competition, we might end up with 2 vehicles, one from each provider, where there only needs to be one and cause the taxpayer-financed provider to lose riders and need more subsidies. Also, more entities can mean more overhead.
That being said, I don’t necessarily agree with how the ATU controls the transit operator marketplace.
Jason McHuff They will do better, because more riders would make better transit (e.g. more frequent, faster, wider coverage) feasible.
JK: I was asking about the majority of low income people that have a car that they may not be able to afford gas and have to go back to mass transit. How will their lives be improved?
Thanks
JK
Ross Williams writes:”Not necessarily. That’s not how the market works. They could easily raise the costs for everyone, make a profit for themselves and provide the same or worse service.”
Ross it may depend on how one defines a better job. Maybe this “new service” could have crappy buses and charge a higher price, but they might go to places Trimet is afraid to go. What is that Startreck motto? Go where no man has dared to venture, like Rivergate. Or maybe be it’ll be after midnight and let it all hang out.
MW
but what “outcomes”?
More of the same?
Declining supplies of low and affordable housing, increased gridlock and higher costs of congestion, haphazard implementation of UGB expansions, needless overcrowding of our neighborhoods and cities without any plans to genuinely address the needs of growth?
Washington County says it can accomodate only 100,000 of the 300,000 expected new residents with these “outcomes”.
So what is Rex’s plan?
He has none. Not for transportation or land use. Instead he talks about “outcomes based” planning.
In reality he is an advocate for “Ignored-outcomes” planning as Metro has done for decades.
This often seen Mike Burton quote from 7 years ago really demonstrates the reality Rex avoids.
“Traffic congestion is bad and getting worse.
It is a nightmare for commuters and it is choking freight mobility. There is no more clear illustration of our inability to meet growth needs than our failure to address our transportation needs. Within the transportation arena we are facing utter chaos.”
From Metro Exeuctive, Mike Burton’s State of the Region Speech, 2000
Nice “outcome”.
Becky Says: Declining supplies of low and affordable housing, increased gridlock and higher costs of congestion, haphazard implementation of UGB expansions, needless overcrowding of our neighborhoods and cities without any plans to genuinely address the needs of growth?
Washington County says it can accomodate only 100,000 of the 300,000 expected new residents with these “outcomes”.
So what is Rex’s plan?
JK; You completely miss the point:
Affordable housing is BAD because that indicates that land values have not gotten high enough to make high density economically viable.
Grid lock is good because it will make Trimet’s ridership increase by a point or so. Gridlock is a necessary result of increased density because density causes congestion. See DebunkingPortland.com/Smart/DensityCongestion.htm
Cost of congestion does not matter because we are getting a few people out of their evil cars and into the rail god.
And, Becky there IS a plan and Washing county can indeed accommodate, not just those 300,000 but 3 million: just look at Hong Kong to see what can be done to increase density.
Thanks
jk
JK,
Got ya, but seriously it is Washington County itself you has determined they cannot accomodate any more than 1/3 of the predicted 20 year growth using all the so called “smart growth”, infill, TOD, centers, high density policies available.
My central point is there is not any authentic “plan” at Metro or any planning bureaucracy in sight to address the very growth they all predict will occur.
So what we have here is a mammouth, multi-decade multi-layered planning effort that doesn’t plan for the future they themselves see coming.
But somehow we are to believe that all of this costly effort is somehow worthwhile anyway?
I have a different take. It’s fraud.
Without the UGB and central planning, Washington County would easily surpass Multnomah County in population and in influence.
Portland would lose its dictating authority over the region, and without an agency like METRO in its pocket, publicly subsidized condo/rail projects would cease to exist. In the mean time, hundreds of smaller scale low-density suburban housing projects that people actually want would take its place and politicians and developers who are affiliated with Neil Goldshmidt would fade off in history.
Without the UGB and central planning, Washington County would easily surpass Multnomah County in population
I doubt it. Without the UGB, Intel might be somewhere half way to Mount Hood or expanding in more desirable places to attract the best and brightest. And I guarantee there would be a lot more development in the Columbia Gorge, which is mostly Multnomah County.
This often seen Mike Burton quote from 7 years ago really demonstrates the reality Rex avoids.
Actually I think this is the reality Rex is trying to address given what’s really possible and the limited resources available.
My central point is there is not any authentic “plan” at Metro or any planning bureaucracy in sight to address the very growth they all predict will occur.
While that is probably true, so what? Whatever plans there are today will change again as things change over the years. The question is whether having some plan to guide current decisions is better than having none at all.
And part of the problem with past RTP’s is that they came up with a completely unrealistic plan that was way beyond any realistic resources to build it. So everyone could pretend they were working toward an uncongested future, but in fact they were just randomly building parts of what was going to remain an incomplete and congested system.
Without the UGB, Intel might be somewhere half way to Mount Hood or expanding in more desirable places to attract the best and brightest. And I guarantee there would be a lot more development in the Columbia Gorge, which is mostly Multnomah County.
That couldn’t be further from the truth.
Intel bought up thousands of acres of farmland in the 1980s – why? Because it was cheap.
Intel is now building factories in China and other Asian countries. Why? Because it is cheap.
Why would Intel want to locate a plant on a volcano, far removed from anything – that means higher costs. Intel locked itself into a pretty darn good position years ago but I doubt Intel will be building anything new – once its facilities are built out, that’s it. Either re-use existing buildings, or look elsewhere (that is, outside of Oregon – like Arizona).
Yes – a few companies have located facilities because of the “quality of life” argument – they didn’t do it to employ existing residents; nor are most of them major, significant employers. And when companies relocate from elsewhere to Oregon for the “quality of life”, it’s conveniently overlooked that by not employing local residents and bringing in employees from out of state, that doing so ADDS to the housing cost inbalance, the greater need for transportation infrastructure, the need for new schools and the school funding debate – and so on.
Intel is now building factories in China and other Asian countries. Why? Because it is cheap.
Actually, Erik, land in China can be quite expensive. The land is not the issue, the cost of labor is. Given your commentary on the economy, family wage jobs, etc. on this site I suggest you take a trip to China to see for yourself.
We can lament all we want about the fact that high wage jobs for manufacturing are in decline. However to lay that at the feet of Metro, the City of Portland or the urban growth boundary is wrong.
You might not like the fact that the economy here is turning to the “creative class,” but we should be thankful that we have a new engine of growth here. Unlike manufacturing, many of those companies do seek quality of life- and contrary to your statement many of them employ Oregonians. As a native Oregonian who has worked in both the old economy (high paid labor) and the new economy, I respectfully suggest you think about retraining rather than ranting. It might feel good, but it doesn’t change the global economy.
Actually, one of the biggest reasons companies like Intel are building and expanding in China, Dubai, etc, is because that is where the market is growing… it’s not like they have an extra billion or two consumers untapped in Europe or North America.
Keep things in perspective – there are 10 TIMES as many asians across the Pacific than there are in the USA. That’s a lot of money.
Actually the reason Intel has its research and development in Oregon is because of the quality of life. They are able to attract and keep their best employees in Oregon. If costs were the issue, they long since would have moved elsewhere. In fact, as you point out, they have located those parts of their operations which aren’t dependent on talent in many other places. But Oregon remains the place where they develop and produce their most advanced chips.