Reading through my Trib yesterday morning, I was confronted with a full page ad titled “Keep Oregon Moving” (featuring a pothole as a background).
Turns out this is a group of business leaders and associations (mostly the “cost of congestion” report proponents at both the statewide and local level). They are listed prominently in the ad on their website: www.KeepOregonMoving.com
The basic pitch is that we need to put pressure on the legislature to actually have a reasonable transportation funding package.
Now I may part company from these folks on the details of how to add targeted new capacity, but I’m 100% on board with the idea that we at least need to raise the gas tax to pay for maintenance of the roads that we have.
So I’d like these folks to have some success. But what I can’t understand is where’s the rest of the likely coalition? In particular, why aren’t local governments on the list? I know that cities and counties all around the state are lobbying the legislature for basic maintenance funding. So why haven’t these two groups gotten together to take a focused run at the legislature?
Sigh…
39 responses to “Disconnected Advocacy?”
If the gas tax is increased, the money raised must be totally 100% dedicated to road and highway uses, and not be used to subsidize or provide infrastructure for other modes of transport. The concept of a one mode one legged stool of taxation that only taxes the users of private and commercially owned motor vehicles for multi-modal transportation projects and subsidies must end. For tax equity and parity to exist, the funding for alternative modes of transport must come directly from taxes assessed on the use of and directly from the users of those specific alternative modes of transport
Terry,
Please explain what you mean by “tax equity and parity” and how that might transfer to other areas. For example, let’s say that you earn more than I do and consequently pay more takes- yet I recieve more benefits because I’m on disability. Does that mean that I am siphoning off resources? Or let’s say that I have a child in public school and you are a single person who will never have a school child. Does the fact that you pay taxes for schools mean that my kid is subsidized?
And if yes, why is that a) wrong or b) only wrong when it comes to transportation?
If the gas tax is increased, the money raised must be totally 100% dedicated to uses that support environmental sustainability and reduce dependence on foreign oil, and not be used to subsidize or provide infrastructure for other modes of transport.
Nah…
If the gas tax is increased, the money raised must be totally 100% dedicated to providing free beer, so that we are too drunk all the time to ever drive, therefor causing the roads to last forever.
This would seem to be the perfect opportunity to talk about a multi-modal transportation future for our state, and the necessary funding package to make it happen. Everything from statewide high-speed passenger rail and commuter rail, to freeway bottleneck improvements, removal of obsolete freeway connectors (hello, eastbank I-5 freeway!) to regional bikeway systems could be part of a statewide transportation improvement package.
This conversation needs to happen. How do we kick-start it, if it is not currently happening?
*When* the gas tax is increased, why not make it so gas taxes pay for maintaining roads or building new ones, and then all the money that currently pays for that from income or property tax or where ever could pay for special bike paths and transit.
As long roads developed or redeveloped have bike lanes and sidewalks (which gas tax should pay for because cars alone make bike lanes and sidewalks necessary), I think that would work out pretty well.
How about we try to stay on topic! Which is: why can’t business and local government get together on a consistent message about transportation funding?
Chris,
I think that part of the problem here, much like the calls for removing I-5, is that most people prefer to be self-serving than see a common good. Not everyone can use transit, not everyone can drive, not everyone can bike. Trucks need to get goods to local businesses in a timely manner. If everyone could do things exactly the way they’d want to, we’d need a much bigger budget than any tax increase can realistically provide.
The real trick is finding a way to balance what businesses need, what the population needs, and what emergency services need to provide a real plan for the future, alternative and traditional modes combined.
Removing I-5 from the East bank sounds like a good idea to some, until you start realizing that it would hurt the value of land and desirability of that land to businesses, all along I-5 south of I-405. Do we really need to make another reason businesses won’t move to Portland?
Adding light rail to the southern suburbs is another idea that we need to work on. Adding it along Barbur is a great idea, but it needs to connect to the Wilsonville commuter line in addition to future expansions, or else it will be just another taxpayer funded boondoggle to many.
The real trick to getting groups together on funding is to get the groups to work together to serve each other. Increasing mobility works for everyone, if it’s done right.
It makes happier employees by increasing the labor pool for businesses, as well as shortening the commute for those who already work for the businesses. It opens up new customers to businesses by allowing easier mobility for those who wish to spend their money.
The current idea of having nearly every meeting that represents the people during bankers hours will not work. There needs to be a way for small businesses who can’t afford to sit in a meeting during the 9-5 hours to get involved. The same is true for employees who can’t afford to take vacation days to get involved.
The current planning system in Portland, along with many other cities, is that all meetings must be held during the daytime and only Mon-Fri. This is a very exclusionary process that leaves many groups marginalized, and eliminates them from the public process. That’s a great way to create opposition from people who might have constructive ways to make ideas work.
Another thing that could really help would be to get officials and businesses from both sides of the border to work together rather than fight each other. The recent actions by Vancouver to promote light rail into the state of Washington are a good start, but Oregon needs to show they’ll reciprocate by working with Washington on the Interstate Bridge replacement.
Can we make everyone happy? Of course not, we might as well hope to create peace in the Middle East for five cents a day. What we can do is work to make sure that all groups are represented, and that we take their ideas into account.
In many ways the Portland Metro Region’s planning is very exclusionary right now. We have to work to make sure that it incorporates the ideas of all communities, and works to balance their ideas to really create a feeling of cooperation rather than competition. This will make finding new funding sources, gas taxes, increased fares, or other, much more palatable for everyone.
But what I can’t understand is where’s the rest of the likely coalition? In particular, why aren’t local governments on the list?
Well, it’s very simple:
The state and the cities/counties have to fight over the same funding source, the gas tax. Cites and counties also get to fight over property tax revenue, and counties especially in southwestern Oregon are facing a serious shortage of dollars thanks to the dryup of federal support due to the loss of revenue from the O&C lands.
This group is not concerned about traffic in downtown Portland, they’re concerned about getting freight moved in, out, and around the state. A City of Portland project is unlikely to help this constituency. Nor is another Metro study to encourage more light rail to Timbuktu.
The fact is that the gas tax is what funds ODOT, and it’s clear that the gas tax isn’t keeping up. Arguing that the gas tax needs to go towards anything else is a call to find a new funding source for highways. The general fund, anyone? More property taxes? (I believe Oregonians have said “NO!” a few times on that one.) I personally agree that the gas tax should be a pollution tax (which would help fund transit, among other things), and that highways should be funded by a weight-mile tax on all vehicles, but that doesn’t seem to be a very popular idea with mainstream Oregonians.
One mistake is to think that this is a Portland issue; it’s not. Heck, my company’s President is a member of the board, and I can’t think of a better company that has a vested interest in all of Oregon. Sending all of the money to Portland does nothing for companies like Jeld-Wen in Klamath Falls, like the Port of Coos Bay, or the growing metropolitan area of Bend/Redmond/Prineville. It doesn’t help Hood River nor does it help Pendleton. (Just a sampling of ares in which my company has a direct interest in.) Yet Oregon’s transportation needs are spread out throughout the state.
This group is not concerned about traffic in downtown Portland, they’re concerned about getting freight moved in, out, and around the state.
I went to the business plan summit. Downstate interests were very much complaining about getting freight through Portland.
One mistake is to think that this is a Portland issue; it’s not.
Then why has Sam Adams been commuting to Salem weekly with his tin cup looking for funding.
We’re under-maintaining ALL the roads, EVERYWHERE in the state. How hard can it be to find common cause around that?
“We’re under-maintaining ALL the roads, EVERYWHERE”
That’s right. I find attempts to make this a Portland vs. the rest of the state issue disingenious. Given the population, it is clear that Portland area residents “subsidize” much of the transportation investment in the rest of the state. Given their economies it is clear that the rest of state depends upon dependable transportation via I-5, the Port, etc. Let’s quit arguing over that.
The point is, why don’t we come together to solve this issue? I actually think that Metro, the City of Portland and various business groups advocating for change are closer together on this issue than both suspect. The origial question is a good one: why are they working separate paths? What would it take to bring them together? Perhaps both sides need to get over stereo types, see the common ground and start pushing in the same direction.
“Please explain what you mean by “tax equity and parity” and how that might transfer to other areas.”
Synonyms of “equity” are: fairness, impartiality, fair play, justness.
Synonyms of “parity” are: equality and on par.
The point is that gas taxes and dollars from other motorist paid taxes and fees are siphoned off to pay for and/or subsidize specifically transit and bicycle infrastructure. Additionally, through gas taxes and other motorist assessed taxes and fees, motorists directly pay a far greater percentage for the costs for roadway and highway infrastructure than the percentage transit users directly pay for transit infrastructure and operations, or than the percentage bicyclists pay for bicycle infrastructure which is zero. The dollar amounts may be different, but the percentages of contribution users pay for the infrastructure of mode used should be much closer to equal.
How that might transfer to other areas? Well, unlike all the people that have moved to Portland in recent years and now want to dismantle the road systems, I was born and raised in Portland and grew up with the existing road system and saw many of the freeways under construction. I even had a hand in the planning for improving one of them along with region’s first light rail line. I went through the Portland Public Schools system to receive my basic education. Like anybody in this country that received a public education in Portland or elsewhere, or could have but elected to go to private school instead, my education was paid for by previous generations. Therefore it is my turn at today’s price to help provide a “basic” education for the up and coming generations. However, I should not be expected to pay for additional extra luxuries and frills that I did not receive. Another example is Social Security. Up to a maximum, the more and longer a worker pays in, the more that worker receives at retirement. However, in recent years, the government has been wavering on that contract with the American workers.
Back to topic and how that equity and parity might also work with another present day transportation tax. Since about 80% of Portland Metro area employees commute by motor vehicle, maybe the Metro area payroll tax should be divided up in the same manner with approximately 80% directed to and spent only on actual road and highway improvements that reduce congestion and increase the capacity of roads and highways instead of having the entire payroll tax going to and supporting transit.
Terry; “However, I should not be expected to pay for additional extra luxuries and frills that I did not receive.”
Agreed. When I was growing up 1-5 was two lanes throughout. I don’t think we should have the frills of any extra lanes.
A rational conclusion based upon your point of view. Not the best conclusion for the region. This is why I find you steadfast black/white view of the world problematic.
“The current idea of having nearly every meeting that represents the people during bankers hours will not work. There needs to be a way for small businesses who can’t afford to sit in a meeting during the 9-5 hours to get involved. The same is true for employees who can’t afford to take vacation days to get involved.”
I agree 100%. This is a huge problem.
“and increase the capacity of roads and highways”
Increasing capacity of roads to reduce traffic is like buying a larger belt to lose weight. It just doesn’t work.
Increasing capacity simply encourages more people to drive farther distances.
The answer we need to come to is how to get *everyone* involved to improve transportation issues.
How we solve those issues will vary based on location – so no point in getting down to that level in this discussion.
I went to the business plan summit. Downstate interests were very much complaining about getting freight through Portland.
Chris,
Were these Medford businesses begging and pleading for more MAX and more Streetcar to help them out? Or were they asking for the Interstate Bridge to finally get fixed; for more capacity on I-5; for the weight-restricted bridges to be fixed; and for better truck access to the industrial areas in North/Northwest Portland?
“The current idea of having nearly every meeting that represents the people during bankers hours will not work. There needs to be a way for small businesses who can’t afford to sit in a meeting during the 9-5 hours to get involved. The same is true for employees who can’t afford to take vacation days to get involved.”
I agree that would be a huge problem, if it were true. Take a look at the left hand side of the main page. Yes, some things are 9-5, but I see 3 things right now, (the bicycle master plan, LOPAC, and Delta Park Open House,) that either start after 5 in the first place, or if you showed up after 5, you wouldn’t miss anything. Furthermore, you don’t have to show up to the meetings anyways, you can always send a letter.
I fully support having more meetings after 5pm, however people have to be willing to accept that our city tax dollars will have to pay overtime to a lot of staffers to make this happen. Do you think it can be done without public opposition? Or will certain popular columnists and cranks start yammering about all the overtime being spent on meetings that could happen during the regular business day?
For some of the bigger issues, such as the downtown Transit Mall, committee and subcommittee meetings are attended by MULTIPLE staffers from several agencies in order to answer questions and present information, as well as paid consultants, contractors, etc.
Having more evening meetings could cost hundreds (or in case of the major issues) thousands of dollars extra per meeting. It may be worth it to encourage more public participation.
An alternative may be to invest in teleconferencing capability to allow people to view webcasts of the meetings (either live or later in the day) and submit formal written comments. But there is still no substitute for being in the room and asking questions, and catching somebody immediately afterward to strike up a tangential conversation, etc.
– Bob R.
“the ready availability of skilled people was far and away the main reason for choosing Portland” John Sedgwick, Solaicx co-founder and vice president.
This company is not concerned about transportation, which is in a lot better shape here than in Santa Clara. Education and having a skilled workforce is much more critical to economic development than transportation.
The Tribune and other folks who up that ad out are looking for more money for more roads, which is, pardon me, a dead end street. They continue to promote this as critical to economic well being, but I think most folks get that increasing the gas tax is putting money down a rat hole.
it would hurt the value of land and desirability of that land to businesses, all along I-5 south of I-405.
I think this defines the problem pretty well. Is that really what would happen? And if it is, do the benefits to the region outweigh them? The problem is that if you own land that will lose value, you probably don’t care that someone else is making even more in exchange.
The second problem is that many people instinctively don’t believe in public benefits. They see the world as a zero sum game where they shouldn’t have to pay for anything that benefits someone else, no matter how large the benefit they receive themselves. People who walk, bike or use transit leave road space for drivers that would often cost far more than any public services they are using. But some auto users insist they should pay “something”.
The third problem is that a lot of the “solutions” don’t address the actual problems. An example is widening the I5 bridge to move freight through Portland when everyone knows it is going to fill up with commuters and the trucks are going to be caught in just as much congestion.
The fourth problem is that, for all the talk, transportation facilities don’t produce all that much economic benefit beyond a certain level. There are a lot of other, better, places to invest public dollars that will have a much larger economic benefit. Like in early childhood learning and reading.
There ought to be enough money to pay for the basic maintenance of the roads. And there isn’t. But the real reason that problem hasn’t been solved is that our elected officials are unwilling to make maintenance a priority.
Hawthorne said; “When I was growing up 1-5 was two lanes throughout. I don’t think we should have the frills of any extra lanes.”
I-5 preceded the TriMet take over a privately operated for profit transit company, the construction of the transit mall, the striping of streets for bike lanes, non-profit streetcar systems, using transportation dollars to support development interests, most high density housing construction, tax abatement giveaways to developers, the tram, the Eastbank Esplanade, the Springwater Trail, widening the sidewalks on the Hawthorne Bridge for bicycles and most 12 foot wide sidewalks, etc. etc. etc – all frills that are subsidized by taxpayers that should be paid for by the users, and therefore should be on the list.
However, since the construction if I-5 was paid for with Local and Federal Interstate funding that came from gas taxes, a user paid tax, I-5 should be removed from the list.
12 food wide sidewalks should be paid for by the users, Terry? Do you propose pedestrian tolls or should we just wear license plates around our necks to show we’ve paid our registration?
– Bob R.
Were these Medford businesses begging and pleading for more MAX and more Streetcar to help them out? Or were they asking for the Interstate Bridge to finally get fixed; for more capacity on I-5; for the weight-restricted bridges to be fixed; and for better truck access to the industrial areas in North/Northwest Portland?
No question, they were looking for freeways and bridges. But gas taxes aren’t going to go to Streetcars. I’m just wondering why we can’t find common interest to at least raise enough money to MAINTAIN the road assets we have. The deferred maintenance backlog is growing by $9M per year just in Portland, statewide it’s more like $100M.
I’m just wondering why we can’t find common interest to at least raise enough money to MAINTAIN the road assets we have.
Because new gas tax money, like the old gas tax money, will likely get spent on highly visible new capacity that appeals to voters who don’t connect that choice to the potholes in their streets.
“Because new gas tax money, like the old gas tax money, will likely get spent on highly visible new capacity that appeals to voters who don’t connect that choice to the potholes in their streets.”
Crikey. I would pay a toll on W Burnside going over the hill if they would just pave it. I swear I have to put the Jeep in 4 wheel drive west of 23rd…
There is a huge disconnect between what happens in Oregon and Washington; despite that Washington has a much higher gas tax than Oregon does.
Washington has been forced to re-evaluate their transportation funding priorities after Washington voters got upset over the car tab tax. The result is that when the gas tax was raised (“it’s your nickel, watch it work”), it came with a LOT of strings attached.
Oregon voters still have a lot of mistrust over how any type of tax dollars are spent, and Portland is very much to blame for it. People in Pendleton see multi-million dollar MAX projects, they see that the state chipped in money, they ask “What’s in in for me?”, and then the gas tax measure comes around and gets shot down like a Goodyear Blimp carrying every known enemy of the country.
Look at Yamhill County – ODOT/local governments have sat around for years trying to figure out the Newberg/Dundee mess that isn’t going anywhere yet the problem has been there since the 1980s. Anyone who drives up or down 99W sees how poor of condition the highway is today, and I’m not even talking about traffic volumes – just the potholes, the open road seams, the uneven pavement, the ruts that collect rainwater. They then ask “where is my money going?” and nobody has a good answer for them. So of course they don’t trust the government with their money, and the gas tax gets voted down.
Washington is getting ahead of us and is staying ahead of us, despite whatever problems they have had, they’ve overcome them. They have stable funding for education. They have stable transportation funding. They have transit systems statewide that work and are growing. Heck, Bend just got a transit system last year, and had to buy used busses (of which the city is suing the bus dealer for, alleging defects in the busses.)
Portland and Oregon can rally behind how great this state is, but no matter what Washington is a step ahead. And Washington has been able to clear maintenance backlogs, AND increase roadway capacity. After all, Washington built a freeway connecting the Tri-Cities with Spokane that carries only 7,000 ADT a day. 99W, through Yamhill County, carries two to five times as much traffic, and is only a two lane road with no grade separation.
Ross has this right…any new taxes would go for more roads. Period. “Maintenance” just like “Freight” is just a PR strategy for more road capcity money. Sorry, but I don’t see either ODOT or PDOT really putting maintenance first with the money they have.
Meanwhile ODOT will be widening I-5 at Delta Park, which will remove the freight advantage from Columbia southbound as well as put at risk freight access to I-5 from Swan Island southbound at Going and Greeley. All this to satisfy commuters from Clark county, alone in their vehicles, who I know hate the narrowing to two lanes with a passion.
Its time to re-lable I-205, making it I-5 and begin the deconstruction of the old I-5 thru Portland. Money for that I would vote for.
Its time to re-lable I-205, making it I-5 and begin the deconstruction of the old I-5 thru Portland. Money for that I would vote for.
I assume that there would be some sort of support for a freeway from Rivergate to I-205 then? An extension of I-84 (through the Pearl District)?
What about the increase in travel time to reach outer areas of the city/metro area to downtown, now having to use surface streets that in many cases are already rather busy/congested? This would have significant and major impacts, such as the Corbett/Lair Hill neighborhood with traffic being routed onto “their” Naito Parkway and “their” Barbur Blvd. Traffic from Gresham would be forced onto already congested Powell, Division and Sandy (assuming that I-84, if I-5 were shut down, would also be removed west of I-205). Traffic from Vancouver would clog up virtually every street in North/Northeast Portland.
Meanwhile, since Portland has no interest in regional rail or quality bus service, that would mean the only option would be MAX, which would be hard-pressed to handle the crush loads, given the restrictions on train spacing (due to signal block design), train length (due to platform design), and simply the number of riders. MAX is already nearing track capacity in downtown Portland; there are frequent delays due to the simple number of trains where the blue, red and yellow lines come together. Even with the Transit Mall MAX, the three routes still will converge at the Steel Bridge which is the weak point in the MAX system.
Columbia Blvd is a virtual expressway from Rivergate to I-205 (new I-5); during the peak hours all the freeways into town operate at “boulevard” speeds, so way not just make them Boulevards. Of course, we’ll need to put MAX in a subway thru Lloyd, under the river and thru downtown, and it will have to be extended to Vancouver, to Tualatin, to Oregon City. Platforms will need to accommodate 4 car trains. Commuter rail has its place too…to McMinnville, Ridgefield, Canby and up the Gorge.
The most valuable land in the region sits under I-5 along the eastbank of the Willamette River; time to liberate it, and then just keep on going.
Bob R. said: “12 food wide sidewalks should be paid for by the users, Terry? Do you propose pedestrian tolls or should we just wear license plates around our necks to show we’ve paid our registration?”
The simple answer is no, but it is not that simple. The 12 foot width of sidewalks in most locations is unnecessary, a waste of taxpayer highway or transport dollars when those funds are used to construct them that wide, and should not be viewed as a standard. The exception widthwise would be in places like the central core only of downtown (as opposed to all of what is considered downtown) and maybe in some other high traffic pedestrian areas such as around the Rose quarter. However, in such locations, the property owners generating the foot traffic and not the motorists or taxpayers should be responsible for paying for them. Widening the sidewalks on the Hawthorne Bridge was done for the most part to accommodate bicycles, and therefore should have been paid for directly from charges assessed on bicyclists and bicycling.
Terry –
Most sidewalks are paid for via private funds directly or via assessments (LIDs) on affected property owners.
A group of neighbors on my street is in the process of evaluating whether we want to form an LID. In our case, the city is not recommending 12ft sidewalks, even though there is 12-14ft of public ROW on either side of the street.
Last time I checked, the new sidewalks in South Waterfront were 6ft in some places, and in wider places the through zone was generally 6ft plus the furnishing zones and frontage zones.
Where is the city mandating 12ft sidewalks outside of the downtown core?
– Bob R.
Erik: “Meanwhile, since Portland has no interest in regional rail or quality bus service.”
Did I miss a meeting?!
Really, this seems like quite a stretch- and undermines the credibility of the statements before it.
Really, this seems like quite a stretch- and undermines the credibility of the statements before it.
Can you show me that TriMet is seriously vested in developing commuter services such as commuter rail (i.e. from Portland to Forest Grove, St. Helens, Troutdale, Salem, McMinnville?) or commuter bus services along the same lines?
I can’t find it in the Transit Investment Plan, nor can I find it anywhere on TriMet’s webpage, or Metro’s webpage, for that matter…so if there’s interest, it certainly isn’t official.
Go to Seattle sometime and see what Seattle has going for it. Someone who is travelling from Seattle to Tacoma isn’t stuck on a non-air conditioned, crowded 40′ bus – they have highway coaches (with laptop ports, wifi access, air conditioning, comfortable seats, luggage racks). Yes, operated by Sound Transit (the busses are actually operated by Pierce and Community Transit). King County Metro has Gillig Phantoms in a commuter configuration (similiar to the MCI D4500s used by Pierce and Community Transit) and I had the opportunity to ride one a few months ago – BOY, was it NICE!!
Too bad TriMet doesn’t have the foresight or ambition to offer these services, because TriMet could really improve service particularly to the outer suburbs (as well as to develop a regional system, like Seattle has, by offering similiar services to McMinnville and Salem) and make a positive contribution towards reducing the auto share of trips into the Portland/Beaverton area from afar.
By the way, isn’t Seattle’s transit usage higher than Portland’s? Hmmmmmm….
“Can you show me that TriMet is seriously vested in developing commuter services such as commuter rail”
Er, are we not just about to open the first commuter rail line in the area or are we reading different newspapers? What do you want? One step at a time, one step.
“Go to Seattle sometime and see what Seattle has going for it.”
Been there, done that. Honestly not interested in moving there. You need to understand that Seattle is a much larger metropolitan area…you can’t compare apples with oranges.
By the way, isn’t Seattle’s transit usage higher than Portland’s? Hmmmmmm….
Isn’t the Seattle region’s transit funding significantly higher than Portland’s? Hmmmmmm? TriMet and Metro recently proposed ideas for putting a transportation funding plan before voters, much as the state of Washington has done in the past (and is being asked to do so again).
– Bob R.
PS… Sound Transit’s annual budget alone (which does not include local transit like King County Metro) is larger than TriMet’s entire budget, and Sound Transit’s capital budget itself is larger than everything TriMet has ever invested MAX and Westside Commuter Rail projects combined.
You seem to expect TriMet to offer what Sound Transit does, combined with what King County Metro does, on a significantly lower budget.
– Bob R.
“You seem to expect TriMet to offer what Sound Transit does, combined with what King County Metro does, on a significantly lower budget”
Welcome to Oregon, Bob ;) We feel the same way about education and health care.
Go to Seattle sometime and see what Seattle has going for it. Someone who is travelling from Seattle to Tacoma isn’t stuck on a non-air conditioned, crowded 40′ bus – they have highway coaches (with laptop ports, wifi access, air conditioning, comfortable seats, luggage racks).
In addition to what has been said above about differences in funding (they have a lot more money) you must realize that the distances up there are much greater than they are here. The distance from Sherwood to Portland (about 16 miles) is less than half the distance from Tacoma to Seattle (about 34 miles). It is a much larger metropolitan area in both population and land area.
Wifi is being tested on a limited number of routes. It isn’t on every bus by any stretch.
Erik said:
Can you show me that TriMet is seriously vested in developing commuter services such as commuter rail (i.e. from Portland to Forest Grove, St. Helens, Troutdale, Salem, McMinnville?) or commuter bus services along the same lines?
…
Go to Seattle sometime and see what Seattle has going for it. Someone who is travelling from Seattle to Tacoma isn’t stuck on a non-air conditioned, crowded 40′ bus – they have highway coaches
–
Well, I am not sure on this, but I seem to remember Tacoma being a little bit larger than Forest Grove, Troutdale, St. Helens, McMinnville, or even Salem.
Oh, and what all those other people have said too, about budgets, populations, distances, etc…
seem to remember Tacoma being a little bit larger than Forest Grove, Troutdale, St. Helens, McMinnville, or even Salem.
The city of Tacoma has close to 200,000 people. I think that is probably more than all those cities combined, maybe even if you throw in Tualatin. And, of course, Tacoma has its own suburbs.
There is no doubt there are things to be learned by looking at other metropolitan areas. But a lot of the comparisons here don’t seem to be more envy, than analysis.