And damn proud of it.
Monday’s Oregonian features a front page story that essentially accuses Peter DeFazio, the City of Portland and Portland Streetcar of working to get Federal dollars to Oregon Iron Works to help jump start a local streetcar manufacturing industry.
I believe the official charge should be “conspiracy to create jobs in Oregon.”
The procurement process was open, no one has appealed it and the Federal Transit Administration has said very clearly that it was completely legal.
Is the congressional earmark process screwed up? You bet – see the post yesterday about Rob Puentes’ remarks – there’s very little strategy in our national transportation funding system. I hope our congresspeople will reform this, if only because I’m sure that when it becomes performance-based, we’ll fare very well.
But meanwhile, I hope Peter, Earl, Darlene and the rest of the delegation will keep looking out for our interests and entrepreneurial opportunities like this.
30 responses to “Guilty as Charged”
ahhahaaa.
I hope our congresspeople will reform this, if only because I’m sure that when it becomes performance-based, we’ll fare very well.
The system we had, it was performance based, when the Government picks and chooses what “it” wants that’s not performance based at all anymore though.
That’s awesome you wrote that though. I wish it would become performance based again. No more pro-transit or pro-auto people, just market fights galore! We’d have modes everywhere.
There were 6200 earmarks in that bill, for a total of $20B. I hope we didn’t just got one $4M earmark out of that, hopefully we got 100 or so…
This is terrible. Manufacturing of these kinds of projects should be outsourced to China, so US companies will become more profitable.
Adron, markets are great things. But I have never seen a market that produced social justice as an outcome. Nor are markets the only performance-based approaches available.
Chris if you are implying that that the government can produce “social justice” I would have to question your judgement.
Open markets have a much better record at providing good and services for broad range of people.
MW
Chris if you are implying that that the government can produce “social justice” I would have to question your judgement.
Open markets have a much better record at providing good and services for broad range of people.
Having responded to Adron, I’m not getting pulled into breaking my own rule about staying on topic, but I can’t help myself.
Sure, governments are flawed institutions (all institutions of any size have flaws. But…
Market forces did not deliver any of those things.
Perhaps I’m a hopeless (but somewhat pragmatic) optimist, but I still see government as a provider of solutions to important issues in our society.
Michael Wilson Says:
Chris if you are implying that that the government can produce “social justice” I would have to question your judgement.
Open markets have a much better record at providing good and services for broad range of people.
MW
True, but a good and healthy transit system has a lot of positive externalities that are not captured in market exchanges. Even most soft libertarians will admit that the government has a role to provide public goods that make up for insufficient consumption of positive-externality items.
The classic example is the lighthouse, but transit is another. They serve as economic multipliers that each individual would not be willing to pay the cost of using because they don’t capture all of the benefits it provides during their use (their employer captures some, the businesses that they shop in far away from home capture some, the environment captures some, etc).
If you can find a way to solve the collective action problem and market coordinate all of these entities paying the true value of the trip, then by all means. Others would just opt for the (probably) much simpler and cheaper solution to have the government provide it…
First of all, let me point out that this earmark will (hopefully) be productive, unlike the little-needed bridge in Alaska.
Regarding “open markets”, the problem is that the transportation market has been distorted for decades. Oil defense, pollution clean-up, parking, etc have all been funded by outside sources (not motorists). If it hadn’t been, streetcar manufacturing start-up (and transit in general) might make economic sense on its own. (I’m not sure about the streetcar, but on a full bus its only $80/hour to move 40 people–$1-2/person)
Let me point out that it was government intervention in the marketplace itself that killed much of the transportation business in urban America.
First in the early 1900’s as the auto began to compete with the streetcar companies, the streetcar companies got local governments to outlaw that competition and a 1930’s era law, the Public Utilities Holding Act did much to kill the streetcar business by requiring that the electric companies that owned them divest themselves of that business. And today it is virtually against the law to own a private mass transit business in most American cities.
And Chris is was the government that enacted the Jim Crow Laws and kept African-Americans out of the voting booths and segregated them to the back of the bus. And those athletic events our daughters were kept out of were run in government schools as well as private ones, but government schools dominate that sector of our lives.
Please remember that when Trimet opened the Interstate Max line they shut down the service along MLK and down N. Marine Drive thus depriving people that live in North Portland of the opportunity to use the bus to find and get to work in the Rivergate Industrial Park. That anything but “Social Justice”. That is a shame on Trimet, but poiticians in Portland don’t give a damn.
MW
was the government that enacted the Jim Crow Laws and kept African-Americans out of the voting booths and segregated them to the back of the bus
Actually those jim crow laws were established by private citizens using terror and only codified by government once they had successfully terrorized any effective opposition out of the political process. These libertarian arguments are shallow and silly.
The fact is that for the last 100 years government has played a central role in creating American prosperity. From securing land for expansion of the frontiers, to the intercontinental railroads, to free public education, to generally available higher education, to the near eradication of polio and other communicable diseases, to clean public water, to sewers, to rural electrification, to individual ownership of houses … government has played a critical role in our prosperity.
The argument is not over whether government will have a role, but what its role will be. Its what we want government to do, not what it can do. That debate requires specific arguments about specific proposals.
depriving people that live in North Portland of the opportunity to use the bus to find and get to work in the Rivergate Industrial Park … That is a shame on Trimet
The fact is there wasn’t ever good service out to Rivergate. As I recall, there was some advocacy around this issue by Chip Shields and Better People long before MAX was built. He never really got much traction with it. But providing better service to Rivergate and along the Columbia Corridor is something that ought to be a priority.
It isn’t because it also requires major new investments in pedestrian facilities and there is not much support for that from the businesses in those areas that would have to pay for them. In other words, its a lack of private investment that is preventing the kind of transit usage that would justify the buses.
Transit service on the 85 bus to Swan Island…where 10K folks work…tripled with the opening of Interstate MAX. Its the lack of united effort by Rivergate employers plus low employment density that has hampered service improvements there. MLK carries the 6, a Frequent Service line to Vancouver. Get informed.
Michael Wilson Says:
Let me point out that it was government intervention in the marketplace itself that killed much of the transportation business in urban America.
First in the early 1900’s as the auto began to compete with the streetcar companies, the streetcar companies got local governments to outlaw that competition and a 1930’s era law, the Public Utilities Holding Act did much to kill the streetcar business by requiring that the electric companies that owned them divest themselves of that business. And today it is virtually against the law to own a private mass transit business in most American cities.
You’ve got no argument from me that government for special interests is a bad idea. We should strive for a government that thinks about how best to benefit the public. In the case of mass transit, providing efficient, cost effective, and sustainable transport that benefits the community is pretty much the defintion of for the public benefit.
Government can and long has corrected for marketplace failures (whether they are catastrophic or merely via underconsumption of public goods) in the name of the people for centuries. I’m not sure why now is different.
Ross Williams writes: “Actually those jim crow laws were established by private citizens using terror and only codified by government once they had successfully terrorized any effective opposition out of the political process. These libertarian arguments are shallow and silly.”
Ross I am not sure what libertarian has to do with it, but the Black Codes were passed right after the Civil War was ended and later struck down. The Jim Crow laws came later and whether people were terrorized or not had nothing to do with the fact that governments could have avoided passing them if elected officials had the courage to stand up. They didn’t.
Lenny Anderson writes: “Its the lack of united effort by Rivergate employers plus low employment density that has hampered service improvements there. MLK carries the 6, a Frequent Service line to Vancouver. Get informed.”
Lenny I could not disagree with you more and you comment that I need to get informed just shows me what to expect from you interms of a discussion. Not much except rudeness.
MW
the Black Codes were passed right after the Civil War was ended and later struck down.
Yeh, according to wikipedia when the federal government declared martial law and took control of the Southern states launching reconstruction. It was federal troops that defended the rights of freed slaves.
The Jim Crow laws came later and whether people were terrorized or not had nothing to do with the fact that governments could have avoided passing them if elected officials had the courage to stand up.
You seem to miss something here, elected officials are elected. Jim Crow was being already being enforced privately, the laws codified them.
Again this is completely off-topic. And the 6 bus does provide frequent service on MLK to Vancouver whether you agree with Lenny or not.
Ross writes: “Again this is completely off-topic. And the 6 bus does provide frequent service on MLK to Vancouver whether you agree with Lenny or not.”
And it used to go down N. Marine Dr. around the Rivergate complex and was changed when the Interstate line started up and anyone who used it to get to work had to find another ride.
MW
Yeah, we’re way off topic (oh, wait, this bus goes to a truck stop on Vancouver Wy., not Vancouver, WA?!), but since I’ve seen this before on this website somewhere, I’ll provide the info. I know:
And it used to go down N. Marine Dr. around the Rivergate complex and was changed when the Interstate line started up and anyone who used it to get to work had to find another ride.
TriMet rerouted route 16-Front Ave./St. Johns on the Rivergate loop when Interstate MAX opened.
Also since 6-MLK was rerouted onto Lombard and Denver to Hayden Isl. and Vancouver, 8-15th Ave. was rerouted onto MLK up to Vancouver Wy./Middlefield.
Somewhere around here, I think I have the official TriMet document that details the change, but I’d have to find it.
Transit service on the 85 bus to Swan Island…where 10K folks work…tripled with the opening of Interstate MAX.
What’s most interesting about this comparison is that 85-Swan Island doesn’t connect to Interstate MAX, except at the Rose Quarter TC (where it connects with the Red and Blue Line MAX lines, eight TriMet bus lines, and C-Tran service), and at the Albina/Mississippi stop.
For people who are in North Portland, the logical route would be a route from Interstate to Swan Island via Going, but there is no transit service that uses that line; so the public transit alternative is to continue south (to Albina/Mississippi) and backtrack north – adding about 10 minutes to the transit time, not including waiting to transfer.
Based on the 85’s routing and the weak connection to the Yellow Line I can’t say that the ridership increase is due to Interstate MAX but rather by the committment by Swan Island businesses to encourage transit ridership, even if that means riding a dreaded bus.
so the public transit alternative is to continue south (to Albina/Mississippi) and backtrack north – adding about 10 minutes to the transit time, not including waiting to transfer.
Transfer waiting time would be the same regardless of the intersection station.
According to published TriMet schedules, the longest additional peak-hour travel time between the Prescott (Overlook) station and the Albina station is 5 minutes. The additional distance, once on a bus, is 1.4 miles (1.7 miles vs. 0.4 miles), or 2.4 minutes at 35mph, so Erik is pretty close in his estimate: 7.4 minutes.
Based on the 85’s routing and the weak connection to the Yellow Line I can’t say that the ridership increase is due to Interstate MAX but rather by the commitment by Swan Island businesses to encourage transit ridership, even if that means riding a dreaded bus.
I think the real story is in this nugget: There isn’t such a thing as a “dreaded bus”. That is a straw-man argument created by those who argue that TriMet somehow hates or seriously neglects bus service. The truth of the matter is that (as Lenny said) TriMet tripled the #85 bus service after opening Interstate MAX.
Even if the #85 ran on Interstate and stopped at Interstate/Going (which could have eliminated bus service on Greeley, by the way), the fact that TriMet tripled service means that the dreaded transfer waiting time has been significantly reduced, and makes up for the additional distance travel time.
– Bob R.
Incidentally, the one-year era of slightly reduced transit ridership is over: TriMet issued new ridership totals Wednesday.
Max (all lines): Up 5.8% over a year ago (May).
Yellow Line: Up 17.2% (!) over a year ago.
Fixed route (meaning regularly scheduled buses, not LIFT service), up 3.1%.
There is probably a lot to discuss about the figures, so perhaps Chris can promote this to a new discussion. For example, most of the gains appear to come from weekend service, with weekday service across all bus & max lines up 2.2% over last year.
– Bob R.
“Even if the #85 ran on Interstate and stopped at Interstate/Going (which could have eliminated bus service on Greeley, by the way)”
The section of Greeley that the 85 runs on doesn’t have any stops on it, it is between a railroad yard, and a big hill covered with blackberries, so that is kind of moot. (And the 35-Greeley (used to be known as the 1-Greeley) runs on that section of Greeley too.)
The 85 going to Rose Quarter makes a lot of sense: It doesn’t force people that are riding the Red or Blue lines, (as well as those 9 buses that stop there too,) to wait for a Yellow line so that they can ride it to Prescott, and then get on the 85 to go down Going. Instead those people only have one transfer, directly to the 85. However, people along the Yellow line at Killingsworth (and North) that want to go to Swan Island get off at Killingsworth, and get on the 72 (frequent service,) and ride that directly onto Swan Island. The only people that would see any serious benefit from a bus from Prescott to Swan Island would be the people that live near the Prescott MAX station in the first place, and those people wouldn’t get on the MAX at all, they’d just board the 85 directly. (The people near Overlook would only see a minute or two benefit over the current route…)
Whenever there is a change in transit service, as opposed to just adding more service, it is almost inevitable that some group of riders will end up with lower quality service for their particular trip.
Even if the #85 ran on Interstate and stopped at Interstate/Going (which could have eliminated bus service on Greeley, by the way), the fact that TriMet tripled service means that the dreaded transfer waiting time has been significantly reduced, and makes up for the additional distance travel time.
TriMet actually improved a bus line which has little, if anything, to do with Interstate MAX. The fact is that a bus line was improved, with direct connections to multiple transit services (Rose Garden TC), and ridership jumped. (I stand corrected in suggesting that a line should be directly routed up Going to Interstate.)
This goes to show that a massive investment in rail-based transit, whether it be MAX or Streetcar, is completely unnecessary towards improving the transit experience and growing ridership; but listening to your constituents and delivering a product that people will use – like he 85. But given TriMet and (especially) Metro’s track record, neither want to continue doing so, because it detracts from developing rail-based transit.
If TriMet applied the same principles to other bus routes ridership would grow far more than 3.1% (and it wouldn’t had decreased last year.) So, what is the argument for continued disinvestment in bus service and focusing everything on Streetcar (and then proudly admitting as such, “guilty as charged!”)?
The 85 is one of three bus lines I help start, so its dear to my heart. Swan Island TMA argued for two buses runnning every 12-15 minutes directly to the Prescott MAX station. We could have improved service to the Drydocks, etc., with the travel time that is now consumed going to RQ.
My dream was to get Daimler Commerical Vehicles to put to prototype Hydrogen vehicles in service here as demos. Nobody was game for this vision, not DCV, not Trimet, and not…this is important…the existing 85 riders who liked the transferless trip to RQ. I was originally in that camp as well, but it was pointed out that with the Yellow Line running every ten minutes in the peak (average transfer 5 minutes), and with 85 running every 15 instead of every 20 which the RQ route requires, its really a wash.
Generally, I think it is a poor use of scarce resources to run a bus parallel to a MAX line as both the 85 and 35 do. If bus and MAX frequencies are 10-12 minutes, then transfers are not a big deal. But Swan Island was very pleased that a chunk of the old 5 service hours got us service all day, every 20 minutes. Ridership as gone from under 200 per day to 500 in the last three years. Ridership has also increased on the Evening Shuttle which runs with Job Access funds between 6:30pm and midnight.
The lesson is that when you put in more service…MAX and/or bus, you get more riders. Duh. But a word of caution…if TriMet puts in service, and does not get more riders…some westside shuttles…then don’t expect to keep the service; empty seats are not cost effective.
government has played a central role in creating American prosperity. From securing land for expansion of the frontiers…
Uh…you mean when the government rounded up the native Americans, took their land, and those they didn’t kill were shipped off to reservations?
Hmmm…not such a great route to “creating prosperity.”
Uh…you mean when the government rounded up the native Americans, took their land, and those they didn’t kill were shipped off to reservations?
Yes, that was one of its most important contributions to the prosperity of white America. All the tales of self-sufficiency on the Oregon Trail to the contrary. You don’t have to approve of what was done to understand that Lexus in a suburban garage wouldn’t be there without it.
Chris,
I guess I don’t see why this statement: Perhaps I’m a hopeless (but somewhat pragmatic) optimist, but I still see government as a provider of solutions to important issues in our society.
makes you think you need to write this: But I have never seen a market that produced social justice as an outcome.
The second contradicts almost everything I know from theories of political and economic justice, as well as, basically a half century long battle between two competing views of political and economic order: communism and capitalism.
Sorry to be so grandiose, but I hope you don’t really mean that first statement about markets NEVER (your word) producing social justice.
It is possible to both understand and celebrate the possibilities of markets, and also understand where government can make a contribution.
Paul, you’re right of course. You caught me over-reacting to the folks on this blog who take the position that government can’t do anything constructive.
At a minimum markets create economic efficiency and match supply and demand, both of which are social goods.
Perhaps what I should have said is that markets don’t generally have social justice as their goal. Government plays a role in curbing market forces that detract from social justice. That is after all essentially the way the liberal capitalist system we live in works.
I stand corrected :-)
Government plays a role in curbing market forces that detract from social justice.
Then what happens when government functions in a way that is discriminatory towards what was a government supported function (i.e. bus service)? Are we to unilaterally support the decisions of government without question, or should we demand that government provide services to all citizens equally and without regards towards public pressure to only serve some citizens; or to bow down to special interests (such as the subsidies to Oregon Iron Works to build an American Streetcar)?
Under the theory that government plays the check on curbing market forces to detract from social justice, then isn’t it imperative that TriMet, as a governmental entity, provide a basic service to all citizens throughout its legally defined service territory, and Metro support TriMet’s role (as the “bank” of federal transportation dollars), instead of focusing transportation investments to focus on the downtown core, while ignoring other neighborhoods which have an equal desire, demand and right towards quality transit service? Or, is Metro/TriMet simply pandering to “market forces” by only allocating quality transit towards urban redevelopment areas?
FYI – A section on Page 12 of today’s Parade Magazine (distributed in the Oregonian as well as many other Sunday newspapers in the country) portrayed $750,000 going to “A prototype streetcar in Oregon” instead of fixing bridges near collapse.
The column is written as if all the federal transportation money in the entire country should go to only bridges until each and every one is repaired/replaced.
Well, there goes that darned liberal media again. :-)
For those who care, here’s a link to the Parade blurb.
– Bob R.