An article in Friday’s Trib suggests that funding for transit may make its way to the ballot soon.
Some of the focus for the article is on the rail vs. bus issue that we’ve discussed often here. I’d like to focus on a different question the article raises (at least indirectly).
Funding for transit today is primarily based on the payroll tax. That works well to the extent that as employment grows, driving demand for more transit, funding also grows to match it.
But if demand for transit grows because demand increases due to modal shifts (for example because energy costs change behavior, or because land use changes allow more people to effectively access transit) funding does NOT increase to match the new demand.
Where should we look for funding for the increased appetite for transit?
This is explicitly about asking how we grow the pie rather than fighting about how we cut the slices!
97 responses to “Transit on Ballot?”
Automobile licensing fees are something I would happily pay more for, if it went to good causes.
I’ve lived many places and we are one of (if not the) least expensive.
I wished I would have recieved the monorail shaped year sticker in Seattle… oh well.
I appreciate Metro’s efforts to find a balanced use of whatever funds would be generated.
The most obvious way to deal with it is to raise the payroll tax. Creating whole new revenue streams will just complicate the process.
With transit already subsidized approximately 79 percent through taxpayer revenue sources, far more of the funding for transit needs to be collected through the farebox, either by raising fares the users pay, or by tacking on a tax surcharge. Charging transit fares that better reflect the true costs of providing the service is the only equitable solution.
True costs, Terry?
Do we really need to go into the “true costs” of automobile travel or airline travel again? Both heavily subsidized by taxpayers, much more so than mass transit.
I think, given the public benefits of people using transit, replacing transit fares with higher taxes makes more sense than raising fares. The result of higher fares would be increased traffic, pollution and larger investments to expand auto facilities when the current gas tax is not even covering the cost of maintaining existing roads. Its a lot more expensive to provide space for another auto at rush hour than to pay for a another seat on a bus or train.
It would be nice just to see them do more to collect the fares that aren’t being paid now. KATU showed it was in the millions per year.
I also wouldn’t have a problem paying more for my vehicle registration. In Texas I paid twice as much for my registration, tags, and inspection — and that was per year. When you consider the fact that our registration is for 2 years, and mine in Texas was for one year, I was actually paying twice as much.
And prices were based on the size/type of vehicle you were driving. I was driving a compact Saturn sedan.
I’d also like to see more done to get transit more available in the suburbs. Have you ever looked at how many buses are available east of 122nd? Not that many.
Our in Gresham, there are basically four north-south streets that have coverage: 182nd (from Powell to Stark and Stark to 105th- a “commuter” line, meaning it runs commuter hours M-F), 223rd/Eastman (the portion up to Powell runs 7 days a week, the portion south of Powell runs commuter hours), 257th/Kane (7 days a week) and Troutdale Road (commuter). That’s about 100 blocks of road with only four streets with coverage, only 2 of those having coverage 7 days a week.
East-west isn’t any better. You have Powell, Division, Stark, and Halsey. And of course the Sandy bus, which also runs N-S, runs E-W for a portion. That’s it.
When you look west in the area between 182nd and 122nd, you add on a few more east-west buses (Glisan, Burnside, and Main, for example).
But the fact is coverage out here is crappy. Getting around town is almost impossible. When I lived on 182nd (which is a major route through town), you had to either go to 122nd or 223rd to get to the nearest n-s route if it was outside of commuter hours. Not to mention a 30+ minute wait for the Powell bus.
They always say ridership out here is so bad, which is why we have the service we do. But did they ever think that maybe ridership is bad because it’s so difficult to get anywhere?
One point about transit fares and subsidy: if fares changed to reflect the true costs of providing services, peak-time urban routes would typically see little to no increase (or even a drop in some cases) and off-peak and suburban routes would typically bear the bulk of the increase.
This might be fairer in some sense, but it’s not necessarily sound policy from a planning or environmental standpoint.
Under Oregon’s constitution could vehicle registration fees go for transit? I don’t think so. Gas tax, vehicle fees, etc. all may be used only for roads.
Going to the voters for big transit capital costs may make sense, as was done with the westside MAX; it certainly shuts a lot of nay-sayers up if the vote passes, but can be uncomfortable if it fails, as South/North did in ’98. Depending on URA dollars works to a point, but maybe with Milwaukie its time for a vote.
For operating funds, TriMet has been authorized to increase the payroll tax. Fares have gone up enough, and one sees plenty of empty seats on many lines.
It scares me no end to think what harm could come of more transportation revenue being in the hands of ODOT, even PDOT. Its time to do more with less; transfer all those engineers in planning over to maintenance or send them packing and use the money filling potholes.
I think taking it to the voters makes the most sense, but only if it’s a comprehensive package including roads and transit. Get the regions priorities all rolled up into one package, like Denver did, and there will be something for everyone to like. It’ll also eliminate the provincialism that occurs. Just hypothetically…. “Well, I’m not voting for better transit for Milwaukie until they do something for Tualatin first”. Or…. “Why should Damascus get a highway before they expand 217?”
We’re all in the same metro area, we need to start acting like it.
Having posted a comment to the Tribune’s site, and reading some of the follow-up posts, I will state that I’m not going to give TriMet another dollar until it fixes the financial situation it has put itself in.
It’s a known fact that TriMet blew through its contingency budget (so it has very little savings) funding light rail projects that weren’t approved by voters. This resulted in cutting back in bus service and purchases, while TriMet is head-over-heels trying to woo the federal government to build MAX lines.
It’s also a known fact that TriMet signed on to fund a non-regional transit operation, the Portland Streetcar, that the City somehow got down TriMet’s throats.
And now TriMet is crying poverty.
I’ll be the first to argue for a tax increase if/when it’s warranted, but TriMet has shown that it can’t be trusted with the money it had – because it pissed it away. What did we get? Well, we have fewer busses, and we pay more for bus fare than most cities (Seattle, for example, pays only $1.25 a ride anywhere within King County; $1.50 at rush hour.)
TriMet must establish the following cost cutting measures to restore my trust:
1. Eliminate Capital Planning. It’s not only redundant (with Metro, the various cities and counties), but it hasn’t planned for anything but MAX.
2. Eliminate all non-service vehicle purchases; any vehicles that MUST be purchased must be economy vehicles (and there must be an essential justification for said vehicle).
3. Reduce MAX service to 20 minute intervals, especially west of Beaverton and east of Gateway. Reduce the Red Line to shuttle-mode between Gateway and PDX.
4. Review all bus routes for cost recovery. Underperforming routes, neighborhood routes, and express/rush hour routes should be reviewed to be contracted out to operators like First (including LaidLaw), MV or other contract operators to reduce costs.
5. 10% across-the-board personnel cut in management personnel.
6. No new capital projects, except for programmed bus replacements (on a FTA recommended 15 year cycle). Terminate all existing capital projects, except for I-205/Transit Mall (and that’s only due to the cost of cancelling those contracts).
7. Eliminate all TriMet funding for non-TriMet transit operations; including Portland Streetcar, Aerial Tram, Willamette Shoreline Trolley, bike projects.
8. Sell off any excess properties, including properties purchased during MAX projects for redevelopment, on an accelerated schedule.
In other words, deconstruct one of the best transit agencies in the country?
1. Eliminate Capital Planning. It’s not only redundant (with Metro, the various cities and counties), but it hasn’t planned for anything but MAX.
Well, buses don’t require very much Capital Planning unless you are designing BRT systems, which can have infrastructure costs similar to smaller-scale rail systems. If you move the planning duties to another agency, they will have to hire capital planners with expertise in transit, and you’re just shifting the costs to another agency.
2. Eliminate all non-service vehicle purchases; any vehicles that MUST be purchased must be economy vehicles (and there must be an essential justification for said vehicle).
What do you mean by non-service vehicles? Do you mean vehicles used by maintenance and/or supervisory staff? Even if you did so, the elimination of 10 full-size trucks wouldn’t add up to the cost of one standard bus. Your proposal is completely out of scale to the desired outcome.
3. Reduce MAX service to 20 minute intervals, especially west of Beaverton and east of Gateway.
MAX service at the endpoints is already at 15 minute intervals most of the day. 15 minutes is really the minimum to provide true rapid transit service on a major corridor… otherwise people who miss transfers will be really inconvenienced. Going from 15 to 20 won’t save you all that much in terms of operating costs… you’d be able to maybe add a bus run or two elsewhere in the system while sacrificing the schedule of the most heavily travelled line in the entire system.
Reduce the Red Line to shuttle-mode between Gateway and PDX.
Why on earth would you want to do that? I thought you frequently criticised the notion of “feeder buses” serving MAX… this proposal would turn the airport line into a glorified “feeder train”. The Red Line’s advantage is that it offers a fast, one-seat ride to many event destinations, hotels, and the city center.
Turning the Red Line into a shuttle, combined with reducing the blue line endpoints to 20-minute intervals, could potentially add 20-25 minutes worst case to downtown travel times from the airport.
Furthermore, Red Line service to Beaverton was added well over a year ago to relieve peak hour crowding. If you ditch the Red Line service, you’ll have to run more Blue Line trains at peak hour to compensate… at peak times you’d just be forcing airport riders to transfer for no net savings in operating costs.
4. Review all bus routes for cost recovery. Underperforming routes, neighborhood routes, and express/rush hour routes should be reviewed to be contracted out to operators like First (including LaidLaw), MV or other contract operators to reduce costs.
TriMet already reviews routes for cost recovery. Whether they could contract them out depends on labor agreements.
5. 10% across-the-board personnel cut in management personnel.
Why and for what purpose? What evidence do you have that TriMet has 10% too many managers compared to other agencies its size, and what evidence do you have that such cuts wouldn’t degrade operations?
6. No new capital projects, except for programmed bus replacements (on a FTA recommended 15 year cycle). Terminate all existing capital projects, except for I-205/Transit Mall (and that’s only due to the cost of cancelling those contracts).
But what if the voters do vote for this package proposal? Are you saying TriMet should not implement the Milwaukie light rail line even if voters approve it?
7. Eliminate all TriMet funding for non-TriMet transit operations; including Portland Streetcar, Aerial Tram, Willamette Shoreline Trolley, bike projects.
It has been previously stated that TriMet’s contribution to the Portland Streetcar operations budget corresponds to what would have been required to simply run buses, with the city picking up the rest of the tab. Are you in fact saying that TriMet should not provide service along this route at all?
How much does TriMet contribute to the Aerial Tram and to bike projects (other than bike racks on buses and MAX)? TriMet does not honor tram passes, but the tram does honor TriMet passes. Can you show evidence that these factors are significant enough to make a dent in overall bus service?
8. Sell off any excess properties, including properties purchased during MAX projects for redevelopment, on an accelerated schedule.
Wouldn’t it be better to hang on to ROW-related properties? Wouldn’t it be better to sell off properties at the appropriate time to either receive the most public benefit or the most market value? Dumping a bunch of properties rapidly, especially in a softening market, doesn’t seem wise to me.
– Bob R.
far more of the funding for transit needs to be collected through the farebox
On a per-seat basis it does–the cost of operating 1/40th of a bus for 30 minutes is not that much–only about $1. The problem is that there are many empty seats. If we got the new riders to fill up the empty seats (and land use changes that also make transit more efficient would offer two great ways to do that), transit riders would indeed pay for more of the funding.
Also, let me note that the union won’t let neighborhood-type service be contracted out, though I agree that operators of it shouldn’t necessarily be paid the same as those on Line 72.
I’d like to see Trimet remove Fareless Square as a means of generating additional revenue. I understand some people believe that’ll result in an increase in auto trips, but the cost of taking my car out of the lot I’ve parked it in downtown and parking it somewhere else is greater than the cost of a bus ticket… and unless it’s a really lousy day I’m going to walk regardless.
I wouldn’t be opposed to making the MAX free downtown (but certainly not over the river to Lloyd) as a compromise, but it seems to me if Trimet is having problems with revenue they need to consider this as an option before they go to the public with their hat in hand.
I wouldn’t be opposed to making the MAX free downtown (but certainly not over the river to Lloyd) as a compromise, but it seems to me if Trimet is having problems with revenue they need to consider this as an option before they go to the public with their hat in hand.
Doug, I doubt many people are going to pay a couple bucks to ride MAX or take the bus downtown. I don’t think they are losing much if any revenue.
unless it’s a really lousy day I’m going to walk regardless.
Which produces no revenue for Trimet but discourages people from going to downtown Portland.
KATU showed it was in the millions per year.
Are people really believing things they see on TV? “Millions” is a good sound bite, but Trimet has a $745 million budget in 2008, about half of that for operating expenses. Your average retail outlet would be extremely pleased to keep its losses of merchandise to 1%, but that would still be “millions” in the case of Trimet.
The tax NYMBY syndrome is alive and well for the users political supporters of alternative transport. No matter what the reason why, it is always tax or charge somebody else or the motorists for the alternative form of transport and infrastructure they use and want to socialistically force other people to use too. So here is a novel democratic idea. Put higher transit fares before the voters and tell the public what they will get if passed. Put a bicycle tax on that ballot and let the public know what it will pay for, even if it is to pay for transit. It is a total disservice to the citizenry of Portland and the region for Metro and PDOT not to have an open conversation, or even survey the public with straight forward questions on the issue of taxing alternative transport use. Obviously this has been kept off of local political agendas and the dictatorial squabble table because making alternative forms of transport more financially self sustainable, paid for by users, would handily be passed by the voters.
“TriMet must establish the following cost cutting measures to restore my trust: ……” -Erik
Erik, you forgot #9; Run all MAX lines and bus routes through Tualatin.
This will save a ton of money, because every connection would be centrally located in Tualatin.
“The tax NYMBY syndrome is alive and well for the users political supporters of alternative transport. No matter what the reason why, it is always tax or charge somebody else or the motorists for the alternative form of transport and infrastructure they use and want to socialistically force other people to use too.”
Terry,
1. What is NYMBY?
2. Please link to a supporter of alternative transport on this blog or in the political arean who espouses socialist ideas. If you can’t back up your claims, I’d suggest you back off them and refrain from ill informed name calling. It’s not better than me suggesting that you are a right wing conservative. I have no evidence for that and it doesn’t help debate, does it?
3. Have you considered starting a political advocacy group? If so many people feel as you do it couldn’t be that hard to start one- and polls actually don’t cost that much.
I hate to gang up on Terry, but here goes….
So Terry, are you also going to put a sidewalk tax on the ballot for all the poor shlubs who actually have to walk on them?
And for the people who don’t own cars, are they exempt from your road tax?
And what exactly is a “dictatorial squabble table”? I’m still scratching my head on that one.
Without reading thru all the comments I’ll ask a couple of questions if that is acceptable.
With Trimet only at about 20-25 percent of operating expenses being captured at the fare box how does Trimet compare to other transit systems in the country regarding the percent of fares going to operating cost? Does San Diego do better with maybe 50%? How does N.Y compare to Trimet? Which Transit system in the nation is best? Why are they the best? And how do we get that information?
MW
Micheal –
I did a bit of Googling and found this article from Railway Age in 2004 on the NYC MTA fare recovery ratio, and depending on how it is calculated, it falls somewhere near the 50% range.
– Bob R.
Lenny said:
“In other words, deconstruct one of the best transit agencies in the country?”
>>>> Sorry, Lenny, but I believed the hype about
Portland transit when I moved here over 6 years ago.
Unfortunately, certain aspects of Trimet have been a major disappointment to me about Portland.
In comparing NYC MTA fare recovery to Portland and Tri-Met, consider also that many many people in NYC do not own cars, and that many parking spots in Manhattan cost more than most Portland houses.
In fact, less than half of the population of NYC owns their own cars, and less than 25% of Manhattan residents own a car.
Additionally, NYC metro is significantly more densely populated than the Portland metro area – NYC is the most densely populated city in the USA.
And finally, consider that the Island of Manhattan, only one of the boroughs of NYC, has 1.6 million people and only about 50 gas stations.
Transit is far more successful in NYC than any other city in the USA…
The NYC subway is the largest transit rail system in the world with over 650 miles of subway, and the NYC subway has the 4th highest ridership in the world. The NYC bus fleet is the largest in North America. All to cover about 300 square miles of land.
Portland Metro has roughly 360 square miles of land within the urban growth boundary.
Thank God we aren’t New York!! I don’t know how anyone could live like that!!
Erik, you forgot #9; Run all MAX lines and bus routes through Tualatin.
Aaron, that’s your rule and not mine. All I ask is that TriMet’s entire service district be equally serviced.
In other words, deconstruct one of the best transit agencies in the country?
Based on what? Ridership that is flat overall, and had a bus service decline? Entire sections of the district that are underserved/unserved?
TriMet was the “best transit district” back in the 1989.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Public_Transportation_Association
And name how just ONE of my suggestions would “deconstruct” TriMet. I have other suggestions that would intentionally deconstruct TriMet, but I did not name one of those suggestions here.
Well, buses don’t require very much Capital Planning unless you are designing BRT systems, which can have infrastructure costs similar to smaller-scale rail systems.
You’re telling me that TriMet can’t invest in market research to find out where busses can and should be routed? Or how about improving the bus ride experience – building new transit centers with more amenities? Developing more comfortable busses?
Well, since TriMet has no desire to do so, there’s obiviously no reason for Capital Planning, and thus the rationale to eliminate it.
Even if you did so, the elimination of 10 full-size trucks wouldn’t add up to the cost of one standard bus. Your proposal is completely out of scale to the desired outcome.
Are you telling me that TriMet only has ten non-service vehicles? I can count at least 10 in the Multnomah Lot (where Capital Planning is headquartered). That’s not including the hoards of vehicles at Center Street, or the Bus Supervisor trucks.
MAX service at the endpoints is already at 15 minute intervals most of the day. 15 minutes is really the minimum to provide true rapid transit service on a major corridor… otherwise people who miss transfers will be really inconvenienced. Going from 15 to 20 won’t save you all that much in terms of operating costs
Well, 15 minutes is really the minimum to provide true, usable bus service, but it seems to be OK to offer 20, 30, 45, 60 minute or less service on many routes (and then nobody rides those busses.)
Cutting service from 15 to 20 minutes saves 25% on labor expense, 25% in energy cost. Particularly on the Westside, few busses (west of Beaverton) operate every 15 minutes, save for the 57. And it parallels MAX.
Why and for what purpose? What evidence do you have that TriMet has 10% too many managers compared to other agencies its size, and what evidence do you have that such cuts wouldn’t degrade operations?
Jack Welsh didn’t become one of America’s most admired CEOs for allowing for management complacency. Every year at GE, the bottom performers get axed. Yet thousands of people still fight to work for GE each year. Maybe a little bit of “real-world” ingenuity might help.
But what if the voters do vote for this package proposal? Are you saying TriMet should not implement the Milwaukie light rail line even if voters approve it?
Put it to a vote, and if it wins I’ll shut up.
Why did TriMet not put Airport MAX to a vote? Why did TriMet not put Interstate MAX to a vote? Why did TriMet not put I-205 and Transit Mall MAX to a vote?
And, why did TriMet rape the contingency funds that were supposed to be used to fund bus replacement purchases, in order to fund these MAX projects that were not voter approved, resulting in a disinvestment in bus service, resulting in the average age of the bus fleet to increase, and resulting in TriMet having to cut back bus service on numerous routes (including some routes going from 30 to 45 minute intervals)?
What’s good for busses should be good for MAX, don’t you agree?
It has been previously stated that TriMet’s contribution to the Portland Streetcar operations budget corresponds to what would have been required to simply run buses
That’s a flat out LIE. TriMet already routes several busses along the South Waterfront; TriMet would not be required to add service.
(Besides, if TriMet were “required” to add service proportional to population growth, than TriMet should be “required” to be adding routes to Tualatin to make up for the 3,000%+ population growth that occurred since TriMet was born.) The City of Portland chose to build a Streetcar outside of TriMet and TriMet has no legal obligation to fund/support it.
Wouldn’t it be better to hang on to ROW-related properties?
I’m talking about excess properties that were purchased for re-development purposes, that TriMet still owns for yet-unknown reasons.
Besides, TriMet already sold/leased back much of its MAX operating property.
Hawthorne asked; “What is NYMBY?“
A typo on my part that should have been spelled “NIMBY” meaning Not In My Back Yard.
“Please link to a supporter of alternative transport on this blog or in the political arean who espouses socialist ideas”
Referring to transportation policy; a socialistic idea is the application of various economic and political theories advocating the government enacting controls or tax policies that are specifically designed to have power over, manipulate and/or in some cases influence the personal transportation choices people have and/or make. Several Metro Councilors and City Commissioner Sam Adams advocate these concepts. An example of tax policy being used as a means to enact socialistic policy is taxing motorists to subsidize alternative forms of transport. The statement “Forcing people out of their cars” is a plain-spoken example of socialistic policy.
Aaron asked: “Are you going to put a side walk tax on the ballot for all the poor shlubs who actually walk on them?”
The simple answer is it is not necessary. Most sidewalks within the City are already funded by property taxes, paid for by developers when new development occurs, or in some cases by paid for using local improvement districts (LIDS) where a majority of property owners in the district must agree to pay. As a property owner myself, I not only pay property taxes on the sidewalk easement that borders my property, but I am also financially on the hook (unlike some downtown property owners which I take exception to) if repairs are needed. Furthermore, there is not the funding crisis for basic a sidewalk system like exists for roadways and transit, and quite frankly, with few exceptions, the City does not really need 12 foot wide sidewalks.
“And for the people who don’t own cars, are they exempt from your road tax?”
With the exception of urban renewal districts where property taxes pay for various transport mode infrastructure, not just roads, but do not pay for other government services like police and fire protection that other property tax payers must then subsidize, the majority of roadway funding is paid for by taxes and fees assessed on motorists, some of which is continually being poached for transit and bicycle infrastructure. Now if you are referring to what you might indirectly pay for a product purchased at the local store of your choice, then you must realize where that product came from and how it arrived at that store whereby the transport costs are undoubtedly passed through on to you as the consumer. If the product was transported by truck or other motor vehicle, then as a purchaser of that product, you too receive a benefit from good roads and should not be exempt when it comes to paying any pass through costs. If you disagree with that assessment, then you can freely choose another product or choose to shop somewhere else.
“And what exactly is a “dictatorial squabble table”?”
This is my terminology for the current stacked deck committee process that aims to invoke and dictate to the people of the region socialistic transport policies and funding methods, and in the end, divvies up the capital fund requests. A good conversation title anyway.
“All I ask is that TriMet’s entire service district be equally serviced.” -Erik
Well, if the entire metro area was homogenous, everything equally distibuted throughout, then that would make sense. That’s not the case, though.
If Tri-Met is “so great”, then it shouldn’t be a problem having people riding it pay their full fare, right? I would like to see full privatization of all transit systems be in Tri-Met, Amtrak, the highways, bike paths, airlines, etc. I am tired of seeing all the tax money going to overlords who spend all their time studying and meeting and getting very little (or nothing) accomplished. We’re America not some third world communist contry for god sakes!
Erik said, ” All I ask is that TriMet’s entire service district be equally serviced.”
That’s a pretty interesting statement and helps me understand your perspective a bit more. What do you mean by equally serviced?
Terry Parker Wrote:
“socialistic idea is the application of various economic and political theories advocating the government enacting controls or tax policies that are specifically designed to have power over, manipulate and/or in some cases influence the personal transportation choices people have and/or make.”
Terry – can you please explain to me how using taxes to fund transit now is any more “socialistic” than the use of taxes in the 20th century to create and maintain the auto-centric transportation system that we currently enjoy?
You don’t agree with funneling more tax dollars to mass transit. I get it. What I don’t understand is why you use the argument of socialism to make your point. Transportation policy is, using your definition, either socialistic, or anarchy.
That being said, I wholeheartedly agree with the posters who think that fareless square should go away, and I am very disappointed in the level of transit service available outside of downtown. I work for a suburban employer that writes out a MASSIVE check to Trimet each year, and our office has no bus or rail stops within a mile (we’re just off of Denney Road). That’s absurd.
Equally Serviced, in my opinion, means that every resident of the TriMet service district should be within no more of a 10 minute walk (roughly 2500 feet, or one half of a mile) to a transit line that offers a baseline level of service that is consistent throughout the entire service district (30 minute service, from 6:00 AM to 9:00 PM, Mondays through Saturdays, with slightly less service for Sunday/Holidays.)
Equally serviced does not represent whether a transit route will be served by a bus or MAX, but an appropriate transit vehicle for the ridership of the route. However regardless of the vehicle, amenities should be similiar (i.e. air conditioning on 100% of vehicles, handicapped accessibility should be similiar, on board amenities should be the same, and major service stops should be similiar/same in design/amenities.)
If ridership in a given area does not permit for a regular route service, then TriMet should explore an alternative, such as demand-responsive service, to provide service to those who are transit-dependent (not defined by having a handicap or by poverty level, but rather anyone who requests and needs public transportation) but in an area that cannot sustain regular route sevice; with a response time from dispatch to arrival similar to the wait time for a regular route bus (i.e. no more than 30 minutes).
Well, if the entire metro area was homogenous, everything equally distibuted throughout, then that would make sense. That’s not the case, though.
That argument makes little sense, because Portland has an interesting concept called zoning laws and greenspaces.
By the very nature of Portland’s existance (and Metro), Portland cannot have everything equally distributed; however the fact is that people live, work and play throughout the region. To suggest that only some areas have quality transit service and others do not, and then to further suggest that we spend billions of dollars to build transit service where it already exists (Milwaukie) but to completely ignore the under/unserved areas that pay into TriMet’s property and payroll tax base, is, for lack of a better term, discriminatory.
I should also add that “equal service” also represents that citizens within the TriMet service district have equal access to their respective town centers, so that a resident of one community should be able to have transit within their community.
Erik,
Thanks for the clarification. Two questions, then. 1. How do you propose paying for the service (which is different than capital costs)? 2. Are you suggesting that in the quest of “equal access” that defines equity on a geographic basis that service for highly populated areas should decrease?
Chris said:
“This is explicitly about asking how we grow the pie rather than fighting about how we cut the slices!”
Sigh, and yet this has turned into another thread about Tualatin…
Back to the topic: I lean towards property taxes for funding capital intensive things like rail because those sorts of things tend to result in increased property values… Since rail tends to have lower operating costs anyways, I think that will solve a lot of problems in the short term…
In the long run, I’d like to see Portland implement a congestion charge on the freeways with the money going to operation costs for transit. I think by the 2008 election, people may be willing to swallow that tax in the name of helping the planet, and most of the freeways have/will have rail lines near them, so there are alternatives to driving on the freeways…
Funding roads should be done with gas taxes, because it means the people that drive more/drive heaver vehicles pay more, where as people that drive less, pay less. But most voters won’t pass a gas tax given the current price of gas, so the alternative is to raise various DMV fees, “a stealth tax increase,” because people wouldn’t notice/have to vote on it. I hate that method, but the roads don’t really have a choice, they are going to fall apart if we don’t maintain them.
Funding roads should be done with gas taxes, because it means the people that drive more/drive heaver vehicles pay more, where as people that drive less, pay less
The point of using the gas tax to fund roads was not that it is equitable among users, it isn’t. The point was that as the number of miles people collectively drove increased so would the collective taxes to pay for the facilities they collectively used. That is no longer the case.
The miles people drive continues to increase, while the amount of gas they use is not increasing at nearly the same rate. The result is that there are not enough tax dollars to even pay for maintenance of existing roads, much less pay for any new facilities.
The problem is that taxes for transportation have been kept artificially low and the bill is starting to come due.
Simple:
TriMet receives a payroll tax and a property tax that is assessed across its service territory.
TriMet needs to re-distribute that revenue across its service territory as well. In fact, several months ago I developed a spreadsheet that allocated TriMet’s bus fleet based upon strictly residential population. (I don’t have access to it, because it’s at home and I’m at work).
It clearly showed a disparity in service; several communities did not have bus service that equated to the number of busses that would have been allocated if TriMet were, theoretically, forced to divide up its assets based upon the population of cities within its service territory.
I believe that the model used up in Seattle is one worth looking at. Each county (King, Pierce and Snohomish, and Thurston, along with the city of Everett) has their own transit district that primarily serves its county/city (Seattle, Tacoma, Everett, Olympia/Lacey). The three counties of King, Pierce and Snohomish have a regional agency, Sound Transit, that coordinates regional transit planning – bus, commuter rail, and light rail.
Under Sound Transit’s enabling legislation, it must invest funds received in the county, in projects within the county.
Applied to TriMet, it would require TriMet to count the revenues received from Washington, Clackamas and Multnomah Counties – and must disperse the funds equally.
In other words, Portland (in Multnomah County) could not engage in a transit project (under TriMet) that would require funding obtained in Washington County; but it could, of course, develop/fund its own transit projects on a local, not regional, basis.
And gas taxes collected in the Metro region don’t return to the region on a equal basis (i.e., our gas taxes disproportionately fund projects outside the Metro region).
Same thing on taxes for schools.
Taxes are not user feeds. They are the price of a civil society.
The same goes for federal taxes. Oregonians pay more to the federal gov’t than we receive back. If I had my way, none of my taxes would fund Bush’s wars. Life is not so cut and dry, Erik.
Certainly a big part of the problem with the gas tax is that it hasn’t been raised recently, so the purchasing power has fallen. While I’d love to see a weight-mile instead, that is far further off than 2008… The problem with other ways of funding roads, (property taxes, DMV fees, income taxes,) is that many of the impacts of cars to infrastructure are only really when they are moving, but most of the cost of cars to the people have nothing to do with how often you drive…
And yes, I agree that being fair isn’t the only criteria for taxes. (We don’t tax food stamp recipients for the cost of food stamps, we tax everyone else and then give the poor food stamps so that they don’t riot on the street and/or break into our houses.) But in the case of the gas tax, when we already have system in place that works moderately well, we should expand it…
when we already have system in place that works moderately well, we should expand it…
I’m not sure that is such a good idea. If you give them more money they may still spend it on new projects rather than maintaining what is already there. It seems to me any increase in the gas tax needs to be tied to a fix and maintain it first requirement.
Greg said:
“Terry – can you please explain to me how using taxes to fund transit now is any more “socialistic” than the use of taxes in the 20th century to create and maintain the auto-centric transportation system that we currently enjoy?”
There is a huge difference. Fuel taxes and other taxes and fees assessed on motorists have paid for the majority of roadway infrastructure. The dollars in the Federal Highway Trust Fund come from the federal tax on motor fuels. In Oregon, truckers pay a weight per mile tax that support paying for roads. All dollars combined, motor vehicles that use the roadways pay 80 to 90 percent of the costs of building and maintaining roadway infrastructure in Oregon. With a better than three-quarters percent of roadway funding coming directly from the users, funding roadway infrastructure is user based.
On the other hand, transit riders pay only 21 percent of the costs of providing transit service. Taxpayers in one form or another subsidize the other 79 percent, including dollars poached from motorists in Oregon, and from the Federal Highway Trust Fund that only the users of motor fuels pay into. That makes transit funding anything but user based. Taking money for transit from motorist assessed taxes and fees that is used for a system that is highly subsidized by non-users is socialistic. Using motorist provided funds to pay for transit that includes passing on negative impacts to motorists such as reducing roadway vehicle capacity to make room for transit, and having busses stopping in motor vehicle travel lanes that obstructs traffic thereby creating more congestion for motorists is socialistic. The simple fact that transit riders pay less than one quarter of the costs of providing for transit service while motorists directly pay for more than three quarters of providing roadway infrastructure is socialistic. The fact that transit farebox revenues to do not help pay for the roads over which the busses travel is socialistic. And finally, the fact that Metro and PDOT are not even attempting to keep up with population growth and the demand for increased roadway capacity while pumping the majority region’s available Federal highway and transportation dollars into transit and other alternative projects that will require even larger operating subsidies from the public is totally socialistic.
The bottom line – to end this socialism, transit riders must be on equity par with motorists and be paying no less than 80 to 90 percent of the costs for all transit services and infrastructure.
taxes>socialism. No matter how people spin it, the argument boils down to the claim that any tax paid by someone who does not get equal benefit in return is “socialism”.
And gas taxes collected in the Metro region don’t return to the region on a equal basis (i.e., our gas taxes disproportionately fund projects outside the Metro region).
Based upon what statistics?
Based upon what statistics?
I’m paraphrasing Sam Adams, who has good reason to care about what percentage Portland gets back from what it sends. I don’t have the source data.
Life is not so cut and dry, Erik.
Yes, it is.
In 2000, a democratically held election for President of the United States was held in accordance with the U.S. Constitution, and the people voted for George W. Bush.
In 2004, a democratically held election for President of the United States was held in accordance with the U.S. Constitution, and the people voted for George W. Bush.
Apparently I sense that there are some people who disagree with the concept of elections. (I hate the President, but I respect the fact that he was elected under the laws of this country.) The same is true for light rail – it was voted down several times, but it seems that it’s OK to run over the will of the voters.
However, TriMet has no voter responsibility – it’s controlled by a non-elected Board of Directors who are appointed by the Governor of the state of Oregon; unlike virtually every other transit district that has an elected board or a board that is appointed by locally elected officials. That means that for all intents and purposes, someone who lives in the Pearl District have as much representation on TriMet’s board as someone in Brookings, Jordan Valley, or Joseph, Oregon.
So are you suggesting that because TriMet is in bed with the light rail folks, that those who are dependent on bus service should get the royal shaft? Be careful of the hand that feeds you, it might turn around and slap you later and you’ll regret it.
Erik,
If you want to debate the stolen elections of 2000 and 2004, go somewhere else. We don’t want to hear it here. Stick to transportation.
Regarding Trimet’s supposed “hatred” for buses, that’s completely false. In fact, Trimet knows that without excellent bus service, the light rail service would never be successful. They’re interconnected, as they should be. I’m really sorry that you feel as though your particular neighborhood has gotten the royal shaft from Trimet, but that doesn’t translate into “Trimet hates buses, AND the people that have to ride them”.
The truth is, Trimet’s done an excellent job of increasing both the number of frequent service bus routes and the ridership on each one. Did some routes get rearranged or eliminated in the process? Hell yeah! You can’t expect them to continue providing service to areas that only have 1 or 2 riders per bus, that’s not economically feasible (as in, it’s a waste of money). But at least they’re trying to reach everyone, and will continue to tweak their routes to reach as many people as they feasibly can. A route that didn’t work in 2005 may become viable in 2010, with some modifications. In the meantime, if you are someone who relies on transit, don’t you think it makes more sense to live in a neighborhood that already receives excellent service instead of mandating that Trimet run buses within 2 blocks of every home and business in the entire metro area?
“TriMet is head-over-heels trying to woo the federal government to build MAX lines.”
Thats cuz it’s “free” money. :o …and technically operations of light rail are cheaper (and smell way better) than bus operations.
I digress though. The fact of the matter is our last 50 years of transit/transportation has been HEAVILY subsidized which disconnects it from a relationship between consumers and the costs they realize.
It’s no wonder no one these days is willing to pay for transportation services out of pocket. Then of course being that back in the day when people paid for the majority (like 99%) of the costs out of pocket they also received 94%+ of their incomes. Now we’re lucky once we get into decent jobs if we actually bring home and are allowed to keep by years end a solid 60%.
THAT is sad. But these things are directly related to the funding issues. The Government, as I’ve said a million times, will NEVER do as good of a job as a market demand service will.
A market demand does not equate to a falsely inflated subsidized use of a service; cars, passenger trains, buses, and all that use heavy subsidization and all receive excessive usage.
If people paid for it fully, it would mean less whimsical traveling, cleaner air, better sustainable market practice, and a more stable economic situation for this nation.
But is that what people want? If actions are observed it sure doesn’t seem like it.
1. In fact, Trimet knows that without excellent bus service, the light rail service would never be successful.
Then why does TriMet force bus riders to ride in old, unreliable busses? Why has TriMet not continued to invest in newer busses, higher capacity busses, and better routes? While having a multi-mode transit system is important, there is little regard for the passenger who does not rely on or use MAX. Where are neighborhood routes that connect to high capacity bus routes; or neighborhood routes that feed into community transit centers (like Lake Oswego, Tualatin, and Tigard)? TriMet actually did a good thing in Oregon City in which local busses feed the 33 and 99; why isn’t that being replicated elsewhere?
2. I’m really sorry that you feel as though your particular neighborhood has gotten the royal shaft from Trimet
That’s an excuse. I am a taxpaying resident of the TriMet service area. Why should I accept less service?
Trimet’s done an excellent job of increasing both the number of frequent service bus routes and the ridership on each one.
And TriMet’s bus ridership overall has decreased (source: http://www.trimet.org/pdfs/ridership/busmaxstat.pdf ), from 63,906,000 in FY05 to 63,129,600 in FY06. If TriMet only wants to provide regional service, then TriMet needs to become a truly regional transit district (like Sound Transit in the Seattle area) and allow local cities/counties to provide the local neighborhood and community service. (Honestly, I agree with this concept.)
You can’t expect them to continue providing service to areas that only have 1 or 2 riders per bus, that’s not economically feasible
Agreed, but how does TriMet know that there are only one or two riders per bus when it never even tried to run a bus?
I used to ride the 50S route (Cornell Oaks Shuttle) back in ’97-’00 when Westside MAX first opened. I was often the only rider on that line, and it was discontinued some time afterwards. Of course, the 50S duplicated service also offered by the 67 Jenkins/158th, which also served the residential neighborhoods in Bethany. And the Cornell Oaks business park still had many undeveloped lots (as it is today).
Today, there are over 25,000 residents of Tualatin, and very few of them receive any transit service. The same is true for Sherwood, Cornelius, Forest Grove, West Linn, and Tigard, all of whom have significant gaps in transit coverage. I can’t complain if TriMet said “well, we put a route there and nobody rode it”, but TriMet has no argument when it doesn’t even try.
However the same logic is true of MAX. I’ve been on many MAX runs where there were very few riders; shouldn’t that also equate into requiring a reduction in MAX service to better meet ridership? However, the argument seems to change to “well we need schedule reliability to improve transit”. The same is true of bus service, yet TriMet has repeatedly cut back on bus service by slashing frequencies and routes, and has disinvested in the bus fleet by failing to maintain its fleet replacement strategy and has maintained a disparity between MAX amenities and bus amenities.
But at least they’re trying to reach everyone, and will continue to tweak their routes to reach as many people as they feasibly can.
No, they’re not. When was the last time a new bus line was launched?
A route that didn’t work in 2005 may become viable in 2010
A route that didn’t work in 2005 probably got discontinued. I have not ever seen TriMet relaunch a discontinued route.
if you are someone who relies on transit, don’t you think it makes more sense to live in a neighborhood that already receives excellent service
Sure, if you want to subsidize my rent.
Kearney Court is going for $1350 a month ($600 more than I pay.)
Southpark Square is going for $1720 a month ($900 more than I pay.)
Ione Plaza is going for $1135 a month ($400 more than I pay.)
City Heights is going for $1720 a month ($900 more than I pay.)
Riverplace Square is going for $1507 a month ($700 more than I pay.)
The Crane Lofts is going for $1750 a month ($1000 more than I pay.)
I can do more research if you want but the pattern isn’t looking good.
Unfortunately, I do not have the financial capability of doubling my rent expense. So I must live in an area that I can afford. Never mind that day care expenses for my son would also double given price comparisons we have done in the past for daycare in the downtown area (where I work) versus suburban areas (where my wife works).
It seems easy to blame me – have you tried to move when you’re in a lease agreement? Have you tried to move when you don’t have the financial means to do so? Unfortunately I am not of the luxury to have owned a home for 15 years (never mind that legally I could not have purchased a home 15 years ago for the rationale of being legally unable to enter into a binding contract) and can sell the home to receive a huge windfall; nor am I of the luxury to “pick up and go” on a whim. So it seems as though my options are 1: Buy a car, because local government doesn’t give a damn; 2: Never mind that I’m a native Oregonian, I don’t belong here, or 3: Accept poor quality transit, and hope the bus doesn’t break down.
Are people really believing things they see on TV?
It’s not about believing what’s on tv. It’s about believing TriMet’s own numbers. Their own numbers show that 8% of riders on the MAX do not pay.
At $1.70/trip, that’s $4.35 million a year.
Many think the number could potentially be higher than 8%, though.
According to TriMet, they spend $1.1 million to fund its fare inspector program. Their 18 inspectors ride the trains about 18 hours a day, seven days a week.
Gresham, which has 97,914 people and is the 4th largest city in the state, has one frequent service route. It’s the Division St. route, which ends partially into Gresham.
As I said above, getting around this city using mass transit is almost impossible.
On another note, I was on the MAX yesterday around 5:45 or so. It was packed, because not only are people getting off work, but you also have a lot of people leaving Waterfront Park. Every train was packed. Some of us were able to squeeze onto a train.
Just as we’re coming up on the Rose Quarter stop, we’re informed it is the last stop and everyone has to get off.
Why do they do this at a time when ridership is extremely high? And if they know they’re going to do this, how about bringing along an empty train to put the people on? Do you really think we’re going to be able to pack onto the trains coming out of downtown Portland? They’re already as full as they can possibly get.
And now you have to fight for a spot along with 200 or so people who just exited the train along with you. Plus the 80 or so already waiting at the platform for a train.
People were extremely unhappy.
“….The same is true for light rail – it was voted down several times, but it seems that it’s OK [for Trimet] to run over the will of the voters.” -Erik
Erik (and every other anti-rail person who keeps repeating this lie),
GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT!!! I’m so sick of this outright lie that gets repeated over and over and over….
Fact #1- Portland area voters APPROVED Westside light rail.
Fact #2- Portland area voters APPROVED South-North light rail. Yes, they voted FOR it. Remember? They voted FOR a line from Clackamas to Milwaukie to DT PDX to N PDX to DT Vancouver all the way to Salmon Creek. Anti-rail zealots like to conveniently forget this little fact.
Fact #3- Clark County voters said NO to paying their share of the tab. I think at the time their portion was only 150-200 million, for light rail all the way to Salmon Creek. If they’re not kicking themselves now, they should be.
Fact #4- Trimet had to truncate the route to exclude Vancouver and Clark County. Since the route was considerably shortened from what the Portland area voters had approved, they had to put the revised proposal up for another vote. Since the perception was that the route didn’t serve the area that it really needed to serve (Vancouver), it was turned down. This is the ONLY TIME Portland voters have voted NO on light rail.
So Erik, exactly HOW is Trimet running over the will of the voters?
Is it because they built light rail to the Airport? No, Bechtel paid for that.
Is it because Trimet managed to leverage Bechtel’s investment to secure federal funds to pay for almost 100% of the Yellow line? Um, no.
Is it because Trimet continues to be commited to getting light rail to Clackamas County? And has managed to get the Green line financed without any new taxes? No.
It sounds to me like you think that because the last three MAX lines were built without a vote for new taxes, that somehow goes against the will of the voters. That makes no sense whatsoever. Does Trimet have to get voter approval to start, stop or rearrange bus lines? To buy new buses? To provide new para-transit service to the home of a customer who’s recently been wheelchair bound? Of course not. It’s their mandate to do all of this.
It’s really telling that you’ve spent so much time thinking about ways to dismantle Trimet altogether. Care to share how you would like to do that?
Jenni wrote: Gresham, which has 97,914 people and is the 4th largest city in the state, has one frequent service route. It’s the Division St. route, which ends partially into Gresham.
I agree that Gresham could use more N-S crosstown service.
For example, a new line which paralleled/shared the route of the #12 from Sandy Blvd. south into Gresham, and then followed the route of the #82 south.
The schedule could be inserted between runs of the 12/82 to provide pseudo-frequent service to those who would normally use the 12 or 82 in that corridor segment, while eliminating the need to transfer for those who require cross-town service.
Strictly speaking, however, the Division route isn’t Gresham’s only Frequent Service line… MAX fits the definitions of Frequent Service, except that it isn’t a bus.
– Bob R.
PS… The #77 Halsey isn’t technically frequent service, but it does come close to 15-minute intervals much of the day. Of course, it is also an E-W route.
– Bob R.
Wow, Erik. Just read your last post. (for brevity’s sake, I won’t copy it all here)
I had no idea that Trimet has caused all the hardships in your life. Not like we don’t all have our hardships, but apparently, Trimet has forced you to live in Tualatin (because there’s no place in the entire metro area with cheaper rent), then they proceeded to make your life even worse by purposely routing every bus line as far away from Tualatin as possible.
Unbelievable!
Well, I can’t think of a better reason to do away with Trimet altogether, makes perfect sense to me. Who needs an evil socialist organization like that ruining our lives anyway? So when can we vote to dismantle Trimet?
Erik Wrote: And TriMet’s bus ridership overall has decreased … from 63,906,000 in FY05 to 63,129,600 in FY06.
There’s some complexity in these stats…
While bus boarding rides, as you mentioned, went down by 1.2%, rail boarding rides went up 1%. (This is not a wash because rail boardings only represent about a third of total boardings.) The net total ridership change across both modes was less than one tenth of one percent.
What’s particularly interesting is that TriMet did not choose to uniformly cut back on buses… similar cuts were made to rail service hours as well: Rail vehicle revenue hours were reduced by about 5% while bus vehicle revenue hours reduced by about 4%.
That’s right… TriMet cut more from MAX than they did from buses.
It seems like TriMet made some pretty smart cuts too, since overall ridership (as mentioned above) is roughly steady.
Another interesting thing from the stats: Although MAX carries 1/3 of all boarding rides, it did so with less than 12% of all vehicle revenue hours. TriMet bus service requires 7.5X as many buses as trains to carry 2X the boardings.
– Bob R.
Back on Monday, Eric wrote: Besides, if TriMet were “required” to add service proportional to population growth, than TriMet should be “required” to be adding routes to Tualatin to make up for the 3,000%+ population growth that occurred since TriMet was born.) The City of Portland chose to build a Streetcar outside of TriMet and TriMet has no legal obligation to fund/support it.
This actually appears to be something quantifiable. How many vehicle revenue hours did TriMet provide in Tualatin on Dec. 1, 1969, and how many vehicle revenue hours do they provide now? We can use those values to determine the net increase in service over the years in proportion to population growth.
– Bob R.
Sorry to bombard with 5 comments in such a short period, but a new article appeared on the Clackamas Review web site which covers the Milwaukie light rail alignment controversy, and gives more of the history regarding the Waldorf School and its involvement in the route selection process.
– Bob R.
Well, since this thread is now completely off topic: Erik, you should do stand up comedy.
You’ve posted you income in other threads, and I’ve said this before, but you are upper middle class! Your complaints about not being able to afford to live anyplace except for Tualitan are really funny, and I laugh more, the more seriously you take it. You seem to be implying that the 60% of the metro area that makes less than you do all qualify for subsidized housing, (even though 2/3rd of people in the metro area own their own houses, and last time I checked there was no such thing as a section 8 mortgage,) and that everyone in your income range therefor is being forced to live in Tualitan by the Fred Hansen personally. Since upper middle class is 20% of the population, this explains why you thinks that Tualitan is such a big deal, obviously 20% of the metro area must live there.
(Although I hate to break it to you, but Bridgeport village is actually in Tigard. http://portland.citysearch.com/profile/41816446 )
Your request that TriMet allocate bus service based on residential population alone is also quite funny. If you looked at the census blocks that I work in, in Beaverton, nobody lives there, so therefore, there should be no bus service. Too bad, since Nike, Tektronix, Cedar Hills Crossing Mall and a whole bunch of other businesses are there. Likewise, nobody lives on Swan Island, so it wouldn’t get any bus service. Maybe people could use the bus to get to other people’s houses so that they could carpool.
Your other ideas, like requiring that there be bus service within 10 minute’s walk of everyone’s door are funny too. Next week, on a bet, I’m meeting someone at the Skyline Tavern for a drink, (they don’t think I can get there without a car.) There are houses up there too, and it is in TriMet’s service area, but since a lot of people’s driveways in that area take 10 minutes to walk down, (not to mention the side streets that those driveways connect to,) the only way to serve it would be taxis, serving “standardized ADA accessible bus stops” (in a place where there are no sidewalks, hilarious.) Either TriMet fares would have to be high enough to cover the cost of running cabs for someone who doesn’t own a car and wants to lives in places like that, or TriMet would require such a massive subsidy that I’d start to agree with Terry and Jim K.
What is making mass transit in Portland cost-ineffective, thus stirring the debate about how to “win” riders onto Tri-Met, even going so far as to introduce expensive “lures”?
If Ti-Met riders were simply inanimate objects–e.g. crash test dummies–they wouldn’t care what kind of vehicle they were in or whether they had to sit on the floor. But since wwere talking about real humans, with sensibilities, should we not look at the least expensive way to lure riders to use the system?
There is money flowing in balanced against money flowing out. This is the costs vs. benefits analysis. If Tri-Met bus rides were either free or ridiculously cheap (such as 25 cents) it might make riding a plain,simple bus palatable enough to make them a success–without the investment in the expensive fixed rail systems.
By success I don’t mean completely self-supporting without any subsidies. But, rather, that the benefits to the community are the greatest–and the costs the least, because they could be utilized effectively. Bus riding would be popular!!
When I was in Europe the first time in 1985 bus rides in Sheffield, GB were only 5 pence–about a US nickel at the time. They were very well used, it appeared. If other cities are using this approach—bus fares so cheap one cannot resist–we should look at the extent of the outside subsidy. Maybe this is the most cost-effective way to get people to use mass transit–in Portland. It might not work in Dallas, TX. Let’s just concentrate on what works in Portland.
Businesses–and people–are going to get tired of tax after tax.
What is making mass transit in Portland cost-ineffective, thus stirring the debate about how to “win” riders onto Tri-Met, even going so far as to introduce expensive “lures”?
If Ti-Met riders were simply inanimate objects–e.g. crash test dummies–they wouldn’t care what kind of vehicle they were in or whether they had to sit on the floor. But since wwere talking about real humans, with sensibilities, should we not look at the least expensive way to lure riders to use the system?
There is money flowing in balanced against money flowing out. This is the costs vs. benefits analysis. If Tri-Met bus rides were either free or ridiculously cheap (such as 25 cents) it might make riding a plain,simple bus palatable enough to make them a success–without the investment in the expensive fixed rail systems.
By success I don’t mean completely self-supporting without any subsidies. But, rather, that the benefits to the community are the greatest–and the costs the least, because they could be utilized effectively. Bus riding would be popular!!
When I was in Europe the first time in 1985 bus rides in Sheffield, GB were only 5 pence–about a US nickel at the time. They were very well used, it appeared. If other cities are using this approach—bus fares so cheap one cannot resist–we should look at the extent of the outside subsidy. Maybe this is the most cost-effective way to get people to use mass transit–in Portland. It might not work in Dallas, TX. Let’s just concentrate on what works in Portland.
Businesses–and people–are going to get tired of tax after tax.
Matthew,
Speaking of completely off topic… :)
Bridgeport Village actually straddles both Tigard and Tualatin. The official address may say Tigard, but half of it sits in Tualatin. Just FYI.
OK, back to the Erik Show….
being forced to live in Tualitan by the Fred Hansen personally
No, I never stated I was forced to live in “Tualitan” (sp) by Fred Hansen personally.
I stated that Fred Hansen, as TriMet’s General Manager, has disinvested in TriMet’s bus service, resulting in substandard and less-than-quality transit service in suburban areas that are within TriMet’s service district.
If you’re going to bring a personal attack on me, at least have the common decency to quote what I say, and learn how to spell too.
Trimet has forced you to live in Tualatin (because there’s no place in the entire metro area with cheaper rent
Well, is there cheaper rent in the areas where TriMet concentrates transit service? Like in the Pearl District (a Streetcar which TriMet operates and partially funds), and three bus lines? Or the SoWa, with five bus lines and soon to be the Streetcar (which TriMet operates and partially funds)?
Well, OK, I can find cheap rent in Rockwood which is next to a MAX line. I guess I should expose my son to a life of criminal activity and drugs.
If Tri-Met bus rides were either free or ridiculously cheap (such as 25 cents) it might make riding a plain,simple bus palatable enough to make them a success–without the investment in the expensive fixed rail systems.
An awful lot of people use buses and some routes are actually profitable. While eliminating fares would lead to more riders, I think the real barrier is too many destinations that aren’t served or are poorly served. It seems to me Trimet was on the right track when it was increasing frequency of service. But then it ran out of money to continue that process when payrolls stopped expanding.
Obviously more people will use a rail alternative, but you can’t provide that kind of service for every route. At least not immediately.
“Well, is there cheaper rent in the areas where TriMet concentrates transit service? Like in the Pearl District (a Streetcar which TriMet operates and partially funds), and three bus lines? Or the SoWa, with five bus lines and soon to be the Streetcar (which TriMet operates and partially funds)?
Well, OK, I can find cheap rent in Rockwood which is next to a MAX line. I guess I should expose my son to a life of criminal activity and drugs.” -Erik
Erik, come on man, you can’t be serious. You really believe that your only options in the ENTIRE metro area are the Pearl and SoWa and Rockwood? Or Tualatin? You do realize that there are literally hundreds of other neighborhoods to choose from, and most of them within a few blocks of a frequent service route. AND many of those neighborhoods are cheaper than Tualatin.
Seriously man, you need to do a little more research if you really believe there are only 4 neighborhoods available for you to live in.
Oh, and if you think criminal activity and drugs are only in Rockwood, you really are in denial. That stuff is EVERYWHERE, even in Tualatin.
If I could get back to the question posed in Chris’s post (that okay?):
Where should we look for funding for the increased appetite for transit?
This is explicitly about asking how we grow the pie rather than fighting about how we cut the slices!
In New York, the MTA was given control of the toll bridges and tunnels as well as the buses, subways, commuter trains, Staten Island Ferry and the Roosevelt Island aerial tram. The tolls from the bridges and tunnels not only maintain those facilities, they go to support operations and capital improvements of the transit system.
Tolling bridges, tunnels and freeways goes very much against the grain here; politically, it may be a non-starter. But we need money to fix the Willamette River bridges anyway, and we need to replace the Sellwood Bridge, and congestion pricing could go a long way to fixing our roads while managing peak-hour traffic. The gas tax won’t do it. Tolls would.
So why not make Tri-Met the agency that manages toll bridges and freeways? The primary use of revenue would be the maintenance and improvment of the toll facility. Any surpluses (typically from peak-hour congestion tolls) could go to support operations and capital improvements of the mass transit system, particularly peak hour relief (commuter trains and rush-hour express buses).
Also, I agree that we should do away with Fareless Square.
Terry –
Fuel taxes were not the only source of money that built the transportation infrastructure (“transportation” means more than roads by the way). You seem like a bright guy so I’m sure that you are aware of this. It might be great sport for you to toss out the word “socialism”, I don’t know… but it definitely cheapens your argument in my humble opinion because it is irrelevant to the discussion.
If people don’t want transit, all they need to do is vote it down, and vote out their representatives who are pushing it. Slogans are cute, but facts and logic will win the day.
Aaron Says:
Do we really need to go into the “true costs” of automobile travel or airline travel again? Both heavily subsidized by taxpayers, much more so than mass transit.
What else can you do when people are spreading wrong info?
See Mark Delucchi, ACCESS NUMBER 16 • SPRING 2000:
http://americandreamcoalition.org/transit/Delucchi.pdf
Thanks
JK
From Lester R. Brown, Plan B 2.0: Rescuing a Planet Under Stress and a Civilization in Trouble:
“In testimony before the House Ways and Means Committee in 1999, Donald Lubick, U.S. Treasury Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy, said in reference to oil and gas companies: “This is an industry that probably has a larger tax incentive relative to its size than any other industry in the country.””
In other words; the subsidies and tax breaks given to the automobile, in an attempt by certain industries to grow profits by forceing a reliance on an auto-only transportation system, not only lowers the true (direct and indirect) cost of driving to an American citizen to an unrealistically low level, it is also by far the largest subsidy recipient of any mode of transport given by the American government. This is a fact.
“If I could get back to the question posed in Chris’s post (that okay?):”
No, this thread is “The Erik Show”. :-P
Yes, a congestion charge would be a great idea, especially where there are (good) alternatives. For instance, the close in section of Sunset highway has very good alternatives, (MAX,) but I-205 doesn’t really, (yet.) While I’d love to charge rush hour commuters on I-5 over the Columbia, lets face it, Clark County has a marginal bus system, so many of those people don’t have last mile service for their trips… Likewise, 99W doesn’t have an alternative at all, so it is hard to charge those people. If, (when,) a rail line gets built there, then a charge to drive through Dundee at rush hour seems perfectly acceptable.
Yes, the congestion charge money should be spent on the alternatives, but having the toll before the alternative is actually running seems a little unfair.
Yes, the congestion charge money should be spent on the alternatives, but having the toll before the alternative is actually running seems a little unfair.
Express buses, BRT, and commuter rail on existing lines could be put into play very quickly. Existing underused suburban parking lots could be used for park & ride so commuters can drive the “last mile” and ride an express bus or commuter train to town.
99W has a parallel rail line which is (IIRC) very lightly used, and could be leased for peak hour passenger rail. Alternately, an HOV lane could support fast car-pool and bus traffic even during rush hour.
If the funding was there, new mass transit can started up immediately. To the extent we need any new rail lines, they can be added to high-traffic corridors at a later date.
The American Dream Coalition…wow.
Since you are the master of unimpeachable sources, Jim, why don’t you tell us how the Cascade Policy Institute feels about the urban growth boundary. Ready? Go!
“Do we really need to go into the “true costs” of automobile travel or airline travel again? Both heavily subsidized by taxpayers, much more so than mass transit”
I totally agree Airline travel is heavily subsidized. In context however, and not saying the subsidy should exist, the Airline Traffic Controllers and the systems they use that receive a large part of that subsidy are also part of our national defense system. As for the fabrication that automobile travel is subsidized much more so than mass transit: please show me where transit user fares (farebox revenues) subsidize roadways like the dollars that are siphoned off for transit from the Federal Highway Trust Fund that only motorists pay into through the Federal tax on motor fuels, or like the parking meter fees only motorists pay that subsidize the streetcar, or even any payroll tax in Oregon that is used to exclusively build the roadways automobiles travel on – yes tell me about transit fares directly helping pay for roadway infrastructure and financially subsidizing the automobile on the same scale motorist paid dollars are poached for transit. Only then can such a fictitious statement that the automobile is subsidized much more than mass transit carry even a little weight.
So I pay ~$150/year to treat the water that runs off the city streets, as part of my sewer bill. While that isn’t the only cost that isn’t paid directly by drivers, compared to the average cost of driving, ($6000/year for everything from car payments to insurance to taxes,) that is only 2.5%, so that isn’t a very big portion of the cost.
However, Terry loves to point out that bicyclist pay nothing, and given that the average bicyclist has to pay for their bike, helmet, lock, lights, clothing (it rains in Portland,) tune ups, tires, etc, etc, bicyclist are actually paying quite a bit to bicycle, (I’m probably around $500/year. Certainly you can ride for much less than that, but that is what I’m spending.)
I think what Terry means is that bicyclists don’t pay anything for the roads… Obviously we can’t look at the $6000/year figure for cars anymore, we need to look at how much drivers pay for roads: 12000 miles/year at 25 mpg is less than 500 gallons/year, and total gas taxes are 43.3 cents/gallon in Oregon so that means that the average person pays just over $200 in gas taxes for the roads.
So assuming that those were the only two costs for the roads, (they aren’t,) that $150/year section of my sewer bill is actually 40% of the cost of maintaining the roads, and therefore the drivers pay only 60%…
That would mean that Terry’s claim of 80-90% is wrong, or that he really means the total cost of driving, not just the cost of the roads… Therefore his claim that bicyclist paying nothing is wrong, (although in theory you could do that by stealing the bicycle, and dumping it when it gets a flat tire, but you could also steal cars with full tanks of gas and pay nothing as well, so that doesn’t really count.) For the sake of argument, I’ll assume that I should be paying the same rate per mile as an average car for the road costs and since I’m not, I’m getting a subsidy of ~3 cents/mile in gas taxes+water treatment for the roads, or ~$100/year for how much I ride. The other costs of riding, (the $500/year I mentioned above,) are therefore are 83% of the costs, which means that I’m actually as good at paying my share as the average driver, (according to Terry.)
“The American Dream Coalition…wow.
Since you are the master of unimpeachable sources, Jim, why don’t you tell us how the Cascade Policy Institute feels about the urban growth boundary. Ready? Go!” -Grant
Arghh!! Grant!! Don’t encourage him…. you’re supposed to tune him out.
So I pay ~$150/year to treat the water that runs off the city streets
What about all the stormwater runoff that occurs in downtown Portland and other heavily developed innercity areas, where there is no stormwater basin (such as that readily exists in suburban areas specifically to keep this runoff out of the sewer system and to naturally collect the water)?
What about the mass collection of sewage that occurs due to density (more people, more bathroom use, more effluent; more restaurants; more industrial uses; etc.) – that is a cost of density. To suggest that road users are 100% responsible for the sewer charges – try living without your sewer connection for a few days.
On top of that, the Willamette River is pretty polluted as it is. Whose fault is that? Are you going to blame everyone on I-5 for that – never mind the agricultural chemicals and fertilizers, the dumping of industrial waste from the various paper mills (Oregon City, West Linn, Newberg, Salem, Albany) and chemical plants (North Portland, Albany). Are you also going to blame everyone on I-84 for the salmon kills at Bonneville Dam (never mind that the Sea Lions are thriving in the same water.)
To suggest that Big Pipe is strictly a transportation/motor vehicle caused problem is foolish and unsupported concept and ignores the lack of a system to collect storm runoff in the heavily built-up downtown core area, as any natural runoffs have been long covered or filled in – whereas in suburban areas these same geographic features are embraced as natural or wetland areas or parks.
By the way, come to Tualatin some time. We’ll show you how to manage stormwater runoff correctly. Except that because we didn’t ruin our wetlands, we are unfortunately saddled with being called a “less dense” neighborhood unworthy of quality mass transit because a large portion of our community is a protected wetland. Except bring your car (or bike), because TriMet doesn’t serve it.
Erik,
Come on, you have to give them **SOME** credit. They’re building those swales in the middle of the streets! I’m sure that will make a H U G E impact to the little poo poo problem. Who knows the vagrants and drunks will even be able to utilize them for as relief stations! I love my concrete livable city where I have the luxury of a 500 sq. foot apartment for the bargain price of $850 a month! Don’t knock it. Oh, and by the way it smells so lovely down here too while I am waiting for the MAX on NE 7th. You don’t know what you’re missing! (hey I’ll trade you – you can get my 20 or so bus routes AND MAX but you get the vagrants and smells of poop and vomit).
Erik said:
“…To suggest that road users are 100% responsible for the sewer charges…”
I didn’t suggest that.
I recently had my sewer line put in, (I had a very nice, (read: cheap) septic system, but the city said I had to connect to the city sewer.) The SDC fee I paid to the city just to hook up to the sewer was more than $8k, (although the city did loan me the money for it.) The end result is that my sewer+water bill is actually $1800/year, (of which ~$1200 is principle and interest on the loan.)
The other charges on my bill are broken down, there is ~$150 for dealing with road runoff, $75, (and then a $75 credit) for dealing with my roof, (which isn’t connected to the sewer.) Most single family houses pay the same rate for that, but larger building pay based on square footage, so the people downtown pay a lot of money to cover up an entire city block. The other $450/year charges on my bill are sanitary sewer volume charges (based on winter usage,) and water volume charges, (based on total usage.) (I forget the exact breakdown of those, and I can’t find the most recent bill.)
Wetlands are great for dealing with runoff that isn’t polluted. Unfortunately, water from city streets is, and that means it needs to be treated. Tualatin, (my spell checker doesn’t like it no matter how I type it, and I don’t want to add it,) may not be showing that charge on your sewer bill, but they are treating it, and it costs them a lot of money to do so, and that money has to come from taxpayers somehow… In Portland those charges show up on the sewer bill.
Matthew,
Your claim “Wetlands are great for dealing with runoff that isn’t polluted.” isn’t completely true. Certain aquatic plants are the best toxic filters known. NASA did a study in the 1970’s on Water Hyacinth and Water Lettuce and some municipalities are using them today. These plants even remove toxic heavy metals from water! The only problem is these plants are tropical. Still, the cities could put them in greenhouses and only have to figure out how to heat them a few months out of the year. I’m sure this approach would work much better than a stupid 4×12 “swale”.
What about all the stormwater runoff that occurs in downtown Portland and other heavily developed innercity areas, where there is no stormwater basin (such as that readily exists in suburban areas specifically to keep this runoff out of the sewer system and to naturally collect the water)?
The higher population density in those areas means a higher rate of ratepayer revenues per square foot of exposed surface which requires stormwater management. It’s simply more cost-efficient.
What about the mass collection of sewage that occurs due to density (more people, more bathroom use, more effluent; more restaurants; more industrial uses; etc.) – that is a cost of density. To suggest that road users are 100% responsible for the sewer charges – try living without your sewer connection for a few days.
Last time I checked, the overwhelming majority of people using toilets either pay sewer bills or rent from landlords who pay sewer bills.
One inch of rainfall on just one block of 36′ wide street amounts to about 2,600 flushes from a modern low-flow toilet. Street runoff does make a considerable impact when it rains.
– Bob R.
Greg:
“Certain aquatic plants are the best toxic filters known.”
Yes, you are right, I am oversimplifying by quite a bit there, but my point is that Bridgeport village didn’t just run a pipe from their parking lot to the nearest wetland, they had to build a bioswale or some other treatment system, (or pay the city or county or someone to handle it for them,) and probably a detention system as well, and that ran them a fair amount of money…
Jason McHuff: On a per-seat basis….the cost of operating 1/40th of a bus for 30 minutes is not that much–only about $1.
Bob T: Hmmm, for cars you factor in (inaccurately, btw) the cost of roads etc, so
do you do this for buses, too?
Bob Tiernan
Matthew said:
“So I pay ~$150/year to treat the water that runs off the city streets, as part of my sewer bill. While that isn’t the only cost that isn’t paid directly by drivers,”
or bicyclists that use those same city streets in addition to bike paths and trails, or transit riders that use the busses that use those same city streets, or even pedestrians that use in many cases the auto lane sized 12 foot wide sidewalks where the rain water runs off those super wide sidewalks and into the street storm water systems. No it is not paid by these folks either. Then too it is also not paid by the truckers and freight carriers that use those same city streets to bring new bicycles, helmets and clothing to the retailers, and bring groceries to market that just about everybody eats.
I too dislike the rain tax on my sewer bill too and think it is a scam by the city to pump more money from citizens pockets, however it is not the responsibility of drivers and what a person pays for his or her bicycle, helmet, lock, lights (if they actually have one), clothing etc. has absolutely nothing to do with bicyclists freeloading when it comes to helping pay for the pavement on which they ride. Whether it is two hundred dollars, more or less, that each driver pays in fuel taxes, plus registration and license fees, parking meter fees, weight mile taxes for trucks, etc. – no matter how many miles driven, the taxes and fees all motorists and truckers directly pay adds up to 80 to 90 percent of providing the costs for roadway infrastructure. Adding up all the taxes and fees bicyclists directly pay for use of the roads and bicycle infrastructure comes to zero times zero plus zero and still comes out to zero. Given the subsidies bicyclists poach from motorists, and absence of any financial amount bicyclists directly pay for the roads, the actual financial contribution bicyclists directly make falls in the in the money loosing negative column. Bicyclists sharing the road must also come with bicyclists sharing the financial responsibility!
But do bicycles cause the same amount of wear and tear on the roads as cars do? I don’t think so.
I don’t think that the issue is whether bikes cause wear/tear; rather that the bikes use an impermeable surface (an asphalt street/bike path) that causes rain water to collect atop it, which mixes with the asphalt and/or other chemicals to cause an environmental concern.
Likewise in downtown Portland, there are few places for this storm water runoff to go to; there aren’t any permeable surfaces (it’s all developed and covered with either buildings or streets). Unlike in the suburbs or the outer city areas, where there are creeks, wetlands, drainage swales, and even yards – all of which collect the rainwater naturally.
And of course the suburban alternative is not much better. You are aware that lawns are a major souce of contamination, right?
Terry, the DMV/DEQ fees paid by drivers are spent on running DMV/DEQs, none of that money goes to pay for roads. Parking fees do pay for non-roadway related things, but it is cheaper to park on the street than in a private parking garage, so that is just clever accounting. The true cost of providing parking is what the private companies are charging. The weight/miles fees actually pay for less of the wear and tear than the gas tax does, the big reason is that a 4 ton truck does 16 times the damage on a road as a 2 ton SUV… (This also explains why our roads are in such bad shape, we don’t collect enough money to pay for them.)
I don’t dislike the rain tax. It is the cost we pay to not flood the city every time it rains. Some cities (LA) don’t invest enough in their sewers, and when it does rain, their streets turn into rivers. However, it pays for roads, there is no question about that, and it isn’t paid for by the gas tax, (or bicyclists,) it is paid by people with sewer connections. And that is my point: We know that regular drivers are paying less than 60% of the costs of the roads, just by looking at that one charge alone. Your 80-90% number only stands a chance of being correct if you factor in things like car payments, in which case, I should be able to include the cost of clothing.
Bicyclists sharing the road must also come with bicyclists sharing the financial responsibility!
Bicyclists pay taxes just like everyone else and some of those taxes help pay for roads. The fact is it costs the taxpayers a lot more to provide space for a car than it does for a bike.
People who use their bike instead of driving save everyone money. We ought to encourage people to bike, not discourage it.
You are aware that lawns are a major souce of contamination, right?
So ban fertilizers that are harmful to the groundwater. We seem to be bent on regulating everything else, from soda pop, water bottles, trans fats, light bulbs, corn, tobacco, and styrofoam; I’m sure one more law won’t kill us.
That was a simple solution to what urbanists feel is a horrible problem. Now, what do we do about the impermeable mass we call downtown Portland? I’d sure like to see Guilds Lake restored, as well as several of the creeks that once dumped into the Willamette River at what is now Waterfront Park; I’m sure some residents won’t mind their homes being imploded to accomodate that, now will they? Wouldn’t it be nice to walk out of your office building – say, the ODS Tower – and be able to enjoy your lunch alongside a bubbling creek? (Like, much of Beaverton, thanks to developments that built around – and protected – Beaverton and Fanno Creeks.)
After all, removing the Guilds Lake Industrial Area and restoring it to its natural beauty would create an urban oasis that would attract not only parkgoers, but wildlife and fish that could swim in the pristine waters, while encouraging physical activity including biking, running and swimming, and help eliminate a major source of pollution (industry), and provide another place to build more high density condos.
And then we’d have another reason to build a Streetcar beyond 23rd!
Matthew Said:
“Terry, the DMV/DEQ fees paid by drivers are spent on running DMV/DEQs, none of that money goes to pay for roads. Parking fees do pay for non-roadway related things”
The previous state legislature to the one now in session raised motor vehicle registration fees specifically to be used for bridge repair and replacement. Bicyclists and transit were charged nothing for bridge repair and replacement even if a new bridge included a bike lane. Parking meter revenues are siphoned off to subsidize the operation of the streetcar. In addition to subsidizing transit fares, that sounds like a non-roadway thing to me. I did not mention the DEQ scam that only motor vehicle owners pay.
I did not mention the DEQ scam that only motor vehicle owners pay.
So asking people to pay a fee – and this is a fee, not a tax – to have their vehicle(s) checked for excess emmissions does not seem like a “scam” to me. It seems perfectly reasonable.
I did not mention the DEQ scam that only motor vehicle owners pay.
How much do you propose I should pay for emissions testing on my bicycle?
So asking people to pay a fee – and this is a fee, not a tax – to have their vehicle(s) checked for excess emmissions does not seem like a “scam” to me. It seems perfectly reasonable.
It seems pretty reasonable to ask that those who develop properties in SoWa and the Pearl (and elsewhere) to:
1. Not be given any tax break/credit,
2. Not be given any tax deferral but to pay all taxes in the same timely manner as any other property owner,
3. Pay an increased tax rate for additional services provided that are not uniformly provided to other residents (namely Portland Streetcar), and
4. Not to create a transit system and dump the operating costs on someone else (namely TriMet’s subsidy of the Portland Streetcar).
I find it interesting that when it comes to automobiles, there is no problem with tax this, fee that, etc. – but when it comes to rail based transit, it’s “who can we sucker into paying for this, because I sure as heck don’t want to!”. And with busses, it’s simple. “Why spend money on busses when we don’t have to? Only losers ride the bus; so why should I care about them?”
“So asking people to pay a fee – and this is a fee, not a tax – to have their vehicle(s) checked for excess emmissions does not seem like a “scam” to me.”
Try looking at it from another prospective. It seems that taxpayer subsidies are handed out like candy to subsidize any proposal or project where the purpose/intent is to create a greener cleaner environment. Checking for excessive emissions does exactly that and therefore should qualify for the same type of subsidy and be free of charge. Furthermore, most late model cars where the vast majority have computer controlled fuel injection systems rarely fail the tests making the fee is just another stick it to the motorist unnecessary charge.
Try looking at it from another prospective.
Terry, you seem to have completely abandoned your assertion that DEQ testing is a scam and instead want to argue that it should be subsidized for environmental purposes.
Which is your position?
– Bob R.
“Terry, you seem to have completely abandoned your assertion that DEQ testing is a scam”
Clarification: My point of the DEQ tests being a scam is that it is unnecessary for most late model cars and therefore the DEQ is scamming “money” from those vehicle owners already in compliance with the standards. Personally I think the tests should be free when compliance is required before a license can be renewed. However, if there is a charge at all, it should be only for the vehicles that are out of compliance and do not pass, and then must come back. The reason however I think this too should be free of charge is because the majority of older model cars are owned by moderately low and low income people and to have them re-licensed they must find funds to make repairs.