TriMet has adopted a $741M budget for FY2008. In addition to a 5 cent fare increase and continuing construction of the Green Line and Washington County Commuter Rail, here are a few more highlights:
- $1.7 million to begin replacing the original 20-year old Ticket Vending Machines located along Eastside MAX line with debit/credit-card only machines.
- $1.1 million to retrofit 70 buses with new exhaust filters that reduce particulate and most other emissions by 90 percent. This is in addition to retrofitting now underway on 84 buses.
33 responses to “TriMet Adopts Budget”
At first, I took it as ALL machines being credit/debit only, but now understand it’ll be just the OLD machines.
Still, that just makes it harder for riders who DON’T have credit/debit to get a fare when the sole money-machine quits working.
do hope they leave the west side machines alone, I frequently put in a 20 dollar bill and get back dollar coins in change, very handy for tipping…
I’m curious as to the status of the Automated Stop Announcement rollout. TriMet spent all that money retrofitting the New Flyer fleet with interior LCDs, yet the program still hasn’t moved into a wider-scale pilot, and from what I’ve seen, the system has a hard time displaying the correct time, to make no mention of the correct stop.
This is not rocket science. Eugene’s had this technology for years. What’s taking TriMet so long?
What’s most interesting is that TriMet is continuing its practice of making its budget documents a secret, whereas most government agencies (and most transit agencies) have their budgets posted publicly for all to see. TriMet’s financial documents, on the other hand, are nowhere to be found on its own site (it’s year-end financial reports, for example, have to be found at the Secretary of State’s website).
But TriMet apparently is doing little to improve the bus riding experience, no big surprise there. Meanwhile, up in Seattle one can ride a bus anywhere in King County for $1.25 (add a $0.25 cent rush hour surcharge) and do so on a high capacity hybrid bus or a trolleybus, both of which are far more environmentally friendly than anything in TriMet’s fleet (most so considering that Portland’s power source includes the Boardman coal plant, whereas Seattle gets less than 1% of its electric mix from coal (0.89%, to be exact) and over 86% hydroelectric.
Let’s see. $2, to stand in a crowded, non-air conditioned, unreliable diesel bus, or $1.25 to have a seat in a modern, comfortable, air conditioned hybrid bus. What’s taking TriMet so long to clear the air?
up in Seattle one can ride a bus anywhere in King County for $1.25 (add a $0.25 cent rush hour surcharge
Not necessarily “anywhere” in King County. King County Metro uses a zone fare system during peak hours: “The City of Seattle is one zone and all other areas outside the city, but within King County, are a second zone.”
King County’s peak hours are 6-9am and 3-6pm, which covers most commuters.
King County Peak/Commute Fares:
1 Zone: $1.50
2 Zones: $2.00
TriMet Fares:
1 Zone: $1.70
2 Zones: $2.00
It seems that King County Metro’s fares aren’t all that different from TriMet, especially for peak-period riders.
For regular commuters who own passes, there is even less of a difference:
King County annual two-zone pass: $792.00
TriMet annual all-zone pass: $814.00
King County’s fares do not cover regional or express service (except for those lines which are operated for Sound Transit by King County Metro), but TriMet’s fares currently do.
TriMet’s fares are good for 2 hours. King County Metro’s fares appear to be good for the duration of a single-vehicle trip, but transfers are only good for 1 hour from the time of issuance.
– Bob R.
Metro (that’s the Seattle bus people) transfers are very similar to Tri-Met transfers, but seem to be on the discretion of the driver as to how long. Generally, it’s something like 90 minutes to 3 hours from the time you get the transfer, which may be when you board or leave the bus.
Also, it’s not as if the entire Metro fleet is Diesel-Electric, a vast majority of the fleet is over 15 years old. I will agree, the seats are much more comfortable and the buses less crowded.
Metro… transfers are very similar to Tri-Met transfers, but seem to be on the discretion of the driver as to how long.
I’ve encountered the same thing on TriMet as well – sometimes drivers will give people transfers good for several hours.
Surprised nobody’s mentioned the fare increase, except Chris when posting the topic. Less bus service (will be interesting to see if the 6 routes with “Minor changes for summer” actually get those runs back in September, or of the school kids will be packed in further than they already are), horrid downtown service w/ no amenities (all in the name of putting in a light rail line that everyone questions how well it’ll function), and buses that used to have air conditioning but is either broken or no longer has AC… for 5 cents more per ride, or $2 bucks more a month!
I’m curious as to the status of the Automated Stop Announcement rollout. TriMet spent all that money retrofitting the New Flyer fleet with interior LCDs, yet the program still hasn’t moved into a wider-scale pilot, and from what I’ve seen, the system has a hard time displaying the correct time, to make no mention of the correct stop.
I was on one bus that had a fully-functioning stop announcement system, running on 17-21st Ave. – the experience was extremely annoying. The voice LOUDLY boomed over the speakers every other minute, announcing every stop (Gilsan and Broadway, Glisan and Park, Glisan and 12th, etc.), and an added bonus in Fareless Square of: ‘If you are traveling inside Fareless Square, you don’t need a fare’ – every single stop, regardless of if the bus stopped there or not.
This is not rocket science. Eugene’s had this technology for years. What’s taking TriMet so long?
Cherriots has it as well, and has had it for years (pleasantly surprised when I first visited there by bus in 2004) – the newer buses have the “stop requested” sign integrated with the announcement display, and the system announces the *major* stops – at a tolerable volume. Even the old RTSs have the audio announcement part of the system.
I recommend checking it out if/when you’re in Salem – just not on Sundays, and leave your paper coffee/soda cups in Portland (I found this one out the hard way; it’s not specifically stated on the yellow ‘rules’ sign in the buses themselves).
Let’s see. $2, to stand in a crowded, non-air conditioned, unreliable diesel bus, or $1.25 to have a seat in a modern, comfortable, air conditioned hybrid bus. What’s taking TriMet so long to clear the air?
It’s a lot better than it used to be. About a year ago, I heard that the diesel savings of a hybrid bus are eaten up in the weight of the solar panels on the top of the bus, and much tougher to steer due to the weight.
Still, that just makes it harder for riders who DON’T have credit/debit to get a fare when the sole money-machine quits working.
Add another paragraph in the book of ‘cashless society conspiracies.’ I wonder if fare jumping will go up if it gets too tough for people who don’t have bank accounts to ride.
King County’s fares do not cover regional or express service (except for those lines which are operated for Sound Transit by King County Metro), but TriMet’s fares currently do.
How many express lines does TriMet run? I can count them on ONE hand: 92 South Beaverton Express, 94 Sherwood Express, 95 Tigard (oh, wait, TriMet cancelled that route, nevermind…) 96 Tualatin/I-5 Express, 99 Mcloughlin Express. Let’s see. One, two, three, four. FOUR express routes.
Should I go to http://transit.metrokc.gov and start counting?
TriMet’s fares are good for 2 hours. King County Metro’s fares appear to be good for the duration of a single-vehicle trip, but transfers are only good for 1 hour from the time of issuance.
Wrong.
First of all, TriMet transfers issued on a bus are, per the signs posted on a bus, valid for ONE HOUR. According to http://www.trimet.org/fares/index.htm (scroll to the very bottom), “With your bus transfer receipt (shown at right) or validated ticket, you may switch between buses and trains to complete your trip, until the expiration time shown. Bus transfer receipts are valid for at least one hour on weekdays; two hours on weekends.”
Why is there a discrepancy between bus riders and MAX riders? Hmmm, another one of those things that confirms that TriMet favors MAX riders over bus riders.
But wait, there’s more:
http://www.trimet.org/fares/transfers.htm
In BIG BOLD PRINT: Bus transfers: valid for at least 1 hour
OK, TriMet bus transfers are good for ONE HOUR. Do I need to quote the TriMet code now? But since all of the light rail supporters claim that I’m imagining things, let’s.
(http://www.trimet.org/pdfs/code/TriMet_Code_Chapter_19.pdf )
TMC 19.25(G) states: Bus transfers shall be issued to be valid for one hour past the scheduled end of the trip time for the bus on weekdays, two hours on weekends. The end of the trip is generally the Mall in Downtown Portland, a transit center, or the end of the line.
Now, how many bus operators do you see adjusting their transfers mid-route? If I ride a line 12B bus, regardless of whether I board in Sherwood or at 4th & Caruthers, I should have a transfer valid until 10:00 (since transfers are only in 30 minute increments). If I had boarded that same bus in Sherwood and get off the bus in Tigard, I should have a valid transfer for well longer than one hour. Does that happen? According to TriMet’s webpage and in-bus signage, they aren’t even following their own laws.
Also, it’s not as if the entire Metro fleet is Diesel-Electric
Metro’s fleet is as follows:
100 New Flyer D40LFs (same as TriMet’s 2000, 2200, 2300, 2500, 2600, 2700 and 2800 series)
235 New Fler DE60LFs (low floor, articulated, diesel hybrid) (Metro also has an order with New Flyer for an additional 715 of these busses)
30 New Flyer D60LFs (low floor, articulated but not hybrid)
395 Gillig Phantom 40′ (same as TriMet’s 2100 series)
15 Gillig Phantom 35′ (similiar to TriMet’s 1600 series but purchased in 1997)
95 Gillig Phantom 30′ (similiar to TriMet’s 1600 series but purchased in 1999/2000)
274 New Flyer D60 (articulated, non-low floor, non-hybrid)
100 Gillig Phantom Trolleybusses (no diesel engine)
59 Breda Articulated Trolleybusses (rebuilt in 2004-2006, no diesel engine)
46 MAN Articulated dual-mode busses (next to be retired)
35 Champion Vans (similiar to a TriMet LIFT bus, but used in route service similiar to TriMet’s now-defunct “Local” service)
TriMet’s “clean fleet”?
2 Hybrid busses, 2560 and 2561.
Yes, Metro does have a lot of straight-diesel busses (844, not including paratransit/carpool vehicles), but Metro is doing something about it. TriMet? I can hear the hoot owls and the crickets from miles away. Or, should I say, a diesel bus from miles away? (And the high-pitched squeal of a MAX train going over a 10 MPH curve.)
It’s a lot better than it used to be. About a year ago, I heard that the diesel savings of a hybrid bus are eaten up in the weight of the solar panels on the top of the bus, and much tougher to steer due to the weight.
There are no solar panels on a Hybrid bus. That “bulge” on the top of the bus is the battery bank; and TriMet’s hybrid bus was originally delivered with a much larger “bulge” designed for CNG tanks. They’ve since been retrofitted.
Regardless, Metro has 335 hybrid busses in operation TODAY (that would equal HALF of TriMet’s fleet) plus another 715 on order. That would completely re-equip TriMet’s fleet, PLUS allow for service expansion.
TriMet? Two years behind bus replacement schedule, two hybrid busses, and frequent overcrowding conditions. Why? Because TriMet has a policy of disinvestment in their bus service, fueled by Metro’s continued ignorance of bus service in favor of funding MAX and Streetcar projects, that without voter approval has required TriMet to dip into its own reserves and from its bus O&M budget to fund the LRT lines.
Metro’s ridership increase for 2006? 4.3%. (Source: http://www.metrokc.gov/kcdot/news/2007/nr070108_ridership.htm )
TriMet’s ridership increase? There was no increase, ridership dropped 1%. (source: http://www.trimet.org/pdfs/ridership/busmaxstat.pdf )
[Moderator: Corrected italics tags. – B.R.]
year-end financial reports, for example, have to be found at the Secretary of State’s website
I’m not even seeing those. As for the budget, I agree that it’s a little amusing to have a “glossy” news promo about some great new thing, but then have no information on how to actually get the new thing. I believe that the budget is, at least, available at the Central Library.
Other points:
*The $741M figure includes regular operating costs as well as one-time-only capital construction costs.
*TriMet’s newer buses are more comfortable; but if anyone want’s to call them too little [few] and/or too late, feel free.
*It is sad to see the fare go above $2.00. I think that there’s a lot of stuff that could be done to save money. For example, move the former Fulton streetcar line (now Line 43 in John’s Landing) onto Macadam to improve frequencies there. There are very few Line 43 stops which are not near a stop on another line.
*I believe that TriMet is not getting enough fuel savings vs. some other improvements they’ve made to justify hybrid buses.
Regarding the budget, I asked TriMet today whether it would be available online. I was told that it is not yet available in an online format but that hardcopies were available if I wanted one.
I responded that if it will indeed be online in the near future I didn’t need a hardcopy, but would appreciate one otherwise. I’ll let you know what I find out.
– Bob R.
How many of you are going to pile on the train with me to move to Seattle with their outstanding transportation system? Come on, let’s vote with our feet! How many are moving with me…
Hello?
Hello?
If TriMet doesn’t do something about their policy of disinvesting in monorails, I will be forced to move to Seattle. TriMet shouldn’t invest any more money into anything with two rails until they have run at least one rail down every major street in the entire Metro area…
Erik, thanks for the Seattle bus roster. Seattle has slightly more population (city only) than Portland, but less than 60% of the land area.
But with its much higher density, they have been doing it all with buses, which just goes to prove my point that rail operations are unnecessary in Portland. AND, Seattle’s transit percentage of commuter trips is greater than Portland.
But with all these deluded “planners” and activist railfans in Portland….you see what we have been saddled with, transitwise.
Apparently the rail “delusion” is contagious, judging by the number of light rail projects in the works all across the world. Including the transitopia of Seattle which not only is building rail, but is jumping ahead of Portland by putting light rail underground in the existing bus tunnel and planning to extend the tunnel north under Capital Hill and into the U District.
It appears that for all of the Puget Sound region’s “success” with bus-only transit, they apparently see the need for rail as well. Seattle now is trying to emulate what we’ve been “saddled with” by our “deluded planners.”
But with its much higher density, they have been doing it all with buses
I guess those shiny commuter trains I’ve seen around the Seattle Metro area don’t actually exist.
Soon, also, Seattle’s light rail system will begin operating. I guess if ridership stays flat or goes down after the scourge of Light Rail comes to Seattle, you may have a point.
Portland’s streetcar, which you seem to love to deride, carries over 10,000 daily boardings, more than nearly every individual TriMet bus line, and as best as I can determine, more boardings per route mile than any TriMet bus line. More total boardings than the busy #14 or #15, and nearly as many boardings as the workhorse #12 obtains over it’s entire 28+ mile route.
Portland and Seattle have adopted a multi-modal transit strategy, which includes buses (holding steady does not equal disinvestment) and rail, concentrating growth along rail corridors. Focusing on one mode (buses only) to the exclusion of all others represents a failure to plan for future growth and development patterns.
– Bob R.
“I guess those shiny commuter trains I’ve seen around the Seattle Metro area don’t actually exist.”
>>>> Technically, I was not entirely correct–but the commuter trains are operated by Sound Transit, not King Metro, and I understand that they are underperforming.
“Soon, also, Seattle’s light rail system will begin operating. I guess if ridership stays flat or goes down after the scourge of Light Rail comes to Seattle, you may have a point.”
>>>> Just because I might consider LRT a possible “scrouge” in Portland, does not necessarily mean I would feel the same about LRT in Seattle. Depends and the circumstances and execution.
“Portland’s streetcar, which you seem to love to deride, carries over 10,000 daily boardings, more than nearly every individual TriMet bus line, and as best as I can determine, more boardings per route mile than any TriMet bus line.”
>>>> That’s because the thing has been hyped to death, and the public buys it. It’s considered “cool.” Also, it’s being given away, and fare evasion is rampant. See the long and very interesting thread of 12/21/06, including your own posts about this topic. In fact, the whole rail operation here is an open invitation to fare evasion. Harder to evade on a bus.
(http://portlandtransport.com/archives/2006/12/new_years_resol.html)
“Focusing on one mode (buses only) to the exclusion of all others represents a failure to plan for future growth and development patterns.”
>>>> But Portland has been focusing ONLY on rail for ALL new projects for decades, and when resources became tighter, rail took precedence over buses.
Happy Fourth!
“It appears that for all of the Puget Sound region’s “success” with bus-only transit, they apparently see the need for rail as well.”
>>>> But Seattle is also doing 4-5 BRT projects as well, and everyone knows that BRT is anathema to Trimet.
Nick wrote: But Portland has been focusing ONLY on rail for ALL new projects for decades, and when resources became tighter, rail took precedence over buses.
This is factually incorrect. During the recent temporary cutbacks between FY2005 and FY2006, rail service hours were cut more than bus service hours (5.0% rail vs 3.9% bus). Rail did not take precedence over buses. TriMet devotes 7.5X as many revenue hours to bus operation as it does to rail operation, yet buses only carry 2X the ridership.
everyone knows that BRT is anathema to Trimet.
You may think that, but “everyone” does not share your views.
– Bob R.
yet buses only carry 2X the ridership.
With all due respect, that’s because buses serve areas that have a lot less ridership, and it takes more operators (revenue hours) to serve the same amount of people w/40-ft buses than w/trains.
I’d also like to point out some other budget-related items:
*”Some low ridership trips will be eliminated.” What about the people who actually use those trips? Wouldn’t it be better to try to get more people to use those trips? For example, get governments to quit requiring lots of free parking or providing expanded roads and pollution cleanup at non-motorists expense.
*Especially vs. a tunnel, the mall project may lead to more budget problems in the future. Not only will there be more incidents and buses having to wait for trains, but trains will have to travel at slower speeds (=longer trip=higher cost) and it will not help people coming from the Westside or going across town (=lower revenues). Yes a tunnel is expensive to build, but it appears we’ll need it anyways (see “Aspirations” post).
*Paper transfers can lead to fare evasion/lost revenue. I would like to possibly see them replaced with tickets that are put in the farebox at the next boarding (an additional ticket for a 3rd boarding could be sold at a discount). Also, a high base fare (for one boarding) discourages travelers going short distances.
Bob R. says:
Portland and Seattle have adopted a multi-modal transit strategy, which includes buses (holding steady does not equal disinvestment) and rail, concentrating growth along rail corridors. Focusing on one mode (buses only) to the exclusion of all others represents a failure to plan for future growth and development patterns.
I think this is a great statement. My question, however, would be “What criteria do you use to decide which mode goes where?” That is not so simple since there is a calculus of costs vs benefits, necessarily tailored to each mode being considered, contingent upon unpredictable factors such as consumer demographics, future commercial development, future industrial use.
Assuming for the sake of argument that there is a “lobby” of commuter rail proponents, djk says” with irony:
“Apparently the rail “delusion” is contagious, judging by the number of light rail projects in the works all across the world. Including the transitopia of Seattle which not only is building rail, but is jumping ahead of Portland by putting light rail underground in the existing bus tunnel and planning to extend the tunnel north under Capital Hill and into the U District.”
So what? London has hundreds of miles of subways. It also has nine million people. This is sort of the “everybody’s doing it” argument. e.g, Everyone that lives in the prison at Wilsonville is a smoker, so I should be , too, if I live in the area.
I had a thought as I was down at OMSI yesterday but didn’t have time to get prepared. Seeing how close, indeed. the Marquam Bridge comes to the entrnce of OMSI I would like to poll spectators of the Fourth of July display whether they think that bridge would provide a good crossing for a streetcar, rather than throw a complete new bridge across the Willamette for the Milwaukie MAX. They could sign a petition if they thought that was a good idea.
Also do they think the underlying goal of our transit planners–removal of the I-5 freeway— is really worth it, or would they rather see funding for other projects. I may still do it, maybe this weekend, but will miss the hordes of people. When’s the next big group gathering on the Esplanade?
“Also do they think the underlying goal of our transit planners–removal of the I-5 freeway”
Ron,
What is the basis for the statement above? I have to say that despite Portland’s progressive image, that most transportation planners (a very different group than, say, politicians) are still pretty oriented to the car. I think that it would be tough to find very many who support removal of I-5, let alone it being the “underlying goal” of the entire group.
“I have to say that despite Portland’s progressive image, that most transportation planners (a very different group than, say, politicians) are still pretty oriented to the car.”
>>>> That’s because, unfortunately, most people here are oriented (addicted?) to their cars, including progressive friends of mine.
But, considering the way some of the transit is operated around here, I can see why they stick to their cars.
But, considering the way some of the transit is operated around here, I can see why they stick to their cars.
Considering how transit is operated around here, Portland is in the Top 10 cities for transit commute share according to the census bureau (but you knew this already, because it’s been blogged here extensively), even though our city population rank is somewhere around 30.
– Bob R.
…the underlying goal of our transit planners–removal of the I-5 freeway
What is the basis for the statement above?
I’ll take a stab at it – there’s been a lot of comments here about removing the Marquam Bridge lately. If it was removed, where would I-5 south of the I-84 terminus go? I’ve said this before, and I’ll say it again – I personally don’t support removal of the Marquam Bridge.
Switching gears entirely:
“Some low ridership trips will be eliminated.” What about the people who actually use those trips? Wouldn’t it be better to try to get more people to use those trips?
In June, TriMet made some changes – notably (as I look through their “Service adjustments begin June 3, 2007” leaflet,
– More 15-Belmont trips end at Belmont & 60th (probably vs. 92nd Ave. or Parkrose TC)
– More 15-23rd Ave. trips serving Montgomery Park vs. Thurman & 27th.
– a morning outbound trip on 19-Woodstock was canceled.
– 44-Capitol Hwy. reduced to 17-min. weekday service, vs. 15-min. weekday service (not specifically stated in the leaflet, but a change I’m personally aware of).
– 4 trips discontinued on 152-Milwaukie.
– Several major routes (14-Hawthorne, 17-Holgate/21st, 71-60th/122nd, 72-Killingsworth/82nd, and 75-39th/Lombard), had “Minor changes for summer.” I guess we’ll have to wait to see what happens in September.
So, more changes are probably in store. I’d guess the TIP is about to be updated for FY 2008, that’ll probably give us a good idea of what routes they’re thinking of paring down and/or eliminating. A while back, there were notices on TriMet’s website that 39-L&C weekend service was slated for elimination, as well as some 43-Johns Landing-only trips (not the trips that continue on Taylors Fy. to Wash. Sq. TC). From what I’ve heard, they try to work with the community to increase ridership, but if whatever they do doesn’t work it’s curtains.
Nick: Speaking as a bus rider up here in Seattle, you might be disappointed in our “BRT” projects. Though not fully defined yet, they appear to amount to:
1) talking up existing frequency without actually changing it much (Look! Now the bus runs every 10 minutes! Last week it ran, uh, every 10 minutes.)
2) upgrading stops (details unclear)
3) providing real-time information at stops
Portland already has #3 (via cell phone) and neither #1 nor #2 seem like they would satisfy the pro-BRT crowd here. We’re not talking about Curitiba here.
I’m not trying to say we’re totally wasting our money on this pseudo-BRT, but it’s not clear to me that it’s more valuable from the viewpoint of increasing transit ridership than, say, providing matching funds for neighborhoods that would be willing to tax themselves for streetcars.
Nick: Speaking as a bus rider up here in Seattle, you might be disappointed in our “BRT” projects. Though not fully defined yet, they appear to amount to:
1) talking up existing frequency without actually changing it much (Look! Now the bus runs every 10 minutes! Last week it ran, uh, every 10 minutes.)
2) upgrading stops (details unclear)
3) providing real-time information at stops
Portland already has #3 (via cell phone) and neither #1 nor #2 seem like they would satisfy the pro-BRT crowd here. We’re not talking about Curitiba here.
I’m not trying to say we’re totally wasting our money on this pseudo-BRT, but it’s not clear to me that it’s more valuable from the viewpoint of increasing transit ridership than, say, providing matching funds for neighborhoods that would be willing to tax themselves for streetcars.
‘ll take a stab at it – there’s been a lot of comments here about removing the Marquam Bridge lately.
As far as I know not one of the people posting here is a “transit planner”. There are people who advocate getting rid of I5 on the east bank and using I-405 for through traffic instead. But most of the folks talking about getting rid of the Marquam bridge are talking about replacing it with a tunnel. And basically none of the arguments have much of anything to do with transit, transit planners or transit planning. They are talking about an Interstate highway and a railroad freight line.
“I guess those shiny commuter trains I’ve seen around the Seattle Metro area don’t actually exist.”
>>>> Technically, I was not entirely correct–but the commuter trains are operated by Sound Transit, not King Metro, and I understand that they are underperforming.
As a Seattle resident, I just want to inform you that this statement is incorrect, the Sounder has increased ridership dramatically. The issues the Sounder now faces is lack of parking at stations due to high ridership. This is partly because of the Sounder now running to horse races, Mariners games, Seahawks games, and most concerts aside from regular commuting. In fact in September they are adding four new trains including reverse commute (Seattle to Tacoma in the morning).
“the Sounder has increased ridership dramatically.”
So, can we now get back to a conversation about a balanced transportation system…which, btw, includes things like pedestrian access and bike facilities?
I feel like the “bus fans” have started a Clampett-style war with the so called “rail fans” that really distracts from the bigger issues at hand.
Can we set all of that aside, conspiracy theories included, and focus on the bigger picture?
“$1.7 million to begin replacing the original 20-year old Ticket Vending Machines located along Eastside MAX line with debit/credit-card only machines.”
That’s just special, R-tarded. How do you waste THAT kind of money on machines that take money. Video games don’t cost that much and they’re WAY more complicated. I’d bet ATM machines probably cost less. Blagh.
…and what’s just with the debit/credit card only machines?! There are HUGE numbers of people that do NOT have these things. Transit is supposed to help the poor kick it, that single oversight gives people like JK serious ammo when an action makes the words of a particular constituency hypocritical.
Not cool, not cool at all. Offensive matter of fact. Fortunately for me I’ve got cards, and am not worried about the costs. As I’ve said before, I’d just as well pay my full $1-2 per mile for transit and $2-3 bucks that my car DOES cost me (mainly because I drive the majority of miles on private roads, which means I pay FULL unsubsidized costs)
hmpf
Adron –
I already asked TriMet about this (I too found the wording of the press release startling)… there will always be a minimum of one cash-taking machine at any stop.
Currently, on the eastside route, except where a couple of completely broken machines were replaced with newer machines over the years, the machines are cash-only.
I am waiting to receive a copy of the full budget before making a final judgement about this topic and I will share what I discover with this forum.
As someone who has worked with embedded microcontrollers and tangentially with designing/selling equipment for outdoor use in weather and vandalism-resistant enclosures, I can tell you that the cost is significantly higher than most people expect.
One of the early systems I worked on, as a matter of fact, used videogame components for its CPU and graphics display. The end product was a success but there were many design challenges needed to accommodate the inferior build quality and longevity of videogame consoles. Future products were based on an entirely different design where we had much tighter control over quality and reliability, but higher costs.
Other costs to consider for any kind of outdoor electronics are installation and upgraded data services networks.
That being said, $1.7 million still seems steep for this project. If every eastside machine is replaced from Rose Quarter outward, that’s still over $40K per machine. Full-service outdoor weatherproof ATMs and enclosures are in the $20K range. Outdoor food/beverage vending machines costs considerably less, of course, but there are economies of scale at work.
I think the TVMs installed as part of the westside extension are these:
http://www.ventek-transit.com/VenTek%20Products.htm
In response to Hawthorne:
So there is no group investigating replacement of the I-5 in Portland and the Marquam Bridge? And this group doesn’t over lap into other tranportation planning?
Look at this:
http://www.blueoregon.com/2006/11/lets_put_the_ea.html
and this:
http://www.blueoregon.com/2006/11/lets_put_the_ea.html
Ron,
I’m very aware of that…but you said, “Also do they think the underlying goal of our transit planners–removal of the I-5 freeway— is really worth it, or would they rather see funding for other projects.”
Saying that the removal of the 1-5 freeway is the underlying goal of our transportation planners is pure hyperbole and not helpful to the conversation or your credibility.