This post is a response to some comments on the open suggestions thread that run along the lines of “why are we shafting bus riders by putting all our resources into rail?”
While I’m an enthusiastic supporter of continuing to expand the rail system (because it helps drive the long-term land use pattern that I believe the region needs to achieve for sustainability), I think there is more than a kernel of truth to the complaint.
In fact, there was considerable discussion of this point in a presentation at PSU earlier this year (presentation slides, PDF, 748K).
In a lot of cities, the transit system is for people who for one reason or another, can’t travel by private car. By contrast, in our region, we pride ourselves on the number of ‘choice riders’, people who COULD drive, but choose to use transit. As the presentation suggests (slide 90), if your strategy is to use transit to drive congestion relief (or at least alternatives) and environmental benefits, you want to aggressively go after more choice riders.
And the same presentation also shows that rail passengers have demographic characteristics (race, income) that are a lot more like car drivers than bus riders (slides 75-82).
So it’s a question of goals. If TriMet is being held to objectives that are related to urban form and the overall function of the transportation system, the current set of choices are quite reasonable. If you think TriMet should have more of a social equity mission, then indeed, bus riders could almost certainly be better served.
So where should someone (like me) who thinks TriMet should be serving BOTH missions come out? Well, I’d like to see the operating resources increased, so that we can BOTH exploit the federal capital construction funds that are available AND keep expanding and improving bus service. So I don’t want to stop building rail, but I WOULD like to see buses get more attention.
One policy change that I would like to see immediately would be for TriMet to stop bonding operating income to help provide local match for capital dollars. I think the operating income is much too valuable to use in that way. This is an issue that seldom gets talked about.
So in short, I think we should keep trying to get those choice riders onto transit, but only by growing the pie, not by taking resources away from the riders with few or no choices.
Someone will almost certainly ask how such a policy relates to Streetcar and I will happily admit that Streetcar is almost entirely about choice riders and about congestion and urban form goals, not about social equity (although we have a chance to address the latter as the Streetcar system plan proposes lines outside of the central city). But I would also point out that in general Streetcar has brought resources to the table (Urban Renewal, parking revenues) that are not available for buses, and are incremental to existing transit revenues. Streetcar does consume some TriMet operating revenues, but not at a level that exceeds what would be spent on equivalent bus service in the same areas. Indeed TriMet is being pretty careful to make sure that their funding of Streetcar does not detract from their Light Rail and frequent bus plans.
143 responses to “Finding the Choice Riders”
Chris: In a lot of cities, the transit system is for people who for one reason or another, can’t travel by private car. By contrast, in our region, we pride ourselves on the number of ‘choice riders’, people who COULD drive, but choose to use transit. As the presentation suggests (slide 90), if your strategy is to use transit to drive congestion relief (or at least alternatives) and environmental benefits, you want to aggressively go after more choice riders.
JK: I disagree for the following reasons:
The alternatives: a) attract one yuppie out of his clean Beemer (the choice rider) or b) attract a low income person out of his polluting junker?
Which will have the most environmental benefits?
Which will be more likely to break down and cause a road blockage?
Which will be most likely to remove the most cars from the road?
Which will be cheaper per car removed?
(For perspective, light rail tends to cost hundreds of thousand of dollars for each “new rider”)
Chris: One policy change that I would like to see immediately would be for TriMet to stop bonding operating income to help provide local match for capital dollars. I think the operating income is much too valuable to use in that way. This is an issue that seldom gets talked about.
JK: Cutting back bus service is happening in a number of cities as light rail grabs all the available money. Even Trimet admitted that they are doing this in a recent Tribune story. Cities are having a decrease in transit ridership because of the cutbacks.
Thanks
JK
I can’t wait; in another thread I suggested that, if Trimet can do my 8 to 12 minute car commute in 22 minutes, real time, instead of the 45 minutes plus that the buses take now, I’ll consider riding again. I’ll sacrifice 20 minutes a day (22 minutes one-way by bus minus the irreducible 8-to-12 minutes I’m spending in the car now). But it just doesn’t seem to be happening, now, does it? And after years of this, it’s going to be hard to look at the bus and see anything but an unreliable rolling sardine can where one can get far too closely acquainted with, well, other segments of humanity.
Bring it on. But it better really work, because Trimet isn’t very credible this past decade or two.
Elee – I just can’t get over that your 8-12 minute car commute takes a full 45 minutes on a bus. Given the obvious short distance of your commute, I’m unclear why it would take a bus that much extra time to make the trip unless you have at least 2 transfers… Would you mind satisfying my curiousity and providing more details about your commute?
Chris:
I agree that buses have a role. However in my view the transportation function must come first, and the equity role second. And right now, it makes a lot more sense to leverage federal funds for a system that is operationally more efficient (light rail) than to spend local funds for a system whose cost is skyrocketing (diesel powered busses). TriMet in the past has claimed that light rail operational costs per rider are lower than fare, something along $1.25/rider. (A search of the TriMet website might turn up the statement, I’ll look later).
One potential solution would be to investigate FTA funding of a fleet conversion from diesel busses to some alternate fuel source, but right now most consumable fuels are not getting cheaper.
Another nice experiment might be to compare the costs of operating Seattle Metro’s electric trolly-bus fleet, and compare that to fossil-fuel based buses like TriMet uses. Can overal operational costs be reduced that way?
I can drive from my house in inner NE to the PSU area in 10-15 minutes during the morning rush hour. On a bike it is 25 minutes. On transit (line 8) it can take upwards of an hour, and is never less than 40 minutes. I have done all many times.
I choose to take the bus all the time, and I fully agree with Erik’s oft-repeated point about underinvestment in bus capacity being a detriment to the system. During the morning crush my bus is standing room only by the time it hits Alberta, and by the time it reaches Fremont, is often so full that some drivers stop picking up passengers until people start getting off at Lloyd Center. I’ve had buses drive right past me while waiting at Prescott. Making people freezing and late for work doesn’t do much to woo choice riders.
That’s a good post Chris!
Rail is the priority here because of the economic development it brings with it.
Portland wants to be a ‘world class’ city in the same league as San Fran and Seattle.
Anything that brings economic growth is the priority of the government officials/planners.
Buses aren’t sexy, that’s the bottom line.
If they had been serious about light rail they would have put it above or below the city of Portland rather than right through the middle on the street. But that wouldn’t have been ‘sexy’, it would have been efficient.
I really don’t believe that the powers to be care about the commuters (or transit operators) at all.
They care about $$$ and answer to the same god as all the other politicians in America do:
SPECIAL INTERESTS!
“You will never understand bureaucracies until you understand that for bureaucrats procedure is everything and outcomes are nothing.”
Making people freezing and late for work doesn’t do much to woo choice riders.
I second that point. When I was working in Portland the MAX or the streetcar were out of order on more than one occasion. Though it doesn’t happen frequently, when the train is out it is more widespread and even if out of order even for a short time it has much more of an impact than, say, a broken down bus. Also I think that the point that trains are more environmentally friendly is a load of B.S. All they do is placate the NIMBYs into thinking there are no fumes in their overpriced barrios. Instead they shift the pollution into someone else’s back yard in a similar fashion to dumping their garbage … all to elsewhere and a lot of energy is wasted in the long haul transmission process. Diesel MAX trains and streetcars would be more reliable and more efficient.
I think trying to distinguish clearly between “choice” and other riders is slightly inane. The larger goal is building a transportation system in which no feels that they NEED to own a car in order to carry their life as normal.
I live in the SE 39th corridor, so this is relatively easy for me even with just buses serving me. I recently sold my car in favor of using TriMet all the time. I don’t know whether that makes me a “choice” driver or not, but the larger point is that I am able to do everything I want to do without a car because I have good service.
I was also able to save tons of money on my car insurance by switching…I mean, getting rid of damn thing altogether. Hence, I will not complain about paying my share for MAX, Streetcar, or buses.
Susana:
Why shouldn’t people NEED to provide their own transportation? Why should we ENCOURAGE people to use and abuse a public welfare program [mass transit].
Its the same concept as telling a middle class family they shouldn’t NEED to buy their own groceries because the government will provide them with food stamps; or that they shouldn’t NEED to buy medical insurance because the government will provide it.
The next thing you know, we end up with an entitlement program, along with much more taxes, where people think its their right to receive such services and put up a big stink when its threatened to be taken away [such as the fare free zone downtown].
Reply to Aylene: my experience parallels Grant’s, above. Trimet claims it can get one from my home to downtown in 17 minutes. In reality it is often that long till a bus shows up; when it does appear it may blow right by, either because it’s visibly packed to the limit or (more commonly) for no discernible reason. (I’ve complained via email about specific buses, identified by number &c, only very occasionally would I get anything resembling an explanation….mostly I was left to envision the driver being confronted and saying, huh what whatever)…..then there are the bus parades, when Trimet makes me stand for half an hour but then atones by sending two or three or four buses all at once, isn’t three buses every 30 minutes the same as one bus every 10 minutes?…..it goes on and on. Or it used to; maybe in the half year since I last rode, Trimet has become perfectly reliable and quick….I doubt it though, I still see bus parades as I drive about….after lots of experimentation, I found that the only way I could manage to spend as long as the bus, in getting from one place to another, was to walk in uncomfortable shoes; if I’d wear sneakers and merely trot, say nothing of actually running, I’d usually take half as long as the bus.
Anthony,
Also the same concept as the government telling us that we NEED to sit in traffic, and we NEED to demolish and abandon our cities, because the auto-exclusive policies have precluded a safe living environment and useable transit, ped, and bike facilities. Just like what happened in the 50’s, 60’s, and Texas. Is that what you’re advocating?
First of all, “abuse” public transit? How, why, when, and where does this happen?
And while, yes, you can make a slippery slope analogy that leads us to nanny state communism, I could do the same for your beloved “free merket”:
Why should people feel that they don’t NEED to protect themselves? They should just buy guns and make sure that countries don’t invade ours.
Or,
Why do people feel that they don’t NEED to pay for education? Everything should be paid for, with the rich going to better schools and the poor getting the worse ones or none at all.
Do I need to continue or can we talk transportation now?
Face it Anthony, this isn’t Adam Smith’s world. Our government (and all other developed and most developed countries) have decided that transportation infrastructure is a government expense that is beneficial in the long run. Furthermore, our city, country, and society NEED mass transportation in order to sustain our way of life and mobility in the future.
Oh yes and because it’s what Premier Stalin decrees.
I fail to see how government providing public transit is “welfare”, yet government providing a system of streets and roads is not. What is the road system, if not a public welfare program?
Seems to me that a more thoughtful way to look at the situation is that there are both practical and societal limits to how much roads can be expanded. People have made it pretty clear that they don’t want Portland to be developed around only one mode of transportation.
Given that, it makes sense to provide a variety of transportation options to ensure we’re getting the most use out of a public investment as we can. People can choose to drive, use transit, cycle, walk depending on the trip they are making, how much time they have, how much they’re willing to pay, etc.
I don’t think that the “choice” ridership market is the latte-swilling yuppie stereotype. There are plenty of potential would-be riders out there who don’t use transit because, for their situation, it takes too much time or doesn’t operate at the time they need it too. Which is why we need to increase both rail and bus service in the region, both in numbers of routes and in hours of service.
Given that most of the time, you can drive from one side of the Portland region to the other in an hour or less, it shouldn’t take more than an hour to get anywhere in the region on transit. That’s a lofty goal, but the stake needs to be set somewhere.
Also, I don’t like this:
http://www.portlandtribune.com/news/story.php?story_id=120112802546110300
Uhmm, who just wanders out to the street corner and waits for a bus on their commute? If you wait 17 minutes on a regular basis, then you obviously didn’t look at Transit Tracker before you left. There are 11 buses an hour going to downtown at rush hour within 2 blocks of my house, and yet one of my most popular bookmarks is Transit Tracker. At my office, there is a train every 10 minutes or so at rush hour, and again, I look at the website before I leave. There is even a computer near the back door of my office that show Transit Tracker all the time, (the CEO set it up, cause he doesn’t like to wait out in the cold either.) And if you can afford car insurance, it is unlikely that you are too poor to afford an internet connection…
As for Greg, and his, “I took the long way and had to transfer, instead of the bus that runs every 6 minutes at rush hour that goes directly there and gets me there faster,” you are just proving the point of this article: Choice riders prefer trains.
The train aint much good if you can’t get too it!
If you don’t have adequate bus service, (west county), then whats the point of having a train at all?
Most of the west county commuters DRIVE to the train, basically cause you can’t get to downtown and afford to park there also.
I work west county and all the griping is about lack of access TO THE TRAIN.
And if you havent been on the MAX lately, its a nightmare at rush hour, in both directions.
Way overcrowded.
Personally I would NEVER take that max if I had an option, just because of the overcrowding.
Trimet is expanding, but not doing a particularly good job and running what it has right now.
TriMet’s Fall 2007 ridership data is instructive.
Cost per ride on MAX range from a low of $1.19 on the Blue Line to a high of $1.92 on the Yellow.
The lowest cost per ride on buses is the 72 Killingsworth at $1.62; its ridership was 18.5K compared to Yellow Line, 13.6K, Red Line, 26.8K and Blue Line at 66.3K. Cost per ride on the 12 Barbur was $2.53, which is on the high end of the Frequent Bus lines.
We expect a public agency to spend our money where it gets the most results…moves more riders at less cost. MAX appears to do that…granted that capital costs are another question, but also other funding.
Buses just cost more to operate and appear to have less appeal to choice riders. In my years doing “transit counselling” I have heard it more than a few times…”when will MAX open? I will not ride a bus.” Not fair, but its the fact.
No question the 8 NE 15th could use more service, but those buses are deployed out on suburban routes where they offer $5-10/ride service. So politics keeps buses going there, not dollar based effectiveness.
“No question the 8 NE 15th could use more service, but those buses are deployed out on suburban routes where they offer $5-10/ride service. So politics keeps buses going there, not dollar based effectiveness.”
What I want to know Mr Anderson is how TRIMET will be able pay operational expenses for all the new rail lines?
The system is already overstressed right now.
http://amargul.blogspot.com/2008/01/uh-oh.html
Obviously they will be cutting bus service to pay for the new rail service.
“when will MAX open? I will not ride a bus.”
Beggars can’t be choosers. Like a person begging for food; only to reject a free cheeseburger because he or she is a vegan.
Welfare recipients should be happy with what they get.
Chris,
Thank you for helping us put some real substance into this discussion.
I have found it very instructive to read the TriMet FY2008 Transit Investment Plan, available at trimet.org/tip/index.htm. They do seem to have some plans to invest in the bus service, but it’s pretty faint-hearted. For example, p. 57 shows the recent history of Frequent Service (FS) lines. These have grown from 4 in FY 1999 to 16 now. They seem to want to add 5 new lines and extend 4 more.
They do point out that several FS lines provide significant local ridership that doesn’t touch Portland, mentioning lines 57, 52, 12, 77, 33, and 79. They say ridership on the FS lines increased when those lines became FS.
p. 92 shows the criteria TriMet uses for adding an FS line, and p. 61 suggests that “jurisdictions wishing to attract Frequent Service are encouraged to review these criteria closely.” TriMet is clearly saying that jurisdictions (local governments, I guess) be the conduit for proposed increases in service.
I would certainly be interested in seeing a discussion on this blog — with NO rhetoric or vitriol, please — regarding these criteria and the FS scheme generally. Is 21 the “right” number of FS lines? If not, what’s a better number? Why?
Also, what about all those lines that are not FS lines — I see a lot of rhetoric here about “subpar bus service”, but specifically (NO vitriol, please!) what do you mean by subpar? Which improvements do you advocate, and why?
It would be nice if a lot of money were available to invest in the bus system, but I’m thinking that a lot could be improved without a lot of funding if TriMet simply focused more on the bus system. It’s not just a question of money, but also of attention. Is TriMet running the bus system on “automatic pilot” (so to speak) while their attention is focused on rail?
Mike
Anthony said,
Beggars can’t be choosers. Like a person begging for food; only to reject a free cheeseburger because he or she is a vegan.
Welfare recipients should be happy with what they get.
This is exactly the kind of angry, caustic rhetoric that really distracts from a good understanding of the issues. I wish you, and the handful of others on this blog who resort to it (I won’t mention names, you know who you are), could find a way to control your anger. Opinions are fine; facts are better; vitriol is not fine, IMO.
Mike
We expect a public agency to spend our money where it gets the most results…moves more riders at less cost. MAX appears to do that…granted that capital costs are another question, but also other funding.
TriMet has no problem taking operating dollars, using it as a match for capital dollars (thus pulling bus operating dollars away – the start of the problem), then finding more money to invest in rail projects (while not willng to spend the money in bus projects, thus further devaluing bus service), building a MAX line that has fixed operating requirements (again resulting in cutting from bus operations, because bus operations are “more flexible”)…as you can see the snowball has turned into an avalanche.
People won’t ride the bus because the bus that exists is poor. Give them a bus that is attractive, and people will ride it. The same is true of rail service – if Portland didn’t invest in rail service, and trains and train stations were shabby – people likely wouldn’t ride MAX (or the Streetcar). So the idea of comparing the two is comparing an underfunded system to a well-funded system. You could get the same comparison by asking whether someone wants to drive on a gravel road with potholes or a road that was just paved three years ago with 14 foot wide traffic lanes, bike paths, sidewalks, street lights and traffic signals.
Portland has had the opportunity to make targeted investments in bus service that would improve ridership. Transit agencies across the U.S. are doing it – whether it’s a BRT project like Eugene, streamlining projects, “bus stations”, better platforms, new busses, articulated busses, traffic signal preemption, hybrid busses – you name it, most transit agencies that invest in these types of projects have reported 3-10% ridership increases over the last few years.
TriMet has reported a bus ridership decrease the last two years – even though EVERYTHING was in its favor – more congestion, higher fuel prices… What went wrong?
It’s simple: Disinvestment in the bus system.
If you wait 17 minutes on a regular basis, then you obviously didn’t look at Transit Tracker before you left.
Not everyone has access to Transit Tracker. Not everyone has access to the internet before catching a bus (yes, many businesses still don’t let their employees use the internet, and yes many people don’t have computers at home); many people do not have cell phones.
Of course this is a major beef – how many bus stops have a Transit Tracker sign mounted at the bus stop?
How many MAX stops have a Transit Tracker sign? How many Streetcar stops have a NextBus display? There used to be a Transit Tracker display at Barbur TC – not anymore. They were never installed at Tigard TC. Why not???
Another nice experiment might be to compare the costs of operating Seattle Metro’s electric trolly-bus fleet, and compare that to fossil-fuel based buses like TriMet uses. Can overal operational costs be reduced that way?
Alex – King County Metro has some 250 hybrid electric busses in service, in addition to the straight-electric trolleybusses you mention.
They have over 600 more on order.
TriMet has exactly TWO hybrid busses in its fleet.
I have repeated numerous times specific ways that TriMet could invest in the bus system AND reduce its operating cost (especially its diesel fuel cost), whether it be embracing the tested-and-proven hybrid technology (it’s not “untested technology” anymore), or whether it could be to use articulated busses on 20 minute headways instead of 40′ busses on 15 minute headways (result is a 25% labor AND fuel reduction while providing more passenger capacity with little additional wait); it should be noted that portions of the 72 line operate with a less-than-10 minute headway now – using articulated busses on a 12-15 minute headway would still provide frequent service using less drivers and less fuel.
TriMet could also evaluate its line structure – the 12 line, for example, is hampered by running all the way out to Sherwood (and any bus running to Sherwood has only a handful of passengers on it, but it adds roughly 5 1/4 miles (each way). (Same is true for the 94, although the 94 has to deadhead back (an entire trip without passengers; this is also true of all express runs).
TriMet also refuses to take lower ridership routes and outsourcing them, as virtually all other transit agencies do.
Finally, interlining the 12 between Barbur and Sandy, IMO, causes more problems (i.e. late busses, overtime, mechanical issues, poor customer satisfaction). If the bus can remain on a good schedule and interline, fine. The 12 is clearly a failure and needs to be de-interlined.
Welfare recipients should be happy with what they get.
How about corporate welfare recipients? How about the homeowners we’re bailing out because they signed a bad deal? How about the fact that I pay for MAX and bus, and yet use both off-peak? How about the I-5 bottlenecks that slow me between Portland and Vancouver? (Yeah, I do a reverse commute and get to see how it sucks.)
I park on Friday and drive again Monday, because I can. I have three bus routes pass by my apartment, I can get anywhere from St Johns to Gresham without a transfer, and one transfer opens up Forest Grove to Troutdale, and Tualatin and NoPo.
That’s a damned good transit system to me. Let’s make it freaking awesome for everyone, regardless of economic status.
I park on Friday and drive again Monday, because I can. I have three bus routes pass by my apartment, I can get anywhere from St Johns to Gresham without a transfer, and one transfer opens up Forest Grove to Troutdale, and Tualatin and NoPo.
I don’t want this to come across as argumentative, but Dave – please, take MAX from your house to Tualatin (on a Saturday or Sunday).
Let me know how your trip went. To make it more interesting, I’d like for your trip to end in Tualatin at Tualatin High School (since many events occur there on the weekends).
I don’t want this to come across as argumentative, but Dave – please, take MAX from your house to Tualatin (on a Saturday or Sunday).
Erik, I won’t take it as argumentative. I lived in Tualatin for over a year, and I understand, TriMet sucks from that opinion.
But, overall, it’s a decent system. Tualatin, Wilsonville, Sherwood, Oregon City, they’re all under served.
What I hope for is a full system that incorporates 99-W, Tualatin-Sherwood Rd, etc, to make a real transit system. It might not be today, maybe not tomorrow, but I want it.
Heck, I used to walk to Tualatin High School to play frisbee a lot, but it’s not perfect. I’ll agree. I want to make it better, with the rest of the system.
I chose a neighborhood (at a premium price) that allows that now, but I’d love to see it all over the TriMet area.
Erik said
Not everyone has access to Transit Tracker. Not everyone has access to the internet before catching a bus (yes, many businesses still don’t let their employees use the internet, and yes many people don’t have computers at home); many people do not have cell phones.
Well, that’s true, but Transit Tracker (TT) is still a good system for those who can use it. At home or at the office, even without a computer or cellphone, you can still call TT on a landline phone and type in the stop number.
This particular system seems to be unique to Portland. The Streetcar uses NextBus, a commercial company that seems to have a couple dozen systems around the country. So Portland is really out front with GPS realtime prediction – among the first US systems to use it. It’s one of the ways our system is more advanced than the US norm.
Of course this is a major beef – how many bus stops have a Transit Tracker sign mounted at the bus stop?
Funny you should mention that – I was just about to ask the same question.
I don’t often have occasion to use the bus on the Eastside – generally just the 17 or 20 or Streetcar around town. But last Monday (MLK Day) I was at Providence Hospital and took the bus home to the Westside.
That hospital is located between NE 48th-50th and Glisan-Hoyt. I came out of the medical office building onto Glisan and the nearest stop seemed to be at 50th. That stop has a shelter, but the glass is completely empty – no schedule, no TT stop number, no nothin’. Outside the shelter is a pole with a bus stop sign, indicating that the 19 stops there, and giving the TriMet phone number, but again, no stop number.
I got on the 19, looked out the window as we stopped at 48th or 49th, at the other end of the hospital. It looked like that stop has a big schedule poster on the glass, which presumably also has the stop number.
Then I changed to the 20 at 12th and E. Burnside. That stop has a schedule poster with stop number.
I got off the 20 at 10th and W. Burnside, in fromt of Powell’s Bookstore. There’s no shelter there, but of course Powell’s has an overhang. There’s a small schedule case attached to the pole, with a 20 timetable and a stop number.
So what’s the logic here? Does anyone know whether all the stops are assigned TT numbers?
If not, why not?
If so, why aren’t those numbers posted on every stop.
There’s virtually no investment required to do that, just focus on it. I was quite surprised that one of the stops at a major hospital had no info posted on it, just the little line number sign, and the other one is fully equipped. Why not both?
Mike
nuovorecord Says: I fail to see how government providing public transit is “welfare”, yet government providing a system of streets and roads is not.
JK: Simple:
Road construction and maintenance is mostly paid by the users by user fees, gas tax, licenses.
Transit is mostly paid by non users: 80% of the transit money is from taxes (including the 18% of the federal gas tax that goes to transit.)
Further,
Everyone uses the roads, including transit, so if everyone were being taxed for roads, it would be a case of everyone being taxed for something everyone uses.
Transit is a case of everyone being taxed for something that only a few use. Same for bike lanes.
nuovorecord Says: What is the road system, if not a public welfare program?
JK: Roads = User pays. Transit = everyone pays for the few users = welfare.
(Have you been reading to many car-hater weekly readers?)
nuovorecord Says: People have made it pretty clear that they don’t want Portland to be developed around only one mode of transportation.
JK: Have they? Please provide proof f that claim. The surveys that I have seen say that Portlander’s want congestion fixed. Transit DOES NOT REDUCE CONGESTION, except, perhaps, in areas several times more dense than Portland. Of course such areas have commute time much longer than less dense areas.
nuovorecord Says: Given that most of the time, you can drive from one side of the Portland region to the other in an hour or less, it shouldn’t take more than an hour to get anywhere in the region on transit. That’s a lofty goal, but the stake needs to be set somewhere.
JK: Please give us a cost estimate on doing that.
My guess is that it would bankrupt the region since mass transit is at least THREE TIMES THE COST OF DRIVING, including road construction (which mass transit figures does not usually include)
Dave Says: Welfare recipients should be happy with what they get. How about corporate welfare recipients?
JK: Oh, the usual straw man.
Lets cut off corporate welfare right along with transit welfare for the well off, but keep mobility welfare for the needy.
We don’t build 80% welfare subsidized supermarket chains for everyone because a few are needy and we shouldn’t build 80% subsidized transportation networks for everyone just because a few are needy. Help the needy, not the well off.
Dave Says: How about the homeowners we’re bailing out because they signed a bad deal?
JK: Not our problem – go talk to the feds.
Dave Says: How about the fact that I pay for MAX and bus, and yet use both off-peak?
JK: Then you should still be paying your real cost, about $10 per trip, otherwise you are on transit welfare. (Actually the real cost of off peak trips is greater than peak trips because the transit vehicle is less than cattle car full, so you should be paying even more)
Dave Says: How about the I-5 bottlenecks that slow me between Portland and Vancouver? (Yeah, I do a reverse commute and get to see how it sucks.)
JK: That is mostly because this region has spent BILLIONS on toy trains, which have never reduced congestion anywhere out of, perhaps, NYC and Chicago, instead of upgrading the roads.
Thanks
JK
Does anyone know whether all the stops are assigned TT numbers
Yes, but they aren’t necessarily posted.
I’ve seen at some stops (particularly on the 45) where a small sticker was placed on the bus stop sign post with the Transit Tracker number.
I’ve seen a LOT of stops where a TriMet employee used a Sharpie to write the number. (How professional! And I bet few people actually know what that number means – especially “out-of-towners”.)
Not too long ago someone interjected London in a discussion so I happened to look up some statistics about London. I found out that about 75% of London’s bus stops have shelters.
Portland is about 20%. And some of those shelters make no sense whatsoever – for example, in Tigard, there is a stop at Pacific Highway & Greenberg/Main (inbound) that is served ONLY by the Weekday Rush Hour Only Express 94. It has a shelter.
Less than one block away is a stop at Main Street and Pacific Highway (inbound) that is served by the Frequent Service 12-Barbur line. No shelters.
In other words, there is a bus shelter that sits unused 90% of the day (and 100% of the day on Saturdays, Sundays and Holidays) while another bus stop that is heavily used has nothing.
There are some bus shelters located on St. Helens Road served by the 17 which is also a rush-hour only bus. One such shelter…I have no idea why it was there, because there was NOTHING near it – no homes, no businesses, no destinations!! And it was a new shelter with a new concrete pad (quite nice, in fact, it should be a model for TriMet to implement about 1,000 times over – except at bus stops that are actually used!)
Another example of “equity” is the Sunset Transit Center or the Beaverton Transit Center – some bus stops don’t even have shelters at all while MAX has large, oversized shelters. Let’s just say they don’t make transit centers (for busses) like Barbur Blvd. TC anymore (with a huge, oversized roof over the entire platform). (BTW, Barbur Blvd TC was built in 1974. There’s even a plaque that says it.) At Beaverton, just find a nice stormy day and wait for the 76 or 78 line…
Yeah, like I want to “choose” to get drenched in the rain waiting for a bus. It’s no wonder people don’t “choose” to ride the bus; it’s because TriMet doesn’t treat bus riders the same. And I “choose” to pay to use Transit Tracker (effectively if I call from a cell phone I am) while MAX riders and Streetcar riders get a “free” sign at their station platform – maybe bus riders should automatically get a 25 cent discount off the bus fare just for that.
i agree that everyone uses the road system including transit users but also everyone in the portland region uses trimet whether they actually physically ride it or not since they depend on others for their goods and services who use trimet. trimet a critical part of the region’s economy.
jim, since you are apparently so much more free market than all of us here, i assume your education was entirely at private schools receiving no public assistance or student loans whatsoever or were you a welfare exploiter who used socialist public schools?
i agree that everyone uses the road system including transit users but also everyone in the portland region uses trimet whether they actually physically ride it or not since they depend on others for their goods and services who use trimet. trimet a critical part of the region’s economy.
At last report, in the Portland area the following shows the percentage of trips taken by mode:
(source: http://www.portlandonline.com/shared/cfm/image.cfm?id=65158)
Drove Alone – 42.08%
Shared Ride (as a passenger) – 24.32%
Shared Ride (as a driver) – 17.67%
(Total private automobile – 84.07%)
Walked – 8.29%
School Bus – 3.59%
Transit (walked to) – 2.29%
Transit (park & ride) – 0.32%
(Total Transit – 2.61%)
Bike – 1.03%
The above survey was from a 2003-2004 “Fact Sheet” using mid-1990s data; my understanding (I can’t quite find the report but I’m sure Chris or Bob will find it) shows that bike usage has jumped higher (I’ve heard 5% give or take), walking has dropped a little, and transit usage is about the same – maybe up to 4%.
4% is not a “critical part of the region’s economy” by most measures. And given that a large number of TriMet’s riders – as Chris stated – are “choice” riders (I’ve heard around 50%, with MAX riders more apt to be a “choice” rider) – now we’re only talking 2% of TriMet users that are reliant on TriMet. Now consider that this is total trips, not just employment trips, and we’re getting into negligible statistics.
Now, don’t get me wrong – I am not advocating the elimination of public transit as I do believe it provides a valuable public service. But if you put 100 transit riders in a room, you’ll get a lot of people who use transit.
Now take 100 people who are directly representative of the community at large, and you’ll have 5 that use transit. 85 of them are almost always road users. And 10 of them bike or ride a bike.
In Portland, who gets the loudest voice, the 85? Or the 15? Of the 5 that use transit, who gets the loudest voice – the 2 that use MAX or the 3 that use the bus?
While it’s important to listen to the minority groups, it’s equally important NOT to ignore the majority. Why does Portland, which claims to be progressive, still have a very high road usage percentage and a low transit usage percentage (lower than Seattle, mind you)? What is preventing people from using transit? And are we spending the right amount on all of the transportation modes? The bicyclist group claims that they always get the short end of the stick, but do highway users get the long end?
“Not everyone has access to Transit Tracker.”
TT is notoriously unreliable in my experience. I tried using it, but missed so many buses or ended up waiting around that I always factor in a 5 minute buffer, regardless of what it says. Just yesterday I was walking down the street listening to the man tell me “arriving in…4…minutes” as the bus drove by 3 blocks ahead of me. This happens all the time.
Another big advantage to hybrid buses is the reduction in noise pollution. They are a LOT quieter. Did anyone ever try to have a conversation on the old transit mall at rush hour? With the roaring engines echoing off the canyon walls it was pretty difficult. And it will be again.
Now take 100 people who are directly representative of the community at large, and you’ll have 5 that use transit. 85 of them are almost always road users. And 10 of them bike or ride a bike.
That’s not the same thing. 5% of trips taken does not mean 5% of people use transit, unless you assume that every person takes every trip by the same mode. There are many people who take transit to and from work, and maybe ride MAX to sporting events and such, but use the car for shopping, trips to movies, shuttling the kids around, and so forth.
“People who use transit” is a much larger number than “percentage of total trips taken by transit.”
Grant says
TT is notoriously unreliable in my experience. I tried using it, but missed so many buses or ended up waiting around that I always factor in a 5 minute buffer, regardless of what it says. Just yesterday I was walking down the street listening to the man tell me “arriving in…4…minutes” as the bus drove by 3 blocks ahead of me. This happens all the time.
It’s an interesting and tricky software problem.
With GPS, we can locate buses to within a couple of meters. It’s one thing to know where a bus is at a given time, and another to predict accurately when it’ll arrive at a stop that could be a mile or more away. Depends on traffic, weather, loading/unloading at intermediate stops, and all kinds of other things that aren’t perfectly predictable. Undoubtedly the software will get better over time, as the programmers keep refining the algorithms as a result of experience.
Another big advantage to hybrid buses is the reduction in noise pollution. They are a LOT quieter. Did anyone ever try to have a conversation on the old transit mall at rush hour? With the roaring engines echoing off the canyon walls it was pretty difficult. And it will be again.
The bus industry is in turmoil right now. Many cities are wrangling over the best green buses, in terms of emissions, noise, life-cycle costs, etc. Right now there’s a contest between “clean” diesel (with particulate filters, etc.), diesel/electric hybrid (with several competing technologies, like Honda vs. Toyota in cars), natural gas, etc. In Europe they’re doing a bit of experimentation with hydrogen fuel-cell buses, but that’s all very immature.
Seattle and Philly have gone very big for hybrids. NYC too, I think. DC is torn between natural gas, hybrid, and clean diesel, and is playing with all 3.
Buses have a shorter life expectancy in places like DC, Philly, and NYC, because of the weather and all the salt on the roads. Portland’s buses are aging, and the Transit Investment Plan is counting on increasing their life to 20 years. But they do last longer here, and I haven’t heard of the older ones falling apart yet. So this may be a good opportunity for Portland to hang back and let other cities thrash out the best new technologies before investing heavily.
NOTE: unlike the rail situation, in bus propulsion Europe is not much ahead of N. America. Portland could be a rail pioneer in the US by grabbing off-the-shelf technology from the Germans (MAX) and Czechs (Streetcar). There’s no comparable European bus technology to import.
So I don’t have a problem with TriMet being cautious with their bus fleets, sticking to the tried-and-true and just shifting to biodiesel (as they are doing now) till other US cities with more urgent fleet-replacement needs save us the trouble of making mistakes. I think we can fix a lot in the bus system while we wait for big buys of new buses.
Mike
Erik said
TriMet also refuses to take lower ridership routes and outsourcing them, as virtually all other transit agencies do.
“Virtually all?” Which ones? No big city I’m familiar with (DC, Philly, NYC) does this. DC and Philly outsource their paratransit van service, but not fixed-route service, no matter how lightly used.
Some ideologues believe the private sector can do everything better and cheaper. OTOH, I have seen no statistics showing that outsourcing consistently gives more bang for the buck. Sometimes it does, sometimes not. This is not something to approach ideologically.
Example: in 18 months in Portland, I haven’t seen a single press story, or post on this blog, complaining about the LIFT paratransit service, which (I think) is operated entirely by TriMet.
OTOH, MetroAccess, the DC-area equivalent, is outsourced and has been a thoroughgoing disaster, through a series of several different contractors. The papers print horror stories of elderly, blind, or wheelchair riders being dropped off in the snow in dangerous places, pickup calls arriving late or not at all, waste/fraud/abuse in the accounting, and so on.
I have no info pro or con about Philly. The DC case doesn’t prove that outsourcing is bad, only that it isn’t necessarily good. I haven’t seen an argument on this blog showing, in detail, how outsourcing lightly used TriMet routes would necessarily be more efficient or cost-effective.
Mike
JK:
Hey Bob R. Here is another view on area car occupancy;
Erik Halstead Says:
…..At last report, in the Portland area the following shows the percentage of trips taken by mode:
(source: http://www.portlandonline.com/shared/cfm/image.cfm?id=65158)
Drove Alone – 42.08%
Shared Ride (as a passenger) – 24.32%
Shared Ride (as a driver) – 17.67%
(Total private automobile – 84.07%)
Looking at the reference, those numbers are for all trips in the Portland metro area. See if you can find a flaw in this logic:
(we are doing proportions, not actual numbers so we can use the percentages.)
Number of cars: 42.08 + 17.67 = 59.75
Number of people: 42.08 + 24.32 + 17.67 = 84.07
The number of people per car = 84.07 / 59.75 = 1.41 people per car. This is a variance from the 1.2 people per car that you found.
Any comments?
Thanks
JK
Chris said
So where should someone (like me) who thinks TriMet should be serving BOTH missions come out? Well, I’d like to see the operating resources increased, so that we can BOTH exploit the federal capital construction funds that are available AND keep expanding and improving bus service. So I don’t want to stop building rail, but I WOULD like to see buses get more attention.
One policy change that I would like to see immediately would be for TriMet to stop bonding operating income to help provide local match for capital dollars. I think the operating income is much too valuable to use in that way. This is an issue that seldom gets talked about.
I agree, and these are important issues for PDX-area citizens who are interested in transport policy. With a really big election coming up in Portland, I think we have a chance to make our influence felt.
We need to stay away from electoral politics on this blog, but let’s encourage all the council and mayoral candidates (including Chris!) to elaborate their transport planks into full-scale white papers and post them on their respective political blogs for all to see and discuss.
Maybe we can get the Mercury or the other political bloggers to turn up the heat on the candidates.
Mike
“Virtually all?” Which ones? No big city I’m familiar with (DC, Philly, NYC) does this
Seattle’s DART (local service/route deviation)
Many Los Angeles County MTA routes
Los Angeles DOT busses
Many Denver area routes
Houston
Montgomery County, Virginia (just outside Washington, DC)
It should also be noted that Corvallis’ entire transit system is contracted out, requiring only a couple of City employees to oversee the service. CTS’s operation is basically consolidated with the Corvalls School District’s school bus operation, with school and transit busses operated by the same company and maintained by the same mechanics in the same shop.
It should also be mentioned that the Port of Portland, the Portland Public Schools (and almost every school district in the region save for Beaverton), and numerous companies like Intel and Nike contract out bus operations to private companies.
So this may be a good opportunity for Portland to hang back and let other cities thrash out the best new technologies before investing heavily.
Apparently you don’t ride the bus…
You haven’t been stuck on a broken bus, or at a bus stop when the bus didn’t show up because it had broken down, or 15 minutes later when the following bus was overloaded and couldn’t stop to let you on (turning what should be, according to Fred Hansen’s “Frequent Service” every 15 minute bus into a minimum 45 minute wait).
Hybrid bus technology is PROVEN. Either why would dozens of transit agencies place large orders for them? I wouldn’t order 250 busses (at $550K a pop for a 40′ bus) if it wasn’t good. But clearly the technology is proven enough that transit agencies like Seattle and Vancouver, BC are placing LARGE orders (>100 busses) for them.
What is Portland waiting for?
Valley Metro in Phoenix is several companies [some contracted, some gov ran] all operating together in a seamless system. Each city plans, funds, and operates their own routes. They work together on “cross town” routes and regional express routes. Some cities choose to operate their buses and some choose to contract out. The whole system uses the same fare structure, route numbering scheme, designs, etc, but they are run as many independent companies.
“People who use transit” is a much larger number than “percentage of total trips taken by transit.”
So exactly what is the actual percentage of TriMet district residents that use transit at least one time per week?
How about as a regular mode of commuting?
How about as a primary mode of transport?
Erik asked
So exactly what is the actual percentage of TriMet district residents that use transit at least one time per week?
How about as a regular mode of commuting?
How about as a primary mode of transport?
Try trimet.org/pdfs/publications/customer_profile_may05.pdf which presents a sampled 2005 survey.
Mike
TT is notoriously unreliable in my experience
When I lived near Lloyd Center I noticed how awful TT was. It would say another MAX was 2 minutes away and 10 minutes later still no MAX. Several times I had to use the trolly to get to SoWat and the tracker said it was a few minutes away. A half hour later the group of would be passengers learned it was temporarily OUT OF ORDER. So I think the TT is as unreliable as the system it tracks. On the plus side, I think the transit tracker times for buses were much more reliable. I think buses are a much better form of transit than these slow overpriced trains that cost way too much to put in and operate.
Try trimet.org/pdfs/publications/customer_profile_may05.pdf which presents a sampled 2005 survey.
43% of district residents use TriMet twice per month.
In other words, 43% use TriMet at least once (for a round-trip).
Has a new survey come out? 2004 (when the survey was commissioned) was a long time ago…
Erik said
43% of district residents use TriMet twice per month.
In other words, 43% use TriMet at least once (for a round-trip).
So it would seem.
Has a new survey come out? 2004 (when the survey was commissioned) was a long time ago…
Well, that’s the latest (indeed the only) survey on the TriMet site. Anyone here from TriMet who can comment?
Mike
A resounding second to Erik Halstead’s post of 4:28 1/27…….I have no experience with TT, but given the stuff that befalls buses more often than not, I doubt its projections would be much use. I’m certainly not buying a cell phone to call for them, or going on-line to look for them in the morning.
I’ve generally found TT to be useful and reasonably accurate, at least for the routes that I’ve used. My only serious complaint is that when buses deviate significantly from the schedule, as with snow routes or bad weather, the system gives up completely, reporting only the scheduled arrivals. In these situations, the schedule itself is completely useless, and TT could truly shine as the only provider of useful information, and instead it just runs and hides.
It shouldn’t be difficult to load the TT database with new data for buses that are on snow routes and have it calculate arrival times based on slower travel with chains. Why aren’t they doing that?
Ed –
Another alternative would be for TT, when not able to make accurate predictions, to simply report where the next bus actually is located.
Regular riders and people familiar with the street layout will be able to tell if a bus is just a few blocks away or stuck miles away, and decide whether further waiting, walking to an alternate location, calling a cab or a friend, etc. is appropriate.
Ed & Bob:
You seem to be saying that, as long as the bus is on schedule, TT works reasonably well.
As long as the bus is on schedule, the little printed schedules they print up also work reasonably well.
It’s just the other 80% of the time that’s a problem.
It shouldn’t be difficult to…
Last time I used transit tracker, it went from “arriving in one minute” to “arriving in 14 minutes” without a bus in sight.
Although, the way some drivers run things, they might want to change it to, “will drive past in…”
You seem to be saying that, as long as the bus is on schedule, TT works reasonably well.
Actually, as long as the bus is _currently_ moving according to the average speed for whatever conditions TT calculates (I don’t know it’s internal workings), it seems to be doing OK. For example, if a bus was delayed earlier by 10 minutes, but is now moving the way it usually does, the TT predictions are still accurate and useful.
It’s when a bus is continuing to move way slower than expectations, it seems, that the predictions become completely useless.
One problem with printed schedules is that they aren’t posted at every single bus stop, sometimes they aren’t updated when they should be, and are sometimes vandalized. I know that many transit-dependent folks still don’t have cell phones, but they are becoming increasingly common and inexpensive, and being able to consult real-time information when there is no current printed schedule is a benefit. When used properly by the agency (hint hint), transit tracker voice systems can also deliver news about delays, snow days, detours, etc., that a printed schedule can never give.
Just today I had two entirely separate Transit Tracker experiences (using the WAP interface but it’s all the same…)
AM Commute, 12 Barbur inbound:
The bus preceding mine showed up on Transit Tracker. The following two busses were “scheduled arrival time”, meaning that Transit Tracker wasn’t doing anything more than those old TV monitors along the old Transit Mall. (Fortunately the bus showed up on time, despite the weather conditions at 700 feet in elevation.)
PM Commute, 12 Barbur outbound:
Two 12s, one at 32 minutes out and one at 36 minutes out. That meant, if Transit Tracker was accurate, that one bus was a no show, the second bus was 17 minutes late, and the third bus was six minutes late.
Upon arrival at Barbur TC, one 12 had apparently departed and another pulled in just as I left the Transit Center – in my automobile that I had my wife drive to pick me up. Thanks to Transit Tracker and TriMet’s reliable bus service, I added two more auto trips on the road today that would have been completely unnecessary, because I had no idea that the second bus was there (nor is there a guarantee that the 94 will catch up to a 12; I’ve missed a lot of busses and had to wait at the TC because the 12 pulled out just as we pulled in – which is technically supposed to be an Operator violation as per the Paddle they are to WAIT for connecting passengers).
One problem with printed schedules is that they aren’t posted at every single bus stop, sometimes they aren’t updated when they should be
You mean like the bus stop schedule mounted at my old stop that showed a “current” 95 schedule despite the bus having been terminated by TriMet for months?
You mean like the bus stop schedule mounted at my old stop that showed a “current” 95 schedule despite the bus having been terminated by TriMet for months?
Yes, Erik, just like that.
Bob said
One problem with printed schedules is that they aren’t posted at every single bus stop, sometimes they aren’t updated when they should be, and are sometimes vandalized.
This would seem to be such a small thing for TriMet to do properly. The big schedule posters in the shelters, the little rectangular schedule cases on the poles where there’s no shelter. This couldn’t possibly be a budget-buster; it’s one of those little quality-of-life things that ought to get proper attention.
OK, sometimes the schedules get vandalized, but the vast majority could be correct at every stop. This would not be tolerated in Europe, and shouldn’t be tolerated here.
Mike
This would seem to be such a small thing for TriMet to do properly.
There are over 10,000 listed stops in the system, according to a ridership count spreadsheet I have. A lot of those stops overlap — where you have two or more bus lines running on the same street, each individual stop is going to be counted twice or more in this spreadsheet — but it’s still got to be many, many thousands of individual, distinct stops out there.
To post an up-to-date paper schedule, even in the small pole-mounted schedule holders, is not a logistical impossibility but very cumbersome and expensive in the long run. Simply posting a permanent stop ID # and allowing mobile device users to call in for real-time information seems easier to manage.
And believe me, I’d love to see up-to-date paper schedules at every stop. We’ve actually had knocks on our door near midnight, after we’d gone to bed, from complete strangers who wanted to know when the next bus was coming. (It wasn’t coming — service had stopped a couple of hours earlier.)
Some of what appears to be part of the discussion in this thread relates to fares applied to the costs of transit operations, but leaves out the capital costs for transit infrastructure, vehicles and equipment, and comparing that to the costs of both capital costs of building roadways and the operation costs of maintaining roadways. Therefore the cost comparisons lack a true comparison of comparing apples to apples and oranges to oranges.
And I also agree that not only TriMet busses, but transit busses in general ought to be required to get better fuel mileage. Instead of 5 to 6 miles per gallon, and because public funds are used to pay for the fuel, there needs to be legislation that requires a much higher bus fleet average. If the socialistic politicians think technology exists for cars to obtain 35 to 44 miles per gallon, then the technology also exists for busses to get 20 miles per gallon and that should be the standard requirement.
Furthermore, to suggest that rail transit promotes development is at best only a half truth; otherwise there would be no need for taxpayer funded property give-a-ways, property tax abatements and other taxpayer funded subsidies and perks that are handed out to developers like free candy when development occurs along the transit rail routes.
Bob R.:
I once posted bills for a living. It isn’t rocket science. You drive around with a high-efficiency stapler and tack them up.
Same thing for putting schedules on signs at bus stops. Sorry, I don’t grasp the logistical impossibility here. We’ve already established that TriMet’s got lots of staff vehicles….
Applause for Dave’s post of 28 Jan 7:55 PM.
There will be significant improvements to TransitTracker’s reliability, especially in inclement weather, in the near future. One of the immediate improvements will be the ability to address routes which are reasonably close to on-schedule, but running slowly because of chains. As someone else here suggested, the arrivals will be announced by distance away from the stop rather than the much more tenuous prediction on time.
One of the improvements will be the ability to “cancel” a bus that never left the garage which is one of the reasons buses listed in TransitTracker never arrive at the stop–or buses that break down mid-route.
There will also be a new push in the next few months to have Stop ID numbers posted on “blue poles” (the new stop signs); staff resources have been an issue. It’s not quite as simple as sticking up bills on telephone poles, of course, as each Stop ID number and its accompanying information has to be accurately tied to a single stop and the information displays are designed to be relatively vandal-resistant and permanent. It takes a good bit longer to install one than driving around with a staple gun.
TriMet actually does not have “lots of staff vehicles”; they are at a premium and new vehicles have not been purchased for about six years. A lack of vehicles and the people to drive them is part of the “staff resources” mentioned above.
To Bob R’s point, there are roughly 7500 stops in the system. Getting current and correct information posted at each of them is an enormous task, and keeping the information current is virtually impossible. The new pole-mounted displays will (as he suggested) include a Stop ID number and relevant information about the route served, which will not require updating at every service change.
Bob,
TriMet has about 7,500 bus stops.
A little history – back in 2000-2001, in an attempt to convince TriMet to post schedule information at each stop, I initiated an experiment by posting, with the help of a few friends, schedule information on about 250 stops on half a dozen routes.
Time point information and route diagrams from TriMet’s printed schedules was physically cut and pasted, then copied onto an adhesive backed waterproof substrate which in turn was adhered to bus stop poles. Where bus signs were attached to utility poles, a small metal plate was screwed to the pole as a backing for the schedule label.
I offered TriMet my services to install and maintain schedules on all 7,500 stops for, I think, $20,000 a year. (I’m sorry, I can’t find a copy of the memo to this affect that I sent to Fred Hansen). My offer was ignored.
About that same time, TriMet decided to purchase schedule holders for their new bus stop signs and post the schedules themselves. By the way, the schedule layout they chose was almost identical to the one I designed.
Terry Parker wrote: If the socialistic politicians think technology exists for cars to obtain 35 to 44 miles per gallon
Terry, my own car, a mid-size 4-door hatchback with a high safety rating, has exceeded 45MPG (average of all trips) for the past 2 years. It’s not just “socialistic politicians” that think cars can obtain high MPGs, it’s the car companies who are building such vehicles and have been building them for over a decade.
A trip this weekend through the coast range, complete with snow and ice, vehicle fully loaded with passengers and cargo, heat and defog running, exceeded 40MPG.
Not all vehicles will see such fuel economy improvements, there’s always a need for larger trucks, but it’s the fleet averages that are important. The new CAFE standards, by the way, aren’t pegged to the new EPA tests, so the MPG targets are actually easier to achieve than first impressions might imply.
Thanks Jeff F for the info about Transit Tracker’s future.
Jim, I’d like to know more about what your proposal entailed. That’s just $2.66 per bus stop per year, including printing, collating, walking/driving the routes, removal of old schedules, placement of new ones, etc. Were you figuring that over time some stops would rarely need replacing/updating?
Elee’s example of handbills doesn’t really apply because we’re talking about having different information at each stop (or sets of stops based on known time points.)
In theory, a software application could generate and print all the individualized stop schedules, and collate them in the correct order for walking/driving, and take a lot of the busy work out of the equation. But would someone, at least once a year, have to go out and inspect every pole, just to be sure there was no vandalism or incomplete information, or “deleted” routes like the one Erik mentioned?
I’d offer to write the software application if it doesn’t exist yet, but in my own business I’d charge more than $20K for a custom application with so many parameters which has to present accurate, time-critical information to consumers.
Bob,
As I said, I can’t find a copy of my written offer, but as I recall, it didn’t include materials and printing but it did include replacing schedules as needed on a regular basis because of schedule changes or vandalism, something TriMet does not do.
Bob R said: “Terry, my own car, a mid-size 4-door hatchback with a high safety rating, has exceeded 45MPG (average of all trips) for the past 2 years. It’s not just “socialistic politicians” that think cars can obtain high MPGs, it’s the car companies who are building such vehicles and have been building them for over a decade.”
The peewee car you refer to as a mid-size as reflected by revised socialistic government standards does not fit everybody’s needs and/or lifestyles. Just how many banana or apple sized boxes can you fit in that mini-toy? Twenty, forty or even fifty? What kind of trailer can you pull with it? How many six foot plus and/or large plus sized individuals can fit in it comfortably? Since light duty trucks must also meet the fleet average standards, show me a multi-purpose van or SUV (which is actually a pickup with four doors and a roof) than can get 45 MPG fully loaded and has all the safety and security features including all wheel drive.
said Jeff F
To Bob R’s point, there are roughly 7500 stops in the system. Getting current and correct information posted at each of them is an enormous task, and keeping the information current is virtually impossible.
I lived in Holland in 1974-75, before PCs, laser printers, and other technology to simplify the human effort. Yet everywhere I went in the cities or on rural routes, every bus stop had a custom-tailored schedule. They looked hand-typed.
These days in Europe, many (if not most) bus stops have real-time arrival displays like the simple ones used by Portland Streetcar. OK, that’s a big investment.
But keeping the printed schedules up to date is feasible. Once the pole-mounted holders are in place, at every service change (how often? once or twice a year?) send a person out to follow that route with a sheaf of tailored schedules (easy to produce with today’s software) and change the schedules. It’s the equivalent of one extra bus run, per line, per service change.
The new pole-mounted displays will (as he suggested) include a Stop ID number and relevant information about the route served, which will not require updating at every service change.
That would be a good start.
But in my view, it’s not good enough, because doing it right doesn’t cost millions. Maybe one person-day per line. How many bus lines do we have? 100 or so? It could even be outsourced, with TriMet supervisors spot-checking the results.
As I said, if they could do it in Western Europe 30 years ago, they can do it here, now. It’s not rocket science, really it’s not.
Mike
Hogwash, I tell you.
My company employs people whose job is specifically to drive to 350 some off points in a day, stop, look at something, enter data into a computer (occassionally having to verify the data), and go to the next point – all while watching out for pit bulls, unlocking and locking gates, looking for hazardous conditions, etc.
If my company (and we are a very heavily regulated public utility) can do this five days a week, 52 weeks a year- across a six state territory, TriMet can figure out how to get a few people to do the same job once every six months or a year – especially given that schedules don’t change for all routes.
Fred Hansen has a Prius at his disposal. I suggest that he have some of his staffers get out of the office and spend a couple days to do it. In fact I suggest he do it as well as he might actually get to have some face-to-face time with some transit riders, and maybe get some first hand perspective of what service changes really mean (now that he’s forced to be put in the position of answering customer questions about it, instead of relying on field personnel.)
I’m not saying this tongue-in-cheek, what I am hearing are EXCUSES for why it can’t be done. 7500 stops…if 1500 of them have to be updated for a service change…figure 200 a day for a team (two people) or 400 a day if two teams are used – the project could be done in FOUR DAYS and requires TWO cars (I know TriMet has far more than two staff cars. Even some 4×4 Ford Explorers, for yet I have yet to figure out why TriMet would ever need, considering that given all of the snow that we’ve had lately I have not seen one actually in the snow.)
Terry, you just can’t resist throwing insults, can you?
The peewee car you refer to as a mid-size
It is a mid-size by any standard classification, including Edmunds.com, a pretty neutral source for car-buying information.
as reflected by revised socialistic government standards
Huh?
does not fit everybody’s needs and/or lifestyles.
I never said it did. I even brought up that there will always be a need for large vehicles (which you conveniently ignored), but that the fleet average is what CAFE applies to.
Just how many banana or apple sized boxes can you fit in that mini-toy?
You mean you don’t know? How can you criticize so colorfully when you actually don’t know?
Once, I hauled five (count ’em) 2-drawer file cabinets and a plywood top with room to spare.
This weekend, we had three full-size suitcases, two carry-on roller-cases, one oversize Rubbermaid bin, two cardboard boxes, spare bedding, tire chains, food supplies, beach shoes/boots, briefcase, and two passengers.
Twenty, forty or even fifty?
Really, Terry, you’ve gone far out to sea this time. I’ll answer your question, but somehow I doubt it will satisfy you.
An apple box is approximately 1.11 cubic feet. That means about 15-20 with the back seats down and two people, or 20-25 with the front seat flat (yes, the front seats fold flat into beds if you want) with one person.
What kind of trailer can you pull with it?
Not designed for towing. So what? I never said it had to apply to all people’s needs, so you’re chasing down a big, fat, flaming straw man. Hair on fire! Look over there! Straw man on fire!
How many six foot plus and/or large plus sized individuals can fit in it comfortably?
Four. The Prius has a taller roof-line than most mid-size cars, and in 2006 they reconfigured the back seats to allow for even more head room. There is more rear-seat legroom in a Prius than in a Camry. Of course, we went over all of this last year when you brought up the same silly flames, but you seem to have forgotten everything.
Since light duty trucks must also meet the fleet average standards, show me a multi-purpose van or SUV (which is actually a pickup with four doors and a roof) than can get 45 MPG fully loaded and has all the safety and security features including all wheel drive.
Terry, why are you holding light trucks to a 45MPG standard? The revised CAFE standards set a target _fleet_ MPG of 35mpg by 2020. For every vehicle which achieves higher than that rating (efficient mid-size cars, for example), another vehicle can be sold below that rating without penalty.
There’s already a multi-purpose SUV with high ratings: The 2008 Ford Escape Hybrid. The 4WD version has a combined EPA rating of 28MPG. It can carry over 50 apple boxes, and can tow a 1,000lb utility trailer or pop-up camper. It has all the safety features including traction control, anti-lock brakes, side airbags, and 4WD, and lists under $30K. That’s with today’s technology.
As battery technology and power systems gradually improve, performance of hybrid cars will improve as well (without going plug-in, which is a separate topic.) It’s been proven that simply putting higher-capacity batteries and stronger electric motors in existing hybrids improves fuel economy significantly.
As battery prices drop, mainstream hybrids will achieve better ratings. (A Lithium-Ion battery, depending on the chemistry and packaging features, can get over twice the storage in the same space as current NiMH batteries, while at the same time weighing half as much.)
If you need something bigger and more powerful, consider the 84-Apple-Box Toyota Highlander Hybrid, with a towing capacity of 3,500lbs and a combined EPA rating of 26mpg.
Automakers have the technology today to make cars which meet a wide variety of needs and get good fuel economy, and they have 12 years to reach the new CAFE standards. I think that the engineers are bright enough to continue to craft solutions and will meet the goals. (Which are, after all, lower than several other countries have TODAY.)
You seem to be at complete odds with another frequent poster here, JK, perhaps you’ve read some of his posts. He seems to think that cars are tremendously inexpensive and highly efficient, while you seem to think that it is an expensive and onerous, if not impossible burden to produce cars which serve people’s needs while being efficient. I suspect the truth is somewhere between these two viewpoints.
Hogwash, I tell you. … what I am hearing are EXCUSES for why it can’t be done
I didn’t say it couldn’t be done, I just said it’s cumbersome and expensive and more complex than putting up handbills. It also doesn’t provide any information about delays, detours, weather conditions, etc.
Jim Howell has proposed that it could be far less expensive and easier than my estimate, but I’ve never said it couldn’t be done.
Why do you perceive anything anyone says around here with which you disagree as being an absolute negative?
Bob,
As I understand it, the California CAFÉ standards that our Governor with his socialistic agenda wants to adopt (but was rightly rejected by the EPA) calls for a fleet average of 44 MPG in a few years. At the same time he is imposing only E10 or a greater ethanol mix be sold at the pump to Oregon drivers. E10 and a greater ethanol blend reduce the MPG for most vehicles anywhere from 5 to 15 percent, but usually costs more and is uses more fossil fuel to produce and transport. Now this mixed up Governor wants to spend taxpayer dollars to sue the Federal Government to get his way.
As for mid-sized cars, I too have a “truly” midsized car. It is an old station wagon that is approaching its 40th birthday and still going. It is larger than most current models called full-sized. I use it as a back up vehicle and when I need the extra cargo space or width that will not fit in my later model midsized vehicle. A Toyota Prius is a small compact car no matter how it is described by the manufacturer or Edmunds. The Ford Escape is a cute little compact bobtail SUV that in reality can only carry only about 10 to 15 boxes of apple box size. I have a friend that as one (not the Hybrid version) so I should know. He also has a full-sized Ford pickup for hauling larger loads and towing. Furthermore, I have two other friends that have a Prius. Both of them also own vans to do the real work. There is reality check here that must be recognized. Just looking at the manufacturer’s inch by inch cubic cargo space of a vehicle does not actually equate to the number of rectangle boxes that will actually fit in that space. Weight can also be a factor.
The California Air Resources Board proposed standards affect CO2 emissions, and therefore, indirectly, MPG. However, they are based on fleet averages characteristic of the mix of vehicles in California, not other regions, and can’t therefore be directly viewed as a fixed MPG standard.
Source: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ccms/ab1493_v_cafe_study.pdf
our Governor with his socialistic agenda
Is there anyone in statewide office whom you don’t consider to be a socialist? Just curious.
I too have a “truly” midsized car.
I see you put “truly” in quotes. Was your car ever officially classed as a mid-size? Will any contemporary car buyer, when presented with the term “mid-size”, think of your car rather than the types of cars which have been available for numerous years?
I use it as a back up vehicle and when I need the extra cargo space
This analogy ties in very well with the concept of fleet averages. For two-car households (which may be the majority of households), if one car is an efficient daily driver, and the other has additional capacity for discretionary trips, then the daily driver car will wear out and be replaced more often. Supposing that 2.5X as many 40MPG cars are purchased in the life of the household as 20MPG light trucks, the fleet average is within spitting distance of 35MPG.
A Toyota Prius is a small compact car no matter how it is described by the manufacturer or Edmunds.
Then what is a Corolla or a Yaris? (EPA class “Compact” and “Subcompact”, respectively.) Each successively smaller than a Prius, what should we call them by your “true” standards? For American cars, the comparison could be a Ford Fusion (Midsize), Ford Focus (Compact), or Chevrolet Malibu (Midsize), Chevrolet Cobalt (Subcompact), Chevrolet Aveo (Subcompact).
Note that there are separate vehicle size classes for station wagons, which may be a partial source of your confusion.
looking at the manufacturer’s inch by inch cubic cargo space of a vehicle does not actually equate to the number of rectangle boxes that will actually fit in that space.
I told you what I’ve actually carried in the vehicle, Terry. I’m fully aware of what can and can’t fit in my very own car, thank you very much. When I told you the number of apple boxes that would fit in my car, I was already scaling back considerably from the manufacturer’s total volume statistics.
When you’re done bashing alleged socialist conspiracies, size classifications, fuel economy standards, and my car, can we get back to a discussion of transit and choice riders? At least there was no mention this time of freeloading kamikaze bicyclists — that’s progress — credit where credit is due.
“When you’re done bashing alleged socialist conspiracies, size classifications, fuel economy standards, and my car, can we get back to a discussion of transit and choice riders? At least there was no mention this time of freeloading kamikaze bicyclists — that’s progress — credit where credit is due.”
Hear, Hear. The heaviest thing I’ve ever towed with my bicycle was about 300 lbs. The trailer that I used for it will hold about 12 apple boxes, (although not all full of apples at the same time. Not that I need 12 boxes of apples at once, and I suspect that neither does Bob, but apparently Terry does.) And it gets about about 600 mpg, if you convert the gasoline to Calories, and then make them edible, and eat them…
And I didn’t pay a dime in gas taxes to do it, cause I’m a freeloading commie.
[Moderator: Italics corrected.]
Bob R. Says:
Ed –
Another alternative would be for TT, when not able to make accurate predictions, to simply report where the next bus actually is located.
Why don’t they just let the caller be patched through to the bus and they can ask “where are you at?” I’m sure TriMet’s friendly drivers wouldn’t mind giving even better customer service than they do today. Or at least give the caller an option to speak to a live person at the call center…..
I’m going to get this thread BACK onto the topic of “finding the CHOICE riders” on TriMet.
AM Commute – Intended to ride line 92 South Beaverton Express between Scholls Ferry & Nimbus to Naito & Harrison, leaving approximately 6:54 AM.
Arrived at bus stop at 6:50 AM. Within minutes a 45 Garden Home shows up with a non-functioning headsign, but the bus ID number was 45XX. Waved bus off.
6:58 AM. 62 Murray Blvd. shows up; waved him off (he can’t get me anywhere I need to go, except to wait for a 56.)
7:05 AM. 45 shows up. According to Transit Tracker (WAP interface) the next 92 bus is still 12 minutes out. Decide to ride the 45 bus, because unlike TriMet I am held to attendance and performance standards.
Approximately 7:20 AM at Multnomah Village – we catch up with the 45 in front of us. We follow him all the way to Naito & Harrison.
Arrival time: 7:35 AM. Had the 92 operated ON TIME and ON SCHEDULE I should have arrived approximately 7:20 AM.
While waiting for my crosswalk signal, I observe a 38 Boones Ferry bus driving westbound on the Harrison Connector and turns left (southbound) on Naito, even though the headsign indicates it is a Portland bound bus. This bus SHOULD have travelled Terwilliger to Barbur to Naito, and served the stop I had just got off at (the same as the 45).
Was there a problem on Barbur? No, because a 96 Tualatin/I-5 Express was now stopped at the traffic light ON Naito, from Tualatin travelling northbound. The last place he could have gotten on Barbur was – you guessed it – Terwilliger. So if the 96 had no problem, the 38 should have had no problem. Apparently TriMet felt like running mysterious re-routes.
PM Commute – Intended to ride the 12 Barbur Blvd. from Broadway & Montgomery (PSU) to Barbur & I-5. Transit Tracker said I had seven minutes to get to my bus stop. I got there in five.
A 1 and a 44 had just pulled away from the stop and there is one bus stopped at the Broadway & Jackson stop (which isn’t a 12 stop), so the bus hadn’t passed me. I wait at the stop, and a 94 pulls up. I get on the 94 – figure if the 12 is right behind, I’ll have a short (5-10 minute wait) at Barbur Blvd TC and would rather wait there than without shelter at PSU (because TriMet sees fit to only install one two person bus stop shelter at PSU which is grossly inconsistent with passenger counts there.)
Shortly after 5:00 we arrive at the Barbur Blvd TC. Five other people are standing around waiting for the 12, in addition to the seven or eight people at Burlingame and the numerous other people at stops along the way I didn’t count.
Between 5:00 and 5:30, five outbound 94s came and went, two inbound 12s came and went, a 64 came and went, a SMART bus and a LIFT bus were in the area, and an “out of service” bus pulled up off of Taylors Ferry, stoped for a few minutes, and then left northbound on Barbur.
It should be noted that TWO of the 94s were running using New Flyer D40LFs (I thought that express busses were supposed to run with the oldest busses, saving the newest busses for Frequent Service routes. That’s what Ross Williams repeatedly told me…)
According to Transit Tracker, after my bus the next 12B bus outbound to Sherwood was scheduled in 33 minutes – meaning that TWO BUSSES before mine FAILED TO RUN, and ONE BUS after mine FAILED TO RUN.
My morning commute was lengthened by at least 15 minutes thanks to TriMet (there were no weather concerns this morning), and my evening commute was lengthened by at least 30 minutes thanks to TriMet (while it started snowing at Barbur Blvd TC there was no icing, and therefore no impact on bus operations). However it is apparent that TriMet’s goal is to choose riders who have the ability to BUY A CAR AND DRIVE IT TO A PARK AND RIDE, as opposed to serving door-to-door transit riders who “choose” to use TriMet for ALL of their transit needs rather than just using TriMet as a cheap, subsidized place to park.
In addition express busses run over 50% of their time empty deadheading either to/from the garage, or at the beginning/end of the route. Add to that that the 94 Express sees 1/2 of its passengers unload at Barbur TC (meaning the run to Sherwood has just a few passengers), and it becomes painfully evident that passengers on the 12 subsidize the 94. Meanwhile because Fred Hansen is too busy planning MAX lines, he is oblivious to this service meltdown that has occurred over two days, on a FREQUENT SERVICE line that failed to provide FREQUENT SERVICE.
TriMet. See where it takes you. It took me to a Transit Center where I had the pleasure of standing in freezing temperatures waiting for scheduled busses that didn’t show up, all the while holding an annual pass valued at $836.
Why do you perceive anything anyone says around here with which you disagree as being an absolute negative?
Bob, see my above quote. I’m sure that the “pro-rail, anti-bus” advocates would term it a “rant” which I see as a derogatory term.
Tell me – if you were told TriMet would provide reliable, quality service, but it didn’t deliver – exactly how should I put a “positive” spin on that?
If TriMet misallocates funds and vehicles, how is that a “positive”?
I’m sorry but I find TriMet’s rationale for its inability to update schedule information an EXCUSE and nothing less. I’m sure Jim Howell has some great ideas, but why won’t TriMet implement them? Why is it that when it comes to bus operations, TriMet is a cheapskate, but when it comes to rail operations there is no expense spared?
And, how should I see that as a “positive”???????
Put yourself in my shoes, Bob. Come ride the 12 with me anytime, I’ll even treat you to Starbucks – that is, if the bus will get me there, or if you don’t mind a several block walk because the 94 doesn’t serve the stops at Starbucks. I’ll show you what I face each and every day. It isn’t a positive, happy-go-lucky, “carefree” commute. When my wife is literally BEGGING me to buy a car (which would be the second car for our household, because we CHOOSE to own only one car for our three person household), even though it’ll cost $500-$600 month in additional expenses, and that my transit pass is free thanks to my employer, there is something wrong.
I’m sure that the “pro-rail, anti-bus” advocates would term it a “rant”
There you go again with this “pro rail, anti-bus” nonsense. NOBODY here, except possibly JK based on some recent comments elsewhere, is anti-bus.
The ONLY person in this thread that expressed the opinion that it would be difficult to maintain printed schedules at every stop (and that improving Transit Tracker would be time better spent), was ME, and you mischaracterized that as saying that printed schedules _couldn’t_ be done.
I don’t need to ride the #12 with you, because I’ve NEVER disputed your accounting of the problems you’ve experienced riding the #12. You don’t have to prove to me that there are problems, I believe you.
But I’m just an “anti-bus” zealot in your eyes, and I’m not sure what I could ever do to convince you otherwise.
NOBODY here, except possibly JK based on some recent comments elsewhere, is anti-bus.
Heck, I’m not even anti-transit! I ride the bus every day and the buses in Salem are much quieter and the drivers are actually FRIENDLY. What a concept :)
I just think they could do MUCH better with the huge monetary resources they have at their disposal.
At the same time he is imposing only E10 or a greater ethanol mix be sold at the pump to Oregon drivers.
Ummmm, careful. My 2000 Honda Civic can’t run on more than about 10% ethanol (E10) without burning up hoses and seals.
Sorry, I only get ~40 mpg. Isn’t that good enough to not be ruined?
you mischaracterized that as saying that printed schedules _couldn’t_ be done.
Let’s review what I said:
I’m not saying this tongue-in-cheek, what I am hearing are EXCUSES for why it can’t be done. 7500 stops…if 1500 of them have to be updated for a service change…figure 200 a day for a team (two people) or 400 a day if two teams are used – the project could be done in FOUR DAYS and requires TWO cars
Now, you, Bob R., took MY comment and turned it into:
Hogwash, I tell you. … what I am hearing are EXCUSES for why it can’t be done
Followed by:
I didn’t say it couldn’t be done
You will note that YOU, Bob R., the Moderator of this forum, MISINTERPRETED what I stated, then took two entirely separate portions of a post, quoted me out of context, and skewed it to suggest that I stated that “printed schedules couldn’t be done”
Meanwhile, if you take the time to actually re-read my post, you will clearly see that I was questioning why TriMet could not take the effort to do it, given that my employer employes numerous employees to make numerous stops in the field on a daily basis; if my employer can do it, TriMet certainly can take a few days to have its existing employees replace schedules at bus stops. I clearly stated that it could be done, but that TriMet is placing an obstacle towards doing it.
But I’m just an “anti-bus” zealot in your eyes, and I’m not sure what I could ever do to convince you otherwise.
Well, you can start by actually addressing the discussion points and adding some mature, thoughtful feedback towards my comments – and refrain from making personally directed comments that are against the forum guidelines.
Why do you perceive anything anyone says around here with which you disagree as being an absolute negative?
Once again, you took my statements out of context. My comment was directed solely towards TriMet’s refusal (for whatever silly reason) to update posted schedules – NOT that updating the schedules couldn’t be done.
You interpreted it as suggesting that the idea to do so was negative. I want to know why TriMet cannot gather the resources to do it.
But not only did you misinterpret the comment, you also then decided not to address the concern towards the clearly poor level of service that I received from TriMet, but to make an extended post that was a “personally directed” post towards me. Now, I thought that wasn’t permitted in the guidelines of Portland Transport but I guess as the Moderator you have a different set of rules.
you also then decided not to address the concern towards the clearly poor level of service that I received from TriMet …
I absolutely and explicitly addressed it, Erik. I said that I’ve never disputed your accounting of the problems you’ve experienced on the #12 bus. Do you want me to run around holding up a sign saying “I believe Erik”? What’s it going to take?
but to make an extended post that was a “personally directed” post towards me.
I’ve responded in-kind to the substance of your comments without directly attacking you beyond calling into question just why it is you continue to misconstrue my remarks, which is within the bounds of discourse here. (And I’ve let your comments of a similar nature stand, so what exactly is your beef with the rules?) In another thread you called my remarks “clearly biased” and I let that stand, and you never apologized or retracted your remarks despite ample references showing no bias, but what do I know?
If you now want me to believe that your comments in this thread were directed at TriMet and not at me, well, thanks for the clarification. However, your quote at the time was “what I am hearing are EXCUSES for why it can’t be done. 7500 stops…”, which refers to discussions being had _here_, in this thread, not elsewhere. Given that you’ve attacked numerous statements I’ve made in the past as being “clearly biased” or some other negative criticism, please I beg your forgiveness for being just a tad sensitive as to what you might have to say this time around.
but I guess as the Moderator you have a different set of rules.
Is this blog to become the “Erik gets to say what he wants as forcefully as he wants, but if the moderator pushes back rhetorically the moderator is automatically a hypocrite” blog?
Now, now, gentlemen, let’s not fight.:-)
Mike
Now, now, gentlemen, let’s not fight.:-)
Where’s the fun in not fighting?
Sigh. Deep breath. Time for bed. Mike is right. See you all tomorrow.
Bob,
Just for the record, the Highway Loss Data Institute that keeps statistics for auto insurance companies which they use to set rates classifies the Toyota Prius along with the Honda Civic Hybrid as small specialty cars. The Ford Escape is classified as a small SUV. The Ford Explorer and Chevy Trail Blazer (for example) are classified as midsized SUVs.
As for my old station wagon, Starting in 1960 Ford introduced the Falcon as a compact economy car. The actual size of a 1960 Ford Falcon (I once owned a 63 convertible) is possibly slightly bigger, but compares in size to a Toyota Camry the Highway Loss data Institute classifies as a midsize. Throughout the 1960s and 1970s the American auto manufacturers basically produced three sizes of cars along with some specialty sporty cars like the Ford Mustang. During that period of time, while the compact cars eventually got smaller, the midsize vehicles got bigger. My old station wagon is one of those models considered to be in the middle of the lineup when it was built (midsize), but is still bigger than cars considered the large cars of today as identified by the Highway Loss Data Institute.
As for your (off topic) question; “Is there anyone in statewide office whom you don’t consider to be a socialist?”
Let me answer it this way because I do not know most statewide office holders, I consider a politician or bureaucrat socialistic when they attempt to control the lifestyle, housing and transportation choices of the people, often through the use of tax codes and subsidies, rather than promoting tax equity, fairness in paying for what you use, and representing the people including their individual choices.
And Bob, I do agree with you about getting back to the topic at hand. However it was you as the moderator that took the conversation off course when I agreed with a previous post that TriMet busses should get better fuel mileage, compared it with current legislation for cars, and you started talking about your own car picking apart what I posted. So I won’t take it any farther if you don’t.
Terry –
Just for the record, you’re comparing a car from 1960, long before there were EPA size classifications (or even an EPA!) to a 2004-onward vehicle (mid 1990’s if you count the first generation Prius.)
The actual size of a 1960 Ford Falcon … is possibly slightly bigger, but compares in size to a Toyota Camry the Highway Loss data Institute classifies as a midsize.
The wheelbase of a 1960 Ford Falcon was 109.5 inches, just 3.2 inches longer than a Prius. A 2008 Camry is 109.3 inches and the 2006 Camry was 107.1 inches (0.8 inches longer than a Prius). I think I’m completely within my rights to go along with Toyota, the EPA, Edmunds, and Kelly Blue Book as calling the Prius a Midsize. The 2006 Camry and 1960 Falcon Wagon are almost exactly the same total length. The Prius is 6 inches shorter than the Falcon Sedan but that’s mainly from engine compartment space — interiors are comparable — and the Prius is 4 inches taller than either Falcon. (Translation: All the cars are in the ballpark for being mid-size, and, gasp, the EPA classifies the modern cars as mid-size. The Falcon was out of production before the EPA existed, so we’ll never know its precise EPA classification.)
The Prius has 20%+ more horsepower than the Falcon, weighs about 500lbs more, yet still achieves about 50% better fuel economy. Proof that in the past 30-some years that the auto industry has improved the power/efficiency ratio considerably. There’s no real technical reason to think the industry won’t improve efficiency modestly further in the next 12 years.
…During that period of time, while the compact cars eventually got smaller, the midsize vehicles got bigger.
Apparently not so much bigger.
My old station wagon is one of those models considered to be in the middle of the lineup when it was built (midsize), but is still bigger than cars considered the large cars of today as identified by the Highway Loss Data Institute.
But not so much according to the EPA, Edmunds, Toyota, or Kelly Blue Book.
As for your (off topic) question; “Is there anyone in statewide office whom you don’t consider to be a socialist?”
I’ve checked, you were the first one to bring up “socialistic politicians” in this thread. (January 29th, 1:46am) Therefore, you win the award for taking things into off-topic territory.
However it was you as the moderator that took the conversation off course when I agreed with a previous post that TriMet busses should get better fuel mileage, compared it with current legislation for cars, and you started talking about your own car picking apart what I posted.
To sum up: You brought up car mileage FIRST (along with “socialistic politicians”) and when I responded, *I* was the one going off topic. Got it. If that’s what it takes to get you to stay on topic (for once), I’ll take the blame. Boo me.
So I won’t take it any farther if you don’t.
You just did take it further. But since I obviously took your bait (because you were yet again wrong), I’ll grant you one more comment about the 1960 series Ford Falcon wagon vs. the 2004+ series Toyota Prius (with a possible last rebuttal from me) before declaring either car officially verboten in this thread.
“I consider a politician or bureaucrat socialistic when they attempt to control the lifestyle, housing and transportation choices of the people, often through the use of tax codes and subsidies, rather than promoting tax equity, fairness in paying for what you use, and representing the people including their individual choices.”
Doesn’t that include pretty much everyone? For instance, the war in Iraq wasn’t paid for by the people that got the hazard pay to fight it, and the owners of Blackwater, it was paid for by everyone, (or no one, since we borrowed all the money to fight it.) If it had been limited to the people that stood to gain from it, they could have simply raised the money and invaded themselves. Likewise the CRC: If there really was enough demand to pay for a new bridge why hasn’t some private company stepped up and done it already? The fact that none have says that there isn’t enough demand for it, and therefor anyone that is advocating for it, (other than as a privately built and tolled facility,) is a clearly a pinko commie that hates America…
Hi, Bob R.
Any comments on the higher implied average vehicle occupancy I posted above? It appears that the real number may be 1.41 people per car instead of the lower number you were promoting.
Thanks
JK
Jim, I’m looking at the commute column from that data source and seeing an average occupancy of 1.06 for commute trips. Commute trips are the trips best served by buses, (quite a few bus lines only run during commute hours, and almost all of them run more often at commute hours,) so if you want to compare private cars to buses, that would be the number you’d want to use…
Given that buses don’t run at 2am, comparing the average trip made at 2am, and finding out that (hopefully,) all the drunk people are not driving themselves, but are being driven by others, well, you’ll reach a very different conclusion…
There are only about 700 TriMet drivers on duty at peak hours, but there are way more than 700 designated drivers and taxis on the road at 2am…
So my comment on the 1.41 number is that it clearly demonstrates the need for 24 hour mass transit service, and how it would actually be more efficient than what we have now.
Folks, when I read these fighting & feuding emails my eyes glaze over. I’m not sure how or why you’re feuding with each other, but I like Erik Halstead’s use of actual, real-time instances of what’s wrong with Trimet bus service. Trimet didn’t particularly give a damn about wasting 45 minutes out of Erik’s day; it never particularly concerned itself about packing me on one of its sardine cans (or leaving me at the curb) for 1 1/2 hours a day for a commute that takes me 20 minutes round trip by car; and it certainly isn’t going to attract any choice riders with its obvious disregard for its customers’ time comfort and convenience. Now, might anyone have any response to these observations, or do we all shrug and say, well, that’s just how it is, and BTW continue to subsidize Trimet management without regard for results produced?
“There’s already a multi-purpose SUV with high ratings: The 2008 Ford Escape Hybrid.”
Add the Toyota Highlander hybrid to that list. My parents have the limited edition and it is the fastest, quietest, and probably nicest car I have ever driven. And it averages almost 35 mpg. A full-size SUV (in the pre-Hummer days)
Yes, elee I will reply to you.
Would you like some sour grapes with your whine?
I am a TriMet bus operator and I do give a DAMN. I am a professional. Every day that I work, I am “pressed and dressed” in a clean uniform, I treat my customers as adults and with respect–I expect the same from them, but don’t always get it. My first priority is safety over everything else, then order, then and only then, comes the schedule. If I am running late-and this is rare for me-I can assure you that I have a damn good reason for it.
Unfortunately Erik argues with ancedotal evidence…hardly good data. TriMet tracks every bus, knows when and where they are late…defined as 5 mintues or more behind schedule. Reliability data for every bus lines is available; I get these for 85 Swan Island and 72 Killingsworth on a regular basis. Schedules are adjusted when there is consistant reliability issues…note the changes on the 72 in the last year.
As bus riders, we know that things happen…extra board operators get lost, buses break down…but at the least one needs to not draw conclusions from one or two bad experiences.
But back to Choice Riders…the data I noted above shows that light rail has more riders, lower cost per ride and higher reliability…hence people’s preference.
How to make buses work better? more training for operators; continued schedule adjustments; stops at curb extensions and signal pre-emption; shelters where ridership warrents them; more sidewalks/crosswalks along suburban routes for better access; more frequent service (better than larger buses); nicer stops. Trouble is…all these take a lot of money, but the pay back in ridership/fares is not always there.
JK asks: Any comments on the higher implied average vehicle occupancy I posted above?
I think Matthew covered the commute vs. non-commute trips issue pretty well.
It appears that the real number may be 1.41 people per car instead of the lower number you were promoting.
I haven’t been “promoting” a number, I’ve been referencing ODOT’s number. This number comes from accident statistics.
I’m “promoting” it no more than ODOT, the emergency responders who record the statistics, or the people involved in the accidents are. The Portland (city of) number for 2005 is 1.27. The statewide average (aggregated only from cities with a population of over 10,000) is 1.32.
I don’t have time right now to go over the 2005 chart and add up the cities just within the Portland Metro Area, but just glancing at a few numbers I think it’s going to be in the neighborhood of 1.32 as well.
FYI, the number you had been similarly “promoting” was 1.57, so the 1.41 you’ve come up with now is still quite a bit closer to 1.32 (in real terms and in percentage terms) than it is to 1.57.
It was a year and 3 days ago when I first provided you with a link to the ODOT data. (I mean, “promoted” the ODOT data to you. Sorry.)
(Caveat: I couldn’t find a link today for 2006 statistics if there is one, and I doubt that 2007 stats would be fully compiled yet.)
The PDOT mode split data appears to be from the 1994-1995 household activity survey. I wouldn’t place a great deal of value on it, 13 years on.
Bob,
Obviously you would like to think the EPA is the only one that makes size classifications for cars and trucks, and should replace God becoming the dictator and socialistic controller of all mankind. However, before you pick apart and try to bash everything I say (or for that matter, what anybody else says too that you disagree with) there are other organizations that classify cars and trucks for various reasons and often differently. For insurance purposes; the Prius is a small car no matter how Toyota markets it or how the EPA rates it for fuel mileage and political purposes. Furthermore, the Bluebook has been around decades longer than the EPA and usually does not cover cars more than about ten years older than the date of publication. Therefore cars of the 1960s and 1970s are not even in a current Bluebook. And since the EPA was not around in the 1960s and 1970s, there are no conclusive EPA ratings or size classifications for cars and trucks of that vintage. Therefore the sales brochures from the manufacturer, the vehicle manual (which I have for my old wagon) and/or a vintage blue book of the era published within a year or so after the car was built must be used to classify size.
Like I previously posted; through out the 1960’s and 1970s, while the compact cars got eventually got smaller (often called sub-compacts), the midsized vehicles got bigger. As an example of what was once classified as a small car, in 1979 I was doing some photography in Colorado and New Mexico. The person I was traveling with was a real penny pincher, and even with an airline discount, insisted on a renting a compact car for our soon to be 700 mile (flat rate $20.00 a day rental fee) road trip. The car Avis provided and classified as a compact (small) car was a new Pontiac Firebird still with a temporary license, and yes with a V8 that was great for some of the mountain passes. Cars were classified differently in the 60s, 70s and even the 80s. You can not go back and change that by attempting to adopt current specifications on older vehicle classifications.
In addition, even with some 21st century models, some midsize vehicles are still getting larger – the example being the 2002 and later Chevy Trail Blazer/GMC Envoy that is larger than the 2001 previously called Blazer/Jimmy models – all still classified as midsize for insurance purposes.
And finally Bob (at least for this post), I doubt this will be the last word because you will want to pick apart, bash and critique just about every word instead of letting it ride. So you could say I took your bait too!
Obviously you would like to think the EPA is the only one that makes size classifications for cars and trucks, and should replace God becoming the dictator and socialistic controller of all mankind.
Terry, there’s no point in responding to anything you have to say after an opening like that. You see conspiracies at every turn, even in the classification of sizing of cars, going so far as to accuse your opponents of wanting to replace God. This is not the place for tinfoil hats or theology. Get real.
Reply to Smooth and Lenny:
I know that Trimet drivers, like any other occupational group, have some with the commitment to service and professionalism that Smooth Operator has expressed, and some with different attitudes. I suspect my route has attracted a representative subgroup in this regard. But all that professionalism and commitment to service is being wasted if Trimet can’t manage to achieve any better results. Nothing seems to have changed in the commute times on my route in close to 20 years, so I have to conclude that Trimet management either doesn’t much care or else is singularly inept.
Lenny: Erik’s publication of “anecdotal evidence” might be in bad form if this were a peer-review academic publication. It isn’t, so when Erik cites his own experience he is not only giving us information, he is using the same body of information—personal experiences—that commuters and would-be commuters use to decide how to get to work and back.
Trimet purchases highly laudatory academic studies/articles from time to time. My guess is that very few commuters read them and even less make their commuting choices based on them.
Trimet purchases highly laudatory academic studies/articles from time to time. My guess is that very few commuters read them and even less make their commuting choices based on them.
And I would like to point out that TriMet’s own studies show that line 12-Barbur Boulevard timekeeping is the worst of any Frequent Service bus route – yet nothing has been done to improve it, despite the poor ranking having been in repeated, consecutive reporting quarters.
This information is not publicly available, but I happened to obtain a copy of it from an unnamed TriMet source. My understanding, judging from Lenny’s posts, is that he is privy to such information.
[Moderator: Personally directed remark removed.]
I believe about a week ago there was a story about how certain pharmecutical companies intentionally withheld clinical data about the effiacy of certain anti-depressants in a believed attempt to make the drugs “more effective”, thus increasing sales. I believe TriMet is engaged in the same behavior – by intentionally withholding data to make itself better than it is, while justifying its lack of investment in bus service. Such behavior is demonstrated by TriMet’s long standing refusal to acknowledge security issues on the MAX line, followed by Gresham’s Mayor’s decision to install two of their own police officers onto the MAX line – resulting in those two officers issuing 30% of all exclusion orders within a time period, and arresting a number of unlawful citizens.
Ironically while researching something last night, I came across a banner ad on Greyhound Canada’s website.
It read,
“Because work starts at 9. Not 9-ish.”
I don’t want to see where TriMet can take me, because I don’t have time (when I’m commuting to work) to take the scenic ride to who-knows-where. I have somewhere to be at 7:45. I want a transit agency that is dedicated to getting me to work on time. If Greyhound can do it, I would hope TriMet could at least work on it.
At night, the only place I want to see where TriMet can take me is my family after a long day at work.
If Trimet expects people to ride their system by ‘choice’ rather than force, they are going to have to stop this sort of incident.
This sort of thing happens WAY TOO MUCH around here, none of it is ever reported:
http://amargul.blogspot.com/2008/02/why-i-hate-max.html
as i was saying above, RIDE MAX AND HOPE YOU MAKE IT HOME!
I had people riding my bus today that were 5 hours late due to this:
http://www.portlandtribune.com/news/story.php?story_id=120192754541187600
I’ve kept quiet on this thread since originally reading it, especially since the PDF of the presentation slides gave me something to chew on and really think about this.
I think what some on this site have really tried to say for a long time is something to the effect of: providing a hard plastic seat with the insert worn down on a 18-year-old bus appeals mainly to those who don’t have any other transportation options. Providing comfortable seats with padding (I’m thinking of the seats on the buses of the Cherriots-run portion of 1X service between Salem and Wilsonville, which also include footrests and reclining backrests), air conditioning (heating/cooling) appropriate for the weather, a holder for your coffee, WiFi for your laptop, and perhaps a tray table or something; are all the types of things that could be looked into to get more people to choose to use transit.
One other thing of importance: making sure that the routes go where people need to go, run at the times that people need to travel to/from, and that they get to their destination when they’re supposed to. I’m not sure if this is on their new website, but Wilsonville’s SMART did a survey a few years ago (If this isn’t on either their website or the city of Wilsonville’s site and someone with PT wants to see it to validate the info. or whatever, I have it on my hard drive, just e-mail me). Out of “574 usable surveys,” 47% said they never ride. Approximately 55% of total respondents said they don’t ride “more often” because it “doesn’t go where I need to” (#1 reason by far). The most important factor for more ridership? Over 80% said “Bus goes where I need to go.” 48% said they would use the commuter rail “rarely or not at all.”
Al: Another great video. That happened on a train I was riding once – in the middle of the tunnel! Since there was no other service out of Washington Park at the time, everyone was stuck waiting for however long it was (I’m thinking 30 minutes) for the next train.
I had people riding my bus today that were 5 hours late due to this:
You posted this at 11:58pm and the incident happened at 7:15 — assuming you made it back to your bus to post this instantaneously, traveling faster than the speed of light, the maximum delay anyone could have experienced on your bus was 4 hours, 43 minutes … but I suspect it took a bit longer than instantaneously for you to reach your computer. (And were none of those passengers picked up by the alternate buses running instead of MAX? TriMet’s email update indicating that the shuttle buses were running came out at 8:15.)
This was an unfortunate delay and an embarrassing incident for TriMet, but not a five hour ordeal.
Al –
In your video, the timeline is incomplete. It appears that only 1 minute 30 seconds elapses between the first train being shown and the arrival of the second train. But you don’t show how long the first train sat at the station after deboarding the passengers, and you don’t show how many passengers were able to board the next train.
So, how long did the first train sit there (less than “five hours”, I hope), and how many passengers were able to board the next train a minute or two after the first departed? (And if not 100%, how long was it for the train after that to arrive?)
A little explanatory text would go a long way.
Erik,
The information you provided frames some pretty frustrating experiences. I get frustrated when my bus is unreliable too, though I’ve never encountered anything worse than 10 minutes of delay. So I have sympathy for a half-hour delay.
My first suggestion would be to ask for a meeting with TriMet to discuss the problems on your route. I’ve found TriMet to be pretty open to discussing how to improve their service, particularly when addressed in a constructive (not complaining) fashion. It would be an hour or two off work, but you would be doing yourself and TriMet a favor.
My second suggestion is to frame the problem as what it is – an unreliable route needing improvement – and not what it is not – a bus vs. rail debate. I think your gripe is completely legit, but blaming MAX sort of undermines the value, IMHO. I would be surprised if TriMet would tolerate this kind of lateness on a regular basis without a plan for improvement. Barbur is a major corridor that deserves top-notch service, be it MAX or frequent bus, and TriMet knows it. And, hearing from riders in a constructive context is helpful to their work.
My first suggestion would be to ask for a meeting with TriMet to discuss the problems on your route. I’ve found TriMet to be pretty open to discussing how to improve their service, particularly when addressed in a constructive (not complaining) fashion. It would be an hour or two off work, but you would be doing yourself and TriMet a favor.
I have.
I have asked to meet with Fred Hansen and have made repeated attempts, both via e-mail and by telephone. I have been ignored each and every time. I have been told I would receive return phone calls and have never. I HAVE received phone calls from Station Agents — but this is a problem that starts at the top.
While it looks like my only option is to take time off from work (when I am able to schedule it, I am not simply free to take time off at will) it should not come to that; I should have access to my government without causing hardship (by losing income).
My second suggestion is to frame the problem as what it is – an unreliable route needing improvement – and not what it is not – a bus vs. rail debate.
I would agree with you, this shouldn’t be a bus vs. MAX debate.
Unfortunately it is – because TriMet, aided by Metro, have chosen to fully fund, improve and expand MAX services at the expense of bus services.
That’s why TriMet has had to cut back on bus service.
That’s why TriMet has had to increase the average bus age – intentionally – to reduce the amount of expense given to bus service, in order to free up those dollars for MAX service.
That’s why TriMet is asking for a bond measure to buy new busses, while using existing revenues that were derived from bus operations to fund MAX expansions without new bonding authority.
And I have been told, point blank, by a TriMet “customer service representative”, that TriMet does not provide “alternate transportation arrangements” for bus passengers. Yet for MAX operations there is no problem in doing so. (Presumably during rush hour when TriMet is supposedly stretched to provide adequate bus service, that busses are pulled off of regular routes to provide emergency MAX shuttles.)
I don’t want this to be a bus versus rail argument but it is TriMet that created the problem.
TriMet can fix the problem by taking a time-out from rail projects, and focusing 110% effort on, to use an Amtrak saying, restoring a “state of good repair” of bus operations. And that means Fred Hansen personally putting bus service at the forefront, and putting himself on busses to talk to riders and experiencing actual bus conditions. He’s welcome to ride with me on the 12 bus – as I’ve asked of him and other TriMet employees. I’ve asked to meet with route Supervisors on the line, and have been ignored. And I know the Operators whom I talk to aren’t happy either because they are the ones that get the crap from riders without any support from above.
I would like to think that TriMet would come up with a plan to address tardiness. Well it’s been two or three years. I would have been fired three years ago, but Fred Hansen still has his job and gets paid twice what the Governor gets. (Albeit the Governor has a mansion.) And Metro refuses to have any interest in bus service but jumps at the chance to build a new MAX or Streetcar line – why isn’t Metro getting involved in funding direct bus improvements?
Busses aren’t sexy, but they move more people than MAX does.
Well i’m not a video producer, i’m a bus driver, it was about 15 minutes between the first train breaking down and the second train arrival.
And passengers complained to me about how late they were regarding the bus vs max incident.
I wasnt getting exact details along with verifiable statistics.
The point is, how does trimet attract choice riders?
It isn’t going to be done by providing service that is constantly unreliable and so packed that you can’t breath.
MAX IS TOTALLY UNRELIABLE, especially when it it needed most!
You saw the second train, it was already packed!
I HATE MAX, PERIOD!
I want to ride transit, not only is it not possible because they don’t know how to coordinate the max with the bus schedules,but the max itself is unreliable and uncomfortable.
This system will grow by default, cause there is no other way to get downtown for many people.
But as far as attracting ‘choice’ riders, gimme a break.
I think what some on this site have really tried to say for a long time is something to the effect of: providing a hard plastic seat with the insert worn down on a 18-year-old bus appeals mainly to those who don’t have any other transportation options. Providing comfortable seats with padding (I’m thinking of the seats on the buses of the Cherriots-run portion of 1X service between Salem and Wilsonville, which also include footrests and reclining backrests), air conditioning (heating/cooling) appropriate for the weather, a holder for your coffee, WiFi for your laptop, and perhaps a tray table or something; are all the types of things that could be looked into to get more people to choose to use transit.
You mean, like this?
http://www.octa.net/expressbus.aspx
Stress-free commuting on the OC Express
Just because you’ve got a long commute doesn’t mean you have to drive. Take the OC Express instead and cruise to work in the fast lane. By utilizing the carpool lanes or 91 Express Lanes, the OC Express limited-stop service will get you to and from work faster. Plus, every seat on the OC Express has a lap tray, power connection, reading light and comfortable high-back seating. You can use your time to catch up on reading, work on your laptop, or just lean back and enjoy the ride. Whatever you choose to do, you’ll arrive at work much more refreshed.
I should also note that the busses used in Sound Transit/ST Express service are designed to “commuter” spec rather than “transit” spec – usually meaning more comfortable, long distance seats, overhead luggage racks, individual seat lighting. ST Express includes MCI D4500 busses (think similar to a Greyhound or a charter bus) as well as transit busses like Gillig Phantoms and New Flyer busses (including DE40LFs and DE60LFs) with “commuter” spec interiors.
Why Wilsonville/Salem (or TriMet) can’t purchase busses like this is beyond me. One would think that the Oregon Lottery could certainly splurge a couple million dollars and purchase about 10 of these busses in order to provide frequent service from downtown Portland to downtown Salem, with stops in Tualatin, Wilsonville, and Woodburn (along with potentially a second route that travels along 99E.)
Then service could be instituted to St. Helens/Scappose, Banks/North Plains, express one-seat service from Forest Grove/Cornelius and Hillsboro (essentially the old 58/Sunset Highway Express line but doesn’t make all the 57 stops in Forest Grove and Cornelius), Sherwood (replacing the 94) with service also to Newberg, Dundee, Lafayette/Dayton and McMinnville, Woodburn/Hubbard/Canby/Oregon City, and from Estacada and Sandy.
Well, I will take a shot at commenting on the original post.
First of all, providing buses isn’t building a transit system. An agency tasked with building a transit system will see buses as part of that system, a part that wears out quickly and generally leaves mixed memories with patrons. For obvious reasons, businesses and property owners can’t regard bus service as a lasting improvement in the value of their property.
Secondly, adding more buses is an expensive way to meet additional demand.
Third, it is very complex to say the transit agency should provide subsidized service to low-income riders. Who pays for the service? If it’s the transit agency, where do the revenues come from? How do you assess and pay for capital improvements? Shouldn’t businesses that benefit from low-wage workers share the cost of their commute? Shouldn’t social agencies that want low-cost services for their clients help find the financing?
And all of this is coming at transit agencies, who were probably harder hit than any other industry in America by the need to accomodate disabilities.
Incidentally, as far as I can see the reason buses bunch up and run late is because the driver of the first bus has to stop and load at every stop. This makes him late, and the buses behind him catch up because they have so few people to load. This problem is greatly obviated with rail because of the multiple doors and loading along the full length of the platform.
In short, with buses you spend a lot of money and at the end of the day you have a worn out bus. With rail you spend a lot of money and at the end of the day you have a high-capacity system with a lot of predictability, both for the system and the user. A transit agency building rail is naturally going to lean towards the rail option.
First of all, providing buses isn’t building a transit system. An agency tasked with building a transit system will see buses as part of that system, a part that wears out quickly and generally leaves mixed memories with patrons. For obvious reasons, businesses and property owners can’t regard bus service as a lasting improvement in the value of their property.
Well, if you don’t provide busses what do you have? Streets? Sidewalks? But little public transit.
Trains (and rails, ties, stations, etc.) wear out too; trains are not invincible. All of TriMet’s eastside stations have been rebuilt at least once (to accomodate the low floor trains), all of the signs have been replaced; much of the rail and contact wire has been replaced, and the 100 series cars are being rebuilt.
Rail can be removed just as well as a street can; in fact just a few months ago I saw old trolley rails being pulled out from layers of asphalt on 5th Avenue near PSU. While the rails were there, the trolleys haven’t touched them in 50 years.
Meanwhile some of TriMet’s bus routes date back to Rose City Transit days and even replicate old trolley lines (the 51-Vista bus route is a perfect example of a bus line that dates back to the Council Crest trolley route!)
Secondly, adding more buses is an expensive way to meet additional demand.
So is adding more trains and more rail routes.
Cost to add a rail line – about $50,000,000 a mile.
Cost to add a bus line – about $350,000 per bus.
Third, it is very complex to say the transit agency should provide subsidized service to low-income riders. Who pays for the service? If it’s the transit agency, where do the revenues come from? How do you assess and pay for capital improvements? Shouldn’t businesses that benefit from low-wage workers share the cost of their commute? Shouldn’t social agencies that want low-cost services for their clients help find the financing?
Is this a Libertarian argument? If so, then NO transit should be provided unless those who use it pay for it. That means a total and complete elimination of any transit or redevelopment based tax abatements and that those property owners must make an immediate payment towards back unbilled taxes.
Government exists to serve the people; a part of that is to provide services to people who need it. Are you also against public schools (after all, Pearl District residents could probably pay for private schooling – if they had kids)? Fire protection – rich people can pay for fire insurance. Libraries – rich people can buy their own books and internet access. Parks – rich people can have their own private parks.
Yes – TriMet has a responsibility to provide transit to all people including those who can’t afford to drive themselves. I could ask the same – what is the role of TriMet (or the Portland Streetcar) to provide transportation to the rich??? Are you supporting that TriMet essentially become a subsidy vehicle for the rich only? (Never mind that the bus routes that the “rich” use tend to be those routes that cost the most to operate! And the Portland Streetcar has a cost factor that is well higher than many “expensive to operate” bus routes!!!)
Incidentally, as far as I can see the reason buses bunch up and run late is because the driver of the first bus has to stop and load at every stop. This makes him late, and the buses behind him catch up because they have so few people to load. This problem is greatly obviated with rail because of the multiple doors and loading along the full length of the platform.
Ironically this argument makes little if any sense.
A bus does not stop and load at every stop. A bus is not required to stop unless 1. there are passengers waiting for the bus, or 2. passengers request to get off of the bus. A MAX train MUST stop at each track (in fact the signal system is designed to throw a red signal – that’s why even before the Cascade Station stops were opened for service, trains still had to stop for the station to call the signal to drop).
And – TriMet (and Metro, and PDOT) could choose to make bus stops a funding priority which would provide full-length bus stops; and TriMet could (on its heavily used routes) implement off-board ticketing and purchase high capacity articulated busses with multiple boarding doors.
You know – Eugene is doing this!!!! So is Seattle!!!
Now your argument makes sense – ONLY if the first bus is already running late; then yes the following busses do bunch up. But because ONE bus is running late doesn’t mean the entire system is failing. (Else I would be led to believe that MAX was a colossal failure yesterday and I demand that the entire system be SCRAPPED! After all scrap metal prices are pretty high… (TIC!))
In short, with buses you spend a lot of money and at the end of the day you have a worn out bus. With rail you spend a lot of money and at the end of the day you have a high-capacity system with a lot of predictability, both for the system and the user. A transit agency building rail is naturally going to lean towards the rail option.
And at the end of the day you have a worn out train, so what? I just had a conversation with a friend at lunch who exclusively rides MAX between downtown Portland and Beaverton each day – in fact he refuses to ride the bus.
He told me in that in the last week he has encountered FIVE mechanical issues that delayed his trip or required him to wait for another train. That’s 50% of the trips!
Meanwhile I think TriMet has done a good job with “predictability” yesterday – between the mechanical failure at Sunset TC forcing passengers off of one train (and unable to board the next train that was 15 minutes later (although per the schedule it should have been 7 minutes – so these passengers were inconvenienced not only by the mechanical failure of one train, but the second train failing to show up and the third train unable to accept passengers) due to a crush load – and the incident shortly after downtown that put an entire halt to MAX service for several hours.
A bus would have simply driven around (well except for the one bus that is alleged to have caused the problem, but it could have been any car or truck), but with MAX the system simply ceases to function.
Your last statement: “A transit agency building rail is naturally going to lean towards the rail option” simply proves that there is a bias (towards rail and against busses), not that the transit agency is doing the right thing.
Frankly, Erik, I think if you were less confrontational you’d ‘get’ more of what I was saying. For example-
Providing bus service provides…bus service. Somebody else provides the streets, sidewalks, signals, etc. This seems very clever when you calculate the cost for buses, but another result is that there is no “system”, just some bus stop shelters and some buses.
Secondly, adding more buses on an existing route is a more expensive way to meet increased demand than adding railcars on an existing route. Is that a little clearer?
Third, no, it is not a Libertarian argument to point out that services need funding. In fact, it would seem pretty obvious that when somebody says “let’s add more buses here”, somebody else will say “With what money?” In case this isn’t obvious, figure out how many systems in the US support themselves with farebox recovery.
As for why buses bunch up and run late, well, those are fine theories you have there. I formed mine waiting for buses, and having drivers plead with me to wait for the next one which was only a block behind him (we were doing wheelchair loading). Maybe one of the bus drivers here can clear it up.
As for the “end of the day”, with a bus you spend the bucks on labor, benefits, and fuel and depreciation. The average bus, with a complete midlife service refit, might last 20 years.
With rail, you spend the money on rails, signals, trainsets, and platforms. The labor, benefits, and energy costs to move passengers are much less than with buses. The average trainset, with a complete midlife refit, lasts 40-50 years. The average rail transit system is designed to last about a century.
There’s a lot of difference between buses and rail when it comes to building community.
As for whether transit agencies are doing the right thing, I’m hardly in a position to determine that. I was just commenting on the original question (as I read it) about why the transit agency might be cool on buses.
Frankly, Erik, I think if you were less confrontational you’d ‘get’ more of what I was saying.
I’ll meet you downtown at PSU at 5:00 PM so you can wait for me at my 12/94 stop and see why I am so confrontational about TriMet’s lack of investment in quality bus service.
By the way, there’s a crowd of 30-40 people and only bench seats for two, so I hope you can stand. And you probably won’t sit on the bus, either.
Providing bus service provides…bus service. Somebody else provides the streets, sidewalks, signals, etc. This seems very clever when you calculate the cost for buses, but another result is that there is no “system”, just some bus stop shelters and some buses.
There seems to be a pretty defined system right now that has existed even before TriMet was created. Many bus lines are the continuation of trolley lines that have been paved over. But you simply refuse to acknowledge that fact.
adding more buses on an existing route is a more expensive way to meet increased demand than adding railcars on an existing route.
What’s your point? There isn’t a train track down Barbur Boulevard, so adding railcars on an “existing route” isn’t a valid comparison unless you want to receive a huge re-paving bill from ODOT after getting a MAX train stuck in asphalt.
The cost to build rail is what, $30 million a mile? That comes to a cost of $210 million just to get from PSU to my house. Since my house isn’t a logical terminating point, it takes another 4-5 miles to reach Tigard so add another $120-150 million. Then add the cost of rebuilding 99W. If that’s so cheap, by all means write a check to TriMet and let’s get construction started.
Do you suggest that we eliminate bus service until we can build a MAX line, or simply let bus service go to hell until a MAX line can be built? Or should we INVEST IN QUALITY BUS SERVICE to grow ridership so that MAX becomes a logical expansion of service?
With rail, you spend the money on rails, signals, trainsets, and platforms. The labor, benefits, and energy costs to move passengers are much less than with buses. The average trainset, with a complete midlife refit, lasts 40-50 years. The average rail transit system is designed to last about a century.
You’re right, the average rail transit system is designed to last about a century. It helps that the rails are preserved under asphalt.
Who is to say that the MAX system will be around in 30 years? There are bus lines that have existed since the 1940s, but I’m hard pressed to find a Portland trolley line that existed much past 50 years. A lot of this information is on the Internet as well as a book called “Fares, Please!” that’s available at Powell’s.
There’s a lot of difference between buses and rail when it comes to building community.
Yes, the difference is that rail requires the government to give massive subsidies to developers to build communities where people would not live if the free market actually existed.
Busses serve EXISTING communities. Let’s see some of Portland’s communities that are served exclusively by bus, but are some of Portland’s best known communities:
St. Johns
Multnomah Village
Garden Home
Johns Landing
Sellwood
Laurelhurst
Westmoreland
North Mississippi
Hillsdale
And some areas are better served by bus than by light rail, like the Hollywood District (the Hollywood business district is three blocks removed from MAX but has direct bus access).
Lake Oswego and Milwaukie are certainly becoming communities in their central cores.
I can’t say the same about Beaverton, Hillsboro or Gresham, however. While the area around Lake Oswego’s transit center is packed with housing and urban services, the area around Beaverton Transit Center is…well…unwelcoming, hidden behind walls, with an empty field on the other side. Downtown Hillsboro is full of underutilized storefronts and there is no mixed-use housing at the two western MAX stops; and no dense housing anywhere else along the MAX line until you get to Orenco Village. (And let me remind you that the “community” in Orenco Village is predominately to the NORTH of the MAX line, centered around Cornell Road – NOT the MAX line.)
Those communities (that are exclusively served by bus) seem to be doing OK without rail access – in fact a number of them have had some of the highest property value increases in the Portland area and maintain some of the highest home prices, but have plenty of buses that residents are happy to use. Meanwhile, I’m sure there is a lot of “community” in Rockwood…
Again, I don’t see these bus vs. rail debates getting anywhere. I think there is general agreement here that better bus service is warranted, and Barbur seems like a logical place. Stalling the development of a complete MAX system isn’t a great way to build long-term ridership though. In fact, to the contrary, as a potential MAX corridor, the long-term outlook for transit on Barbur could be bright. High-frequency bus service is really an interim measure, and an important one.
Erik;
I love reading your posts!
Stupendous!
Erik, I really don’t know or care how much bus service you can, do, or should have. I’m sorry my comments weren’t very helpful to you, but glad that they were in some way interesting.
As for the idea that electric transit is some kind of passing fad that might not be here in 30 years, well….
Erik, I really don’t know or care how much bus service you can, do, or should have. I’m sorry my comments weren’t very helpful to you, but glad that they were in some way interesting.
Well unfortunately TriMet is required BY STATE AND FEDERAL LAW to care.
Today’s “choice” trip on TriMet:
Inbound: 92 South Beaverton Express, scheduled to depart 6:55 AM arrival 7:20 AM.
BUS FAILED TO MAKE STOP Used 45 Garden Home as alternate, depart 7:00 AM with arrival of 7:35 AM. En-route mechanical, door failed to close, resulting in delay.
Outbound: 12 Barbur Blvd., scheduled to depart 4:50 PM.
BUS FAILED TO MAKE STOP FOLLOWING BUS OPERATING OVER 15 MINUTES BEHIND SCHEDULE.
Used 94 Sherwood Express as alternate, called wife to pick me up at Barbur Blvd. Transit Center.
Result: TriMet added 20 minutes of delay to morning commute due to TriMet’s fault.
TriMet added two car trips on the roads in an effort to avoid a 30 minute delay for the afternoon commute due to TriMet’s fault.
The only “choice” I see is TriMet’s “choice” to properly invest in bus service, causing three busses to miss their runs and one bus experiencing a mechanical problem. I don’t think any of TriMet’s riders “choose” these problems, and if TriMet “chose” to fix these problems more people would “choose” to ride TriMet.
My dad has been taking the 92 almost every morning and evening, and I’ve never heard him complain about the level of issues that some people are reporting, with the exception of delays during periods of extreme weather. He has his morning routine down to the minute. It’s only been the last 10 years or so that he’s been riding it, though.
Hang in there Erik Halstead! If you post your wasted-time logs day by day it will get boring monotonous negative and predictable. A fair rendition of the Trimet commuter’s experience year in year out. It will convey what Trimet needs to address to gain “choice” riders. And Trimet, if any of its bosses actually read this site, will glaze its institutional eyes and rapidly conclude there’s no new information here.
It will be right.
Documenting your experiences may be boring, monotonous and negative, but without doing it there is NO HARD EVIDENCE!
If you want to make change, in any institutional bureaucracy, you need EVIDENCE.
Keep writing Erik, or even better yet, go pick up a little camcorder like the one I use and start making movies. (its called a flip video, $115)
Bureaucrats don’t care what the public thinks or experiences, they only care about their little power structure.
So irritate them, its like a flea biting an elephant, but if enough fleas start biting, the elephant might actually move around a bit!
And its even possible that you could run into a bureaucrat who ACTUALLY CARES! They are out there, far and few between, but they exist!
I carry this camera around with me religiously.
Experiences that need to be documented are.
Like this one, in my never ending attempts to cause the elephant irritation till maybe one day the elephant will move a little.
I want more max service and will continue to hound the powers to be forever if need be!
http://amargul.blogspot.com/2008/02/sardine-can-called-max.html
WOW!!
Talk about coincidence!
Look what I just ran into!
http://trimet.org/news/releases/feb5_march_service.htm
I was just about to post that Al, glad you found it.
They are also changing the #12 schedule. I don’t know what the actual changes are because I haven’t done an A/B comparison of the current vs. new schedules.
Erik, if you’ve had a chance to look at it, do the changes to the #12 represent a reshuffling, a cutback, or an increase in service?
hopefully it will be a cutback so we can all watch Erik go through the roof!
haha..(only joking!)
My dad has been taking the 92 almost every morning and evening, and I’ve never heard him complain about the level of issues that some people are reporting
You know, until the last couple of weeks the 92 was an example of a bus that ran like clockwork. It ALWAYS showed up on time, arrived early, etc.
That’s why in the morning I preferred to ride with my wife to her work and catch the 92 from there – I knew I’d get to work on time. And if for some unknown reason the 92 didn’t work, there was an alternate (the 45). Today I had an Operator who clearly didn’t know the route, was driving extremely slow on Scholls Ferry Road, and then drove behind a 56 on Beaverton-Hillsdale Road, making four unnecessary stops (for the 56 to board passengers) until he finally realized that he could pass the 56 in the left lane. (The early morning wreck at the intersection of Beaverton-Hillsdale and Scholls Ferry was cleared before we arrived at the intersection and there was no resulting delay.)
Documenting your experiences may be boring, monotonous and negative, but without doing it there is NO HARD EVIDENCE!
If you want to make change, in any institutional bureaucracy, you need EVIDENCE.
That’s very true, Al, and I’ve considered some ways of accomplishing that.
However the fact is that TriMet has this evidence – there is an (well, you obiviously know this) GPS receiver and two-way data radio onboard every bus. TriMet has the capability of knowing each busses’ exact location and its scheduled time.
One of TriMet’s dispatchers has the capability of knowing – any time – of how far off a bus is off schedule. Unfortunately since TriMet has a tendancy (as discussed on the Operator’s forum) to withhold information from the public, the evidence is essentially sitting on Fred Hansen’s desk for “executive review” (in other words make the report to his liking, and edit out anything that makes him look bad).
Bob, I’ll take a hard look at the new 12 schedule, but essentially this is not fixing the problem. TriMet has within its power to spend money to fix timekeeping problems. You’ll note that in its own Transit Improvement Plan that it uses the 12 line as an example of how its prior streamlining processes (the low budget, “let’s put new bus stop signs and eliminate a couple of bus stops” project) has improved performance on the 12 line. This goes to show that the “low budget” project was an outright FAILURE, and now Fred Hansen needs to get his butt on the 12 bus and start making real improvements with real money. Since I ride the bus every day, he is welcome to call me anytime (he has my phone number AND my e-mail address, just ask Naoami or whatever her name is who I’ve asked for a callback from) so I can go over my list of proposed projects that will improve line 12 performance.
When he starts “choosing” to invest, riders will “choose” to ride. It’s that simple.
I’m not a fan of the rush hour red line extension. During the afternoon rush hour, the Beaverton TC is full of bicyclist trying to get into town, and they can all get on the red line trains because they are empty there. Now, maybe with more trains it will be less of a problem and there will be room for them on all the trains, but I’m suspecting that if I’m trying to leave work at 5:30 with a bicycle, I’ll either end up riding over the hill, (which means leaving at 5 instead of 5:30,) or not fitting on a train until 6ish…
The TIP mentioned extending the red line to Merlo in 2008, and I’d like that a lot more than sending them all the way to Hillsboro.
“The TIP mentioned extending the red line to Merlo in 2008, and I’d like that a lot more than sending them all the way to Hillsboro.”
Anybody know the justification for NOT sending the trains all the way through to Hillsboro?
Completely idiotic.
Actually I already know the answer to that,
serve Portland
serve Portland
serve Portland
serve Portland
and on in to infinity:::::::::::::::::::
Anybody know the justification for NOT sending the trains all the way through to Hillsboro?
Well, Al, that would make sense.
Instead the trains are going to terminate at a train stop that doesn’t serve a destination – unless you are a TriMet bus driver, or work at Reser’s Fine Foods. (However, it should be noted that whenever TriMet posts a job opening for mini-run operators, that within the job description it states that applicants must have a personal vehicle as transit service may not be available. Kinda ironic, isn’t it?)
There’s PLENTY of high-density mixed-use development at S.W. 158th & Merlo Road! There is, however, a really big PGE substation there. And Costco.
The station before it, Beaverton Creek, is an underused, out-of-the-way subsidized Park & Ride lot that serves only the MAX line, and is home to an apartment complex and lots of grass.
The station before it, Millikan Way, is another subsidized parking lot and a couple of scattered, sprawling light industrial buildings. And a PGE substation – because PGE substations generate a lot of transit rides!
Now it would make sense for the MAX trains go to Willow Creek TC – at least that is in the middle of a housing development and is an actual transit hub. But I guess adding connections between MAX and busses aren’t important, only connections between MAX and subsidized “free” parking lots to help promote more single-occupant-vehicle use in the suburbs to congest T.V. Highway, Baseline Road and S.W. 185th Avenue.
The Red Line will need to terminate someplace where there is a third track. If the Red Line terminates at Merlo, it can head west to the yard at Elmonica (before the station), pull off, wait, and then return eastbound. There isn’t a place for it to pull aside and wait at Willow Creek. Unless, of course, Tri-Met puts a great deal of money into putting in a two or three hundred feet of additional track, and two to four switches, plus signals.
Why not go all the way to Hillsboro? Money, most likely. Adding service all the way to Hillsboro would require three extra trains per hour (assuming you want to maintain 15 minute headways) which means paying three additional drivers throughout the day. Not a problem; just cancel three buses per hour, all day, throughout the rest of the system.
“The station before it, Millikan Way, is another subsidized parking lot and a couple of scattered, sprawling light industrial buildings.”
The “sprawling light industrial buildings” (about 100 of them) is a little old company called Tektronix that started the whole silicon forest thingee. The Tektronix campus has several privately maintained roads in it, including one that the #67 used to go down, (apparently there is transit ridership there.) There is also the Nike employee store. And a few lower income apartment buildings and a trailer park the other side of Millikan, which I assume is the source of the people I regularly see with baby carriages getting on and off at that stop. There is also a couple car dealerships, that when you bring your car in for repair, are more than happy to give people (at least my mother,) a TriMet day pass. And the #62 stops there. And, yes, a park and ride.
“And a PGE substation – because PGE substations generate a lot of transit rides!”
I wish. Today 4 PGE employees were having a big pow-wow there, (not actually in the substation, but on the street next to it.) Each one had their own Ford F-350 with nothing in it, and 3 of the trucks had the engines running, (I guess to keep the cab warm?) even though the actual people were all standing on the sidewalk talking. And yes, PGE is a private company, but given that they are a carefully regulated monopoly, it seems like they should be expected to keep costs down. They should switch to smaller trucks or even cars, and carpool or take the MAX since they don’t actually have anything with them in the first place. Between this and the 22% price increase last year, I called up PGE and demanded to speak to Peggy Fowler but she hasn’t called me back. If PGE doesn’t improve, I’m going to have to get solar panels! (Or get the city to take them over, since publicly owned utilities still get the residential exchange credit, (and at a higher rate than PGE ever did,) and that would lower most peoples bills by about 20%..)
“Adding service all the way to Hillsboro would require three extra trains per hour”
And given that there is only really a demand for it at rush hour, I can see why they only did it at rush hour. But I personally like the status quo.
Matthew –
We’ve all had to give up certain niceties with the gradual westward expansion of Red Line service.
When the Red Line ended downtown at 10th, you could always count on catching the eastbound train during peak hour at the Library / 9th Ave. station and finding a seat. Once the service was expanded to Beaverton TC, the prospect of boarding an empty train downtown serving the I-84 corridor at peak hour went away.
(But that’s fine by me, I understood the need at the time for increased service westward, and the ability for Beaverton transit users to have a one-seat-ride from Beaverton TC to the airport.
Continued gradual expansion of service to Merlo (as Douglas K. correctly noted, there is a 3rd track already in place there) and eventually to Hillsboro makes sense.
“Continued gradual expansion of service to Merlo (as Douglas K. correctly noted, there is a 3rd track already in place there) and eventually to Hillsboro makes sense.”
I totally understand the reasoning, my comments are just to show people that there are winners and losers to every situation, and if you insist on placating every single loser, you’ll never accomplish anything. There are real overcrowding problems on Westside MAX at rush hour that should have been addressed years ago, and I (and a lot of other people) are hoping that they put the [bigger] type 4 cars onto the Blue line, and make the green use the type 2&3. (I suspect that the green will start out as a single car train anyways, much like the yellow.) But in any case, I don’t actually need to be placated: My parents gave me a Bike Friday for Christmas, I just need to go down to Eugene (on Greyhound or Zipcar, not Amtrak cause the schedule doesn’t work from Portland,) and get it sized and this problem will go away…
That said, my comments about PGE are indeed how I feel… I have 2 kw of solar panels ($13k after taxes and rebates: I got a second mortgage to pay for it,) on order, (there is a huge backlog for solar panels, Germany offers much better rebates than the US, so it may take a year,) because I think that PGE is going to continue to raise prices until nobody can afford their product. I don’t completely blame PGE for this, we are living in the age of peak oil, and this is what peak oil will do…
The ultimate solution that I (and a lot of other bicyclist that I’ve talked to on the Red line trains at rush hour) would like to see, is a dedicated train (well, every 15 minutes or so, so that would require two operators/trains for about 4 hours a day) from Beaverton TC, (where you can turn around,) to PGE park, (where you can turn around,) at rush hour. Going over the 26 path is very doable, (I’ve taken it many times,) but it adds half an hour to our commute… If any of you don’t understand this, you should stand at the Goose Hollow MAX station at rush hour, and watch the number of bicycles that get off the trains. The tunnel cuts half an hour of the bicyclist commute, so bicyclist love it. Beaverton, (and points west,) is fairly flat, so riding it is not a big deal, but to get over the west hills is a very big deal, and the train, with it’s fast travel times is exactly what we want…
=Now it would make sense for the MAX trains go to Willow Creek TC – at least that is in the middle of a housing development and is an actual transit hub.=
As far as I am concerned, it would make sense for the damn red line to just go all the way to Hillsboro, since its really only the ‘red’ line after gateway, the train should be used as the blue line.
=Why not go all the way to Hillsboro? Money, most likely.=
What are you talking about? The max driver is ALREADY THERE! Taking a break at Beaverton? So you add a few extra hours onto an already at work max driver. Big deal, its chump change.
=When the Red Line ended downtown at 10th, you could always count on catching the eastbound train during peak hour at the Library / 9th Ave. station and finding a seat.=
They need more max service! Why they won’t add max service is beyond me. Too busy expanding and hiring managers!
=I totally understand the reasoning, my comments are just to show people that there are winners and losers to every situation, and if you insist on placating every single loser, you’ll never accomplish anything. =
Same old Mathew, different day!
=The ultimate solution that I (and a lot of other bicyclist that I’ve talked to on the Red line trains at rush hour) would like to see, is a dedicated train=
An even better solution is to have a BICYCLE ONLY TRAIN! Get some sort of flat bed max and stick all of you guys on that one. Let it run once an hour!
Matthew –
Regarding the Type 4 cars… (for those who haven’t seen them, click here. These new cars are designed to be permanently coupled into two-car trains, and the redundant operator cabs have been removed, allowing for more seating. According to TriMet, new 2-car trains will have a maximum capacity of 464 riders instead of 332.)
When these were first unveiled at a Transit Mall CAC meeting, I asked if these would be used on other lines to alleviate crowding. I was told that after an unspecified grand-opening period for the green line, the new cars would be integrated into the regular service on other lines where needed.
This appears to have been the procedure used when the Yellow Line opened … Interstate MAX had shiny new cars for almost every run for a month or two after opening, and then the cars were integrated into a general pool used by all the lines.
Even if they are only used on the Green Line for a long while, it will at least help those riding between downtown and Gateway, as the ROW will be common to the Red, Blue, and Green lines. (That wouldn’t help the west side, of course.)
OK, I got the real deal here now for brain storms.
Trimet retrofits these units for rail and sticks one of them onto each train for bicycles and miscellaneous freight!
THIS IDEA IS A WINNER!
http://www.longhornsales.com/trailers/6×16-tandem-axle-flatbed-trailer-(a).jpg
I’m re-reading TriMet’s announcement for the service change, and I have to say that once again it underscores TriMet’s total attitude towards bus riders.
Case in point:
http://www.trimet.org/news/releases/index.htm
The headline of the press release is:
“February 5, 2008
More MAX service added between Beaverton and Hillsboro starting March 2”
Note, it does not say “service update” or “bus and MAX service change”, only “More MAX service”. Why would a line 12 or line 15 rider read THIS release?
Now let’s open it up:
“More MAX service added between Beaverton and Hillsboro starting March 2
Rush hour service boosted on MAX
Starting Sunday, March 2, TriMet will add MAX service between Beaverton Transit Center and Hatfield Government Center. The added passenger capacity will operate during morning and afternoon rush hours.”
OK, nothing about bus service…
(scroll down…)
WAIT! There’s a BUS service change?
Essentially TriMet’s PR group (is it the same woman that all but accused a bus driver of breaking the law without an investigation?) HID a bus service change without full disclosure, embedded within a MAX press release.
So, anyone is welcome to explain to me how this isn’t another slam by TriMet against bus riders… I’m sure that the next time TriMet announces a MAX service change that it will be headlined: “TriMet improves Line 12-Barbur Service”, and then three inches down in the press release “MAX service will be adjusted by up to ten minutes…”
Erik –
I agree that the web press release title is poorly worded and should of course include buses.
However, if you look at the Service Alerts page and not the press release page, the title is “March service changes”.
I can confirm that I received an email on the 6th (because I subscribe to service alerts) which was titled “Subject: Service Alert: March service changes” and had the following text:
The RSS feed also said the same thing.
The article is still worded that way on the Service Alerts page.
So all you’ve done is highlight a bad headline on the press releases page, but missed the fact that TriMet handled it correctly on the Service Alerts page, the email alert, and the RSS feed.
Bob, your link about Type 4 cars says:
“Twenty-one new vehicles will be introduced into the MAX system starting in the fall of 2008.”
And given that the Green line doesn’t open until Fall of 2009, (testing isn’t scheduled to start until March of 2009,) the type 4 cars are going have to run on other lines…
Thanks, Matthew, I hadn’t thought of that regarding the timeline.
“Given that the Type 4 cars must be permanently mated, the 21 “vehicles” would be equivalent to 42 of the current single-car vehicles coupled together”…
That seems like a lot, there are only 100 or so cars in service now, and the green line isn’t that long, and is only every 15 minutes. They might have bought 10 and a half train sets, with the idea that the half would always be in yard, either being worked on, or just sitting there in case another one broke and needed to be taken out of service. You don’t have to buy a whole extra train to have a spare…
The French Postal service ones 3 and a half TGVs:
http://www.trainweb.org/tgvpages/images/laposte/index.html
(Which is a impressive trick since they aren’t just coupled together, but articulated.)