Equity in Regional Transportation


Updated: 2/10/09

Metro has put a video of the presentation online. Some readers may be particularly interested in the comments on the equity of rail vs. bus investments.

Original Post: 1/22/09

Metro Councilor Robert Liberty would like cordially invite you to Metro’s Transportation Speaker Series, featuring Dr. Thomas Sanchez. The title of his speech is “Equity in Regional Transportation,” and will be delivered at the Metro Regional Center, Council Chamber at 7:30 p.m. on January 28. The lecture will begin shortly after the scheduled Metro Policy Advisory Committee meeting. Food will be provided. If interested, please RSVP with Jacob Brennan at jacob.brennan@oregonmetro.gov or call (503) 813-7503.

I encourage you to view the attached pdf file (789K) for additional information regarding the event, including Dr. Sanchez’s biography. Thank you.


19 responses to “Equity in Regional Transportation”

  1. Yes to equity, no to eating.
    I received a follow-up e-mail stating the “food provided” line was an error. Still planning to be there though.

  2. Again, check out “Spatial Patterns of Air Toxins in the Region” by Vivek Shandas and Linda George in PSU’s Metroscape magazine (Winter 2009). It should be required reading for this blog.

  3. Will it be addressed:

    1. The region’s ongoing pattern and policy of disinvestment in bus service,
    2. WES service – actively discrimination against lower income and non-“choice” riders, by providing a superior service on WES with free wireless internet and requiring credit/debit card for walk-up fares, while requiring “lower class” citizens to ride 18 year old, non-air conditioned, non-level floor buses
    3. Inequality in bus stop improvements vs. Streetcar/MAX/WES improvements,
    4. Inequality in regional planning for Streetcar in affluent/advantaged areas, while relegating poor quality bus service in other areas,
    5. The attitude of “it’s not my job” when demanding bus improvements (TriMet says it’s the role of local governments; local governments say it’s TriMet’s job, Metro completely ignores bus service improvements) while rail improvements get all parties involved at an early stage

    Or is this another thinly veiled attempt to give the region an “Atta-Boy” because we built the Yellow Line to North Portland?

  4. Will it be addressed:

    I don’t know, Erik, why don’t you go and find out? I know you haven’t been to any of the streetcar system plan meetings, or do you believe that Lents, Gateway and the 122nd Ave. corridor are “affluent/advantaged areas”? You post these assertions often, so this meeting would be a prime opportunity for you to lobby others to your cause.

    Or is this another thinly veiled attempt to give the region an “Atta-Boy” because we built the Yellow Line to North Portland?

    Why not include the yellow line in a discussion of transit equity? Is it some kind of major exception, for some reason? It does seem to further undermine your “affluent/advantaged areas” argument.

  5. Portland has been trying to get streetcar service up north for quite some time. I’m sure you’d be on here bitching about that too.

    I think it’s silly to invest heavily in expensive buses. They simply do not move as many people on the same line. Even the large articulated buses are expensive, don’t hold as many people as LRV, don’t last as long, and are at the whim of traffic congestion.

    BRT systems have been shown to be just about as expensive to implement as light rail, not to mention you need more buses to move as many people. More buses means more drivers (and that means you have to pay every single driver a salary plus benefits).

    Street cars have the ability for rapid transit service by giving them a dedicated line. I am not in total defense of the street car system, but neither am I against buses.

  6. ws wrote: I think it’s silly to invest heavily in expensive buses. They simply do not move as many people on the same line. Even the large articulated buses are expensive, don’t hold as many people as LRV, don’t last as long, and are at the whim of traffic congestion.

    I think it’s silly to invest heavily in even more expensive light rail/streetcar lines. Articulated buses do carry as many people as a streetcar does, are cheaper than a Streetcar (even when you factor that a typical articulated bus lasts about 15-20 years, and a streetcar longer than that), and streetcars are likewise subject to traffic congestion (and I have photos of the NextBus sign to prove it – one attempt to ride the Streetcar gave me a 35 minute delay due to “traffic congestion”.)

    BRT systems have been shown to be just about as expensive to implement as light rail, not to mention you need more buses to move as many people.

    BRT systems have proven to be about 1/2 the cost of light rail overall. Yes, an expensive BRT line can come up to a cheap LRT line, but how many LRT lines here in Portland have been built on the cheap? Each LRT line in Portland has required extensive bridgework or tunnels to jack up the price. BRT, for example, would have simply gone up-and-over Sylvan instead of underneath it. BRT could be easily incorporated on a new Interstate Bridge in conjunction with a carpool lane/express lane.

    Street cars have the ability for rapid transit service by giving them a dedicated line.

    Which is no greater benefit than a bus – but streetcars do it at much greater expense.

  7. “Spatial Patterns of Air Toxins in the Region” by Vivek Shandas and Linda George in the Winter 2009 issue of PSU’s Metroscape should be the starting point for a discussion of transportation equity. No surprise, the freeway network brings nearby residents a real toxic soup. Freeways thru most America cities were built thru poor and disenfanchised neighborhoods, mostly housing minorities.

  8. The most thorough study of BRT vs LRT was Metro’s work on high capacity transit to Milwaukie. In order to keep the “R” in BRT, one has provide peak hour ROW…via extra lanes, structures, etc. Hence capital costs are not that much different, while operating costs are night and day with light rail considerably lower…larger vehicles is the main reason for this. And then there is the all important “choice rider”…they simply prefer rail, so ridership potential for LRT is that much higher. My guess is that most residents along the Barbur corridor would be very unhappy if they were offered a BRT option instead of LRT…they would cry out against the perceived “second class product.” LRT was put back in the Milwaukie corridor at the demand of residents of SE Portland and even Milwaukie after it was initially excluded by Metro. Every major corridor deserves LRT…its an equity issue.

  9. Every major corridor deserves LRT…its an equity issue

    [expletive deleted] everyone deserves a job with livable wage too for [expletive deleted]!

    There’s no equity in anything!

    Bureaucrats Gone Wild!

  10. Lenny Anderson wrote: Every major corridor deserves LRT…its an equity issue.

    Yes, it’s equitable to provide substandard bus service while certain other favored communities receive gold-plated rail systems.

    It’s equitable for WES riders to get cushy seats, air conditioned trains and free internet access, while a 12B rider gets…well…if they’re lucky air conditioning.

    all important “choice rider”

    The last time I checked, government was not supposed to favor one class or group of citizens over another. So why do some transit riders get better service than another? Shouldn’t all TriMet residents receive an equal quality of service?

    The matter of mode should not be equated to quality. Mode should simply be what is best suited for the volume of transit – light rail is going to carry more passengers than a bus, no question. But if the ridership warrants a bus, shouldn’t we get the best damn bus our money can buy (since we do that with light rail and commuter rail and streetcar)?

    If we are going to be cheap, we need to be equally cheap. Mode of transport shouldn’t be a factor with that.

  11. While lots of time and money are spent on transit planning, when an opportunity arises, a project happens…hence WES, an idea that came from elected officials of Washington county.
    What I failed to point out above is that in heavily used corridors that need to be built out with LRT (and “heavily used” is the criteria), there can be lots of improvements to existing bus service made in the meantime… newer, larger buses; upgraded stops; limited (as in fewer stops) service; better access to transit (sidewalks, crossings, etc.); signal preemption and bus only lanes where existing ROW allows; and so on. But these only get you part of the “R” of BRT…rapid/reliable…that you need to really grow ridership and get non-transit riders to “choose” transit over driving alone.

  12. I saw recently in a Metro HCT document that there are plans for “West Metro BRT” in Washington County and “Central East BRT” involving Gresham. I’m assuming these would be TV Highway and Powell Blvd, considering the names given and the possible routes on the HCT plan map.

    I have no problems with BRT per se but unless you build a seperated right of way, it is just spending lots of money for a service that is just slightly better than a standard bus line. You’ll see proposals nationwide for BRT that cost around $50-80 million and yet its only a couple of new branded articulated buses and a set of custom built bus shelters with a TVM inside. TV highway and Powell blvd seem like good candidates for ‘in-street BRT’ but I dont see a big difference between ‘in-street BRT’ and frequent service bus as is presently there.

  13. And that is the problem with BRT…its either cheap, hence you lose the “R” or its expensive and you might just as well build LRT. To get the Rapid/Reliable of “R” you must have exclusive right of way, at least in the peaks. Not cheap.

  14. I dont see a big difference between ‘in-street BRT’ and frequent service bus as is presently there.

    Limited stops. Better stations. It actually wouldn’t cost that much to implement. LA does it already with their Rapid network. They’ll have a frequent bus (say, #20) and a 700-numbered rapid bus (#720) that stops only at significant transfer points or stops that are significant traffic generators in their own right. LA also points their Rapid buses red to distinguish them from regular buses.

    Tri-Met could implement similar service pretty easily if the ridership on the corridor was high enough to support it. Line 72 would be an excellent candidate; it’s often crowded even at off-peak hours, long enough that limited service could save a lot of time, and intersects about two dozen bus and MAX lines along the way. Also, it’s rare that 82nd or Killingsworth get congested enough to interfere with bus operations, even at peak hours. There would be no need for dedicated lanes.

  15. re 72 line…why would you do this on a bus line that runs parallel to the new Green Line MAX…just 1/2 mile away?

  16. Lenny Anderson Says:

    re 72 line…why would you do this on a bus line that runs parallel to the new Green Line MAX…just 1/2 mile away?

    My problem with the idea is that Line 72 is unquestionably a local line. If you spend any time riding it at all, you’d see that most of the passengers ride a very short distance and there are ons/offs all the way down 82nd, not just at timepoints.

    I am curious to see whether any ridership shifts from Line 72 to the Green Line; my guess is that it won’t, because of that local traffic and because of all the commercial development right on 82nd.

  17. it’s rare that 82nd or Killingsworth get congested enough to interfere with bus operations

    As someone who used to ride the 72 down 82nd fairly regularly, I beg to differ, at least for around Powell. I’ve seen 82nd backed up 3/4ths of the way to both Division and Holgate, and specifically 3-4 buses at once stuck in the backup heading southbound.

    ridership shifts from Line 72 to the Green Line

    Well, I’d hope it does, since the Green Line is getting built and is going to be a big new operating cost, and since the 72 is very costly to operate (albeit very revenue-generating) given the ultra-Frequent Service on it (down to 6 minutes apart) and the delays occurred in loading all the passengers.

    Overall, given the crowds I’ve seen on ODOT’s I-84/82nd Ave traffic camera, knowing that that is the busiest(?) bus stop in the system, knowing that some passengers are probably connecting to/between east-west bus lines and knowing that some places (businesses, Marshall HS) are east of 82nd, I’m optimistic.

Leave a Reply to ws Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *