Along with all the scheduled changes last Sunday to move buses back to the Transit mall, it might have been missed that Portland Streetcar also had a schedule change.
Several months ago, TriMet informed Streetcar that for the upcoming operating year, it would be reducing its funding to Streetcar operations by the same 8% that TriMet itself is facing in budget reductions this year.
This represents about a $300K hit to the Streetcar budget (TriMet provides about 2/3rds of operating funding). While some of this has been made up for by favorable variations in other revenue areas (like sponsorships) and cuts in areas that don’t involve customer service, Streetcar will be cutting 300-500 service hours from its schedule (that somewhere around 1.5% of the current annual total of 35,000 service hours).
Peak service hours will not be affected, nor will overall hours of service. Basically the daily ramp up/ramp down of the number of vehicles out on the system will be a little slower, so there will be one less vehicle in operation 60-90 minutes per day.
No positions have been eliminated, the reduction in service will be accomplished through a reduction in overtime hours.
87 responses to “Streetcar Takes its Share of the Pain”
Well woopdy doo!
But I have a novel idea!!!
How bout charging a FARE to use it??
Brilliant huh?
How bout charging a FARE to use it??
This is most definitely being discussed, but to do so would basically be a break from fare compatibility with TriMet, which might cause rider confusion.
Right now, the stops the streetcar has which are fareless, are because the stops fall within the traditional TriMet fareless square.
Yea Bob, let’s talk about Fareless square in the face of service cutbacks.
Free service?
Service cutbacks?
What can I say?
THIS IS NUTS!
BTW;
I watched a video that put forth the proposal that TRIMET should have a STREETCAR type of fare mechanism INSIDE THE MAX CARS!
Why in the world don’t they do that?
Interesting, at our advisory committee meeting yesterday a citizen suggested Streetcar should have fare machines on the platforms…
LOL!
How bout MAX get them inside and STREETCAR get them outside?
Best of both worlds!
”
al m Says:
BTW;
I watched a video that put forth the proposal that TRIMET should have a STREETCAR type of fare mechanism INSIDE THE MAX CARS!
Why in the world don’t they do that? ”
The best reason not to install fare machines inside MAX trains is that riders are required to purchase tickets before they board the train.
But I do agree that Streetcars should have ticket machines outside of stops.
Purchasing TriMet tickets should be extremely convenient. One should be able to purchase tickets from convenience stores, markets and machines.
Eventually, TriMet should spend the money to enclose stations, at least superficially, and switch to an transit card, like the Oyster or Navigo.
I’d like to see streetcar numbers reported in TriMet’s periodic ridership reports, or at least by Portland Streetcar on its own site. Specifically, it would be helpful if we had a better handle on hourly operating cost and patronage by stop. This will be especially true after eastside and (most regrettably) Lake Oswego come on line.
We already know that streetcar’s farebox revenue is disproportionately lower than TriMet’s. It would be interesting to see how actually charging fares – any fare – would affect streetcar’s ridership numbers.
Regarding putting small fare machines on-board MAX, this has been a suggestion of mine for some time now…
The idea is not to have them as a primary means of fare collection, but as an emergency back-up.
Right now, if the fare machines at a particular station are out-of-order (this still happens), riders are required to disembark at the next station and use the fare machines there, and wait for the next train. This is a serious inconvenience to riders.
If there were a means of on-board fare payment available, riders who experience broken machines at stations could board, and then use the back-up system. If the on-board back-up system is also out-of-order, then if a rider meets a fare inspector, it is only necessary to point out the broken on-board machine.
The streetcar faces an opposite problem: A single on-board machine is not sufficient to collect fares if we move to a system which requires boarding riders to pay at a greater frequency than today (the majority of today’s riders already carry a TriMet fare instrument or are riding in the fareless area). If the fareless area goes away, or ridership continues to grow outside of that area, the transaction time will prevent riders from purchasing a fare before the next set of riders gets on.
In this case, it would make sense to gradually deploy platform-based ticket machines to stops which have the highest number of peak boarding rides, while retaining the on-board machine to service other stops and as a back-up.
That said, some sort of farecard system, with a simple scan as you enter/scan as you leave interface for the train, would do wonders.
Systems which use RFID, for instance, need not have any moving parts inside, and can be sealed from the environment, for entry/exit stations. Obviously, machines which vend cards or add value will still need to have credit card readers and cash equipment, but the printers and their supplies can be dispensed with. It might be useful to retain the existing paper-ticket machines, for occasional riders who don’t want a farecard–but right now, the paper-ticket machines are a major bottleneck in the system.
One other idea concerning fareless square. In Hong Kong, there is a vintage trolley downtown, that costs HK$2 (about 25 cents in US money) to ride–just drop a HK$2 coin in the box and you’re good to go. What would happen if a nominal fare, say a quarter, were charged for rides that are currently free in Fareless? Such a fare is still well below the cost of the ride–and a good deal.
Has anybody learned the results of TriMet’s what-do-we-do-about-Fareless-Square survey? One of the options was a $1 fare for all modes. I don’t recall any get-rid-of-it or full fare option. If streetcar starts charging any kind of reasonable fare, ridership should drop as folks weigh the relative benefits of exercising their larger muscle groups as opposed to their wallets.
Bob R. Says: If there were a means of on-board fare payment available, riders who experience broken machines at stations could board, and then use the back-up system. If the on-board back-up system is also out-of-order, then if a rider meets a fare inspector, it is only necessary to point out the broken on-board machine.
Or if a rider spots a fare inspector, it is only necessary to slip over and buy a ticket before the inspector gets there.
One of the improvements with ticket machines was to have all of them attached to a network for monitoring. Expecting that to work with on-board machines seems like a stretch.
Or if a rider spots a fare inspector, it is only necessary to slip over and buy a ticket before the inspector gets there.
One or two riders might be able to do that, but not significant numbers of fare evaders. (Or, the back-up machine could be located near a boarding door typically used by inspectors, making a last-second dash to the machine very difficult.)
One of the improvements with ticket machines was to have all of them attached to a network for monitoring. Expecting that to work with on-board machines seems like a stretch.
I haven’t repeated the experiment I did with the Mercury yet… does TriMet have any measurements of down-time, repair response-time? Anecdotally, at least one of the two machines at my local station has been down every time I’ve used it in the past couple of months, usually the only machine which accepts cash.
In any case, the point of an on-board machine is a system of last resort for the benefit of customers who are unable to buy a ticket at the platform… the on-board machines do not have to be networked, as they can be observed routinely by security, fare inspectors, supervisors, etc.
On-board machines, being protected by the weather and in a supervised area, can be much more compact and more reliable than machines installed out in the elements and in unsupervised areas.
On a related note: During the production of our video last year, in a couple of instances we stumbled across what we believe is a sequence of events which will “kill” a ticket machine, making it display “out of service” when it does not need to do so. The procedure involves a credit card swipe, so it’s not something I’ve chosen to repeat the dozens of times that might be required to prove the problem is real … could be expensive. But if you can hook me up with the person who manages the software, maybe we can track it down.
Back to the topic of streetcar fares… at this week’s CAC meeting, a spreadsheet was distributed showing the results of fare surveys done _outside_ fareless square, which showed the types of fare instruments used by riders, and the percentages of riders not using a valid fare instrument. Chris — do you have a PDF of this that you can post?
Interestingly, the spreadsheets show the cost of performing the surveys themselves and the revenue generated from riders purchasing tickets once alerted to the fact that they must buy a fare… at the current level of surveying, the revenue generated basically covers the cost of doing the survey.
As a veteran commuter , I can tell you that on-board fare machines would be a disaster.
If twenty folks get on , and have to jostle around everyone on the train to try to Que up to buy a ticket , and then go try to find a seat , again jostling [sp] everone on the train ,it would be most disfunctional , and folks just wouldn’t buy tics.
A validator on board MAX would be nice. I buy tickets in bulk and from time to time run to catch a train only to fine the validator on the platform to not be working
billb –
I’m not proposing on-board machines as a primary method. The platform-based machines would remain. The on-board machines would be a back-up.
The solution to TriMet’s fare problem is simple.
Implement an Oyster/Navigo type system.
Sell passes and PAYG credit at supermarkets, convenience stores, kiosks and, of course, TriMet ticket machines.
There is no need to create a closed system. It will work for buses, streetcar and MAX.
It makes fare enforcement extremely simple.
It makes riding transit extremely simple.
Why bother with anything else?
I’ve often wondered why TriMet tickets are not offered for sale at convenience stores, as Nathan mentions. In Europe, you can buy them at newsstands, tobacco shops, coffee shops, etc. Very handy. Why can’t TriMet do this as well?
accomplished through a reduction in overtime hours
That’s a good thing, because it means they’re getting 1.5x the savings.
why TriMet tickets are not offered for sale
You can buy them at grocery stores. And it wouldn’t be any harder than selling something like phone cards. But I’ve read that it used to be that some ATMs would sell them.
But I’ve read that it used to be that some ATMs would sell them.
That’s true. I used to purchase a monthly pass (or tickets – I forget which) from US Bank ATMs in the late 80s/early 90s when I worked downtown and rode MAX daily.
Being able to purchase tickets at a grocery store is good, but it should be possible to purchase a ticket or pass near the train line. Peterson’s for example, at the 10th Ave and Yamhill stations are two obvious locations.
at this week’s CAC meeting, a spreadsheet was distributed showing the results of fare surveys done _outside_ fareless square, which showed the types of fare instruments used by riders, and the percentages of riders not using a valid fare instrument. Chris — do you have a PDF of this that you can post?
http://portlandtransport.com/documents/streetcar_fare_survey_jun2009.pdf (PDF, 103K)
R A Fontes Says:
I’d like to see streetcar numbers reported in TriMet’s periodic ridership reports, or at least by Portland Streetcar on its own site. Specifically, it would be helpful if we had a better handle on hourly operating cost and patronage by stop. This will be especially true after eastside and (most regrettably) Lake Oswego come on line.
Those numbers are indeed on the Streetcar site. See
http://portlandstreetcar.org/commriders.php
To find that page, you need to follow the “community impact” menu. Kind of a strange place to put it IMO, but it is there.
We already know that streetcar’s farebox revenue is disproportionately lower than TriMet’s. It would be interesting to see how actually charging fares – any fare – would affect streetcar’s ridership numbers.
Typical weekday ridership is in the 12,000-13,000 range. Another chart on that page indicates total ridership in FY 07-08 in the 3.5 million range. Finally, there is some FY 08 revenue information linked from
http://portlandstreetcar.org/funding.php
that shows “Fares/sponsorship/promotions” at $300,000. I wish this were disaggregated so we could see explicit farebox revenue. Chris S. might be able to enlighten us on that one.
Chris?
— Mike Feldman
nuovorecord Says: Being able to purchase tickets at a grocery store is good, but it should be possible to purchase a ticket or pass near the train line. Peterson’s for example, at the 10th Ave and Yamhill stations are two obvious locations.
The outlet has to want to sell them, for one thing, and there isn’t much profit in them. Every month they’d have to inventory passes, return the old ones, get new ones . . .
Thanks, Mike, but I was looking for more specific information along the lines of TriMet’s “Route Ridership Report” [which has cost per ride, rides per revenue and service hour, and trip length data] and the “Passenger Census” [which has ons and offs for each stop]. TriMet doesn’t post these on its site as of yet, but makes them available on request. I agree with you on splitting up the “Fares/sponsorship/promotions” number.
Chris, thanks for the posting of the spreadsheet. I was a bit confused by a couple of the categories. What’s the difference between “no fare – purchased” and “no fare – no purchase”? Also, what’s the difference between “streetcar fare machine” and “streetcar only ticket”? I thought that streetcar tickets (as opposed to passes) could only be bought through the machines. It was kind of a surprise to see such a high percentage of streetcar only passes and tickets. It was even more of a surprise to see so many people south of RiverPlace in the “no fare” categories.
From what I understand, “No Fare – Purchased” indicates passengers who purchased a fare on-board after the surveyor indicated that one was required, and “No Fare – No Purchase” indicates passengers who did not purchase a fare, which could include a variety of situations: No money, deboarded the streetcar, trouble with fare machine, absolute refusal to pay, etc. (The streetcar surveyors apparently do not have the legal authority to kick someone off the streetcar, although they can ask them to leave and call in for other assistance. I don’t know if the reason for this has something to do with liability, or increased expense if hiring someone whose job description includes the possibility of physical interaction/altercation.)
and the “Passenger Census” [which has ons and offs for each stop].
I’ve discussed this with the streetcar organization. The methodology for streetcar ridership reports has been updated in the past few quarters, and a stop-by-stop averages will be provided at least annually in the future.
[“accomplished through a reduction in overtime hours”]
Jason McHuff said:
“That’s a good thing, because it means they’re getting 1.5x the savings.”
Not really. Between benefits (things like healthcare or time off, which you don’t get more of if you work overtime,) and overhead (interviewing/hiring/training people is huge, but also things like processing paychecks adds up,) overtime is generally about equal in cost to hiring more people.
Thanks, Bob. It’s prejudice, but I kind of expected some fare collection problems in the northwest with all the kids & bars and just the general social scene. SOWA seems so dead that it wouldn’t be generating all the – what’s the word – freeloaders.
Peak service hours will not be affected, nor will overall hours of service. Basically the daily ramp up/ramp down of the number of vehicles out on the system will be a little slower, so there will be one less vehicle in operation 60-90 minutes per day.
That “reduction” is so small nobody will even notice it.
Not like many west side riders who now have to MOVE
According to Joseph Rose the street car is losing 1.5% of its annual hours of service of 35000 hours.
That’s a total of 525 hours of service lost per year!
So what is that per day?
1.44 hours per day lost of service!!!
I’m so glad that there is such equity and fairness in all this upcoming mess.
PORTLAND PORTLAND PORTLAND, MY KIND OF TOWN!
According to Joseph Rose
Al, scroll up. Joseph Rose was quoting this very thread here on PortlandTransport. Look up at the very top. All the information is there.
I’m so glad that there is such equity and fairness in all this upcoming mess.
TriMet is cutting precisely 8% from their contribution to the Portland Streetcar, the same percentage as TriMet is making in its own across-the-board cuts. So yes, it is equitable.
I don’t see 1.45 hours a day less service as being equal to eliminating a WHOLE SUNDAY!
Or stopping service 3 hours earlier!
Or starting service 2 hours later in the morning!
(now y’all don’t start ragging on me cause I break up my posts, this is how my brain works)
Or stopping the service completely!
How is losing 1.4 hours of service a day equal to any of the above?
[Moderator: 4 of Al’s comments consolidated into one.]
and there isn’t much profit in them
Which reminds me of something I’ve been wondering: Which is the cheapest way for TriMet to sell a pass? Ones purchased from an outlet (reseller) require some of the money to go to the outlet; ones purchased from a machine require the machine to be powered and kept in service; ones purchased from the ticket office require those people to be paid…
overtime is generally about equal in cost to hiring more people
Maybe (and I know that’s something that’s been argued about regarding certain other local government offices), but we’re cutting here and not adding. That argument really comes in to play when increasing work hours–whether to hire more people or give the hours to existing people. Also, I don’t know about Streetcar or TriMet, but I believe in some organizations that hours worked does affect some benefits.
ok bob, that’s ok with me!
In conclusion, ladies and gentlemen, it is my humble opinion that this post
Streetcar Takes its Share of the Pain
is NOT APPROPRIATE!
There is NO PAIN involved with the street car cuts.
I think our esteemed moderators, Chris and Bob are aware of this fact.
I think what Al is trying to say (without agreeing or disagreeing), is that the cuts to the Streetcar service have less of an impact overall on the quality of service, compared to the cuts for other modes–even if the percentage of the cut matches the overall.
(What are the percentage cuts for bus, MAX, WES, and non-mode-specific expenses, BTW…)
Scotty, I fell off the chair when you asked what the percentage cut for WES was…
The question was rhetorical… I do know the answer to that, but wanted to get all modes out on the table.
That said, with WES there aren’t any night-time or weekend hours to cut; nor are there routes which can be trimmed. I suppose they could reduce service frequency, which would save on fuel costs–but it wouldn’t save on labor (the train crews would get paid for their time regardless of how much time is spent in operation, versus parked at the station). If they wanted to do a meaningful cut, while still remaining in operation–it would probably involve reducing the number of trains in service from two to one–meaning departures from Beaverton and Wilsonville on the hour at best.
It is unfortunate, I guess, that WES service has started during the worst recession in at least 25 years–were it to be up and running 18 months ago, with unemployment still in single digits and gas north of $4/gallon, I suspect the service wouldn’t look quite so unwise.
The tickets are sold at many (although never enough)locations in the community: http://www.trimet.org/fares/ticketoutlets.htm
– however, the website is a pretty easy way to buy them. The $1.50 S&H may keep some people from buying there. Usually arrives in 2 days.
Once I learned that WES costs almost $880 per hour to operate, it became clear that the service could never compete with other local public transit, at least not at standard TriMet fares.
TriMet was hoping that WES would be providing 2,400 rides per day at this point, and we’re slightly less than half that. It’s hoping the number will rise to 4,000 by 2020 which is possible. But even then, it would still cost more than twice TriMet’s average cost per ride. If we can’t bring WES into line, it can only drain resources from bus, MAX, and yes, even streetcar.
Any breakdown of that $880/hour figure? I’ve seen how it was arrived at one way; but I’d be interested in how much of that figure (if it is correct) goes to insurance, labor, fuel, etc.
The only thing that comes close to making sense is an assumption that the service is suffering disproportionately due to Tri-Met’s failed attempt at hedging against high fuel prices, resulting in the agency being locked into purchasing diesel at above-market prices (or at least so much). Given that the DMUs get about 2 miles to the gallon at best, and assuming the actual mileage is half due to stopping, accelerating, and idling; that would suggest each train burns 30 gallons per 30-mile round trip, or 30 gallons per hour. With two trains in service, that’s sixty gallons per hour–even if Tri-Met is paying $4 a gallon per diesel, that’s still less than a third of the $880 figure.
Wages and benefits for the two two-man crews might account for another big chunk. Al–how much do the guys on Wes make, anyway?
I think part of the lesson here is that FRA regulations (requiring two-man crews, trains built like tanks, etc) are VERY unfriendly to transit operations. Some of those regulations may be appropriate on “dark” raillines or ones in disrepair (on which passenger services aren’t allowed anyway), but on a modern line with modern signalling, are overkill.
WES was the brainchild of various Washington county electeds, including Tom Brian, commission chair, who saw it as a lower capital cost option to light rail in the 217 corridor. In fairness it deserves some time to prove itself, but with just 1/2 hour frequency in the peaks, it has limited value as a piece of the transportation system. It is also subject to federal railroad regs which complicate matters as well.
I think a WES-style service might prove to be an attractive alternative to something like Amtrak Cascades, over a Salem-to-Portland route. WES itself would be more attractive if it continued on to Hillsboro (even if somewhat duplicative of MAX), and there were better transit connections on the south end (besides local Tri-Met and SMART routes). As it stands, the line is of limited utility as a commuter service.
WES should have been an extension of the Red Line into Tualatin with an overpass taking it to Washington Square. You couldn’t ask for more perfect route. It adds capacity to the 217 corridor. Plenty of land for redevelopment…maybe some of the best opportunities in the metro area. The railbed could easily be widened to accommodate both 2 Max tracks and one for the freight trains. It would have been a cheaper extension of the proven Max system.
Those of us that live in Tigard near WES don’t ride it for the many of the reasons stated above. It’s infrequent. It’s a hassle to transfer to MAX to ride into Downtown. You’re always worried that you will miss the last train. It doesn’t run during the middle of the day. Someone just didn’t do their homework on this line.
I have written this on this blog, told trimet and anyone else that will listen. Doesn’t seem like the politicians listen to the people that will be using the line so we are stuck with a lemon.
TriMet’s spring ridership report gives $18.57 per boarding ride and 47.3 boarding rides per vehicle hour hence $878.36 with no further breakdown. This is the same format for bus & MAX.
One thing from the report that might get some eyebrows raised is that the ratio of WES rides to revenue hour compared with rides to vehicle hour is 1.69 to 1 compared with roughly 1.25 to 1 for MAX. This means that TriMet pays a disproportionate amount to P&W for non-revenue vehicle hours. Non revenue vehicle hours normally consist mostly of the empty trip time between the route and base. There must be something else about WES that would require such a high ratio.
Scotty-your point about TriMet’s oil future hedging is very interesting. I had assumed that TriMet paid a straight inclusive fee to the P&W and that the railroad supplied the diesel and everything else for the service.
Along the lines that Dave wrote – does anybody know where Metro is on HCT priorities? The LO streetcar stakeholders recently received a letter saying they did not include Milwaukie to LO or Oregon City to Tualatin.
I think many agree with you, Dave; however the money for a MAX extension was not there at the time.
The good news about WES is that most of the capital expenditures are useful even if the service were to be abandoned, or replaced with MAX. Improvements to the rail line are beneficial to freight operations; the DMUs themselves could be redeployed to another corridor (i.e. Portland/Salem) should the need arise–or in worst case, sold. (There are plenty of commuter rail services in other parts of the country operating on freight lines–typically with a locomotive and coaches, rather than with a DMU–but which might benefit from a smaller, more efficient trainset at certain times of the day).
Why would P&W sell fuel to Tri-Met? I suppose if they could get a cut, that would be nice for their pockets; but usually when you lease trackage rights to run your trains on someone else’s railroad, all you are paying for is the availability of the rails. Buying gas is your own business.
(It should be noted that P&W doesn’t own the entirety of the ROW. One stretch was formerly owned by UP I believe, and bought from them; and the Lombard Street spur into the Beaverton TC is probably owned by some government agency).
I did read, on another transit blog, that P&W requires Tri-Met indemnify it from accidents involving WES; and that this insurance is expensive.
If Tri-Met, or other governments in the area, are serious about commuter rail, perhaps they ought to buy the remainder of the ROW from P&W, and lease trackage rights back to them. It would be advantageous for the railroad, I would think–no need to pay property taxes on the line; no need to worry about maintenance, and their liability is limited to incidents involving their trains. And Tri-Met would be freer to add services as necessary.
I did read on another transit blog that P
I think what Al is trying to say (without agreeing or disagreeing), is that the cuts to the Streetcar service have less of an impact overall on the quality of service, compared to the cuts for other modes
Indeed! And here is where we can see quite clearly how statistics can obscure reality.
8% cut for streetcar, virtually nothing.
But wait, some of these west side lines are being cut much more than 8%. Some lines are being cut 100%. So let’s stop pretending that all the cuts are being made fairly, cuase it just aint so!
That said, with WES there aren’t any night-time or weekend hours to cut; nor are there routes which can be trimmed.
They could just moth ball WES for now. Why is that not an option? (along with the green line)
Nobody is riding it! Most of the people that take it could right an already existing bus!
It’s completely a joke, and it’s causing west side transit riders continual pain. Every time it breaks down they pull buses off routes that are supposed to be servicing other riders.
Once I learned that WES costs almost $880 per hour to operate,
TRIMET, Fred, whoever, wanted this luxury ride for who knows what reason. There is bureaucratic boasting involved with this that is something these elite bureaucrats love to do with each other.
Al–how much do the guys on Wes make, anyway?
They are on a par with us, 24 bucks an hour plus health etc. (oh my god, the horror!)
I do know for sure that the WES guys are in heaven with this project. These are people used to working with freight all day long, this is luxurious for them!
but with just 1/2 hour frequency in the peaks, it has limited value as a piece of the transportation system.
WOW, I agree with Lenny! That’s at least twice now!
Doesn’t seem like the politicians listen to the people that will be using the line so we are stuck with a lemon.
Ah, but here is the problem. The bureaucrats have taken over the government, as if they OWN IT, it’s they’re property. What the people think is of no concern to them. Why else would things like this keep happening?
WES is directly responsible for the demise of services on the west side.
I have been blogging a long time now and saw that something had to give when it comes to TRIMET’S merciless expansion.
How in the world did they plan to pay for operating all this stuff?
There are only two answers, cut existing services or raise taxes.
AND THEY CHOSE BOTH, and lucky for them they had the recession to blame.
Funny how none of the top dogs have lost anything in all this mess.
The cuts are not over, there are more coming.
Aren’t the crews P&W people? I understand your point, Scotty, in that the rolling stock was bought by TriMet. Without a look at the contract(s) is there really any way of knowing for sure who pays for what?
I basically agree with you on the advantages of TriMet buying the ROW’s for commuter rail/MAX/rapid streetcar [or even paving over for BRT for ROW without any potential freight business] and very much wish that we already owned the line from Milwaukie to Sherwood. The concern is that it would drive the decision process and we’ll end up with more marginal projects just because of the “we bought it, we gotta use it” mentality.
As a side note, the only fair way to make these cuts was to cut EVERY SINGLE LINE ITEM IN THE TRIMET BUDGET 8%.
Salaries and wages not exempt. Health care has to be exempt because TRIMET has no say in costs involved with that. But every other expense cut equally.
Nobody should have lost service in the mess.
As you point out, Al; many expenses are fixed and cannot be cut 8%. Whether a particular bus line is worth saving or not, I’m not in a position to say. Some bus lines (like South End Road) are reportedly poor performers, but are still being run in order to maintain the taxing district. (Places which get no service have the option, of course, to opt out of Tri-Met).
When the Green Line comes on–I imagine that many eastside lines will be reconfigured as feeders to MAX, rather than routes to downtown. This seems to be standard Tri-Met MO for MAX. And unlike WES, MAX is actually pretty efficient to operate, so mothballing the Green Line will probably not net the savings you would like.
A question I’ve asked you before, though, and you haven’t answered: How do most bus drivers view MAX, and rail in general–as a threat to their jobs, or as an important part of the transit system? I wouldn’t be surprised if the former–one of the touted advantages of rail is the ability to haul more passenger with fewer drivers. That dynamic has certainly played out in other cities, such as LA.
EngineerScotty Says: When the Green Line comes on–I imagine that many eastside lines will be reconfigured as feeders to MAX, rather than routes to downtown.
Actually, no, that isn’t how structuring is taking place. Some of the existing lines will take the opportunity to layover at Green Line stations (like Lents or Clackamas TC) and there are some tweaks to the east of I-205, but they don’t really operate as feeders.
How do most bus drivers view MAX, and rail in general–as a threat to their jobs, or as an important part of the transit system?
I have not ever heard any bus operator ever express to me or others any sort of worry about rail being a “threat” to our jobs.
I’ve never thought that.
Obviously rail makes sense, for intercity transport.
NYC subway is by far the best example of rail being far superior to bus.
Portland does not emulate NYC in any way.
Blue line makes sense. Red line makes sense.
Yellow line does not without a Vancouver connection.
The green line is an abomination.
WES is foolhardy, for the reasons that Lenny A stated.
The streetcar is really silly, I know, people prefer it to bus, but that does not make it any less silly.
And I don’t agree with your hypothesis that some things can not be cut equally.
“Poor performers” is a right wing capitalistic view of transit.
It’s not appropriate to view transit as a “for profit” concern.
You provide service, to all areas of a district, regardless of performance.
When TRIMET cuts service they create self fulfilling prophecy.
I see it right now on the 67.
People abandon the system when the service is so awful.
The WES provides AWFUL service, it’s a failure, that’s obvious.
***A question I’ve asked you before, though, and you haven’t answered: How do most bus drivers view MAX, and rail in general–as a threat to their jobs, or as an important part of the transit system? I wouldn’t be surprised if the former–one of the touted advantages of rail is the ability to haul more passenger with fewer drivers. That dynamic has certainly played out in other cities, such as LA.***
Allow me to answer this question also. I am also a Bus Operator for TriMet. I do not see MAX as a threat to my job. Rail Operators are subject to the same contract as Bus Operators are. Therefore there is no “Us versus Them” mentality.(Note: Having just said that let me explain a little more. Bus Operators are excellent at complaining about anything and everything in “the bullpen”. And this is true about MAX. So, for example, if Rail Ops gets it written into the contract that They get 2mins for shift change put into the schedule and Bus Ops get nothing… well that is just Rail getting “all the favors.”)
Max does not compete with bus service–they are different services.It is HCT not local or neighborhood service. What MAX does do is provide TriMet with the ability to move large amounts of people efficiently-fewer operators overall at less cost-in the Portland Region. This-in my opinion-helps all of us currently employed at TriMet–stay that way.
I’m glad to hear that, gentlemen. A few specific points:
Al: And I don’t agree with your hypothesis that some things can not be cut equally. “Poor performers” is a right wing capitalistic view of transit.
Given that I don’t consider myself a capitalist of the “right-wing” variety (capitalist, yes, right-wing, definitely not), I’m a bit surprised. I see where you are coming from–that many factors besides raw dollars and sense ought to determine service changes. OTOH, Tri-Met has to balance its books, and its biggest source of revenue–the payroll tax–it lacks the power to alter. Some critics of Tri-Met on the left act as though Tri-Met is sitting on (and hoarding) a pot of gold, or has unilateral ability to soak the rich when it wants to that it isn’t using–when Tri-Met is just as hamstrung by “the system” as the rest of us.
Perhaps “the system” needs modification (a subject which is off-topic for this blog), but it’s beyond Tri-Met’s power to make it so.
Tri-Met has to balance its books
Now this is where the discussion begins!
Trimet is a government funded social program, benefiting all people that use it EQUALLY.
This concept of “balancing the books”, who says so?
Just look around, did the savings a loan industry balance the books? Does the war in Iraq balance the books?
The answer is NO!
But for some reason these sorts of things are not required to BALANCE THE BOOKS.
Transit is required to balance the books.
Trillions and trillions of OUR TAX DOLLARS are spent stupidly on all sorts of wasteful projects that are not required to balance the books.
So why is it that TRANSIT, which actually provides a service to the public, is held to this standard of accountability, while all these other programs are not?
The answer is obvious, transit users are politically without power, and hence they are looked at as marginal citizens, easy targets to hold to standards that are not applied to other programs.
TRIMET has made plenty stupid administrative decisions, as have many other transit agencies. But not all transit agencies are cutting services and raising fares. LA is just one example. So some districts have been able to handle their budgets wisely, Trimet is not among them. At the same time Trimet is not any where as bad off as other transit districts are.
The point is this.
The federal government, wasting trillions, including funding all these stupid capital projects, should be making sure TRANSIT SERVICES are provided to EVERY CITIZEN, not just the ones that live on “productive” routes.
I say again, if you’re gonna cut, cut everything EQUAL, some are not better or more worthy than others.
The money goes to where the power is, and the power is in Portland.
To put forth any argument against that is to deny reality.
A further point on this topic
Those of us that have been around awhile new that service cuts were coming in any event.
Trimet keeps expanding; there is no way for to keep expanding without cutting services or raising fares, simple arithmetic.
Now, combine that with decline in payroll taxes, a huge lumbering bureaucracy (150 desk jockeys at 100k or more), we now have serious problems.
A prudent management would not have let this happen.
Fred knows one thing for sure, HOW TO SPEND MONEY without regard to the future.
I put the blame squarely on Fred Hansen.
Trimet keeps expanding; there is no way for to keep expanding without cutting services or raising fares, simple arithmetic.
Al, that’s simply untrue. As the region’s economy grows so do payroll tax revenues, allowing for increases in service. In addition, TriMet has been successful in getting the Legislature to do phased increases in the payroll tax rate, which also allows for increases in service.
In general, except when the economy tanks, the pie grows. This is NOT a zero-sum game.
The “S&L Industry” cannot lend out money that it doesn’t possess; however, it can lend out money that belongs to depositors–this is how the banking system works. When done properly, it’s a good thing. When done improperly (banks make excessively risky loans), it’s a BAD thing.
During the 1980s S&L debacle, folks went to jail.
Some will go to jail as a result of the present crisis–but the shocking thing about the mortgage crisis, is just how much of it was perfectly legal.
At any rate, you do have a valid point. The Federal Government may deficit-spend. Private enterprise may deficit-spend. You and I may deficit-spend; I’ve got a mortgage I’m paying off right now. However, the State of Oregon, and local governments therein, are prohibited from doing so, with the exception of bonded debt–and bonded debt can only, in general, be used to pay for capital projects, not operations.
The State of Oregon, of course, is not allowed to retain excess revenues in a rainy day fund–the “kicker law” (a stupid law if you ask me) requires that any such excess be returned to taxpayers. Many private companies face similar issues–shareholders frequently demand that excessive revenues earned in good times be returned to the shareholders, as dividends or stock buybacks, not kept in the corporate kitty for weathering bad times.
I’m not sure if Tri-Met is bound by a similar law or requirement–OTOH if Tri-Met did report an operational surplus, I’m sure we’d see all sorts of folks demanding that the agency spend it on thinks like a) improving service, b) improving wages and benefits for workers, c) lower fares, or d) return it to taxpayers. Big pots of money, just like big pots of honey, tend to attract hungry flies and the like.
Much of this discussion is creeping a bit off-topic. I can’t comment on the appropriateness of Tri-Met’s bureaucracy, other than to note that >100k salaries aren’t unusual in the private sector for many managerial professionals.
I think that if Al’s comment was modified to include raising taxes as an option, then there really wouldn’t be much difference between his point and Chris’s.
The point really is that some expansions are relatively productive compared with others. The blue and red lines and current streetcar really do offer service at a relatively low operating expense per passenger. WES does not.
None of these services generate a profit and must be subsidized. If the subsidies are entirely covered by increased tax revenue and other new sources beyond the inflationary needs of the existing system, then they are not hurting the system. They might even be helping a bit if they bring in new riders and more support for transit.
Unfortunately, if the new services eat up all the new revenue, then there is none available to update and improve core services.
P.S. For WES to reach the blue line’s low subsidy level, a DMU/trailer set would have to provide only about 660 rides per vehicle hour – about 14 times what it does now. Al is absolutely right on this one.
As the region’s economy grows so do payroll tax revenues, allowing for increases in service.
Just hold on a minute Mr. Smith.
For Trimet, a public agency, to make future plans based on rosy economic forecasts is just plain mismanagement.
After the West side max went in there were decreases in west side service. Coincidence?
I don’t think so.
Legislature to do phased increases in the payroll tax rate
This is not acceptable either Mr. Smith. What gives Trimet the right to keep asking for more and more money from the business community? If employment increases then Trimet automatically gets its share. To actually INCREASE payroll tax is WRONG!
Trimet should only grow when payroll taxes increase based on the number of people employed. Not on increases in the % tax.
100k salaries aren’t unusual in the private sector for many managerial professionals.
I’m sick and tired on hearing this, then these,
PUBLIC SERVANTS should migrate to the private sector if all they care about is money.
The blue and red lines and current streetcar really do offer service at a relatively low operating expense per passenger.
We have to stop looking at this as the only criteria.
WES was an abomination from the start. WHAT A STUPID IDEA, DISRUPT THE ENTIRE BEAVERTON AREA FOR OVER A YEAR FOR A RUSH HOUR ONLY SERVICE! Then the cost to operate this thing is absurd!
Now if had run once an hour 5 days a week it might have been worth it!
An express bus could have provided this service 2 years ago at a tiny fraction of the cost.
Al, I’m not arguing that the pie is allocated correctly. A lot of fair points have been made on this thread.
But you were basically saying we should never add more service because revenue is constant, and I was simply correcting that. The pie does grow regularly.
One could certainly argue that TriMet should create a rainy day fund to deal with economic downturns. TriMet has aggressively assigned new revenue to allow expanded rail operations. The result is that when there is a downturn, buses suffer disproportionately. I agree that this is not right.
I posted before that simply planning on the basis of the most riders per dollar does not produce equity. But I wouldn’t go so far as to say that TriMet should ignore efficiency of different lines.
There is a balance to be struck, almost certainly at a different place than where the balance now centers.
Some of the routes that are being axed have been around for 30 years.
The plan needs to be keep what you got,then plan for growth as needed.
Let’s face it Chris, the streetcar was not necessary.
Sure its nice, people like it, I don’t deny that, but it was not necessary!
WES WAS NOT NECESSARY, you cannot deny this fact!
And I do think that Fred has spent widely with no control put on him.
The board of directors is useless.
Trimet is becoming the poster child for what is wrong with Government.
Al, I will happily concede that the Streetcar is not necessary for transit service.
But it IS necessary to shape a more sustainable living pattern in the City and Region.
And TriMet is not paying the full cost for Streetcar, the theory is that they are only paying what it would cost to provide bus service on a similar route – and areas adding that much new population would definitely need new bus service.
Ironically if you applied TriMet standards for efficiency to the Streetcar, funding it would be a no-brainer. But TriMet doesn’t apply those rules to Streetcar, they basically negotiated the maximum amount they were willing to pay.
But it IS necessary to shape a more sustainable living pattern in the City and Region.
I don’t argue that point. Without the streetcar there would have been no condo development in the pearl, fact!
Trimet pays for most of the streetcar, the city should be paying the full amount.
Why does TRIMET have to keep losing money on fareless square?
The west side passengers lose service while the street car operates for free and everybody in downtown gets to ride for free?
How is this transit equity?
It’s a joke Chris!
So where does operational funding for the Eastside Streetcar extension fall into all this? It’s not replacing a bus route (unless you count the OMSI shuttle). Most of the route is extensively covered by other rail and bus lines. Plus unless there is extensive rezoning on the east bank, you will not see anywhere near the development that you saw in the pearl, sowa and in the west end. So I don’t see how this line ads to a more sustainable living pattern.
So I don’t see how this line ads to a more sustainable living pattern.
Creating housing in the Lloyd District and/or Central Eastside versus the edge of the region definitely contributes to sustainability.
3-4,000 units are projected over time.
Creating housing in the Lloyd District and/or Central Eastside versus the edge of the region definitely contributes to sustainability.
3-4,000 units are projected over time.
Why hasn’t 3, soon to be 4, MAX lines spurred this type of development in the Lloyd District? This area has some of the best rail transit service in the nation so why does a streetcar need to be added to spur development?
3-4,000 units are projected over time.
Here we have it folks, from Chris Smith himself.
These streetcars have nothing to do with transit and everything to do with developers.
But y’all already knew that.
Developers, or development?
Here we have a classic case of a disconnect between supporters of a particular transit/land use policy (in this case, increases of residential density in urban areas, which makes efficient transit more practical, and conversely) vs critics of the policy.
To many in the planning community, encouraging developments like the Pearl and SOWA and central Eastside is a good thing with benefit for all: Such developments put less strain on the public infrastructure then does suburban sprawl; and thus public projects that make high-density urban development more desirable–such as the Streetcar–are a good investment.
To many opponents, the same logic becomes a cabal–steering business to developers and land speculators is seen as the raison d’etre for such projects, not a side benefit.
Of course, many developers have been getting rich (prior to the housing collapse at least) building McMansions in the burbs; developers, in general, are probably happy to build whatever someone with $$$ is willing to buy. Certainly, a similar charge could be levelled against freeway proponents (and I’m sure has been in some circles)–they’re actively in cahoots with developers, rather than simply building infrastructure that will be beneficial to the public at large.
These streetcars have nothing to do with transit and everything to do with developers.
You think people would choose to live there if it wasn’t for the transit service provided by the Streetcar? I’d say that makes it about transit.
But it IS necessary to shape a more sustainable living pattern in the City and Region.
With all due respect, no its not. Especially since its not necessarily an either/or between central city redevelopment and “the edge of the region”. What is actually necessary is to make the people who want to live on the outskirts pay for the actual costs of doing that. The fact is that many services–not just transit, but streets/roads, water, sewer, electricity, telephone, cable television, garbage and recycling pickup, mail delivery, package delivery, pizza/other delivery, police, fire protection–are more costly to provide to brand-new (greenfield) developments on the edge, and to low-density developments, which those often are.
And they get other subsidies, too, like vast amounts of “free” parking and freeway projects paid for largely by the Federal government that sometimes, like in North Portland, severely disrupt neighborhoods.
Unfortunately, making suburbanites “pay their fair share” is frequently politically undoable, especially when the externalized costs are widely distributed and frequently invisible. For this reason, the “carrot” approach (urban renewal projects to make close-in locations more desirable despite the disadvantages, perceived and real, located with high-density living) is probably more realistic.
widely distributed and frequently invisible
Some things, like postal service, might take a bureaucracy to price fairly. But the costs of possibly many kinds of infrastructure, like new schools, would be easy to shift. In fact, it seems that, at least for families, schools play a big part in their decision of where to locate. Making new housing developments which (unlike houses that have been there for many decades) actually create a need for new schools would encourage people to live in Portland where there is plenty of capacity.
In other words, how is it good public policy to force decades-long residents in one district to pay for new schools to serve developments far from their homes while a nearby district doesn’t have enough students to keep their schools open?
I’m not against street cars!
I don’t care about street cars!
If it makes Portland a better place then great, get streetcars.
What I am against is sacrificing service outside of Portland so that we can have streetcars in Portland.
Maybe we need to split TRIMET in two, one agency for Portland, another agency for Washington County, and even a third one for max.
Bus needs its own advocate, Washington County needs its own advocate, and rail should have its own deal.
The way it is now all the money is going to Portland and rail, nothing to Washington County or Bus.
Maybe it is time to take a hard look at the way things are going here.
Municipalities are, of course, free to withdraw from the Tri-Met service district–and some, such as Wilsonville, have. I’m not sure what the reason for that is–whether Wilsonville simply thought it could do things cheaper, or because Tri-Met was only interested in connecting Wilsonville to downtown, rather than providing local service–but the option exists.
The downside of doing so, is that service isn’t very well integrated between Tri-Met and neighboring transit agencies in some cases.
Of course, with Tri-Met spending gazillions on WES, Washington County isn’t probably in a good position to complain about unfair treatment. :)
I think part of the thing with Wilsonville might be that with all their corporate offices, distribution centers and other employers that house lots of higher-paying jobs (InFocus, Mentor Graphics, Nike, Rite Aid, Hollywood Video, G.I. Joes, a certain printer manufacturer,…) they can generate a high rate of income taxes per land area. Now it wasn’t quite like that in the 80s or early 90s when they pulled out, but I don’t think they were providing the same full-service transit as TriMet did at first. (And, yes, I know they have lost some businesses down there, but they’re now charging fares, good for one way only.)
Also, as I said, TriMet can often get a higher return on service in Portland compared to Washington County.
post hoc ergo propter hoc
Afterward, therefore because of. It’s a logical fallacy, and it’s being used here. See also: correlation ? causation.
The condos came after the streetcar, therefore the condos are because of the streetcar.
You give tax abatements to developers anywhere, and they’ll build. You do it in the economy of the 90’s and up until 2008, and they’ll sell them. The streetcar is an amenity, but not the reason for anyone moving there.
(feel free to add this to the previous comment)
If the Streetcar was such a pull for the success of the Pearl, why is the South Waterfront failing? It has a Streetcar too…
MachineShedFred Says: You give tax abatements to developers anywhere, and they’ll build. You do it in the economy of the 90’s and up until 2008, and they’ll sell them. The streetcar is an amenity, but not the reason for anyone moving there.
How can you say that? What about that huge “Go By Streetcar” neon sign on Lovejoy?
Increase employment, increase fare collections to almost 99%, and more!!
I suggest everything Al M said… seriously, it is a no brainer, why is it so hard to charge for this stuff in Portland? Transit capitol of mid-size cities in America and people don’t want to pay for it at all. Just silly I say.
Anyway, on to my idea.
The privately operated streetcars of yesteryear had a doorman and a driver. I suggest hiring about 500 doorman for rush hour and mid-day service. They would handle all fare collection, and we get rid of the millions we waste on these incompetent machines we have all over the system, IN and OUTside of the streetcars and MAX. In addition the bus drivers could then DRIVE the bus like they need to instead of worrying about fare collection and all that stupid stuff. Driving is enough, let em’ handle that. Might save somebody’s life one day!
In other thoughts, bump the fareless fiasco and collect money from that. It could go toward covering all these new doorman (and doorwomen). Migrate all the fare collectors to this new position. That would again fill at least 20-30 positions and make the fare collectors far more of an asset instead of a “COST” as they currently are.
Next bump the fare to a flat $2.00 per trip EVERYWHERE. That would cover another few dozen of the job positions needed for collection.
Second, throw down that parking fee directly into TriMet’s coffers instead through the various entities it goes through (and having funds sucked from it) and that would put us about 1/2 way toward funding the new doorman position.
In turn, this could potentially drastically increase after 7pm ridership as the doorman position could also take up the “security” role. We could get rid of the useless non-union (yeah, I’m saying get rid of non-union, that’s nuts!) security gaurds and union security & transit police and roll them into the doorman position (which could be a union position if the union was up for it). This should put us even closer to our needed funding – seriously – how many security people does TriMet have running around? It isn’t even their frikkin’ job to provide security, that’s supposed to be the police!!
I’m sure at that point the rest of the budget gap could be made up somewhere. The increased affluence and quality of ride experience by having a doorman (/security/information provider/fare inspector) would be evident in no time for TriMet.
In addition, this would be a much more honorable role than “babysitter” which is in essence what the transit police & security gaurds are. It’s kind of embarrassing when you think about it, that there are “babysitters” needed for the more infant type mentalities out there, this person wouldn’t solely be seen that way.
Anyway, just some thoughts. They ought to be reviewed. Service on this level would be nice. At least during rush hour…
Just imagine the bus driver not having to direct the crowd to “MOVE TO THE BACK” while the fare evaders hide on that back seat, smirking at shirking the citizenry out of even more money.
Al M:
Be careful what you wish for. If Washington County got cut from TriMet, it would probably lose even MORE service. Washington County is in no way as pro-transit as Multnumah/Portland is.
“Without the streetcar there would have been no condo development in the pearl, fact!”
I have to say the MAIN impetus for this was NOT the streetcar, it was the fact that the developer got massive zoning changes AND tax abatements. The Pearl area was suppressed because of improper zoning and Government taxation, NOT because it didn’t have streetcar service. It got fixes in those areas and thinks went all roses. Not because of the streetcar. I love the streetcar, don’t get me wrong – it gets people with good jobs, good businesses, and people who like that type of thing (i.e. people with money that pay HUGE taxes – income taxes) to move to the area and that is a GOOD thing. But it didn’t incur the construction of those buildings. The city could have got that without building the streetcar.
“Trimet pays for most of the streetcar, the city should be paying the full amount.”
The streetcar is expensive for two reasons. It is a one off setup – so requires facilities etc, and the Union forces Portland Streetcar to use Union Labor. If they hired normally they could easily make it a LOT cheaper and operate more reasonably. The other thing that could have been infinitely smarter is if they would have purchased/gotten reasonably priced streetcars – preferably not hand built things from ex-Soviet Block States. The streetcar, and future streetcars could EASILY be vastly cheaper than running buses when looked at from a TriMet/ODOT perspective… however TriMet, Metro, and the city keep buying and operating under these lucratively expensive means.
Eventually the taxpayers will probably stand up and demand the city straighten its act out, but as long as things don’t raise the ire of the regular people – then they’ll keep floating along buying streetcar Ferraris and such.
I suggest hiring about 500 doorman for rush hour and mid-day service. They would handle all fare collection, and we get rid of the millions we waste on these incompetent machines we have all over the system, IN and OUTside of the streetcars and MAX. In addition the bus drivers could then DRIVE the bus like they need to instead of worrying about fare collection and all that stupid stuff.
Adron, this was such a great post I put it up on my blog, verbatim!
With this second round of cuts headed our way, we need the MODERATORS of Portland’s leading transit blog to start a discussion around this.
We need recommendations, and it needs to be presented in a organized fashion to Steve Banta, who has asked for input.
I intend to be more organized this time around these cuts.
So I have started yet another blog where I will put all the suggestions that come to my attention from any source.
This way I can see exactly what suggestions were listened too and which ones were ignored.
http://trimetcuts.blogspot.com/