In the form of an opinion piece on the Oregonian’s online opinion page (and reference in the print edition) which also got linked from the Oregonian’s commuting blog.
The four key points of the manifesto:
The Transit Riders Union advocates four things: Save Fareless Square, halt the cuts to bus service, elect the TriMet board of directors, and do an honest, systemic evaluation of TriMet’s management practices, including a thorough and transparent budget analysis.
36 responses to “Transit Riders Union Gets Some Airtime”
Shouldn’t that be phrased “halt the cuts to transit service”?
http://trimet.org/alerts/servicecuts.htm
I dunno… I get the feeling that PTRU is politically on the left of the spectrum, and may take the position that a) service to the poor is Tri-Met’s primary mission, b) given where the poor are, the best way to serve them is with bus service, and c) rail service distracts from that primary mission.
As discussed before, in many cities, there is the dynamic of “busses are for poor people, trains are for rich people”–and transit agencies frequently neglect the poor by cutting (bus) service to poor neighborhoods in exchange for (rail) service to other parts of town.
While Tri-Met has eliminated bus service as rail service has gone online; MAX serves many poor parts of town. Rockwood has had MAX service for two decades; and the Green Line passes through the heart of “Felony Flats”–indeed, many critics of Tri-Met like to whine about MAX making the criminal element more mobile than it otherwise might be.
I’m not sure whether or not to take PTRU seriously–much of their fire seems misdirected at times.
While Tri-Met has eliminated bus service as rail service has gone online
While bus service hours have declined and fluctuated a bit recently, over the long haul since MAX began, there is a steady increase in bus service hours as well. TriMet may have eliminated or shifted specific routes, but overall bus service has gradually expanded.
The PDF chart of ridership/service statistics on TriMet’s web site no longer goes back to 1987, but I have an older version on file that shows 1987-2006. In FY1987 there were 1,120,632 bus revenue hours. This expanded continuously with two momentary downward blips in FY1989 and FY1997 until reaching 1,527,228 in FY2004. After FY2004 the results are mixed, with FY2008 just about catching up to service levels from FY2003.
I agree with points three and four; elect the TriMet board of directors, and do an honest, systemic evaluation of TriMet’s management practices, including a thorough and transparent budget analysis.
However TriMet, existing streetcar service and transit in general must become more financially self-sustainable – weaned off from being dependent on welfare style public assistance. Methods must include increasing fares, eliminating Fareless Square, charging for freight on transit such as transporting bicycles, reducing service where it is not cost effective, charging high density developers fees and charges for ornate service along streetcar lines, eliminating raiding parking meter revenues to subsidize streetcar operations, and eventually, reducing the size of ever increasing payroll tax that goes to transit.
Bus service may have peaked in FY2009, considering the planned two-stage cuts this fall. The ‘redefinition’ of frequent service in particular signals a long struggle for bus service to eventually return to current levels. Remember, the $3.5 million hit that frequent service buses have to absorb represents only about 70% of WES’s operating deficits. Once we get past the current hard times, the fuel futures contracts, etc; TriMet’s situation should start looking better. Of course, that’s assuming that most of the planned rail projects don’t turn into WESlets.
I just want to say that I tend to agree with this (second) comment. Maybe the board has made some bad decisions, such as with WES and paying for a good chunk of MAX projects internally (but the real question is whether those would matter if the economy had gone along as predicted), but people don’t seem to realize that it’s not a board of director’s job to run an organization. They’re just supposed to oversee it.
PTRU is politically on the left of the spectrum
Definitely. Also, I don’t think it’s wrong for transit to also try to reduce congestion, and rail lines are what best do that, besides the fact that electric rail is much more efficient and cleaner than roads.
But overall, we need to solve the real problem. While TriMet may make mistakes, they are given a deck stacked against transit with things like “free” parking, subsidized oil defense and policies encouraging low-density, transit-discouraging development, like not requiring new subdivisions to pay for the schools they need while ones in Portland empty out. This means it’s not possible to have a rational transit system based solely on moving people around. For example, Fareless Square wouldn’t be needed if downtown and transit didn’t have to compete with the subsidies and policy encouragement that the suburbs and driving get.
I’m interested if the PTRU has any notion on how to PAY for what it wants. I’ve no objection in principle to any of these things, certainly, but Tri-Met management, whether democratically elected or otherwise, can’t conjure money out of the mist.
So what does PTRU propose?
* Elimination or reduction in rail service instead? WES is a big fat cherry ripe for the picking–but MAX nearly pays for itself; and the Streetcar operations are funded with with dedicated funding sources that cannot be diverted to bus service.
* Increase in payroll taxes? In principle, I wouldn’t mind–but this is probably not politically doable. If PTRU is taking an “its managmenets problem to figure out how”, they aren’t being helpful.
* Increase in fares? Doubtful, given that PTRU seems to want to save Fareless Square.
* Reductions in wages/benefits for operators? I doubt PTRU is actively interested in attacking bus driver wages, given their apparent politics–but who knows.
* Reductions in admin expenses at Tri-Met? This is a popular button to push, I suppose, but I doubt that there is much $$$ to find in the cushions of this particular couch.
WES is losing $1/2 million every month while providing transit service to a mere 575 people.
Why are you advocates not demanding TriMet mothball WES and save other transit service from cuts?
Is it not politicaly correct?
Hey, at least it transports more people than the F-22. :-)
But in all seriousness, the FTA paid for about 50% of the line, and if it’s at all like other FTA-funded projects, TriMet has a minimum service commitment they have to meet… or are you suggesting it should be mothballed and the local community pay all that money back to the feds? (I’m not ruling out the possibility — I just want to know where you stand on this. Who should be taxed to pay back WES if it is mothballed as you suggest?)
I think the 4 points are excellent. One can look at the fancy Trimet stats all you want, but the fact remains that it takes much longer to get places now that bus service has been cut. There is no question about it: Trimet is completely addicted to rail: 100% foamers. The have turned the majority of the bus system in a feeder route for MAX. This has had the effect of increasing travel times for the majority of users. The number of stories I have heard from Trimet insiders as to the mismanagement inside those offices is unbelievable. The rail service is barely holding on as it is. The Green Line was done about as low budget as possible – everything is cheap cheap cheap. I find the organization dishonest and never willing to admit the smallest of errors, let alone larger ones. Trimet is about one thing only these days: making Trimet bigger – more money, more political power, more control. Capitol costs for MAX are never recouped. NEVER. This has been documented over and over again by folks far more reliable than (regular poster here) and by folks who really know what they are talking about. Almost every case of ‘development’ that has been attributed to transit is just more public money invested – tax breaks, urban renewal, abatements, etc. So many people in the region have drunk the Kool-Aid it is amazing to see what is going on. Dissent is laughed off or ignored. There is no, no accountability at that organization. It really is a shame. But their boosters are powerful: from Blumenauer on down. It’s a real [expletive] shame. But I have every confidence that the house of cards will come crashing down. I don’t know when though…
[Moderator: Expletive removed.]
One can look at the fancy Trimet stats all you want
Whether the stats are “fancy” or “not fancy” is irrelevant. What matters are the numbers… if you have some kind of evidence which suggests the numbers are not accurate, please provide such evidence.
The have turned the majority of the bus system in a feeder route for MAX.
The ratio of boarding rides to originating rides (the number of transfers per complete transit journey) has not jumped significantly in 20 years. It may be a “fancy” statistic, but it’s there to look at. There are always going to be anecdotes about transit trips which require more transfers whenever there is a significant change in service, but the percentage of people who must transfer to complete a transit journey is relatively unchanged since MAX arrived on the scene.
The Green Line was done about as low budget as possible – everything is cheap cheap cheap.
Even if what you say is true (I don’t share your view), doesn’t that contradict your point about addiction to rail? Shouldn’t TriMet be at least trying to deliver rail projects on-budget?
Dissent is laughed off or ignored.
A little evidence would be nice. Other than the “100% foamers” quip, I didn’t see one fancy statistic in your entire comment.
Rail is clearly the fixation, it’s easily provable:
Rail is expanding while bus is being cut
End of discussion.
Rail serves economic interests better than buses do.
Property values JUMP immediately after a line is put in.
What the public wants is of no concern to the policy makers, everybody knows that right?
IT’S ALL ABOUT MONEY!
Fareless Square, halt the cuts to bus service, elect the TriMet board of directors, and do an honest, systemic evaluation of TriMet’s management practices, including a thorough and transparent budget analysis.
Sounds good to me, particularly preserving bus service for the poor, except fareless square.
Just how far can we cut WES/MAX without having to give back money?
BTW, buses are cheaper to operate than MAX. See PortlandFacts.com for the cost of a low cost bus line.
BTW the C-Tran buses peak period, to/from Portland come in at 9-18C / passenger-mile, far lower than the toy train. But C-tran neglected to give me the return trip loads, so I don’t have that #.
Thanks
JK
So how long would we have to dump money or lose service to WES before we could shut it down without any penalty reimbursement to FTA? Isn’t there some sort of “hey – this really isn’t working out” clause so that we don’t get stuck forever?
I’m very concerned that the Lake Oswego streetcar extension will be another such boondoggle, sucking a lot of TriMet operating funds, but not quite as much as WES. At a very minimum, it pushes the capital cost of a bike/pedestrian route eight fold to at least $60 million. Planners are now saying that the most efficient way to build it might be to bore a separate 1400 foot tunnel through Elk Rock!
The main concern is that the streetcar will be so slow and end up degrading service so much that we will need to maintain the current bus service as well as pay for additional streetcar operations just to meet headway requirements. At roughly $135 per hour to run a streetcar and a minimum of three vehicles 20 hours a day, the extension could drain up to $3 million a year if it doesn’t bring in LOTS of new riders.
The federal funding of WES was possible only because the feds were pursuaded to waive their formula requirements (among other stunts)
The idea that it must keep operating at tremendous loss because of federal requirements is ludicrous.
It would take little pressure in today’s economy to get a new waiver for moth balling.
The new line MAX line opening should also be delayed. Along with a major shake up at TriMet of course.
At a very minimum, it pushes the capital cost of a bike/pedestrian route eight fold to at least $60 million.
No, it does not. You are assuming the ROW, which consists primarily of a rail easement over private property, is available for use as a bike/ped trail if there is no rail service. In actuality, that ROW would revert to the property owners and there would be no trail at all.
Rail is expanding while bus is being cut. End of discussion.
Every existing rail line is getting service cuts, right along with buses. There is one new line, the Green Line, which is already constructed and is set to open, but it is opening at a lower level of service than originally planned as a result of the service cuts.
Bob R. Says: Every existing rail line is getting service cuts, right along with buses. There is one new line, the Green Line, which is already constructed and is set to open, but it is opening at a lower level of service than originally planned as a result of the service cuts.
Fall service cuts to rail are higher than to bus service (roughly 7% v 4%).
“Capitol costs for MAX are never recouped. NEVER.”
Where is the MAX capitol? Ruby Junction?
This from another blog fits well here
http://oregoncatalyst.com/index.php/archives/2531-TriMet-Proud-to-Receive-Golden-Fleece-Award.html#comments
Tri Met Only collects around 20% of the operation costs from the users,
by way of the fare box.
The taxpayers pay 80% of the operation costs and 100% of the capital construction. Such as building a new light rail lines or new buses. Most of that coming from auto taxes and user fees.
Despite that, the market share for riding transit in the Portland area,
has remained flat.
Portland, Oregon (3-County) Transit
Urban Travel Market Share
Compared to Before Light Rail
Roadway
1985–97.9%
2007–97.9%
Transit
1985—2.1%
2007—2.1%
Transit Share:
Change from 1985 = 0%
Motorized travel
Data from US Department of Transportation & Texas Transportation Institute
Assumes national automobile occupancy rate of 1.6.
So, after all the subsidies and paying the employees some of the best benefits in the industry, we have gained nothing!
Does that mean we have nothing to be proud of?
#3 Anonymous on 2009-07-23 06:43 (Reply)
Actually, the situation with the WSL ROW is a bit more complicated. Only about a third of it is in restricted easement or leases; the rest is owned outright. The project Alternatives Analysis projected the cost of the pedestrian/cyclist trail w/o streetcar at $7.4 million compared with $58.7 to $61.5 million with streetcar. I really didn’t make these numbers up.
At most, converting the ROW to a trail would involve buying the right to do so from the successors of the easement grantors. The total cost might be more than the estimated $7.4 million, but it certainly would be nowhere near the costs with streetcar.
Tri Met Only collects around 20% of the operation costs from the users,
by way of the fare box.
THE IRAQ WAR, WHICH MAKES TRANSIT HARDLY DETECTABLE IN TERMS OF $$$ COLLECTS 0% OF FUNDS FROM THE PEOPLE THEY KILL!
And then the veterans end up homeless or suicidal.
You right wingers are pathetic in your logic.
[comment removed – discussion of candidate political campaigns, including recall campaigns is not permitted by Portland Transport’s 501(c)(3) status]
Since I have seen other comments about the oswego streetcar I guess it’s not too far off topic.
In my opinion the bike/ped trail is more important than the streetcar- Lake oswego, to my mind, is absolutely inaccessible to these modes right now:Riding on highway 43 in mixed traffic sounds like misery to me, and I would guess a lot of people feel the same way who use bicycles as a cheap and pleasant way to get around rather than as a sport.
My second thought about the streetcar: please don’t run it on macadam when there is a dedicated ROW about a block away! this thing is supposed to get me somewhere!
I agree with Den about the relative benefit of pathway v. streetcar. After all, anybody that wants to travel via public transit between Portland and LO/WL/OC can now do so, and usually more quickly and conveniently than we’ll be able with streetcar.
The streetcar project steering committee meeting a couple weeks ago left a pretty strong impression that the favored Johns Landing alignment would involve a relatively short stretch on Macadam, but mostly remaining on the existing ROW. Project leaders estimated that this would add about three minutes to the run.
The big problem with streetcar trip times may well be with unrealistic projections. While the Alternatives Analysis estimated 24 minutes from PSU to LO, I’d guess it will probably be in the area of 30 to 36 minutes including the three minutes for the Macadam segment. Of course, we won’t really “know” until TriMet/Portland Streetcar publishes an official timetable. It’s still a solid bet that it will be slower than the existing bus for most riders, especially once the mandatory LO transfers and downtown alignment are considered.
Right now at InfrastructureUSA.org, users are discussing transit issues throughout the country. View new Show Us Your Infra submissions about sustainable transportation, L.A.’s orange bus line, and Chicago’s rail system. Check out exclusive interviews on The Infra Blog with Senator Robert Menendez and David Walker, former US Comptroller General. Share your perspective today.
As I feel comfortable speaking on behalf of the group, I will.
BTW, the article on Oregonlive is a much shorter version than the original, I’ll see if we can post the original on our site.
So what does PTRU propose?
* Elimination or reduction in rail service instead?
No. We’re for the expansion of all transit service. We also oppose the September and November bus service cuts.
* Increase in payroll taxes?
Yes. Using TriMet’s own figures, it can be argued that as many of 71% of TriMet riders use the system primarily to access their job and/or conduct business transactions of some sort.
* Increase in fares?
No. In fact, as a group we’re for expanding fareless service to make all transit free.
* Reductions in wages/benefits for operators?
Heck no! We have union representation on the TRU.
* Reductions in admin expenses at Tri-Met?
Yes.
WES is losing $1/2 million every month while providing transit service to a mere 575 people.
Why are you advocates not demanding TriMet mothball WES and save other transit service from cuts?
We have noted that WES isn’t working out the way it was supposed to, and argue that TriMet is trying to pay for WES by eliminating Fareless Square bus service. We have commented before that WES service be cut 50%.
Although the following mostly comes from one of our fliers, I’ve updated it for some recent developments.
Overall, we’re for making transit:
FREE–NO to eliminating Fareless Square.
FAIR–NO to layoffs, wage cuts, and furloughs. YES to adding more well-paid unionized transit jobs.
FOR EVERYBODY–NO to bus or MAX service cuts. YES to service expansions, new routes and increased frequency to address the needs of all our communities, including working-class and low-income communities, communities of color, people with disabilities, students, seniors, swing and night-shift workers, and communities far from downtown.
FRIENDLY–NO to unaccountable political appointees and 9 AM Wednesday morning board meetings. YES to a TriMet Board that’s democratically-elected by popular vote of the people, and allows for more ordinary citizen participation.
FUNDED–NO to bank bailouts, corporate tax breaks, war spending, and prisons. YES to full state and federal funding for transit operations, and for all public services.
I gotta tell ya, after listening to this trimet director, I almost changed my mind on the fare less issue.
Lynn Lehrback makes sense here:
KEEP FARELESS
Jason: * Increase in payroll taxes?
Yes. Using TriMet’s own figures, it can be argued that as many of 71% of TriMet riders use the system primarily to access their job and/or conduct business transactions of some sort.
JK: Maybe we should find out where those employers are located and tax them heavier. And NOT TAX those companies whose employees choose not to waste their time on transit and who choose to save money and energy by driving their small cars.
And NOT TAX those companies whose employees choose not to waste their time on transit and who choose to save money and energy by driving their small cars.
You mean their SUV’s that they drive out to windsurf or kayak once a week? Sounds fair, if we’re going to tax those who drive to the airport or recreational facilities equally as well.
Oh, let’s make sure that we pay back the feds for the PDX-area travel enhancements (most of which lately are near or between the terminals and the I-205 interchanges) for all their help as well. We don’t want airlines unfairly getting hand outs either, right?
Can’t you read – I said EMPLOYERS whose employees use trimet instead of all employers. The reality that most of mass transit is to serve downtown workers, so the downtown businesses should be the ones to pay most of it.
Really simple to grasp.
Airlines, like cars, mostly pay their own way – it is mass transit and Amtrak that get the heavy subsidies.
Thanks
JK
Airlines, like cars, mostly pay their own way – it is mass transit and Amtrak that get the heavy subsidies.
Airlines can pay their own way, if you leave out airport capital construction costs, TRACON, FAA administration, etc. The FAA currently provides 93.5 to 95% of infrastructure upgrades costs. Their budget as of 2005 was about $15 billion per year in Congressional allocations alone. Passenger fees do not cover the costs of flying just like they don’t cover almost any other mode of transportation.
Dave H Says: Passenger fees do not cover the costs of flying just like they don’t cover almost any other mode of transportation.
JK: Except, of course, cars. They actually pay more than their own way.
See: portlandfacts.com/Roads/RoadSubsidy.htm
Here are some quotes from the Federal report cited there:
* Highway passenger transportation system paid significantly greater amounts of money to the federal government than their allocated costs.
* On average, highway users paid $1.91 per thousand passenger-miles to the federal government over their highway allocated cost during 1990-2002.
Dave H Says: Passenger fees do not cover the costs of flying just like they don’t cover almost any other mode of transportation.
JK: You should also look at the charts (fig 2) to see that subsidies to air travel are extremely small compared to rail (amtrac) and transit.
Why not download and study the entire report: Federal Subsidies to Passenger Transportation
Thanks
JK
“highways” != all roads
Federal highway subsidies != all road subsidies
Indeed, when you add in *non-federal* monies, you discover that road users are being heavily subsidized by property taxes and sales taxes and income taxes. A large portion of which are paid, directly or indirectly, by city dwellers who rely on transit and walking, living, working, and shopping in the high-property-value downtowns.
Subsidies to air travel are ludicrously high and are larger than the Amtrak budget every single year, without fail. And that’s direct subsidies, which go mostly to airports and (and which are again mostly *non-federal*, rather state and local); in fact, airlines are largely funded by suckers who buy airline stocks and bonds, since they always lose money. An interesting scheme, which cannot possibly last forever.
In other words, the bogus report you are referencing is wrong from the start by its deliberately myopic focus on federal subsidies. Start looking at state & local subsidies if you want to get a real picture of what’s going on.