Last year there was an effort to form a Transit Riders Union. I don’t know the official state of that effort (someone please comment and tell us) but I understand that effort has factionalized somewhat.
Now OPAL (Organizing People – Activating Leaders), a local environmental justice organization, is working on organizing TriMet riders, using principles gleaned from the Los Angeles Bus Riders Union.
OPAL is holding a monthly meeting from 6-8pm every second Tuesday (next up on April 13th) at their offices:
2407 SE 49th Ave, Portland
RSVP to 503 928-4354
13 responses to “Another Attempt at a TriMet Riders Union”
A little background on what a Riders Union would entail?
At its core, some way for users of the transit system to organize and advocate with TriMet for their goals. Some items that have come up in the past are:
I think another issue to transit advocates was the $4 charge for the use of the tram, in lieu of the promised paper transfer lift ticket.
Last I heard, the Transit Rider’s Union split into two factions, with one guy calling himself the head of the Union, (it seemed to me) and another group.
LA BRU was mainly successful in court–some of the decisions of LA transit planners could be demonstrated to have disparate impacts in LA’s poor minority populations, which tend to be concentrated to the east and southeast; and so BRU was able to win a consent decree which ensured a baseline level of service to places like East LA.
(Whether the proposed plans, which at the time included the Red Line and the Blue Line, both now in operation, were in fact discriminatory or borne from legitimate planning objectives, I have no comment on).
Beyond that–BRU doesn’t seem to have anywhere near as much success, either in organizing passengers or in politicking. The advocate a fairly militant left-wing agenda, which turns quite a few folks off (we’re not talking mainstream Democratic politics; we’re talking stuff far further to the left), and they openly view transit first and foremost as a social service.
Plus, many suspect that they’re really a front for the bus drivers’ union–many of the the things they advocate seem more designed to keep drivers employed, than passengers well served.
Could a similar result happen here? Portland doesn’t have anything resembling East LA or Watts or other largely-poor, largely-minority neighborhoods–and MAX actually serves many of the poor parts of town (Felony Flats, Rockwood, inner Beaverton) better than it does the wealthy parts–so it would be hard to find grounds for a similar lawsuit.
Of course, I view the whole bus-vs-rail debate as (sorry to beat a dead you-know-what) proxy for a debate over who-gets-what-level-of-service. If MAx were a BRT, and local bus services were being cut so the frequent BRT to the suburbs could be had–would it make a difference?
And my final comment on the matter is–many of the problems identified are beyond the scope of TriMet management, which can’t unilaterally increase its funding (nor deficit-spend) in order to hold the line on service and fares in the face of declining ridership and tax revenue. Perhaps there is fat to be trimmed in administration; but I suspect there isn’t sufficient fat there to offset the lost income to the agency. I think that any lobbying effort on behalf of transit riders would in many cases, be better spent lobbying against road construction, for higher transit revenues, for upzoning transit corridors, or for other ways of improving the environment in which TriMet operates.
I arrived to the “Transit Riders Union” party late and stayed too long, here’s what I know as I know it.
A few years ago, a group called Portland Coalition Against Poverty called some meetings of the “Transit Riders Union,” gathering names and contact information, gave it to another group and disbanded.
In 2009, at an economic forum, various union and labor representatives held a discussion about transportation where the TriMet service cuts came up. This got a new version of the “Transit Riders Union” going, which was an informal group of individuals meeting to discuss how TriMet cuts would affect them and those they represent. Three key names were involved: Jason Barbour, Lew Church, and Patrick Ryan.
Shortly after TriMet voted for the service cuts anyway, many who had formed the group left to pursue other interests. Throughout the rest of the history, various other volunteers would come and go.
In September, Patrick Ryan, who had not been seen at Transit Riders Union meetings for several months, returns with a secret agenda and enough other people to “stack the deck.” This group voted to essentially end the Transit Riders Union in any usable form, and instead turn it into another policy research and debate group, interested more on organizational structure and pushing for paid membership in order for someone to say they were part of Transit Riders Union. The ‘deck stackers’ left the meeting early. Paid membership requirements never happened.
Later last year, the Transit Riders Union received less and less e-mails from the rest of the group, and several people including Barbour and Church became part of the ‘Direct Action Committee.’ When it became clear that others were not actually interested in transit activism, this Committee became the Transit Riders Union once more.
Earlier this year, Patrick Ryan was quoted by the Oregonian stating that Transit Riders Union had merged with OPAL, when the reality was the Transit Riders Union was still meeting weekly. Multiple correction requests were sent to the Oregonian, who to my knowledge never printed one.
At this time, Transit Riders Union was down to two volunteers: Barbour and Church. Barbour left on March 5th, 2010, citing “professional differences.”
I wish you guys luck because the public is gonna have to mobilize to turn this situation we have here in this transit district around.
Our transit system has been given away to big business and we need to get it back!
People in Oregon don’t give a sh** about transit, unless its streetcars or light rail.
Of course that leaves only the upper classes in charge of our transit system and I think the system has gone beyond the point of return now, there is no coming back, I sure hope I am wrong.
We Trimet transit workers are just forming our own sub group in an attempt to get our union off its arse and start defending us in the public venue instead of letting us hang in the breeze as the media continues crucifying us, I’m sure all with the approval of Trimet upper management , which consists of THE HIGH GOD AND WORLD WIDE LEADER OF TRANSIT, SIR FREDERICK HANSEN I.
We are in serious trouble ourselves.
I think its time we need a commuters union– like a activist group who represents the 99.9% of Oregonians who don’t ride a bike or light rail to work.
I think its time we need a commuters union– like a activist group who represents the 99.9% of Oregonians who don’t ride a bike or light rail to work.
I’ve suggested this before, and point out that the reason bicycle groups are so successful is because those involved with them also have jobs, mortgages, kids, etc., however they also believe they need to devote time to their interests.
If other real transit riders with real origins and destinations stopped relying on policy and study groups did the same, we’d probably still have 15-minute headways on key routes serving key destinatons and key corridors, comprehensive and expanded local service, as well as management that works with employers on behalf of their employees to determine what service at what times of the day would work best for work shifts.
I’m currently working on establishing a foundation for transit fare assistance. It could evolve into a broader transit users mutual support organization – in fact, that would be helpful from a fund raising standpoint.
Anyone who’s interested feel free to contact me. Keep in mind that I’m in the very very early exploratory phases of this project right now, though.
Looks like the first decision should have been:
What is the purpose of public transpiration:
1. To export parking spaces from downtown Portland?
2. To provide an excuse to densify Portland?
3. To improve everyone’s mobility?
4. To transport middle class downtown workers to their $50-100k/yr jobs?
5. To serve the truly needy?
6. Other
The answer to the above should tell us where to concentrate service, who should pay taxes for the system, where to set fares, who pays and who gets subsidies.
Thanks
JK
Transit is too transport people that need it.
Either they have no car or prefer not driving it.
Taxes get wasted on so much useless crap that there is no good argument against using tax money to fund transit as it benefits American citizens and others that are located in America. Tax money used for American citizens is never money wasted.
Transit should not be used to finance developers, provide “tourist” attractions,or duplicate already existing options.
Transit should be implemented by the most cost effective means possible, it should provide livable wage jobs to American citizens.
Although Portland caters to the “creative class” it’s transit system is essential to the lives of hundreds of thousands of citizens here that are not part of that “class”.
These people have no political influence and have no way to organize.
They are the outcasts of American society, hidden behind the facade of “green living”.
Nobody cares about them
al m Says: Transit is too transport people that need it.
Either they have no car or prefer not driving it.
JK: In a world of limited money, should we be subsidizing people who merely “prefer not driving” when subsiding them will take money from serving people who truly need help? Shouldn’t the middle & upper income people pay their full cost of that ride on transit to make more money available to help the needy?
al m Says: Taxes get wasted on so much useless crap that there is no good argument against using tax money to fund transit
JK: How about: two wrongs do not make a right & two wastes do not make frugality?
al m Says: Tax money used for American citizens is never money wasted.
JK: How about we pay 10,000 people to dig holes and another 10,000 to follow them filling in the holes? Full employment!
Thanks
JK
In a world of limited money, should we be subsidizing people who merely “prefer not driving” when subsiding them will take money from serving people who truly need help? Shouldn’t the middle & upper income people pay their full cost of that ride on transit to make more money available to help the needy?
To make everyone in the region driving equally efficient how much would need to be spent widening freeways instead of funding TriMet? Your numbers show how cheap a car is, but seem to leave out the added infrastructure costs that get hidden in the cost of car ownership. For example, most studies show for each car on the road, 5 parking spots need to be built. How do we pay for side effects like that?
How about the blind, the bad drivers, etc? There are plenty of people who just shouldn’t be driving. Para-transit services could be made available, but typically at a much higher cost than just providing transit.