OPB’s “Think Out Loud” program to cover TriMet woes


Oregon Public Broadcasting doing a show on TriMet’s budget and service woes, featuring several local notables.

Tuesday’s edition of Think Out Loud, a public-affairs program produced by Oregon Public Broadcasting, will be all about TriMet and the recent debate concerning its budget and its choices regarding bus and rail service. The panel will feature the following guests (list cribbed from OPB website)

  • Neil McFarlane: TriMet General Manager
  • Michael Anderson: Editor of Portland Afoot
  • Carlotta Collette: Interim Metro President, District 2 councilor and lead councilor on the High Capacity Transit System Plan
  • Jon Ostar: Environmental law attorney and co-director of OPAL
  • Andy Vobora: Director of service planning, accessibility and marketing for the Lane Transit District

The show will be broadcast Tuesday, November 30 from 9-10 on KOPB 91.5 FM, and rebroadcast at 9 that evening; after broadcast the show will be made available online at OPB’s archives.

,

12 responses to “OPB’s “Think Out Loud” program to cover TriMet woes”

  1. Gee I wonder why OPB didn’t invite any light rail critics?

    And what purpose is there in having Neil McFarlane or Carlotta Collette?

    Who needs to hear again McFarlane claim they only heard of the fed reduction in July?
    Or Collette share her enamor over the MLR bridge being the first of it’s kind in the country.

    McFarlane and Collette will have staff prepare their bullets and they will stick to a script.

    I could write it myself. :)

    There certainly won’t be any discussion of the source of MLR funds or the flexibility of 100s of millions.
    Or how TriMet’s dire financial future has no genuine borrowing capacity for the $60 million MLR bonds.

    Oh well, their roosters will be home soon.

  2. Well, Ostar is a frequent critic of the agency, albeit from the left. Michael isn’t afraid to criticize TriMet, either–and seems intent (from reading his Twitter feed) on asking McFarlane the tough questions which you allude to. (Do you read PortlandAfoot, BTW? If not, perhaps you should). The purpose of having McFarlane and Carlotta there ought to be obvious–if anyone should be put on the spot and asked tough questions, it is they. And Vobora is doubtless there to represent the pro-BRT view; as Lane Transit District’s EmX service is widely viewed as a successful deployment of Bus Rapid Transit. (Whether Vobora is anti-rail generally, or simply considers it inappropriate in the Eugene/Springfield context, I don’t know).

    Probably would be more fun if John Charles got to be there. OTOH, if the discussion is “how to improve public transit”, having panelists who are more interested in getting rid of it might be counterproductive.

  3. From what I’ve heard, Eugene has viewed BRT as establishing a ROW that could be converted into a LRT system in the future, should the area grow to a level of population that warrants it. I don’t think there is a an anti-rail bias there at all. BRT makes sense for Eugene right now; rail may be a better option in the future. Or not.

  4. “Probably would be more fun if John Charles got to be there. OTOH, if the discussion is “how to improve public transit”, having panelists who are more interested in getting rid of it might be counterproductive.”
    You couldn’t have provided a better answer.
    That’s precisely how TriMet dismisses all of the fatal flaws raised by rail critics and why there are no genuine opponents of TriMet’s rail transit in this event. “We can’t have them they just want to get rid of all transit.”
    Of course they and I don’t. And the convenient leap that our attendance & contribution would be counter productive is another whopper.

    So Scotty, how is it OK for you to falsely impugn our motivations? I thought there were rules against that here?

    Michael has obviously done a fine job of compiling information on TriMet.
    But he is far from a rail transit opponent.

    Ostar may be a frequent critic of the agency but his rally was a pro, pro Levy, pro TriMet pro MLR event. I was there.

    We’ll see what “tough questions” McFarlane and Carlotta face and answer. But this is probably one of the most predicable events in TriMet history.
    I’ll bet it is also a TriMet set up, their doing and their idea. TriMet PR staff cooked up the idea as part of the perpetual campaign to help the public “better understand” TriMet.
    I have zero doubt that TriMet/McFarlane made it clear they would not face or debate opponents.

    Make no pretense, this is a political campaign.

    The show will be another distribution of the TriMet staff presentation with a charade of open and frank public engagement.

    I’d like to see the story book on this.

    These questions McFarlane won’t answer.

    Why have you repeatedly said you only learned of the fed MLR reduction in July when there is proof you knew at least 18 months earlier?

    How does TriMet plan on funding the $75 million/year OPEB shortfall? Or is all just “apples and oranges” and not real money?

    The auditors report showed a severe immediate and long term revenue shortage. How does TriMet imagine there’s excess future revenue available for debt service on $60 million in new MLR bonds?

    Where will TriMet get the Clackamas County and Milwaukie $30 million after voters block their only source?

    Where will TriMet get the $20 million that Sam Adams won’t get from the Sellwood bridge?

    Where is TriMet getting the $10 million to give to the OHSU/OUS SoWa Life Sciences Complex?

  5. Scotty, I wish the format could have let me put questions (like the ones you suggested, about OPEB and various scenarios) to Neil directly, but I think Harris has a better sense than I do for the kind of questions that make interesting radio.

    Thanks very much for the plug, by the way.

    Steve, it’s true that neither Jon or I are rail critics in general. I think both of us (him more than me) are critics of specific rail projects. Ostar explicitly called for the replacement of all MAX expansion with cheaper BRT. That seemed like a pretty clear-cut proposal. Would you support it?

  6. Me: “Probably would be more fun if John Charles got to be there. OTOH, if the discussion is “how to improve public transit”, having panelists who are more interested in getting rid of it might be counterproductive.”

    Steve: You couldn’t have provided a better answer. That’s precisely how TriMet dismisses all of the fatal flaws raised by rail critics and why there are no genuine opponents of TriMet’s rail transit in this event. “We can’t have them they just want to get rid of all transit.” Of course they and I don’t. And the convenient leap that our attendance & contribution would be counter productive is another whopper. So Scotty, how is it OK for you to falsely impugn our motivations? I thought there were rules against that here?

    Relax, Steve–I don’t lump all TriMet critics into one boat, including those of the conservative variety. I think I’m on firm grounds where I suggest that John Charles is opposed to public transit–not the “transit” part, so much, but the “public” part. He’s well on record in thinking that transit ought to be privatized (and not subsidized).

    In other words, I wasn’t talking about you. I don’t make the assumption that you and Charles are in lockstep on these matters.

    But since you’re here… what IS your “vision” of what transit in town ought to look like? Public, private, what? What level(s) of service? You’ve gone on record as to what you oppose

    Steve: Michael has obviously done a fine job of compiling information on TriMet. But he is far from a rail transit opponent.

    Michael has already addressed that himself.

    More comments will be made (by me) after I have the chance to listen to the complete program. Caught some of it on the way to work this morning, but not the whole thing.

    (And Steve–did you listen to the show? Do you plan to?)

  7. I left an incompete sentence in my prior post; what I meant to write (to Steve) was:

    But since you’re here…. what IS your vision of what transit in town ought to look like? Public, private, what? What level(s) of service? You’ve gone on record as to what you oppose, and have been a fierce critic of the present (and past) management of TriMet… but what is it, exactly, that you support? Does your aversion to big-ticket capital projects (such as MAX) extend to highways as well? How much should the region invest in transportation going forward, and where should the investments be made?

    I have a good idea where John Charles and Jon Ostar stand on these issues; both are public figures with extensive paper trails documenting their positions.

  8. Michael,
    We cannot afford MAX and any Bus Transit would be preferable. One that includeds private jittneys. But OPALs admirable bus transit advocacy has stopped well short of joining the battle to stop the MAX insanity.

    Scotty,
    I am relaxed. Let’s try and be clear though. Charles , myself and other conservatives are not opposed to public transit any more that we are opposed to public schools because we support public charter schools, or opposed to public libraires because we may favor contracted operations like Jackson County’s 22 public libraries now open and run by a private company.

    Referring to rail critics as anti-transit is a stale disingenuous ploy.
    Whether or not public transit is run by a government agency or private business does not define the public aspect.

    My “vision” of what transit in town ought to look like is one whose mission is “transit service” and has a healthy & sustainable bus system as it’s core mission.

    Mission creep has destroyed TriMet and it is facing a costly demise. The irrational exuberance for Rail Transit, TOD, central planning and reshaping society has sacrificed it’s ability to provide the public transit the public is paying for.
    If getting back to public transit service means TriMet must be broken up and/or partially or fully privatized then so be it. IMO their fiscal mess makes it inevitable anyway.
    The idea that public transit must be entirely government run has proven to be wholy failed notion. And one that persists only because of political & union agendas. Certainly not by the pursuit of sound public transit.

    MLR in the face of insolvency is fiscal madness.

    No my aversion to big-ticket capital projects (such as MAX) does not extend to highways. Why should it? Our entire region is automobile oriented. The CRC will need to be addressed but can be accomplished only with sound leadership and no costly light rail/TOD planners agenda. The Sunrise corridor is also a worthy project.
    The Sellwood bridge replacement has been worthy for decades yet has been repeatedly deferred by the “agenda” that has now produced a crazy replacement design that has 37 feet for ped/bike use, 25 feet of road for cars/trucks/buses and plans to add a streetcar to the road way. Beyond foolish.

    “How much should the region invest in transportation going forward and where should the investments be made?”
    The regions needs are many as detailed in the extensive list of projects submitted to MSTP etc for funding yet never get the cash because of things like MLR that is now planned to take $178 million from those needs.

    There was never even any conversations that weighed other needs or the merit in diverting such a large amount away from future transportation needs.

    This is the problem. MAX and TOD pursuits have been blind advocacy without any such assessments.

    Now we’re looking at a Green Line that was blindly built in the wrong place and MLR being pushed with all of the identical flawed proclamations. This in addition to the many problems on other lines I’m not going ot bother listing yet again.

    Yes I will be listening to the broadcast or recording.

    Although I have already imagined it’s entirety.:)

    BTW, TriMet’s Dan Blocher’s presentation at the last TM Board meeting was quite the amazing piece of work. But not in a good way.

  9. Steve: I am relaxed. Let’s try and be clear though. Charles , myself and other conservatives are not opposed to public transit any more that we are opposed to public schools because we support public charter schools, or opposed to public libraires because we may favor contracted operations like Jackson County’s 22 public libraries now open and run by a private company. Referring to rail critics as anti-transit is a stale disingenuous ploy. Whether or not public transit is run by a government agency or private business does not define the public aspect.

    If it isn’t clear, I’ve been using the word “public” (in “public transit”) to refer to “government-run” transit; much as the term “public schools” in US political discourse means “government run schools”. In other countries (such as the UK) the term means something else, but when I refer to “public transit”, I refer to transit systems which are at least supervised by a government agency. (This includes arrangements where operations are subcontracted to private firms). If you want to call this “government transit”, and define “public transit” as any arrangement where scheduled transit services are provided to the public, OK–though I reject your characterization of my vocabulary as “disingenious”. Arguments over terminology, especially over who gets the right to use words with positive or negative connotations, are to me a big fat waste of time, and I’m not gonna bite. But it is important to clearly define terms–even if we don’t agree on the definition, we should understand the definitions each other are using. and I think I’m on strong ground in claiming that John Charles is generally opposed to government-run transit. I don’t consider that observation a flame or put-down, BTW.

    There are plenty of rail critics, BTW, (starting with the folks at Ostar) who I don’t consider to be anti-transit in the least. And I have encountered pro-rail activists who I do consider to be anti-transit, though none here in this forum.

    Steve: The idea that public transit must be entirely government run has proven to be wholy failed notion. And one that persists only because of political & union agendas. Certainly not by the pursuit of sound public transit.

    I don’t think that I’ve ever suggested the private sector has no role to play in providing transit–on many occasions, I’ve held up Hong Kong as an example of a place where a mostly-private system (albeit one which is regulated by the government) functions well in a first-world economy. I have serious questions whether comprehensive transit can be sufficiently profitable in Portland to attract investors–TriMet requires a significant subsidy, after all. There are quite a few runs which could be provided by a moneymaking private enterprise (and many private operators already providing services such as airport shuttles); that said, much of the existing social-service routes–the sort of lines most threatened by financial difficulties in the agency–probably couldn’t make money under any conditions. The ridership simply isn’t there.

    But I’m not ideologically opposed to privatization where it makes sense, and I certainly don’t view transit as a means for providing pork to labor unions. My primary goal is providing comprehensive, quality transit, and the details of how derive from that goal, not the other way around.

    I do, however, reject the notion that transit services should be provided by the private sector (without subsidy), or not at all–especially in an environment where the competition (the auto) is heavily subsidized.

    Steve: No my aversion to big-ticket capital projects (such as MAX) does not extend to highways. Why should it? Our entire region is automobile oriented. The CRC will need to be addressed but can be accomplished only with sound leadership and no costly light rail/TOD planners agenda. The Sunrise corridor is also a worthy project. The Sellwood bridge replacement has been worthy for decades yet has been repeatedly deferred by the “agenda” that has now produced a crazy replacement design that has 37 feet for ped/bike use, 25 feet of road for cars/trucks/buses and plans to add a streetcar to the road way. Beyond foolish.

    Ah, now we’re getting somewhere.

    My answer to this is that as technology and conditions change, our infrastructure needs to follow. What made sense 50 or 100 years ago does not make sense today. When the Interstate highway system was planned and built, much rail infrastucture was still steam-powered, gas was cheap as water, and the pollution effects of burning fossil fuels were not well understood (especially compared to the health effects of things like coal smoke and horse poop). In today’s context, gas is nearly $3 a gallon (and only that low because we’re in a recession holding down demand); pollution and global warming are big problems, and the low(er) densities required to support automobiles everywhere tends to make all other infrastructure more expensive. So, in short, I think that we need a comprehensive mass-transit network, as sooner or later, our road network will start to be more of a liability than an asset. Somewhere between $3 and $4/gallon seems to be the “pain point” that causes significant changes in commuter behavior, we’re presently just below that figure.

    I’m not reflexively anti-road; BTW. I do support a modest CRC (and would like to see mixed bus/rail lanes rather than simply rail lanes). If we’re going to rebuild the Sellwood Bridge and spend 8 figures to do so, I think we need to do something different than the current plan–a river crossing in this location needs to be a regional facility, and not just a shortcut for Sellwood residents (who LOVE complaining about Clackamas County commuters cutting through their neighborhood) to get downtown. I do question the wisdom of the Sunrise Corridor at the present time–mainly because the folks out in Damascus seem intent on resisting the increases in density which would merit the additional infrastructure. (The project has a few notable flaws from a NEPA point of view as well).

    At any rate, JPACT and other planning agencies do consider, and participate in planning for road projects as well as transit ones. In the past decade-plus, US 26 has been widened pretty much from the Vista Bridge tunnel all the way out to 185th, with numerous bottlenecks removed; OR217 has also seen significant improvements, as have major stretches of I-5, I-205, and McLoughlin. You may not like the results, but these conversations are occurring.

  10. The more Mr. McFarlane speaks the more he seems to be saying “It’s not a service problem, it’s a PR problem.”

Leave a Reply to Steve S. Cancel reply

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