Readers of this blog will be aware that OPAL has been a leading voice criticizing TriMet service reductions in recent years.
They’re now latching onto a somewhat obscure air quality regulation to try to put some teeth into that advocacy.
The Portland region is under Federal compliance plans for two pollutants: ozone and carbon monoxide (CO). Arguably there are some much more harmful pollutants in our air (benzene and particulates for starters) but regulatory inertia makes us pay attention to these two.
The region has compliance plans for these two pollutants and the plan for CO includes a requirement to increase transit service 1% per year, measured over a 5-year window (essentially a five year moving average).
TriMet has met this requirement in recent history by relying largely on the big increase in service hours from the opening of the Green Line in 2009. But cuts in service in the last few years mean that on a five-year average basis TriMet no longer meets the average 1% increase as of last month.
The regional transportation bureaucracy proposes to fix this by modifying the compliance plan to call out a 10-year average instead of five-year. The State DEQ (Department of Environmental Quality) has to weigh in on this, and OPAL’s comments (PDF, 585K) on the proposed change are interesting reading. They make arguments that the actual ridership benefit of rail service is overestimated in the calculations and more bus service would actually be more effective in reducing CO emissions.
It’s a very wonky club to try to pound TriMet with, but I have to respect OPAL’s tenacity. I hope DEQ at least does a serious evaluation of OPAL’s claims.
8 responses to “Driving the Bus with Carbon Monoxide?”
This is awesome! Go OPAL! The super-wonks for justice :-)
Not sure how that will work. They’ll fight for more service, then balk when TriMet goes for a fare increase. (I generally support OPAL, btw.) Perhaps TriMet will try to hold out/delay in court/etc until the Orange line comes on board?
This should be viewed as as regional problem, not as a TriMet problem–and the solution should be for the region to fund more service.
Of course, one of the stated reasons for doing light rail is zero locals emissions, compared to diesel bus, so an argument that this conventional wisdom is wrong would be interesting….
Sounds like a passive-aggressive strategy. Why don’t they deal with real issues—mainly that TriMet spends way more than they are worth—led by the progressive transit crackpots.
Are you sure this wasn’t thrown out?
I read somewhere that this was tabled.
Adding MAX light rail and streetcar has improved rather than detracted from the Tri-Met system. Tri-Met should add lower emission, higher MPG buses to the fleet; low-floor 35′ buses for specific routes; low-floor hybrid para-transit vans for seniors and disabled. Some activists think inciting dissent creates a fight they can win.
Some activists think inciting dissent creates a fight they can win.
“If the machine of government is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law”
? Henry David Thoreau, Civil Disobedience and Other Essays
“But cuts in service in the last few years mean that on a five-year average basis TriMet no longer meets the average 1% increase as of last month.”
So the streetcar extension and the MAX extension down the transit mall — both of which should have increased seat-miles by quite a lot — were less than the cuts to bus service?
Ouch. That means Tri-Met really should increase service for the next two years. Which means, increasing fares, too.
The “Orange Line” opening should probably get them back on track under the current rules.