Transit funds may become a ballot issue

Re: Transit funds may become a ballot issue

If "Smart Growth planning" is such a success, why can't they "plan" or foresee the need for additional Bus service? This situation is absolutely ludicrous and is contrary to what we have been told by the “Transportation Planners” for the last 30 years. We pay dearly to avoid these types of mistakes. Besides, our votes against MAX were not even acknowledged, so I'm disinclined to acquiesce to their request for additional resources, whatever good that will do.

"mark"

(email verified)

Thu, May 31, 2007 at 06:10 PM

Re: Transit funds may become a ballot issue

Tri-Met, you REALLY want to know which TAX package I support? NONE. Until you stop WASTING the money on light rail, go suck a lemon. Yes, yes, please put it up for a vote. We defeated the last two times that you put something on the ballot because we know what a black hole light rail is. If the money was exclusively for buses with no way that it could be hijacked for light rail I might think about it. However, I also know the inner workings of all governmental agencies, I know the 'shell game' that is played, if they want money for one project or cause and they see money marked for another, they merely change the name and do a few accounting tricks and suddenly the project that they want has the money. Sorry Tri-Met, you've stretched yourself too thin, too many of us don't like or use light rail. Get in touch with the public. Buses might have worked but you wanted the glitter. No more money for you.

"Native Oregonian & Native Portlander"

(email verified)

Thu, May 31, 2007 at 10:59 PM

Re: Transit funds may become a ballot issue

This is yet another example of the tax and spend mentality of Oregon's current leadership. Portland property taxes are set to increase 10% or more this coming November. The school district is looking to possibly float another bond measure next year, and now Trimet wants more money to fund light rail projects to exurbia. This native Oregonian and longtime Portlander also says defer all rail projects until the bridges are fixed with existing gasoline tax money. Even the Federal Department of Transportation says Trimet has too much rail and not enough automobile in its plans.

"Bob Clark"

(email verified)

Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 01:39 AM

Re: Transit funds may become a ballot issue

I voted for the MAX extension for Clackamas, Washington, Multnomah and to Vancouver, WA more than ten years ago--as did a majority of voters in all counties except Vancouver.

Now that more people are living in the Vancouver area--light rail is making sense up North, too. Of course, if it had been built when it was proposed, it would be done by now, and the cost would have been much lower--so when people rail against planners, they might keep in mind that it is frequently the PEOPLE who decide what is funded, and what is not, and WHEN.

As was the case with that light rail vote.

We need more light rail, train and trolley service AND bus service--and YES, it costs money, folks--just like highways & bike trails; you don't get a free ride--this is America, after all...

"Mark Kuestner"

(email verified)

Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 04:03 AM

Re: Transit funds may become a ballot issue

Gee - Who could have guessed that TriMet wants more money? As a small business owner I'm already paying nearly $800.00 a year into TriMet taxes even though almost NONE of my clients uses their service. And now they want to stick it to the general public too. Maybe

if you clowns weren't spending upwards of 500 MILLION DOLLARS (THAT'S A HALF BILLION FOLKS!)for a light rail line that few people outside of Metro and TriMet actually want you would have lots of money for more busses.

"Dave A."

(email verified)

Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 04:23 AM

Re: Transit funds may become a ballot issue

I've been stating that TriMet's total lack of investment in bus service is going to reach a boiling point, and it's now boiling over.

It's clear - over 200 of TriMet's 660 bus fleet is 15 years old or older, with no air conditioning, compared to 100% of the MAX fleet with air conditioning. New MAX vehicles are on the way, but no such luck for busses. The only improvement TriMet has made to bus service is new bus stop signs.

TriMet is also lagging behind other transit agencies, such as Vancouver, BC, Seattle, and California, by relying solely on diesel powered busses instead of hybrid-electric, CNG or trolleybusses. TriMet also has eliminated the use of articulated busses that can provide necessary capacity, particularly on busy routes and during rush hours.

TriMet's philosophy has been in practice to make riding the bus so miserable that people will have to ride light rail; and that many bus routes no longer go anywhere but to a MAX stop (so as to boost MAX ridership). Yes, when light rail is planned and used appropriately, it is a good investment - I'm not anti-MAX. But TriMet's disinvestment in bus service is showing, and reflected in declining ridership numbers at a time when every other transit agency is showing huge gains (given the emphasis on "being green", fuel costs, the economy, etc.) Something is wrong when the agency that sees itself as the national leader in transit can't even convince people to ride the busses at a time when people are clamoring for more service.

Something is also to be said when TriMet has had multiple fare increases, allegedly for fuel costs - when Seattle's bus service is still only $1.25 within King County ($1.50 during rush hour). Imagine that, commuters from Portland to Gresham could be paying 75 cents less.

"Erik Halstead"

(email verified)

Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 04:43 AM

Re: Transit funds may become a ballot issue

Erik -

Just a few days ago you were forcefully stating that TriMet and Metro had absolutely no plans to improve bus service. In light of this article, do you now withdraw that statement?

"Bob R."

(email verified)

Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 05:09 AM

Re: Transit funds may become a ballot issue

Absolutely no new tax revenue for Tri Met until they abandon their misguided "honor system" fare system for riding light rail and take into account the increased revenue.

"Dave Lister"

(email verified)

Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 07:50 AM

Re: Transit funds may become a ballot issue

Mark Kuestner - I seem to remember the vote a little differently than you. Oregon voters rejected spending THEIR federal funds for MAX, twice. We have been told - NEVER SHOWN - that a majority of voters in the METRO area actually approved of building MAX and they produced a poll to prove it. MAX has NEVER been voted on since.

"mark"

(email verified)

Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 09:44 AM

Re: Transit funds may become a ballot issue

Mark wrote, strangely, "We have been told - NEVER SHOWN - that a majority of voters in the METRO area actually approved of building MAX and they produced a poll to prove it."

Mark, elections results, broken down by county, are readily available on the Secretary of State web site. For example, see this vote from 1996:

http://www.sos.state.or.us/elections/nov596/results/m32.htm

County / Yes / No

Multnomah 154,346 107,989

Clackamas 67,113 73,299

Washington 79,880 73,801

Totals: 301,339 255,089

Interestingly, that measure wasn't just for light rail, it was also for rural highway projects, and yet statewide the entire measure failed. Should we also interpret the vote to mean that non-urban counties did not favor road projects?

From the Measure 32 ballot summary:

"Measure permits state to issue lottery revenue bonds to fund $375 million of state's share of cost to build Tri-Met Portland area "South North light rail," and to fund $115 million of $375 million "Transportation Equity Account." Establishes "Transportation Equity Account," payable to cities and counties for transportation projects outside Portland region, funded by lottery bonds, general fund, and other sources. Unobligated net revenues from lottery repay bonds. Bonds cannot be sold unless federal light rail matching funds become available. Other provisions."

In may of 2000, Measure 82 would have raised gas (and Diesel) taxes purely to pay for statewide highway/road projects, and it failed 767,329 to 109,741 -- that's an 87% NO vote! Are we to assume therefore that voters don't want any more highway projects in the state? Or simply that they had issues with this particular funding measure? The same questions apply to the light rail votes.

Yet here, today, in the Tribune, this article is about a proposal to put a mix of projects and a funding mechanism before the voters, and yet you are all bent out of shape about it... are you afraid it might pass? And if it doesn't, that elected officials might find some other ways to pay for a smaller mix of incremental projects as they have done in the past?

- Bob R.

"Bob R."

(email verified)

Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 05:22 PM

Re: Transit funds may become a ballot issue

I'm all over the map on this Tri-met deal. Yes we need more busses. Yes we should have kept and maintained the articulated busses on the major routes not served by the MAX. Personally, I like the combined diesel electric busses they use in Seattle. Once the new Portland Mall is finished, I hope they can either purchase new busses that can take advantage of the downtown overhead lines or retrofit the ones we have now to do so. I agree that they have lost the balance between bus and train. The yellow line should have had all the legal issues worked out and the line should have been run all the way into Vancouver before one scoop of dirt was lifted. Then it would have made more sense. Now they're building the green line to Clackamas and the Purple line (for lack of a better name) for Washington county at the same time. A better balance of resources needs to be brought to bear before I'll vote for more money for Tri-Met.

"Squire - a fourth generation Portlander and Oregonian"

(email verified)

Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 12:24 AM

Re: Transit funds may become a ballot issue

By the way, Dave;

I agree. The smegheads that designed these honor system MAX stops need to be taken out and smacked severely about the head and shoulders. Then taken to Japan and be shown how it's done properly.

"Squire"

(email verified)

Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 12:27 AM

Re: Transit funds may become a ballot issue

Squire wrote: "smegheads"

Way to elevate the debate there, "Squire".

The honor fare system, with fare inspectors, has it's problems (I've been frequently critical of TriMet to increase fare inspectors and security patrols), but it is there for a reason: Cost reduction.

Until a standardized, easily maintainable automatic electronic barrier-free fare card can be introduced (some larger cities are experimenting with these), there are really only two choices to get rid of the "honor system":

1. Have "conductors" on every train to inspect fares. That would involve hundreds of new full-time employees every day and cost tens of millions of dollars additional every year in operating costs... far more than is lost to current levels of fare evasion.

2. Have turnstiles/gates at every platform. This would require significant enlarging of some platforms and blocking of many public sidewalks. Any time you have turnstiles/barriers, you need gate agents to assist with equipment malfunctions and ADA access issues. That adds up to tens of millions spent for personnel again.

In light of the costs of #1 and #2, the honor system is very economical. But that doesn't mean TriMet shouldn't increase the number of patrols... more patrols reaches a point of diminishing returns on fare recovery, but it does increase security, reduce bad behavior, and improve public confidence.

"Bob R."

(email verified)

Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 03:39 AM

Re: Transit funds may become a ballot issue

I love the light rail. And I love driving. And I love taking the bus. And in Portland, you can do all of these things! You've got options.

"james"

(email verified)

Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 05:04 AM

Re: Transit funds may become a ballot issue

Bob R - This was a STATE WIDE vote - it was to use STATE HIGHWAY FUNDS to build MAX. WE NEVER got to vote on the MEASURE LOCALLY. You seem to be rather SMUG with your answer - thnk you for the information, but the construction of MAX with my TAX Dollars has hindered my ability to move about town and MAX has offered MY family less VALUE but not investing those fund in freeways. Public Transportation offers NO economic VALUE - it ONLY removes economic value from the community. Case in point - We subsidise small business and high density housing to locate along MAX and we subsidise each rider - AND none of that benifits the community. If you tell me that we keep cars off the road I will tell you that can be true - The ENTIRE tri-met system carries less than 7% of the population - mostly on weekends.

"mark"

(email verified)

Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 09:06 AM

Re: Transit funds may become a ballot issue

Coming from a heavily "rail" environment (New York City)I have long maintained that rail operations are not appropriate for a metro area like Portland, given its geographical layout and density charactaristics. Like another poster stated above, light rail has been a "black hole" for Portland. The money would have been much better spent on the bus system, as we are a "bus" metro area, as opposed to a "rail" one, such as San Francisco, for example. The net result of all this "investment" in light rail seems to be people like Rex Burkholder lamenting that still only 10% of commuter trips in Multnomah County are made by transit (Tribune, 12/06).

Having been in the "railfan" hobby myself for many years, it smells to me that a bunch of trainspotters are in control of Trimet--along with urban planners who think just because places like NY and Chicago have extensive rail operations, it befits Portland to have them also. There sure appears to be a mania for putting down tracks all over the place.

Plus, the LRT here is a piss-poor design and operation, IMO, from having ridden it.

Nick, non-driver and Trimet customer.

"Nick"

(email verified)

Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 10:53 AM

Re: Transit funds may become a ballot issue

Mark wrote a whole series of assertions... here we go:

1. "This was a STATE WIDE vote - it was to use STATE HIGHWAY FUNDS to build MAX."

The measure was not to use state highway funds for MAX. State highway gas tax revenues are constitutionally dedicated to highway purposes. The measure (I provided you with a link to the secretary of state web site) dedicated lottery bonds, to be repaid with lottery funds, toward the MAX project. The only general fund dollars mentioned in the measure would be used to establish an account for rural roadway projects, not light rail.

2. "WE NEVER got to vote on the MEASURE LOCALLY."

Nobody claimed that we got to vote on the measure locally. Your original claim (scroll up) was that we had been "told" but "never shown" that a majority of metro-area voters had approved MAX. I showed you the official election results by county, readily available on the web.

3. "You seem to be rather SMUG with your answer - thnk you for the information, but the construction of MAX with my TAX Dollars has hindered my ability to move about town and MAX has offered MY family less VALUE but not investing those fund in freeways."

I am sorry you feel this way. Please channel that energy into electing freeways-only-supporting candidates. I'll spend my energy otherwise, but that's a representative democracy for you.

4. "The ENTIRE tri-met system carries less than 7% of the population - mostly on weekends."

TriMet's weekend ridership, as a percentage of total riders, is among the best in the nation, however TriMet's weekday ridership is even higher. TriMet's ridership growth has consistently outpaced population growth and per-capita automobile vehicle miles travelled growth -- the investments in transit are therefore working to attract significant new ridership. According to surveys, more than 40% of people living within the TriMet service area use TriMet at least twice a month.

As a small business owner and property owner, I'm well aware of what these policies cost (out of my pocket and the pockets of others) and I believe they are economically worth it for the region -- and I don't get any special tax breaks. Not perfect, not without need for improvement, but largely worth it.

"Bob R."

(email verified)

Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 12:38 PM

Re: Transit funds may become a ballot issue

James: Thank you for summarizing the opinion of many people here. You are the reason that 2 million more will arrive in the next 25 years.

Nick: "as we are a 'bus' metro area, as opposed to a 'rail' one" So what shall we do...build it then, at 10 times the cost?

Mark: That's what planners do, they think about the inevitable future.

"Grant"

(email verified)

Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 05:02 PM

Re: Transit funds may become a ballot issue

I have a bunch of Tranist information at:

www.PortlandFacts.com

Light rail costs too much, does too little.

Thanks

JK

"jim karlock"

(email verified)

Sun, Jun 03, 2007 at 07:19 AM

Re: Transit funds may become a ballot issue

Hi JK -

I see you have a yet another new domain name for your "facts" about Portland... was the old domain name too inflammatory for your audience?

Light rail is a mixed bag, a less costly compromise to heavy rail, but is largely worth it and works well in Portland.

Thanks,

Bob R.

"Bob R."

(email verified)

Sun, Jun 03, 2007 at 05:27 PM

Re: Transit funds may become a ballot issue

So Bob, Why are you so insistant that everyone adopt your VALUES when living in a city that we are suppose to share? It seems you are interested in legislating your VALUES upon the populas weather thay agree with them or not, why? Don't you find it odd that your VALUES need to be legislated, instead of being adopted voluntarally? What about the commerce that you want to limit by legislating public transportation and "Smart Growth Planning" and limiting road expantion and development?

"mark"

(email verified)

Sun, Jun 03, 2007 at 06:11 PM

Re: Transit funds may become a ballot issue

JK;

Think about this for a moment. Drive up and down I-84 or US-26 during rush hour and look off to the north. See that MAX train packed full of people that are passing you because your stuck in traffic again. Now imagine each one of those people instead of being on a train being in an automobile taking up another roughly 200 square feet of road space. Not a pretty picture is it? I think I'll keep voting for MAX and Tri Met in the belief that they will eventually get mass transit past the choke points that are slowing things down right now.

"Squire"

(email verified)

Sun, Jun 03, 2007 at 11:23 PM

Re: Transit funds may become a ballot issue

Hi Mark -

There's no need to keep shouting "VALUES"... it reads just as well in lower case.

In any event, through our representative democracy, I do seek policies which reflect my values, as well as seek compromises which may not help me personally but which in the long run I feel are best for everyone. Sometimes values are reflected through direct action, sometimes through legislative action, and sometimes through the courts or the executive branch. This is the nature of the society we live in (with all its virtues and flaws).

I know what it feels like to be on the losing side of an issue politically, on a number of issues frankly. That doesn't mean that I will stop sharing my opinion and working for what I think is best.

If the "populas" as you say doesn't share the values being legislated, eventually those legislators will be voted out of office. In the case of light rail, for example, there was a recall election not too long ago in the city of Milwaukie, and I'm sure the current crop of officials has that in the back of their minds as they craft a proposal.

Remember, this article was about a transportation proposal for voters. The "populas" will have a chance to vote on that proposal, it would seem.

"Bob R."

(email verified)

Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 02:08 AM

Re: Transit funds may become a ballot issue

How many "green" buses could have been bought with $500,000,000? Or the $900,000,000 for the first light-rail line?

"Tired of Paying for Other's Happy Little Projects"

(email verified)

Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 04:47 AM

Re: Transit funds may become a ballot issue

Someone calling themselves "Tired of Paying for Other's Happy Little Projects" asked a question which raises the issue of the costs of bus vs. rail.

Often times, something called Bus Rapid Transit can be superior for an application, but not always. For example, Eugene has a new BRT system called EmX. But BRT systems are usually (but not always -- see Curitiba, Brazil) lower-capacity than rail. Eugene's entire BRT system achieves less than half of the ridership of the Portland Streetcar and 1/3 of the ridership of Interstate MAX.

The city of Eugene's new BRT-style buses (much smaller than a MAX train) cost about $1M each.

These buses feature left-side and right-side boarding, low floors, and multiple doors, similar to a LRV.

The cost, however, begins to approach that of an LRV. Currently, one BRT bus carries about 55% of the capacity of a single-car MAX LRV at 27% of the cost. But, will the bus last as long as an LRV? Typically, buses last only 1/3 as long. If this holds true for these special buses, then over the life of the LRV, 3 buses would have to be purchased, bringing the capital costs roughly even (at approx. $3 to $3.5mil each) while only providing 55% of the capacity.

Although Diesel mechanics are cheaper than train mechanics, a single light rail operator in a 2-car train serves the same peak capacity as 3 to 4 BRT drivers, or 5 standard bus drivers. (The real ratio is less than that in off-peak hours, of course, but still superior.)

Applying consistent standards of about 3.5 sq. ft of passenger area per person across multiple vehicle types, you get (approximately):

* Standard 40' Bus: 82 (New Flyer D40LF)

* BRT 60' Bus: 115 (New Flyer DE60LF)

* Portland Streetcar: 150

* 2-car LRV train (Existing MAX): 400 (211 for Type I, about 200 for Type II/III)

* 2-car LRV train (New MAX cars on order): 424 (212 x 2, Houston S70 specs)

Regarding costs again:

* Cost of a Siemens S70 LRV for the new Green Line project: $3.5 million. ($7 million for a 2-car train)

* Cost of a standard 40' transit bus: $354,000 ("New Flyer" brand, 2005 price, very common)

* Cost of an articulated BRT bus: $960,000 ("New Flyer" hybrid BRT bus actual cost for Eugene's new BRT system.)

BRT routes face the risk of less public acceptance than light rail (Eugene is already experiencing criticism from neighborhood groups who do not want BRT extended near them), more noise and more local emissions.

I think that BRT has an important role to fill, especially where regular bus service needs to be upgraded but the ridership isn't there to justify light rail.

But in corridors where there is sufficient ridership and room/desire for growth, BRT may not be sufficient or may even cost the same once scaled to match the capacity and capabilities of rail.

"Bob R."

(email verified)

Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 05:23 AM

Re: Transit funds may become a ballot issue

To Bob R (and thanks for the civil discourse),

Considering that Eugene is 1/10th the size of the Portland metro area its not surprising that its bus system carries less passengers than PDX's streetcar and light rail.

LRVs have additional costs not cited in your response: tracks and their installation.

I could buy a $354,000 bus today (1,412 of them actually, if I had $500,000,000) and transport people this afternoon; the roads are already there and paid for. An LRV, however, requires hundreds of millions of dollars for the infrastructure. I think that's important to remember when comparing costs.

"Tired of Paying for Other's Happy Little Projects"

(email verified)

Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 08:17 AM

Re: Transit funds may become a ballot issue

Tired -

You could indeed buy the 1,412 buses today, but you'd need to hire up to 2,800+ people to drive them (for a 16+ hour operating day), depending on how they were to be utilized. One light rail operator, in a high capacity corridor, can do the work of 3-5 standard bus operators. That could make a difference of over $100 million a year in operating costs right there alone, enough to have paid the capital costs of the rail line in as little as 5 years. (In reality of course, the situation does not favor rail as strongly as that due to other costs, but I'm trying highlight the concept as to why buses aren't necessarily cheaper.)

You mentioned physical infrastructure: Eugene did indeed build a concrete "trackway" for their buses. To save costs, they ran only one lane of it, and buses must wait for buses moving in the opposite direction to clear the "track". Their cost-per-mile was comparable to that of some Portland Streetcar trackwork.

So whether or not you can really save money with buses depends strongly on the corridor and the level of service provided.

Also, the quality of service does have an impact on ridership as well, which affects revenues from fares. The MAX Yellow line has doubled ridership over the old #5 bus, and the vast majority of these new riders have some kind of fare instrument.

See:

http://portlandtransport.com/archives/2007/05/dispatches_from_1.html

"Bob R."

(email verified)

Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 09:40 AM

Re: Transit funds may become a ballot issue

Bob R. said:

"You could indeed buy the 1,412 buses today, but you'd need to hire up to 2,800+ people to drive them (for a 16+ hour operating day), depending on how they were to be utilized. One light rail operator, in a high capacity corridor, can do the work of 3-5 standard bus operators. That could make a difference of over $100 million a year in operating costs right there alone, enough to have paid the capital costs of the rail line in as little as 5 years. (In reality of course, the situation does not favor rail as strongly as that due to other costs, but I'm trying highlight the concept as to why buses aren't necessarily cheaper.)"

>>>> Now, Bob, aren't you forgetting to factor the driver costs of all those poorly-patronized feeder buses that are designed to force feed MAX instead of properly serving the community, thus creating the loss of potential ridership? $81+ dollars per hour down the drain?

Just look at a map of the contorted bus lines in Washington County too see what I mean.

"Nick"

(email verified)

Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 10:32 AM

Re: Transit funds may become a ballot issue

Nick;

The 'contorted' bus lines you refer to in Washington county as well as some of the other outlying service areas are based on research that Tri Met has done to facilitate those who would and would not ride the busses based on how far they would have to walk/drive to get to a bus station. These outer lines are then optimized in order to feed the MAX and/or other major bus lines. Having ridden the bus exclusively during my high school years and more recently having since retired from the navy and now working and living the greater Portland area, I find the system works pretty well. I'm in no hurry to scrap the system just because it's lost it sense of balance between roads and public transit.

"Squire"

(email verified)

Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 11:05 AM

Re: Transit funds may become a ballot issue

Nick -

The distribution of operator hours, if a bus is not to be a "feeder" but instead branch from a trunk, is often worse than feeding/transferring to a high capacity line.

Your characterization of Washington County routes of being "feeders" doesn't really fit anyway... most Washington County bus lines which intersect with MAX do not in fact terminate at MAX... they move on to serve other destinations... if you rerouted those buses to avoid MAX transfers (replace MAX with a paved busway, for example), you'd have to run still more buses to provide the service you just took away.

Transfers are not evil... if the transfer environment is safe and convenient, and the trunk service is high-capacity and frequent, they can be far more economical than duplicative through service that branches out toward the end of routes.

What follows is a large clip from a comment on this topic I made over at PortlandTransport and at Urban Planning Overlord last February:

----

In most scenarios, the distribution of service hours works out better for a rail-to-bus transfer system.

BRT only works for one-seat-rides if you happen to catch the one BRT bus that is going your way.

Consider:

Suppose you have a 5 mile trunk corridor (sort of like downtown to Gateway) and then branch out in 4 directions.

To serve the needs of the trunk corridor with 2-car trains operating 6 times an hour (10 min. headways) you'd need about 14 trains (allowing time for round trips and layovers at each end). That's 14 operator-hours per hour.

Suppose each of the 4 branches are served by buses, and each bus makes a round trip including layovers in an hour, and you want to have a bus departing every 10 minutes. That's 6 buses per branch, or 24 operator-hours per hour.

This system uses 38 operator hours per hour (at peak times). Worst-case transfer scenario: You have to wait the full 10 minutes for a train, and the full 10 minutes for a bus. Because of the built-in time for layovers, you at least get to sit on your bus during part of that wait. Median wait time: 10 minutes for train/bus combined.

Now, consider serving the entire thing with BRT buses offering one-seat rides.

To serve the same peak capacity on the trunk with articulated BRT-style buses requires up to 90 operator-hours per hour compared to 2-car trains, and we haven't even served our branches yet!

This assumes a BRT bus departing along the trunk every 3.3 minutes, and continuing on to serve one of the 4 branches. Thus, 1 in 4 buses serves your desired branch, or one bus every 13.2 minutes. Also, you have to include the operator hours for the branches. This scenario averages about 4.5 buses per hour per branch, so about 18 operator hours.

Total for BRT: 108 operator hours per hour. Worst-case wait time: 13.2 minutes. Median wait time: 7.6 minutes.

That's a 2.4 minute improvement over light rail, but at 2.8 times the operating labor cost! Further, those seeking to travel locally and not use the trunk portion of the service will have worse travel times because fewer buses per hour are actually serving the branches than in the light rail scenario.

So: 38 operator hours vs. 108 operator hours. With those 70 extra operator hours saved by light rail, we could more than double the frequency of our 4 branches, or better still, serve new areas, operate longer hours, how about serving 12 branches?

Those 70 operator hours add up. Granted, we are talking about peak periods, so lets say 5 total hours out of the weekday. Assuming a ballpark salary+benefit+admin cost of $50K per operator, you spend an extra $2.2 million per year on labor. Over a 30+ year lifespan for the rail system (some portions will last longer), there's $66 million dollars extra for BRT for basically the same level of service.

Capital costs for dedicated, paved, grade separated right-of-way is comparable to rail construction. Capital costs for buses are cheaper, but you'll have to buy at least 3X as many of them, and they last about 12 years so you'll have to buy them 2.5X. Thus, the super-deluxe articulated hybrid BRT bus has to cost 7.5X less than a 2-car light rail train. It does, but not by much.

"Bob R."

(email verified)

Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 11:25 AM

Re: Transit funds may become a ballot issue

Bob, do your have to use tri-met daily? Do you ride Tri-Met daily? Do you feel compelled to legilate making Tri-Met the only viable option for middle-low income residents to travel and conduct their business? Do you advocate spending money on Tri-Met vs roads and highway's at the expense of commerce and earning ability of residents?

"mark"

(email verified)

Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 12:19 PM

Re: Transit funds may become a ballot issue

Mark asked me a series of questions...

* "Bob, do your have to use tri-met daily?"

Our 2-person household has two cars and does not "have to" use transit.

* "Do you ride Tri-Met daily?"

I personally ride TriMet at minimum once per week and overall our household uses it on 3-5 days out of every week. At least half of the trips are peak-hour commute trips.

* "Do you feel compelled to legilate making Tri-Met the only viable option for middle-low income residents to travel and conduct their business?"

What is "legilate"? I don't feel "compelled" to make TriMet the "only viable option" for anybody. It seems to be a misconception in some quarters that transit supporters are inherently anti-car. What I favor is a balanced transportation system that enables a wide variety of shorter trips to have the choice of a convenient transit mode, as well as walking and biking, rather than developing solely around the car.

* "Do you advocate spending money on Tri-Met vs roads and highway's at the expense of commerce and earning ability of residents?"

Your question presents a false choice. Development of transit is not an anti-commerce or anti-earning proposition.

Thank you for your questions.

"Bob R."

(email verified)

Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 12:53 PM

Re: Transit funds may become a ballot issue

Legislate, Bob - Sorry for the typo. Yes developing public transit has become anti-commerce. Personally, traffic congestion slows my ability to call on my customers and repair their equipment. I used to be able to personally call on 3-5 customers per day, now I am lucky to see 2-3 and be able to charge for my services. I used to spend 5-6 hours in front of my customer, now I spend 3-4 hours sitting in the car waiting and 3-4 in front of the customer. My company used to be able to schedule a trucking company to pick up in the morning or afternoon, now we can just schedule a pick up between 9am & 4pm. The trucking companies tell me they can’t afford to keep there equipment tied up in traffic, due to the low volume of goods available vs. time and personnel on the road. We have to staff the office just for pickups and deliveries. So as I see it your choices affect my ability to make a living. Paying more money into public transit projects slows my ability to make a living, increases my cost - Tri-Met Tax, fuel and overhead - faster than I can raise my prices – and still compete with my east coast competitors. Traffic improvements to increase commerce have been deferred because you - in part - feel the need to coerce the public into light rail, trams and trolleys. Yes I said coerce, because this is a war against how my family and I live. Your ideals slow commerce, and affect my ability to feed and cloth my family. The choices you make affect lives and hinder movement of commerce in and around the city, but mostly your choices hinder the middle-lower income from earning more, while their cost rise in part, do to your values and the way you vote.

"mark"

(email verified)

Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 03:12 PM

Re: Transit funds may become a ballot issue

"Our 2-person household has two cars and does not "have to" use transit.

"I personally ride TriMet at minimum once per week and overall our household uses it on 3-5 days out of every week. At least half of the trips are peak-hour commute trips."

Bob,

You often cite my comments as out of touch with transit reality.

It appears that you have admitted that you ride TriMet about half as much as my household does (of three persons, including one three-year-old child.)

Now I hope you will understand why I am very upset at the level of service TriMet offers me. I do not have a second car at my disposal to drive to some park and ride lot. I do not "choose" to take TriMet simply out of a matter of convenience or to "do my part", it is in part a financial aspect (I could purchase a second car, but it would be a hardship on me to do so; and my employer does provide for me an annual TriMet pass) and part a necessary way for me to get to work.

If the bus doesn't show up, or you're running a few minutes late - you have the option of taking you car. I don't. If my bus breaks down somehwere and TriMet doesn't adequately dispatch a new bus, I'm stuck for a half an hour. If TriMet eliminates my bus stop, it's not just a matter of finding a closer parking spot. And I don't always have the luxury of just getting in the car (or bus) to go somewhere. Nor do I have the luxury of paying $1400 a month in rent to live downtown.

By the way, making trips outside of peak commuting hours is one way we can all help reduce congestion and pollution. My wife works prior to rush hour, and I work after rush hour. I find it interesting that you seem to have a problem with my complaints about quality transit service, but I am merely doing the best with the services that are offered to me; whereas someone who argues that TriMet is an excellent transit agency, is not even using it to the extent I am. Ride the 12-Barbur Blvd. bus sometime, and you'll see what an "excellent" transit system TriMet has. Hopefully you won't melt in one of the 1400s or 1700/1800s.

"Erik Halstead"

(email verified)

Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 03:51 PM

Re: Transit funds may become a ballot issue

Mark -

If you favor roadway and freeway expansion (I personally favor the removal of bottlenecks combined with moderate expansion), please note that the dedicated funds for this purpose from gas-tax revenues long ago ceased to support expansion and now don't even fully cover maintenance. If you took every dollar spent on transit capital projects in this state and spread it out over roadways, you wouldn't see much progress.

The Columbia River Crossing replacement project (CRC), for example, is estimated at $6 billion and funding hasn't been identified. Even if you strip it to purely bridge replacement without new interchanges, new transit, etc., you're well over $4 billion, which is more than we've ever spent on finished MAX projects over the last 20 years, and you're just talking about one bridge.

As mentioned above, voters rejected new gas taxes for roads by 87% in 2000. (This was also coupled with a reduction in the weight-mile tax on trucks which may be why some voters voted against it.) The METRO package described by this PortlandTribune article, by the way, is described as including multiple new road projects.

Oregon is about middle-of-the-road when it comes to gas taxes -- many states are in the same ballpark and 13 charge higher taxes than we do, including Washington. Some states far more densely populated and with lower per-capita vehicle-miles-travelled charge over 70% more than we do in gas taxes.

In other news...

Erik makes a number of assumptions about me, including "Nor do I have the luxury of paying $1400 a month in rent to live downtown."

People often stereotype transit supporters as being some kind of wealthy or upper-middle-class, downtown-living recipients of public largess.

I don't live downtown, I don't pay $1400 in rent, and (for those who will inevitably ask), I live on the east side. As a small-business owner, I pay TriMet taxes directly, and subsidize the system more than I take out of it directly. I view TriMet (despite its flaws) as a positive public asset, on the level of public parks, schools, and libraries.

One of the things we did when deciding upon a home to purchase was what kind of transit service was offered near the home. All living arrangements involve trade-offs between quality of neighborhoods, quality of local schools, size of home, size of yard, cost of transportation, ability to park, access to transit, etc.

Eric, I don't have a problem with your complaints about the quality of transit service you receive. I view certain priorities differently than you, and I've challenged you where I view the facts to be contrary to what you have stated. I agree that transit service in Tualatin can be improved.

I don't argue that TriMet is an "excellent transit agency", I think it is a good one with a lot of room for improvement. I've been on the losing end of battles to improve them what what I think are good ideas more often than I've been on the winning side, but I think progress is being made and progress can continue to be made. I'm sorry you view me as an adversary rather than a potential ally in this.

"Bob R."

(email verified)

Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 05:15 PM