TriMet fare increase? Hell no!
Rising gas prices are driving more people (sorry, couldn't resist that) to take the bus. I'm all for that, but TriMet needs to respond to the increased traffic with more than just increased fares. How about for the first time ever they do what most businesses do when faced with increased costs: increase sales, not prices?
The current increase in ridership may turn out to be temporary even if gas prices continue to rise. Whether or not the current spike is a momentary blip or becomes long-term practice depends on how TriMet responds. The first and most important thing they need to do is not worry about their costs but getting enough damn buses on to the streets during rush hour.
I ride the #19 Woodstock to work each morning. There are four buses on that route that serve the majority of people who need to be downtown by 8am. The first two come past my stop near 49th at 7:12 (one loops down to 32nd and Rex, picking up high school kids and office workers), another at 7:25 (that's my bus), and another about 15 minutes later. These buses have varying levels of ridership, depending on the weather and people's personal circumstances I can't know, but there is almost always room for everyone to sit until the last few stops before Powell and then over the Ross Island Bridge, where I exit.
But more and more, the bus is starting to overfill. One morning last week, on the 7:12 that swings over to SE 32nd and Rex, the bus was jam-packed by the time we got to Powell: there was simply no more room on the bus. And yet, at Powell, we had to cram more in. This is becoming common, and I doubt very much my line is an exception. If more people are switching from cars to bus, and TriMet is running the same schedules, then more than likely the new riders are being shoehorned into buses TriMet has already planned to be full under the old ridership.
TriMet has always been run by people who would destroy any private business they would be given. They seem to have no idea how the retail world works, and while I adamantly oppose privatizing TriMet, I would like them to become a lot less stupid as guardians of this public resource.
Over the years — and I've been riding TriMet since 1981 — TriMet has responded to increased costs and insufficient ridership levels in two ways: raise fares and decrease service. Can you imagine a store tackling the same problems in the same way? Who is going to go to a store that increases its prices while offering fewer choices?
And if that were the only offense TriMet commits against the public it is meant to serve. Alas, it gets worse.
$2.05 is just wrong
At the last price increase, I thought TriMet was kidding. The all-zone ticket increased to $2.05 — yes, that's two dollar bills and A Nickel. TriMet expected riders needing to go from, say, downtown to Gateway or Clackamas Town Center, to pony up both two bucks and a stinkin' nickel. I couldn't understand how they could make such a ridiculous decision. But then I remembered this event from years ago:
My then-wife and I, with a six-month-old child, were barely getting around in an ancient and dying Volvo. We needed a reliable car, and we needed it now. So we drove out to the Volkswagen dealership in Beaverton, the poor old V-car barely surviving the last trip of its honorable life. We picked out the last of the previous year's Golfs, a good car (even if it was silver, a car color I hate), and we came to an agreement on the payments. And then: "I'll run this by my manager."
When our sales flunky returned to finalize the deal, he told us, sadly, that his manager had "requested" that we increase our payments another $1 per month. $60 over the course of a five-year loan. In real-life terms, that money that meant virtually nothing. It probably went straight into their pockets, just a little extra folding cash. We, having no power in the transaction — our car was dead, we were 15 miles from home, we had a little baby in a second-hand carseat, and could not even simply walk away — just took the deal. "Took it," as in "up the butt."
Later, still angry about that treatment, I realized why they had demanded the extra $1 per month: Because they could. They did not care about the extra payment; they just got off on jerking around low-end, semi-desperate people like us. And while I don't think anyone at TriMet sits around wondering how to humiliate riders, what is clear is that something like that extra nickel means absolutely nothing to them. They look at their charts and numbers, and they decide, "We need to raise the fare to $2.05."
But they don't have to find that extra nickel. It's not just that little bits of change tend to be more scarce than people assume, especially in this day of debit cards. It's what that extra nickel means: TriMet getting every penny, or nickel, they think they need means more than inconvenience or the symbolism of charging that bit extra. And the simple fact is, they have a choice. The TriMet vision include both of these points:
Maintain strong fiscal controls.
Respond to customer needs.
Which takes precedence? Grab the extra nickel to be fiscally responsible, or keep the fare at a convenient and non-stupid level to meet the need of customers to not be forced to scramble like some gutter rat for a frikkin' nickel?
And if you're wondering what the hell I'm going on about, you clearly are not one of the people impacted by that extra nickel. Maybe you rarely take the bus, or have plenty of spare change, or don't have to grab the kids, your stuff for work, everyone's lunch and, if it doesn't slip your mind as you try not to be late for work as you try to get everyone's life in order for the day, find that extra nickel. It's exactly these little things that drive people over the edge in life, that makes living feel so rough and ugly that making the necessary effort just becomes pointless.
But wait, we've got even more stupid
I buy a monthly two-zone pass. Fortunately I can get it at my local Safeway, if I have enough money at the end of the month (I get paid on the 3rd, so having $65 is not always easy on the first of the month). Now and then, however, I have to take MAX out to Sunset or Gateway. That's zone 3 and requires an upgrade. But guess what? The only place to get an upgrade is on a bus. You cannot buy one from a ticket machine. You cannot get one at a frikkin' MAX station. You have to remember to ask before you get off the bus, or you have to run up to a bus at a stop and ask for one (and hope you get a driver who isn't pissed off that you are doing that, not something you can assume). And you have to have thirty cents to make that purchase.
I don't mind buying the upgrade, but I damn sure mind that TriMet can't do something as simple as adding a tiny bit of programming to allow me to buy an upgrade from a ticket machine. This underscores the central problem with TriMet customer service is that it has very little to do with customer service.
The TriMet Method: Inverse retail
Let's say you own a store. You offer excellent products, products no one else can match for quality. But for some reason, you are not selling enough to stay in business. Despite the quality of your product, people seem to be content to buy the crap that Target and Walmart sell. So what do you do to respond? I'll tell you what you don't do: You don't raise prices. You don't reduce selection. You don't make shopping more difficult. Everyone of those steps will ensure your failure — unless you have a trust fund or sugar daddy to underwrite your losses.
But guess what? That's exactly how TriMet operates. No matter what retail challenge they face — insufficient ridership, increased costs — the TriMet response is always the same: Increase fares and reduce service. I've been riding TriMet since 1981 (when it was Tri-Met) and I've been in awe in their inability to grasp the basics of Retail 101. I'm sure there are a lot of different skill sets represented on the TriMet Board, but apparently those skills do not include the successful running of a business. The only reason TriMet hasn't gone belly-up is because they have both a monopoly and a sugar daddy: federal money.
Here we go again
So now TriMet is facing another crisis. Oil prices are going up, and the oil companies are raising prices in order to hold on to their ungodly profits. The Bush Administration, of course, has no desire to do anything but let those profits soar; after all, all the players come from and will return to oil corporations or their close friends. Dubya may go down in history as the second-worst president ever (I still vote for Nixon, without whom Dubya is not possible), but he'll also go down with billions of dollars to his post-presidential name. So what can TriMet do when it does not have the money to pay for the increases in costs due to oil prices? How do they keep the buses running?
It's not like they are alone in this. Everyone is paying more for gas. Rich, middle-class and struggling, all are paying the higher costs (which are still some of the lowest gas prices in the world). The difference, of course, is the percentage of income that gas represents. For many people, increased gas prices are taking a tangible bite from their monthly income. In fact, more and more people are deciding that driving their car is no longer something they can afford. So they are riding TriMet. And TriMet is welcoming them in their usual way: Poor service and higher prices.
Those of us who commute via the bus see this happening. Buses that once were just full as they hit downtown are starting to be crammed long before they reach the bridges. Yet we see nothing about TriMet improving service by adding more rush-hour buses. We do see that our fares are going to increase. For that extra money, we get the extra bonus of further reductions in service as more people get crammed on to the same number of buses.
And before you accuse me of selfish whining, let me point out what riding the bus entails. I live 8 blocks south of Woodstock, so I leave home 15 minutes before my bus is due. I then wait 5-to-10 minutes — or more — for a bus that is invariably late (and it hasn't even gotten to the busy part of the route). Oh, and did I mention that my 8-block walk is through whatever weather the gods choose to throw at me: blazing heat, pouring rain, freezing wind up the gorge, or mid-winter darkness. I'm lucky enough that there is a building with an overhang at my stop; I at least don't have to stand and get soaked as I do at other stops. I get to stand and breathe in exhaust fumes, enjoy the roar of cars and trucks harmonizing with my iPod. I either am squished by another rider who needs to lose at least sixty pounds or stand with my bags the entire twenty-five minute ride (most of that time being jerked back and forth by lead-footed drivers). Sometimes it's suffocating; sometimes I get to enjoy the fragrance of unbathed human flesh. (And on most rides, I get to listen in to cell phone calls, too; that's a special treat.) And when I finally am able to squeeze my way off the bus, I have to cross traffic (with no crosswalk or light) zooming off the Ross Island Bridge like it's the last turn at Indy. I hope that for the 8-block walk to work, I am able to dodge the drivers who don't give a damn about niceties like stop signs and crosswalks. So far, my luck has held out.
And then I get to do it all over again after nine hours at work.
Fare increases are regressive and violate TriMet's mission
Let's face it. The vast majority of people who ride TriMet are at the lower ends of our local economy. People with money drive. The number of people who can afford to drive and choose to ride TriMet is fairly high in Portland but still not the majority. The bus is for the lower classes, the students and minimum wage earners, the administrative assistants and retail workers and job hunters. How do I know this? Well, along with 27 years of TriMet riding, I know how politics works. And people with money are people with clout, and they would not take this shit. The simple fact that TriMet can keep raising fares and decreasing service is pretty conclusive evidence that those they "serve" have very little power to do much more than whine to one another.
Transit different
So how about TriMet trying something radical to deal with this latest crisis? Instead of extorting the money they say they need — I have no choice: I pay whatever fare they demand or I lose my job — how about TriMet work at increasing income? That's what a real business has to do. At one point, despite having a product universally hailed as unique and superior, Apple was on the verge of failure. Their computers cost too much, and people were buying Wintel machines, despite their being horrible to work on. So Apple did the smart things: They made products that no one else could match, and they began pushing their prices downward. My first Mac, in 1987, cost $3,500 — with a student discount. My current Mac, a Mini, was $700, and that included an extra gig of ram. As a result, Apple's market share continues to climb and its stock is the envy of most businesses.
What stops TriMet from following Apple's lead? Why has it proven impossible for TriMet to improve their product and keep the costs low? Just as Microsoft was able to grow complacent and incompetent by having a captive market, TriMet has always been able to get past its immediate problems by raising fares and cutting service. That's exactly what we are facing yet again — even though we have reached a point where ridership is about to soar.
TriMet needs to grab this opportunity. They need to ensure that commuters are not being forced to ride in the same manner that sardines are marketed. Nothing will drive the new ridership away quicker than horrible riding conditions. Force people to walk through the rain or heat for the privilege of being crushed against strangers, and at the same time demand that they pay more for the pleasure — that's the TriMet formula for screwing this pooch.
There are alternatives. Grow the damn business. Add another bus to each commute route during rush hour. Tell drivers of buses running late to stop picking up new passengers; another bus is only five minutes behind and will be worth that wait. Freeze fares. Train drivers to go easy on the brakes (they ain't driving damn bumper cars). Figure out which routes consistently run late and over-full, and then fix them.
Or they could do something truly innovative. Hire an assistant manager from a successful store to explain how a real business works. Why do people go to Nordies and other stores? Why do Freddies and Target have strong customer loyalty? I've worked in retail in the past, and I had regular customers. Why? Because I not only met their needs, I gave them value. Part of that value was showing them that I valued them, making them them feel special. Making them feel appreciated. I was not their only choice, but I was the one they chose. Sadly, TriMet is my only choice for commuting. If they raise my $65 fare to $74, I won't have much of a choice. They can gouge the extra 14% from me and the other chumps who literally depend on the bus and light rail, but they'll lose this opportunity to convert even more car commuters to mass transit.
Every crisis is an opportunity, and the world knows no shortage of crises. Apple used its near-failure in the 90s to bring back Steve Jobs, and they are now the #1 tech company in the world. They viewed crisis as opportunity and that turned into success. TriMet has the same opportunity. They can find ways to turn this current situation into the means of expanding mass transit without it being exclusively through the pocketbooks of riders. Especially those who can least afford it.
Otherwise they turn what is an opportunity to prove the value of mass transit into an opportunity for mass transit's opponents to possibly destroy it.
|
June 1, 2008 |
T.A. Barnhart | Comments (73 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: t.a. barnhart | Jun 1, 2008 11:10:36 PM
i've been rethinking this for over 20 years. this is nothing new. this is business-as-usual for TriMet, and they haven't figurd out why it continues to fail.
cheap and easy for you to tell me what i can do with my life. i appreciate you paternalism. it means the world to me. as does your uninformed judgment of my life.
Posted by: Janine | Jun 1, 2008 11:28:42 PM
Hear, hear. I've been thinking this for a long time, not just about TriMet but about every public transit system I've had the (mis)fortune to ride.
I'll add two things to your list of things they need to do:
1. Fix the damn ticket machines! It seems like at least one is broken at every station (at least along the westside Blue line) and it's not uncommon at my home station to have both machines broken. Talk about an easy way to increase revenue...
2. Train the bus drivers in customer service. You would think they would already do this, but if they do it's not working. I see a driver being rude to someone nearly every time I ride the bus.
I'm one of those people who doesn't really need TriMet; I have a car and can still afford the gas, though it pains me every time I fill up. I ride to be an environmentally responsible person and to avoid having to deal with parking my car downtown. It doesn't take much in the way of annoyance to make driving my car look like the better option. TriMet needs to get their act together if they are ever going to attract many riders like me.
Posted by: 18yearoldwithanopinion | Jun 1, 2008 11:43:29 PM
One of the problems that TriMet has is that it must offer a money losing service in many places. I am a high school kid who uses TriMet when I can’t borrow my mom’s car. Based on how few people ride my route I can tell you that TriMet loses money on it but it keeps the route to fulfill its mission. The real solution is for the legislature to increase the amount of money that TriMet gets from payroll taxes in order to reduce the pressure on fares for revenue. Bus drivers have really stressful jobs but TriMet should invest some resources into increasing costumer service.
Posted by: t.a. barnhart | Jun 1, 2008 11:44:16 PM
after posting, i stumbled on this at Grist:
Public transit agencies across the United States are lately encountering a curious double-bind: ridership has increased quickly and dramatically, straining current capacity, and at the same time, significantly higher fuel costs have stretched many transit budgets too far. If the current ridership boom had taken hold when fuel prices were much lower, transit agencies would theoretically have been able to cope by steadily expanding service to meet demand and wouldn't need to raise fares or cut services. But, alas, since ridership surges have coincided with big increases in fuel costs, many transit providers are struggling to stay afloat.
i'm extremely sympathetic to TriMet's position, and i am grateful that we have the good system we do in this area. nonetheless, they have forever seemed clueless about the basics of retail, and that not only hurts the agency's bottom line, it hurts those who truly depend on afforadable mass transit just to survive in this region.
Posted by: Jenni Simonis | Jun 1, 2008 11:46:50 PM
I'd like to see them increase routes in east county - especially routes that run outside of the 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. time.
If you want to go somewhere outside of commuter hours, you're in trouble. Want to get around town, as opposed to going into Portland? Very difficult.
Heck, one of the areas that needs bus service the most (east end of Burnside before it meets Hwy 26), has no service at all. You see plenty of people trying to carry their groceries from Winco to get to the closest route - most of which only run commuter hours. And each stop is a considerable distance from the store.
We've been riding the bus a lot lately. I have a stack of tickets I got for free when I donated to the Bus Project through the WWeek giving drive or whatever they call it. Abby rides free since she's 6 and I use a ticket. And we've been trying to use TriMet to get around Gresham - it's very difficult. Buses often run only once an hour, if they're running at all since we have very few non-commuter routes.
People out this way could really use some more routes to get around. They always say people out this way don't ride the bus that much - but what do they expect when you don't offer the routes that are needed or enough routes outside commuter hours?
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Jun 2, 2008 12:12:17 AM
Jenni wrote... I'd like to see them increase routes in east county - especially routes that run outside of the 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. time.
I suspect that some of those routes are so lightly traveled that it'd be cheaper for TriMet to just send you a cab.
In general, I've found ZipCar to be an excellent and affordable alternative when I'm trying to get to a late-night meeting.
Posted by: Jenni Simonis | Jun 2, 2008 12:20:39 AM
Ah, yes, but you have to go all the way into Portland to get a car (nearest cars are at about 60th and I'm at 257th) to then drive it to a meeting in Gresham. I'm a ZipCar member, but I have yet to use the service.
There are some routes that would likely be heavily traveled. And some routes that don't do well in the 7a-7p slot would do well in 5p-10p and weekends. The problem is that it is too often assumed there aren't enough riders out here, when in fact they're looking at things out in east county the wrong way. People out this way are often times less likely to be working in inner/downtown Portland, less likely to be pulling an 8-5 job, etc. People out here badly need public transportation services to get them to places like the grocery store, but the ones that are on service lines are often times the most expensive ones in town.
Posted by: ws | Jun 2, 2008 12:32:47 AM
Tri-Met might consider a form of congestion pricing: Instead of raising fares, reduce them outside of prime commute hours. The bus is not crowded simply because Tri-Met lacks the equipment to meet current demand increases; the bus is crowded because a great number of people elect to ride the bus closest to a time that would deliver them to an 8 to 4, 9 to 5 job.
Give the people an incentive to ride earlier or later than their standard boarding time and see what happens. Some employers might be able to accommodate an adjusted employee work schedule to allow for this.
The fare seems cost prohibitive to me. I've got to have a vehicle for my work. I wouldn't object to riding MAX when not on a work assignment, but for the distance I need to travel for non-work activities, it's actually cheaper, faster, and more pleasant to drive. If Tri-Met were to halve the fair(80 cents or a dollar) outside of peak commute hours, I'd probably use the bus.
In terms of distance traveled for the money, the fare zone system is great if you live in Hillsboro and have to commute to PDX, but it kind of sucks if you live in Beaverton and only need to travel to downtown Portland.
Posted by: ben | Jun 2, 2008 4:23:28 AM
It's hard not to appreciate the time and effort that went into the parent post, but...
Last time I heard, my understanding was that only 40% of TriMet's revenue comes from fares. I can only assume that the statistic has changed in the five years since I read it, but even so it seems likely that without the fare increase, TriMet would be bleeding money... or would simply be forced to cut service. Um... some more.
The litany about your experience as a frequent rider doesn't phase those few of us who know what it's like to live on the Westside (or East County, per a previous comment) and depend on TriMet to get around. I much prefer eastern WaCo to the suburbs of any other city where I've lived, but at least in Southeast close-in, you can almost pretend that the rhythm of your life isn't dictated by the priorities of transportation engineers. Almost. Which is better than any experience you'll scrape together in Washington County.
TriMet needs more money and higher frequencies on the runs it already has, before they can even hope to get past duct tape and baling wire.
Further, with respect to the bus network alone, route density and run frequency hasn't increased nearly as fast as population. I would imagine that a lot of money has gone into light rail that might've gone instead into improved bus service, and the people who live far away from the light rail lines suffer for it.
Can they get grants from the federal or state governments? Is there some kind of mill levy that can be put in place that has a demonstrable return of value to the local economy? These strike me as paths of least resistance to fare stabilization. Rants? Not so much.
...Portland's one of the first cities to feel the crunch, because its land management and transit priorities are almost forty years into keeping one eye on the future - TriMet's always been a system from which people can get decent use, which is more than a lot of Western cities can say about their public transportation networks.
What do you think is going to happen in those cities that have neglected their public transportation networks and allowed sprawl, because that's how the people with money felt it ought to be done? The thought kinda scares me, actually.
Bottom line: it's a bad situation, but still better than the alternatives.
And finally, some wisdom acquired from being one of those Westside folks who's been able to take sociable bus operators for granted in the past: these folks' first priority is to drive a whale of a vehicle through their entire run as safely as possible, and even a single miscreant aboard the bus makes their job immeasurably more stressful. I'm sure they just lurve sharing the road with cyclists. What about rude motorists? ...I could go on. If a driver's being friendly, that's a bonus in my opinion, though I'm not fond of ones who are gratuitously pedantic about system rules.
Posted by: George Seldes | Jun 2, 2008 6:36:45 AM
Calling for TriMet to operate more like "a business" definitely falls under the "Be careful what you wish for" heading--the principal action that distinguishes a private, for-profit business from a municipal service being a ruthless devotion to the single bottom line (profit) as opposed to a triple bottom line (financial, social, environmental).
Does the Tri-Met service area have a Transit Riders Union? Might want to start one ...
Posted by: James X. | Jun 2, 2008 7:00:31 AM
Ridership per vehicle is up considerably. That means that without increasing fares, TriMet is making more money.
TriMet says their diesel prices have gone from $2.12 to $4.05/gal. That's $1.93. Or, 1.1 current two-zone fares. Bus mileage is 5 mpg. So that means that to cover the increase in diesel prices, you need 1 new fare every 4.5 miles. TriMet's got that.
And regardless, TriMet should be run for social profit, not fiscal profit. We gain tremendously as a society when single-passenger vehicle use is decreased, and mass transit use is increased. Don't raise fares, expand fareless square. Then we all profit.
Posted by: James X. | Jun 2, 2008 7:08:53 AM
Ok, seriously, am I missing something here?
Am I missing something here?
TriMet says diesel prices have increased from $2.12 to $4.05/gal. That's $1.93/gal.
$1.93 is 1.1 current two-zone fares.
TriMet says bus mileage is 5 mpg.
So to cover the increase in diesel costs, TriMet needs 1 new fare per 4.5 miles. They have that.
So why do they need to raise fares 20-25 cents?
Posted by: James X. | Jun 2, 2008 7:10:14 AM
Er, I didn't mean the extra "Am I missing something here?" That's just annoying.
Posted by: Eric Parker | Jun 2, 2008 7:11:37 AM
Instead of a fare increase to offset costs, lets cut the salaries of all non-union management (including those uptight supervisors)- including Hansen's and Fetch's. They have been telling us to cut back for years, now it is their turn to cut back. By cutting those salaries, you can shift that new money released by the cuts to go into those accounts for what is really needed.
Posted by: Sal Peralta | Jun 2, 2008 7:29:41 AM
Any increase in fares to offset costs should be accompanied by incentivizing the bulk purchasing of passes by local businesses. Transportation district taxes on local businesses pay more than 70 percent of the operating cost of TriMet, yet there are no incentives for businesses to engage in the bulk purchasing of passes for employees.
Posted by: John Bromley | Jun 2, 2008 8:13:20 AM
I would not mind the fare increase as much if TriMet could keep its validation and ticket machines working.
What is so hard about having a TriMet employee ride the system and check each of the machines each day and have them fixed within 24 hours?
Instead, I go home and report the non-working machines via their web site and nothing happens! A week later, the same machine is still broken. A month later the same validation machine is still not working. Does no one at TriMet care?
I think the management is more interested in building out the system than keeping the existing system working. It is perhaps more fun to cut the ribbon on a new Max line than increasing customer satisfaction with the service.
I think it is time for Fred Henson to go and for the TriMet board to hire someone who cares about customer service and safety.
Posted by: Kathy H | Jun 2, 2008 8:19:19 AM
Why has no one mentioned the obvious? TriMet can increase their revenue by simply COLLECTING THE FARES.
I think every TriMet user would agree that they don't see all riders paying their fare, whether by pass, ticket or cash. On the (rare) occasions that I see a fare inspection on Max there are always evaders found on every sweep of the car. When was the last time that anyone saw a fare inspector on a bus?
If they up the fare enforcement, TriMet has more money to buy that overpriced diesel. And those of us who DO pay eveyday can feel a little better about having paid our share.
People will get the point - they will start paying that posted fare, if only to avoid the larger fine.
Posted by: Eric Parker | Jun 2, 2008 8:23:21 AM
"Why has no one mentioned the obvious? TriMet can increase their revenue by simply COLLECTING THE FARES"
A good reason to eliminate Fareless Square. But that is another issue...
Maybe TriMet should do what they do in Calgary...eliminate inspectors all together and use the highest police force available in the city (Calgary uses the RCMP - fully loaded with live ammo and a no nonsense demeanor).
Posted by: Randy | Jun 2, 2008 9:00:21 AM
TriMet has lousy customer service for the same reason that other departments filled with public union labor employees have lousy customer service. They just don't care! They can't easily be fired or discliplined so they don't care. Typical result of union protection.
Posted by: Garrett | Jun 2, 2008 9:13:48 AM
TriMet could be run better. When I started regularly riding a 2 zone ticket was $1.25. By the time I ended my job downtown I was paying $1.65 per trip. My stop was on 42nd and Hawthorne and even with gas prices today I could drive that for less than I paid each day to TriMet. If there was affordable parking downtown or my office would have provided it I probably would have done that rather than ride with the people who talk to themselves and scream at the others.
They crammed us in like sardines on that line during rush hour and often times we were so full by 20th Ave there were no stops until downtown unless someone got off. When I rode back in the middle of the day or went in later to work the 14 was practically empty. I suspect most of the fare increases go to cover those non-rush hour times when the bus runs with 3 people on it including the driver. Ever take the 75 past 7 o'clock down 39th? Try it sometime...it's a ghost bus but it keeps running just in case someone wants to get to Lombard.
Posted by: Steve | Jun 2, 2008 9:27:40 AM
Instead of decent bus service TriMet will be spending billions more for light rail. Which is exactly what you blues are telling them to do and have been for years.
We're a model for the nation. Celebrate.
Posted by: Chris Lowe | Jun 2, 2008 10:02:22 AM
At the Coalition for Livable Future's Regional Equity Summit last week the issue of public transit in rapid-population growth areas in East County, Clackamas County and Washington County came up, particularly in terms of need for lateral routes not directed to downtown Portland.
When I lived in southern Africa for a time doing research, almost 20 years ago, there were two systems at work that I wonder about for meeting some of these needs. In Durban, South Africa there was a system of mini-buses called Mynas, because of their shape & then painted to match as a marketing tool. I think that they both ran lesser used routes and also ran links between bigger mainline routes. They were about the size of the buses TriMet uses to provide service to handicapped persons.
Could Tri-Met use smaller, less expensive, more fuel-efficient buses on some of its routes during lower-traffic times -- or even use them to provide more frequent service interspersed with the big buses during the times when buses are getting over-filled? Could such buses be used to extend service to growing but more dispersed areas further away from downtown?
The other phenomenon was what were known as kombi or minibus taxis. These were privately owned passenger vans that ran fixed routes, both within cities and long distance, and at that time catered almost exclusively to Africans (it was the end of the apartheid era).
They carried anything from 8 to 15 passengers depending on the size of the van and the willingness of the driver to illegally overload them. The intercity routes were close to unregulated, and a couple of years after I took them between Swaziland and Johannesburg I would no longer have done so, because competition turned literally deadly and what were known as "taxi wars" broke out, with drivers for lines competing over certain routes shot up competing buses to establish monopolies. Owning a minibus taxi was one form of relatively inexpensive entrepreneurship for Africans in South Africa, but between difficulty scraping the money together and the fierceness of competition even when not literally cutthroat, there were serious maintenance and driving related safety issues.
I wouldn't advocate that system exactly, for obvious reasons, but again it seems as if either on private or public basis it might be possible to use such vehicles to complement and fill service gaps (spatial and temporal) in the existing TriMet system. If private, possible issues about undermining the public system might be met by having a fare-fee that would go to subsidizing the public system.
One way to look at these options is as offering two scale steps intermediate between carpools and big buses, and thinking about matching them with the scalability of demand over space and time in the region.
Posted by: joel dan walls | Jun 2, 2008 10:07:04 AM
The "run TriMet like a business" idea seems flawed. It's not a business. It's a monopoly. And I will bet that neither Mr. Barnhart nor most readers here even view public transit as a business: far more likely is that they view it as comparable to the municipal water supply, that is, as some sort of utility that "the community" must have.
I lived in an English city some years ago, during the Thatcher era, with privatized public transit that I used daily. There were, in effect, competing bus lines on all the routes I used: some typically large, double-deck buses, some small, comparable to the shuttle buses one sees moving people between airport parking lots and terminals. They were all heavily used and extremely crowded. There was no price differential from one bus company to another. "Service" was indifferent: even the drivers used to smoke, right next to the NO SMOKING signs! Just an observation...good old laissez-faire capitalism didn't seem to be "working" there in the way that an ideologue would tell you it ought to, I would maintain.
Per TriMet customer service, I have some anecdotal observations to pass along. Twice in recent months I have had to get off buses and cool my heels when an altercation between a driver and a passenger escalated to the point of shouting, obscentities, and the driver calling the cops. In both cases, yes, the passenget involved was being a jerk, but so was the driver. One would think that once the offending passenger was off the bus, the driver could just proceed, but no: in both cases, EVERYONE got booted off the bus while the cops came to "investigate". In one of these incidents, SIX cops showed up, and for what? Because some passenger screamed at the driver, then got off when the driver told him to get off, and then stood on the sidewalk screaming some more at the driver. For that we needed SIX cops?
As far as I can tell, shutting down the bus and kicking everyone off when there's a problem passenger is simply TriMet policy. Thus a bunch of people wind up being seriously inconvenienced....In both incidents that I observed, I wrote letters to TriMet about what had transpired and in reply got boilerplate.
I'm not at all sure what Trimet ought to do about responding to fuel prices, and I'm not thrilled with Mr. Barnhart's rant, but undoubtedly TriMet needs to do more than just think about prices.
Posted by: Ms Mel Harmon | Jun 2, 2008 10:08:35 AM
I'll add my two cents worth here---
First cent----I also live out in East County (actually I live in the same complex as Jenni---hey Jenni, email me at melharmoninoregon@yahoo.com I need to ask you something). I work about 3 miles from my complex. Part of my job is to take the mail everyday at end of work to the Post Office. When I first moved to Gresham, I purposely chose a place that was close to my work. I didn't own a car, having used TriMet exclusively for the previous 10 years. I figured I'd keep using TriMet. Well, the buses run so infrequently out here, even during "rush hour" that I ended up at work 40 minutes early. Well, okay. I'ts worth it to save money and be green.(I can't pedal a bike or walk more than a couple miles at a time due to an old foot injury). Then, after work, I needed to go to the Post Office, then home. The distance for that trip when driving is 4.57 miles and when driving takes a total of 10 minutes. Here's what I have to do on TriMet--
1. Board #12 bus on 223rd Street and take it to Gresham Transit Center.
2. Board #80 bus at GTC and take it to Hood/2nd. Walk 2 blocks to the post office. Take care of business. Walk back to 2/Hood.
3. Board #81 Bus at 2/hood and take it to my complex.
Total time----1 hour 21 minutes.
So, I can be home within 15 minutes or I can be home in an hour and a half.....hmmmmmm.
Second cent---I work with a low-income family. There are two adults and 3 kids ages 9, 12, 15. They all need monthly bus passes. The passes total $224 per month for the family and they recently decided that buying an old clunker was cheaper even with the current gas prices that paying for those passes each month. Heck, I just bought a brand new Toyota Yaris and I pay less per month in payments on it than their passes would cost (and yes, I know that cars have added expenses like insurance, gas,upkeep---but when you are that poor you don't look to the future, you look day-to-day).
As for my personal situation, I rode TriMet for a bit, cut WAY back on my expenses, saved up money and bought an EGO electric scooter (www.egovehicles.com). Now I use it on decent weather days and use no gas. Honestly there are days I'd rather ride TriMet but it's just not feasible given where I need to travel and the schedules out here.
Like I said, my two cents worth...
Posted by: AL M | Jun 2, 2008 10:37:14 AM
Interesting post, some interesting comments, some unhelpful disrespectful comments.
If you look at the whole ball of wax, instead of just a bad piece here and there, you see that the system is pretty gosh darn good, and well worth the price of a ticket when compared to the price of driving.
Put on your headphones get out your book and just go without worry.
Most of the time you get there!
Posted by: Kathy H | Jun 2, 2008 10:59:16 AM
James X.
"Kathy: Isn't there a fare inspector driving the bus?"
Nope. They aren't allowed to enforce fares or issue tickets. They are 'fare informers' not fare enforcers.
They have no ability or authority to deal with someone who doesn't pay.
Posted by: lestatdelc | Jun 2, 2008 11:28:18 AM
Fuel prices go through the roof, making buses (which use fuel) more expensive to run and we have people being shocked about the economic reality that rates have to go up as a result.
And we wonder why progressives never convince voters they understand business?
Posted by: Unit | Jun 2, 2008 11:31:24 AM
TA,
I think most everyone agrees it's unfortunate that TriMet may be raising fares....including TriMet. But your suggestions are simply not realistic, nor are they particularly helpful.
You suggest that TriMet should raise revenue by increasing service. If only it worked that way. Public transit is not a profitable endeavor in the US; it is a service that requires subsidies to operate. The subsidy is desirable because of the economic benefit of transporting people to/from work and other destinations in an environmentally-responsible and community-friendly manner. When the alternative is building an auto-centric hellhole like Houston or Phoenix, transit is a great public investment. But an increase in service costs means an increase in this subsidy. Fares will never never never never never pay for this. TriMet would probably have to double, triple, or quadruple the fare to cover their costs, and then most everyone would stop riding. $2 may feel like a lot for a ride, but try riding BART in the Bay Area, where your ride costs 2-3 times as much.
It would be great to hold or lower fares, and it would be great to increase service. To do either/both of these, the region would need to support an increase in the payroll tax, or identify another funding source for transit. I suggest you get involved in supporting TriMet by lobbying for a payroll tax that better supports the transit system we need.
Posted by: Pat Ryan | Jun 2, 2008 11:35:02 AM
One Meta on this is that an urban transportation system remains hugely inefficient in the early decades of build out, and then becomes exponentially more efficient as it nears maturity.
When the lines on a map look mostly like a star with most lines radiating from the center, it doesn't work very well and long ride times are the norm for the majority of commuters.
Once the map begins to look more like a web, with cross lines between the radii, serviced by smaller and more frequently occuring vehicles, ride times decrease at the same time that capital outlays for the hub and spoke central design begin to mature.
************
Continued maintenance of the old streetcar lines and/or rights of way could have saved us tens of billions of dollars but it's too late to do anything about that one.
************
************
Also worth considering that any cost calculation needs to include the national expenditures (allegedly) required to secure petroleum. These costs are never factored in to the highway/street/automobile mix. Then there's the difficulty inherent in trying to decide how much the lives of little brown people living on top of my oil are worth when I fill my tank or have a new street paved into my subdivision.
Posted by: christy | Jun 2, 2008 11:45:52 AM
"Fuel prices go through the roof, making buses (which use fuel) more expensive to run and we have people being shocked about the economic reality that rates have to go up as a result.
And we wonder why progressives never convince voters they understand business?"
That's a good one. I think conservatives are going to have to give up the "better for the economy" line, at least for a decade or so, while we repair the economic damage done by the current administration. Please!
Posted by: al m | Jun 2, 2008 12:34:17 PM
""I think conservatives are going to have to give up the "better for the economy" line, at least for a decade or so""
BINGO!
Let's see, how about we give tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans while we conduct A WAR eh?
Then there is no money for transit huh?
So who is to blame for all this mess?
NOT TRIMET that's for sure!
Posted by: t.a. barnhart | Jun 2, 2008 1:32:25 PM
when i spoke of running TriMet like a business, i was specific what i meant: you don't increase business by raising prices and cutting service. if a monthly pass goes up to $75, and word of over-packed buses gets around (and it will), will TriMet be selling more passes? or will people start carpooling, biking, telecommuting (all very good things)?
i used the example of Apple because it's a great example of improving the product & driving down the price at the same time. i'm not saying we should necessarily cut fares (although that extra nickel is nasty) but that a long-term plan to make mass transit cheap -- and perhaps even free -- is something we could use.
Posted by: t.a. barnhart | Jun 2, 2008 1:34:16 PM
btw, at this point, i'd have to vote for James X as the smartest person at BlueOregon. i'm appreciating your various comments and hope you start to post full pieces.
Posted by: Jenni Simonis | Jun 2, 2008 1:57:10 PM
Mel:
Yes, it's it ridiculous how hard it can be to get around? We chose this complex because it had good reviews, was close to my husband's work,and had 3 bedroom apartment. It was the closest one we could find that had all three of those.
Posted by: Gordon Morehouse | Jun 2, 2008 1:59:31 PM
Sal says: "Any increase in fares to offset costs should be accompanied by incentivizing the bulk purchasing of passes by local businesses. Transportation district taxes on local businesses pay more than 70 percent of the operating cost of TriMet, yet there are no incentives for businesses to engage in the bulk purchasing of passes for employees.
True, there's no bulk incentive that I know of, but there are tax writeoffs for businesses to assist with Trimet passes. My company pays for half my monthly 3-zone pass, meaning I spend only $38 to ride Trimet as much as I want in all zones. I was informed that the company gets a substantial tax credit for this.
Posted by: Jonathan D. | Jun 2, 2008 3:05:24 PM
I agree that the Trimet should not be increasing its fares, but Trimet is not to be blamed. The issue resides with Sam Adams and our politicians. Trimet is nowhere near self-sufficient financially and can only operate as many buses and services as tax payers give them funding. I would hope Portland decides to shell out more money to increase ridership because it is good public policy to keep people out of their cars. Sam Adams should use the surplus right now to improve Trimet, purchase hybrid buses and improve surface, so that if gas prices decrease, people will continue to use trimet. In addition, we should improve our bike system so that people can use bikes to connect across town, and continue to decrease the use of cars.
Also, the bus services is meant to get people to and from work, i.e. to Downtown Portland and back. This is the same in pretty much every city in the U.S. and Europe. Public transit never works well to go cross town. I wish it did, but society can't even adequately fund a system to get us to work. I love taking the bus, it save me a ton of money and helps the environment, and I hope we start funding it more through tax revenue.
I appreciate the post, but I think it misses the point. It should be taken up with Sam Adams. Why is our priority a SE street car instead of more buses, hybrid buses, and perhaps extended buses? Extended buses, the ones maneuver better and would relieve a lot of the issues of leaving people at bus stops in the morning because there is no more room. If we increase capacity, comfort and convenience, ridership will increase. Our politicians must decide this is worth funding.
Posted by: al m | Jun 2, 2008 3:43:00 PM
“i used the example of Apple because it's a great example of improving the product & driving down the price at the same time.”
~~> Comparing Apple to Trimet is like comparing apples to oranges, no pun intended. One is a service the other is a technology retail. No comparison is possible here.
You want to compare Trimet to a similar ‘free market” service, look at Greyhound.
I would dare say that Trimet provides a much higher quality service than Greyhound.
“t's a ghost bus but it keeps running just in case someone wants to get to Lombard.”
Once again, Trimet should be compared to a public utility more than a profit making company. For transit to be real, it has to be available. Yes they should be running more buses during peak hours, agreed. Too much investment in Light rail at the expense of the bus service has caused this problem.
“It should be taken up with Sam Adams. Why is our priority a SE street car instead of more buses,”
~~>Bingo again, exactly right!
Posted by: The Libertarian Guy | Jun 2, 2008 3:55:01 PM
Having used public transit in much of my 60 years of life I am a big advocate, but see no reason for private businesses to be locked out of the marketplace as they are today. The local marketplace needs to be open to all sorts of transit companies regardless of whether they are mom and pop, or corporations.
Here's an example of what may be the finest transit operation in the world. http://www.urbanhabitat.org/node/344
It might offer an idea or two.
The Libertarian Guy
Posted by: Stephanie V | Jun 2, 2008 4:14:16 PM
Ever take the 75 past 7 o'clock down 39th? Try it sometime...it's a ghost bus but it keeps running just in case someone wants to get to Lombard.
I have taken it many times (usually between Hawthorne and Hollywood) and found 15 or more riders on the #75, even well past 9 or 10 pm. Those riders may be paying one zone fares, but they are certainly still paying.
Posted by: Ian | Jun 2, 2008 4:15:45 PM
Also, in some cases taking TriMet is a wash (at best) with driving. Last year, just to be responsible, I took the train downtown from Beaverton Creek TC when I was doing some shopping. The cost of two All Zone tickets was only about $2 less than what it cost me in gas to drive and park in a SmartPark for a couple hours. Not only that, but the round-trip took over 1 hour. I love the idea of public transportation, but that trip just didn't sell me on TriMet being as practical as they make themselves sound.
Posted by: al m | Jun 2, 2008 4:29:05 PM
"http://www.urbanhabitat.org/node/344"
I've seen this before and yes they are excellent.
HOWEVER, This is a third world country and obviously wages are severely depressed here.
The words "free market" have a pretty scary meaning to me, PAY THE LOWEST WAGES/BENEFITS POSSIBLE.
Trimet can be a pain in the arse to use. Hell I get a free pass but can't use it cause its so freaking inconvenient late nights from the west side, AND I WANT TO TAKE IT TOO!
Posted by: Ted | Jun 2, 2008 5:47:18 PM
1) An individual participant's commute to and from work is a fairly inelastic demand, because commuting is essential to getting paid and making ends meet. So the price versus quantity (of ridership) stuff that is being discussed in free-market parlance isn't really accurate.
2) A substitution effect is occuring as a result of the oil shock that is resulting in an outward shift of the demand curve for public transportation, thus the crowded bus lines.
3) Unlike the MAX trains, increased ridership increases variable operating costs (direct costs) for Trimet. Higher fuel consumption, higher maintenance, etc, are positively correlated with increased ridership. Therefore, simply 'increasing sales' does not yeild 1:1 benefit and mathematically cannot be the whole of the solution.
4) Increasing the amount of capacity means increasing capital expenditure, which must then (partially, since ridership is subsidized by the tax payer) amortized on a usage basis. The good thing for the Neo-Con-Pretending-To-Be-A-Goldwater-Con taxpayer is that they are buying more ridership for the buck and that is offset to a lesser extent by the lower usage of roads and highways.
The biggest problem is that politicos on both sides of the isle want to boil the problem down to such simple rhetoric, when a comprehensive multivariate analysis of the situation is required. The average person for whom bond measures and taxation represent a substantial portion of their overall income, whether they be middle class Republican or Democrat, seeks the optimal trade off, since the optimal solution is non-partisan for the great swath of the mainstream tax bracket.
Come together, People.
Posted by: The Libertarian Guy | Jun 2, 2008 6:06:04 PM
A friend from Copenhagen tells me that he'd ride the bus if it ran more frequently like it does there. Well here's a comment about bus service in some Scandinavian countries.
http://www.apta.com/services/intnatl/intfocus/scandin.cfm
Posted by: truffula | Jun 2, 2008 6:22:29 PM
Train the bus drivers in customer service
I either ride my bike or the bus downtown six days a week. I can count on one hand the number of uncivil interactions I've had with bus drivers over the seven years I've been doing this and all of them took place when I was on a bike, not a rider in the bus. When I consider the range of people and personalities drivers encounter every day, I am amazed at how friendly they almost always are.
As to the "convenience" arguments, grow up. US Americans need to get over our unreasonable sense of entitlement and start living in a less unsustainable way. If it takes longer to ride the bus than it would to drive, that's just what it takes. Plan for it.
Posted by: doretta | Jun 2, 2008 6:38:18 PM
Nope. They aren't allowed to enforce fares or issue tickets. They are 'fare informers' not fare enforcers.
They have no ability or authority to deal with someone who doesn't pay.
That's wrong. They can't issue tickets but they can deny boarding to a person who doesn't pay the fare. I've seen them do so many times.
I don't mind buying the upgrade, but I damn sure mind that TriMet can't do something as simple as adding a tiny bit of programming to allow me to buy an upgrade from a ticket machine. This underscores the central problem with TriMet customer service is that it has very little to do with customer service.
Nope. You have this completely backward, TA. The decision about not offering upgrades on MAX ticket machines was made specifically as a customer service improvement in response to customer feedback.
MAX ticket machines, in fact, used to be programmed to allow the purchase of upgrades and they used to offer other options that they currently don't offer as well. The feedback TriMet got was that the ticket machines were too complicated. So they simplified their offerings from the machines. I know because after they proposed their changes, I went around in circles with them on that one. It was the one change that there was no way around by planning ahead.
Posted by: t.a. barnhart | Jun 2, 2008 7:00:32 PM
jeez, doretta, that's depressing. if the ticket machines are too complicated, how do people find the right bus home? why not have "More Choices" for those of us with the ability to read printed instructions? there is always a way to provide excellent service at multiple levels. just because some people have trouble using technology (and i understand that; i did 5 years in tech support and know that for some people, it's just tough sledding) doesn't mean no one should have access. they could program the machines if they wanted to -- and that only underscores my point about the decrease in service.
Posted by: DE | Jun 2, 2008 7:14:15 PM
There is nothing funnier than hearing people ask TriMet to run more like a business, and then lament poor service in unprofitable areas of the region and suggest that they enforce fares and fix fare machines to increase revenues.
A real business would charge more for the low-ridership lines and less for high-ridership lines. Way less. There would be even less service, if any, in low-density suburban areas.
Second, trust that the fare collection/enforcement issue is NOT negligence. It is absolutely a calculated policy decision. TriMet, like a business, estimates the savings of each additional fare enforcer and fare machine repairman. At some level, adding an additional employee costs more than that employee would add value in the form of fines (which involve several more levels of bureaucracy to actually collect) or fares (ie. one more repairman might be able to ensure that no fare machines were ever broken for longer than 1-2 hrs, but you might have to pay him to sit around for hours a day waiting for a call). Moreover on the farebox issue, I would imagine the overwhelming majority of riders system-wide are commuters, and don't use fareboxes anyway. The following is a document everyone should read before tapping out a rant like the one TA spraypainted above:
http://trimet.org/pdfs/tip/tip.pdf
Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.
Post a comment
Posted by: orexpat | Jun 1, 2008 10:31:12 PM
So, you're upset. I think we get that.
You want TriMet to be run more like a business, but then you use an example from business (an auto dealer)...to make a point that would seem to argue against this.
You want them to pay for increased costs by increasing ridership...but then you admit that "But more and more, the bus is starting to overfill."
So you want them to buy new busses and hire more drivers. Guess what? That's a big cost. And what about the cost of diesel which is now pushing towards $5 a gal?
You have some choices:
- move closer to work
- bike
- say thanks that compared to most of the US you have a decent transit system that (compared to car ownership) is reasonably priced
"Otherwise they turn what is an opportunity to prove the value of mass transit into an opportunity for mass transit's opponents to possibly destroy it."
Actually, your talking points could be cribbed from plenty of right wing (or libertarian) blogs. Maybe time to take a deep breath, rethink and reframe?