Unfair TriMet Fares
I bike; therefore, I jam
Once in awhile I will take public transportation, i.e. TriMet. It's a rare occasion since I am a die hard and will bike in the utmost horrid conditions with pleasure. That's just a side plug for increased bike support.
The main point here. I have watched TriMet fares jump quite considerably. Was it not too long ago that a general adult all zone ticket cost $1.75? It was something around there. Then as gas prices were climbing, that ticket price began to edge up. Now I'm looking at a $2.30 fare to travel in one direction as an adult. The overall round trip for the day is $4.60, or $1.10 more than before.
Okay, I don't use it everyday. I bike for free most days with my other beautiful bike commuters. If you did use TriMet, however, then that could tack on an additional $275 each year to your daily commute to work (for instance).
Should TriMet be forced to reduce their ticket prices now that the financial bubble has burst and gas prices have dropped considerably? Is there any reason for keeping the ticket price this high still?
Email TriMet if you agree that they should recalibrate prices and help riders, many of whom are low income and could use a fare bailout.
|
March 19, 2009 |
Jenson Hagen | Comments (118 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: Douglas K. | Mar 19, 2009 8:57:44 PM
Is there any reason for keeping the ticket price this high still?
Because they're stuck with last year's diesel prices, for one.
Posted by: Jenson | Mar 19, 2009 9:23:19 PM
Those dumbdumbs!
I was not aware of that article. They should have consulted with me. Oil is a non-income producing asset. Kind of like . . . er, residential homes. Such asset prices form part of the consumer price index that ultimately governs monetary policy. So if home and oil prices go too high, so will the consumer price index and the Fed will intervene to try and return prices back to a desired price level. Kind of like they did. And now prices are resetting back to historical levels. As they should. And the administrators at TriMet should call on someone with a masters degree in finance before committing to such a massive hedge.
And so I am going to only bike from now on knowing that my money will not go toward sheer stupidity.
It takes two to contango! And one party to the trade is always a moron.
Posted by: Jenni Simonis | Mar 19, 2009 9:53:16 PM
Heck, thanks to many of the drivers I can't even get "one way" on $2.30. I'll insert a brand new unused ticket and in exchange I get a 1 hour transfer. Which thanks to MAX trains getting further and further apart out here in Gresham, I'm lucky to make it to Lloyd Center in that hour.
Or, as happens regularly, one or more buses just doesn't show up. At all. We waited more than 40 minutes for a #20 bus last Thursday. There was a Mult Dems meeting that I needed to get to after running some errands. Finally, I called Transit Tracker, only to be told the next bus was still 11 minutes away.
Now, this was during "rush hour" when the #20 is supposed to be running about every 12-15 minutes. Yet it was almost an hour between buses.
Since I rarely have cash, I pick up my tickets in 10 packs. I get 2 zone tickets and then up then to an all zone as needed. Lately it's felt like they've put bigger gaps between service, causing me to have to use more tickets to get into Portland than I would normally.
I have to say that I will be so glad when we finally have a car again so that my trips on TriMet are extremely limited.
Posted by: Sal Peralta | Mar 19, 2009 9:59:44 PM
Jenson - TriMet does not currently come close to sustaining itself through rider's fees.
More than half of its revenue comes from a payroll and self employment tax that is levied on local businesses at a rate of just under $7 per $1000 in payroll. Only about 20 percent of its total revenue comes from fees paid by riders.
Businesses that pay this tax receive no benefits in terms of reduced rate for the use of TriMet services, nor are any incentives offered by TriMet to companies that would like to purchase monthly or annual passes in bulk.
If you would like to advocate for sensible policy changes, May I suggest that it is not necessarily sensible to lower the fee for one-off transportation on TriMet. Rather they should create incentives for businesses that are in the transportation district to purchase annual, quarterly or monthly passes in bulk in order get more of their employees using the system.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Mar 19, 2009 10:14:43 PM
nor are any incentives offered by TriMet to companies that would like to purchase monthly or annual passes in bulk.
When did that change? They used to have a program where employers could choose to provide monthly passes to 100% of their employees - and then TriMet would provide them at a discount. (But it had to be 100%, which made it a tough call for employers.)
Posted by: Brian Collins | Mar 19, 2009 10:17:29 PM
TriMet is currently considering a plan to cut service because their major source of revenue, payroll taxes, are down. Cutting fares on top of this will only result in more service cuts.
People here claim to support transit, but think it should be free or cheap. The reality is that it costs money and many transit systems in other cities (generally larger) are far more reliant on fare revenue than Portland's. Maybe if we paid more in fares, people would be happier with the service level they receive and TriMet wouldn't be having to make as severe cuts.
Posted by: Sal Peralta | Mar 19, 2009 10:46:51 PM
Kari - I can't tell you when it changed, only that it was not available to my company in 2008 or in 2009.
The broader point I am making is that there should be strong incentives for increasing regular ridership, and for businesses to put more of their employees on TriMet.
I can see the wisdom in charging a premium for one-off riders, and offering discounts to encourage regular use.
Posted by: Marshall | Mar 19, 2009 11:18:02 PM
Yes, for the casual user (like myself, I also bike), it has gotten considerably more expensive. But the cost of a monthly adult all-zone pass ($86) is still nowhere near the monthly cost of driving. Virtually all of the people that rely on Tri-met on a daily basis purchase monthly (or yearly) passes. Generally the people that purchase one-way fares are casual users who do not rely on Tri-met on a day-to-day basis, or have other alternative methods of travel. So in a way, I think it's much better for lower income people if Tri-met raises one-way and all-day fares and uses that to keep the cost of monthly and yearly passes more constant.
Posted by: Jenni Simonis | Mar 19, 2009 11:18:39 PM
Sal:
I'm sorry, but I will fight against any effort to charge a premium for what you consider "one-off riders."
Many of us ride often, but not often enough to make a monthly, quarterly, or yearly pass a sensible purchase. It's $75 for a 2-zone monthly pass, yet I only use about $45-60 worth of tickets each month (2-zone and all zone combined). The only time I come close to $75 in a month is when my husband rides with me several times during the month as well. That's between 20-30 tickets a month, hardly a "one-off" rider.
Those tickets are purchased throughout the month as I can afford them, most often in packs of 10 from the ticket machines, occasionally with cash for a single ticket. I can't afford to shell out the money for them all at once, and I'm by far not the only one. Which means even if I was spending $75 in a month, it's shelled out over 4 weeks.
If I had to pay a premium just because I can't afford to purchase a monthly, quarterly, or yearly pass, it will mean that I will have to buy less tickets. And ride less often. Which means I'll be stuck going to the more expensive grocery store that is within walking distance and my tickets will have to be limited to work-related things and the essentials.
Also, those who buy passes are already getting a break on the price. It would cost you $142.50 to buy 30 all day tickets. Yet you can get a monthly pass for $86.
Posted by: Jenni Simonis | Mar 19, 2009 11:27:42 PM
Generally the people that purchase one-way fares are casual users who do not rely on Tri-met on a day-to-day basis, or have other alternative methods of travel. So in a way, I think it's much better for lower income people if Tri-met raises one-way and all-day fares and uses that to keep the cost of monthly and yearly passes more constant.
Actually, that is completely wrong. Most lower income people I know who rely on TriMet regularly don't have passes. Why? Because it is such a huge purchase up-front. And when you're living paycheck to paycheck, it is much easier to afford $20 a week to buy 10 2-zone tickets and spend $80 than it is to spend $75 up front for the monthly pass.
I happen to know this for a fact since I am a regular TriMet rider. And I talk to other people on the bus/MAX. And just like me they are riding often, purchasing individual tickets, and have no other form of transportation.
I have to say that I get more and more tired of people making assumptions about what low income people do, how they live, etc. More often than not, I'm finding those assumptions to be wrong. It's probably the biggest gripe I have with Democrats and Progressives anymore.
Posted by: Jenni Simonis | Mar 19, 2009 11:29:21 PM
Of all the low-income people I know who use TriMet, only two have passes. One bought it through money left over from students loans after paying for books, tuition, etc. The other person's doctor filled out a form that allows her to get the honored citizen rate, which made it affordable for her.
Everyone else I know uses individual tickets.
Posted by: James X. | Mar 19, 2009 11:41:18 PM
They're eliminating 12 routes, eliminating one or both weekend days on 13 more routes, reducing hours and frequency on 19 routes after that, reducing frequency on MAX, and reducing or eliminating fareless square. I think public transportation benefits everyone and should be a public service like schools and libraries, funded by the public and used for free, saving us all a ton of money and saving the environment. There are about 1.6 million people in the Metro region, and about $80 million of TriMet's funding comes from fares. This can be done. And $50 per person (odds are you'd pay less based on progessive taxation but more based on not taxing babies) is far less than car buying/insurance/parking/maintenance/gas, and is even less than the cost of a bike or annual TriMet pass ($946). Yes, we'd have to pay more for increased frequency for all the new riders, but we'd pay tons less in taxes that now go to maintaining and increasing infrastructure for cars.
Or, we could just continue to spend billions on things like 12-lane superhighways and pretend that's sustainable.
Truly public transportation would be an absolute bargain.
By the way, the argument for reducing or eliminating fareless square is that it was created to reduce air pollution, and now that it succeeded, we don't need it anymore. Just as healthy diets and exercise are no longer needed once you reach your desired weight. The pounds just stay off. And this disregards any other benefit of fareless square. That's because the real reason for reducing or eliminating fareless square has nothing to do with pollution. TriMet doesn't gain or lose anything on account of air quality. It's about money. But we shouldn't pay more and more money for less and less service indefinitely. If you want a say in maintaining fareless square, you can email comments@trimet.org, but what's really needed is for the blogosphere to raise hell and put some real pressure against it before the April 10 deadline.-
Posted by: James X. | Mar 19, 2009 11:57:51 PM
Also, businesses that offer passes to their employees get tax deductions. See here. And all businesses and self-employed people in the TriMet district pay the tax, in case people got the impression that only certain businesses pay the tax but they get no perks. Any perks would be fake perks, because they wouldn't be perks, they would be standard, because all businesses pay. But if you like, you can think of it as getting about 73% off the price of fare because your business pays the tax. Quite a perk!
Posted by: ws | Mar 20, 2009 12:08:32 AM
I realize farebox revenue doesn't come close to covering Trimet's expenses. Trimet routinely raises the fare...I imagine management considers those raises reasonable under circumstances they face. It's great for management to be able to raise the fare, but what happens when people are no longer able to pay the fare? Maybe they'll start to ride a bike like Jenson Hagen does...bye-bye transit riders.
Or the next time the fare goes up twenty cents, possibly, they'll start to fare cheat. So, instead of pulling in $4.00 in fare revenue, Trimet loses $4.00 in fare revenue.
Based on my recent experience commuting back and forth between Hillsboro and Beaverton for 6 wks, not enough people ride mass transit MAX. Might that be because the fare is too high? And also in part because the ride experience has much to be desired? Nice trains, but without anyone there to supervise, some of the riders and their behavior really makes the ride suck. For many potential riders, has it turned out to be much nicer to endure a little bit of being stuck in traffic, in the car listening to the stereo?
The running refrain used to justify increasingly unrealistic fare increases is getting ridiculous. $2.30 fares only cover twenty percent of Trimet's operating expenses? So what? Hey....they've only got eighty percent of the way left to go. Make the fare $11.50 ...then they'll have the entire one-hundred percent.
Everyone should really try and remember why the metro areas transit system was built. Was there ever any serious consideration that it could be operated solely on riders out of pocket fare payments? If Trimet could expand ridership by using better passenger compartment supervision, and for example, by halving the current fare, they should do it. Getting people to ride mass transit rather than sit in their personal car, stuck in traffic on an overwhelmed road system is what I understand the whole point of the metro areas mass transit system to have been.
Posted by: Jenni Simonis | Mar 20, 2009 12:18:32 AM
When I ride MAX between Gresham and Portland it is almost always full/packed. Often times I can't get a seat until 82nd or Gateway when headed east. When headed west I get on at the 2nd stop on the line, but it fills up fairly quickly.
I just wish we could get some more bus service out here. For instance, once the MAX leaves Burnside, there is no public transit on Burnside. Huge portions of the main part of the city are inaccessible via mass transit and many more underserved.
Posted by: Bob Tiernan | Mar 20, 2009 1:08:53 AM
Jenson:
Email TriMet if you agree that they should recalibrate prices and help riders, many of whom are low income and could use a fare bailout.
Bob T:
Well, there's your mistake right there -- you're under the impression that Tri-Met is interested in providing service to poor people and under-served areas.
Someone mentioned revenues are down. Well, you guys ought to wonder how many buses we'd have and more routes etc, if we hadn't out a priority on light rail (now a quarter of a billion dollar price tag per mile). Do you realize how many buses could have been purchased with just a fraction of the cost of a single light rail line. Problem is, no politician is interested in a ribbon-cutting ceremony at a parking lot entrance where a bunch of new buses are ready to pull out to run on new routes. Not flashy enough.
Bob Tiernan
Portland
Posted by: Frank Dufay | Mar 20, 2009 3:00:49 AM
The broader point I am making is that there should be strong incentives for increasing regular ridership, and for businesses to put more of their employees on TriMet.
Let's think about this. Every rider TriMet adds has to be subsidized with revenue beyound the fare box. The more riders who aren't paying their way, the more subsidy is needed.
Why would TriMet want to add riders? It's like having a business where each new customer reduces your profit margins.
I've been taking the Hawthorne line --now #14-- for almost twenty years. The service continues to deteriorate, having buses pass you by when filled becomes more and more the norm. And service has ALREADY been cut. Kicked off the temporary Bus Mall, we now head back to Hawthorne over the Morrison Bridge. Go figure. And promises to the contrary, we will not be returning to the new Bus Mall, instead we will hardly get downtown before we can "coveniently transfer."
This is not a customer service ethic. This is a "we can't afford, and don't want customers" ethic.
In the meantime, Transit Oriented Development becomes Development Oriented Transit, and the Milwaukie MAX Light Rail Line becomes the new Mt Hood Freeway (albeit on steel wheels, horns ablazing) ripping through our close-in SE neighborhood. All while we redefine "Frequent Service." And the ANNUAL pass to take the Streetcar from the Pearl, and the Tram to OHSU is $100 (and sorry, Jenni, your ten-pack tickets aren't good for that Tram ride up the hill.)
When TriMet's mission stopped being about transportation and instead turned into being a development tool, and when postcard pretty streetcars stopped being about moving people around, but giving "surety" to developers, mass transit, as transit, is all the poorer for it. As is our community.
Posted by: Sal Peralta | Mar 20, 2009 6:38:55 AM
I'm sorry, but I will fight against any effort to charge a premium for what you consider "one-off riders."
Jenni,
They are already charging a premium for one-off riders. I am not proposing that they increase such a rate -- they've already done it -- only that they create incentives that are intended to increase regular ridership by encouraging bulk purchasing by businesses that pay the metro tax.
Last year, my company probably paid about $1500 in taxes for metro. I don't mind paying it. It's the price I pay to have a business in a city that strives for good public transportation. But if local business is going to subsidize the system, then I would like to see incentives created that will encourage those same businesses to help increase ridership.
One of the reasons to offer bulk purchasing discounts for employers is so that employees will not have to pay the significant up-front costs associated with purchasing tri-met passes.
The main "tax break" that companies get for paying for Tri-Met passes is basically that the cost of purchasing of such passes can be deducted from pre-tax income. In other words, because your net revenue is lower, you pay less in taxes.
To the best of my knowledge, no one at Tri Met was aware of the BETC tax credit last summer when we were trying to purchase our passes, and it was not referenced on the web site.
Posted by: Eric Parker | Mar 20, 2009 7:35:19 AM
Just a note here...I have ridden the transit systems in Calgary, Boston, and DC. They are all cheaper to ride than TriMet and are bigger than TriMet and they are a little more efficient and safer that TriMet. Calgary also has a light rail system (the LRT)that has security that makes TriMet's look like keystone cops.
And TriMet is giving us BS lines about costs, ridership, and cutting lines?
My sister's business is scheduled to have their convention in Portland in May. There is now talk about cancelling this - not because of the economy, but because TriMet will not let the Red Line from the airport more secure as they want to (being that there will be some out of the country people involved) and there are now serious questions about safety of her business collegues while on the system.
I ride TriMet solely because my pass is heavily subsidized through the place where I work. But there are many places and routes I will never ride to or ride on. It is too dangerous, especially when you have drivers who are overburdened while driving and have no support from a union that has been characterized as 'hostile from superiors' to the drivers.
I guess TriMet could care less - the executives already have their money.
Posted by: alcatross | Mar 20, 2009 7:49:43 AM
If you think fares are high now, wait until TriMet passes on the higher energy costs if the Obama administration rams through their 'cap-and-trade' program. You'll then find yourself yearning for the good ol days of 2009.
Posted by: Douglas K. | Mar 20, 2009 10:12:54 AM
if we hadn't out a priority on light rail (now a quarter of a billion dollar price tag per mile). Do you realize how many buses could have been purchased with just a fraction of the cost of a single light rail line. Problem is, no politician is interested in a ribbon-cutting ceremony at a parking lot entrance where a bunch of new buses are ready to pull out to run on new routes. Not flashy enough.
The real issue is operating costs. Buying a lot buses is cheap. Operating them is not. Every additional bus means one or two additional drivers per day, plus fuel and maintenance costs. And you need to replace the bus after about fifteen years.
Light rail is dramatically more expensive to build, but each vehicle will last about fifty years and the operating cost per passenger is dramatically less than a bus. Right now, a two-car MAX train carries about four times as many passengers per operator as a bus.
Tri-Met could make the entire light rail system even more efficient by running four-car MAX trains, but that would require another huge capital investment to run a tunnel through downtown Portland.
there are now serious questions about safety of her business collegues while on the system.
No, there really aren't. There are serious questions about local media running sensationalist "crime on MAX" stories because crime sells advertising. In reality, MAX is as safe as any rail transit system in North America. (My creds: I've been riding MAX twice a day, most days, since the early 1990s. I frequently ride late at night, coming home after working late or going to a movie, and my home station is the supposedly crime-ridden 82nd Avenue station. I'm not some ivory tower commentator who takes a train to a game once a month: I'm out there using the system all the time.)
Statistically, the average twice-a-day Tri-Met rider could expect to be attacked on MAX or at a platform about one every eighty years. Yes, attacks happen: put 100,000+ people a day on MAX, the law of big numbers says there will be a few incidents. But no more than you would expect from going anywhere that large numbers of people congregate.
Of course, most "crime on MAX" stories make the numbers sound high by reporting all transit-related crimes -- even though the vast majority of those crime are auto theft and car prowls at park-and-rides. But I'm pretty sure business travelers aren't much worried about leaving a car parked at Sunset Transit Center all day.
So if someone is planning to cancel a convention because they're afraid of the big bad muggers on MAX, the issue isn't that there's a genuine safety problem; the issue is that they're letting paranoia, urban legends and a media freakout scare them off.
I have ridden the transit systems in Calgary, Boston, and DC. They are all cheaper to ride than TriMet and are bigger than TriMet and they are a little more efficient and safer that TriMet.
To avoid apples and oranges comparisons, I'd look at other comparably-sized Metro areas in this region.
King County Metro in Seattle is about the best comparator to Tri-Met I can think of, and they charge $2.00 for one zone and $2.50 for two zones at peak hour -- roughly comparable to Tri-Met.
Vancouver BC Translink charges $2.50 CND (currently about $2.00 US) for one zone and $3.75 for two zone, and $9.00 CND for a day pass.
Tri-Met's fares seem pretty reasonable in that light. Yeah, I wish they were lower, but they are similar to comparable systems, and Tri-Met's day pass is a bargain compared to most large transit systems I've seen.
Posted by: Bob Tiernan | Mar 20, 2009 10:58:46 AM
Douglas K:
The real issue is operating costs. Buying a lot buses is cheap. Operating them is not. Every additional bus means one or two additional drivers per day, plus fuel and maintenance costs.
Bob T:
As if MAX doesn't have operating costs.
Anyway, maybe Mr Sam "Corporate Welfare for Millionaires" Adams will scrape up some money somewhere. That is, after the $15 Million he now needs to find to complete the pre-cost-overrun part of the MLS deal.
Bob T
Portland
Posted by: Mike Grigsby | Mar 20, 2009 11:23:11 AM
I am part of a grassroots group that has formed to fight back against Tri-Met's service reductions. If you would like to join the conversation, come to our next organizing meeting at Chit-Chat Cafe, 1907 SW 6th Ave in Portland, 1 PM on March 28, or come to the public hearing at the Portland Building (1120 SW 5th Avenue) on Tuesday, April 7 from 4-7 PM.
Please also distribute our flyer:
I'm not a wizard with HTML, so if this doesn't work, just drop me an email and I can email you the flyer. My email is mikeyboypdx@hotmail.com
http://fight-the-cuts.googlegroups.com/attach/2f9cb770167a835c/Tri-met+half+page+V2.jpg?gda=85zqFUUAAAAR7V57qUMf52vfKbWNfs73xvkF5Ej7fxgew49iB0Q93x20yEaSxLCl7V65BleEZbs_gx_oZRLdTgSyp-j0QL09Gu1iLHeqhw4ZZRj3RjJ_-A&view=1&part=4&gsc=fSpWLAsAAABSugVPWz_RpLXAIUYQr5Mp
Posted by: torridjoe | Mar 20, 2009 11:27:43 AM
"Anyway, maybe Mr Sam "Corporate Welfare for Millionaires" Adams will scrape up some money somewhere. That is, after the $15 Million he now needs to find to complete the pre-cost-overrun part of the MLS deal."
That's Bob T--no lie too stupid to keep repeating!
Posted by: Douglas K. | Mar 20, 2009 12:29:42 PM
Bob T:
"As if MAX doesn't have operating costs."
Me:
As if I pretended MAX didn't. You might have understood that if you'd bothered to read past the first paragraph. The per-passenger operating cost for MAX is lower than buses; THAT was the point.
Bus service: Cheaper to build, expensive to operate.
MAX service: Expensive to build, cheaper to operate.
Posted by: Terry Parker | Mar 20, 2009 12:35:07 PM
Sustainability starts with financial self-sustainability. The comment “I bike for free most days” totally exemplifies the warped mindset of many bicyclists. In other words, the taxpayers should pay for my lifestyle/transportation pick so I do not have to accept any of the responsibility on my own account because I am doing everybody else a favor by riding a bicycle. That is trough full of BS. Bicyclists are your basic freeloaders that expect nothing less than a free lunch from taxpayers. Sharing the road must also require sharing the financial responsibility. .
TriMet however should recalibrate fares, but by increasing them – significantly! The average cost per ride on TriMet averages a little less than ten dollars each. Currently TriMet only recovers twenty-something percent of operating costs from the farebox. This figure needs to be moved closer to fifty percent or above for TriMet to become anywhere near sustainable. The highly cut rate fares on Wes also must be more than doubled to even have a whim of chance of recovering any of the excessive costs for constructing and providing this service. For people who rely on transit and would be unable to afford a significant increase in transit fares, a low income program could to be set up for discount fares based on income levels and a proven need for the discounts.
In addition, TriMet’s primary role is to transport people. Bicycles on Max, streetcars and Wes take up space that otherwise could be occupied by paying passengers. There is also a cost to providing bike racks on busses. Bicyclists need to accept the responsibility for the added costs of transporting bicycles on transit by paying an extra fare. .
Finally, Downtown Portland is a 20 minute walkable neighborhood. Currently this neighborhood receives a special privilege and the immunity of not paying transit fares that other neighborhoods do not receive. Fareless Square needs to be eliminated which will also significantly cut down on fare evasion and crime on transit.
Posted by: Harry Kershner | Mar 20, 2009 12:45:14 PM
Public transportation should be a gift to the people from the people.
"Here are some changes I would recommend:
Cut Pentagon funding by the same amount that's expected to be distributed for economic recovery. That means, decommissioning every military base abroad, ending all Hessian-style private contracts, ending all armaments contracts that enable foreign adventures, and rationalizing the military and civilian staff. Shift the vast resources freed up by these and similar measures to eliminate all the pointless exercises in futility and misery that America has wrought to rebuilding America in the areas of public transportation, a single-payer health care system, and education, particularly vocational. These things will raise the level of productive rather than destructive economic activity that is the hallmark of our current situation." (Chomsky: No Change Coming With Obama)
Politics is not rocket science. Order your priorities and pay for what's most important. If you want hegemony, as most DP and RP elites do, then give up any hope of public transportation, or, for that matter, survival.
Posted by: Scott J | Mar 20, 2009 12:45:24 PM
Jensen,
It might be expensive, but what is the price of saving the planet? What is the price of providing good family wages (MAX train drivers).
When I hop on the MAX, they aren't generating any additional CO2 to move me. It is a fixed CO2 cost.
When you where out your bike tires, won't they have to manufacture new ones? I think you just have your priorities out of wack.
Posted by: torridjoe | Mar 20, 2009 1:09:20 PM
Will Terry ever tire of the ridiculous trope that bicycylists COST society money, as opposed to the fairly obvious facts that increased cycling SAVES us all money? Will he ever recognize that a $10 MAX fare would have the opposite effect he asserts, resulting in far fewer people riding than the record numbers who do now? I'm not holding my breath, but we can dream.
Posted by: 72IH | Mar 20, 2009 1:36:17 PM
Federal transportation dollars are being used to fund light rail. That takes away the money the freeloader bikes need to build their own bike lanes. It also takes a lot of the money needed to improve existing highways and roads to relieve congestion. We do not live in a society that provides everything for us for free. It doesn't matter where the power comes from. We still need it. If you want to complain about fares then look at the cost of a car. Pay for the car, insurance, fuel, and parking. Still cheaper for you people to ride trimet.
A government big enough to provide everything we need is a government big enough to take everything we have.
Start paying your own way. Quit relying on employers to pay your fares. If you want your job show up to work however you can get there. That is your responsibility not the employer or the tax payer. Public transportation is a luxury, not a right.
Posted by: Zarathustra | Mar 20, 2009 2:03:11 PM
Posted by: torridjoe | Mar 20, 2009 1:09:20 PM
Will Terry ever tire of the ridiculous trope that bicycylists COST society money, ...
Not as long as we treat it as honest debate. Ignored most the questions last time he popped up, so it's just comment spam. Portland Transport Blog suffers worse from his "electronic freeloading". Wonder if we'll be treated to the other of the "amazing bandwidth eaters"?
How do you debate specifics with Tri-Met? It is a perfect example of Portland City gov. Again, with supposed progressives in control, we don't seem to be able to control the language of the debate more than any other major US city. They live in an alternate entitlement universe.
Their standard lingo is that they are raising fares to keep service levels constant. They are actually raising fares to keep the schedule constant, without adjusting the operating budget. OK. I bet any commercial airline, or UPS et al., or the taxis, etc., would like to be able to do that. Aren't they stupid? In reality, what you get for what you pay is "service levels", and those corporate entities acknowledge that raising fares isn't maintaining service levels. When an airline says, "we've maintained service levels", it usually means they haven't raised fares. They probably cut service,though. At any rate, as most have described, they are less "served". What has been maintained is Tri-Met's operating budget and schedule. Pretty much.
I think the answer, short term, is simple. The city needs to buy books of tickets, and distribute them to people making less than $18,500/annum, or whatever the current line is. The expectation would be that they would make it back in business taxes. As described, this primarily impacts the low income and poor. The stores they shop at are hanging on, and need their business. All those corps that have decided to make per transaction fee profit as the corner bank for those with no bank, would suffer greatly. While that may not make some cry, it is an important tax revenue source for the city. I've no doubt that keeping low income business as usual would offset the ticket purchases.
Then, Tri-Met doesn't have to do anything. They're good at that.
"Tri-Met: Because how you get there matters.
Tri-Met: See where it takes you"
is too often
"Tri-Met: Because when you get there matters,too
Tri-Met: See where it gets you"
Posted by: Zarathustra | Mar 20, 2009 2:14:00 PM
Posted by: alcatross | Mar 20, 2009 7:49:43 AM
If you think fares are high now, wait until TriMet passes on the higher energy costs if the Obama administration rams through their 'cap-and-trade' program. You'll then find yourself yearning for the good ol days of 2009.
And what of the progressives that regard what you are calling an odious burden to be bold-faced greenwash? "alcatross: proving there really is no hope".
Harry, Noam's thesis is pretty much a QED now. Nice first 100. Meanwhile, the choir intones, "Present". They're here.
Posted by: billy | Mar 20, 2009 5:10:40 PM
The overall round trip for the day is $4.60,
Be glad the taxpayers are picking up 80% of your transport tab, or that fare would be around $20. That is why I keep saying that owning a car saves money!
B
Posted by: The Libertarian Guy | Mar 20, 2009 6:44:38 PM
Atlantic City, New Jersey has had jitneys operating on their city streets since about 1915. These are private non subsidized business owners. The service operates 24 hours a day, seven days a week and the fare is as I recall $2 each way with discounts for senior citizens.
Unfortunately this type of business is illegal in Portland and many cities in the good ol U.S.A., land of the free.
Posted by: The Libertarian Guy | Mar 20, 2009 6:48:30 PM
By the way much of the electricity that goes to run lightrail comes from Boardman, a coal fired plant up the river. That way the pollution goes into the Gorge and stays out of the city of Portland. Outa sight, outa mind.
Posted by: noel | Mar 20, 2009 7:52:00 PM
Jensen - "They should have consulted with me. Oil is a non-income producing asset."
You're a genius. Tell that to the Saudis
Posted by: Terry Parker | Mar 20, 2009 8:17:07 PM
“increased cycling SAVES us all money”
More bicycle babble SPAM! There is a cost to providing bicycle infrastructure. However, because user bicyclists receive a free lunch, taxpayers end up funding another welfare entitlement program for a bunch of freeloading pedal pushers that only provide lip service when it comes to helping fund what they use.
As for an honest debate or discussion; it doesn’t exist. The current socialist state of mind of government is to use the tax codes for social engineering purposes aimed at controlling the lifestyles, housing and transportation choices of the people; listening only to a stacked deck hand picked circle of citizens in any advisory/committee process; and ignore and/or sweep under the rug differing opinions to keep them off the table - thereby attempting to replace democracy with a collective social democracy.
Posted by: Jenson | Mar 20, 2009 9:01:15 PM
Just for the record. I RIDE CROSS BIKES ONLY!!!
Some believe that I should pay for the roads I ride on but I would rather not ride on assfault roads anyway. Tear 'em up. Fine by me. Maybe it means having a harder time hauling back my 42" made in S. Korea plasma TV from the big box stores out in Beavertron. But I don't even have cable.
One pair of rabbit ears . . . $13
Biking faster than TriMet lines . . . priceless
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Mar 21, 2009 12:19:01 AM
How do you debate specifics with Tri-Met? It is a perfect example of Portland City gov.
For the record, TriMet is not a city agency. It's an independent regional agency (that overlaps three counties and 27 cities), chartered by the state. The members of the board are appointed by the Governor.
Posted by: Harry Kershner | Mar 21, 2009 12:32:55 AM
Re: "...attempting to replace democracy with a collective social democracy."
Our present situation is democracy replaced by corporatism.
If we had a democracy, we would have fareless transportation now. We would also spend far less on the military and far more on social programs in general. This is why RP/DP elites fear democracy.
Posted by: torridjoe | Mar 21, 2009 12:40:06 AM
"There is a cost to providing bicycle infrastructure. "
Which is more than outweighed by the savings in fuel, wear and tear on roadways, space for parking, zero emissions, increased health of the rider, raw materials like steel.
Does it cost more to keep a million bikes on the road, or a million cars? If you're being honest, the answer is obvious.
Posted by: Frank Dufay | Mar 21, 2009 3:57:27 AM
Does it cost more to keep a million bikes on the road, or a million cars? If you're being honest, the answer is obvious.
However true that may be, and desireable, if we could switch a million car drivers over to a million bike riders in our region, there are certainly large societal and financial costs involved in doing that.
I drive, I bike, I walk --I'm multi-modal-- and I recognize all those modes are subsidized to one degree or another. But for those who don't take the bus, don't bike, there's a natural resentment about feeling they've taken a disproportionate hit for those costs.
There's other resentments, as well.
When I walk home over the Hawthorne Bridge, as I often do, my ability to feel safe as a pedestrian, on the sidewalk, is seriously compromised by the handful of cyclists that are flat out rude and threatening, as they race by within inches, in anonymity. Why and how did sidewalks become bike freeways, and why does providing this "bicycle infrastructure" come at the expense of my safety as a pedestrian? Surely my carbon footprint is smaller, my walk as healthy, and equally a societal benefit?
I've done the bike to work thing, but the lack of real bicycle-specific infrastructure makes it a scary ride for me. And why NOT have dedicated lanes and sidewalks for cyclists, instead of taking it from automobiles and pedestrians? That's a cost cyclists should be willing to take on, but resist, even in a small, proportionate way. This shouldn't be a zero sum game.
One doesn't have to be an anti-bike zealot to recognize there are costs for moving our community to a more bicycle-friendly one. But holding us back is funding, and an entitlement attitude held by a few that simply "takes" the streets and sidewalks as a matter of "right" and righteousness. All the while we too often we do things on the cheap, which is why we're facing a nightmare clash --crash-- of cultures as political expediency puts peds, cyclists, trains and buses within inches of each other on the new transit mall. (And not that the mall rebuild was cheap, but it was cheaper than putting rail underground where it belongs, as it should be in our SE neighborhood. Instead we're supposed to take a bullet for this "regional transit" that doesn't serve us, and promises us unending horn blasts and traffic tie-ups.)
Not to feed the anti-bike trolls, or see this thread hijacked, but the call was for TriMet to lower their fares, already heavily subsidized through other revenue streams. I think that case can be better made if we saw everyone who wants to "share the road" do a better job of sharing the cost, including those ever elusive externalities. And the other part --if not most important part-- of that equation is thinking about mass transit as transportation, as a tool for helping people get around, not primarily as a tool for new development...which seems to be where TriMet's heading in the wrong direction, on the wrong track, with its spending priorities.
Posted by: The Libertarian Guy | Mar 21, 2009 5:29:08 AM
Douglas K. writes: "Light rail is dramatically more expensive to build, but each vehicle will last about fifty years and the operating cost per passenger is dramatically less than a bus."
If you have figures showing that the operating cost per passenger is less with light rail would you please pass that information on.
From what I have seen that is not the case. A light rail line will essentially be rebuilt from the track up over a thirty year time period because of maintenance.
An additional factor to consider is that the road bed for light rail is single use, whereas the road bed for a bus has multiple uses.
thanks
Posted by: Chuck P | Mar 21, 2009 7:09:34 AM
I'd like to know why Portland seems to be the only city in the nation NOT selling the ad spaces on-board trains and buses. Instead, these placards mounted inside these vehicles are filled with TriMet-only PSA's which generate no revenue. Other cities the size of Portland generate millions of dollars in advertising revenue from these approximately 2.5 ft x 1 ft placards placed inside slots running the length of transit vehicles but not TriMet. This seems irresponsible to me and would more than cover TriMet's project financial shortfall.
Posted by: alcatross | Mar 21, 2009 7:44:08 AM
Zarathustra says: And what of the progressives that regard what you are calling an odious burden to be bold-faced greenwash? "alcatross: proving there really is no hope"
"For I have spoken, thus it must be true" Zarathustra:
Greenwash, you say? Greenwash? Greenwash when one of Obama's own minions projects the cost of said program to be $2T?
Or do you think TriMet executives and employees are all going to take salary cuts and only 'the rich' pay higher fares to absorb all of whatever share of the $2T that rolls down the hill on TriMet. Just so Zarathustra and his progressives aren't odiously burdened even further with unfair TriMet fares.
Posted by: Zarathustra | Mar 21, 2009 8:19:40 AM
alca, you got it all backwards. I'm saying that the pain you mention is nothing compared to the pain of a plan that worked would be. I'm saying that you regard cap and trade as odious, but it is really much worse, if it works. If it was a semi-idle obs, not right wing whining, then sorry. The cap and trade won't work; that's the greenwash. Too bad you couldn't get to the actual proposal. Definitely couldn't be bothered to get to that way Tri-Met doesn't have to do anything. Though, "TriMet executives and employees are all going to take salary cuts", might be your attempt at restating it, given your demonstrated ability to make a statement that isn't a textbook example of a logical fallacy.
So, parody of pseudonyms is high form now? OK. Uh...maybe you'd have got what I was saying if you weren't such an alcie.
Funny how mp, a few hours later, on the next threat, made the same observation about your being depressing...
Posted by: Zarathustra | Mar 21, 2009 8:21:26 AM
Correction...if you weren't such an alcie, I wouldn't have to turn off yer damned italics. Try preview...
Posted by: by any means necessary | Mar 21, 2009 8:32:55 AM
my ability to feel safe as a pedestrian, on the sidewalk, is seriously compromised by the handful of cyclists that are flat out rude and threatening, as they race by within inches, in anonymity.
That's why you evolved elbows. That and roundball. Rude is rude. I hate cars, but any cyclist that carelessly strikes a ped in my vicinity gets thrown under the nearest hummer, cum velo, and I sue both of them for the mental distress!
Know what time it is? Times up. Get real, or get the f*ck out of the way. Terry, JK, listening?
Posted by: billy | Mar 21, 2009 8:46:31 AM
byanymeansnecessary:
Know what time it is? Times up. Get real, or get the f*ck out of the way. Terry, JK, listening?
Billy:
eeewww. The new enfranchised class living large. GET A CAR, LOSER. OK, all you liberals for brains. Why is one of the best transport agencies in the country expanding service by helping the poor get a car? Want to stay poor? Try doing without a car. That social Darwinism. You you're too stupid to get a car "by any means necessary", you don't deserve to pass your genes on.
The Toledo Metropolitan Area Council of Governments: Coordination at Work
In the late 1990s over 20,000 people in the Toledo, Ohio area were moving from welfare to work, and suburban sprawl was creating new job locations far from the urban areas where entry-level workers lived. Toledo had the need for more human service transportation, but not the means to achieve it. In March of 1999 the Toledo Metropolitan Area Council of Governments (TMACOG) created Northwest Ohio CommuterLINK with different funding resources. The Toledo regional council developed an ambitious plan that included a demand-response, door-to-door service (including day care stops). The Council set up transportation services with local taxi and van companies, and grouped customers with common destinations. To encourage true independence and opportunity for individuals with lower incomes, TMACOG also initiated a Car-Buy program that would provide vehicles for individuals with lower incomes at reasonable rates. Today, CommuterLINK has almost 3,300 riders and has delivered 266 cars, 169 that have been paid off. Not only has the TMACOG delivered better transportation options and services, their efforts have also benefited the community as a whole.
Thanks,
JK
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: Jenson | Mar 19, 2009 8:52:33 PM
Step 1: Click on the link
Step 2: Write something like: "Do you feel it would be fair to make adjustments to fare prices now that gas prices have fallen so much?"
Step 3: Thank you.
We have received your message.
In most cases, we can reply to your message within a week (if you've requested a reply).
Your feedback helps us improve service, correct problems and stay in touch with the needs of the community. Thank you for taking the time to share your questions and comments.