Unfair TriMet Fares
Jenson Hagen
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.
|
0 readers like this.
Like it!
|
8:52 p.m.
Mar 19, '09
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.
Mar 19, '09
Is there any reason for keeping the ticket price this high still?
Because they're stuck with last year's diesel prices, for one.
9:23 p.m.
Mar 19, '09
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.
9:53 p.m.
Mar 19, '09
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.
9:59 p.m.
Mar 19, '09
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.
10:14 p.m.
Mar 19, '09
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.)
Mar 19, '09
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.
10:46 p.m.
Mar 19, '09
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.
Mar 19, '09
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.
11:18 p.m.
Mar 19, '09
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.
11:27 p.m.
Mar 19, '09
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.
11:29 p.m.
Mar 19, '09
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.
Mar 19, '09
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.-
Mar 19, '09
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!
Mar 20, '09
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.
12:18 a.m.
Mar 20, '09
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.
Mar 20, '09
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
3:00 a.m.
Mar 20, '09
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.
6:38 a.m.
Mar 20, '09
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.
Mar 20, '09
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.
Mar 20, '09
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.
Mar 20, '09
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.
Mar 20, '09
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
Mar 20, '09
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
11:27 a.m.
Mar 20, '09
"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!
Mar 20, '09
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.
Mar 20, '09
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.
Mar 20, '09
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.
Mar 20, '09
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.
1:09 p.m.
Mar 20, '09
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.
Mar 20, '09
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.
Mar 20, '09
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"
Mar 20, '09
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.
Mar 20, '09
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
Mar 20, '09
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.
Mar 20, '09
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.
Mar 20, '09
Jensen - "They should have consulted with me. Oil is a non-income producing asset."
You're a genius. Tell that to the Saudis
Mar 20, '09
“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.
9:01 p.m.
Mar 20, '09
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
12:19 a.m.
Mar 21, '09
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.
Mar 21, '09
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.
12:40 a.m.
Mar 21, '09
"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.
3:57 a.m.
Mar 21, '09
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.
Mar 21, '09
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
Mar 21, '09
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.
Mar 21, '09
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.
Mar 21, '09
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...
Mar 21, '09
Correction...if you weren't such an alcie, I wouldn't have to turn off yer damned italics. Try preview...
Mar 21, '09
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?
Mar 21, '09
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
Mar 21, '09
My kid and his roomie, both working for a couple of bucks above minimum wage, pay close to ten dollars a day for the privilege to get to work b/c of prices, paucity of service and transfer timing. THey live in the hinterlands and work in another hinterland.
That's a lot of money per week for working stiffs trying to keep it together just out of home. Now think about impoverished families who must make an entire household run on perhaps the same sum?
Mar 21, '09
rlw, sounds like your kid and his roomie need to get a better set of skills to offer. Better skills =better pay. $8.40 is not bad wages for entry level jobs, which by the way is why it is called minimum wage. Minimum skills= minimum wage. It is the individuals responsibility to improve themselves for better wages so they can afford transportation, not the tax payers. If I want to help a neighbor with a car that is my choice. To force me to pay for everybody's way to work is wrong. We all have choices is life, my choices do not include paying for somebody else's way to work or to the store. No where in the constitution does it say we are all entitled to a "living wage". If it does please point it out to me.
Public transportation is there for anybody to use. Not everyone uses it so why should everyone pay for it. You people scream sustainability, then request subsidies to support to force it to be sustainable.
This isn't a communist country. (yet) If you want all services provided to you at the tax payers expense, then you are receiving it from the government. If that is what you want then by all means, move to a country that can provide that. Venezuela sounds nice. Its tropical, you can have what ever you want, and the government will give it to you or control it for you.
Mar 21, '09
Yes. Children right out of high school definitely need to hurry up and Get a Real Job and move into the best neighborhoods. They will surely soon get with the program. Hopefully all those unemployed folks who are NOT farsighted enough to have moved to India to work that nifty call center... umm... well, they will figure it out too.
I sure wish people would Get With It too, 721H.
Mar 21, '09
Not just kids fresh out of school on their own, but the people who can't seem to figure out that ambition can do a lot more than a hand out. There are people who think that a part time summer job should pay as well as somebody who has a full time job managing those that are part time.
Mar 21, '09
Harry Kershner:
Our present situation is democracy replaced by corporatism.
Bob T:
How'd you like that stadium deal? Paulson couldn't get a DIME of tax money unless the government intervened, and he was aided buy a city council that was elected with the approval of progressives in Portland. But don't worry - youi can still thump your chest and call out, "We've got the first openly gay mayor of a major city!"
Oh yeah? Whoop-dee-doo. We needed someone who would vote NO on that deal.
Bob Tiernan Portland
Mar 21, '09
Trimet should reduce the fare. They should halve the current fare. At that rate they may still make their twenty percent of operating expenses from fare revenue, but with double the present ridership. It's possible, but no one's going to find out for sure until such an idea is tried out.
"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." frank dufay
It's not motor vehicle operators or biker riders, but Oregonians and the federal government that pays for road and street infrastructure. For decades, roads and streets had been almost completely given away to motor vehicle use. Slowly, some of that has been returned to citizens willing to pedal or walk to where they need to go.
Unfortunately, the form it's generally returned in, is narrow lanes redrawn from pre-existing motor vehicle use lanes. That can make for close quarters where people on bikes sometimes are obliged to pass uncomfortably close to other road users.
The obvious, smart thing to at least experiment with, would be to designate on a major thoroughfare such as SW or NW Broadway, an entire motor vehicle lane width to bike use. This could reduce some of the excessive closeness that people riding bikes and walking are experiencing. In the interest of fairness, allow cars to use this lane along with bikes up to the maximum speed bikes are traveling there.
Mar 21, '09
Go to Amsterdam, they have amazing bike systems and public transportation. Everything provided for them, and cheap to. Bicycles have their own lane shared with mopeds and scooters. As a pedestrian, you better not step in their way or you will be squashed and scolded.
They also are subject to home inspections to check for anything considered luxury that is not being taxed. TVs and such are considered a luxury to be taxed at a very high rate.
If you want services like a Socialist country (Netherlands) keep thinking progressively and we will have that shortly. Won't that be great. Imagine not having to pay for anything but outrageous taxes. Even the poor get to pay. Then we can all have cheap transportation.
Mar 21, '09
721H
Keep your eye on your writing hand. I was responding to your pugnacious response to my post. I'm talking about some very young men, fresh out of high school, who are not coasting on any handouts or backstop from parents, have been working, all through High School, and now find that they must devote nearly one full hour of their workday to pay for fare. They do not always get full eight hour shifts. And they do not live in a chic, well-serviced transpo area - so they CAN pay rent and all of their attending life expenses.
The transit fee hikes are indeed an undue burden upon these independent, motivated young men.
Just drawing your eyes back to the originoal focal point of your heated post to benefit the specificity of this (circular) discussion.
I did add to the mix considerations of those whose jobs are being denuded from the flowering tree of a healthy jobs array. Indeed, get this, it appears that a very specialised niche to which _I_ have managed to transition into from my first two certified and highly specialised niches that disappeared... well, it may well be sent to India too! This time at the indirect behest of AMA an OMA via our state legislature! How exciting!
Short sighted, certified, hardworking me: again!
Mar 21, '09
Some of us libertarian/open market types have been pushing jitneys for years because they are less expensive to operate than buses and light rail. There is a GAO report from 1988 that suggest they are a third less expensive to run as I recall, and regulations should not make it so difficult to own and operate a private transit business afterall this is not drugs or prostitution and even those should be made legal.
But if the intent is to reduce poverty, and if greenhouse gases are a problem and maybe peak oil is real and maybe solve traffic congestion and slow the growth of developments then we need to bring all the assets we have to the table and yes maybe cut costs and reduce taxes.
Well here is another group that has some of the same ideas. Since they are also in Ohio as Billy has mentioned above maybe the idea is spreading. Hope this link gets posted correctly. If not the group is community sollutions; http://www.communitysolution.org/transport.html
"The Smart Jitney is a system of efficient and convenient ride sharing that addresses in the short-term the problem of transportation in a post-peak oil world. The system utilizes the existing infrastructure of private automobiles and roads due to the time, expense, and difficulty of building a new transportation infrastructure amongst such a dispersed population. The goal of the system is to insure that each private car always carries more than one person per car trip, optimally 4-6. This would cut auto gasoline usage by an estimated 80 percent and commute time by an average of 50 percent within two years."
Mar 21, '09
TLG: would you speak more to the regulation and standardization of this system? Already in some locales, cabs are essentially jitneying, but the costs are not fixed and shared out in a way that would reliably allow impoverished or lower-resource people to safely use them.
The strongest positive of public transit is the standard fare structures. Talk a little more about how jitneys will benefit those who literally count nickels and pennies and do find themselves walking home to downtown Beaverton from Durham if the place they work fluctuates their hours (just quoting one hardworking example I know of). Regardless of why folks have such work conditions, they are a reality out there - how could jitneys be an option for those who are most reliant on public transit?
It would be so great if there were options that allowed those struggling and doing their best to not feel so trapped in this regard.
Mar 22, '09
The quality of this debate makes Tri-Met look state of the art. Harry, you're a saint. I'm not. I think I need to go before the steam starts to rise from the sweat lodge...
Mar 22, '09
rlw I am working at trying to put together info on regulations, but it is a slow process since I have other responsibilties. But below is some info from a piece I had written for use elsewhere. I'll keep the government's own material in quotes. This is from the National Academy Press.
The government’s own research notes that certain groups in our society have poor access to transit services. According to a study published by the National Academy Press “The lack of personal mobility has economic, social and human costs, such as higher unemployment, reduced tax revenue, greater welfare and medical costs, and limited social potential.”
“Almost half those without an automobile are persons 65 years or older, and of these, 81% are women.”
“...23% of full-time working mothers and almost 60% of part-time working mothers have non-traditional work hours. This reduces women’s ability to join carpools or find appropriately-scheduled transit options.”
“...nearly 40% of central city African-American households were without access to an automobile, compared to fewer than one of out five white central city households.” (Source: Using Public Transportation to Reduce the Economic, Social, and Human Costs of personal Immobility National Academy Press)
10:52 a.m.
Mar 22, '09
Wilsonville/West Linn already use a jitney of sorts; they have a (work)daily shuttle to the transit centers in the SW suburbs, to hook people up to Trimet who live further away. The cities pay for it, and it seems to work well. Outlier cities like Estacada, Happy Valley, Damascus, Forest Grove--if they were to copy such an idea, Trimet could shorten its reach and not spend so much on big buses running a full schedule out to the hinterlands with 3 people on them. (Of course, extending WES through to Salem, and extending the MAX from Hillsboro as has been suggested, would be very helpful to that end as well).
Mar 22, '09
Zara is impenetrable in the above post. Sounds like a bitchy side slap, but not openly made.
TLG - the notes you make on who is most dependent upon public transit are no surprise, bear revisiting. When I lived in SF, LA, NYC, I opted to use public transit only. For obvious reasons. Were I able at this time to afford to live in the better-served sections of our city, I would do that same again as the best choice and a certain way to live that really feels right in urban center living.
However, urban sprawl coupled with (or caused by?) outrageous PDX housing pricing has intensified the vulnerability of certain populations.
The guy with the name that is letters and numbers is a bit odd in his vitriol towards those unduly impacted by rising costs of public transport: I was not aware that poverty was a moral character issue in the one experiencing the paucity.
Surely there is a way for folks to combine modes of transport to shift lifeways and thrive.
Mar 22, '09
Torrid Joe:
Wilsonville/West Linn already use a jitney of sorts; they have a (work)daily shuttle to the transit centers in the SW suburbs, to hook people up to Trimet who live further away. The cities pay for it, and it seems to work well.
Bob T:
That's not really jitney service, but a limited, highly restricted government imitation. The one operated in Cedar Mill was also a pale imitation. The problem with these is that people then begin to think that this is what jitney service is, so if it fails they will say, "Oh, jitney service doesn't work, so it should remain illegal for the private sector".
The government version doesn't even take a single step in the direction of providing the niche service that true jitney service could provide. The taxi cartel (government created and protected) barely does this, mainly because of government restrictions -- but they don't care because they are protected from competition.
Bob Tiernan Portland
11:57 a.m.
Mar 22, '09
Trimet could shorten its reach and not spend so much on big buses running a full schedule out to the hinterlands with 3 people on them.
That long reach isn't about providing transit, its about collecting payroll taxes. Those empty buses are not loss leaders.
Mar 22, '09
Still waiting for a real description of what jitney IS. Anyone? Jitney thus far sounds like huge-city or Mexican taxicabs where ppl pile in and you cannot be sure just what your share of the fare is... which is not useful for those with extremely limited or unsure wages.
Mar 22, '09
rlw basically jitneys are ride sharing cabs travelling on a somewhat fixed route. That is they may operate along a street, but offer some degree of flexibility, that is they may drive a couple of blocks off of the particular route to drop someone off, drive into a store parking lot or they may work a specific neighborhood. The link below shows a mini bus type of vehicle. The Atlantic City service is the only legal one operating in the U.S. as far as I know. If someone was to start such a service these days something like the Dodge Sprinter vehicle that gets about 25 mpg would be ideal.
http://www.jitneys.net/552.html
"The Atlantic City Jitney Association was started in 1915. It is the longest running non-subsidized transit company in America.The term jitney is an old English term which means nickel. Around the turn of the century, many Jitney services sprang up throughout the country.When the first Jitney Buses arrived on the streets of Atlantic City in 1947 they were large, black touring cars that used a rope and pulley system to open the back doors. The latest version is a modern luxury thirteen passenger mini-bus.
Currently there are 190 individually owned and operated units which run reliably 24 hours a day, 365 days per year. In addition the Association runs a Bus Shuttle from the Atlantic City Train Station to the various Casinos. The Drivers of the Atlantic City Jitney Association take great pride in providing safe and affordable transportation to everyone in Atlantic City."
Mar 22, '09
In response to my "Our present situation is democracy replaced by corporatism", Bob T. asked, "How'd you like that stadium deal? Paulson couldn't get a DIME of tax money unless the government intervened, and he was aided buy a city council that was elected with the approval of progressives in Portland."
I don't know how many times or ways I can say this, Bob. We agree that the use of public funds for privatized profits is despicable. When government and corporations merge, the outcome is not "progressivism", it's corporatism. Adams' sexual preference has nothing to do with it.
Zara: Please don't leave. Saints like me need devout heathens like you.
Mar 22, '09
Not sure where Adam's SP came into things? Perhaps you mistook my contexting of having lost the desire to support the Mayor after going to bat for him in final heated frustration? I'm a nobody, but this town is small, jobs doled out by few, and each time I put my face forward on something volatile, that is what I think of first before doing it.
IN context to being utterly disgusted with Adams and his MLS scam, I comnented on the fact that I finally called OPB and ranted their asses for pimping that SEX SCANDAL tagline at the top of every hour for weeks on end.
However, I stopped being an Adams supporter when I saw his schoolboy-breathless excitment on the tube related to that MLS business. He seems so naive! Too excited.
NO public funds, NONE, should be spent on such. NONE! That is my bias. So long as I must drive past mentally ill people sleeping on the ground under the Belmont bridge on cardboard in snow and rain, this is NOT where a dime of my money should go, in my mind.
As to Zara - yes, brainy, wordy, put together. However, this morning? Standard BO bitchy/abstruse.
Mar 22, '09
TLG: still waiting to hear someone explain how fares are priced in these? I've seen such useage of cabs - and there is no break in price, but you get to experience the crowding of others into the ride, and delays as their needs are met. And you pay the full fare of the distance you sought to travel.
So: Jitneys and pricing? Shared cost of ride as more ppl added into the rig? And who in the world can do that kind of math in transit, eh? They'll be banning calculators along with cell phones whilst driving, next thing! :)
2:54 p.m.
Mar 22, '09
I've seen such useage of cabs - and there is no break in price, but you get to experience the crowding of others into the ride, and delays as their needs are met. And you pay the full fare of the distance you sought to travel.
The meter rate for taxicabs in Portland is the maximum rate. That's why you have Radio Cab advertising a downtown to airport "special." Multiple people going to multiple locations could cut their own deals, if they could work it out with the driver.
My understanding, though, is TriMet would not OK a true jitney service in Portland, as that is their perogative for some reason.
Mar 22, '09
rlw far as I know the price is set and not shared. Without going back to look I think Atlantic City jitneys charge $2 a ride with a discount for seniors. Might be different elsewhere.
Mar 22, '09
There's a simple way to "force" Tri-Met to reduce it's fares...simply allow competition. Let anyone who desires to get into the public transit business open up shop.
5:51 p.m.
Mar 22, '09
...simply allow competition. Let anyone who desires to get into the public transit business open up shop.
Only it's not that simple.
A successful transit system has to serve the whole community, and some routes will be more profitable than others.
If someone comes in and simply cherry picks the most profitable routes, who will serve the now underserved? That's why you need some elements of regulation.
Mar 22, '09
"Then we can all have cheap transportation." 72IH
'Cheap'? 72IH, cheap to you perhaps. Lots of hard working people out in the real world would like just to be able to afford transportation without forgoing health care for their dependents or themselves, put food on the table and so forth. That's what Trimet could help them to do by knocking the cost of the fare back.
Of course, that might mean the fare would be excessively 'cheap' to someone such as yourself. In that case, if you felt truly concerned that this bargain was destined to send U.S. society spiraling into socialism, you and those like yourselves could help to counter that descent by contributing an additional portion of your personal fortune to Trimets fare income.
Mar 22, '09
Harry Kershner:
I don't know how many times or ways I can say this, Bob. We agree that the use of public funds for privatized profits is despicable. When government and corporations merge, the outcome is not "progressivism", it's corporatism.
Bob T:
That kind of melding has been quite common among so-called progressive lawmakers for over a century -- it's all about "governing", and trying to pull out of free enterprise some so-called benefits they wouldn't otherwise trigger (or so they say). Now people like Randy Leonard can brag about how he's "forced" Paulson to trigger new tax dollars for schools, firefighters, road maintenance, etc.
Anyway, there might be hope for you yet.
Harry Kershner:
Adams' sexual preference has nothing to do with it.
Bob T:
I never said it did. I did say that it became all that many progressives cared about, as if thet was a progressive thing in itself and everything else would follow (never mind the fact that he was already handing out corporate welfare before he was mayor, and openly supported the stadium scam). When New Year's Eve came, all I heard on the news was not that the stadium deal was inevitable coming soon but that at midnight Sam Adams took the oath and became "the first openly gay mayor of a major city", so....
Happy days are here again the skies above are clear again so let's sing a song of cheer again happy days are here again!
All together shout it now there's no one who can doubt it now so let's tell the world about it now happy days are heeeeeere aaaa--gaaaaaainnn!!!!!
Bob Tiernan Portland
Mar 22, '09
Frank Dufay:
Only it's not that simple.
A successful transit system has to serve the whole community, and some routes will be more profitable than others.
Bob T:
Well, you're not describing Tri-Met at all, with that definition. It doesn't serve the whole community.
Frank Dufay:
If someone comes in and simply cherry picks the most profitable routes, who will serve the now underserved? That's why you need some elements of regulation.
Bob T:
It would be an improvement if alternative services were no longer criminalized along routes that Tri-Met ignores, or during hours Tri-Met refuses to operate. What irks me is that the Tri-Met (government) mentality is something like, "We're not going to provide service on that route, and you know what? -- we're not gonna let anyone else provide it, either". Gee, that's brilliant.
Bob Tiernan Portland
Mar 23, '09
Well, dayam, Bob T. And here I thought perhaps I'd managed to be irrelevant enough to warrant some bashing from Harry. Turns out it was all about you!
The happy dyad.
It is true, the jubilation that an openly gay mayor was something to celebrate took top billing, as did the "sex scandal" byte-fest. The continued fascination with sexuality clouded that which is important far too long.
Now we get to see that he's just what we bargained for: yet another politician. Given the taste for pretending they've nothing to hide, and the chagrin and surprise that ensue inevitably upon being ratted out... one wonders if the genes that prescribe one's destiny as "Politico" also are linked to the alleles for "stuck on deluded".
Mar 23, '09
rlw:
NO public funds, NONE, should be spent on such. NONE! That is my bias. So long as I must drive past mentally ill people sleeping on the ground under the Belmont bridge on cardboard in snow and rain, this is NOT where a dime of my money should go, in my mind.
Bob T:
Actually, more principle is shown in saying NONE even if there were no homeless people anywhere in Portland. And it's nothing to say angrily. All I'd do as a city commissioner would be to announce the first time such a deal was floated that I'd vote against it, period, no matter how many reports and stats could be provided showing new jobs, and tax revenues, and so on. That's not the point. It's just that the owners of teams should build their own stadiums and arenas just like Safeway and McDonalds builds there own structures.
For all of you people who don't like free enterprise, the difficulty is not what it provides (or doesn't), but that politically it's tough because of politicians like Sam Adams and, yeah, Gordon Smith, who've lacked the guts to say NO. There's a lot of pressure to "manage" or "govern" in this manner because it takes advantage of voters being ill-informed about what it means, and leads to scoring short-term political gains for the next election.
Remember -- if you were on the city council and announced that you were going to vote against it, you'd have to be prepared to be called someone who doesn't care about generating new tax revenues for schools and fire stations and homeless shelters and so on. Most so-called free enterprise supporters cave as well. Here was a chance fpr progressive Portland to set an example (like the voters of San Fran did a decade ago in a ballot measure), but y'all flopped. Ted Piccolo would have voted against it. But he lost to the streetcar champion. Had he won, and been re-elected since then, Paulson wouldn't be laughing all the way to the bank. But Ted Piccolo was dismissed as a Cascade Policy Institute flunky or something. Suit yourself. Paulson is still laughing all the way to the bank.
Bob Tiernan Portland
Mar 23, '09
That's me: a woman of very little principle. Or cheap ones at that.
Mar 23, '09
rlw:
would you speak more to the regulation and standardization of this system? Already in some locales, cabs are essentially jitneying, but the costs are not fixed and shared out in a way that would reliably allow impoverished or lower-resource people to safely use them.
Bob T:
Cabs are not replicating jitney service anywhere in Portland, unless you define it as passengers riding in a vehicle. That's hardly it at all. And I disagree with so-called Libertarian Guy in his definition of jitneys. Originally they ran on fixed routes because they fixed them on their own, i.e. ran along streetcar routes circa 1914-15. Some no doubt took people off these routes if they wanted to be dropped off at the front door of either their home or place of work.
In Atlantic City, the fixed routes are kind of obvious due to the major avenues of that famous city, but they began as jitneys and became the only jitneys in the country to survive the nationwide wave of outlawing them by 1920 (banned at the request of streetcar companies, which thus delayed the transformation of rubber-wheeled flexible service into the bus service we know today, although buses did exist at the time). It should also be pointed out that during a blizzard in the early 90s, the jitneys of AC were the only vehicles getting around for a day or two, no doubt helping people while the police and regular taxis sat idle.
As for allowing impoverished people to use this service, this is exactly what jitney service makes possible when the government-protected taxi cartel won't and can't. Just ask poor and elderly people in Detroit about the fleet of illegal jitneys that have been operating there for many decades. You see, many residents have been using jitneys which are primarily regular cars driven by their owners who are usually retired (autoworkers, pastors, whatever) and who develop regular patrons as passengers. Senior citizens and even others use them to get cheap rides to various markets or even doctor appointments or to visit friends for the weekly card games and tea. The stores know the value of these jitneys and they post the names of the drivers and their phone numbers for patrons to use. Many people call the same guy all the time, or one of several. The drivers pick up their passengers, wait in the parking lot, and drive the passengers back and help with the grocery bags if needed. Taxis in a government-protected cartel (i.e. "regulated" supposedly for the protection of the consumer and his wallet!) would let the meter run all that time, making for a $30 ride instead of $4.
When a Detroit city councilman was asked about these jitneys being illegal and whether or not they should be banned, he said they've worked his whole life and let sleeping dogs lie. If they banned these, the whole city council would be voted out.
If we allowed this here, it would take time for the same patron-driver relationships to develop, and they would. Imagine several retired men forming a St. Johns-Kenton jitney service to take elderly and others to Freddies, or Dafeway, or to doctor appointments, or friends' homes. To some, this jitney company should not be allowed unless the drivers provide 24/7 service, and be forced to provide rides to as far away as SE 162nd and Powell, and have a van with a wheelchair lift. Result is that it wouldn't exist, and the do-gooders would say, "Gosh, the free market fails again".
But why would anyone really oppose such a service? It would provide point-to-point service for people who may not always find the bus system (if it exists) adequate for their needs. It's a niche service that can fill in the gaps that Tri-Met can't. The reason this type of service doesn't exist is all political, along with a cultural mindset nourished by decades of not understanding or knowing what is possible.
It's interesting that out of the so-called progressive movement to prevent monopolies and high prices, we've gotten monopolies, cartels, and high prices (fares plus taxes in some cases).
Bob Tiernan Portland
Mar 23, '09
I spoke in an earlier post, Bob, to the fact that cabs in larger urban centers I've lived - SF, LA, NYC - do stuff themselves full of multiple riders betimes... and Mexico, Chile, etc... The incomplete description of jitneys led me to believe that perhaps this was what they were doing with jitneys.
It was part of a string of friendly, discursive back and forths.
Thanks for your interst in this and the fact tha you share our concern for those who for WHATEVER reason may be adversely impacted significantly by the costs of travel to healthcare, work, shopping, etc. Life activities on a fundamental level.
1:48 a.m.
Mar 23, '09
"NO public funds, NONE, should be spent on such. NONE! That is my bias."
Then you support the MLS deal, since no public funds ARE being spent! Hooray!
Mar 23, '09
Then there's the in-between ground of a funded service that runs like a jitney, namely SAM (Sandy Area Metro). It's an under-realized resource. Runs on week-days from Gresham Transit Center to various stops in Sandy. It's as bike tolerant as Tri-Met.
On that note, I've a quickie readership poll question. We hear about PDX being bike friendly and that Tri-Met supports it and lots of people bike commute to work. The fact that Tri-Met busses can only carry 2 bikes, make them inherently unreliable during peak hours. Doesn't this stop scads from riding? I mention it because SAM, truthfully says, "we have some limited support for bikes". Tri-Met trumpets "designed with the bike commuter in mind", yet both offer identical services. Isn't SAM closer to the truth?
Mar 23, '09
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?
It's 4:20.
Mar 23, '09
TJ: my understanding is that we ARE indeed bound to this even if only for a pittance. NO pittance of mine and not pittanc-y obligation laid on me and my kidling for sports and stadia. And Adams, who lives on our dimes, needs to spend his time brokering real deals that relate to the increasing misery and helplessness of Oregonians who have been suffering our shallow/flat economy here locally for more than ten years.
Mar 23, '09
oops. Of course I meant the following narrow-minded, shallowly principled thing:
No bondes upon us for anything MLS-related is appropriate-seeming to me;
No dollars, no promises of our dollars "if" something or other;
Adams should spend his well-paid public servant time DECREASING the ongoing misery of Oregonians far and wide.
Take your eye off the ball, Samuel.
Mar 23, '09
Posted by ws
"....if you felt truly concerned that this bargain was destined to send U.S. society spiraling into socialism, you and those like yourselves could help to counter that descent by contributing an additional portion of your personal fortune to Trimets fare income."
Thank you for illustrating my point. That IS socialism. Redistribution of wealth in its simplist form.
Mar 23, '09
Groan. I am so sick of this fake cry of socialism. Really, really sick of it. Letters-name guy, could you please toddle over to the garden argument and explain to everyone over there how community gardens are a secret, sick, socialistic disease? I want to see this.
And while you are at it, provide an disquisition on how the tribes deserved to be genocided, and were so weak that of course they were genocided: because they were socialistic.
:)
Mar 23, '09
rlw:
I spoke in an earlier post, Bob, to the fact that cabs in larger urban centers I've lived - SF, LA, NYC - do stuff themselves full of multiple riders betimes...
Bob T:
And jitneys are not defined as being used by multiple riders. That can be done, but that's not what makes it a jitney.
Bob Tiernan Portland
Mar 23, '09
Sam I Am:
The fact that Tri-Met busses can only carry 2 bikes, make them inherently unreliable during peak hours.
Bob T:
I thought bikes were an alternative mode? Why are they hitching rides on buses?
Sam I Am:
I mention it because SAM, truthfully says, "we have some limited support for bikes".
Bob T:
If you live in Sandy and you have only a bicycle to get way up the road to Gresham and Portland, why are you living in Sandy?
Bob Tiernan Portland
Mar 23, '09
Huh?
I think you are wondering off subjuct a little. Wan't this about providing cheap transportation, and how it would remain cheap? And wasn'the basis for being cheap is that it was subsidized by the "progressive" government?
Look, I realize some people may have to spend an entirehours worth of their daily pay to provide themselves with the ability to get to work.
How much time I spend to provide that for someone else is my problem. I spend time to provide myself with transportation, food for my family, health insurance, heat in my home, house payment and it all comes out of my daily wage to accomplish that. Shouldn't someone privide for me my wayt to work, my food, (I spend too much time at work earning enough to feed my kids) and my health insurance.
Wait a minute, somebody already is doing that. ME. Our society has change from a thank you oriented society to a you owe that to me. Entilement is what you may call it. Nowhere in Oregons constitution or the USA constitution does it say that "We the people shall provide for those that want......."
My point is that if you want a society that can survive it will come from the people working their butt off , not the government mandating that we help everyone and everyone is equal. People are not equal. There are smart people, dumb people, lazy people, it has nothing to do with race or skin color either.
Do you want somebody smart in charge, or do you want spineless fool. If we have someone who will stand up and say no you will have to provide for yourself we will be alot better off.
Earning our own way in life is the only way to make a socity prosper. Take away the drive to excell and you will be lazy. Once that happens there will be a direct reduction in available income to tax. By equalizing income to provide public service you take a way everybodies desire to excell.
Bury your head deaper in your progressive thinking that socialism is fake. I for one will not let our country sink that low. My effort is to help people see where this is all headed.
12:56 p.m.
Mar 23, '09
"Wait a minute, somebody already is doing that. ME. Our society has change from a thank you oriented society to a you owe that to me. Entilement is what you may call it. Nowhere in Oregons constitution or the USA constitution does it say that "We the people shall provide for those that want......."
What it does say, however, is: We the people, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, PROVIDE FOR THE COMMON DEFENSE, PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE...
you're right, nothing in there about a common effort to create general well being among the citizenry. My mistake.
And you're right to rail against socialism. Why, if it weren't for the hard work being done by folks like you, Americans today wouldn't be suffering under harsh 40 hour workweeks with Saturdays off, trying to figure out what to do with our kids now that 8 year olds aren't allowed to work in textile factories, cursing the central banks for protecting our deposits, and blinding ourselves across the heartland of this great country with electric light provided by a socialistic plan to wire rural areas. Good on ya!
Mar 23, '09
I am makeing progress. Your starting to get it. You are now seeing the difference between the "general welfare" of the greater good of our country and hand outs. Providing BASIC services. Protecting our assets and providing guidlines and laws that prevent abuse. These things you speak of are not wants but needs. Free transportation is a want, not a need and not provided by me. Please don't confuse general basic needs with wants.
By the way, I don't work 40 hour weeks, they are much longer so I can increase my income.
Mar 23, '09
rlw:
Thanks for your interst in this and the fact tha you share our concern for those who for WHATEVER reason may be adversely impacted significantly by the costs of travel to healthcare, work, shopping, etc. Life activities on a fundamental level.
Bob T:
I should point out that my interest in seeing jitneys de-criminalized (and many other small, medium, and larger entrepreneurial efforts) is not mainly to aid the poor and others in less advantageous circumstances, but because I feel those people have a right to work for a living at such endeavors. The benefits flow from that. It's no coincidence that growing government "regulation" coming out of the progressive era and New Deal etc have forced many low income people to work for someone else and to pay more for many goods and services. So long as the politicians convince the majority that the opposite is true, they keep these policies in place and give us more and more of the same. They keep most people ignorant of the real facts, and feed them economic bromides designed for short term memories.
Bob Tiernan Portland
Mar 23, '09
Bob T said, "That kind of melding [government and corporations] has been quite common among so-called progressive lawmakers for over a century..."
Your operative phrase is "so-called". Just because someone calls herself a "progressive" doesn't make it true.
As for "free enterprise", you should know that there is not now nor has there ever been such a thing. It's delusional to claim that a system such as ours is anything other than privatized profits for the rich and socialized costs and risks for the rest of us.
The presumed "freedoms" that right-wing libertarians talk about are based on the heavily state-protected and publicly subsidized power of corporations and the financial industry, and the military empire required to advance and protect their profits.
"I'll be able to rant and rave about the marvels of the free market, while I'm getting properly subsidized and defended by everyone else, through the nanny State. And also, this has to be risk-free. So I'm perfectly willing to make profits, but I don't want to take risks. If anything goes wrong, you bail me out." (Free Market Fantasies: Capitalism in the Real World)
Mar 23, '09
I think letters name guy purposely misspells and mangles words and language. He's trying to hide his identity. He's REALLY our brilliant, well-spoken, sunnily-disposed Dan Petegorsky, on meth. :).... C'mon Daniel Pete: nobody can be that stupid!
Heh.
Mar 23, '09
Harry I am trying to find a way to make this funny, but after a day of work it is a little difficult.
You write: "As for "free enterprise", you should know that there is not now nor has there ever been such a thing."
You are correct. Free Enterprise is not what we have to day, nor have we ever had it except in a few niche areas perhaps and I use the word perhaps questionably.
"It's delusional to claim that a system such as ours is anything other than privatized profits for the rich and socialized costs and risks for the rest of us."
Yes many of the well to do have bought and paid for their politicians, but the politicians are responsible for passing the laws and being the enablers of this system in the first place.
"The presumed "freedoms" that right-wing libertarians talk about are based on the heavily state-protected and publicly subsidized power of corporations and the financial industry, and the military empire required to advance and protect their profits."
How about the left-libertarians Harry? Many of the Libertarians I know object to the very idea of any corporation being recognized under the law. They also object to any and all subsidies and that includes any military protections corporations get overseas or even stateside. I have been a proponent of bringing all our troops home for years as have most Libertarians that I know. Hell I got up out of bed after major surgery and marched in the first antiwar parade as Bush headed us down that path in Iraq.
Harry may I politely suggest you put down Chomsky and try someone like Karl Popper to get a start, or read Hayek's essay titled as I recall "Why I am not a conservative". And may I ask a question? How can we call this an open society if the markets are closed, as many of them are? Look at all the license laws we have and please remember that licensing laws were part of the Black Codes. They were intended then to restrict competition and keep people down and they still do. They keep minorities down and they keep women down.
Mar 23, '09
rkw, I don;t have one of them fancy dino sore bookes to under stand them fancy words you is using. could you dum it down for me.
Mar 23, '09
Hahaha... Letters guy, you may not be my favorite with your reasoning, but your charming resistance to the Blue Oregon pissing match is a winner in my eyes! As Mr. Johnson said (Joyce Cary novel), "I 'gree for you".
Mar 24, '09
Torrid Joe:
PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE...
Bob T:
Which doesn't mean things like welfare programs, or bridges to nowhere. By protecting First Amendment rights, for example, the general welfare is being promited, and even provided for. And that doesn't mean funding the NEA, either.
Bob Tiernan Portland
Mar 24, '09
Harry Kershner:
Bob T said, "That kind of melding [government and corporations] has been quite common among so-called progressive lawmakers for over a century..."
Your operative phrase is "so-called". Just because someone calls herself a "progressive" doesn't make it true.
Bob T:
I agree, but what I mean when I add "so-called" in this example is that I've never believed that "progressive" automatically has something to do with "progress".
I'll respond to the rest tomorrow morning - 93.5% of what you wrote was false. What you described was something I dislike as well. You dislike the free market, so you invent your own definition and examples so you can hate it. That doesn't get you anywhere, though. Remember what candidate Obama said about a pig and lipstick.
Next thing you know and you're gonna say that the recently passed stadium deal is an example of free enterprise. That's what's wrong with people like you. There must be a name for the system in which someone like Paulson doesn't get the money and pays for his own stadium. What do you call it?
Bob Tiernan Portland
Mar 24, '09
Harry, I have a hard tiume tracking your logic here.
Military is connected to Trimet fares? G.W. Bush is to blame for the fares? Corporatism is connected to this?
Remember Harry, all that spending and fighting by that nasty military has provided you a voice. I think there is some kind of saying about a gift horse or something, meanwhile you are trying to get a good look at a T-bone.
Mar 24, '09
, all that spending and fighting by that nasty military has provided you a voice.
It has done just the opposite. You can't track Harry's logic, because it is!
Why am I arguing with a tosser? Remember, tosser, there's not one god damned thing you're qualified to explain to Harry. Capiche?
Mar 24, '09
Harry Kershner:
As for "free enterprise", you should know that there is not now nor has there ever been such a thing.
Bob T:
Sure - you should know that there is now and always has been too much givernment involvement from kings to dicatators to democratically elected governments.
Like free expression, it's something that needs constant defense and which is always being watered down by control freaks of all sorts. You seem to be saying that because we don't have a true free expression society (thanks to religious zealots, speech code advocates, and other ignorant people) that it's okay to have more restrictions. I don't accept that. Jefferson did say that it's the nature of government (and all who influence it) to encroach on freedoms, from the first day. He was correct, but that's no excuse to accept it.
Harry Kershner:
It's delusional to claim that a system such as ours is anything other than privatized profits for the rich and socialized costs and risks for the rest of us.
Bob T:
It has a lot of that for sure, when it should have none, but remember that it is like that because of politicians (government), and not the people running the businesses. They can't get a thin dime from you unless they get government to do it for them. You know, trash like Sam Adams and Randy Leonard. So what is your solution? To have a city-owned team in this case? I'd prefer seeing to it that Paulson paid for his own stadiums (or pay for the renovation of an existing stadium that might be publicly owned). It's not too hard to do that. I don't know how Sho Dozono would have voted on this, but I do know that progressives were tripping over themselves hurrying to the polls to vote for the "first openly gay mayor of a major city" (even tho' he was already supporting this corporate welfare scam) and the result is that Paulson is laughing all the way to the bank. Adams & friends gave us some "governing" that we stupid little people are told we have no understanding of. Any progressive Portlander out there who votes to re-elect Adams or Leonard is part of the problem.
When it comes to transportation which is being discussed in this article, I'm sure that you support the current and long-time policy of protecting a taxi cartel with all its flexibility-killing regulations, all passed unde the guise of protecting the little guy and making "the market work". Well, if you support it, then you are part of the problem. If you are too eager to let politicians control transportation options, then you seem to be advocating a less free market only because well, we already don't have one so let's get even further away from it. I don't get it.
I mentioned last month an example of a black reverend in Tennessee who tried to start a casket business selling discount caskets. The state laws prohibited this because that "privilege" belonged to the protected cartel which sold caskets at very high prices. With you logic, that state law should have been enforced because, well, we don't have a free market so why even try. If anyone advocated de-regulating the casket business, there'd be cried of of how people would be ripped off buying flimsy caskets made out of toothpicks and glue. Such stories are used by those who want to keep the same privileged system, but they know that the masses of economically illiterate voters will buy into it, and that upstart competitor wannabe gets shoved aside. Fortunately he was backed by the Institute for Justice which unlike the ACLU tried to fight for a person's right to make an honest living, and this law was overturned. That sort of victory goes unnoticed by progressives. It should be pointedout that sure, someone might sell toothpick-quality caskets. But if anyone gets one of those when they were expecting something better, there are already remedies for consumers that have existed and are indeed part of the free market system. But the issue here is the newcomer's right to enter that market. Period. (By the way, were you aware that the government allows only a certain number of peanut farmers - the Carter family being one - who then are protected from competition and can become millionaires. like Carter? What will you ever do about this? Nothing, I gather).
Harry Kershner:
The presumed "freedoms" that right-wing libertarians talk about are based on the heavily state-protected and publicly subsidized power of corporations and the financial industry, and the military empire required to advance and protect their profits.
Bob T:
Not that I know of. You seem to hate the free market, so you come up with your own definition so that you can hate it. I can't stop anyone from doing that. There are people who defend the sort of thing you describe above, and many of them are Republicans, and many are Democrats. But try to keep in mind that they have to define it defending a free system in order to get the support of the millions of uneducated voters who are too busy with their Ipods, cell phones, beer, and making ends meet to actually understand the issues. So they buy into it. Someone else comes along and say we need to stop supporting that garbage, and he's berated for supporting a system that "never really existed" anyway. Whatever. Like I said, protecting free enterprise from being twisted and re-defined and watered down is hard work, and most people are not vigilant about this because they buy into plattitudes and misconceptions. And the benficiaries laugh all the way to the bank while the politicians get re-elected so often that they live in a world of their own and have nothing to worry about.
Harry Kershner:
"I'll be able to rant and rave about the marvels of the free market, while I'm getting properly subsidized and defended by everyone else, through the nanny State..."
Bob T:
Again, I know exactly the type you describe. But these people were made possible by politicans granting them these privileges. People can ask, just like people can ask for censorship of porn, but that doesn't mean the requests should be granted. Keep in mind that a lot of the privileges were created by those who claimed to distrust free enterprise and who then passed laws to supposedly "make it work", even if that means certain individuals benefitted a great deal. But those people needed to get elected, and then re-elected. They benefitted from spewing misconceptions and alleged "public" benefits. It still happens today. Just look at Sam Adams and Randy Leonard and Dan Slatzman. Even Fish would have supported it under other circumstances. Big deal. You vote for these people, so you're part of the problem. There's no difference, by the way, between Merritt Paulson and Homer Williams. Anyway, yes, we do have a lot of people who describe free markets the way you have them describing it. But we need to elect people who'll say "No" to them as often as they say "No" to efforts to squash free expression. But most of us don't. I'm still waiting for you to hold government accountable.
Bob Tiernan Portland
Mar 24, '09
Libertarian Guy: If you want me to read something, you'll have to do better than, "Put down your book and read mine." When I quote Klein or Zinn or Chomsky, it's in the context of an argument, and I try to give a taste of the language that makes it compelling to me. Post some Popper or Hayek, and maybe I'll read them.
Bob T.: I don't "hate the free market." I don't believe that it exists. Capitalism was given up for dead by the rulers of our society long ago. It cannot work, and the thieves who are stealing our money as we speak know it. That's why they've created a system of privatized profits for them and socialized costs and risks for us.
I assume that we agree about a lot. I consider myself to be a small l libertarian, and the problem I have with most of the Libertarians I know is that they are not libertarian enough; i.e., they only oppose the illegitimacy of government, while I oppose all illegitimate power systems, including corporations and the state. Don't assume that you know what politicians or issues I support. I disagree with most of the posters to BO on just about everything.
721H: "...all that spending and fighting by that nasty military" has provided me with the shame of slaughter, torture and ethnic cleansing having been done in my name, not "a voice". It's the mass democratic movements of the past that have contributed most to my freedom and well-being. You need to talk to Libertarian Guy and Bob T. about your militarist attitude (as do most of the posters to BO, who believe that it's okay as long as it's their guys who are doing the slaughtering.)
Thanks to Billy Busdriver.
Mar 24, '09
Harry Kershner:
I assume that we agree about a lot. I consider myself to be a small l libertarian, and the problem I have with most of the Libertarians I know is that they are not libertarian enough; i.e., they only oppose the illegitimacy of government, while I oppose all illegitimate power systems, including corporations and the state.
Bob T:
Note that the corporations and small businesses that want more without having to compete for it use government, and government types love to get involved because they love the idea of "managing" the economy. So again, when a Paulson comes along with a scheme to get tax dollars used to enhance his ability to make a lot of money, the answer should be a polite "No". And in all other examples, it would be nice if people understood how much government has been involved in creating the anti-free market we have, but they don't.
You still make little sense regarding your dissing of the free market system -- do you or do you not recommend less government manipulation of business, such as squashing competition and subsidizing many thousands of things? If so, then why do you complain when someone advocates something like jitney service?
Bob Tiernan Portland
Mar 24, '09
"Tosser". I hate it when people resort to faux Britishisms to make themselves out to be more-clever.
Sincerely, A Tosspot
Mar 25, '09
Harry, visit the tomb of the unknown soldier, a nice little visit may change your out look. My brother was just there and saw 4 Iraqi nationals crying. They were there to witness what they had only heard if. The sad part was they were all missing their left arms. Saddam had ordered given them orders and they refused. So he had their arms cut off. They were cry and thanking Bush and the USA and people they did not know for saving them and others like them. Keep in mind these guys had their arms cut off two and a half year before the US got their. And for billy. Do you even know me or my credentials? I must have struck a nerve. Seems when the Libs don't have an answer you resort to name calling, accusations, and Insults
Mar 25, '09
Bob T.: You continuously mistake me for someone else. I said nothing about the jitney service, so your claim that I complained about it is bogus and delusional.
Let me be clear: What I support is democracy, something for which the RP, DP, and most other parties in America have contempt. The best decisions are made by large numbers of independent thinkers who have a stake in the policy being negotiated.
Some of the problems with right-wing libertarianism:
(1.) Suppose someone facing starvation for her children accepts a contract with a corporation that requires her to work 12 hours a day locked into a factory with no health-safety regulations, no security, no benefits. Should all of our past victories for poor and working people be dismantled, as we enter into a period of private tyranny (with contracts defended by law enforcement)?
(2.) When Libertarians talk of "dismantling of big government", does it mean that the private tyrannies called corporations go out of existence, because there will no longer be any guarantee of limited liability? Does it mean that all health, safety, workers rights, go out of existence because they were instituted by public pressures implemented through government, the only component of our system that is at least to some extent accountable to the public? Does it mean that the economy should collapse, because basic R&D is usually publicly funded, like what we're now using, computers and the internet?
(3.) There are huge differences between workers and owners, so the Liberarian argument that workers and owners should be put on a par is misleading. Owners can fire and intimidate workers, not conversely, so supporting the rule of owners over workers is equal to destroying the ability of workers to bargain successfully.
(4.) Libertarian ultranationalism, in which we are concerned solely with preserving our own wealth and extraordinary advantages, getting out of the UN, rejecting any international prosecution of US criminals (for aggressive war, for example), is amoral at best.
(5.) On Social Security: my reading of the Libertarian view is that only those who have paid into the system should profit from it, i.e., widows, orphans, the disabled who didn't themselves pay should not benefit. Social Security is a communal decision based on the principle that we should have concern for others in need. That is not "government meddling", but rather democracy.
2:07 p.m.
Mar 25, '09
721h, is your point that these nationals were as misled and lied to as the American people? Did you get a chance to talk to the dozens who were murdered--by our own accounting--in US custody? How loudly are they thanking Bush?
Mar 25, '09
Ummmm, boys? Jitneys... could we talk about jitneys? Or improved bike accesses? SOmething? Or is "unfair" the keyword here?