That's right, and I'd never be able to take the 70 bus from Hawthorne to Tacoma again.

Since I've started riding my bike to work on days when I would have ridden the bus the #70 must be totally empty now! Many times over the last couple of years I've been the only rider once we hit Bybee. Without me on it...the poor bus driver must get lonely.

That's exactly the kind of line that would quickly be eliminated.

"In 1981, was there a Banfield MAX? No. Was there a Westside MAX out to Hillsboro? No. Was there an Airport MAX? No. Was there an Interstate MAX?"

No, but that's why bus service sucks and rates are being jacked up again. All that money to expand and operate MAX.

Yeah, and there'd be a bus on every block with wi-fi, leather seats and an espresso bar in the rear if they hadn't built the MAX lines, right? Because there's just soooooo many cities where they didn't make the big mistake of building rail and the bus service is, like, totally awesome in those cities, eh?

Joba says:

34 “retail operations” provided transit to Portland residents in the 100 years before TriMet. Not one survived.

Because TriMet and it's precursors ultimately outlawed private transportation services.

Try to start a service today and see how fast Randy Leonard will jump on you. (Remember how he shut down airport limos?)

It's hard to survive when Portland and State of Oregon are twisting the knife.

I'm thankful this response was posted. I simply don't understand how TA's rant got posted here in the first place, and, in my opinion, Joba's response accurately refutes what TA is saying. We all can have complaints about TriMet, but TA offered no reasons, supported with evidence, as to why TriMet has the policies it does. It's either that they're like the car dealership, increasing the prices for spite (but he says he doesn't think that's the case), or they're simply too stupid to run TriMet properly (always a good argument).

TA: Here's the big thing. TriMet needs a balanced budget by law. You only have one solution: "increase income." How would you like to do that? You never say, but my assumption is that you want TriMet to increase the number of buses that run on congested lines. They'll get more riders (and existing buses will be less crammed). More riders will equal more income. Great. Now how is TriMet going to buy new busses, pay for fuel, and pay for drivers AND balance the budget? They're not. They're going to need the state or federal government to give them more money to pay for those things, since 80% of all the revenue comes from sources other than your $2.05. And as Joba said, bus money ain't sexy, so the federal government isn't begging TriMet to take more of its money.

In the end, there might be some good solutions. I don't know the nitty gritty details about how TriMet gets its funding nor how to find the sweet spot between service and balanced budgets. I think the point TA misses is that neither does he.

"service" is not merely lots of buses (though that's a good place to start) or being better than Seattle. when people have to wait 30 minutes for a bus that's scheduled to run every 15 minutes -- and it's the end of a work day, and it's raining, and we're standing in car fumes -- then that is bad service. after all these years, they can't figure out how to keep the buses moving properly?

I disagree. I have never experienced that problem in Seattle any more than I have experienced delays on the 14 that is scheduled to run every 10 minutes or so on it's route. If anything I've had better experiences with the bus in Seattle than PDX.

T.A. this is a straight up falsehood or you made it up and you should have made a comparison between Boston or some place people in Portland haven't lived or spent a lot of time in. Also Seattle uses electric buses. I'm willing to bet they don't have a lot of problems with gigantically rising fares. Not that I've looked into it or anything. I'm just saying Seattle has no problem like you allege here with late times.

T.A. I thought it was a fairly valid comment and doesn't deserve complete dismissal or your outright attack because they questioned you. The poster didn't ask to be posted on the main board and had some valid arguments. They were good words. If you dispute the allegations pony up and answer them. It's real simple T.A. List your rebuttal. I agree and don't think TriMet should be run anything like a retail business. I could write an essay on why I think a TriMet driver might be a little bit pissy sometimes but it's not worth it. All in all we're running a pretty tight ship. I think it sucks fares are going up but I also think our President sucks and his energy policies have caused most of this. I assign blame where it is due.

Thanks for promoting this thoughtful comment.

TA, you have pretty thin skin for someone who is blogging as a regular on Blue Oregon.

You posted an emotive post. Fine. You didn't provide much evidence beyond your feelings and experiences. Fine.

You've been called out. Time to back up your rhetoric or adjust.

What orexpat said.

I live far out of state, but I've kept close tabs on the state of TriMet (as I have several friends still in Portland who get quite a bit of use out of it). When I consider surlier drivers, more (and bigger) breakdowns, and finally higher fares, why, yes, it's all very cringe-worthy and brutally counterintuitive: why the hell are they increasing fares when more people are riding?

Well, why?

The passenger-mile cost for service does not decrease in direct proportion to the increase in ridership, and that's even before the fuel increases. Somehow, I doubt that the 79.2% of TriMet funding that doesn't come from fares (anybody got a citation on that?) doesn't go entirely to fixed and sunk costs.

I firmly believe that things'll get better - not just in Portland, but a lot of other places, too.

...They'll need to get a lot worse, first.

The smart thing is to plan with what we have, not with what we want.

Complaints without solutions just tarnish the complainer's case.

TA:

You say: "I was able to ride within 2 blocks of my house on the bus that sent out SE Stark. that's a memory that disappeared over 20 years ago."

Got any guess why that is? Mine is that TriMet decided to "operate more like a retail operation" and made a decision that they were not making enough money on that service to justify its existence. So they stopped it and added service somewhere else (hence why it's not a cut).

Just because you don't have curbside pick-up, doesn't mean TriMet "cut service." They simply added it somewhere else in the 575 square mile service area.

There is still a "retail operation" that will take you right to your doorstep. It's called a taxi.

And for what it matters, all of this info is available on TriMet's website for anyone who bothers to take a few minutes to read it before posting a long, factually inaccurate rant.

Kari..could you elaborate on Blue 2.0 and tell us all how it will work in detail before it rolls out so we all can be prepared? The way you are descibing it, it looks like it going to be more selective than it should be and I know it probably won't when it rolls out and is up for a while.

But since I am usually ignored in here anyway, we probably won't know until it is rolled out.

Pete, Where did you get the idea I "conveniently overlooked" the lengths that policymakers have gone to to draw in private and Federal dollars for MAX projects". The fact that federal gas taxes have paid for part of MAX is elementary and no justification for TriMet priorities.

Would that money have been available for bus lines? It depends on what and how officials pursue money for transit.

But the fact is many neighborhoods would have better bus transit service today at a fraction of the cost had rail not been pushed.

That's not flippant.

And where's your substance for your claim that any private money was drawn in to pay for MAX? If you are talking about the no bid contract to Bechtel for airport MAX with a giveaway of 120 acres at Cascade Station then I have to laugh out loud.

This has been what could have been a problem with Blue Oregon since its inception. Writers can say whatever they'd like, whenever they'd like, regardless of truth or proof. Thank you Charlie for bumping this. Without that bump, Blue Oregon's credibility was hurt.

But I'll go a step further and suggest that his post was even slightly homophobic. Blue Oregon is no place to talk about taking something "up the butt." At least that's not how I am allowed to talk around my water cooler.

I can't say that TA's posts are usually untruthful, but he sure does a whole lot more than your average and all of them seem to be rants about something or the other. Occasionally, the rants have some bearing in reality, but usually not.

So, that said, I have a suggestion for TA: maybe you should start a blog all on your own. Sure, still post on Blue Oregon, but apparently on an ongoing basis, we're not suited to read your run on posts with homophobic undertones that rant about [insert problem of the moment] so your own blog might be better. Or maybe its me that's just tired of the posts that are crowding out more truthful, short and relevant posts.

I get so sick and tired of TA's rants. This one takes the cake. Go live in Atlanta or move back to Eugene if you don't like Tri-Met, dude and take your sexist presidential commentary with you.

But I'll go a step further and suggest that his post was even slightly homophobic. Blue Oregon is no place to talk about taking something "up the butt." At least that's not how I am allowed to talk around my water cooler.

I don't know if that's all that homophobic. I believe that is an uncomfortable situation in most accounts regardless of sex. :)

I do not think that reference to anal sex is any more homophobic than use of f*** in a negative sense is anti-sexual. It may be considered crude and inappropriate in some settings, but it's not the sort of remark that is pregnant with meaning. Besides, many heterosexual people enjoy anal sex, and some gay men do not.

Seventy percent of TriMet riders own a car (or choose not to own one) yet choose to ride TriMet.

Yeah, but how many of them "choose to ride TriMet" to commute? Last time I looked (at actual published research for a paper I wrote a couple of years back for a class on argument), most of the MAX riders who owned cars were using MAX for pleasure trips--i.e., an A ticket ride to the Zoo, not a substitute for car commuting.

Steve:

All that money to expand and operate MAX.

Pete Forsyth:

Whether at the local dive bar or on BlueOregon, people always seem to conveniently overlook the lengths that policymakers have gone to to draw in private and Federal dollars for MAX projects.

Would that money have been available for bus lines? If not, Steve, your flippant point might need a little more substance to stand.

Bob T:

Of course the money can be available. Those who can point out that the Feds "don't fund projects that way" would only be pointing out why we shouldn't have so much of our gas taxes going to Washington. The money is then part of the incumbent protection machine, and has far too many strings attached and is way too political. If most of the Federal gas tax dollars stayed in each state, it'd be a different story. Besides, Federal gas tax dollars are indeed used to purchase buses for Tri-Met. The USDOT gives (sends back) money thru agencies, not directly to cities or counties, so you need to look at the ODOT project (STIP) list and you'll often see bus purchases.

The main point here is that a few buses isn't much, but just do the math -- do you realize how many buses we could have, plus additional routes, for the money used on each MAX project (which is now about $100 Million per mile!)

Light rail projects are the in thing for cities to do. More fat cats and businesses can benefit or make money working on these projects--just look at the C&E reports for 1998's campaign to pass North-South:

200 Market Associates LP------------------$58,000

Clackamas Town Center---------------------$50,000

Fred Meyer--------------------------------$50,000

Bank of the Northwest---------------------$50,000

Pacific Power-----------------------------$50,000

Tom Walsh & Co.---------------------------$35,000

 [ Note: Walsh is a member of the Walsh 
   Construction family which benefits a 
   great deal from government projects as 
   well as numerous subsidized developments. 
   Walsh was a long-time director of Tri-Met 
   and his fiance/wife at that time had 
   been a metro council member who voted to 
   approve projects the Walsh Family benefited 
   from. ]

Zimmer Cunsul Frasca Partnership----------$25,100

Kiewet Construction Company---------------$25,050

Walsh Construction Company----------------$25,000

[ Note:  The Walshes again!  And a Walsh 
  Family daughter-in-law sat on the Multnomah 
  County Commission which also votes to approve 
  some transit and other development projects.]

Otak, Inc.--------------------------------$25,000

Siemens Transportation Systems, Inc-------$25,000

Parsons Brinkerhoff Quade & Douglas-------$25,000

LTK Engineering Services------------------$25,000

Hoffman Corporation-----------------------$25,000

Legacy Health Systems---------------------$25,000

Stoel Rives-------------------------------$25,000

Bechtel Enterprises-----------------------$25,000

[Note: Bechtel was later rewarded with the Airport MAX project - surprise, surprise!]

The Regency Group-------------------------$15,000

Stacy & Witbeck, Inc [construction]-------$15,000

Standard Insurance------------------------$15,000

O'Brien Kreitzberg------------------------$12,500

BRW, Inc.---------------------------------$12,500

Canadian Imperial Bank Corp.--------------$12,500

Portland General Holdings-----------------$12,500

Obie Media Company------------------------$12,500

Portland General Electric-----------------$12,500

The Greenbrier Companies------------------$10,000

Kaiser Permanente-------------------------$10,000

Operating Engineers Local 701-------------$10,000

Northwest Natural Gas---------------------$10,000

Wells Fargo & Co.-------------------------$10,000

Oreogon State Assn. of Electrical Workers/IBEW------------------------------$10,000

Rentrak-----------------------------------$10,000

US Bank-----------------------------------$10,000

Now tell me that the same support would be there for a plan to add, say, 200 buses for new routes and more frequent service on some lines. Would we see politicians have a ceremony (like they do with MAX) with a huge pair of scissors cutting the big ribbon in front of the line of new buses? I doubt it. Buses are lousy photo-op stuff. But we shouldn't judge things by how good a photo-op they'll make.

Bob Tiernan

Steve:

And where's your substance for your claim that any private money was drawn in to pay for MAX? If you are talking about the no bid contract to Bechtel for airport MAX with a giveaway of 120 acres at Cascade Station then I have to laugh out loud.

Bob T:

Yeah, didja note how progressives trash Bechtel as this dirty rotten evil company, but were super silent during that project because they wanted another MAX line any way they could get it (Note: a tiny, tiny handful of decent lefties spoke out against the project, but not because it was Bechtel but because they hated the way the political machinery gave us the project).

Bob Tiernan

Joba gives us this quote without any supporting information: "Portland's public transportation used to be a retail operation. Guess how that worked out? (Here's a hint: Not well. 34 “retail operations” provided transit to Portland residents in the 100 years before TriMet. Not one survived.)"

The question needs to asked as to whay these businesses failed. Was there interference from elsewhere that caused the failure, or was it simply bad decision making on the part of management? What role did the Public Utilities Holding Act of the last 1930's have in any of this?
Did the government's failure to grant price increases as needed after WWII have any impact?
Did the government mandate that unused, or poorly used lines be kept operating in order to get vote for politicians?

Before we except the idea that private operators won't survive in the transit market more and better analysis is needed?

TLG

Before we except the idea that private operators won't survive in the transit market more and better analysis is needed?

Yeah cause free market for profit companies always do the right thing when it comes to something that operates for the public good. (If you couldn't tell there was dripping sarcasm in there)

Bob Tiernan,

It makes sense that those political contributions were made. Some businesses wanted contracts building Max. Others wanted their locations served by Max. Such is our political system that money talks - very loudly. This does not make Max a good plan or a bad plan, but it suggests that campaign finance reform might be a good idea.

Tom Civiletti:

It makes sense that those political contributions were made. Some businesses wanted contracts building Max. Others wanted their locations served by Max. Such is our political system that money talks - very loudly. This does not make Max a good plan or a bad plan, but it suggests that campaign finance reform might be a good idea.

Bob T:

Excuse me, Tom, but despite the pro-North/South side outspending opponents 10-1 (thanks to the Fat Cats etc), they lost!

Interesting that you'd turn this lopsided pro-MAX list of contributors into an example of why we need campaign finance reform. You seem to be saying that you'll no longer criticize any Republican for being backed by the usual corporate interests and Fat Cat types because, to paraphrase what you stated above, "This does not make Republicans good plan or bad, but suggests that campaign finance reform might be a good idea."

But anyway, local politicians and their backers took care of the problem after the loss of M26-74 by tossing democracy into the crapper and building $100 million-per-mile MAX lines without any votes. Like when the NJ governor resigned the other year but made his resignation effective some months later, after a certain deadline, so that voters were denied a chance to vote for a replacement and one would be appointed instead. Are you sure the Democratic Party is partial to democracy?

Bob Tiernan

<hr/>