Federal Funding Fun and Games Revisited

Back in July, I ranted about the current system of transit funding in the United States, wherein local projects generally depend on an injection of cash from Uncle Sam for viability--money that was, of course, originally sent to Washington by local taxpayers.  To summarize the prior article, the presence of the US government as middleman produces several distortions in the funding process.

• Federal money is viewed as "free".  While it isn't free in a strict sense, it is "free" in that it is completely disconnected from federal taxes collected.  Much like widening a freeway causes it to attract more cars (or improving a transit line attracts more riders), government agencies passing out "free" money causes it to be overconsumed....
• ...and often times, the point seems to be dining at the federal trough, rather than improving transit outcomes.
• And given that, there are incentives for costs to be escalated in order to increase the federal match--lest the money go to some other jurisdiction.
• The process of determining who gets what can be overly political.  Some projects get funded via earmark, and those that go through regular appropriations have to jump through oodles of (expensive) red tape to prove their worth.  And different types of projects are more likely to be funded depending on who occupies the White House

Given all the brouhaha over various expensive local projects such as the Columbia River Crossing (CRC) and Milwaukie MAX, both of which have price tags well north of a billion US dollars, and not to mention the brouhaha over completed local projects (such as WES) widely regarded as boondoggles, let me add a few more reasons to the list.

• The difficulty of achieving Federal funding makes delaying or descoping projects difficult.  Both CRC and MLR are attracting a lot of controversy due to their high price tags, given the recession.  A plausible argument is that We Should Be Saving Money In A Recession--an argument which is more plausible given the large public debt at all levels of government.  (We'll ignore for now the Keynesian ideal that spending on infrastructure is a good thing to do in a recession--which is one argument for federal funding, in that the Feds are the only layer of government capable of counter-cyclical investment, assuming there exists the political will to do so.)  However, there's a problem:  Major capital projects which require handouts from Washington (and Salem) can't easily be delayed--they can only be killed.  (They can be restarted, of course, but doing so often requires starting over from square one).  If things don't happen on schedule, the money disappears--and there is generally no promise that it will be restored in future appropriations.  (This argument is a favorite of the CRC committee--which loves to assert that if the project scope is changed, the project will never get built, because Uncle Sam will spend his money elsewhere.)
• On the opposite side of the coin--this makes it easy for hostile politicians to kill worthwhile big-ticket projects.  New Jersey governor Chris Christie cancelled the ARC project--decades in the making--with a stroke of his pen; consensus is that a new tunnel between Jersey and Manhattan will require additional decades to resurrect, should a political consensus to do so arise.  
• The current rules excluding operational costs from Federal funding have long been a source of contention.
• Finally, FTA rules require agencies to live with their mistakes.  Jarrett tweeted a reasonable question upon learning that Measure 26-119 failed, wondering if TriMet might plug the budget hole by killing WES--a service that has had extremely low ridership but at a high operational cost, and which has given the agency a bit of a black eye.  Ignoring the local politics, it would make sense--except that then the FTA would then likely demand a refund of the money paid to help fund the project.  Even if TriMet were to "suspend" the service--shutting it down until conditions improved, it wouldn't matter.  (And no, the FTA wouldn't then return the money back to TriMet were the service to re-open under better economic conditions).

Micro-routes

Detailed route map of 15-Belmont/NW 23rd, prior to service cut.  Courtesy of TriMet.

By now, Portland readers have probably heard quite a bit about the controversy surrounding TriMet's sudden decision to eliminate the NW Thurman branch of the 15-Belmont/NW 23rd line, due to stated safety concerns.  Residents along the affected stretch of Thurman are understandably upset about no more bus service (for some, the cancellation means a 3/4 mile hike to the nearest bus); and some have suggested that this is little more than a PR move, not a legit safety issue--as busses have been running this route for a long time without any major incidents.

I have serious questions about the lack of notice given to the public--it wasn't cool.  If this was done on advice of TriMet counsel, they should definitively say so. (On the other hand, I wondered over at portlandtransport.com if this might be a stealth service cut designed to save money; as TriMet appears to be simply routing all 15s on the Montgomery Park branch instead, it appears this is not the case--service hours are not being reduced).  TriMet appears to have gotten the message, and has announced plans to re-open the line starting Monday.  (If it isn't obvious, this post has been in the works for a few days...)

But this post isn't about the Terrible Thurman Truncation of '10.  It's about a possible solution to this problem, and to other problems, such as discussed in this post.

A possible solution:  A "micro-route"

Over in the same portlandtransport.com thread, I made the following suggestion:

My proposal would be to create a new line, which starts at PGE Park (where one can transfer to MAX or one of several other bus lines), takes 18th/19th to Thurman, and then heads up into the hills to the turnaround. And operate it with the paratransit vehicles. This line would be a short enough line that you don't need a full 40' bus, and the smaller vehicles, I would think, would alleviate the safety concerns. And add service to 18th/19th.

The details of the proposal don't matter much here--the 18th/19th routing and the PGE Park connection are features designed to provide service on a currently un-served street, and a connection to MAX; on further reflection a route down Everett/Glisan to Union Station might work better, simply because that routing provides a place where busses and drivers can take breaks.  (There's no room around PGE Park to park a bus for a spell).

30' busses (courtesy Wikipedia)

By "paratransit vehicles", I mean vehicles smaller than the standard 40' models used for the bulk of TriMet routes.  The agency has about 50 30'  busses, such as those shown to your right, and over 240 minibusses used for the LIFT paratransit service.  (Reportedly, there exists a 2400 series of busses are smaller than 30', though these don't appear to be in service any more).  Use of such rolling stock on the 15--a widely used frequent service route--would be inappropriate, but for a very short route, it's likely that a smaller vehicle will have more than sufficient capacity--and be able to execute the turnaround on Thurman safely and legally.

Hence the micro-route,

What is a micro-route?

A micro-route is a route which is shorter than standard routes.   Micro-routes will often have the following attributes:

1. Short overall length, with a round trip time of an hour or less (and often a fraction of an hour).  A practical limit on standard bus service is no more than two hours or so from one end of the line to the other, with layovers at either end.  With longer routes, reliability suffers, and you start running interfering with the driver's breaks.  One-hour-each-way routes with a branch or loop (or both) at one end, such as the 15, are also common--the 15 lays over at Gateway TC but not at Montgomery Park.  With a micro-route, on the other hand, the route is run multiple times between breaks.  A bus running a Thurman/Union Station route could probably run the entire route 4-5 times in a two-hour span.
2. Difficult geography which makes the use of full-size busses impractical.  This can be narrow roads, steep hills, tight turns--or politically-powerful NIMBYs terrified that a 40' bus rolling past their driveway is going to bring about Armageddon.  (Don't laugh).
3. Connection to a transit center, both to provide a layover point, and due to attribute 1, it is expected that many riders of the micro-route will transfer.  Scratch that--it is expected that most of the micro-route riders will transfer; many micro-routes function as de-facto shuttle services.
4. A reasonably predictable and continuous load pattern, so that passenger capacity isn't an issue (or if it is, can be dealt with by modest increases in frequency).  This is especially important for minibuses, which may not be configured to permit standing room.

Examples of such systems

Green public light bus (Wikipedia)

Hong Kong is an example of a city where such arrangements are commonplace.  In Hong Kong, in addition to the regular bus service, one encounters minibusses known as public light busses.  These busses come in two colors, green and red.  The red public light busses operate like jitneys or share taxis, and aren't relevant to this post, but the green ones operate fixed schedules just like regular bus service, simply with smaller vehicles.  Hong Kong bus operators also operate some of the "franchised" (full service) lines with two different vehicle sizes, with double-decker busses serving the busier routes, and 40' single-level busses serving he smaller and shorter ones. 

In both cases, these smaller types of busses serve generally short routes, connecting (for example) a transit center or marketplace (these things generally come together) with a housing estate (a common term for a large apartment building or other residential complex) or a small village communtity, both of which are abundant in the rural parts of the region.  The service that they often run is shuttle-like in nature, in that there are two distinct clusters of stops (often a single stop) on either end of the route, without much in between.  The primary franchised bus lines generally serve provide bidirectional service along a linear corridor, just like the vast majority of the bus lines in Portland do.

Where might such service work?

Besides Thurman, where the motivating factor is a geographical limitation, where else might similar types of service work in the Portland area?

• Office park circulators.  One big issue with suburban office parks is that they are difficult to serve with traditional transit service.  They are often spread out over a large area, have tons of parking lots, and may contain streets that are difficult for large busses to maneuver on--and serving them adequately with mainline bus service often requires deviations which are annoying to the bulk of the riders, and inefficient to the agency.  The Cornell Oaks subdivision mentioned in this post (currently served by the 67 but not for long) is an extreme example of this, but many other examples abound.  Certain runs of the 43-Taylors Ferry, which nominally runs from downtown to Washington Square, venture west of the Square to run around the various industrial parks along SW Nimbus Avenue in south Beaverton, in a circulatory fashion.  This little jaunt has nothing to do with the primary corridor served by the line.  So, given that--why not disconnect it from the 47 and instead run a circulator service from the mall to the various office parks strip malls, and other commercial centers immediately surrounding it?  In addition to the high-tech businesses on Nimbus, it could also serve the strip malls and big-boxes on Cascade Avenue, the Tigard Medical Mall and Lincoln Center on Greenburg, and even venture over to the Tigard Triangle to hit Costco, Freddies, and the like.  (Many of these retail outlets employ low-wage workers who would benefit more from improved transit than would high-tech office workers along Nimbus).  
• Shuttle service.  Many shuttle service connecting transit corridors with off-corridor destinations already exist, albeit provided by folks other than TriMet.  The shuttle from PCC-Sylvania to Barbur TC is one example--you can take the 44, but the shuttle provides additional frequency.  (You have to be affiliated with PCC to use it, however).  But there are other examples of major destinations with inadequate transit service.  Meridian Park Hospital, for instance, is a major full-service hospital surrounded by the usual assortment of clinics, doctors offices, and other ancillary medical services--but other than two 76s per hour, doesn't get any transit service.  Kaiser Sunnyside Hospital is in a similar situation--although the Green Line terminates a short distance away, the pedestrian exprience in the area is unpleasant, and the nearby bus services (155, 156, and 157) are all astonishingly infrequent.  Most other major Portland hospitals (OHSU, Emanuel, Good Sam, St. Vincent, Adventist) have one or more frequent service lines passing by the front door.
• Other geographically difficult areas.  Portland is perhaps fortunate, compared to cities such as San Francisco and Seattle, in that early city planners didn't ignore topography when creating the street grid--Portland has no local equivalent to Lombard Street in SF or Broad Street in Seattle.  As a result, most of the area is reachable by bus, and the areas which aren't are in many cases not sufficiently inhabited to merit bus service.  But there are a few places which come in mind.  Were the Lake Oswego Streetcar project to be built, a line connecting it (in Riverdale) to Lewis and Clark College might be useful; but the most direct route up the hill is bus-unfriendly. 

A few other notes

I probably should add that the suggestions made above, are made as examples as much as anything--whether or not these would be productive lines (or be of sufficient importance to be funded in a limited-funding environment) is questionable.  TriMet has, I'm sure, considered many of these ideas.  Certainly, I wouldn't advocate cancelling any existing services in order to provide these.  But in the future, if gas were to become expensive and transit to become a first option for more resident, many of these routes might make sense. 

Transit and safety

Over at portlandtransport.com, a frequent poster who is a harsh TriMet critic posted a news item concerning a recent act of violence involving the MAX system.  Apparently, a pair of hoodlums were having a smoke at Gateway TC, when a TriMet employee and an off-duty deputy (who flashed a badge at 'em) told them to put it out.  They did, but got on the same southbound Green Line train as the deputy, and after the cop got off the train at Clackamas Town Center, the two men jumped him.  The attackers were quickly subdued and arrested, but the deputy suffered a few minor injuries.

The thread quickly turned into a heated debate about transit safety, or Why (Everyone Thinks) Transit Is Dangerous.  The incident is an isolated one, no civilians were injured, and the security personnel involved did their jobs.  Yet the attack was featured on no less than three different evening news programs, and prompted a few of the local anti-transit advocates to fan the "TriMet is unsafe" flames.  (Disclaimer:  Some of the content here was taken from my comments on that thread...I'm a sucker for a good heated debate).

Is TriMet dangerous?

The safety of TriMet has been in the news quite a bit.  There are two essential components of safety--risk of accidents, and risk of crime--and TriMet has attracted much bad press (some of it deserved) on both counts.  A series of high-profile attacks on the Eastside Blue Line a few years back prompted TriMet to install fare gates at some platforms (the system mainly runs on the proof-of-payment system; the fare gates are intended to keep thugs off the line under the theory that potential violent offenders are also likely fare-jumpers).  Recently, the Clackamas County Sheriff complained that crime had risen in the vicinity of Clackamas Town Center since the Green Line opened.  TriMet disputes these claims, and portlandtransport.com has been trying to get clarification on these claims--including information as to whether apprehended miscreants were (ab)using MAX, or whether the new park-and-ride is an attractive target for thieves, or whether this is just a result of increased traffic, increased law enforcement presence, or coincidence.  It's worth noting that the sheriff has publicly complained about tax-increment financing for the Milwaukie Line, so there's some evidence of a strained relationship between his department and TriMet.

TriMet has been fortunate in that it has not experienced any accidents resulting in serious injury to passengers in quite a while.  However, pedestrians and cyclists have not been as fortunate, and there have been several incidents in recent years of walkers and bikers being struck by busses and trains--in some cases, the fault of the operator, in others, the fault of the person struck.  After the April 2010 accident where a bus ran down five pedestrians in a crosswalk, killing two, the agency engaged in much navel-gazing, culminating with the appointment of a director of safety; who reports directly to the general manager.    

Or are standards too high?

Certainly, TriMet has had problems.  But are expectations too high for the agency (or conversely, too low for other forms of transport?

One common area of criticism from many critics is that the agency doesn't "do enough" to promote safety.  There are often calls for the agency to hire more security and more fare inspectors, to install fare gates on more of the system, or to even close stations in blighted areas.  Often, such calls come with the expectation that the cost of this will be borne by the agency and its passengers--not by additional tax increases beyond what the agency already receives--implying that the difference will need to be made up by lesser service, higher fares, or both.

But is this fair?  States, counties, and local governments in Oregon spend hundreds of millions, if not billions, on police officers (and other emergency responders) designated to traffic patrol--essentially, security services for roads and highways.  The Oregon State Police patrol division--which doesn't do anything but patrol the state highways of Oregon--has a budget of over $100 million.  The thirty-six county sheriffs and numerous municipal police departments in the state likewise devote considerable resources not to crime prevention or investigation, but to nabbing speeders and drunks and cleaning up accidents.  And virtually all of this police work is paid for out of the general fund.  There aren't suggestions that ODOT ought to pay for the OSP Patrol Division out of gas tax proceeds (in fact, OSP was funded by gas taxes in the past, but the law was changed twenty years ago).  Patrolling the highways and byways (and many other public speces) is generally assumed to be part of the job description of police--they just do it.  However, patrolling transit is treated by many law enforcement agencies like a budget-busting headache.

Of course, the "transit is dangerous" meme is an old one.  There are some places where public transit is (or was at one point) the exclusive province of the poor, and violent incidents on bus lines or subways are not uncommon.  Many people are uncomfortable travelling with other demographic groups, and this discomfort is often perceived as a safety issue.  Even in New York City, where busses and trains run every few minutes, you can get anywhere on transit, and driving is miserable--there are lots of residents who use taxis to get around.

A question of structure

But this debate poses an interesting question:  Why has there been complaints from law enforcement about servicing transit, when you don't hear the same complaints uttered about patrolling parks, highways, local streets and sidewalks, shopping malls, and other public (and quasi-public) places? 

Part of the issue might be one of structure.  There are several different arrangements by which public services (public works, police, fire, transit, schools, ports, utilities, etc.) can be provided by the government:

• As a department within "general" government (a city, state, county, or national government agency)--where the head of the department in question reports to, and serves at the pleasure of, elected officials.
• As a department within a larger general government, where the department head is him/herself an elected official; a common example in Oregon are county sheriffs.  
• As a "special district", separate from any mainline government agency, where a board of directors is elected by the voters, and in turn hires a manager, approves budgets, etc.
• As a commission, or similar arrangement, where an independent agency has directors which are appointed by an elected official.  Unlike department heads, who serve at the pleasure of their superiors in mainline government, the commissioners in such an arrangement are often appointed for fixed terms, and in many cases cannot be removed without due process (and generally not without cause).

Many public services can also be provided by the private sector; those arrangements aren't relevant to this post.

In a post at The Urbanophile, Aaron Renn mentioned an article concerning mergers among fire departments in the Midwest, and whether that would produce cost savings or not.  He concluded his remarks with this:

I’m generally all in favor of eliminating non-general purpose units of governments that aren’t controlled by elected officials of a real government that people actually care about (e.g., a city or county). But not for merger related savings, which don’t seem to exist. 

In a comment, he added the following:

I do dislike special districts that aren’t accountable. Indiana township government is a perfect example. Indiana townships are not general purpose governments. They provide only certain functions like poor relief and fire departments (mostly in rural areas). They are controlled by their own elected officials, who operate largely out of sight, out of mind with the public. Unsurprisingly, the trustees and boards who run them do so as if they were personal fiefs, often employing relatives, and giving themselves generous pay and benefits for almost no work. Center Township in Indianapolis, for example, which is entirely inside the city limits, has amassed a huge property portfolio and over $10 million in cash for no apparent purpose.

Schools are another interesting one. They are often a similar case. I support mayoral control of schools, generally.

This old school notion of Tocquevillian style government with a plethora of elected officials and a patchwork of jurisdictions is simply not relevant in the current era. For sure it doesn’t work, or get the benefits that Tocqueville saw from it today. I do happen to think there’s a loss there. For example, we’ve seen the rise of the political class versus the citizen government ideal of old. But we can’t roll back the clock, and today’s urban scale is very different from the past.

In general, my preference is for competent governance.  Muni is subordinate to the city of San Francisco, and the service their stinks in large part because city government is famously dysfunctional.  However, Renn has a point.  Many special districts are run by officials who are elected in noncompetitive elections that nobody cares about.

But another issue, that is relevant to this post--is that in Oregon, transit authorities are generally special districts (TriMet is run by a governor-appointed commission); whereas the police and public works are generally part of mainline government.  While Metro and other MPOs can help bridge differences; it often remains the case that public agencies which are not part of a common reporting structure will have different organizational missions and goals.  Communication may be deficient--as nobody is responsible for the intersection of the services provided.  They may compete with each for public resources, and in some cases, may actively try to undermine each other.  Such arguments may occur within mainline government of course, but when two departments are part of the same larger organization; there is a built-in means for resolving such disputes. 

This arrangement can have consequences beyond law enforcement complaining about the cost of patrolling transit.  Jarrett blogs about a recent event in Ottawa, wherein construction crews tore up a downtown stretch of the Ottawa Transitway, without informing the transit agency--resulting in a major disruption of bus service.  And many efforts to install BRT are routinely stymied by public works departments, who view signal priority for busses with hostility--understandable, as their organizational mission is often centered on efficiently moving cars.

Quick hits

• Next Monday, leaders from various local, regional, and state governments will get together to vote on what design for the Columbia River Crossing to proceed with.  Metro and the City of Portland have jointly announced that they will vote for the 10-lane solution, initially striped for 8 lines if possible, with a separate connection to Hayden Island from Marine Drive (across the south channel), instead of an interchange on I-5.
• TriMet bus driver Al Margulies, whose blogging activities prompted a rule change at the agency concerning what drivers can do while operating a bus, is shutting down his blog, apparently at the behest of TriMet management.  Al has long been a great source and great friend for the Dead Horse Times, I'll miss his online presence.  (And hope he keeps commenting here, at portlandtransport.com, and elsewhere...)

Tax increment financning and transit

Last week, the web site portlandtransport.com posted a five-part series of an interview with new TriMet director Neal McFarlane.  The interview touched on numerous topics, but a significant portion of the video dealt with the current financing crisis at the agency (and at many other transit agencies, and state and local governments in general).  One of the more contentious topics was the use of tax increment financing to pay for improvements to transit infrastructure and service. 

The video included several people giving testimony at a TriMet board meeting, in opposition to the practice--including the sheriff of Clackamas County and the chief of Clackamas Fire District, whose territories are served by the MAX Green Line, and the planned Milwaukie extension.  Both of them complained that TIF, which has been used in the past to finance improvements to the transit system, was hampering the finances of their respective departments, by simultaneously creating new demands for service and depriving them of revenue with which to provide that service.  Also appearing in the video was conservative political activist Steve Schopp, who has engaged the producers of the video (and yours truly) in the comment threads at portlandtransport.

And while I disagree with much of what Steve has to say, on this issue he's got a valid point.

What is TIF?

Tax-increment financing (TIF) refers to a means of public financing whereby the portion of property taxes (or other taxes) collected on certain parcels of land, which goes to the general fund, is frozen--with the difference being used to finance capital projects designed to improve the value of said parcels (and bring about some public benefit as well).  Generally bonds are issued to finance the actual project, and the tax-increment is used to pay back the bonds until they are retired.  This is especially important for Oregon, where Ballot Measures 47/50 limit property tax increases to 3% per year; unless the property in question is , or the taxes are to service bonded indebtedness.  TIF seems simple enough, but it has a few issues, even when used "properly":

• Inflation may not be accounted for--if baseline costs to provide government services are rising due to inflation, but the revenue provided is frozen, cuts to service may result.

• Sometimes the new development may increase the need for government services, such as turning a brownfield into a dense mixed-use residential zone.  Brownfields seldom need service from the police or paramedics, whereas places where people live often do.

The graph to the side, apparently designed by local TriMet critic (and frequent portlandtransport.com commenter) Jim Karlock for an anti-urban-renewal article at bojack.org, demonstrates how it works.  Whether or not the section labelled "red ink" is truly red depends on how expenses grow or shrink; in a well-designed TIF the red ink is minimal or nonexistent.

When does TIF work?

TIF works best when the following conditions are met:

• The improvements are largely specific to those parcels being tabbed for tax-increment financing. 
• The improvements may decrease, or at least minimize the increase, the need for public expenditures
• The resulting property value increases are of sufficient magnitude that the bonds can be paid of quickly, returning the full value of the tax base to the general fund.

A common use of TIF that meets these requirements is certain types of urban renewal; where blighted neighborhoods are rebuilt.  Urban renewal of this sort satisfies the conditions--specific lots are affected, the improvements are frequently substantial, and the elimination of blight and the related social pathologies may well reduce public expenses.  (This analysis ignores the effects of gentrification--in particular, the beneficiaries of such projects are often landlords and developers, not people who live there who may be forced out due to higher rents or taxes.  But that's another subject).

What about infrastructure?

What about public infrastructure, such as roads, bridges, or transit lines?  At a neighborhood level, TIF (or better yet, Local Improvement Districts, where specific local taxes are levied against a neighborhood to pay for improvements), it can work.  But for major regional infrastructure projects, such as freeways or MAX lines, not so much:

• Many demands for service are not reduced, and may increase, if the improvements result in more people living in the area (or travelling through).
• Such things are built on public rights-of-way (whether on easements or owned by the public outright), not on private lots subject to taxation--in other words, the directly affected land is off the tax rolls.  Instead, TIF depends on general increases in the value of nearby properties to work.
• For large-ticket projects, the size of the TIF district needs to be also large; magnifying the risk to other government functions should the projected increases in value not materialize, or should inflation or other causes increase government expenses unrelated to the project, which must be met with a frozen tax base.

What's the best way to finance major infrastructure projects?  For large capital projects which are regional in scope--the traditional way (an explicit bond measure backed by a specific tax levy) is probably the cleanest way to do it--it doesn't affect existing services, it demonstrates political will to do the project, and it represents a stable source of revenue which makes lenders happy, lowering the cost of financing.

Voterphobia

Unfortunately, TriMet lost a measure in 1996.  Actually it was a statewide measure, Measure 32, that authorized using lottery funds to fund the N/S MAX project and numerous road projects elsewhere--one that was put before voters during the height of the Oregon tax revolt.  But it failed--and since then, TriMet seems terrified to go before the voters to raise money for capital projects (or to use existing bonding authority that it has used but has not exercised).  Instead, we get things like TIFs, bonding payroll tax revenues (the source of much of TriMet's operating budget), and the like to fund capital projects.

Some parting advice

A bit of advice to TriMet.  Your service area includes Portland.  A place which is highly transit-friendly.  The greater Portland metro area, excluding Vancouver, presently sends THREE Democrats to Congress.  I don't expect either Wu or Blumenauer to lose this November; Kurt Schrader is a bit more vulnerable, but the GOP has nominated yet another nutcase.  While the following advice might not fly during the current recession, what with everyone grabbing their wallets, I will nonetheless offer it:

Trust the voters.  The bulk of the populace supports transit, especially if you can convince them that you know what you are doing, and aren't just wasting taxpayer money on patronage projects.  Demonstrate some fiscal soundness, quit f---ing around with crazy financing schemes, grow a pair, and put a bond levy for Milwaukie MAX on the ballot.  Or better yet, put a levy for MLR, Barbur, and improvements for the WES corridor on the ballot, so all three counties get some cake.  Even better than that, put different proposals on the ballot (light rail, BRT) and let the people decide what quality of transit they are willing to pay for.  Or not.

But enough with the current "system" of scraping together funds from a zillion different sources to pay for major infrastructure projects.  It makes it look like TriMet and Metro are trying to hide something; it puts you in hock to a whole lot of folks who don't give a damn about quality transit, and when it results in service cuts, it alienates the demographic you can least afford to alienate--your current supporters. 

As stated previously, the appointment of a new GM is an opportunity, a chance to wipe the slate clean, and break from the past policies of the agency which have been met with much scorn. 

And after all--if you don't trust the voters, why the hell should they--should we-- trust you?

A closer look at southern downtown Portland

Today,  the DHT takes a closer look at the southern region of downtown Portland, and surrounding neighborhoods.  It's an area which is being branded the "Innovation Quadrant" by city officials, and which is key to the region's mobility.  Roughly, the area is bounded by the Hawthorne/Madison couplet to the north; by I-450 and the West Hills to the West, by Holgate (and its westward extension) on the south, and by the UPRR tracks and SE 20th or so on the east.

The Innovation Quadrant (a name I dislike, but we'll go with it) is presently well-served with transport infrastructure.  Highways in the area include I-5 and I-405, US26, and state routes 99W/10, 99E, and 43.  Three bridges presently cross the Willamette in the region--the Ross Island, Marquam, and Hawthorne.  The MAX Yellow and Green Lines terminate at PSU, and the Portland Sreetcar runs through the region.  Numerous frequent bus lines (4, 6, 8, 9, 12, 14, 33, and 54/56) serve the area.  The Center Street bus depot is in the southeast corner.  The UPRR mainline, the Oregon Pacific ("Samtrak") branchline, and the Jefferson Branch line all pass through the area, as do numerous trails (the Vera Katz Esplanade, the Springwater Corridor).  Oh, and the Willamette River itself. 

Major destinations in the area include OHSU (both the Marquam Hill and Waterfront campuses), the other hospitals in the Marquam Hill complex, Portland State University, OMSI, numerous other cultural institutions, Portland City Hall, and the Portland Building.

Projects in the works

Numerous transportation projects are presently planned for the area, or are in the works.  A rebuild of the OR99E viaduct east of OMSI is scheduled for completion next year, as is the Eastside Streetcar Loop project between the Pearl District and OMSI.  In 2012, three "Innovation Quadrant" projects, in support of the Streetcar, will be complete.  Longer term projects include Milwaukie MAX and the Lake Oswego Transit project; and Barbur Boulevard and Powell Boulevard have been identified for rapid transit corridors in the future.  Outside the area under consideration, but important, is the project to replace the Sellwood Bridge (the replacement bridge is planned to have Streetcar tracks, to accomodate Streetcar service to the Sellwood neighborhood).

By far, the most important project planned for completion in the next decade in the area is Milwaukie MAX.  We have blogged about it before, focusing on the financing and the portion of the line running parallel to OR99E.  But the proposed "Caruthers crossing", a new "green bridge" between the Marquam and Ross Island bridges, linking the South Waterfront district to OMSI, is a key piece of infrastructure for reasons beyond light rail.

The new bridge

The new bridge will include facilities for transit--light rail, busses, and streetcar (which will operate in two shared lanes, one in each direction)--as well as for pedestrians and bicyclists.  Private autos will not be permitted to use the bridge.  On each end of the bridge (at SW Moody, and adjacent to OMSI) will be combined light-rail and bus stops (the Streetcar will have its own stops nearby on both sides).  On the west side of the river, MAX will continue north along a viaduct adjacent to SW Moody, cross Naito Parkway at grade and head west on SW Lincoln, until reaching the current end of the Yellow and Green lines at PSU.  On the other end of the bridge, MAX will continue east until it reaches the UPRR tracks, head parallel to the railroad, cross Powell on a new structure, and run down SE 17th.  When the new bridge is complete, the Eastside Streetcar Loop will really become a loop. 

Several of the frequent service lines serving the area currently cross on the Ross Island or Hawthorne bridges, but will likely switch to the new Caruthers bridge for faster service to downtown.  (The 4, 9, and 33 are obvious candidates); many non-frequent routes will likely also benefit.  In addition, busses running between the Transit Mall and the City Center garage will be able to use the new bridge instead of the Ross Island bridge, potentially saving time if the latter is jammed. 

Ponies, and future enhancements

While the transit improvements in the area are laudable, a few other things come to mind:

• It would be nice were a continuous bi-modal (bus/rail) transitway to exist from the current transit mall, to the Caruthers bridge (and across), all the way to Powell and SE 17th.  Light rail will operate in its own right-of-way, of course, but busses will need to use surface streets east of OMSI to reach Powell or 17th.  On the other end of the bridge, it appears that the "Harbor Drive structure" connecting the bridge to SW Lincoln will be rail only, meaning busses will have to use Moody to Harbor to Clay/Market to reach the Transit Mall.  This will especially become important if Bus Rapid Transit is selected for the Powell or Barbur corridors in the future.
• Even more in the "I want a pony" category:  Given that two lanes of OR99E are now getting streetcar tracks (albeit mixed traffic); it Would Be Nice were these turned into a transitway as well (no private cars).  Unfortunately, there is a parking lane next to the streetcar tracks in many places, and ODOT has little interest in turning over any lanes on MLK or Grand into exclusive-transit lanes.  (And , businesses and such along neighboring streets aren't terribly interested in having them turn from local collectors into major thoroughfares, whether for cars, busses, or trains).
• Burying the UPRR mainline would be nice--starting at the northern edge of the Brooklyn Yard.  (So would burying I-5; both of these are a long ways off, of course).  Likewise, a connection between the UPRR mainline across 99E to the industrial site presently served by the Oregon Pacific line would permit that right-of-way to be used for something better in the future.  (Other than Oaks Park and Sellwood, the line doesn't serve any important destinations.
• A way for MAX trains to move between the westside line and the new Caruthers bridge (besides crossing the Steele and doubling back) would be beneficial, especially if the future Powell LRT line happens to be light rail.

Charlie and the MAX

Since fares are going up again  September 1, and in honor of Neal McFarlane officially taking over the helm of TriMet--it's time to recycle a little ditty posted to portlandtransport.com last year--updated (and up-spiced) to take recent events into account, and to better reflect (ahem) the local culture.  It's a satire of the infamous folk standard "M. T. A.", transplanted to the Portland area.  The song, originally written as a campaign tune for a left-wing Boston mayoral candidate, later became a big hit in 1959 for the Kingston Trio.  The band changed the name of the candidate in their version to avoid the appearance of endorsing a socialist politician, a big deal in the Red Scare area (even for a folk act).  Nowadays, the fare card used by the MBTA (as Boston's transit agency is now known) is called "CharlieCard" in honor of the tune.

The Portland version takes a bit of artistic license:  MAX uses of proof-of-payment rather than fare gates, and a zone system rather than any sort of exit fare collection.  And I doubt that bojack will be running for mayor, though the fireworks in City Hall were that to occur would be spectacular.  [Image courtesy of the Kinsgton Trio].

But anyhoo, here goes:

Let me tell you the story of a man named Charlie
And how he slipped through the city's cracks
He put two thirty in his pocket, kissed his live-in-lover
Went to ride on the Tri-Met MAX
Charlie bought himself a ticket at the Gateway Transit Center
And he changed at Pioneer Square
When he got there the inspector told him "one more nickel"
Charlie could not pay that fare!
And did he ever return, no he never returned
And his fate is still unlearned
He's doomed to ride forever on the rails of Portland
He's the man who never returned
Now all night long Charlie rides through the station
Thinking "What will become of me?"
"How can I afford to see my dealer in Gresham?
Or my bookie in Milwaukie?"
Charlie's girl goes down to the Rose Quarter station
Every day at quarter past two
And through the open window, she hands him a latte
As the train comes a-crawlin' through
Now commuters of Portland, isn't a scandal,
That the people have to pay the tax?
Fight the fare increase, vote for Jack Bogdanski
Help get Charlie off the Tri-Met MAX!
Or else he'll never return, no he'll never return
And his fate will be unlearned
He's doomed to ride forever on the rails of Portland
He's the man who never returned!

Bus rapid transit in Portland?

One of the interesting tidbits in the recently-published 2035 Regional Transportation Plan, courtesy of Metro, is the revelation that Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) is being considered for the Powell Boulevard rapid transit corridor. While there are other functioning BRT systems in the Pacific Northwest, including one in Eugene and one in Snohomish County north of Seattle; and Clark County has plans to implement BRT across the river, this would be the first BRT system to go online in Portland itself.

Portland has considered BRT in the past.  Back when the city's first rapid transit line was being planned; BRT was a strong contender.  Light rail was ultimately chosen, and now MAX is up to four lines, with another line scheduled to begin construction in 2011.  More recently, the Lake Oswego transit project considered a BRT solution as an alternative, though that was eventually scaled back to "enhanced bus" (frequent limited-stop service without any infrastructure improvements).  But for now, there isn't any BRT in Portland.

Or is there?  While there is nothing billed as bus rapid transit here in town, there are plenty of examples of "enhanced" bus infrastructure, both present and future.  There's the transit mall; numerous bus lanes and queue jump lanes scattered through town, and the on-the-drawing-board Caruthers Crossing, which will permit busses, light rail, and streetcar to all cross the Willamette River inconvenienced by auto traffic.  But do these things constitute BRT?


The controversy

BRT, of course, has been a source of controversy in the US.  Some transit advocates view BRT as a Trojan Horse, hawked by those who don't wish to spend the money to "do it right"--and some go far as to suggest that it's all a giant plot by the auto-petrochemical complex.  (The rail advocacy site lightrailnow.org is rather harsh in its assessment of BRT).  Others claim that its useful applications are limited, and note that in many cases, it consists of bus service made to look like rail--so why not build rail instead?  On the other side, depending on the level of service you need, you can often build much more BRT than rail for the same amount of money.  BRT has several specific advantages, including the ability to support trunk lines which operate on a dedicated busway and then branch off onto local surface streets (so-called "open BRT"); and the ability to use local streets to get around obstacles that it would be difficult or expensive to add a dedicated line for.  Two websites engaged in BRT advocacy are here and here.  Anyone interested in BRT would be advised to read this article.  (My own views on the subject have changed a bit, in large part to Jarrett's fine blog). 

What is bus rapid transit, anyway?

Good question.

The term "bus rapid transit" is, unfortunately, a bit of a buzzword.  BRT service can range from local bus lines with less frequent stops and minor enhancements such as signal priority, such as LA's Metro Rapid, all the way up to fully-grade-separated transit lines.  In addition, many services or routes which have BRT properties are not branded as such--so further investigation is in order.

The critical attributes of BRT is that it use busses (ya think?), and that it approximate, in some fashion, "rapid transit".  The term "rapid transit", itself ambiguous, implies some level of service performance which is superior to ordinary mixed-traffic bus service--generally in terms of speed, reliability, and frequency.  Mixed traffic bus service frequently has to make unscheduled stops (for traffic lights, blocked streets, etc)--all of which undermine both speed and reliability; and place operational constraints on frequency.  Thus, any system purporting to be "rapid transit" ought to take steps to avoid times when the bus has to stop for other traffic.  Ways to accomplish this include:

• Dedicated or enhanced street infrastructure.  This can include full-fledged busways (which may be grade-separated), dedicated bus lanes alongside auto traffic, queue jump lanes, transit malls, green bridges and underground transit tunnels, etc.    All of the "signature" BRT systems--Brisbane, Ottawa, Curitiba, Bogota--have extensive busway networks which segregate busses from other traffic.
• Bus priority arrangements.  This can be something as simple as laws requiring traffic to yield to busses pulling away from the curb (present in Oregon), to signal priority at intersections, to a proposal Barcelona is considering to use lane control devices to cause motorists to yield to busses like they would yield to an ambulance.  (No, the bus won't be running around town with sirens blaring).  

A second class of improvements is geared to reducing dwell time at scheduled stops, or at least making stop time more predictable:

• Use of fare collection schemes other than onboard fare collection (which can slow down loading).  Some BRT systems use proof-of-payment (the system used by MAX); a few fully-enclosed BRT systems can use barriers or turnstiles--a feature typically found on subway systems.  One other option is not collecting fares at all.  
  
• Use of specialized busses. This can include longer busses with greater numbers of doors--many BRT systems use 60' articulated busses rather than than the smaller 30' and 40' models typically employed for local service.  Some even have doors on both sides, and dual-sided platforms.  Use of larger busses also increases system  capacity; though such busses may have trouble navigating local streets (and in some cases may not be street-legal).
• Use of dedicated platforms which facilitate level boarding of wheelchairs and the like--the need to use mechanical lifts for boarding disabled passengers can slow things down tremendously.  Dedicated platforms are often necessary for off-board fare collection, unless fare machines are present on-board, or the system is to be limited to passholders.

And two other aspect of BRT which generally needes to be present:  longer stop spacing and frequent all-day service.  All the improvements to the route, the vehicles, and the platforms which you can think of aren't going to dramatically speed up a service that stops every 200 meters or so.  (Conversely, running limited-stop service on local streets is generally useless--the bus will still be frequently stopped for traffic and thus not be "rapid"--so it's better to increase the utility of the service for a small additional time penalty, and make it a local; an exception is express bus service running on highways).  And even a fast and reliable service is of limited use, particularly to those who have the option to drive, if it isn't frequent and available during the majority of the day.  (One reason which express bus--and commuter rail--are not replacements for rapid transit is that these services generally only run during peak commute hours).


Open vs closed?

Distinction is often made between "open" bus rapid transit and "closed" bus rapid transit.  In open systems, there is dedicated bus infrastructure which is used to speed up bus service, generally on some trunk lines.  Ordinary busses will run part of their routes on such infrastructure in limited-stop mode; running other parts of the route in mixed traffic.  In cities with a single important destination, such systems may work better than corridor-based systems such as rail or closed BRT.  Brisbane's BRT operates on this principle.   The primary disadvantage of open BRT is that it limits the ability to further speed up service with specialized rolling stock or optimized platforms or fare collection policies--as the busses also have to serve local routes where the necessary infrastructure for prepayment or dedicated platforms may not exist.

In closed systems, special bus lines run, entirely (or mostly) on dedicated infrastructure.  These systems tend to resemble rail more, as the bus line serves a particular corridor rather than branching out into the wider community.  Closed BRT has the advantage that it can be much more readily optimized for rapid transit applications--as the busses stay on the busway (or if they leave, only call on specific dedicated platforms), there's no need to worry about scaling up to thousands of roadside bus stops which may be no more than a signpost along the road somewhere.

It is entirely possible, of course, to mix the two types of BRT, including on the same infrastructure.  (It may not be possible to mix stops in this manner, but adjacent stops can serve on flavor or another).  Generally, in such a scheme, open BRT routes are branded in the same fashion as non-BRT; whereas closed BRT is branded differently--which leads us to the next topic.

Branding

One other common attributed of BRT is branding--how the service is presented to the user.  Many BRT systems are identified differently from ordinary bus service.  In some cases, they are branded in a similar fashion as a city's rail rapid transit (the LACMTA Orange Line and the MBTA Silver Line are two examples; both agencies use route colors for BRT, light rail, and heavy rail metro); or they may have an intermediate brand.  LA, for example, has two BRT systems (the Orange Line, a closed, dedicated-busway system, and the Metro Rapid service, a limited-stop service running in mixed traffic with signal priority); each is branded separately from each other and from ordinary bus service. 

Branding encompasses several things; including the visual design of the busses themselves; how routes are identified, the name of the service. etc.  It can be obvious--vastly different colorschemes and other fanfare; or subtle--attaching an "R" suffix to the route numbers of rapid routes, for instance.  Branding serves several purposes.  Most importantly, it distinguishes different varieties of service from each other--this is especially important if the different services have different fare collection policies, for instance.  Branding, and other cues (such as pricing and amenities) can also be used to signify that a given service is premium, in places where the social acceptability of transit is an issue (such as cities where "ordinary" bus service is seen as a refuge of the poor).  Branding also can serve political goals as well--a "new" bus line may be seen as more desirable to a political sponsor looking to feather his cap, than an extension to an existing service.

Branding isn't strictly necessary, of course.  An entirely open BRT system may do with no BRT-specific branding at all, and treat the infrastructure enhancements as simply parts of the urban fabric, of no particular import; if a bus runs on a busway, or not, it doesn't matter.  Closed BRT systems, especially when different policies are in force, generally need higher levels of branding--so passengers will e.g.  know whether they need to buy a ticket from a machine, or pay the driver at the door, in order to ride a particular bus.

The Portland situation

As noted in the lead section, Portland has quite a bit of dedicated bus (and rail) infrastructure in place.  The transit mall is the signature piece of Portland's bus infrastructure--a high-capacity downtown transitway which effortlessly delivers busses and MAX trains from Union Station to PSU.  There are plenty of other streets with bus lanes--82nd Avenue near Clackamas Town Center, Hawthorne and Madison, etc.  And the "Caruthers Crossing" will provide a near-dedicated bus connection between the the south end of the mall, and important Southeast destinations like Powell Boulevard and the center street bus depot. 

What is essentially missing is long corridors of enhanced bus infrastructure served by frequent, all-day, limited stop service.  While TriMet runs quite a few frequent services (even if "frequent service" isn't as frequent as it used to be) TriMet's bus lines are generally either locals or expresses. 

BRT on Powell

What would a Powell BRT look like?  A lot depends on the budget available, but the Caruthers Crossing would likely be an important part of it.  Between 12th and 39th, it would be difficult to provide dedicated bus lanes without spending a lot of money or doing a lot of violence to the existing neighborhood, so improvements may be limited to signal priority and additional queue jump lanes.  (Keep in mind that Powell--US 26--is an ODOT facility; so removing auto lanes is likely a non-starter).  East of 39th, there is more room to add dedicated bus lanes, as there is a wider median and the various stretches of frontage road (leftovers from the Mount Hood Freeway).  The intersection at SE 82nd (one of the busiest and most hazardous in the city) would provide challenges, as would the interchange with I-205 (and the nearby Green Line). 

East of the freeway is one of TriMet's bus depots, so enhanced bus infrastructure along the corridor could also help reduce the expenses associated with deadheading.  Powell is presently a 2-lane road between I-205 and SE 174th, then widens to 3-4 through lanes east of there.  Going to a full four lanes is probably necessary to support BRT.

What about elsewhere?

Where else in Portland might BRT make sense?  The Barbur corridor is one which might benefit from BRT as opposed to rail.  Like Powell, Barbur has excellent connections to the transit mall.  And whereas Powell is part of the eastside grid, and the #9 bus (the present local service) has numerous parallel routes; Barbur acts more like a trunk line, with numerous routes converging on it to head downtown.  The grades involved in climbing to Burlingame might be problematic for rail, especially in a dense-traffic environment.  If the goal is to provide rapid transit service to outer suburbs like Tualatin or Sherwood, light rail might be more appropriate than BRT due to the distance involved; but a light-rail line serving these communities could also run along OR217 and connect to the the Blue Line in Beaverton (which could also help deal with the WES problem).

A second place where BRT might be beneficial would be a connection between the CRC, when built, and downtown.  As mentioned in this post, I view rapid (or express) bus service to Vancouver as complimentary to the Yellow Line; given that Clark County plans to build BRT, making it easy to extend it into Portland is an obvious thing to do.

Other potential BRT corridors, pulled out of the air, include:

• TV Highway, possibly continuing into Portland via Beaverton/Hillsdale and Barbur
• The Hall Boulevard corridor--another WES alternative.
• A line reaching St. Johns
• Milwaukie/Clackamas or Milwaukie/Oregon City.  These may be better served with light rail, given the extension of MAX into Milwaukie, but BRT could make sense here as well.
• Along the downtown eastside, and across either the Broadway or Steel Bridges, completing a downtown "transit loop".

Some final thoughts


A common argument against BRT in the Portland context, and one I'm sure I've made before, is "we have MAX for rapid transit".  That argument, however, isn't really a good one--there are applications where BRT (especially those forms not involving full busways) might make more sense.  We have both streetcar and local bus service serving neighborhood access needs; and we have both commuter rail and express bus providing quick rides to work from far-flung suburbs.  So BRT makes sense, and it's good to see that TriMet appears to be taking it seriously as an option.  Where to put it, and what form it would take, obviously involves more thought than I've put into a blog posting, but it is something that definitely ought not be taken off the table.

Metro lobs a high hard one past TriMet's ear

The American past-time of baseball has numerous traditions associated with it, along with an extensive set of unwritten rules--the etiquette and ritual of the game.  And no aspect of the game is more central than the relationship between the pitcher and the batter, as the two duelists try to eke out every advantage over the other.  One technique many batters attempt to employ is crowding the plate--stepping beyond the batter's box by a couple of inches, encroaching upon the strike zone--thereby making borderline outside pitches hittable, and making it harder for the pitcher to throw balls inside.  And the common response of a pitcher to such encroachments is the brushback pitch--a high inside fastball designed to come uncomfortably close to the batter's head, and encourage him to retreat to the safety of the box.   Brushback pitches are different from beanballs--the pitcher is not trying to injure the batter, just intimidate him.  And if the pitcher is a feared fireballer--a Randy Johnson or a Nolan Ryan in their respective primes--the technique often works. 

And so it is in politics as well.  The political equivalent to chin music frequently is the open letter--a politely-but-sharply-worded missive written in letter form and sent to an elected official or policymaker--and simultaneously (or subsequently) published in order to make the intended recipient squirm.  Not all such letters have the desired effect--were a blogger such as myself to draft one, it would almost assuredly be ignored by the target--but if the sender has real power, an open letter can be intimidating indeed.

Which leads us to the open letter which Metro councilor Robert Liberty sent to TriMet last week, and which was posted on Metro's website today (as well as incorporated in the Metro-spam-stream for those who subscribe to it, such as yours truly).  It is reproduced here:

TriMet Board of Directors
4012 SE 17th Ave.
Portland, OR 97202 June 6, 2010

Dear President Van Beveren and members of the TriMet Board of Directors:

Congratulations on your recent hiring of Neil McFarlane as General Manager.

I have served on committees with Mr. McFarlane and found him competent, thoughtful and easy to work with. I look forward to working with him in his new role as General Manager McFarlane and expect him to be a capable leader of TriMet.

However, the process by which the Board selected a new General Manager concerns me.

Fred Hansen's retirement was announced on March 17. I expected Mr. Hansen's retirement to be used as an occasion to hold public hearings to solicit comments from the public regarding the opportunities and challenges facing the transit agency and how those opportunities and challenges should inform the choice of the next General Manager.

The hearings would have allowed the public to comment on very basic questions of strategy, such as trade-offs between capital and operating costs for light rail versus buses, how to extend transit services to the outer portions of the region, integrating land use and transportation investments, and the long-term financial health of the agency.

I expected the selection of a search committee that would draw on not just the TriMet Board and a few local officials but also prominent members of the regional community.

I expected an international search for a new General Manager, because our region and TriMet can attract talent from across the U.S., Canada and other countries. The culmination would be the public vetting of the finalists.
But that isn't what happened.

Three weeks after Fred Hansen announced his retirement, Metro President David Bragdon and I called the TriMet Board President to learn about the search process and to pass along the name of a potential candidate. I was amazed to hear that TriMet had already created a search committee, had narrowed the list of candidates to six to eight finalists, and that the list would be narrowed to three finalists within a matter of a week or two.

Mr. McFarlane's selection as General Manager was decided in late April and announced on May 4.

One of the greatest assets of this region is the large number of sophisticated and engaged citizens, from all parts of the region and all walks of life, who have important experience, professional expertise and good ideas about how we make our very good transit system even better. Many of these citizens or their businesses pay the taxes that support TriMet operations.

The Board missed an important opportunity to benefit from the knowledge of the citizens, customers and taxpayers in one of the most important, or perhaps the most important, decision it makes.

Like you, I hope that Mr. McFarlane has a long and successful tenure at TriMet and so there will be no opportunity in the near term to try a different approach to hiring the General Manager.

However, there will be many other opportunities in the future for TriMet to benefit from engaging our thoughtful citizenry in the important issues about our regional transit system. I hope the Board will seize those opportunities.

Despite my disagreement with the Board about the hiring process, I also would like you to know that I appreciate your service as community volunteers.

Respectfully,

Robert Liberty

Whoosh! 

Ball one, hollers the ump as the batter gets off the ground.

Metro had previously made its displeasure known about the shortened (and secretive) hiring process, one in which The Oregonian manage to report that someone else, rather than Mr. McFarlane, had gotten the gig.   So this letter, published right in the middle of McFarlane's transition period (he takes over full-time on July 1), seems to be a calculated warning shot.

And it's one with teeth.  Metro, after all, has the statutory power to take over TriMet, whose board of directors presently serves at the pleasure of the Governor.  Metro so far hasn't explicitly threatened to use this power--and perhaps the running of the beleaguered transit agency is one additional iron that Metro would rather not have in its fire.  But the way TriMet conducted its search seemed to annoy just about every other local government in town--but it's Metro who is standing on the mound, armed with a 95MPH fastball.

How TriMet celebrated Memorial Day

Yesterday, May 31, was Memorial Day in the United States--a public holiday for honoring war dead, wherein it is customary for families of the fallen (and others who wish to honor those who died in combat) to visit cemeteries and such. 

Given that, one would think that TriMet would make special service arrangements for Memorial Day observations around town--especially given that many people were off work.

And in at least one case, they did--they truncatd the 19-Woodstock/Glisan away from Willamette National Cemetery, one of the largest cemeteries in the city (and one containing the remains of many a dead soldier).  Because of "traffic".

Amazing.

In fairness to the transit agency, it may well have been the case that they figured that a) few people would be using the bus to reach the Memorial Day observations, and b) attempting to serve them would result in busses stuck in traffic, and affect the reliability of the rest of the line.  The cemetery in question, after all, is only reachable by some rather hilly two-lane roads, which were likely parking lots yesterday.

But TriMet provides special service to other special events in town--refusing to provide service to this particular event, or to make other arrangements (such as shuttle busses meeting with the 19, so the 19 itself isn't impacted by traffic jams), does not make the agency look particularly good.


Thanks to Al for pointing this one out.

Things that should be automated

TriMet bus driver Al M, who runs several blogs concerning his chosen profession, today includes a new item--documenting getting written up for failure to consistently call stops on his route.  Al expresses some indignation at this, naturally--noting that bus drivers have lots of things to worry about, such as not running over people--and that this is one more distraction for the driver.

Of course, audible stop identifications are a Federal requirement under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), so TriMet can get in trouble if it isn't complying with the law.

But rather than burdening bus operators with this particular chore--this should be automated.

Of course, TriMet is a bit short on cash right now, and has been reducing service left and right.  Which is why a guerrilla solution may be called for.

We've got lots of cool apps for all the mobile phone platforms (and for various laptops and netbooks) to let you know when the bus is coming--why one which correlates position data from the GPS with route data, and produces audible stop announcements out the speaker?  Why isn't there, as they say, an App For That?

Al, or other bus drivers, can take it along (assuming they don't get canned for "using a phone while driving"), and have IT call out the stops over the bus's PA, so they can focus on driving the damn bus.  After all, automated stop announcements are common on rail transit--and train drivers generally don't have to worry about other issues such as fare collection, obnoxious passengers, or many of the perks which bus drivers get for free.
 

Of course, I don't expect any transit agency--risk averse as they are--from actually permitting this sort of thing as part of their operations--at least not unless officially blessed, tested, signed, sealed, and delivered.   Might call out the wrong stop and get them sued, or something like that--and when it's an automated gadget that fails, rather than a human operator, it makes it harder for the proverbial sh*t to roll downhill.

But still--this is the sort of problem that ought to be solved with technology.  And if an official solution is not in the cards, and bureaucracy gets in the way, perhaps a visit from Harry Tuttle is in order.

On the recent TriMet accident, and the grand jury's decision

One of the biggest topics in Portland transit circles the past month hasn't been TriMet budget cuts, or Neal McFarlane, or the CRC.  The story which has dominated the news is the tragic accident last May, when a TriMet bus turned (illegally) into a crowd of pedestrians at the intersection of NW Glisan and NW Broadway, killing two and seriously injuring a third.  I've mostly avoided commenting on the incident, waiting for the official investigation to complete.

And now, the investigation is complete.  A Multnomah County grand jury has declined to indict the driver, one Sandi Day, on charges of "criminally negligent homicide".  CNH is a felony offense which likely would have resulted in prison time for Ms. Day had she plead guilty or been convicted.  At this point, it is unlikely that Day will be spending any time in the big house.

However, she's not out of trouble, not in the slightest:  she has been charged with six traffic offenses--three of them misdemeanors (2 counts of "Careless driving resulting in the death of a vulnerable person", and one of "careless driving resulting in serious physical injury to a vunlerable person), and 3 infractions (failure to yield, illegal left turn, and careless driving resulting in an accident).  In addition, the DA's office pulled few punches in the report they released.   Al has a picture of the traffic ticket she ultimately received.  While none of these offenses carries a prison sentence, the three misdemeanors carry a potentially large fine--and a guilty plea or conviction would likely result in Day losing her Washington State Commercial drivers' license--and her job.

(Ms. Day lives in the state of Washington and is thus licensed there; a Washington CDL is valid for employment as a driver with TriMet.)


Varied opinions

In my opinion, which isn't terribly uninformed, the grand jury made the right call.  There is little question that Day was at fault in the accident, and that she broke the law.  The pedestrians were crossing NW Broadway with a walk signal, and the bus was making a left turn from the right-hand curb lane.  (Day had made an unscheduled stop to drop off a passenger, placing the bus out of the proper position to execute the left turn required of the route).  Rather than proceeding straight on Glisan and going around the block, she attempted the turn anyway--striking a crowd of pedestrians.

Much of the investigation focused on the position of the mirrors on the bus she was driving--did they obscure her view?  They most probably did, but drivers of commercial vehicles generally have a responsibility to "look behind" any visual obstructions.  The fact that she was turning across two lanes of parallel traffic may have also played a part--as executing that maneuver safely also requires she make sure she's not sideswiping any cars travelling westbound on Glisan to her left.

Certainly, Day needs to face some music.  But is criminally negligent homicide appropriate?  A relevant judicial opinion from a 1984 ruling is reproduced below (another hat tip to Al, who's a busy blogger...)

Criminally negligent homicide is defined at ORS 163.145. One commits this crime by causing the death of another “with criminal negligence,” which is in turn defined at ORS 161.085(10):

“’Criminal negligence’ or ‘criminally negligent,’ when used with respect to a result or to a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense, means that a person fails to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the result will occur or that the circumstance exists. The risk must be of such nature and degree that the failure to beaware of it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the situation.”

The crime of “criminally negligent homicide” encompasses more than just cases in which death results from driving. It includes any case in which a defendant causes the death of another by behavior that is “criminally negligent.”

Under Oregon law, this mental state of “criminal negligence” requires more than inadvertence, inattentiveness, or, in driving cases, the added commission of traffic violations. The legislative commentary to the 1971 Criminal Code revision on the (then) new crime of criminally negligent homicide stated that the purpose in defining this crime was to include conduct by a defendant who is unaware of great risk “only because [she] is insensitive to the interests and claims of other persons in society.” (emphasis added).  This insensitivity to the safety and well-being of others must then produce a “gross deviation” from the standard of care that a reasonable person would use.

Historically, most vehicular homicides are charged as Manslaughter I or II because they involve intoxicated drivers who also speed, make unsafe passes, run stop signs or red lights, and engage in other aggravated, aggressive driving. Under Oregon case law, Criminally Negligent Homicide cases typically involve this same level of bad driving, but usually without intoxication. Indicted criminally negligent vehicular homicides are fairly rare since the level of bad driving required by this crime is usually accompanied by intoxication, which then elevates the conduct into the “reckless” category, resulting in a charge of manslaughter.

In Oregon, not every fatal vehicle accident can or should result in felony homicide or other criminal charges, even when caused by a driver committing traffic violation(s) and/or being inattentive. The law requires substantially more egregious conduct to charge a driver with a criminally negligent homicide, with its presumptive prison sentence and many other serious consequences. Drivers who are not charged criminally do not, however, escape the law’s punishment; they are held responsible by a civil lawsuit using the standard of ordinary or “civil” negligence. This lesser form of negligence is generally defined as a failure to use “reasonable care” when acting in a given situation. “Reasonable care” is “what a reasonable person of ordinary prudence would, or would not, do in the same or similar circumstances.” Wollston v. Wells, 297 Or 548 (1984).

Emphasis added by me.  The purpose of criminally negligent homicide (and manslaughter, an even more serious charge) isn't to punish people who have brain farts and kill someone--it's to punish people who engage in flagrantly careless behavior and kill someone.   Acts like reckless driving, drunk driving, racing, joyriding, "chicken", showing off, and other obviously dangerous actions, are what these charges are all about.   Not every vehicular death implies the commission of a felony offense--even when one party is clearly at fault, and even when that party has clearly broken the law.

The dissenting opinion

Not everybody agrees, of course.  As expected, many of the relatives of the deceased are unhappy with the decision; I won't pick on grieving families in this blog.  Longstanding Portland blogger Jack Bogdanski, a professor of tax law at Lewis and Clark, is another matter.  Bojack, as he's commonly known, is incensed--and seems to think that not only did Day deserve a felony rap, but implies that the reason she wasn't indicted is due to monkey business on the part of the DA's office.  According to Bojack:

The immunity that the Portland police appear to enjoy from effective prosecution by the county district attorney now seems to be extending itself to bus drivers

In the comments, Bogdanski asserted that the conduct of Ms. Day does fall under the ambit of criminally negligent homicide, even though the case quoted above suggests otherwise.  But the suggestion that the DA acted improperly in not securing an indictment (felony indictments can only come from grand juries, remember), is stunning.
A common allegation against the the Multnomah County DA's office is that it is unwilling to prosecute police officers involved in shootings, even when the officer's claim to justifiable deadly force is questionable; and many accuse prosecutors (here and elsewhere) of "sandbagging" grand juries in such incidents--of not bringing the strongest case to the panel--in order to avoid an indictment.  As grand jury proceedings are generally secret, nobody knows for sure.  There isn't any real evidence that DA's offices do this; but given the close nature of the relationship between cops and prosecutors, a definite conflict of interest exists... and cops seldom if ever get indicted.  So some room for suspicion probably exists with regard to police shootings.
But bus drivers?  Are you telling me that the DA's office would sandbag a high-profile case like this to protect a bus driver?  That doesn't make sense--unless you think there's some secret solidarity pact among public employees, at all levels of government and across all organizations thereof.   That theory is flat-out ridiculous, and I hope that's not what Bogdanski thinks is going on.  Besides--after not getting the indictment, the DA's office pretty much threw every misdemeanor that it could find at Sandi Day. 

This was a terrible, and tragic, accident.  Two people are dead; a third was badly wounded; and Sandi Day's career is probably ruined.  It feels highly improper to mention her woes in the same sentence as those of the victims, but there it is.  But a felony?  Not even close. 

Portland, TriMet, and the Bus/Rail Debate

Out of all of the flamewars which transit advocates find themselves participating in, the bus/rail debate is probably the third most intense.  (#1, in case you were wondering, is debates with transit opponents; #2 seems to be the whole subject of Personal Rapid Transit).  There are many supporters of transit who seem to care passionately whether the wheels on whatever they ride to work, have tires or not.  In some cases, positions in this debate are constrained to a particular area or application--in other cases, though, universal claims about the complete and utter unsuitability of busses--or trains-- are advanced.

Needless to say, I consider the whole debate pointless--but not sufficiently pointless that I refuse to blog about it. :)  While there are certain technologies which have virtually no application in modern transit systems--there's no reason to consider horse-drawn hay wagons for a given line, for instance--bus and rail are both mature technologies with many examples of successful deployment around the world.  Categorical suggestions that one or the other is inappropriate for any situation, are hogwash.

In this corner, wearing the blue trunks...

 Advocates of rail are fond of touting it's advantages (some real, some dubious).  Among them--a more comfortable ride, less stigma of poverty in some quarters, much larger capacity, permanence of route, generally lower operating costs (especially with large passenger loads), attractiveness to developers, greater top speeds, and the possibility (given current technology) of driverless operation.  Bus advocates counter with their own advantages:  Much lower capital costs, much greater flexibility, more suitable for hilly terrain or cramped urban fabric, lower per-vehicle-hour operating costs (important for small loads), less association with gentrification, and the ability to maneuver around service disruptions which would stop trains--literally--in their tracks.  For the record, I agree with most of both lists--which is why I consider one-or-the-other positions to be absurd.

I only rehash the above here for reference.

Portland, for quite a while, has been largely been free of the nastier controversies found in other cities, where the bus/rail debate has been at the center of some rather acrimonious public debates.  (LA and the Bus Riders Union come to mind).  However, that seems to be changing in recent years, as the rapid expansion of the region's rail network, and the recent funding crisis at TriMet, seem to be producing an anti-rail backlash in town.

Peeling the Orange

Last week, GOP gubernatorial candidate Allen Alley announced his opposition to the proposed Milwaukie MAX extension, also known as the "Orange Line" (which may or may not be its route designation) which is nearing the end of its design phase--ground will be broken on the project next year, and its opening is planned for 2015.   The opposition of Alley--a conservative politician trying to win a Republican primary in the Tea Party era (as an aside:  The Oregon GOP has been dominated by "tea party" politics for the better part of a decade, which is why the Democrats have a hammerlock on state government)--is no surprise; the political right wing has been hostile to capital-intensive transit projects for a long time.  What is a surprise is the number of transit advocates questioning the project, or calling for its cancellation--and calling for the existing rail system to bear a larger share of budget cuts, in order to reduce the cuts to the bus system.

Admittedly, the optics on the current transit system are terrible.  TriMet has added three new rail lines to the MAX system in the past decade--and while the Red, Yellow, and Green lines have been successful, none have had the impact that the original eastside and the subsequent westside project have had.  The Portland Streetcar opened in 2001 and has been expanded several times, with the Eastside Loop project underway, and the Lake Oswego project in the works.  And WES is generally acknowledged as a disaster.  While these projects didn't directly result in the cancellation of non-redundant bus services--when the recession hit and both farebox revenue and payroll tax revenue sharply declined, services needed to be cut so TriMet could balance its books.  And the bus system took the largest hit.

The Ninety-FiveFourteen Theses

Many critics of the agency (who nonetheless support transit--the positions of transit opponents are excluded from this list as irrelevant) view TriMet (and Metro)'s past and future rail expansions as any one of the following: 

1. A sign of fiscal management.  Objections here include specific funding practices (such as bonding operating revenue to pay for capital costs), to concerns that the agency is adding services which it lacks the ability to pay for.
2. Evidence of excessive entanglement with development interests--sometimes to the point of allegations of corruption.
3. An attempt at empire-building, self-aggrandizement, and/or resume-padding by public officials.
4. An inappropriate focus on place-building and transit oriented development, rather than on providing existing neighborhoods with quality transit service.  
5. A distraction from what activists believe ought to be TriMet's primary focus--social justice.
6. A switch of transportation resources (and dollars) from the inner city, where land-use patterns support efficient transit, and many residents depend on quality service, to the suburbs--where everyone owns a car (or two or three) and the main users of transit are commuters looking to avoid congestion and downtown parking hassles.
7. Poor urban design--freeway-adjacent light rail has long been the subject of criticism due to access issues.  (The Milwaukie Line, much it sandwiched between the UPRR mainline and OR99E, isn't easily accessible by pedestrians from either side).
8. Poor network design.  Some TriMet critics believe that the region, rather than building light rail (and commuter rail, and streetcars) should instead be focusing on high-speed metro systems, such as Seattle is doing with Link.  Others take the opposite tack, calling for more locally-focused services rather than long lines reaching into the suburbs.
9. An inappropriate focus on "choice riders", many of whom, it is believed, will ride rail but not the bus--viewing the latter as unsafe, or as a signifier of poverty.
10. Too expensive.  Some critics think the region would be better served with Bus Rapid Transit (whatever that means), and suggest that BRT could provide similar levels of service at lower cost.
11. An attempt to reduce the power of transit unions--or to bust them outright.
12. A refusal to admit or correct mistakes, in order to avoid embarrassment on the part of transit officials.
13. An attempt to gentrify additional parts of the city--to erect Pearl Districts (or similar) in places where existing, functional neighborhoods already exist.  Sometimes these objections are couched as claims that leaders want to "Eurofy" or "Starbucksize" Portland--to make it more cosmopolitan.
14. Evidence of "railfandom"--a belief that planners and public officials are motivated to spend billions of dollars on rail infrastructure for little or no reason other than a love of or fascination with trains.

Some of the above criticisms are patently specious, and many others require an assumption that the public officials in question are either incompetent or acting in bad faith.  Many of the objections are grounded in demographic issues such as social class.  In some cases, the objections may reduce to "don't cut my line--cut his"; a position which is easier to defend when it can be hidden behind other issues, such as mode.

However, some of the criticisms--in particular, those addressing the overall competence of TriMet management over the past decade--are entirely legitimate, however, and TriMet needs to do a better job of addressing them publicly.

How should TriMet respond?

 How TriMet should respond to all of this is an interesting question.  One temptation is to bury head in sand--to assume that the recession will end soon, that the jobs and riders and payroll taxes will all come back to pre-2008 levels, and that the service cuts can be unwound, and everyone will be happy.  However, there are two dangers with this approach:

• Jobs may not come back:  While the stock market has recovered since it crashed in the fall of 2008, unemployment remains at recessionary levels, and it is expected that many jobs lost during the recession will not return.  Many companies around the country took advantage of the lulls in demand to restructure--resulting in many jobs moving overseas.  Those jobs have come back, just not in the United States.  This has been a particular problem in the Portland area, which has over the years become more of a branch-office town.  It may end up being the case that reduced levels of funding are a long-term condition, not a temporary one.
• Population growth may stop, or even reverse:  Throughout much of the 1990s and 2000s, the Portland metro area's population has grown steadily--first due to the high-tech boom of the 90s, then the arrival of the "creative class" in the aughts.  A common response to high inflation, however, is ex-migration, as many rust belt cities (most famously, Detroit) are experiencing--which may result in more infrastructure than we need to support the population, but infrastructure which must be maintained and operated nonetheless.  Land use changes designed to increase density (which help improve transit outcomes) only work if the population is increasing--in a shrinking city, more desperate measures are frequently needed.  Portland doesn't seem to be in a population decline--yet--but people can be jobless for only so long before they start seeking work in other cities.

My suggestions for TriMet (and Metro) are here.  (See also my advice for TriMet's incoming director):

1. First and foremost, acknowledge the possibility of continued economic malaise, and population shrinkage, in planning--and do so publicly.  Many of the planning documents released by Metro and others assume a continually-growing population, and a need for expanded infrastructure to serve these new arrivals.  But if they don't come, will you still build it?
2. Open the first envelope.  Since TriMet has a new director, he has a bit more leeway to change course than did his predecessor--and to acknowledge, publicly, that mistakes were made.  Since Neil McFarlane is an insider, this only goes so far--but he can say and do things that would be much more difficult for Fred Hansen.
   
3. Make a better public case as to why it cut the services that it did.  Cutting MAX service is actually--in many circumstances--a poor choice; as MAX enjoys greater operational efficiencies than do bus lines--but a good number of people seem to think the service is a boondoggle.  In the case of those things (such as WES) which really are boondoggle, suggestion #2 is important:  It's easier to make the case that "we have to operate this line because we promised the Feds we would, as a condition of funding" if you are no longer in the position of trying to defend it as a viable service.  
4. Shift capital focus to improving operating efficiencies.  Look for places where you can, by adding bus lanes or signal priority or other investments, reduce the number of busses needed to operate a given service at a given headway.  Upgrade the ticketing infrastructure.  Consider making Ruby Junction Yards and the 17th Avenue barns bi-modal facilities, in order to reduce deadheading of both eastsid busses and trains.  
5. Show public support for the bus system--beyond issuing press releases proclaiming such.  Make it a point for TriMet administrators to use the system which they run--all modes.  Don't act like the transit director in Chicago who was forced to admit he hadn't used the system he directs in a long time. 
6. Clearly state what the agency's priorities are, and act accordingly.  Social justice?  Comprehensive transit?  Environmental outcomes?  Land use?  Well-paying jobs for transit workers?  Economic development outcomes?  If TriMet's top priorities don't include the first two, then its customers are not its passengers, which puts the agency in a difficult position.

The bottom line, I think, is that TriMet and Metro both are facing a credibility gap.  In the past decade, the mode split between bus and rail has shifted dramatically towards rail.  I don't consider this a problem, per se--TriMet should be concerned with running a transit system, and what vehicles it uses for what routes ought to be a design detail.  But when it's the bus that takes you everywhere you need to go, and you see those busses being cut--it's not hard to develop an anti-rail position as a result.  Much of the present anti-rail backlash is evidence that TriMet hasn't done enough to convince its riders that a) it knows what it is doing, or b) it has the interests of riders at heart.  If TriMet can convince riders of these things, then it is less likely to earn their wrath when it looks to expand.