I have to agree, the transit stations can be really nasty, even out here in the west-side 'burbs. (I have even seen used condoms at Beaverton Central, home of The Round.)
And today, when I got on a blue westbound train to go home about 5:30, it reeked of pot smoke and b.o. (and that unfortunately is a regular occurrence.)
But hey, the prices are gonna go up again, so we can all be happy we have transit at all!

It's surprising to me that some of the roughest dudes I've ever seen will still obey the no-smoking rules on the bus. It's still kind of funny to see them take a big, big drag (hit) before stepping on the bus, only to do a big, big exhale once on board.

I don't ride the bus much anymore because it actually costs significantly less to drive to most places I visit - of any distance. Driving relative to busing it also saves lots of time. But when I went to college sometime back, buses were a life saver.

Kind like women. Can't live with them, and can't live without'm. Excuse my hillbilly skew.

No mysterfy there - if someone is smoking on the bus, the driver will pull over and politely ask them to exit the bus. If they don't comply, the transit cops are on their way.

Let me get this straight, TriMet reduces service AND increases fares.

• June 1: Steel Bridge closed to bus traffic.
• June 10: Steel Bridge closed to all traffic.
• August 2: Steel Bridge closed to MAX traffic.
• August 25: Steel Bridge re-opens.
• September 1: Fares increase

Fred Hansen is becoming the Peter Kohler of transportation.

I think it's time to bring back the jitneys ...

I am a transit user and booster. I
really like TriMet. But it can do better. Here is how:

1) Don't make rules you can't enforce. No smoking on the platforms? Great idea- now how about making it so? I used to be annoyed at smokers on the platform. Now I am annoyed at TriMet because they are there.

2)The recorded voice on Max that says "People sitting in the priority seating area are required to move, for seniors and people with disabilities."
What sort of institution badgers its patrons every ten minutes? Face it- those who don't move won't be moved by the recording. For the love of God give the rest of us a break! Stop the patronizing and nagging.

3) Want to be loved? Add coffee cup holders on the Max and see how much easier it is to read a newspaper or book. Coffee cup holders in Portland? Theres an idea I bet would go down just fine.

a guy named t.a. barnhart? i'm now an object, a guy? wow. i need to either trademark or copyright myself. not sure which.

you should know, given the hackles you raise, that one person's rant is another's frustration at 27 years of putting up with a service that makes insufficient effort at being that and never has shown any sign of understanding what it means to be a bus communter. i've paid my TriMet dues, and just because you disagree doesn't make it a rant. or me "a guy." i'm a citizen, a mass transit user (not just here, but in: Billings, MT; Corvallis & Eugene; San Francisco; Seattle; and Bath, UK), and i've damn sure earned the right to tell TriMet they still don't know what they're doing.

i'm glad that despite everything, you at least understood the larger picture: this is TriMet's big opportunity. given their record over the years, i've little confidence in their abiliy not to blow it. i'd like to be proven wrong.

(btw, ride TriMet every day like i do, during rush hour, and then tell me about amazingly on-time.)

If you can't handle being called a guy, I can't help you.

Here's a fantastic gem:
http://www.blueoregon.com/2008/06/debate-the-fact.html

Yeah, I love that "be like a business" crap when it comes to public services: that's the reason why California's and Texas's electric service is the best in the world, isn't it? (I just remember when any number of idiots were masturbating like caged apes about how George W. Bush was the first "MBA President", as if this was anything to brag about, and how he was going to use his keen knowledge of driving companies into the ground to save America. Well, yeah, he ran the country the way he ran his companies. It's just that nobody wants to accept that he specializes in build-to-flips.)

"it actually costs significantly less to drive to most places I visit."

That was true, even when gas was "cheap", and it killed the Red Cars in SoCal

Oh, and Dan? I feel for you on the cup holders. I really do. Unfortunately, that's a whole pile of sanitation worms that you don't want to stick your arm into. It's hard enough to get bus and train users to take their garbage with them when they depart, so you can imagine the thrill of trying to sit down and discovering that someone left their cold-Coke-and-loogie latte in your cup holder. It's even better if it's nearly overflowing, and you've just hit the jackpot when you can't help but brush against it and tip it over when you're trying to get into your seat. If you could expect people to be remotely civil in these circumstances, then cup holders would be a great idea, but the idea behind most public transit buses and trains is to move people from place to place as efficiently and profitably as possible...and getting them to take their shit with them.

(That said, even as a regular mass transit user, I sometimes despair over some of the alleged humans that use my local service. My house is right next to a bus station, so I'm constantly picking up fast food containers and dead beer bottles when I'm not fending off idjits who see me leaving the house and assume that I'll give them a ride to whereever they want to go. My wife had one such character scream at her because "I missed my bus!" and presumed that my wife was going to take her 25 miles in the opposite direction for free. The big oak tree next to the stop is dead thanks to one character who's been using it as his personal urinal for the last two years, and then there's the guy who sliced my garden hose with a razor knife just so he could get a drink from it. Even with all that, I'm still an enthusiastic mass transit user...and I'm just glad that I'm also a renter.)

T.A. Barnhard,
You need to re-calibrate your sensitivity meter, fella.

What class of goods and services is your trademark going to be for? I don't think the PTO has an International Class for "Complaining." Maybe it's time to start riding your bike?

I'm generally a supporter of our mass transit system here in Portland, but as other riders would attest, Tri-Met needs to step up and make our system first class. A few ideas:

1. Don't neglect late-hour routes. I have employees who come in an hour late for graveyard shift because their bus lines are off by 20 minutes or more. This costs business time and money, and workers' grief.

2. Full busses that pass commuters by on major routes are a head-scratcher... add more busses where ridership demands it. Does this really need explaination?

3. Drivers make or break the experience... it's not the best job, but customer service can be lacking. For every amazing and helpful driver there is a surly one. Isn't there enough demand for these positions?

4. Make it nearly impossible to ride MAX without fare. Instead of fare increases every few months, cigarrette butts everywhere, broken validators, and lack of security... why not collect your rightful fare and pay for these things?

The Brand known as t.a. wrote:
" i'm a citizen, a mass transit user (not just here, but in: Billings, MT; Corvallis ..."
===

I was born in Corvallis.

I lived and studied in Corvallis.

I know Corvallis, and the only "mass transit" Corvallis has is the shuttle that picks up little old ladies on Sunday morning for services at St. Mary's Church.

As a business owner who has paid thousands of dollars in TriMet taxes over the past 19 years; I'm still waiting for these jerks to develop a turnstile system for light rail that requires anyone boarding to have paid their fare. Virtually every major public transit system in the country does this. - It's time for TriMet to get serious about the millions of dollars in unpaid fares they are missing out on every year.
(And they have the nerve to whine about increased fuel costs - when a solid revenue stream is totally ignored.)

I have to second the turnstile idea. You can't get on the bus without a valid ticket (or fare or pass). I don't see how this should be any different for the MAX service. Also I wonder how much the strange new design of the the bus mall is costing the operation? I like the busses on their temporary routes better - the stops are cleaner and you don't feel like you are in a dimly lit canyon.

I have been riding TriMet since before it was TriMet. The name that comes to mind is Rose City Transit and the buses ran on overhead electrical wires. That was my childhood, somewhere along the way the transit system became TriMet. I commute everyday during rush hour. I live in what would be described as an inner city neighborhood. My bus runs every half hour. It is not a frequent service line. The bus is consistently late in the morning and late in the evening. The evening rush hour these last two years has been even worse since the construction of light rail downtown started. Traffic is tied up all the time and since the buses are now running on the same street as cars it takes a very long time to get through downtown. I do not use MAX because MAX does not serve the areas I travel from and to. Almost everyone in my building is a bus commuter. Every week, these otherwise sane, rational people will have another rant about TriMet. The most consistent stories are about buses that never show up and about "psycho" drivers. I cannot speak to how TriMet is financed and what the best way to operate a public transit system would be. I only know what I experience in my daily commute, which includes: people who don't pay their fare and do not face any consequences, buses that run consistently late (although on a rare occasion they come early, which is an even greater sin), buses that simply do not show up, probably because they broke down somewhere along the route, on a rare occasion a driver who seems to enjoy his/her job and makes an effort to provide good customer service, drivers who think the bus is a sports car and drive so fast they have to slam on the brakes at every stop light, never mind all the people who are standing and trying to maintain their balance and not fall on top of their fellow passengers, oblivious passengers who are seated in the section reserved for seniors and people with disabilities and who manage to completely ignore the person with the cane who just got on a crowded bus and needs a seat, people who have their personal listening devices turned up so high that we can all listen to the music, and last but not least, every cell phone conversation that starts with, "I'm on the bus". This is the reality of being a bus commuter, not just in Portland; I'm sure every large public transit system has similar problems. However, I am tired of all the apologists for TriMet who tell me it is the best public transit system in the nation and we should be grateful for what we have. Maybe that is so, but in my experience riding the bus is a misery, plain and simple. The buses are getting more crowded, service is getting worse, and now it is going to cost even more to ride.

Larry:

I know Corvallis, and the only "mass transit" Corvallis has is the shuttle that picks up little old ladies on Sunday morning for services at St. Mary's Church.

Your joking, right?

There's eight routes - six running hourly and two running half-hourly - monday through saturday.

I've lived in Corvallis and used it. There could be more of it, and Sunday service would be nice, but it's not bad for a city like Corvallis.

ci.corvallis.or.us/pw/transport/transit/routes.html

"...This may strike some people as unrealistic. The conventional wisdom is that transit
service is inherently unprofitable, so it must be run by a government monopoly. But
the conventional wisdom is wrong. We know that transit can be profitable because
we have a track record of it right here in the Rose City. More than 360 privately
operated automobiles served Portland as flexible quasi-public transportation
between 1914 and 1917. The usual fare per ride was five cents, or a “jitney,” as it
was called then – hence their name.
The freedom of jitney operators from streetcar tracks and governmental franchise
restrictions gave them greater flexibility in destinations than the street railways that
served as mainstream public transit in those days. Jitneys acted as buses, taxicabs
and delivery vehicles, efficiently filling service gaps.
Jitneys came to Portland in 1914 in the midst of a depression which brought 20%
unemployment in its wake. Since there was open entry into the jitney business,
many unemployed people were able to start new transit services simply by using
something they already owned – a car. Jitneys were owned and operated mainly by
the poor working class.
Most of us have never had direct contact with jitney service, but according to
Milwaukie resident John Gray, whose uncle ran a jitney business from 1915 to
1918 in Portland, jitneys mainly served hard-working blue-collar lumberyard
workers. He says, “Jitneys were popular because they were fast, flexible,
inexpensive and ran long hours.”
Jitneys also offered stiff competition to the Portland Railway Light and Power
Company’s monopoly on public transportation by providing faster and more
flexible service to passengers. The Oregonian supported the street railway
monopoly and considered jitneys a “threat to an established business providing an
essential community service.” Editorial writers neglected to mention that the jitney
was a form of unsubsidized transportation directly responsive to popular demand.
The question of regulating jitneys came up continuously before Portland city
commissioners between 1915 and 1917. Once jitney operators realized the huge
degree of hostility they faced from the city Commission, most of them joined a
union affiliated with the Central Labor Council. Eventually, jitney operation
became a ballot issue, and jitneys were regulated out of business.
The real reason why jitneys were regulated out of existence in Portland, as in most
other cities, was because they took passengers away from street railways.
Regulators publicly proclaimed that regulations were intended to make jitneys
“safer” to ride. Expensive license fees and liability bonds were imposed on jitney
drivers, along with absurd rules of operation, ultimately making jitney operation
infeasible.
If jitneys were once regulated out of business because of speculative safety
concerns, next in line should be Portland’s light rail system which has quantifiable
safety concerns. But little can be done through regulation because MAX is owned
and operated by the regulators. As a government monopoly, the system has no
accountability for safety, cost or any other measure of performance.
One way of making MAX accountable would be to deregulate the transit market to
legalize all forms of competition, including jitneys. The modern version of jitneys
could be small buses or vans carrying two or more passengers. Though they would
have to follow some safety regulations and get proper insurance, they should not be
subject to absurd laws like running 24-hour service or employing a minimum
number of people.
Of course, few people would start up a jitney service when TriMet receives more
than $210 million annual in payroll taxes to subsidize its operations. As long as that
revenue stream is monopolized by TriMet, competitors would have difficulty
competing for service. One way to jump-start competition would be to use a
percentage of the payroll tax revenue (perhaps 25%) and convert the funds to transit
vouchers, made available to the lowest-income riders. Such vouchers, as with food
stamps, could be used for any qualifying transportation purchase, including bus,
light rail, taxi, jitney or FlexCar. By making transit providers compete for the
revenue, market discipline would force changes on everyone, including TriMet.
It is becoming increasingly difficult for TriMet alone to expand services to cover
the new centers of business and employment developing around Portland. Jitneys
are perfect for moving people inexpensively in these newly developing areas.
Jitneys were popular when consumers were actually allowed to ride them. Getting
the government out of the way would be a good start to bringing back this low-cost
transit service."
John A. Charles, Jr. Cascade Policy Institute
http://www.cascadepolicy.org/pdf/misc/2007_34.pdf

Ligedog, some cities have the turnstyles, but many others don't. With the DART system in Dallas, Texas, it's a combination of an honor system and a gambling deathwish. DART trains have pass machines at every station, and riders are highly encouraged to pay for a day pass or a monthly or annual pass. It's not required to show any of these before boarding a bus, but DART also has random fare checks throughout the month. Get caught on the train without valid fare, and you get slapped with a first-time ticket of $200, and the police will haul your ass in for further infractions.

Now, a lot of visitors using DART to get to and fro in Dallas ask how this can be efficient. Well, number one, those fare cops usually catch at least two to five scofflaws per train car, so that's $400 to $1000 in revenues per car compared to the $250 per car for the fare-paying riders. Number two, the fare cops generally don't check at night, so all passersby see is a pretty full train in the late evening, making everyone feel better about the use of rapid transit in a VERY car-friendly city. It all evens out.

This article from Urban Habitat is about perhaps the best bus system in the world. Curitiba has received many awards for excellence and it is a run by a government agency that uses ten or more private unsubsidized companies. Much has been written about this, but little or nothing in the Portland media.
I'll post something on the systems in Scandinavia later. Real nice there as well.
Enjoy

http://www.urbanhabitat.org/node/344

Curitiba's Bus System is Model for Rapid Transit
By Joseph Goodman, Melissa Laube, and Judith Schwenk

Bus systems provide a versatile form of public transportation with the flexibility to serve a variety of access needs and unlimited range of locations throughout a metropolitan area. Buses also travel on urban roadways, so infrastructure investments can be substantially lower than the capital costs required for rail systems. As a result, bus service can be implemented cost-effectively on many routes. Yet, despite the inherent advantages of a bus service, conventional urban buses inching their way through congested streets don’t win much political support. The essence of a Bus Rapid Transit is to improve bus operating speed and reliability on arterial streets by reducing or eliminating the various types of delay.

The bus system of Curitiba, Brazil, exemplifies a model Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system, and plays a large part in making this a livable city. The buses run frequently—some as often as every 90 seconds—and reliably, and the stations are convenient, well-designed, comfortable, and attractive. Consequently, Curitiba has one of the most heavily used, yet low-cost, transit systems in the world. It offers many of the features of a subway system—vehicle movements unimpeded by traffic signals and congestion, fare collection prior to boarding, quick passenger loading and unloading—but it is above ground and visible. Around 70 percent of Curitiba’s commuters use the BRT to travel to work, resulting in congestion-free streets and pollution-free air for the 2.2 million inhabitants of greater Curitiba.

The Evolution of Curitiba’s BRT
Thirty years ago, Curitiba’s forward-thinking and cost-conscious planners integrated public transportation into all the other elements of the urban planning system. They initiated a system that focused on meeting the transportation needs of all people—rather than those using private automobiles—and consistently followed through with a staged implementation of their plan. They avoided large-scale and expensive projects in favor of hundreds of modest initiatives.

A previous comprehensive plan for Curitiba, developed in 1943, had envisioned exponential growth in automobile traffic with wide boulevards radiating from the core of the city to accommodate it. Rights of way for the boulevards were acquired, but many other parts of the plan never materialized. Then in 1965, prompted by fears among city officials that Curitiba’s rapid growth would lead to unchecked development and congested streets, they adopted a new Master Plan. Curitiba would no longer grow in all directions from the core, but would grow along designated corridors in a linear form, spurred by zoning and land use policies promoting high density industrial and residential development along the corridors. Downtown Curitiba would no longer be the primary destination of travel, but a hub and terminus. Mass transit would replace the car as the primary means of transport within the city, and the development along the corridors would produce a high volume of transit ridership. The wide boulevards established in the earlier plan would provide the cross section required for exclusive bus lanes in which an express bus service would operate.

A Hierarchical System of Bus Services
Curitiba’s bus system is composed of a hierarchical system of services. Minibuses routed through residential neighborhoods feed passengers to conventional buses on circumferential routes around the central city and on inter-district routes. The backbone of the system is composed of the Bus Rapid Transit, operating on the five main arteries leading into the center of the city like spokes on a wheel hub.

Buses running in the dedicated lanes stop at cylindrical, clear-walled tube stations with turnstiles, steps, and wheelchair lifts. Passengers pay their fares as they enter the stations, and wait for buses on raised platforms. Instead of steps, buses have extra wide doors and ramps that extend out to the station platform when the doors open. The tube stations serve the dual purpose of providing shelter from the elements, and facilitating the simultaneous loading and unloading of passengers, including wheelchairs, efficiently. This system of same-level bus boarding, plus the pre-boarding fare payment, results in a typical dwell time of no more than 15 to 19 seconds at a stop.

Passengers pay a single fare equivalent to about 40 cents (U.S.) for travel throughout the system, with unlimited transfers between buses at terminals where different services intersect. Transfers occur within the prepaid sections of the terminals, so transfer tickets are not needed. Also, located within these terminals are conveniences, such as public telephones, post offices, newspaper stands, and small retail facilities.

Ten private bus companies, which run the actual buses, are paid by distance traveled rather than passenger volume to allow a balanced distribution of bus routes and eliminate clogging of main roads. All ten bus companies earn an operating profit. The city pays the companies about one percent of the bus value per month. After ten years, the city takes control of the buses and uses them for transportation to parks, or as mobile schools.

The Intersection of Transit and Land Use Planning
Curitiba’s Master Plan integrated transportation with land use planning, calling for a cultural, social, and economic transformation of the city. It limited central area growth, while encouraging commercial growth along the transport arteries radiating out from the city center. The city center was partly closed to vehicular traffic, and pedestrian streets were created. Linear development along the arteries reduced the traditional importance of the downtown area as the primary focus of day-to-day transport activity, thereby minimizing congestion and the typical morning and afternoon flows of traffic. Instead, rush hour in Curitiba has heavy commuter movements in both directions along the public transportation arteries.

Other policies have also contributed to the success of the transit system. Land within two blocks of the transit arteries is zoned for high density, since it generates more transit ridership per square foot. Beyond the two blocks, zoned residential densities taper in proportion to distance from transitways. Planners discourage auto-oriented centers and channel new retail growth to transit corridors. Very limited public parking is available in the downtown area, and most employers offer transportation subsidies, especially to low-skilled and low-paid employees.

The BRT—A Success Story
The popularity of Curitiba’s BRT has effected a modal shift from automobile travel to bus travel. Based on 1991 traveler survey results, it was estimated that the introduction of the BRT had caused a reduction of about 27 million auto trips per year, saving about 27 million liters of fuel annually. In particular, 28 percent of BRT riders previously traveled by car. Compared to eight other Brazilian cities of its size, Curitiba uses about 30 percent less fuel per capita, resulting in one of the lowest rates of ambient air pollution in the country. Today about 1,100 buses make 12,500 trips every day, serving more than 1.3 million passengers—50 times the number from 20 years ago. Eighty percent of travelers use the express or direct bus services. Best of all, Curitibanos spend only about 10 percent of their income on travel—much below the national average.

This article is excerpted from a Federal Transportation Administration publication on Issues in Bus Rapid Transit. Bert Arrillaga, chief of the Service Innovation Division in the Office of Mobility Innovation, provided guidance and overall direction for its content. Staff members from both the Federal Transportation Administration and the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center (Volpe Center) participated in its writing.

Buses also travel on urban roadways, so infrastructure investments can be substantially lower than the capital costs required for rail systems.

No doubt. TriMet probably could have purchased a few hundred new buses for the cost of a single mile of the new line in Milwaukie.

The other thing I want to know...if the enviros get their way and the dams are removed, how are we going to power all these electric trains?