I asked a trimet guy about those two stops. Seems they couldn't figure out how to change the computer to eliminate them.

Pretty lame.

Thanks
JK

I believe those stops are for "Cascade Station" a commercial development on PDX property wiich is sceduled to include, among other things, IKEA. It involves some all to familiar names. For example:

http://marketing.trammellcrow.com/portland/cascadestation/index.htm

http://www.portlandonline.com/planning/index.cfm?c=dgbac

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/business/1144896933205910.xml&coll=7

"I asked a trimet guy about those two stops. Seems they couldn't figure out how to change the computer to eliminate them."

Shhhhhh!

Now they'll advertise for six new postions to solve the "problem".

Yesterday riding in on the 15 to downtown everytime the bus door opened the bus announced that 'This bus is not in service', the driver would just tell people to ignore it she couldn't shut it off. To hear that the Max stops automatically at abandoned stations because no one can figure out how to make it not stop kind of creeps me out. Sort of like a Philip K. Dick novel.

Yeah, but Dick wrote fiction.

Those are the stops where in the future you can do things like load up all your new Ikeaware onto the train!

Yeah, I pictured a red-faced fat guy loading on with a bookcase. That and the air passengers with their suitcases will make quite a mix.

But hey, if you're going toward town and all you've got with you is a laptop, it's a heck of a cheap ride.

Perhaps TriMet could offer them as satellite camping spots for the denizens of Dignity Village.

Erik, take note!

Watch...they will build an "Ikea" train car...sponsored by U-Haul so you can strap-in your furniture.

Of course, saying the Ikea store is "transit-oriented" kinda falls flat when they also have something like 1300 parking spaces in the plans....

Are we about done with our Tri-Met bashing? For $2 you get a comfortable, reasonably quick ride to or from the passenger terminal at the airport. $.80 if you're 65 or over. Every 15 minutes or so. What's wrong with that?

The condo buzzards aren't circling because the FAA won't let you build tall condo towers there, something about interfering with aircraft. For some reason they don't understand that Vancouver-style point towers are so wonderful and cool that mere safety concerns have to take a back seat.

So clearly we're going to have to move the airport ASAP, otherwise those condos will *never* get built.

I understand the Port of Portland owns a chunk of undeveloped land somewhere out near Molalla, so maybe we can build the new airport way out there, plus a new MAX line to the new airport. And the Graggster can fantasize at length about maybe getting Calatrava to do the new terminal. It'll be a whole new barrel of fun for everyone.

I agree entirely. Sure, it could be a little quicker if they'd eliminate those unused stops for the time being, but it's a minor annoyance. Overall, the airport MAX is a wonderful service. I travel very frequently and use MAX every time. It sure beats making someone circle the baggage claim area indefinitely while I wait for my bags, especially at heavy travel times.

It all depends on our definition of "bashing". Also our notion of "comfortable" and "reasonably quick". Odd that we left out "convenient"

It also depends on our view of the amount of public subsidy per passenger MAX soaks up v. the benefit, doesn't it? Ask Karlock about that.

Lastly, the "sensitivity factor" can't be ignored.

We all worry about that.

Only $2? I thought the actual cost of a MAX ride from the airport was closer to $20 -- the same fare as a taxi or a rental car when avis is running a special.

I guess that covers it. I wouldn't call it "bashing" to say that MAX (like Tri-Met generally) is inconvenient for many, slow for most, and very expensive for all (taxpayers). That said, since it's already there, if you're not in a hurry, by all means, take it.

The comments about Dignity Village, phantom stops, Ikea U-haul etc. are jejune crap.

rickyragg: It also depends on our view of the amount of public subsidy per passenger MAX soaks up v. the benefit, doesn't it? Ask Karlock about that.
JK: Glad you asked.
Over 80% of the cost of trimet comes from taxes, not the farebox. Allan’s $2 ride becomes $10. Except that is a system average and rail is more expensive, depending on the line. Rail averages about the same as taxi fare per passenger mile. For some estimates see: http://www.saveportland.com/Car_Vs_Tri-Met/energy-cost-death-02d.htm

Another way to look at is to take the price of a monthly pass and calculate the true cost by including the non-farebox cost:
Monthly all zone pass cost = $74
times 5 (inverse of 80%) = $370
For reference, financing a $10,000 car (ie: new KIA) at 3%, 5 years = $180/month

Thanks
JK

The comments about Dignity Village, phantom stops, Ikea U-haul etc. are jejune crap.

I've always wanted a subtitle for this blog. "Jejune" definitely ought to be in there somewhere.

Monthly all zone pass cost = $74
times 5 (inverse of 80%) = $370
For reference, financing a $10,000 car (ie: new KIA) at 3%, 5 years = $180/month

Ah, but the smell of the deranged guy sitting next to you? Priceless.

"The comments about Dignity Village, phantom stops, Ikea U-haul etc. are jejune crap."

It all depends on our definition of "jejeune crap".

Of course if that's your area of expertise, I, for one, meekly submit to your superior knowledge.

Jim's seeing if you're stupid.

The price he quotes is just the price for the car that sits in your driveway. If you want to pay insurance, gas, repairs, oil changes, and for the roadway and congestion given to other roadway users -- the costs of serving the car go up just a smidge.

If you want comparables, take the capital costs of all the TriMet buses, divide them by the TriMet service region. Then compare that to the stupid little Kia.

JK,

What is the cost per taxpayer for improvements and new construction of roads and highways? Should you not factor those costs in to the price of the taxi and KIA as well?

Also, your monthly Trimet pass is all inclusive. Your Kia would only cost $180 while in the driveway. Factor insurance, gas, and maintenance in addition to the subsized roads and let's see where the comparisons end up.

If you truly want to capture the real costs of auto use compared to mass rail transit, you have to also factor in all the costs to taxpayers for the auto's share for subsidized oil/gas exploration, environmental monitoring, clean-up, and related intangibles.

Finally, if you want to get really "crazy" about cost comparisons, how about we factor in how much our nation spends in national defense assets to maintain oil/gas supplies or protect oil/gas supply lines in the open seas and abroad. Then there are the associated costs of pollution and global warming related to auto use.

The maintanence and construction costs for road and light rail are what they are. Rail may be more expensive at the lowest tier of cost analysis. However, my premise is, your first tier cost analysis fails to capture the complete costs to taxpayers, especially in the NW where BPA uses significantly proportionately higher renewable energy resources compared to the rest of the nation.

Thanks.

Jesse O The price he quotes is just the price for the car that sits in your driveway. If you want to pay insurance, gas, repairs, oil changes, and for the roadway and congestion given to other roadway users -- the costs of serving the car go up just a smidge.
JK: Car comes with 5y, 50,000 mile warranty. Bumper to bumper. I have a feeling you can get insurance and gas for $190/month.

Jesse O If you want comparables, take the capital costs of all the TriMet buses, divide them by the TriMet service region.
JK: You forgot to add the cost of the driver (KIA includes driver - you) and central office. Just look at the operating cost (including amortization of assets) and divide by output: passenger-miles. That is what I did (although I left out some amortization, so my number should be lowball)

Jesse O Then compare that to the stupid little Kia.
JK: You mean the KIA that picks you up at your door, instead of a 1/4 mile away. Even in the rain and snow. You mean the KIA that is roomier than the bus and lacks a nearby drug deal? You mean the KIA that is filled with comfortable, clean, germ-free air with pleasant music of your choosing? And a holder for you cup of coffee?

Thanks
JK

Don't forget the intagibles, Jesse. A car affords WAY more convenience than public transportation.

So the extra $$ spent on a "stupid litte Kia" is still a better investment than public transport.

Of all of my fond TriMet memories—the overcrowding, the people falling on each other, the coffee mishaps, the bickering drivers, the passengers that expose themselves, the endless explanations of regulations, the loud cell phone users, the deranged methadone clinic rejects, the getting sick all the time—my favorite is when I stood waiting with a crowd of fellow riders at a stop after work downtown one rainy winter day and a guy hung out of the passenger window of a passing pickup and mockingly hollered, "Don't worry! The bus will be by any minute now!"
True, you could holler the same thing to people waiting for the Max at the airport, but somehow it just wouldn't be the same.

Chris,

Personally, I find for day-to-day commuting that the bus is more convenient. When I drive, I spend my entire commute focused on driving. When I take the bus, I can catch up on reading all the way home and the 1/4 walk to my house helps me put work behind me. I simply am more productive taking the bus.

That's great Travis. However, many don't live anywhere near a bus stop -- or want to take a bus to another bus to Max to another bus to their destination.

If TriMet was truly convenient, no one would be driving and the roads would be nice and clear.

So much for Portland's 'world class' public transportation system.

I'll avoid some of the other comments for now, but the answer to your "why the train stops there" query is thus:
Those stops are included now (even though unused) so as to maintain correct timing in the system when they are later in use. Otherwise, the system would have to be debugged each time those stations came on line in the future; easier just to stop there now and not have to re-figure the timing later.

"If TriMet was truly convenient, no one would be driving and the roads would be nice and clear."

If that's really what you want from a "world class transit system" perhaps you ought to be looking for one that uses magic carpets.

The last time we took MAX home from PDX (about 6:00 p.m. on Monday 11/13) there were 4 homeless people who boarded at Parkrose, each carrying a large tarp/sleeping bag rolled up and a hefty bag full of personal belongings.

Then two tweakers (no teeth, sunken eyes, with bad skin problems) boarded at the next stop, with their bikes. They disembarked at the Lloyd Center.

Besides my family, the only other passengers were all wearing PDX badges.

The total ridership on those 2 max cars (before crossing the river):

3 travelers coming home from the airport
4 PDX employees
4 homeless
2 drug addicts/bikes
3 teenagers (who boarded at the Rose Garden)

Seemed kind of light for 6:00 p.m. on a weekday.

I guess the more strident critics of Tri-Met here think we should not have public transit. As an example of that model, I would recommend you take a look at Manila. It's illuminating.

Allan L I guess the more strident critics of Tri-Met here think we should not have public transit.
JK: Try this:
1. Open the mass transit market to anyone - the only requirements for entry are safe driving, safe equipment and insurance. We would soon have a pile of options: taxi, jitney, bus.
2. The only subsidies are to the low income, like food stamps. (We don’t subsidize food for the wealthy, why should we subsidize transit for the wealthy.)
Or:
1. Supply subsidized small car to every able to drive person who cannot afford a car.
2. Supply taxi vouchers to people unable to drive AND unable to afford taxi fare.
3 Go to the above

Bet it would save the region a few hundred million every year and give better service to the needy.

Thanks
JK

Mister Tee, try squeezing onto an east bound blue line outta downtown that same time of day and you'll forget about what you think's some little hidden inefficiency that only clever little you-who-takes-the-max-at-least-twice-a-month-thank-you-very-much noticed.

To guys like you, the max is some funny little novelty train that you and your family take a few times a year to the airport or to your Blazers game (to which you drove to and parked near, say, Widmers, and then waltzed over to the "free" stop on interstate). To those of us who work downtown, rest assured, the thing's used, tweakers and all.

JK is right on target.
There may be any number of things in Central America to complain about, but transportation certainly isn't one of them. Never will you have so many options for exhilaratingly rapid transit as in Tegucigalpa. Collectivos alone could utterly transform the speed, comfort, cost and profitability of mass transit in a city like Portland. When, for example, was the last time you were waiting for a bus and a taxi pulled up to ask if you wanted a ride for the same price? I might gladly walk to the bus stop if there were a chance of that happening. Poetry in motion, baby!
No, the workaday culture in Central America is certainly closer to the capitalism we extoll than what we have here; I don't know what exactly it is we have, but it seems to involve funding one great system and then trying earnestly to perfect that system for everybody's purposes. JK may be right on target, but we really, truly, honestly do no have a culture that can accomodate anything like the collectivo. Which is awfully sad. If only because it limits our complaining to only just the one great system we have.

Those stops are included now (even though unused) so as to maintain correct timing in the system when they are later in use. Otherwise, the system would have to be debugged each time those stations came on line in the future; easier just to stop there now and not have to re-figure the timing
later.

What cr*p. Man, take a look at what you just wrote! It makes no sense, unless you're a public employee, which I'll bet 10 to 1 you are.

I hope your comment was a joke.

--There may be any number of things in Central America to complain about, but transportation certainly isn't one of them.--

ahhhaaa hhaaaaa! Thats the funniest thing I've read in months! Brings me back to sitting on the hottest buses at noon high broken down with chickens flapping around. Oh and the dust! yeah the transpo is simply amazing there.

"what you just wrote! It makes no sense"

I may be mistaken, but I recall that a portion of the line north of Gateway is a single track, shared by trains moving in both directions. If the timing is computer-controlled (which may or may not make sense), then the statement makes sense. We probably don't want trains using the same track in opposite directions at the same time.

MAX is a useful form of public transit, especially during rush hour. The point of my (above) post is that many MAX lines are underutilized even during "peak" hours (Interstate/Yellow Line and the return from PDX). Despite the "rush hour" utility, a 24/hour cost/ridership analysis shows it remains the most expensive form of public transit on a capitalized per passenger mile basis.

Most importantly, I distrust TriMet's published ridership numbers: they have inflated their numbers by counting the tweakers (who generally ride free), the homeless (ditto), and the miscreants who were only induced onto MAX by the ever expanding "fareless square" and lax fare enforcement. Ditto with the streetcars.

Last Friday afternoon, I also watched as the Street car sat idle for ten minutes...it was stuck in traffic behind a block long line of cars waiting to turn right onto a street which had one lane closed for construction. Most of the passengers were disembarking to walk home....Go By Sidewalk!

I think Mister Tee has a point or two: the slower the transit system, the fewer customers. The more customers, the less cost per ride (up to capacity). It seems to me, too, that Fareless Square is a bad idea altogether. There should be a fare, and it should be enforced. For too many people, free is a synonym for worthless.

Mister Tee, try squeezing onto an east bound blue line outta downtown that same time of day

Relax, man. I ride it downtown every day for work too (only because parking is so expensive)....but just wait for the next train. Its always damn near empty.

Last Friday afternoon, I also watched as the Street car sat idle for ten minutes...it was stuck in traffic behind a block long line of cars waiting to turn right onto a street which had one lane closed for construction. Most of the passengers were disembarking to walk home....Go By Sidewalk!

No kidding. I have walked faster than the streetcar more than once near the university...without construction going on.

(We don’t subsidize food for the wealthy, why should we subsidize transit for the wealthy.)

We dont. The wealthy dont use it. They are the ones who can afford to park their cars downtown. (Or their job gives them free parking.)