Trimess

Monday, March 18, 2013

The Real Reason Behind the TriMet Fare Increases-ATU 757


An internal TriMet document indicates that the elimination of zones pricing and fareless square, as well as last year’s fare increases, were undertaken in order to fund and accommodate a $16 million high-tech fare collection system, says transit workers’ union president, Bruce Hansen. He cites evidence found within the pages of a 64-page document obtained by the Union from an anonymous source.

“TriMet has been telling the media and the public that financial problems and worker health insurance were the reasons riders have seen fares rise and services drop,” Hansen noted. “Now we find that, in 2011, management decided to invest in a new, multi-million dollar electronic fare system. That proposed system required them to raise fares overall, drop reduced fares tied to distance traveled (the “zone” system) and eliminate fareless square. They laid out the plan in 2011 and they followed it . . .in fact, they implemented it early.”  

According to the Union, the document and the proposed purchase raise a number of serious public policy issues. These are:

• If the system is in such financial straits, why does management continue to invest in “bells and whistles” electronic gadgetry that it admits will cost them more to run? Is $16 million a sound public investment during a time when the agency is claiming financial crisis? Especially when history has shown that electronic ticket machines have high failure rates–even when they are brand new?

• TriMet has been experiencing a flat ridership rate for years. Should the cost of a ride keep going up just so TriMet can buy more things and build more rail? Research has shown that, as the fares go up, ridership rates typically drop–particularly during times of economic distress.

During the interest arbitration hearing with the Union, TriMet’s general manager testified under oath that, among other things, the cost of operator health care and pensions had required a fare increase and service reductions. Now it turns out that these changes were planned in 2011 and were all about acquiring enough money to purchase and accommodate new electronic gadgets. Is it acceptable for a public agency to mislead the public, the workers and the courts in this way?

“TriMet’s recent fare changes, coupled with reduction of service, have created a crisis situation for many of our passengers–especially the low income, disabled and elderly,” says Hansen. “Operators are reporting that the two-hour window for transfers no longer works. More and more of our riders are missing their connections. A three-hour window needs to be instituted immediately. People need to understand that, when our riders are stressed, it creates equal stress on the workers who interact with them. That’s because the operators want to help people solve these serious problems but their hands are tied. And, as is human nature, rider frustration targets the operators for decisions over which the operators have no control.”

Hansen made the following observation. “It seems that the primary goal of a transit agency has been lost amid all this capital expansion and technology purchases. We are supposed to be providing good, dependable and affordable service to the community–so good, that they want to use the system. Instead, the cost of having to pay for all these expenditures is making our riders’ lives harder and driving them away. Who decided that our transit system had to be the most new-fangled one in the country? Shouldn’t our primary focus be the passengers and the good of the community?”

(make sure you read the comments)

Attached: Excerpt of Fare System Migration report; Excerpt of testimony under oath
Full report available from the link below. You will need to cut and paste into your browser: 

18 comments:

Al M said...

Lies on top of lies.

Max said...

Bruce is pretty slow to catch this; I noticed it instantly last year when they proposed the changes. I thought I posted a comment to that effect here, but I can't seem to find it.

That said I think Bruce is grasping at straws here --

1) Electronic fares are proven, and they DO save money. Handling cash is very expensive for TriMet -- that's why they want people to buy tickets at grocery stores, or use credit cards, etc - those are cheaper for TriMet to handle. Bill/coin acceptors are unreliable, cash has to be collected, counted, stored, deposited, etc -- all of which costs money. The more cash transactions TriMet can get rid of, the better.

2) If Bruce thinks this is about "ticket machines" then he obviously didn't read the white paper. This isn't about ticket machines, it's about things like the ORCA card in Seattle, or paying using your cell phone, or tapping your cell phone on a reader on the bus to pay your fare,, etc. It's about ELIMINATING (or at least minimizing) ticket machines, tickets, transfers, cash, etc.

3) It's not clear to me that TriMet is being evil - the white paper menions the next steps towards this eventual goal of putting in electronic fares is to simplify the fare system; thus making implementing electronic fares less complex. Simplify by eliminating zones, fareless, etc. These steps not only help to implement electronic fares, but they also save money. It seems natural that if TriMet needed to save money, these are the sorts of things they would implement -- two birds with one stone.


"Now it turns out that these changes were planned in 2011 and were all about acquiring enough money to purchase and accommodate new electronic gadgets."

That seems unfounded to me. Where is evidence that the monetary savings was/will be used for implementing electronic fares?

PMLR is also being built to (eventually) accommodate fare gates; should Bruce blame TriMet for that, as well?

I think Bruce has a valid point in saying that "if you're in financial crisis, why the heck are you spending money" -- but thus far, I don't see any money being spent on this. Transfer printers are not related to this, BTW.

Max said...

BTW: If Bruce wanted to talk about transfer printers as an example of wasteful spending, I might go along with him on that. I think with electronic fares those printers will essentially only be used when someone pays their fare in cash.

Al M said...

APOLOGIST!

Max said...

You can call me names if you want, but tell me where in the white paper it affirms what Bruce is saying.

Where in the white paper is it calling for cutting service in order to pay for more ticket vending machines? The whole point of the white paper is to ELIMINATE things like TVMs.

Al M said...

What that paper does prove is that the fare increases were planned when they published that paper.

They were not as a result of the union health care as Trimet tried to spin later.

Al M said...

During the interest arbitration hearing with the Union, TriMet’s general manager testified under oath that, among other things, the cost of operator health care and pensions had required a fare increase and service reductions. Now it turns out that these changes were planned in 2011 and were all about acquiring enough money to purchase and accommodate new electronic gadgets. Is it acceptable for a public agency to mislead the public, the workers and the courts in this way?

Can you track on that MAX?

Max said...

if anything, the white paper (see page 37-39) sets forth a plan to increase the 2-zone fare gradually until (in 2014) it matches the all-zone fare at $2.50.

Alternatively, it mentions eliminating the 2-zone fare at once, but setting the all-zone fare to $2.30. In the same tone, it also talks about peak-hour fares, increased fares for WES, and various other options that we haven't seen yet.

Again - you should read the white paper before you state what it "proves".

Max said...

"Now it turns out that these changes were planned in 2011 and were all about acquiring enough money to purchase and accommodate new electronic gadgets."

Where's the evidence for that? If that's in the whitepaper, then please by all means point me to the spot - because I read the whole thing last year (or 2011, can't remember) and I don't remember seeing it.

Al M said...

I read it and will post the relevant paragraphs when I get some extra time.

Al M said...

"Now it turns out that these changes were planned in 2011 and were all about acquiring enough money to purchase and accommodate new electronic gadgets."

~~~~>The discussion about increasing fare starts with this paper.
Now it follows then if the discussion about increasing fares is going on in the body of the paper then the rational for the fare increases it to update the technology.

It certainly has nothing to do with the union

Al M said...

In the link below you can see the direct correlations between money and the fare discussion
http://i943.photobucket.com/albums/ad271/TheRantingBusDriver/Capture-2.png

Al M said...

And this is copied and pasted from page 6 of the document:

Fare Policy Considerations
Zones
As TriMet migrates to EFC it has is an opportunity to review and simplify fare policy. TriMet’s current fare policy with multiple zones, discounts and fare instruments is complex and difficult for both the riders and bus operators to understand. New riders and visitors often complain that it is difficult to determine the correct fare to buy. While the intent of the zone system is to provide a reduced fare for short distances, it has inherent inequities, especially for people who live near a zone boundary.
Zone would be very difficult to manage with electronic fare collection, especially when making transfers between bus and rail. It would also require riders to tap on and tap off to inform the system of the number of zones they passed through. Elimination of the zone system would have a positive impact on the customer convenience and cost of electronic fares.
Options for changes in fare policy that should be reviewed include a distance based fare, flat fare, peak hour fare, revision or elimination of the Free Rail Zone, a special WES commuter rail fare and a downtown fare.

Al M said...

This is from page 8 of the document:

TriMet will need to purchase new TVMs for the opening of the Portland to Milwaukie Light Rail Project in 2015. To make the most of this opportunity, some decisions regarding fare policy and smart card technology should to be made in advance of the procurement.

Al M said...

This is from page 43 of the paper clearly connecting the fare increase to the new fare system:

While our research shows that experience at similar transit agencies has not resulted in immediate cost savings, there may be some potential for savings after initial start up in a few areas. First, smart card readers and related equipment have proven to be very reliable, potentially reducing maintenance costs. The full implementation of EFC will allow TriMet to eliminate 10-Ride tickets which means validators will be removed from platforms, saving required maintenance on an entire line of equipment. Second, the amount of cash that needs to be handled will eventually decrease, reducing cash handling expenses. Finally, there is a potential to reduce the number of TVMs needed at platforms.

Al M said...

Now here Max my friend, right off page 57

TriMet cannot afford the system without offsetting cost savings.

Al M said...

And off page 57 I give you this:

General Fund capital costs in 2011dollars range from $13 million for a tap on only system to $20 million for tap on/tap off system. These costs do not include upgrading TVMs for e-fare sales.

So there ya go MAX, its all right there!

Unknown said...

I'm sorry, Al. Although I do believe that the fare increases had little to do with the union, there's little in the snippets you just posted that says the fare has to be raised because of the purchase. The "TriMet cannot afford the system without offsetting cost savings" hints to the need of finding money somewhere, but not necessarily a fare increase. You are looking for something that really isn't in what you're reading. I don't want to have to disagree with Bruce, But this is not evidence enough for me.