Trimess

Saturday, April 6, 2013

Sounds correct to me

Saving Transit by Shrinking TriMet

In the past eight years, the all-funds budget for TriMet has gone up by 125%, but transit service has dropped by 14%. This trend will only get worse. In what future historians likely will refer to as a suicide note, TriMet recently predicted that within seven years, much of its bus service will have to be cancelled due to the high costs of operation.

Several bills have been introduced in the legislature to address this problem. Rep. Chris Gorsek (D-Troutdale) is sponsoring HB 3316 to expand the TriMet board and change the board composition. This bill is tentatively scheduled for a hearing on April 15.

Sen. Alan Olsen (R-Canby) has sponsored SB 826, which would allow local jurisdictions to leave TriMet at any time, for any reason.

Both bills actually could be combined. A more diverse board could bring better oversight, and allowing cities or counties to leave the district (as Wilsonville, Sandy, and Canby already have) would encourage innovation and reduce TriMet’s unsustainable operating costs.

After 44 years, it’s time to admit that TriMet has failed. Its cost structure is too high and cannot be reformed. The policy objective from now on should be to serve transit riders, not the TriMet bureaucracy. Transit advocates should speak forcefully to these points at the April 15th hearing in Salem.

John Charles | April 3, 2013 

4 comments:

Jason McHuff said...

I'm pretty sure "all funds budget" includes capital project and other restricted funds which are totally separate from operation funding and cannot legally be used to fund service. It's comparing a basket of apples to one with oranges added when you only want to make apple juice.

And of course his idea of "innovation" would include lower compensated employees.

Al M said...

I'm aware of lower compensation employees, I'm all for it.
But its got to include and start at the top, not the bottom

Erik H. said...

I'm pretty sure "all funds budget" includes capital project and other restricted funds which are totally separate from operation funding

It does, however, include transfers from the general fund to the capital projects (and other) funds - which means TriMet has taken operations revenue away from operations, in order to increase capital projects funding.

However, the new capital projects require additional funding without a corresponding increase in the operating budget.

Thus - service decreases because TriMet is becoming less of an operating agency and more of a construction agency. Isn't that what Metro is supposed to be, while TriMet is supposed to be focused on operations? Today there is virtually no difference between Metro and TriMet, and money is freely moved between the two.

However, there is far greater separation when it comes to the cities/counties and Metro, so breaking apart TriMet, or at least making it more directly accountable, or allowing other jurisdictions to split from TriMet, would hold TriMet accountable to its fiscal shenanigans.

The only people happy with TriMet's status quo are those who directly benefit from massive light rail projects. Which is roughly 1% of the region's population by ridership, plus some developers, construction companies, and of course multinational German-based conglomerate Siemens AG.

Jason McHuff said...

transfers from the general fund to the capital projects (and other) funds

And some of those transfers are for vital maintenance and replacement projects which are very needed (I believe bus replacement is an example). Moreover, the transfers are far outweighed by non-operations funding from other sources.

However, the new capital projects require additional funding without a corresponding increase in the operating budget.

But there is an increase in the operating budget. TriMet is getting a legislature-approved increase in the payroll tax rate, which is (at least partly) dedicated to capital projects and the new services that result.

In addition, with the Portland-Milwaukie Line there will be savings from being able to replace the current bus service on McLoughlin Blvd north of Milwaukie.

Isn't that what Metro is supposed to be, while TriMet is supposed to be focused on operations?

No. Metro just does "high-level" planning and TriMet has always overseen the construction of it's projects.

Today there is virtually no difference between Metro and TriMet

It is clear that Metro does "high-level" transportation planning (among many other tasks) and that TriMet just builds and operates transit.

and money is freely moved between the two.

Most (if not all) money stays at it's respective organization. Metro does not give TriMet money to run transit, and TriMet does not give Metro money to run the zoo or oversee waste disposal.

The only people happy with TriMet's status quo are those who directly benefit from massive light rail projects.

Given that there is not a huge uprising to change things and that it's far from certain that things will change in this legislative session, that does not seem to be the case.