Security or just trying to hide something?

Portland OR - The Oregonian reports on a Tri-Met decision that would allow the transit system to further isolate itself from the public. This move is being repeated across the country as well and has allowed public transit systems to literally make up data that it spoon feeds to the public.

Light rail critic Mel Zucker recently asked Tri-Met for ridership data for analysis on a proposed rail line. He was denied for security reasons. What Zucker was requesting was the raw data, something most transit systems are reluctant to give up to start with, but the excuse of security is a rather new method of refusal. The excuse is one that is sure to come up more often in our post 9/11 world.

The problem as I see it is this. The new cover for public transit gives the transit systems a free pass to make up any data they wish and there will no longer be any way to verify it's accuracy. This data, such as ridership numbers, are used by transit systems to justify costly transit projects as well as the running of routes.

Public transit systems have always manipulated their data and have been reluctant to reveal the true raw data. Under various state and local laws, this data could be obtained if you were persistent enough. Now by using the catch-all term security, these systems can keep critics at bay and ram through expensive transit projects as the critics no longer will be allowed any access to the needed data to show that the project is not needed. In short, a critic now can only state opinion and observations and have no real data to back them up and the transit system is free to greatly manipulate its data to fit whatever they wish to do.

This move to hide behind the shield of security comes at a time when public transit systems are all finding themselves in a cash crisis. They are demanding more of the public's money and now can freely manipulate the data they spoon feed to the public through the media without the fear of being caught manipulating the data.

Even the media will be effected by this new method. Currently the media can get much of this information but sometimes needs to go to a local or even state court to get the release of data. Now the stakes are raised and the media will be forced to go to the Federal courts to get any information from the transit system beside the manipulated data that the system wants to spoon feed to them. A much more costly and time consuming proposition.

I can see the need for heightened security towards the data, even as far as a background check to obtain the requested data. What Tri-met is doing however is blocking off all access to the data and thereby giving itself the autonomy to make the data fit what they want it to fit without any chance of being discovered.

My take on this move by Tri-Met is this. Tri-Met has been caught with its pants down a few times with manipulated data that they used to ram projects through with. They now are ducking for cover and using a Federal law to hide behind so that they no longer have to answer their critics and can be free to spend whatever they wish on whatever project they wish.

The taxpayers who have to foot the bill for public transit spending sprees and the critics that look for waste in the industry have now had an important avenue of checks and balances closed off to them.

Tri-Met earns a Lance for trying to keep the public in the dark while they continue to pick their pockets to fund their operation and various spending sprees.

LTD's on-time rules gives it's new EmX a black eye

Eugene OR - A story in the News-Review tells of a problem I knew was going to happen on Lane Transit District's (LTD) new EmX Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system.

The tight schedules the LTD has for their EmX line simply don't allow for any type of delay. Well, what happened on Tuesday, January 25th on the EmX line shows that they need to rethink their schedule.

A father took his young kids on a ride on the new EmX line and while departing the bus, the doors closed and his 5 year old son and 2 year old daughter were on the outside while he was on the inside. Even through pleas of the father and other riders, the driver followed the rules and refused to stop and let the father off until the next stop which is 2 blocks away.

The driver is getting the bulk of the blame in this mess however, the LTD should be where the bulk of the blame is directed at. If the driver did what common sense called for, he would have risked his job for failing to obey the rules and delaying the precisely timed route.

The issue in this is the precision timing of the route that does not allow for any delays. You also have the fact that many of the stops along the line are left hand station stops along a busy road median strip and once you pull out of the station, it is unsafe to discharge anyone.

The LTD needs to allow for delays in service. The situation that happened on Tuesday should not be allowed to happen again because the drivers have to meet a strict schedule. I called this problem of not allowing for delays in an earlier Laurels & Lances column.

The LTD needs to remember that delays happen and drivers need to be allowed to be able to make judgement calls without fear of any reprimand being placed in his employee file.

At least both kids were safely reunited with the father so there is a good ending to that part.

The streetcar debate rages in Madison

Madison WI - This is a two piece article, all in one, regarding the streetcar proposal in Madison.

Two interesting articles were posted in the Madison Capital Times that I felt needed to have some additional comments made on them.

First, in a commentary for the Capital Times, writer Rob Zaleski gives an overview of Little Rock, Arkansas' trolley operation as food for thought regarding the streetcar proposal in Madison. A few items I disagree with based on past knowledge of how cities do things. Primary in my disagreement is where development is discussed.

A good part of the development occurs at the taxpayer's expense. Through grants, tax breaks to the developer and low interest loans (which are often not repaid), developers will come in to build. The issue is that the development is attributed to the rail line without any mention of what it actually cost the taxpayer to get the development there in the first place.

This tactic conveniently ignores the fact of why the development happened and is a good example of the spin used by the pro-rail crowd when trying to ram another rail line through. The dirty little secret is that the development would happen with or without the rail line as long as the developer received the taxpayer supported monetary incentives to build.

Beside the development issue, there was also mention of the "cheap" fares. While it is mentioned that the Little Rock trolley is hurting the bus system by not allowing it to expand to where it needs to, it omits the point that the "cheap" trolley fares are being subsidized by the much higher bus fares.

The high ridership of the trolley line is a direct result of the "cheap" fare for the rail line. To charge the full bus fare on the trolley route would deeply cut into the ridership numbers that the transit system and the city need to justify the trolley line.

The second part of this article deals with an article in the Capital Times that makes the claim that rail doesn't hurt the Portland bus operation.

Using FTA and APTA reports, the writer, Ward Lyles states that rail service has not effected the bus operation. He fails to mention that those numbers are highly massaged numbers and often are off by 30% or more. It's not just rounding up to the next highest 100 or even 1,000. TA's have a mathematical formula they use to calculate ridership which includes a fudge factor that is manually applied to get the numbers they want to see or in some cases, have to see.

Transit systems routinely massage ridership numbers and other data to generate what they and key officials want to see. We, the general public, will rarely get to see the true raw data used to generate the numbers that are reported to the government and to the APTA industry trade group. All we usually will ever see are the post massaged numbers with no explanation as to how they arrived at the numbers in question.

That's where the pro-rail crowd gets much of their power, from the government and industry approved final numbers that they love to wave around. If one were to actually look at the raw data before the transit systems massaged the numbers, one would find much of the success in many rail lines are grossly exaggerated.

City leaders and transit officials have to cover their butts when pushing for expensive projects like rail. In my home system, I have had internal reports of dropped ridership on the LRT line yet when the raw data is processed, it suddenly turns into an increase in ridership. They manually increase the raw ridership numbers to show an increase. The reason in my home system? To try and justify an unneeded rail extension that they ultimately can't afford to operate.

"But it will bring development and help the region's economy" they state. Wrong, the development is occurring because of the two stadiums. By the time all is said and done, the pro-rail crowd will be claiming the two stadiums were built because of the rail line. As far as helping the economy, the transit system can't afford what it has now and is planning a major hack and slash of service and jobs. How does cutting entire sections of the county off from transit and eliminating jobs help the economy?

The bottom line should be "can the system afford to operate what they so desperately want?" In many cases, the answer is no but through political spin and waving heavily massaged ridership reports around, city and transit officials, along with the pro-rail crowd, convince themselves they can make it work.

The Great Streetcar Hoax

Randal O'Toole has a very interesting article in the Madison Capital Times and went into why the current streetcar bandwagon is more of a hoax being perpetrated on the public than anything else. I encourage everyone to read it.

In the article, he goes after the "Holy See" of the modern day streetcar movement, Portland Oregon. Portland is always the example used by cities when they come up with plans for a streetcar line. The plans for the any new streetcar line usually include a trip to Portland as well, at taxpayer expense of course.

The pro-rail movement has so distorted the truth regarding the Portland streetcar line that one can't come away without thinking it's a roaring success. Even the city and transit system buries the problems when visiting officials make the pilgrimage to see the line.

O'Toole goes into the development factor along the Portland streetcar line and how the development happened through taxpayer subsidies to private developers. Just from the taxpayer subsidization of the private development, Portland taxpayers are stuck with a quarter million dollars of debt. This doesn't include the cost to build the line or to operate it.

The pro-rail crowd will never admit that the majority of the development along a rail line demands government subsidies to entice developers to build. What we get from them is that development always follows rail. They'll deny up one side and down the other that the development occurs primarily from fleecing the taxpayers through, often times, quietly issued government subsidies to the private sector.

Mention is also made of how the streetcar line effects the rest of the Tri-Met operation in Portland. Fare hikes and service cuts were needed to help keep the trolley running which resulted in reduced ridership on the system. While the streetcar wasn't the direct cause, it sure didn't help the finances.

Again, the pro-rail crowd will never admit that a streetcar line will effect existing service except to improve it. They claim that the streetcar will enhance service by attracting people to ride system-wide. The reality is the exact opposite as the streetcar doesn't come anywhere close to being cost efficient and siphons money from the rest of the operation to keep it running. That money comes from cutting service elsewhere.

I still believe that political legacy plays a huge part in why cities are jumping on the streetcar bandwagon, something O'Toole doesn't address. What he does address however, is very scary to read. Knowing more about how much pro-rail rhetoric is spun in order to hide the actual facts is something every citizen should know.

Again, I encourage you to read the O'Toole article. It's very insightful in exposing the streetcar hoax.

LTD's EmX is running a little late

Eugene OR - The Register-Guard paper out of Eugene OR report that the test runs on Lane Transit District's (LTD) new EmX Bus Rapid Transit project are running behind what they were hoping to see.

The LTD wants buses to run the line between downtown Eugene and downtown Springfield in 16 minutes. Tests have the buses completing test runs anywhere between 13 to 19 minutes or longer with drivers simulating stops. They expect to see lower times once drivers get used to the operation and learn the ropes of pulling in and out of the stops and using signal priority.

I see a small problem here and that is the LTD is putting a very narrow time period on the route and expects it to be even less as time goes on. Even if this was a rail line, the margin of time allotted is narrow and can easily be blown by issues such as slow passenger boardings and other unexpected delays.

I think the LTD will find their time estimate of 16 minutes is too low once the operation is open to public ridership.

Rushing the EmX timing, as it appears is being done, can create safety issues. As drivers try to make time on a tight schedule, mistakes become more common as little things like checking mirrors before pulling out, jumping a traffic signal a second or two earlier, speeding and other issues can put people at risk.

Safety should not be compromised just to meet a schedule. While the LTD admits they may have to adjust the schedules to allow for a slower running time, it would have been more prudent to initially make the running time slower and then adjust it up from there rather than make a fast schedule right out of the box.

Bend's new transit system has more problems

Bend OR - Bend Area Transit (BAT) has more problems with their new transit system besides just buses that are breaking down. The Bend Weekly reports that a lawsuit has been filed against the transit system stating that the bus stops are not accessible for the disabled.

The Oregon Advocacy Center (OAC) has filed a complaint in the United States District Court alleging that the City of Bend and BAT have not made the system's fixed route bus stops accessible.

Even though BAT blew it with the bus order which was chronicled here earlier in the week, I find this particular lawsuit as more of a nuisance suit and here's why. The transit system is less than a year old and not every stop in the service area can be "brought up to ADA standards" that quickly, In addition, some stops probably can't be brought up to ADA standards without spending millions to redo the roads and sidewalks.

There is not one city that has 100% of their bus stops fully accessible. The transit systems and city government will deal with such issues if complaints are made to them. The problem is that advocacy groups such as the OAC want things done yesterday and it doesn't matter how much the cost is as long as someone else pays for it. Further wasting taxpayers money on nuisance lawsuits isn't going to bring these changes any faster. All it will do is raise taxes and further hurt the fledgling transit system.

BAT has been trying to work with the disabled community since before service started but as usual, advocacy groups have to complain about something. Within the disabled community, legal ADA standards aren't sufficient for some.

While there is room for improvements, the OAC lawsuit tells me that there were options given to them by the city and BAT which didn't meet their demands. As advocacy groups tend to use the position of "it's our way or else" in working with public transit systems, past history tells me more about what is going on here than the news story ever could.

This story has made me think on one issue. That one issue is my position on moving service from areas that don't utilize it to areas that will. If advocacy groups like the OAC will file lawsuits over every bus stop in a brand new system, why would transit systems want to utilize service efficiently. To do so means they'll get sued by some advocacy group that is having a slow day.

The Lance goes out to the Oregon Advocacy Center. By filing these nuisance lawsuits, they are doing nothing but helping to price public transit out of the marketplace.

Bend Oregon's new bus system "breaking down"

Bend OR - Bend Oregon recently purchased 6 used buses from Transit Sales International (TSI), a third party vendor of used buses, to start up its new bus system. The problem was that Bend's transit officials didn't do their homework according to a news story from the Oregonlive.com website.

Bend purchased second hand buses for much more than they were worth and literally let TSI hand them the stereotypical used car salesman lines to cover over the problems of the buses. The buses were sold as having about 1/3 less miles than the buses actually may have had. They also had a multitude of mechanical problems which were unreported to Bend officials.

The mechanical problems are what is causing the headaches for the transit system. As the system is dependent on the 6 buses that make up Bend's fleet, having buses breaking down can literally grind the entire operation to a halt.

While second hand buses are routinely used in smaller transit systems across the United States due to being a fraction of the cost of a new bus, they usually don't all come in at once and are scattered over various years to avoid what is happening in Bend, an entire fleet failure. Bend's entire fleet is comprised of the 6 used buses which were all built in the same original order for the Utah Transit Authority.

What happened in Bend was that city officials started a transit system on the cheap and are being burned for it now. Bend was in such a hurry to get a transit system running that they didn't think of the problems they may encounter. They rushed out to buy buses and quite literally grabbed the first buses they saw on the lot which were cheap and looked halfway decent.

Not doing the needed research is what got Bend into this mess. City Purchasing Manager, Bob Griffith, admitted "We normally don't research vendors. It might be something we should consider, particularly out of state like this and this much money."

That admission, on its own, is scary considering that the city is spending other people's money which is ultimately obtained through taxes. It also shows that the city isn't a good steward of the taxpayer's money if they'll give it away without doing the needed research to show that the money is being spent wisely. The statement also shows that Bend officials haven't learned their lesson as the statement clearly states that they "should consider" researching vendors rather than saying they will research vendors from now on.

Now, Bend may face spending much more of taxpayer money to initiate legal action as well as buy replacement buses in addition to the extra money already spent to make a multitude of repairs on the existing buses. While the city residents can and do utilize the transit system, Bend another example of a city that can't afford to run a system but has one. Given the number of cities that are like this, I really am expecting to read in the media soon that Bend is planning a Light Rail Line or a downtown trolley line. It would fit in perfectly since they can't afford to run what they have now.

While TSI is hardly blame free in this situation, the city officials in Bend get the Lance for not doing the required research needed to spot potential problems before entering into a purchase agreement. By not doing their homework, they now have the task of repairing the bad image their already struggling new transit system now has. In addition, the extra costs associated with the poor decisions made by city officials will ultimately hurt the transit system.

Another Poll: Surprise - We Want LRT...Maybe...

Clark County WA - The Columbian reports on a recent poll suggesting that 68% of Clark County residents favored placing a light rail transit (LRT) line into Vancouver Washington and 76% of the 3 Portland Oregon area counties favored extending the existing Trimet line from the outskirts of Portland Oregon into Clark County Washington.

800 residents were polled in a 4 county area. There were two polls done with each one being done for 400 respondents. For the Clark County portion, which I'm focusing on, we have this: There are over 400,000 residents in Clark County alone and 400 were polled. 180 of the 400 come directly from Vancouver with the remainder scattered throughout Clark County. Vancouver represents 39% of the county's population but the poll skewed to 45% of the respondents being from Vancouver.

The poll, commissioned by the Columbia River Crossing (CRC) group, leaves a lot to the imagination. The CRC is a government formed group from both Oregon and Washington states which is attempting to come up with options for the I-5 corridor over the Columbia River.

Looking at some of the internal information in the CRC poll, LRT was not the main choice:

When asked what choice they prefer for the I-5 corridor, this was the result:

• Combined
• 35% - Add a third lane in each direction of I-5
  28% - Replace existing bridge with wider lanes/Transit options
  19% - Extend light rail into Vancouver and north into Clark Co
  7% - Replace existing bridge and add more lanes for auto traffic
  5% - Incentives for business to offer flextime/work from home
  3% - Motorists would pay a fee to use I-5 during busy times
  3% - [DON'T READ] DK
• Tri-County
• 34% - Add a third lane in each direction of I-5
  28% - Replace existing bridge with wider lanes/Transit options
  21% - Extend light rail into Vancouver and north into Clark Co
  7% - Replace existing bridge and add more lanes for auto traffic
  5% - Incentives for business to offer flextime/work from home
  3% - Motorists would pay a fee to use I-5 during busy times
  3% - [DON'T READ] DK
• Clark County
• 42% - Add a third lane in each direction of I-5
  30% - Replace existing bridge with wider lanes/Transit options
  13% - Extend light rail into Vancouver and north into Clark Co
  7% - Replace existing bridge and add more lanes for auto traffic
  5% - Incentives for business to offer flextime/work from home
  2% - Motorists would pay a fee to use I-5 during busy times
  2% - [DON'T READ] DK
  

When asked for their second choice in the I-5 corridor:

• Combined
• 19% - Replace existing bridge with wider lanes/transit options
  16% - Add a third lane in each direction of I-5
  15% - Incentives for business to offer flextime/work from home
  14% - Extend light rail into Vancouver and north into Clark Co
  13% - Replace existing bridge and add more lanes for auto traffic
  6% - Motorists would pay a fee to use I-5 during busy times
  16% - [DON'T READ] DK
• Tri-County
• 19% - Replace existing bridge with wider lanes/transit options
  15% - Incentives for business to offer flextime/work from home
  15% - Add a third lane in each direction of I-5
  15% - Extend light rail into Vancouver and north into Clark Co
  13% - Replace existing bridge and add more lanes for auto traffic
  7% - Motorists would pay a fee to use I-5 during busy times
  16% - [DON'T READ] DK
• Clark County
• 20% - Replace existing bridge with wider lanes/transit options
  19% - Add a third lane in each direction of I-5
  15% - Replace existing bridge and add more lanes for auto traffic
  13% - Extend light rail into Vancouver and north into Clark Co
  13% - Incentives for business to offer flextime/work from home
  5% - Motorists would pay a fee to use I-5 during busy times
  15% - [DON'T READ] DK

That is hardly a ringing endorsement of light rail when 13% of 400 Clark County respondents state LRT as their first and second choice and only 21% on the Tri-County area responded with LRT as their first choice and 15% as their second choice. More respondents over the 4 county area favor replacing the bridge with a wider bridge and other transit options than favor LRT. Other transit options doesn't mean light rail as LRT was a separate available answer.

Another question in the CRC poll mixed LRT with bus lanes in the possible answer and that question got a 49% approval. Again, hardly a ringing endorsement of light rail and a loaded question as it mixed modes.

While LRT was heavily favored when asked strictly in the context of public transit, the other poll questions, such as the ones above, place LRT as being the primary choice in doubt.

There also at least three important classification question missing from the poll however and they needed to be asked. Those poll questions should read something like "Do you take transit?", "If so, how often?" and "Would you use transit if your choice was built?"

Those three questions were needed in my opinion and I'm sure a few other classification questions regarding transit and car usage to better determine the mindset of the poll respondents. Just because someone favors LRT or some other form of public transit in a question designed to choose the best transit mode doesn't mean that they'll actually use it if built.

I really haven't trusted polls in years. None are accurate and most are agenda driven. Every group out there cherry picks the results and tries to claim that the poll, such as this one, is accurate and represents the wishes of all of the population. Many polls these days are push polls however, the CRC poll wasn't all that bad in terms of loaded questions but it did lack some needed questions.

Given that Clark County soundly voted down light rail in the past, I seriously question the poll results. I know I don't trust the cherry picked results being reported by the media. Given the extremely small sampling of residents and questions that were missing, the poll can hardly be used to say X number of people in the county support this but sadly it is being used just that way.

While the LRT extension is far from a done deal, look for the released, cherry picked, poll numbers to be highlighted in every news story about transportation issues in the Clark County area as well as being used to obtain Federal funds for a preliminary report. You'll most likely see a pro-LRT group sprouting up in Vancouver to shout down the opponents of any LRT project before 2007 ends because the CRC poll suggests most people want this.

What is at stake with this questionable CRC poll are hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars, not just in Clark County or the Tri-County area in Oregon but nationwide as 80% of this project will be funded through Federal tax dollars. While this poll alone won't cause the line to be built, the poll will be cited time and time again to further push the idea that Vancouver Washington needs to have an LRT line at taxpayer expense to ease traffic congestion.