Right now, we are funding our infrastructure at 3rd world levels. The problem is not spending, the problem is revenue. These programs should stay in place, and we should continue to build infrastructure, but we can't do it with deficit spending.

Congress acts like they are spending "other people's money". They're not. They are spending my money. What would happen if the feds stopped funding local projects and instead lowered taxes? Local governments could then make a decision on what projects are important, raise taxes as needed, etc... Wouldn't this be a better system? If more light rail lines are important for Portland, then we can pay for it. If we don't think we need it, then in exchange we get lower taxes.

The time has come for us to stop looking at the feds as a never ending source of cash. It's not just a Portland issue, all of the country should be looking at it like this. If we want to fix this economy, the behavior in washington needs to change and this starts all of us not looking to Washington as an endless bank account.

They are talking cutting service and raising fares,
yet the executives are being added by the dozens

They say "that's all funded by the Federal government"

POINT MADE CASE CLOSED!

And we are not getting that right now, as I said some of the points are worthy of thought.

The main point I like in the article is the stuff that has been getting funded, how can you argue with that?

Washington is a stinking mess, and that is not news!

What I do like about the crazy conservatives, is that they are throwing the whole thing out of whack, its not business as usual.

And if they want to "privatize" so what, as long as they start from the top down.

See, "privatization" means only the working stiffs like me.

All the government hot dogs get to keep their lucrative fat cat jobs with fat cat pensions.

I sent a public records request to Trimet asking for the pension amounts for Fred Hansen et al, still waiting for a response.

I do not consider myself a "conservative" in the sense of the tea party, but I am a "free market thinker" in the sense of Stefan Molynuex and the Daily Bell.

We have no free market in this country right now.

This bickering over the federal dollars is bickering over fat contracts and who will be reaping the pork.

I can assure you whichever way it goes the transit dependent passenger will get diddly squat.

It almost sounds like you would prefer no federal funding for transit at all, as that would prevent transit agencies from building things like light rail. If that's the case, be careful what you wish for...

At any rate, both houses are probably playing a little bit of political theater. The Senate GOP probably would be not be supporting the reasonable bill (especially by wide margins) if it stood a chance of passing in the House. Two years ago it was the Senate which was the primary impediment to legislation, with Republicans (and some Democrats) tossing the occasional spanner into the works. But even if too late, assistance with operating grants would be helpful.

As to the merit of conservative arguments regarding the failure of government--if you think government has failed, it's a good practice to ask why. I can assure you that you won't like the answer you'll get from conservatives (who will doubtless blame you and your comrades for insisting on a decent wage; and ignore the starve-the-beast politics that have been going on for a generation). Many failures of government are because it's been set up to fail, by folks who want it to fail--either because they don't like paying for services which benefit someone else, or else because they want a piece of the action.

Too little too late Scott, they missed the boat, as usual.

I know I know I am chirping like some sort of wild eyed conservative BUT THERE IS TRUTH TO THE CONSERVATIVE ARGUMENT.

Y'all know it's true, I look at the state of Transit in the USA right now and can say unequivocally that THE GOVERNMENT(S) HAS FAILED THE PEOPLE THAT NEED TRANSIT THE MOST!

Now try to read this article with an open mind and don't just freak out because it is from a place that sends chills up the spine.

I do NOT agree with various points in this article, but there are many truths within it also:

Transportation Program: Reauthorization Another Big Spending Problem

http://www.car2go.com/

http://www.careerbuilder.com/JobSeeker/Jobs/JobDetails.aspx?sc_extcmp=JS_JobAlert_Title&ipath=PSSKG50&psa=1&Job_DID=JHL6696S23VCB9HDW8Z

I've used this service in Austin while visiting and found the no-reservations, one-way, park-anywhere concept to be much easier to use than Zipcar if you just need to get somewhere now. Of course if you need more space than a smart car, Zipcar would be the way to go.

the folks least able to pay right now are the ones who are going to be hit the hardest by this. If they are going to raise the base fare by 20 percent, they need to drop this one-way stuff and make it a 2 hour ticket. that is the least they can do.

the most? start making real cuts to middle management like the state is doing right now to try and reduce the pain for the people they serve.

Of course, the Senate bill is likely dead in the House, as the lower chamber seems to be more interested in waging cultural war against hippies, libruls, and the fake Americans who infest the nations cities, than they are in governing the country, but c'est la vie.

(My use of French there is intentional.)

http://www.columbian.com/news/2012/feb/02/transportation-bill-amendment-requiring-vote-crc-b/

The only place in America were more than half of commutes take transit is NYC!

The rest of the country COULDN'T CARE LESS!

It's been that way for a long long time.

The money that was in the transit pot wasn't helping people get to work was it?

Billions of dollars were being (and still are) handed out to transit districts for everything except preserving transit!

So in a sense, who cares, nothing the federal government puts its hands on is helpful to the population as a whole anyway.

Who cares what dumb thing the FED's come up with, I'm sure the money will go down the drain no matter what.

A statement which is far less true of the younger generation, than it is of us old farts. :)

And I don't think anybody's suggesting a bill that would eliminate funding for roads, and only build transit, bike, or pedestrian infrastructure. Even if SOV traffic were greatly reduced, we still need to have a way for trucks, busses, emergency vehicles, carpools, and other motorized tire-on-pavement vehicles to get around.

But adding highway capacity generally doesn't improve congestion much. Eliminating bottlenecks can help quite a bit--the widening of US26 between Sylvan and 185th (and the improvement of connecting ramps, particularly to OR217 and Canyon Road) has helped, but two things conspire against you the wider you make the roads:

1) Beyond 6-8 lanes of freeway, diminishing returns takes effect, as the chances of an incident-caused traffic jam increase with the additional traffic, and at wider footprints, lane navigation becomes a bigger and bigger problem. (One thing I like about Portland's freeways is they DON'T have the massive networks of collector/distributor ramps typically found in other cities).

2) Induced demand comes and smacks you on the bottom: More capacity attracts more cars.

Of course, #2 works for transit as well--provide more and better transit, and more people will consider using it. Provide one slow bus and hour, and the only people who will use it will be those with no other choice.

Most Americans drive, they don't use transit!

Which of course is not good for pro transit activists, of which I consider myself one.

So if you look at it from the point of view of ordinary every day Americans, they want roads!

And that is what the house is giving them.

Hell I want roads too! I am sick and tired of sitting in traffic jams for what seems like hours.

They opened up the third lane of HWY 26 and boy does that make a difference.

So I am just saying, it depends on your point of view.

Such a proposal might be beneficial to active transportation in Oregon, if one of two things happened:

1) State excise taxes on fuel were raised to compensate for the elimination of the federal tax, and the current law requiring the excise tax on fuel to only be used for road projects were relaxed; or

2) Some other tax, not encumbered by state law, were raised instead.

Of course, the argument for devolving decisions on transport infrastructure from Uncle Sam to the states, could be extended to local government as well--with ODOT limited to building regional transportation links such as highways, and cities, counties, and MPOs having powers to build whatever local infrastructure suits them.

If your goal is just to provide basic transit service for the poor, then you probably don't need rapid transit. If your goal is to provide service to a broader segment of the population, then rapid transit becomes a need.

Apparently, the House bill now has language which takes additional whacks at transit:

http://action.smartgrowthamerica.org/o/5184/t/0/blastContent.jsp?email_blast_KEY=1193437

Also, the article shouldn't be construed as a whole-hearted endorsement of the Democratic party, who (as you note) spend a lot of time pandering to the same interests that the GOP likes to pander to. (One reason that there hasn't been a new transportation bill, even during the prior Congress, was lack of support among conservative Dems, plus use of the filibuster). OTOH, the current bill is best understood as a giant raised middle finger to the nation's cities.

Ya I know, I think its a good thing, I take it HOME from a trip all the time.

I don't take it too the airport, it takes too long and when you add that to the hour your supposed to be there ahead of time anyway, forget it.

I do believe that DEMOCRATS had both the senate and the house, as well as the office of the PRESIDENT, and what came out of that?

Nothing that I can remember.

Oh yea, Obama care, which sent insurance industry stocks to 52 week highs. (you know its bad for people when its good for the stock price)

I know a lot of people that had to move on to rail lines after their bus service got cut.

It was meant to be sarcastic not literal Scott!

And I'm decidedly not of the opinion that what is bad news for bus is good news for light rail--I consider them to be complementary parts of a transit system, not competing modes in some zero-sum game for funding. In a healthy transport network both rapid transit and local service are needed. Bus, rail, I'm not too particular; though given the amount of ridership MAX gets (and the nature of its right-of-way), rail was probably a good choice. (Which is not to say that BRT might not be a better choice elsewhere).

I don't think there's anyone here at Portland Transport who is "anti-bus", other than the occasional right-wing commenter who is anti-transit altogether.

‘Social Equity’ to Be Weighed in U.S. Transit Funding Rule - Bloomberg

Bus service is getting whacked and the rail service ends up getting the extra "transit dependent" riders who have been forced to move onto rail lines:

Mass Transit's State Of The Union: Room For Improvement

Tourists love it, they also love riding the free streetcar and the Tram, that's wonderful for them!

In London, you can take the tube to Heathrow for 2.90 pounds. That's close, if you ignore the exchange rate, of course...

Public transportation prices in 80 cities around the world

And where else can you take a beautiful, fast rail system to an international airport for $2.40?

Got to wondering if these are perhaps being phased out? Haven't been around here much lately, sorry if I missed any previous comments to that effect if this is so? Just curious if anyone knows anything, or has run into this themselves...

Anyway, growing up in Tualatin I used to long for the day when MAX would go through there, and so I might be biased here, but I would think that routing the SW corridor through Tualatin would be far better than Sherwood. The stretch of 99W from King City to Sherwood would be such a dead zone for transit that it just doesn't seem like a good place for HCT, and it's outside the UGB.

I think I saw on here a while ago some ideas thrown out that basically would have a LRT line as a tunnel which would be able to serve OHSU, perhaps Hillsdale and Multnomah Village, and then Barber Transit center and PCC, and surface from then on. I love that idea, though it sounds like wishful thinking. I'm not sure how I would feel about a LRT line just going down Barber, which, for most of the route, is the ne plus ultra of auto dependent suburbia. If the plan sticks closely to Barber blvd, then I would think BRT would probably be better suited for the situation.

1 zone $2.05 outlets only
2 zone $2.05 at outlets (abolishes need for 1 zone)
$2.10 on bus
$2.70 at TVM
All zone $2.35 at outlets
$2.40 on bus
$3.10 at TVM
Day pass $4.90 at outlets
$5.00 on bus
$6.95 at TVM
Passes 2 zone/All zone
7 day $21/$24 at outlets
$27.50/$31.50 at TVM
14 day $41/$46.50 at outlets
$53.50/$61 at TVM
30 day $81/92 at Tri-Met office only
Monthly $81/92 at outlets
$106/$120.50 at TVM
1 year $891/$1,012 by mail only

Boy, would this *ever* cut down on expensive TVM use!!!!

If someone is employed, they may well need a monthly pass and probably can afford one.

There were several bus lines and a few train lines within a few blocks of my house, so they were ideally suited for short trips... I could step out my front door and catch a bus - and with the excellent PDXBus app for my iPhone I could tell if a bus was coming within a block or two and if not I would walk but if so I would jump on a bus.

If I had to pay the full 3 zone price I would not use transit and would lean towards my car when I didn't want to bike.

I would say that if someone can't walk or bike 1.5 miles and has access to a car, it makes more sense to drive than wait for transit just to take a short hop. If you don't have a car, a monthly pass probably makes sense.

I would also add that in many cities, parking is expensive enough that $5 would be a small price to pay to take transit. Unfortunately, Portland has chosen the path of cheap or free parking that makes transit very uncompetitive.

Transit generally is not good for short trips. Walking and biking are cheaper, better for health and the environment, and faster for short trips than taking transit. Not only that, people making short hops on buses slow down the trip for everyone making long trips. That is one unfortunate effect of the free rail zone and fareless square before it--all those free riders slow things down for the people who really have somewhere far away they need to get to.

So I say, let transit be the favored mode for long-distance travel, and let the pricing reflect that. That said, I still support a cheaper central city fare just to encourage residential and employment development in the central city and to support tourism.