public transit
Taking a Lesson in Boise Public Transit
Take a city with the same population as Boise but give it four times as much public transit money. What would it look like?
By Sharon Fisher, 8-11-09
There’s a Northwest city. The population of its metropolitan area is 272,000 (according to COMPASS, the Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho). Government is one of the larger employers. It has a major university with a large, popular football team, in which the entire state takes pride. And as described by Wikipedia, “The city is also noted for its natural beauty, activist political leanings, alternative lifestyles, recreational opportunities (especially bicycling, rafting, and kayaking), and focus on the arts.”
The city isn’t Boise. It’s Eugene, Ore. And it has one major difference from Boise: it spends four times as much per capita on public transit than Boise does.
What does Eugene get for its money? Despite some proponents’ love affair with light rail, Eugene’s public transit system is based on buses. The Lane Transit District operates more than 90 buses during peak hours, and carries riders on 3.7 million trips every year. It runs between 5 am and 11 pm on weekdays, 7 am and 11 pm on Saturdays, and 8 am to 8 pm on Sundays. Reports indicate that ridership is steadily increasing. Adult fares are $1.50, or $45 for a monthly bus pass. Buses are typically 10 to 15 percent full, according to John Dahl, operational training supervisor for LTD, though it goes up during the school year.
In recent years, the system has added a Bus Rapid Transit line between Eugene and Springfield, where—like Idaho’s Nampa to Boise—many Eugene workers live. The bus line has its own lane, meaning it doesn’t get stuck in traffic, takes 10 to 15 minutes, and is essentially 100 percent full, Dahl said. In fact, this fall the system will be expanded. The success of this program has changed the system’s goals a bit, he said. Originally, the plan had been to ensure that there was a bus within two blocks of every resident. Now, it’s to connect outlying towns.
There are, of course, differences between Boise and Eugene. Like Portland—indeed, like all Oregon cities—Eugene has an “urban growth boundary” intended to help reduce sprawl. The result is that it increases density—and increased density makes public transit easier. Eugene’s density, according to Wikipedia, is 3500 people per square mile, while Boise’s is about 3,200.
But there’s one other, bigger difference. How is it that Eugene can do this, and Boise can’t? Because in Oregon, the Legislature has given cities local option taxing authority, which allows residents of those cities to decide for themselves whether they would be willing to pay a tax for public transit operational costs (the cost of running the system day-to-day, not building it).
Consequently, Eugene has such a tax, and has since 1971. Instead of being a sales tax, it is based on payroll, and currently is slated at .0065, or $6.50 per $1,000 of payroll, though it will gradually increase to .007 by 2014 and possibly .008 by 2022.
Idaho is one of only four states that does not offer a dedicated fund for mass transit. In 2008, Legislative leadership proposed a Constitutional amendment that would have allowed local option taxing authority, but which hamstrung it so much that it would have been essentially useless—and, as a Constitutional amendment, essentially unable to be changed. In 2009, Speaker of the House Lawerence Denney, R-Midvale, flat-out refused to consider any local option taxing authority bill unless it included such a Constitutional amendment provision.
[End of article]My! My! Still pining away for public transit, are we? To what purpose? Public transit doesn't decrease congestion, air pollution or auto usage. Is it just fun to figure out another way to tax people? Bus transit consumes far more energy per passenger mile than cars. If a typical bus is loaded 10 to 15%, its still burning almost as much fuel as a fully loaded bus. In fact a few small econo-cars carrying only the driver (SOV) are loaded about 25% and together waste less energy that a 10% loaded bus.
Comment By Andrew Studley, 8-12-09Actually, Mickey, the Eugene numbers that Sharon's article points to, includes fuel cost per bus mile of about 45 cents. That's about 4 times the fuel cost per mile of a typical US compact car costs (for example, 27 mpg, $3/gallon). So as long as the average bus has more than 4 times as many passengers as teh car, it's actually more fuel-efficient per passenger mile.
That may be too generous to the buses, because sometimes a car can travel a shorter route than the bus can, saving some fuel relative to the bus's fixed route. But that might mean the bus has to average 5 or 6 times as many passengers as the car, to beat it for fuel efficiency.
Cost/pass.-Miles--Bus(system average) $0.835--Lowest cost bus line in Portland--$0.34 Car (using national data- adjusted for Portland) $0.254 per pass.-mile--2005
Comment By Mickey Garcia, 8-12-09Comparative energy consumption: btu/pass. mile; Car, hybrid--1326--Car, efficient--2488 (2006 KIA Rio)--Transit bus--4160 (national average)
Comment By ralleuc, 8-12-09you guys are forgetting about the citizens who cannot afford to own their own cars. $1.50 a ride is affordable if you can walk most of the places you are going (another reason density is important) and only need to take long trips occasionally. Even if a person rode the bus everyday, it would still be a lot cheaper than the maintenance, insurance and initial purchase price of a personal vehicle.
So, fuel efficiency may not be the only way to measure public transit utility.
Mickey, though you don't give a cite, you state that the number you use for bus efficiency is an average. The article was about a particular city, Eugene OR, which appears to be doing better than average, and asked what we might learn from it. I already pointed to the "fuel cost per mile" in the Eugene report, which is half that implied by the average you point to. The key is ridership: a 68-passenger bus is a horribly inefficient way to move 3 passengers, but a good way to move 60. That tells me that the key to an efficient public transportation system is to carry passengers, not empty seats. Eugene seems to do a better job of that than does Boise, which helps explain why the people of Eugene are willing to pay extra taxes to have that system in operation.
Comment By Mickey Garcia, 8-12-09If you want to subsidize transportation challenged people like the very young and the very old, there are cheaper ways to accomplish this than having fixed route buses driving around driving around mostly empty. If you want to subsidize low income able bodied working age adults, it would be much more cost effective to subsidize a lease on a econo-car. There are plenty of studies that indicate that auto ownership provides access to more employment opportunities for the working poor than a fixed route bus or rail system.
Comment By Jim Hyder, 8-12-09It is too bad the GOP of Idaho is so bumfuzzled. The legislature could do the right thing with a little butt kicking on the people's side. If enough men and women get together and tell their congress to get the lead out it will work. Believe me it will. When enough folks say "Enough!" loud enough the wheels will roll in the right direction.
Comment By sharon fisher, 8-12-09Jim, I think you're right; last legislative session, Representative Mike Moyle was starting to say he wouldn't be invested in a constitutional amendment, and Governor Otter also seemed to be on the fence about it. So more pressure always helps. The problem is that the question of local option taxing authority gets conflated with public transit itself, or even specific public transit options, so that instead of talking about whether people can make their own decisions about local option, the discussion becomes one about public transit.
Mickey, there are many other factors to consider besides cost per passenger mile, even assuming your figures are correct. There's the fact that the Treasure Valley is on the verge of nonattainment in terms of air quality, the limited space in which to expand roads, and the quality of life issue. When I rode the bus to Boise, I could read the paper or study and make use of the time.
So if a bus system doesn't decrease congestion, or air pollution, or energy use per passenger mile or auto use, exactly why are some people so hot to trot for a bus system or a light rail system? It seems to be that belief in public transportation is faith based not fact based. It also seems to me that the public should be wary of public policy based on "visions" and plans concocted by people who think they know better than the people themselves, where and how people should live and transport themselves.
Comment By sharon fisher, 8-12-09Mickey, I am not convinced on your say-so that what you cite are facts applicable to Boise.
Again, what needs to happen first is to give the people involved the right to decide for themselves, and *then* we can look at the implementation details of what public transit system, if any, it might make sense to use.
Eugene is protected by flood by Federal dams, fish blocking dams. Eugene has a socialist electric power provider and producer, Eugene water and electric board, EWEB, which recently made an agreement to buy "green" biomass generated electrical power from a locally owned sawmill, but no until the contract stipulated that there would never be a stick, a chip, a needle from Public Lands would be used to produce the power they buy. You see, they have independently deemed public land biomass Al Gore "non-sustainable." Never mind that the majority of Lane county, in which Eugene sits as county seat, is either USFS or BLM checkerboard revested railroad lands.
Oregon has requirements about having a percentage of power produced or sold by providers being "green", or alternative non fossil fuel generated. Of course, with generous tax credits, grants, all the foofraw that comes with making baby choke down the cod liver oil of forced power productions. But you do have the local communist power provider's board making demands that go way beyond the State and Federal mandates. I have lived in the real world long enough to know that all that paper work and guarantees are going to be tough to enforce. Like, where is the evidence? You can brand a log. Can you brand brush? Pecker poles? What a joke!!! Sham governance. Green crap. That is what you find in a sick baby's diaper. Green. Green and it stinks!!! But add yellow and you have a Duckies fan. Which Boise will remember after this September. Boise will feel like it was run over by a bus. A green bus. Full of hippies, malcontents, the just plain weird, and the yuppies working towards an MBA...or on a law degree or looking to become urinalists. All using biomass generated power that does not EVER include a fiber of wood from public lands.
Yes, Bearberry, But what do you think of the public transit systems in Oregon, especially around Portland? You're from that neck of the woods, aren't you? You must have ridden some of them, right?
Comment By Mickey Garcia, 8-12-09Well I have to agree that there are two separate issues. 1. Should local units of governments be able to raise voter approved supplemental taxes? 2. Smart growth & public transit are really cool! On number one I'd say yes, up to a point. On number 2, I'd say you been brain washed. A good place to read about the facts and stats. supporting the other side of the story is debunkingportland.com
Comment By sharon fisher, 8-13-09I checked out that site and was happy to see it had some items about the tram, because I saw that when I was in Portland. However, of the three links for the tram, one only went up to 2007, and the other link was dead.
Portland is, of course, a way, way different case from Boise, and I wouldn't try to compare them or suggest that Boise should be doing the same sorts of public transit things as Portland.
But before we can do *anything*, we need to have a way to fund the operating expenses, which is where the local option comes in.
Thanks for the link; I'll bookmark it for future reference.
The thing about Portland is that it is held up as a model for smart growth policies because the area has implemented these policies(urban growth boundaries, regional government, infill, public transit, etc.) for about thirty or more years. But, in most cases, the negative consequences of smart growth policies are ignored by brain washed acolytes of smart growth. debunkingportland.com helps set the record straight.
Comment By bearbait, 8-13-09Bear Bait's experience with Portland TriMet is the payroll tax...and years ago. Like 1980...I was logging out of Detroit, east of Salem. Evidently the one unit was in Clackamas county near the Cascade summit. I got a tax evasion notice replete with penalties and nasty lawyer letters. I had never paid my TriMet tax on payroll for the Tri county area for the time we worked in that unit. The money was negligible and their effort was not. Gee. We worked sixty miles from the end of the bus line, and access to the job was through Marion county. Another of those "Gee, we know this doesn't make sense, but the law is quite clear....."
Other than that, I have no need for public transportation. That is an urban deal, and really about parking. Every auto has three places it is occupying by intent: home parking, job parking, and the moving parking spot on the highway. Each car has a potential need for 60 feet of space 8 feet wide. That is why public transit is needed. But the policy makers want the most expensive and least diverse kinds of transport, rail, when bus can serve a more varied and changing need.
Light rail is very, very expensive. All the money, mostly Federal money, Idaho taxpayer money, spent on Portland's light rail was spent while they drug their feet on treating sewage and storm runoff. We had a some rain yesterday, and today you are not allowed to swim or fish in the Willamette River, due to sewer overflows and mixing with the storm water. The billion dollar big dig tunnel is far from finished, and that collector system will help take care of maybe 95% of the problem. The old system was all storm water and sewage, went to the treatment facility, and when it rains 0.15", then the slop over into the Willamette occurs. The news helicopter always shows the mallards picking at the floaters in the brown plume in the green water of the Willamette.
Spending is about priorities and who has the ear of the spenders. It is evident, using other people's money, Portland wanted light rail, and got it. That they continue to shit in the creek while demanding dams be taken down is disingenuous, if saving salmon is an issue. Light rail runs on electricity, which has to be an ever increasing percentage from new, renewable sources like wind and solar. So the electric trains create demand for electrical power at the same time the same people demand closing of the huge coal fired plant that is 40% of the use from the same people riding on the electric trains.
If Idaho wants electric light rail, and salmon, they had better configure some dams to allow salmon passage, and the 4 on the lower Snake are not the culprits that block fish. Those are the likes of Dworshak, Hells Canyon and how many above it? Walk the talk.
Billions into Portland light rail is not Oregon money. That has been Federal money, an addition to the deficit, and there are pieces of it that baffle me. The new section now close to finished took away any lane expansions of I-205. They just built it on the westbound outside lane expansion land. Pushed the envelope, too. A clogged freeway can carry ten times as many people per mile minutes than light rail. It would appear that limiting traffic to go with a low passenger minute mile efficiency is terribly expensive for what you end up with. But, Portland being Portland, they make those decisions all the time, but still fail to educate their kids to national standards, have no solutions for homelessness, can't slow down the gang violence, light rail is now spreading the criminality equally to all sections of town served by light rail, and it looks nice, is handy for some and not a realistic path for others, and if it has replaced the much cheaper bus alternative, you do have to wonder for what reason? Government having a new widget? If you used to be able to get there by bus, and now you can't by light rail, and the bus line has been ended, did it really help the poor? Is it for lower income people, really, or is it a function of gentrification and appealing the young, hip, bicycle rider in bad weather, a life style provided at great public expense. Many ways to look at it. The elephant in the room, as always, is expense. It might be better public policy to provide each person with their own serviceable, durable, brown paper bag bicycle. The City buys them for citizens. All the same. A three hundred dollar bike, 3000 for a million bucks, 30,000 for ten million bucks, might be a lot better deal. Paint the lines and be bike friendly, and in winter allow buses to run in the bike lanes in the snow and ice. Chained up, of course. Alternative thinking. Rights of way, and the limits of walking in bad weather, the parking issues, all come with light rail. And, when you have a small rodeo, and the electric train runs into something or over somebody, and it will happen, you are stuck. The rail is closed. Nobody goes home or to work until the accident investigation is over, wreckage removed, working rolling stock in place..there are no one lanes to open and the slow unclogging. Light rail stops, and it all stops. Not some are inconvenienced. All are inconvenienced.
Bikes first, bus second, commuter trains from outlying areas third, and light rail far behind. If replacing the auto is what the discussion is about. And then you have to have inner city round about transportation for people who can't ride a bike, or walk that far...bus, cab, a combination....
And it all costs a hell of a lot of dough, and none ever pays its way, so a payroll tax will be included. You will pay more for less. That is how it works. And then everyone gets used to it, and it becomes a way of life, and nobody cares. You just have to get there from here. Us old farts have to die. And we will. Just give us time.
"But, in most cases, the negative consequences of smart growth policies are ignored by brain washed acolytes of smart growth."
Things are so much better in Montana and Wyoming where growth is left up to individual decisions--as it should be.
I don't know whether all of Wyoming and all of Montana have no zoning regulations, but if they do, I expect it's because those states are relatively small in terms of population. There are parts of Idaho with low populations that also don't have zoning restrictions. Once you start getting over a certain number of people, though, it becomes more of an issue, especially in terms of planning for infrastructure such as water, electricity, sewer, and roads.
I'm not suggesting an urban growth boundary like Portland's for the Treasure Valley. That ship has sailed. If Boise had had one 25 years ago, things would be very different now, with a much denser Boise and much less developed farmland in the area, but at this point, I don't know where you'd put an urban growth boundary, unless you circled the Treasure Valley altogether and gave up on any agriculture between Boise and Nampa, and I sure wouldn't want that.
Wups, that was me, sorry.
Comment By Mickey Garcia, 8-16-09Restrictive zoning and restrictive land use planning raises the costs of housing making it unaffordable.
Comment By Ruth Merrill, 8-17-09Another perspective; I teach English as a Second Language. These classes are free to adults and our student base is made up of refugees and immigrants. When we were affliated with BSU, our program was able to offer free bus passes. We have lost that opportunity. Our students need that option. They are either unemployed or under employed. Ride the bus, see the face of Boise.
Comment By Mickey Garcia, 8-17-09So why have they been cut off? The bus hasn't stopped running has it?
This article was printed from www.newwest.net at the following URL: http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/taking_a_lesson_in_boise_public_transit/C564/L564/