Un-fare Play: Will TriMet's Giant Ticket Price Increase Deter Mass Transit Ridership?

Everybody knows the cost of gas and oil has gone up enormously. That's no different for TriMet, which runs 643 buses and will use 6 million gallons of diesel fuel this year. When they forecast gas prices in their 2007 budget, TriMet figured on $2.31 a gallon. Last week, they were paying $4.

So it's not surprising that the transit agency is increasing fares by 14%. But is it the right thing to do?

The Oregonian seems to think so. An editorial in today's paper says the agency is "headed down the right road with its plan to raise transit ticket prices." Their argument was basically that the agency will be in massive debt if they don't. The editors also cite the other source of TriMet's funding, a payrolll tax levied on employers, which actually accounts for 57% of the transit agency's budget. "But the Oregon legislature has long since capped the agency's payroll tax rate, so here in the short term  fare increase looks like the only answer."

Am I the only one thinking this just isn't a good enough justification?

In a time when America is choking on the cost of petroleum, TriMet is creating a financial deterrent to taking the bus. For people like me who live close in and can walk or bike places, it doesn't matter much. But there are scores of thousands of commuters who each day face the decision of whether to get in their car and have an easier, faster time of it, or to get on the bus and get there much slower with a full load of passengers, some of whom don't shower regularly or take manners hints from Heloise.

Maybe the Oregonian editors are correct that there's no other short-term solution for TriMet than an appalling counter-intuitive fare increase that will hit the poorest Portlanders first. But instead of acting as apologist for this disappointing move, I'd rather see the paper advocate for a new funding mechanism. After all, affordable transit, to put it in the paper's language, is 'How We Live'. (Also known as 'Living'.)

Several years ago I was having my taxes done when the H&R Block accountant pointed out the payroll tax I was paying, which was probably about $50. Since about half of the agency's funding comes from this tax, he argued, If TriMet would double the fee, everybody in the city could ride buses for free.

I'm not necessarily suggesting we should double the employer tax. There's probably a more equitable way to raise those funds. But at the fare box on buses and trains shouldn't be the way. Is the Portland metro area really so impotent in its ability to properly fund TriMet that it has to raise prices to the level where it doesn't make sense for individuals to take the bus anymore? How about a city gas tax? A fee levied on registration for automobiles selling  above $25,000?

If Portland is really the greenest city in America, we can do better than pricing our prized mass transit system out of the range of fair fares.

Comments

[Nikos]

How is 14% a "giant" increase. Are blogs succumbing to the sensationalism print newspapers and TV have been afflicted with for a long time? Civic mindedness does not work in this country, if the (increased) fare is less than the (more expensive) gas, people may (or may not) take the bus.

[Anthony]

According to AAA, gas prices have gone up 24% in the metro area over the last year...and now TriMet wants to raise fares 14%. So although gas prices have gone up significantly more than bus fares, somehow this is going to be the magic number that prices people out of taking the bus?

[kathleen]

Brian, you are so right to be raising this issue. Transportation is a wise investment and we should be doing more, not less, to get people on the bus -- or MAX, or Streetcar or tram. But then, that would have to be part of an overall policy and economic strategy to work. A gas tax should be part of alt transport/energy policy until we are completely weaned from oil.

[ws]

Mass transit gets the work force to work. Business and government should not forget that. They had better make sure mass transit continues to be sufficiently affordable so as to enable the workforce to get to work.

A bus with empty seats is a bus not making it's full income potential. Work schedules might be shifted to allow for increased ridership at off-peak commute hours. Tri-Met should halve the current fare as an incentive to commuters to ride during those shifts.

A 14% increase in the bus fare is a lot of money if you're struggling to pay the current fare. That shouldn't be so hard to understand.

[Nikos]

The percentage of commuters who use public transit in the country is currently 5%. So the assertion that "mass transit gets the workforce to work" is at best a (liberal) fantasy (I am a liberal by the way).
Denser cities is part of the answer, but then, you will have to get over your fear of tall buildings here in pdx (that's for you ws)

[ModernMaven]

Eh... it's STILL going to be cheaper to take the bus than drive a car.

[res_arch]

If you're paying $50 in Tri-met tax, then you either didn't earn much that year, or you need to fire H&R Block.

Last year I paid $376 in Tri-Met tax, and that's on a very meager architect's income... doubling this would be painful for most of us self-employed types.

What's wrong with paying something closer to the real cost of riding? It is still MUCH cheaper to drive, yet ridership is at record highs. I don't mind paying extra every time I step on the bus, because when I choose tri-met it is for the convenience and environmental reasons... not because it's cheap.

[convolooted]

Oregon minimum wage: $7.95/hour
Annual wage: $7.95 x 2080 hrs = $16,536 gross (assume married, a couple of dependents, and no taxes paid)

Assuming a person that rides every day, not just to work:
$0.25 fare increase x 2 trips/day x 365 days a year = $182.50/year increase.

$182.50 increase /$16,536 wage = 1.1% of annual income.

[Raymond Brigleb]

These are good points, Brian. I would be happy to pay a bit more in payroll taxes, as a Portland employer, to see people riding buses for free. I'd love to see more discussion in Portland about ideas like this!

[ws]

Nikos, what's the percentage of riders in the Portland Metro area that rely on the bus to get them to work? Better yet, the percentage within Portland itself that rely on the bus to get them to work? That would be more relevant than the whole country. I'm not much for statistics, sorry.

About tall buildings, I've got no 'fear' of them. I just often don't like where planners allow them to be sited; for example, in or on the periphery of the Park Blocks, or directly on the edge of the waterfront. I'm thoroughly in favor of high density and tall buildings that would enable this to happen...in Washington County for example.

Why hasn't government required developers to build residential towers in that county where blocked views and shadows cast would be far less the issue that it is in Portland? Think of the economy Tri-met could muster if its service area were located around clusters of residential towers near the places where people worked.

[fum]

The payroll tax that funds Tri-Met is better than many of the alternatives.

Without changing the State Constitution, gas tax funds cannot be used for transit operations.

Perhaps Tri-Met needs to "hedge" their biofuel purchases into the future ... either that or make an agreement w/ Burgerville & McMenamins to use all their fryer grease to power the buses.

Another choice would be to implement a time and distance based fare -- instead of the two-zone system, base it on distance traveled and when they traveled. Peak hours would have the highest fee and off-peak the less. So people who can flex their hours a bit wouldn't be hit as hard (nor those on 2nd or 3rd shifts). It would cost Tri-Met upfront to implement though.

[john]

How about tri-met work on collecting a larger percentage of the current fare? Anyone who rides MAX or the Streetcar knows that there are a lot of free riders, at least 14%.

[Lola]

The percentage of free riders on the streetcar is higher than 14%. It's crazy to make most of the streetcar's route (in fareless square) free and then expect people to pay $2.05 to ride a short distance through the NW before the streetcar turns on Lovejoy and heads back into town.

The only time I've seen a fare inspector on the streetcar, people got on, noticed him with his clipboard and then rushed to the machine to pay before they got caught. They needn't have worried . . . he was only gently chiding them and issuing warnings.

At all other times the only ones I see paying are the tourists. How about asking those folks whose names are announced and emblazoned on the shelters at each stop to pony up a little more?

And whose shortsighted idea was it to set the base fare at $2.05? Why couldn't they have made it $2.00? Or $2.50? That's where we will no doubt be in 6 months anyway. One of the drivers told me that, since the new rates went into effect, he has run into more people than he can count who come on with two bills in their hands and no change. He usually lets them ride for $2.00 and reminds them to remember to add the nickel the next time they board. Before the increase, some folks would routinely get on and deposit $2 rather than try and rustle up the change so Tri-Met was actually coming out ahead. Now they're going to be nickled down until they increase the fare again . . .