The TriMet civil war: taxes, entitlements, and the mythical "Portland creep"

Portland Streetcar and MAX train (photo by drburtoni via Flickr)

BY BRIAN LIBBY

Depending on where you live in the Portland metro area, what tax bracket you occupy and your mode of getting around, the regional transit service is either failing to meet your needs or grossly over-reaching. It's either delivering opportunity to those who need it most or carrying a virus of poverty and violence. Perhaps never before has the transit agency been so caught up in a maelstrom of funding woes, unhappy riders and paranoid reactionary critics.

The agency that has expanded regularly over the past 30 years in adding MAX light rail lines may not be doing so in the future. Recently TriMet announced a $12 million budget hole that required the elimination of downtown's Fareless Square as well as numerous service cuts, all while raising ticket prices. One of the many loud critics at the related public meeting last week called the move "economic warfare," while another shouted to the board, "You are not human! You are despicable."

"This is the third time in four years that budget shortfalls have forced TriMet to cut services and increase fares," reported Joseph Rose in The Oregonian, another local institution frequently cutting its offerings in recent years. "The board heard from retirees, people who have been unemployed for months, students and even a poet who claimed that the changes would be responsible for everything from damaging public health to devastating the fixed incomes of the poor."

This is echoed in a recent Willamette Week cover story, which, like the Mercury's, mined the cultural chasm between those who desperately need TriMet to get anywhere and those who see the agency delivering Auslanders to their doorstep. Writer Aaron Mesh rode local transit for 72 hours, encountering a kind of modern Canterbury Tale of denizens riding the bus.

"My journey shows me how dependent so many people are on such a basic system—and how tenuous the links are," Mesh writes. By this time he's interviewed security guards, bartenders, nursing students and many more. "The transit agency’s services offer tangible opportunity and hope to every person that lives within its reach. If the agency fails, we are essentially quitting on our belief that everyone gets the same shot to change their lives. The American dream is only as near as the next bus."

That connection the bus and train provide is being slashed by changing economics. TriMet has two major funding difficulties.

First, it's committed to providing retirement benefits for its drivers at a time when the Baby Boom generation is retiring en masse, which, as with so many aspects of American life, is proving overwhelming in its cost. The same conversation is being had at the national level about Social Security and Medicare. Quite simply, TriMet, like everyone else, has to pay for so many entitlements at once that the whole funding and budgetary matrix is being turned on its ear.

Second, the primary funding source for TriMet, a payroll tax, is bringing in declining revenues becuase the Portand workforce is gradually shrinking. The reason? Once again, a retiring workforce.

"For 30 years, baby boomers have been the secret fuel in TriMet's payroll-powered budget. Even when wage growth slowed, hundreds of thousands of workers at the peak of their earning power kept total payrolls growing," wrote Michael Anderson on the Portland Transport blog. "But as boomers slip out of the workforce, TriMet's ability to keep up with growth will have to rely more and more on the wages of the workers who remain. In other words, just as Portland's TriMet-riding population is poised to swell, the tax that financed TriMet's amazing 30-year expansion is about to shrivel."

At the same time, there is a growing hostility towards TriMet for a reason that ultimately has very little to do with TriMet: the fact that a generational demographic shift has brought more low-income and poverty-plagued citizens into the outer suburbs. With central cities increasingly given to white middle and upper class residents, people at the lower end of the economic spectrum, particularly people of color, are living in places like Clackamas, Gresham and Hillsboro. To some affluent suburbanites, this is nothing short of an invasion, and they see TriMet as the landing craft for that enemy expedition force.

In a recent Portland Mercury cover story, for example, Dennis Theriault describes a billboard along Interstate 205 near suburban Gladstone in Clackamas County that called for this land of strip malls to be rescued. On one side of the ad, Theriault writes, Mount Hood is "presiding over a postcard-worthy vista," a small-town paradise as seemingly conceived by Ward Clever or Mike Brady. On the other side of the ad is a graying cloud of smog and cars. The sign's message reads, "PROTECT CLACKAMAS COUNTY... FROM PORTLAND CREEP."

"It was a blunt appeal for a slate of Clackamas County commissioner candidates—paid for by the Oregon Transformation Project Political Action Committee, a Lake Oswego PAC with deep ties to the state Republican Party," Theriault notes.

A bellwether issue for these suburban Republicans seems to be the Portland to Milwaukie light rail line. When the economy was booming in the 1990s and at times in the 2000s, extending light rail to the outer suburbs was less of a political hot potato. What's more, people seemed to interently understand that MAX was reducing congestion and acting as a development tool. Throughout Beaverton, Gresham and now Clackamas, transit stops have become pockets of pedestrian-oriented, high-density development that are providing an altertative to the drive-everywhere lifestyle and the eyesore of seas of parking lots fronting buildings.

But when the economy collapsed after the George W. Bush-led real estate deregulation of the 2000s, the right side of the political aisle began embracing austerity measures like never before, eager to slash budgets. Nevermind that the continuing economic crisis in Europe has provided a vivid cautionary tale against austerity without stimulus measures. Austerity for local opponents of mass transit was too irresistable to resist, becuase stopping TriMet could also mean, for those fearful of reverse-gentrification, the chance to stop people without SUVs or pleated khakis from taking over their idyllic collections of Applebees and Home Depots.

But regardless of whether TriMet is robust in funds or a pauper, and no matter whether MAX expands further into the suburbs or not, the demographics will not change back. The flight of the middle and upper classes out of central cities and into the suburbs has long since reversed course.

Ultimately, the manipulative myth of the Portland creep is a distraction from the real issue: how we fund TriMet.

The transit agency needs more funds, but increasing the payroll tax probably won't solve the problem. That would place too great a burden on employers and the self-employed. Increasing fares and enacting service cuts makes a sorry excuse for a long term answer to the problem. Instead, we need a new funding mechanism for TriMet: not something to replace the payroll tax, but something to augment it. This could come from any number of sources. A gas tax or an increase to vehicle registration fees could derive funding from those using the roads. Some type of hotel tax could make those from out of town normally not contributing to the cost of riding our buses and trains pay a share. Oregon, unlike nearly every other state in the union, doesn't have a sales tax, which could go a long way to fund not only transit but schools, police and firefighters.

In the end, any new tax or surcharge will be unpopular with someone. But if the burden is distributed widely enough, it will be less painful. And make no mistake: investing in TriMet is investing in the economy. If we want the unemployment rate to decrease, we need people to be able to get to work: not just those who can afford single-passenger vehicular trips everywhere in their cars, but everyone.

At the same time, the MAX line under construction now that is causing Republicans and others paranoid of the Portland creep may be a turning point. After this line is completed, there will be a MAX line to the suburbs in all major directions: east to Gresham, west to Beaverton and Hillsboro, south to Clackamas, and north to the Expo Center and possibly someday Vancouver.

Though the possibility of a Vancouver extension is still very relevant, particularly with the Columbia Crossing possibly being built in upcoming years, perhaps it's time for Portland and its metro area to start focusing less on MAX and more on the Portland Streetcar. It isn't simply an either-or choice, of course, becuase the Streetcar is built and operated by the Portland Department of Transportation rather than TriMet. But now may be a good time to bring both rail lines under the same funding and administrative umbrella. Transit is TriMet's job, and the Streetcar should be part of that. But that's an idealized scenario. The transporation department runs and created the streetcar because it can, whereas the city has little ability to shape what TriMet does.

In a time of increasing entitlement commitments and dwindling revenue, sacrifices inevitably will have to be made, and it's always easier to cut where the most people are asking for it. Whether it represents a majority or not, opposition to mass transit in the suburbs is real. Some of it is the affluent fearing their party crashed. But sadly, it's also many low-income voters who have been bamboozled into voting against their own self interest. Let's give them what many are asking for: a temporary end to MAX expansion into the suburbs.

Instead, let's re-commit over the next decade instead to extending the streetcar's reach to the East Side: not just along the MLK Boulevard thoroughfare, but east and north on streets like Killingsworth, Burnside, and Hawthorne. Let's also recommit to restoring bus lines that have been weakened or removed by TriMet budget woes. If there are people in the suburbs criticizing TriMet for doing too much, there are just as many in Portland proper saying TriMet doesn't do enough. To restore lost lines and build new ones, be they fixed as rail or rolling on wheels, we'll need to change the game with TriMet's funding. But if Portland is really going to fulfill its emerging role as the future of American cities, we can't settle for service cuts and bigoted pigeonholing of our transit system. It's time for Portland to make TriMet what we want it to be.

The only problem is that TriMet is largely out of Portland's hands - it is accountable to the governor rather than any city leaders. And that may be the other massive sea change necessary in the coming years: a greater ability for Portland's metro area to determine its own fate on transit.

 

Advertisements

Comments

[Barryjohnson]

My problem with TriMet is simply one of accountability. The governor is the only elected official in its management chain, and it would be a strange gubernatorial election that hinged on TriMet performance. It's hard for me to make the case for increasing the funding for TriMet when that bureaucracy doesn't have direct oversight by elected officials (Metro, say). I'd much rather have the Portland Streetcar under City control, because then we can have much more influence on its operation and expansion.

[Brian Libby]

Good points, Barry - so much so that I amended my original post a little bit to incorporate them.

[Alexander Craghead]

Brian, some interesting and thoughtful points. A few responses:

1.) MAX doesn't quite yet reach into every suburban area. Southwest is as yet without decent rapid transit. WES doesn't count, being a peak hours weekdays only service, and there's a lot of can of worms aspects there, but until the Barbur-Tigard corridor gets a rapid transit line, the system isn't quite fully built out. And, noting your own comments about the migration of lower income and ethnic populations, I think decent rapid transit out here is critical.

(FUll disclosure, I live in Tigard, but for various reasons I will not go into here and now, the arrival of MAX or any other rapid transit to this area of the metro region will likely have no personal bearing on my life.)

2.) One of the problems with Portland Streetcar -- and there are many -- is that is is first and foremost a redevelopment tool. If we expand the system as outlined by the Streetcar System Plan, then that means either a.) it will continue to bring redevelopment with it, forever altering core historic neighborhoods in dramatic ways, or, b.) it will have to be re-tasked to be a transportation mode first. I don't see the latter happening without a merger into TriMet as you suggested, or at least some kind of more unified planning system.

3.) Above all of this, there's a real equity issue here if we freeze the expansion of regional investments -- MAX -- in order to spend money on a transportation mode often seen (perhaps wrongly) as fluffy and lifestyle oriented for a predominantly white, upper-middle-class, liberal, urban demographic. As it is, the rhetoric of many disenfranchised communities is that the streetcar represents a toy for an establishment culture. Note, I'm not saying that's right. But I am saying that's the present and very strong rhetoric. Even geographic distribution of streetcar lines to less core areas -- say Gateway or Lents -- is likely to be seen as a kind of cultural imperialism.

My big concerns are that we don't lose the metropolitan notion of transit. The irony here is that, in some ways, Clackamas County opponents and I agree: this is about "Portland creep," but I don't see it as "Portland" so much as advancement and progress. One of the many ways that a metropolitan city can be measured is by how integrated transit makes that city, which is why, for so many of us, great cities are synonymous with great transit systems. Chicago *is* the CTA and Metra. San Francisco *is* the MUNI and BART (and the cable cars, and the F-Line). Vancouver *is* SkyTrain. When you have a ticket for these, you have, in effect, a ticket for the entire city, and thus a ticket to interact with millions of people with diverse ideas, talents, cultures, and business opportunities. Metropolitan scale transit systems become great personal enablers.

My fear with things like streetcar is that we turn inward, that we become more interested in concentrating on the fine-scale details of specific places and lose the metropolitan focus. One of the aspects that streetcar development planners like to tout -- this is straight out of CNU territory -- is that maybe distance and speed don't matter, and instead, the streetcar may draw certain kinds of development and thus lessen the need for someone along the route to travel many miles for their desired destination. And that sounds great in many ways, but it ignores what I would argue is the greatest importance of transit: connecting the most amount of people with each other.

Transit isn't for improving an individual's access to things, it's for improving an individual's access to other people. That is what makes transit great, and I fear that, much as I adore it, streetcar (at least at present) doesn't do this well, and MAX is only part of the way there.

[APMargulies]

Nice article!
And you didn't even get on the union bashing boat ride!
Impressive!

[Doug Kelso]

The only problem is that TriMet is largely out of Portland's hands - it is accountable to the governor rather than any city leaders. And that may be the other massive sea change necessary in the coming years: a greater ability for Portland's metro area to determine its own fate on transit.

By statute, Metro can take over Tri-Met any time they want to. Thus far, Metro hasn't wanted to -- perhaps because they would inherit all of the headaches Tri-Met is having right now. If they did so, however, the region's voters would have a lot more input into Tri-Met governance through elected Metro counsellors.

[Fred Leeson]

While talk of political accountability is nice, the sad fact is that if TriMet had been subject to direct political control, MAX never would have been built or expanded. We have the rail system today because dedicated transit experts struggled to make it happen. MAX would NEVER win at the polls. We'd have the Mt. Hood Freeway instead. I lived through that era and reported about it at the time. Transit never would have had a chance. And I don't think it would now, either. You can see the resistance today in Clackamas County. Nothing has changed.

[Doug Kelso]

Fred: In between the first MAX line and the current resistance in Clackamas County, Tri-Met area voters approved Westside MAX by an 80-20 margin and South/North MAX by 60-40. A regional majority voted "yes" on the statewide transportation package that would have included light rail funding for S/N (it was defeated outside the Metro area) and a regional vote on a shorter version of the project failed by a narrow 52-48 margin while sharing the ballot with multiple competing bond measures.

I'm pretty sure that with that track record, a good MAX project could win at the polls, and direct political control of Tri-Met wouldn't kill light rail.

[Linder]

As a resident of SW Portland with two daughters who use TriMet regularly, I am frustrated seeing my bus service cut-back and stops eliminated, in the same the year city plans for sidewalks on major arterials in SW are cancelled. My daughters will have to walk or bike a gravel shoulder on Taylor Ferry to get to the Barbur Transit Center unless I drive them. In contrast, there was apparently money to convert the Barbur Transit Center parking lot medians to bioswales. While I support bioswales in general, of course I place to safety of my children far above transit center bioswales. Riders could more easily bare the months of construction and disruption for the bioswales project if they didn’t see their bus lines being cut at the same time.

I wonder how many sidewalks could have been built for the cost of the new Gibbs Street Pedestrian Bridge. However without a pedestrian bridge, South Waterfront Park would only have a Trolley line, an aerial tram and a NEW Max line. I think the PDC calls that “blight.”

[Fred Leeson]

The Gibbs Street bridge was intended to help remedy some of the MANY devastations the neighborhood suffered at the hands of Interstate-5, the Ross Island bridge-ramp tangle and Barbur Boulevard. (Not to mention as a sop to the over-wrought protestations against the tram.) I agree with Linder on the need for sidewalks. As a parent and walker, I wouldn't live in one without them. Sidewalks are a sign of civilization.

[Linder]

My neighborhood also “suffers” the effects of I-5 and Barbur Blvd, but no remedies in the 20 years I have lived here. In the same year the city built the tram (when a bus could have worked) the city also supported closing my neighborhood’s exceptional, well-attended elementary school, to which my children could walk or bike. Instead busing our children through the I-5 / Barbur Blvd / Capital Hwy tangle to a seismically unsafe school that district now says should be torn-down. As a parent and walker, I wouldn't live in a neighborhood without a neighborhood school, but ours was stolen by apathetic city planners. Not even a plan for a pedestrian bridge. This is about spending priorities and outlying neighborhoods (and their taxes) being taken for granted.

What happened to all those perfectly serviceable bus stops downtown that TriMet “needed” to replace? We could use them in the other neighborhoods.