Why Do I Still Take My Own Car With TriMet Close At Hand?

What Jenson Hagen said at BlueO raises a question worth discussing. The meat of his commentary goes:

The main point here.  I have watched TriMet fares jump quite considerably.  Was it not too long ago that a general adult all zone ticket cost $1.75?  It was something around there.  Then as gas prices were climbing, that ticket price began to edge up.  Now I'm looking at a $2.30 fare to travel in one direction as an adult.  The overall round trip for the day is $4.60, or $1.10 more than before.

I live in an area of inner-Outer East (yeah, that's kind of strange, yes?) in an area that's "convenientish" to two major east-west routes, a mere two blocks from a minor route that runs too infrequently and at awkward times, a seven-minute walk from a major crosstown route, and within shouting distance from the Gateway transit hub if I Go By Bike. When the Max Green Line finally comes on line, I'm going to be ever more fortunate, because the nearest station is a mere mile off.

I'm more fortunate than most as goes TriMet access, but still I take my car.

Why?

I work a third-shift job, which side of the clock TriMet has historically underserved even when the money was there, with awkwardly-timed and widely-time-spaced runs (by this I mean 30-min frequency minimum. Even going a short distance can take over an hour. And TriMet has the annoying concept of having the last run just as I usually get off work, which means I have to shave a few minutes off my time on-the-clock just to get my ride. This is one of TriMet's major flaws, and it makes me sore that they never really address the needs of the third shift. But I'm digressing).

But at least it's there. So why don't I try taking TriMet more often?

Because I live close enough to my work to make, typically, the cost of gassing up an 1972 automobile (a VW Beetle, if you must know) more or less equal to the cost of buying transit for the same time and frequency. It has actually always pencilled out a little more expensive to take transit than to take my 1972 automobile, and, following from above, a hell of a lot less convenient.

We're all watching our pennies very closely. We also all need something that works quickest and easiest–because the less time we have to take working out transit is just that much more time we have to address our other needs, and improve our own personal economies.

We who aren't making more than $32K/year see time as money. You might think that us poor folks don't see time as money. Anyone who things so is extremely wrong. We are always making these trade offs–more often than you'd think.

If you want more sanity in public spending, just put some of us poor folks, who always have to play the shell game with our money, in charge.

Anyway, I don't mean to say that TriMet shouldn't raise fares in tough times or adjust farebox to compensate for revenue. But TriMet should keep in mind that there are unfashionable reasons to use the bus (a lot of us poor folks need to get to work without the car) as well as green, fashionable reasons.

I don't mean to cast aspersions–I love TriMet, and I love TriMet drivers. But transit planners need to not just keep in mind, but take seriously the fact that a lot of people who would use transit aren't–because, even at todays gas prices, people will take the easiest way to make sure they get to work on time, and don't get in hot water for attendance, and for quite a few of us–ironically–keeping in a car by ourselves is the quickest, cheapest, and most convenient and dependable way to stay employed.

That's the way we roll, because that's the way we have to. You give us a sane, sensible reason to take the bus, and we will so be there.

I think I can speak for an awful lot of people here.

BREAKING: The Bike Tax, About To Die The Death Of Stupid Ideas

The dawning light of sweet reason is rising over the State Capitol, as the Bike Tax–the risible idea dreamt up by State Representative Wayne Krieger (R-naturally) and signed on by two other SW Oregon republicans and a Metro area Democrat who should have known better.

The AP is reporting (via OregonLive) that HB 3008, the statewide bicycle registration fee, what amounts to a bike tax, is going nowhere. Which is a good thing, even if bike-haters don't want to see it.

Bikes offer economical, affordable transportation to those who can–and those who can't–afford cars. Bike wear on our streets and highways are as near to nonexistent as makes no difference. The cost of adding striping and bike-safety facilities to streets must certainly pale into insignificance next to the cost that cars and trucks inflict on the road system. Moreover, there is no one more immediately effective way of reducing your contribution to local pollution and global climate change.

And if that doesn't convince ya, remember that most bike riders are already automobile owners. We've (and I include myself in that group) already are taxed and pay fees to have the roads to begin with, and we happen to think that if taxes and fees are the entry cost for having an opinion, we've already been worked over for it! If you only drive a car and feel your opinion on this is important, then our opinion must certainly be as important as yours.

Look. Every few bikes on the road means more room for your car. This is a win-win, and with I think the actual cost of supporting bikes as part of the system would actually be, you get it with no extra cost.

And if that does't change ya mind, think on this: while money to implement bike safety programs and additional bike infrastructure would be neato-mosquito, it probably wouldn't happen anyway: according to State Rep Terry Beyer (D-Springfield), the chairwoman of the committed where this gold plated (rhymes with "bird") isn't about to get a hearing, the revenues required to run the registration system would just about use up the revenue it generates anyway.

So if you think that additional money from this tax is going to support bicycles, then you're laboring under a terrific misconception, and you must stop it.

Let this stinker die.

TriMet: Providing Stimulus To Bike Park & Riders

Announced today via TriMet:

At the Bicycle Transportation Alliance annual awards dinner on
Saturday, TriMet General Manager Fred Hansen announced that the agency
is dedicating $1 million of stimulus funding to expand and improve bike
parking facilities throughout the transit system. The stimulus funds
will create a pilot project for bike Park & Ride facilities as well
as upgrade older lockers.

TriMet's bike initiative has always been admirable to me, but could be more.

This is more.

I Wondered Why A "D" Would Sponsor That Bike Registration Bill

... with three Republicans. Loaded Orygun explains:

I honestly am not sure whether Rep. Schaufler just does this kind of thing to be a dick, but if I asked you for one Democrat in the House who might be expected to sign onto something like this, it's Schaufler or nobody. This is the guy who threatened Merkley with a nay vote on any Measure 37 bill that didn't get a GOP vote, no matter what the bill said.

Oh. He's a jerk.

Thanks for the expl, LO.

Three Republicans and a Democrat Want To Tax You Again To Ride Your Bike

In these days of fluctuating energy prices, global climate change, and decreasing incomes, the last thing the Oregon Legislature should be thinking about doing is making ecologically-friendly alternatives more expensive, but that's just what Reps Sal Esquivel (R-Medford), Wayne Krieger (R-Gold Beach), Bill Garrard (R-Klamath Falls) and Mike Schaufler (D-Happy Valley) want to do.

A liberal complaining about a new fee or tax may be odd, but really, only if you're a conservative who thinks using talking points instead of a brain. It's a matter of fairness.

The bill in question, HB 3008, sponsored by the four State Representatives, asks bicyclists–many of whom either own at least one car and is therefore already paying vehicle-registration fees, DEQ fees (if you live in the metros), gas taxes and insurance just to maintain the privilege of using an automobile to pay even more–$54 dollars every two years, to register a vehicle which delivers little or no wear on your neighborhood roads, makes you more fit, and pumps zero hydrocarbon emissions into the road.

Of course, I suppose there are many who use bicycles because they don't have or can't afford a car. Now it will cost them more. Many such people presumably ride a bike because they don't have that much of an income. Now they'd have to pony up $54 just to avoid getting a $25 ticket every time they get gigged for it (viewing the breeziness of the way the newsreaders on KATU simply dished off the cost as No Big Deal shows just how out-of-touch some people can get)

This can only lead to fewer people getting on two-wheelers to improve thier health, the health of the environment, and thier own economies. What we need to do is encourage people to get on bikes, not discourage.

As a person who owns two cars (and pays into the commonweal commensurate to that posessiveness) I am certainly not for being taxed again for doing the right thing. Bikes are not the problem, and making it more expensive to ride them will not solve any problems either.

If you feel as I do, you might want to contact these representatives and explain to them that this is not innovative, but rather a lack of vision:

Contact Rep Esquivel here.
Contact Rep Kreiger here.
Contact Rep Garrard here.
Contact Rep Schaufler here.
Go here to find out who your state representative is and tell them too.

And if you want a PDF with the complete text of HB 3008, click here for the download.

This is an official Bad Idea™. It needs to die.

Also, the BTA, who has the right of it, clues you in on Rep Krieger, the chief sponsor, who just seems to hate you if you ride a bike.