DOCSLIB.ORG

The Great Streetcar Conspiracy by Randal O’Toole

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Great Streetcar Conspiracy by Randal O’Toole No. 699 June 14, 2012 The Great Streetcar Conspiracy by Randal O’Toole Executive Summary Streetcars are the latest urban planning fad, in the streetcar corridor. Almost no new develop- stimulated partly by the Obama administration’s ment took place on portions of the streetcar route preference for funding transportation projects where developers received no additional subsidies. that promote “livability” (meaning living without The second argument is that streetcars are “qual- automobiles) rather than mobility or cost-effective ity transit,” superior to buses in terms of capacities, transportation. Toward that end, the administra- potential to attract riders, operating costs, and en- tion wants to eliminate cost-effectiveness require- vironmental quality. In fact, a typical bus has more ments for federal transportation grants, instead seats than a streetcar, and a bus route can move up allowing non-cost-effective grants for projects to five times as many people per hour, in greater promoting so-called livability. In anticipation of comfort, than a streetcar line. Numerous private this change, numerous cities are preparing to ap- bus operators provide successful upscale bus ser- ply for federal funds to build streetcar lines. vice in both urban and intercity settings. The real push for streetcars comes from engi- Streetcars cost roughly twice as much to oper- neering firms that stand to earn millions of dol- ate, per vehicle mile, as buses. They also cost far lars planning, designing, and building streetcar more to build and maintain. Streetcars are no lines. These companies and other streetcar advo- more energy efficient than buses and, at least in re- cates make two major arguments in favor of street- gions that get most electricity from burning fossil car construction. fuels, the electricity powering streetcars produces The first argument is that streetcars promote as much or more greenhouse gases and other air economic development. This claim is largely based emissions as buses. on the experience of Portland, Oregon, where in- Based on 19th-century technology, the street- stallation of a $103-million, 4-mile streetcar line car has no place in American cities today except supposedly resulted in $3.5 billion worth of new when it functions as part of a completely self- construction. What streetcar advocates rarely if supporting tourist line. Instead of subsidizing ever mention is that the city also gave developers streetcars, cities should concentrate on basic—and hundreds of millions of dollars of infrastructure modern—services such as fixing streets, coordinat- subsidies, tax breaks, and other incentives to build ing traffic signals, and improving roadway safety. Randal O’Toole is a senior fellow with the Cato Institute and author of Gridlock: Why We’re Stuck in Traffic and What to Do about It and American Nightmare: How Government Undermines the Dream of Homeownership. If there is Introduction streetcars until 1963, when it sold the system a streetcar to a public agency—which quickly converted In 1974 a Senate staffer named Bradford all streetcars to buses.6 conspiracy, it Snell invented the myth of the “Great General Transportation experts agreed that buses is of politicians Motors Streetcar Conspiracy.” According to were superior to streetcars. In 1947 a New and contractors Snell, GM, Firestone Tire, Phillips Petroleum, York City transit expert named John Bauer tes- and Standard Oil of California conspired tified before the Portland, Oregon, city coun- seeking to to “destroy public transit . by eliminating cil that he was “absolutely opposed” to cities spend taxpayer streetcars.” This would supposedly force peo- maintaining their streetcar lines. Streetcars, ple to buy cars that used gasoline and rubber he told the council, are slow, noisy, and tie up dollars building tires.1 Academic and other experts have repeat- traffic. The limitations of tracks also prevent frivolous and edly debunked Snell’s claims.2 express services that are possible with buses. obsolete streetcar Even James Graebner, who chairs the Amer- “Streetcars maintain an average speed of only ican Public Transit Association’s streetcar com- eight miles per hour,” he testified, “whereas lines in today’s mittee, calls the General Motors conspiracy “a [trackless] trolleys and gasoline buses average cities. rather satisfying urban legend,” but notes that, 12 miles per hour. The most modern streetcar “in fact, when presented with the choice of ei- equipment could make only about 10 miles ther maintaining the street railway infrastruc- per hour.”7 ture . or operating buses on publicly funded Replacing streetcars with buses was a ra- roads,” replacing streetcars with buses “was an tional decision then for all the same reasons easy choice for the private sector.”3 Yet transit that building streetcar lines is irrational today. advocates continue to raise Snell’s claims to Whereas buses share the cost of roads with justify federal funding for rail transit. autos and trucks, streetcars require their own The truth is that in 1948, GM and the dedicated infrastructure. This makes the cost other companies were held liable in a civil suit of operating and maintaining streetcars far of conspiring to monopolize the sale of GM greater than that of buses. Buses can safely buses, along with Firestone tires and Phillips operate more frequently than streetcars, and if and Chevron fuel for those buses. They did one bus breaks down or is in an accident, the so by investing in National City Lines, which entire line does not become disabled, as is the owned transit companies in about 60 cities, case with streetcars. starting in 1936. They sold that company in 1949 after losing the antitrust case. They were found innocent of any attempt to monopo- The Modern Streetcar lize public transit, nor did they try to destroy Conspiracy streetcar lines, but merely recognized that the transit industry was rapidly replacing street- If there ever was a streetcar conspiracy, it is cars with buses and tried to take advantage of today’s conspiracy of politicians, engineering that trend.4 firms, contractors, railcar manufacturers, and During the years GM and the other com- transit agencies trying to persuade city govern- panies had an interest in National City, more ments and taxpayers to spend hundreds of than 300 streetcar systems converted to buses, millions of dollars on frivolous and obsolete but fewer than 30 of those systems were owned transportation systems such as the so-called by National City.5 Many other transit systems modern streetcar. That conspiracy aims to owned by National City still had streetcars deceive taxpayers and appropriators into be- when the “conspirators” divested themselves lieving that, all by themselves, streetcars can of National City in 1949. When National City magically revitalize blighted neighborhoods, bought the St. Louis transit system in 1939, produce jobs, and generate billions of dollars for example, it purchased more modern street- of economic development. cars for the system and continued to operate Spurred by the promise of federal funding, 2 more than 45 American cities are expanding, to only a small number of people. building, planning, or considering streetcar One impetus for the current flurry in street- lines.8 Some of the most active projects or car planning is a proposed change in Depart- plans are in Albuquerque, New Mexico; Atlan- ment of Transportation rules for transit grants. ta; Cincinnati; Dallas; Kansas City, Missouri; In 2005 Congress created the Small Starts grant Los Angeles; Madison, Wisconsin; Miami; program authorizing the Federal Transit Ad- Milwaukee; Minneapolis; Oakland, California; ministration (FTA) to provide up to $75 mil- Omaha, Nebraska; Portland, Oregon; Sacra- lion in funds for transit capital projects whose mento, California; Salt Lake City; San Antonio, total costs are less than $250 million. This led Texas; Seattle; Tacoma, Washington; Tucson, many cities to start planning streetcars. Arizona; Washington, D.C.; and the Washing- When Congress created the program, how- ton suburbs of Arlington and Alexandria. ever, the FTA wrote rules requiring that agencies Streetcar advocates claim a host of benefits compare the cost effectiveness of streetcar and from streetcars. Streetcars have higher capacities other projects against simple improvements in than buses, they say, which leads to lower operat- bus service. The measure of cost effectiveness ing costs, energy consumption, and air emissions was which mode cost less per hour of time that per rider. But the biggest benefit, they claim, is the project saves travelers. Since streetcars are that streetcars will revitalize downtowns or any never cost-effective as transportation compared The Obama area in which they are built. Even more, the instal- with buses, only one streetcar project was ever administration lation of a streetcar will make a city a “mag- funded out of Small Starts. This restriction did is rewriting cost- net” for urban growth, attracting in particular not apply to the 2009 economic stimulus bill, the “creative class” of young workers whose high- however, and several cities—including Atlanta, effectiveness paying jobs will boost the fortunes of any city Cincinnati, Dallas, and Tucson—successfully rules so it and region smart enough to build a streetcar line. sought stimulus funds for streetcar projects. can fund All these claims are bogus and most are eas- The Obama administration is currently ily disproven. Yet a variety of engineering firms rewriting the
Load more

Recommended publications
  • History and Politics of Transportation in the United States
    History and Politics of Transportation in the United States Transportation has always shaped development. It has been a major factor in the growth of the United States from the earliest days of settlement. The location and the success of a city depended on its proximity to the various transportation systems of the era. In each new phase, cooperation between government and private entrepreneurs was always the key to the success of the enterprise. In many cases, one mode was favored over another with politics and even corruption playing a major role in determining the choices of modes and the shape of development patterns. This paper will provide background materials to help instructors understand the basic historical and political factors behind the growth of transportation systems in the United States. Supplemental fact sheets will provide specific information and quotes and statistics on economic, environmental, health and safety factors related to transportation. WATER TRANSPORTATION In the early days of the United States, as the country grew in size and population, the need for an efficient transportation system linking the coastal cities with the rich agricultural interior countryside became more and more pressing. The first significant progress in national transportation was river steamboat navigation, pioneered by Fulton and Livingston on the Hudson and Henry Miller Shreve on the Mississippi. Steam navigation cut the time of a journey between New York and Albany by two thirds. The second major improvement was canal construction. Prominent people in New York who supported the building of the Erie Canal included Stephen Van Rensselaer III. The Erie Canal, which linked the Hudson River to Lake Erie, was opened in 1825 and its impact on the economic development of New York City and the hin- terland was huge.
    [Show full text]
  • City of Milwaukee, Wis. Environmental Assessment October 2011
    City of Milwaukee, Wis. Environmental Assessment October 2011 Prepared by the City of Milwaukee in cooperation with the Federal Transit Administration (THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK) Milwaukee Streetcar Environmental Assessment ii October 2011 RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES Lead Agency: Federal Transit Administration Project Sponsors: City of Milwaukee WHERE TO FIND COPIES OF THIS DOCUMENT A hard copy of the document is available for public inspection at the Federal Transit Administration field office at the following location: Federal Transit Administration Region V 200 West Adams Street, Suite 320 Chicago, Illinois 60606 Hard copies of the document will also be available at the following locations: Milwaukee Public Library – Central Milwaukee Public Library – Center Street 814 W. Wisconsin Avenue 2727 W. Fond du Lac Avenue Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53233 Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53210 Milwaukee Public Library – Forest Home Milwaukee Department of City Development 1432 W. Forest Home Avenue 809 Broadway, 1st Floor Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53204 Milwaukee, WI 53202 Legislative Reference Bureau, Milwaukee City Hall City Hall, Room B-11 200 East Wells Street Milwaukee, WI 53202 To view an electronic copy of this document, please visit the project Web site at www.themilwaukeestreetcar.com. CONTACT INFORMATION For additional information concerning this document please contact our public involvement coordinator who can direct your questions and comments to the appropriate person: Lois Kimmelman, Environmental Protection Specialist Federal Transit Administration Region 5 200 West Adams St., Suite 320 Chicago, IL 60606 Kristine Martinsek, Milwaukee Streetcar Public Involvement Coordinator Martinsek and Associates 1325 E. Potter Avenue Milwaukee, WI 53207 Milwaukee Streetcar Environmental Assessment iii October 2011 ABSTRACT The proposed Milwaukee Streetcar project would establish a starter streetcar system in and around downtown Milwaukee connecting workers, visitors and residents to key destinations and attractions.
    [Show full text]
  • Metrorail/Coconut Grove Connection Study Phase II Technical
    METRORAILICOCONUT GROVE CONNECTION STUDY DRAFT BACKGROUND RESEARCH Technical Memorandum Number 2 & TECHNICAL DATA DEVELOPMENT Technical Memorandum Number 3 Prepared for Prepared by IIStB Reynolds, Smith and Hills, Inc. 6161 Blue Lagoon Drive, Suite 200 Miami, Florida 33126 December 2004 METRORAIUCOCONUT GROVE CONNECTION STUDY DRAFT BACKGROUND RESEARCH Technical Memorandum Number 2 Prepared for Prepared by BS'R Reynolds, Smith and Hills, Inc. 6161 Blue Lagoon Drive, Suite 200 Miami, Florida 33126 December 2004 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1 2.0 STUDY DESCRiPTION ........................................................................................ 1 3.0 TRANSIT MODES DESCRIPTION ...................................................................... 4 3.1 ENHANCED BUS SERViCES ................................................................... 4 3.2 BUS RAPID TRANSIT .............................................................................. 5 3.3 TROLLEY BUS SERVICES ...................................................................... 6 3.4 SUSPENDED/CABLEWAY TRANSIT ...................................................... 7 3.5 AUTOMATED GUIDEWAY TRANSiT ....................................................... 7 3.6 LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT .............................................................................. 8 3.7 HEAVY RAIL ............................................................................................. 8 3.8 MONORAIL
    [Show full text]
  • January–June 2005 · $10.00 / Rails To
    January–June 2005 · $10.00 / Rails to Rubber to Rails Again, Part 1: Alabama–Montana Headlights The Magazine of Electric Railways Published since 1939 by the Electric Railroaders’ Association, Inc. WWW.ERAUSA.ORG Staff Contents Editor and Art Director January–June 2005 Sandy Campbell Associate Editors Raymond R. Berger, Frank S. Miklos, John Pappas Contributors Edward Ridolph, Trevor Logan, Bill Volkmer, Columns Alan K. Weeks 2 News Electric Railroaders’ Compiled by Frank Miklos. International transportation reports. Association, Inc. E Two-Part Cover Story Board of Directors 2008 President 18 Rails to Rubber to Rails Again Frank S. Miklos By Edward Ridolph. An extensive 60-year summary of the street railway industry in First Vice President the U.S. and Canada, starting with its precipitous 30-year, post-World War II decline. William K. Guild It continues with the industry’s rebirth under the banner of “light rail” in the early Second Vice President & Corresponding Secretary 1980s, a renaissance which continues to this day. Raymond R. Berger Third Vice President & Recording Secretary Robert J. Newhouser Below: LAMTA P3 3156 is eastbound across the First Street bridge over the Los Treasurer Angeles River in the waning weeks of service before abandonment of Los Angeles’ Michael Glikin narrow gauge system on March 31, 1963. GERALD SQUIER PHOTO Director Jeffrey Erlitz Membership Secretary Sandy Campbell Officers 2008 Trip & Convention Chairman Jack May Librarian William K. Guild Manager of Publication Sales Raymond R. Berger Overseas Liason Officer James Mattina National Headquarters Grand Central Terminal, New York City A-Tower, Room 4A Mailing Address P.O.
    [Show full text]
  • CHRISTOPHER PATTON, Plaintiff, V. SEPTA, Faye LM Moore, and Cecil
    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA : CHRISTOPHER PATTON, : Plaintiff, : CIVIL ACTION : v. : NO. 06-707 : SEPTA, Faye L. M. Moore, : and Cecil W. Bond Jr., : Defendants. : Memorandum and Order YOHN, J. January ___, 2007 Plaintiff Christopher Patton brings the instant action pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq . (“ADA”); the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 701 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. § 1983; the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, 43 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 955(a) (“PHRA”); and Article I of the Pennsylvania Constitution, against defendants Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (“SEPTA”); SEPTA’s General Manager, Faye L. M. Moore; and SEPTA’s Assistant General Manager, Cecil W. Bond Jr. (collectively, “defendants”). Presently before the court is defendants’ motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) or, in the alternative, for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, as to plaintiff’s claims under the PHRA against defendants Moore and Bond (Counts VII and VIII), plaintiff’s claims for violation of the Pennsylvania Constitution (Counts XI, XII, and XIII) and plaintiff’s demand for punitive damages. For the following reasons, defendants’ motion will be granted in part and denied in part. 1 I. Factual and Procedural Background A. Plaintiff’s Factual Allegations Plaintiff was hired by SEPTA on December 8, 1997 to develop and direct its Capital and Long Range Planning Department. (Second Am. Compl. (“Compl.”) ¶ 14.) Defendant Moore, is the General Manager of SEPTA (id . at ¶¶ 6, 13); defendant Bond is the Assistant General Manager of SEPTA (id.
    [Show full text]
  • Trolleys Through the Timber - Richard Thompson
    Oregon Electric Railway Historical Society Volume 19 503 Issue 2 Spring 2014 Reminder to members: Please be sure your dues In this issue: are up to date. 2014 dues were due Jan 1, 2014. Trolleys Through the Timber - Richard Thompson....................1 Oregon Electric Railway Historical Society News.......................2 If it has been longer than one year since you renewed, Interpretative Center Update Greg Bonn....................................2 go to our website: oerhs.org and download an Red Trolleys in the Sun Mark Kavanagh..................................5 application by clicking: Become a Member MAX Yellow Line Lou Bowerman ..............................................6 Seattle Transit Update Roy Bonn................................................7 Tucson Sun Link Update Roy Bonn............................................9 See this issue in color on line DC Streetcar Update Roy Bonn..............................................10 at oerhs.org/transfer Pacific Northwest Transit Update Roy Bonn..............................10 Spotlight on Members: Hal Rosene ..........................................11 Trolleys Through the Timber Oregon’s Small Town Streetcar Systems By Richard Thompson The following article is excerpted from Richard's upcoming book, “Trolleys Through the Timber: Oregon's Small Town Streetcar Systems.” As the working title indicates, it will focus upon streetcars outside of Portland. This new endeavor will allow the author to further develop information about small town streetcar systems that previously appeared in his online Oregon Encyclopedia entries, and his four books for Arcadia Publishing. By the turn of the 20th century the Small town streetcar systems often relied on secondhand rolling stock. This interurban- street railway had become a vital part of like Forest Grove Transportation Company car is thought to have started life as a trailer urban transportation.
    [Show full text]
  • TRANSIT SYSTEM MAP Local Routes E
    Non-Metro Service 99 Woodlands Express operates three Park & 99 METRO System Sistema de METRO Ride lots with service to the Texas Medical W Center, Greenway Plaza and Downtown. To Kingwood P&R: (see Park & Ride information on reverse) H 255, 259 CALI DR A To Townsen P&R: HOLLOW TREE LN R Houston D 256, 257, 259 Northwest Y (see map on reverse) 86 SPRING R E Routes are color-coded based on service frequency during the midday and weekend periods: Medical F M D 91 60 Las rutas están coloradas por la frecuencia de servicio durante el mediodía y los fines de semana. Center 86 99 P&R E I H 45 M A P §¨¦ R E R D 15 minutes or better 20 or 30 minutes 60 minutes Weekday peak periods only T IA Y C L J FM 1960 V R 15 minutes o mejor 20 o 30 minutos 60 minutos Solo horas pico de días laborales E A D S L 99 T L E E R Y B ELLA BLVD D SPUR 184 FM 1960 LV R D 1ST ST S Lone Star Routes with two colors have variations in frequency (e.g. 15 / 30 minutes) on different segments as shown on the System Map. T A U College L E D Peak service is approximately 2.5 hours in the morning and 3 hours in the afternoon. Exact times will vary by route. B I N N 249 E 86 99 D E R R K ") LOUETTA RD EY RD E RICHEY W A RICH E RI E N K W S R L U S Rutas con dos colores (e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • Rider Guide / Guía De Pasajeros
    Updated 02/10/2019 Rider Guide / Guía de Pasajeros Stations / Estaciones Stations / Estaciones Northline Transit Center/HCC Theater District Melbourne/North Lindale Central Station Capitol Lindale Park Central Station Rusk Cavalcade Convention District Moody Park EaDo/Stadium Fulton/North Central Coffee Plant/Second Ward Quitman/Near Northside Lockwood/Eastwood Burnett Transit Center/Casa De Amigos Altic/Howard Hughes UH Downtown Cesar Chavez/67th St Preston Magnolia Park Transit Center Central Station Main l Transfer to Green or Purple Rail Lines (see map) Destination Signs / Letreros Direccionales Westbound – Central Station Capitol Eastbound – Central Station Rusk Eastbound Theater District to Magnolia Park Hacia el este Magnolia Park Main Street Square Bell Westbound Magnolia Park to Theater District Downtown Transit Center Hacia el oeste Theater District McGowen Ensemble/HCC Wheeler Transit Center Museum District Hermann Park/Rice U Stations / Estaciones Memorial Hermann Hospital/Houston Zoo Theater District Dryden/TMC Central Station Capitol TMC Transit Center Central Station Rusk Smith Lands Convention District Stadium Park/Astrodome EaDo/Stadium Fannin South Leeland/Third Ward Elgin/Third Ward Destination Signs / Letreros Direccionales TSU/UH Athletics District Northbound Fannin South to Northline/HCC UH South/University Oaks Hacia el norte Northline/HCC MacGregor Park/Martin Luther King, Jr. Southbound Northline/HCC to Fannin South Palm Center Transit Center Hacia el sur Fannin South Destination Signs / Letreros Direccionales Eastbound Theater District to Palm Center TC Hacia el este Palm Center Transit Center Westbound Palm Center TC to Theater District Hacia el oeste Theater District The Fare/Pasaje / Local Make Your Ride on METRORail Viaje en METRORail Rápido y Fare Type Full Fare* Discounted** Transfer*** Fast and Easy Fácil Tipo de Pasaje Pasaje Completo* Descontado** Transbordo*** 1.
    [Show full text]
  • The Streetcar Conspiracy
    The StreetCar Conspiracy How General Motors Deliberately Destroyed Public Transit by Bradford Snell The electric streetcar, contrary to Van Wilkin's incredible naïve whitewash, did not die a natural death: General Motors killed it. GM killed it by employing a host of anti-competitive devices which, like National City Lines, debased rail transit and promoted auto sales. This is not about a "plot" hatch by wild-eyed corporate rogues, but rather about a consummate business strategy crafted by Alfred P. Sloan, Jr., the MIT-trained genius behind General Motors, to expand auto sales and maximize profits by eliminating streetcars. In 1922, according to GM's own files, Sloan established a special unit within the corporation which was charged, among other things, with the task of replacing America's electric railways with cars, trucks and buses. A year earlier, in 1921, GM lost $65 million, leading Sloan to conclude that the auto market was saturated, that those who desired cars already owned them, and that the only way to increase GM's sales and restore its profitability was by eliminating its principal rival: electric railways. At the time, 90 percent of all trips were by rail, chiefly electric rail; only one in 10 Americans owned an automobile. There were 1,200 separate electric street and interurban railways, a thriving and profitable industry with 44,000 miles of track, 300,000 employees, 15 billion annual passengers, and $1 billion in income. Virtually every city and town in America of more than 2,500 people had its own electric rail system. General Motors sought to reduce competition from electric railways through a variety of measures, including the use of freight leverage.
    [Show full text]
  • Service Guidelines and Standards
    Service Guidelines and Standards Revised Summer 2015 Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority | Austin, Texas TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION Purpose 3 Overview 3 Update 3 Service Types 4 SERVICE GUIDELINES Density and Service Coverage 5 Land Use 6 Destinations and Activity Centers 6 Streets and Sidewalk Characteristics 7 Demographic and Socioeconomic Characteristics 7 Route Directness 8 Route Deviation 9 Two-way Service 10 Branching and Short-Turns 10 Route Spacing 11 Route Length 11 Route Terminals 11 Service Span 12 Service Frequency 12 Bus Stop Spacing 13 Bus Stop Placement 13 Bus Stop Amenities 14 MetroRapid Stations vs. Bus Stops 15 Transit Centers and Park & Rides 15 SERVICE STANDARDS Schedule Reliability 19 Load Factors 19 Ridership Productivity and Cost-Effectiveness 20 Potential Corrective Actions 21 New and Altered Services 21 Service Change Process 22 APPENDIX A1: Map – Households without Access to an Automobile 24 A2: Map – Elderly Population Exceeding 10% of Total Population 25 A3: Map - Youth Population Exceeding 25% by Census Block 26 A4: Map – Household Income Below 50% of Regional Median 27 B1: Chart – Park & Ride Level of Service (LOS) Amenities 28 Service Guidelines and Standards INTRODUCTION Purpose The Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority connects people, jobs and communities by providing quality transportation choices. Service guidelines and standards reflect the goals and objectives of the Authority. Capital Metro Strategic Goals: 1) Provide a Great Customer Experience 2) Improve Business Practices 3) Demonstrate the Value of Public Transportation in an Active Community 4) Be a Regional Leader Overview Service guidelines provide a framework for the provision, design, and allocation of service. Service guidelines incorporate transit service planning factors including residential and employment density, land use, activity centers, street characteristics, and demographics.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 | Page Date: December 7, 2017 To: Neil Mcfarlane General Manager From
    Date: December 7, 2017 To: Neil McFarlane General Manager From: Erik Van Hagen Senior Deputy General Counsel Subject: Recommendations for Administrative Resolution of Fare Evasion Citations In advance of the TriMet Board of Directors December 13 briefing, this memorandum outlines recommendations for the Board as it considers upcoming changes to fare evasion penalties based on the newly enacted administrative option for citations as provided for in HB 2777. This memorandum is intended to provide both the Board of Directors and the public an opportunity to understand the rationale for the recommendations and allow the public to offer feedback to the Board in advance of the January 24, 2018, first reading of an ordinance to adopt administrative penalties for fare evasion. SUMMARY Following extensive outreach and planning, and for the reasons outlined in greater detail below, the following four recommendations are offered as administrative penalties for adult fare evasion in the forthcoming administrative process authorized by HB 2777: 1. Fines. If paid during the ninety (90)-day stay period, the presumptive fine should be reduced to the following amounts: -First offense: $75 -Second offense: $100 -Third offense: $150 -Fourth offense and beyond: $175 (no reduction) 2. Community Service. In lieu of a fine payment, the cited party should be allowed to complete community service as follows: -First offense: 4 hours -Second offense: 7 hours -Third offense: 12 hours -Fourth offense and beyond: 15 hours 1 | Page 3. Low income/Honored Citizen Option. For those customers cited for fare evasion who: (1) are eligible for (but not enrolled in) TriMet’s Low Income Fare or Honored Citizen programs; (2) successfully enroll in the Low Income Fare or Honored Citizen program during the 90-day stay period; and (3) load a minimum of $10 on their reloadable fare card during the 90-day stay period, TriMet will reduce the citation to $0 following verification of the above.
    [Show full text]
  • Notice of Public Hearings Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Docket B15-03: Proposed Metrobus Service and Tariff Changes
    Notice of Public Hearings Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Docket B15-03: Proposed Metrobus Service and Tariff Changes Purpose Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held by the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority on the docket mentioned above as follows: Hearing No. 606 Thursday, September 17, 2015 Metro Headquarters Building 600 5th Street, NW Washington, DC Information Session at 6 p.m. – Public Hearing at 6:30 p.m. Please note that this date is subject to the facility’s cancellation policy. The locations for all public hearings are wheelchair accessible. Any individual who requires special assistance such as a sign language interpreter or additional accommodation to participate in the public hearing, or who requires these materials in an alternate format, should contact Danise Peña at 202-962-2511 or TTY: 202-962-2033 as soon as possible in order for Metro to make necessary arrangements. For language assistance, such as an interpreter or information in another language, please call 202-962-2582 at least 48 hours prior to the public hearing date. For more information please visit www.wmata.com/hearings and www.wmata.com/betterbus. HOW TO REGISTER TO SPEAK – All organizations or individuals desiring to be heard with respect to the docket will be afforded the opportunity to present their views and make supporting statements and to offer alternative proposals. In order to establish a witness list, individuals and representatives of organizations who wish to be heard at these public hearings are requested to furnish in writing their name and organization affiliation, if any, via email to [email protected].
    [Show full text]