I don't mean to jump on the unpaid intern, but shouldn't it be "buses"? Perhaps a member of the paid staff can look it up?

Well I don't doubt ridership has increased, but the Trimet graph posted shows it leveling off from '05-'07 (the most recent it shows). What I do find interesting though, is that the only level spots in the Trimet graph correlate directly with the two Iraq wars. See, driving is patriotic! Trimet is terror!

Steve @ 1 :Buses or Busses is correct.

But busses are also kisses. Buses is the not-lame, not-alternative spelling. TriMet always increases fares by 5 cents each year and calls it inflation. But TriMet doesn't pay "inflation," it pays what it pays. That's why they're not calling increased fuel costs "inflation," because increased fuel costs are actual things they have to pay for. Why don't they just show the increased administrator or operator salaries, increased maintenance costs, make all of it public, and show us what specifically is costing them more? Also, is the post saying that fuel alone is costing $4.5M more, or that TriMet is $4.5M over budget? What exactly is the increase in fuel costs, and what exactly is the increase in fares? It seems like we're allowing TriMet to be selective in what figures it, a public agency, is giving us, the public.

(Adapted from an post in an earlier discussion about the end of fareless square) Look at the budget. http://trimet.org/pdfs/ridership/busmaxstat.pdf In fiscal year 06 rider fares brought in $67,542,814. If the Fare Recovery Rations means what I thinks they means from the limited footnotes, those fares made up for 24.9% of the costs of paying for the systems and 31.8% of the operations costs. So the fares make up a pretty high percentage of the costs of running Tri-Met, but not even half of the total cost. It is not quite clear how much of those operating costs involve the fare scheme itself. I assume the fare inspectors, repairs to the fare machinery, ticket control, etc... are all expensive, especially the parts with retirement/medical/human resource needs. The report says that each ride is subsidized to the tune of $1.51 per ride and the passengers pay a total of $0.71 per ride. Assuming there are a million people working in the Portland Metropolitan Area (which would include Vancouver) then that means $67.00 a year would pay for the fare difference. Considering we already subsidize rides, and pay more for roads anyway, I'd rather have the government tax each person in the metro area each year (or put in a gasoline tax that goes to public transit) and make the whole system fareless, (which would instantly reduce some costs because of the lack of enforcement needs). Or at least add some additional subsidies then lower fare down to a nominal $0.25 charge. It's still a lot cheaper than paying for monthly passes and cheaper than freeways full of idling cars.

I live on the eastside, three miles from downtown. With TriMet increasing fairs to $1.75, that's $3 roundtrip. But in my 13 year old Nissan which still gets 30 mpg on a bad day, that same trip costs me only 80 cents in gas at $4 a gallon. I know you're saying I pay insurance, repairs, etc. But still, a hundred trips on TriMet would cost me $175 and the same would be only $80 in my car. Now, if two people are in my car, the cost is only $40 per person. I think the difference would make up for what I pay in insurance and repairs. So what's the tradeoff? I get there faster in my car, but I might have to pay parking. Less stress riding than driving? But riding the 15 is stressful, especially considering it picks up at the methadone clinic on Belmont. TriMet needs to be cheaper or gas has to go to $8 a gallon to get more people out of cars. Of course, cheapest of all is riding my bike!

Isn't bus fare already $1.75? I thought the plan was for it to increase to $2.

Lazybusrider- Thanks for answering all the questions I had after reading this post. It's like you're psychic or something. I like the cut of your jib.

Hi James X., I called TriMet back to ask about the exact increase in spending on fuel costs and how much that's causing them to go over budget. Here's what I got: Beginning this year, TriMet expected to spend $15.6M on gas. Instead, they've currently spent around $19M and estimate they'll have spent another million before the fiscal year ends this summer. also, communications director Mary Fetsch says "buses" is "more hip" than "busses", so drat.

Tri-Met should start charging by the pound just like the airlines are going to do. All those fat people are sucking up more fuel every time the bus stops. Why should I have to pay because some people can't control how much they eat?

Thank you for this stunning report.

Tri Met wouldn't have to be raising fares or taxing the bejeesus out of the area's businesses if it were not for the Tri Met employees union. They have the fattest hog at the public trough. Among other bennies, Tri Met employees get FULL PAID HEALTH CARE FOR LIFE after FIVE YEARS on the job. When I was a kid in this town we had a great transit company, Rose City transit. They were a private company. They got no tax subsidies. They ran an efficient bus service and they made money through fares and advertising.

So what happened to Rose City Transit?

Thanks for getting back to me, Sarah. Sorry it took me so long to respond. So fuel costs are up about $4.4M, how much more fare revenue are they getting? What would be really great to see from them is a monthly chart, which seems like a pretty minimal tool for making financial decisions. Maybe I should ask them myself. Is Mary Fetsch the person to talk to?