Organizing People Activating Leaders (OPAL), an advocacy group for local low-income groups and community members of color, walked away from today’s TriMet board meeting accomplished. Sort of.
Following the regularly slated items on the meeting schedule, over 40 OPAL staff, affiliates and supportive transportation users presented and testified to the board, requesting one substantial change: a fair extension of transit transfer times. OPAL supporters also supplemented this request with a rally prior to the meeting outside of the Portland building.
Currently, TriMet passes allow holders to transfer to another bus or ride a return route one hour past the bus’ “destination point” (around 1.5 to 2.5 hours). OPAL aims to extend that period to a cemented 3 hours, allowing passengers sufficient time to meet their transportation-dependent needs. Additionally, OPAL requested to extend transfer passes purchases past 7 p.m. through the end of the bus’ evening service. For the past six months, OPAL has gathered a total of 6,000 petitions and spoke with a handful of transportation experts, TriMet staff members and community members to solidify their campaign.
OPAL’s prepared resolution aimed to create a group that would “study and investigate the range of costs and benefits” associated with their proposal and report back to the board next month. Today’s extended meeting was the result of a special request made by OPAL to the board.
“I’m really glad to see TriMet make space for us today,” said Joseph Santos-Lyons, OPAL Co-Director. “This is definitely a step not only in our transfer issue, but in the board opening up to public communication.”
Marisa Espinoza, an OPAL volunteer, also saw the hearing a step in the right direction. “It’s about accountability. TriMet can affect different groups differently, and they need to know,” she said. “Having an open dialog with TriMet is so important.”
Espinoza went on to testify to the board that the truncated transfer times threaten her access to medical services, as she has a long-term illness. But, she said, Trimet didn’t need to hear about it. “You don’t need to know each of our stories, it’s beyond that,” Espinoza said. “The transfer policy just doesn’t work, it’s plain and simple.”
Espinoza was followed by a homeless community member who couldn’t afford a pass to the shelter, a Kaiser Permanente doctor backing the medical threat paired with the transfer times, and a night-shift janitor who feels her work is threatened by the transfer costs. Halfway through, a man stood up to leave, announcing “My transfer’s about to expire, I better get out of here.” The point was clear.
“People in your community are suffering and you can change that,” OPAL’s Crystal Wabnum concluded tearfully.
The board had a harder time presenting a response. Of course, money was a key issue. “If we were in a different environment financially, we would be all over this,” said board president Rick Van Beveren. “If we knew that this could be economically neutral, it would help.”
However, Santos-Lyons said OPAL thinks it’s likely that the transfer extension will cost TriMet nothing, as it requires no new development. Also, in tandem with Trimet’s recent fare increase, Santos-Lyons said that this transfer extension could boost ridership, a financial plus.
Board member Steve Clark added that this issue was more than what OPAL presented. “This conversation extends beyond the idea of ‘transfer,'” he said. “This may not be enough to change our equality policy.”
After a short board discussion, a measure was passed — but was not exactly what OPAL had intended for. For now, the board is prepared to meet with OPAL staff members and transportation experts to discuss the next step, but with no quick turnaround, as OPAL had hoped. We’ll see how fast these “next steps” will take.
I guess maybe I don’t understand what a ‘transfer’ is, then. Isn’t it supposed to mean TRANSFERRING from one bus to another? Going to a town hall meeting, or a medical appointment, or taking a nap for a while before you bother to get on the next bus…none of these seem to have anything to do with transferring.
Transferring also refers to a return bus trip home, or to work, etc. The transfer ticket time limit restricts those who go on errands, to appointments, or any other transit-relying trip, as it usually is too short of a time frame for these tasks (meaning them must buy a new ticket for the return trip).
Sure, 6,000 is a lot of petitions. But how many signatures did each one have?
Also, effect/affect.
Finally, I’ll just go ahead and assume the guy at the end said “change our equality policy” and stop re-reading “chance,” wondering what the fuck he’s talking about.
I bought a car a couple weeks ago. Largely because I’m fed up with Trimet’s fare increases and their transfer policy. So, there you go: real world data from one less rider.
The typo train from Alex continues. I’ve never seen someone more in need of a copyeditor:
…a total of 6,000 petitions… (signatures)
…also saw the hearing a step in the right direction… (as a step)
…threaten her access to medial services… (medical)
…OPAL’s prepared resolution aimed to create a group that would “study and investigate the range of costs and benefits” associated with their proposal… (with its proposal)
…idea of ‘transfer’,”… (transfer,'”)
…but was not exactly what OPAL had intended for… (akward in general, but ‘what OPAL had intended’ or ‘what OPAL had hoped for’ if you want to keep this sentence structure)
Alex, as a reporter it is your responsibility to educate yourself on this topic. Your comment indicates you don’t understand the concept of a “transfer.” The fare on TriMet is meant to be for a one-way trip, not a round trip. The idea of a transfer is to allow one-way trips by chaining multiple rides. OPAL is being disingenuous by claiming that this will not cost money. If people can leave the house at 7 to go somewhere, then get back home without purchasing another fare, then TriMet has lost $2.10 in revenue and service will have to be cut. If this policy did produce a huge boost in ridership, it might make sense, but I really doubt that will be the case. If there is a social service or equity need for cheaper late-night trips, that should be funded by city social service funds. There are a number of ways we could get free or reduced tickets to low-income transit-dependent folks. This long transfer is a blunt instrument that doesn’t make sense and would probably lead to further service cuts.
@Strunk&White: Thanks for the editing. However, ‘a step’ and ‘petitions’ (as OPAL used this phrase) are accurate.
@zefwagner: In this case, OPAL is referring to using the “transfer” ticket as a “return” pass as well, even though TriMet may think differently. Transferring also refers to switching buses en route.
Google “saw it a step in the right direction” – 7 results.
Google “saw it as a step in the right direction” – 825,000 results.
Also, just because a group of whiny assholes thinks that “transfer” should mean “return” doesn’t make it so. A return ticket is called an “All Day” pass, or another ticket, and you can buy it at the same little hoopajoo that sells the 2 hours tickets (notice the clear time limit). TriMet may be a gang of douchebags, but OPAL is making them look sensible with this shit.
Also, does petitions mean signatures? If so, you fucked up and you know it.
Zef’s right: it’s inaccurate to say that transfers are intended for two-way trips, though it’s certainly accurate to say (as Alex does) that they “allow” two-way trips.
But I’d point out that Alex’s framing of the question is the result of a clever communications decision by OPAL. When they launched this campaign in February, they downplayed the fact that 3-hour transfers would allow round trips. TriMet, of course, jumped on this immediately.
OPAL might have continued to deny that it was asking for return trips to be included. Instead, it simply changed the terms of its request to acknowledge that this would allow return trips. Pretty effective, as seen here.
Did you really just defend writing “petitions” when it so clearly and obviously should have been “signatures?”
Maybe the Daily Caller is more your speed….
The problem is that OPAL, a group devoted to equity, is not considering the equity impacts here. The current system is fair because it gives everyone a one-way trip for a normal fare. Their proposed system will only benefit people who have the means to make short round trips within 3 hours–that is only possible if you live near a transit line, have a destination like a grocery store near the line, and have enough free time to do all that. It will not provide any benefit to people trying to get to work, and the lost revenue will cause service cuts that will impact everyone. The after-7pm idea is even worse–the benefit completely goes to those people who keep those particular hours. If you work an evening shift, it doesn’t help you at all. If you have a family and need to stay home in the evening, it doesn’t help you. This only benefits a small population that wants to go on a bunch of errands in the evening without having to pay more than one fare.
As someone else pointed out, TriMet sells an all-day pass that is a great option for those people who want to take 3 or more one-way trips per day. Many transit agencies don’t even offer this option. I agree with OPAL that bus service cuts have been horrible and I agree that we need those service hours restored ASAP, but asking TriMet to allow more free rides is in direct conflict with that goal. OPAL is demonstrating cognitive dissonance by running 2 campaigns that contradict each other.
@oregometry/strunk $ white: Without your astute observations regarding grammar, I would not have had the slightest idea what was being discussed! Thank you so very much.