A: C-TRAN and the C-TRAN Board of Directors are respectful of the decision of the voters. If and when there’s an indication of broader support for increased funding for C-TRAN, a decision could be made to go back out. The C-TRAN Board will ultimately be responsible for that decision.
A: In 2000 when C-TRAN lost 40 percent of its funding the C-TRAN Board determined that significant cuts would be necessary without restoration of the lost funding. After a modest service reduction of 13 percent in 2000, the Board authorized the agency to support current service levels by drawing from its capital reserve funds. In 2002, the C-TRAN Board directed staff to engage the public in the development of a 20-Year Transit Development Plan that assumed an increase in C-TRAN’s sales tax. An extensive planning and public involvement effort was conducted throughout 2003 in which six service alternatives were developed that ranged from no additional revenue to service concepts that would require varying levels of a sales tax increase. These service alternatives, developed with significant public input, were designed to give citizens a clear understanding of what service options were available based on the sales tax collection C-TRAN receives.
At its February 2004 Board meeting, the C-TRAN Board of Directors approved “Service Alternative #2,” a service improvement plan requiring a 0.3 percent sales tax increase. The Board further instructed staff to develop a full service plan for this alternative, as well as “Service Alternative #1,” a plan that requires no sales tax increase. In developing full service plans for both service alternatives, C-TRAN was able to definitively state what C-TRAN’s future service will look like based on the outcome of the ballot measure. One of the most frequent comments C-TRAN received throughout the public involvement process was that citizens wanted to know specifically how their tax dollars are being spent and what would happen to service should the measure pass or fail. This fact is also reinforced by the Washington State Public Disclosure Commission, which clearly states that while public agencies must not advocate for or against the passage of any ballot issue, including their own, agencies like C-TRAN have a duty and obligation to inform citizens of the implications of the passage or failure of its ballot measure. In turn, C-TRAN developed the service information into C-TRAN’s Ballot Measure Fact Piece, with nearly 160,000 copies distributed broadly throughout Clark County. C-TRAN also held an additional eight public open houses and made numerous presentations to a variety of community groups, all in an effort to factually describe the implications of the November vote.
A: C-TRAN has significantly improved its farebox recovery, the amount riders pay toward the cost of operating the system, since 1999 by reducing costs and raising fares twice. This has resulted in C-TRAN’s farebox recovery, currently at 19 percent, coming in well above the state system average of 17 percent. In addition, C-TRAN is working on a third fare increase that is currently planned for implementation in early 2005. While C-TRAN expects to increase its farebox recovery, it will not be near enough to maintain current service levels. Even the largest transit systems throughout the United States rely on public funds for most of their operating revenue.
A: Currently the sales and use tax is the only option Washington State transit systems have for collecting tax revenue for operating the system. Additional funding opportunities for public transportation are regularly sought by all Washington State transit systems.
A: Most of the new revenue asked for in Proposition 1 would have been used to pay for the existing level of service. The remaining amount would have allowed for some modest service improvements, primarily reconnecting the communities of Clark County. As this service plan was being developed with the public as part of C-TRAN’s 20-Year Transit Development Plan, many citizens expressed the belief that should C-TRAN ask for a tax increase and must allow those communities which lost service in 2000 to be part of the system again, particularly given the fact that they too pay the sales tax. If C-TRAN were to ask for a smaller increase in the future, it would likely require additional cuts in the current level of service C-TRAN provides.
A: We are currently working on a proposal to raise fares for the third time since 1999. Despite the common belief that commuter service “pays for itself,” it is C-TRAN’s most expensive service to provide. Providing intensive peak period service requires maintaining staff and equipment that is only used for brief periods during each service day. While busses are generally full traveling to Downtown Portland, they return empty. Finally, most commuter passengers use a TriMet pass rather than a C-TRAN pass. Once C-TRAN fully develops its fare increase proposal that includes renegotiating the fare reciprocity agreement with TriMet, we can determine whether additional services can be provided.
A: Yes. C-TRAN will prorate your refund based on when it’s returned for a refund.
A: C-TRAN aggressively seeks grant funding, but securing the necessary grant funding is extremely competitive. Federal dollars (with few exceptions) cannot be used for operating expenses and require as much as a 50 percent local match for capital projects, necessitating the need for reserves.
A: C-TRAN attempted to balance the impact of cuts to commuter, regular and complementary paratransit service. Significant cuts were required to operate within a balanced budget by January 2006. To reach this goal, C-TRAN will cut commuter service by 47.99 percent, regular service by 52.14 percent, and complementary paratransit service by 28 percent. (Paratransit service, or C-VAN, is a federal mandate from the Americans with Disabilities Act and its service is dictated by C-TRAN’s fixed route system; thus the disparity between fixed route and demand response reductions. C-TRAN also terminated all remaining commuter routes at the nearest rail station. It is also important to note that federal regulations require a fair distribution of service to minority and low-income populations (Title VI). To reduce non-driver positions, C-TRAN is required to reduce service days and service span. After reducing the hours and days of service, C-TRAN eliminated or reduced service on those routes with the lowest ridership until the operating budget was balanced.
If your route is being eliminated it is because it is underutilized within its service category. Keeping limited service on all routes or to all service areas increases the cost of providing the more expensive complementary paratransit service; significantly increases trip time; and results in lower ridership, ultimately requiring additional cuts as ridership and collected fares decline.
A: Following the loss of 40 percent of its funding in 2000, the C-TRAN Board of Directors decided to defer most of the agency’s capital projects while drawing on those capital reserve funds to subsidize the current level of service. Earlier this year, C-TRAN identified and prioritized the most important capital projects that are needed to support the reduced service plan, assuming the minimum cost for each project. Based on the revenue required to support these critical projects over the next three years and the required minimum reserve amount needed for working capital, bus replacement and self-insurance ($17 million), there is no longer available capital reserves to subsidize the cost of C-TRAN’s existing service levels.
Since its creation in 1981, C-TRAN has operated its system with a pay-as-you-go policy, meaning it has never borrowed money for essential capital investments like buses and transit facilities. This fiscally conservative approach has meant that C-TRAN has never gone into debt, instead using its capital reserve funds to help replace its oldest buses and build new park and ride facilities. Since 1981, C-TRAN’s capital reserve account has earned over $50 million in interest; money that was reinvested in the local system.
A: The decision to eliminate single-seat bus service to downtown Portland was based on the following reasons:
A: Unlike many C-TRAN passengers, people retain the option using public transportation by connecting with TriMet at Parkrose.
A: While OHSU subsidizes the #190 Marquam Hill route, it does not cover the full cost of providing this service and the decision was made to terminate all commuter service at the nearest rail station. Current information shows that two-thirds of the cost of this route is being paid for by OHSU.
A: Because of the intense level of service during peak commute periods it appears that commuter riders make up the bulk of our ridership. In reality, they represent 20 percent of C-TRAN’s total ridership. Not an insignificant number, but it demonstrates that the pain from these cuts is pretty evenly distributed. Most commuters to downtown Portland will retain the option of connecting with TriMet.
A: While some of our commuter riders are transit dependent, survey information indicates that most are not. A much higher percent of our in-county riders are transit dependant and we felt an obligation to provide them with as much time as possible for them to make other arrangements, perhaps even including moving their residence to closer in the Vancouver urban area. By January 2006, when the service reductions are complete, the service hour cuts will be evenly distributed.
A: Washington State law prohibits public agencies like C-TRAN from campaigning in favor or opposition to any ballot measure, including their own. However, the Public Disclosure Commission (PDC) which regulates the state law, says agencies like C-TRAN have a duty and an obligation to inform citizens of the implications of the passage or failure of its ballot measure. In addition to distributing 30,000 newsletters and the public involvement activities C-TRAN conducted last year as part of its 20-Year Transit Development Plan, it did even more this year to educate citizens in a factual manner about what specifically would happen to C-TRAN service should the ballot measure be approved or rejected. Detailed service plans for both transit service alternatives were broadly disseminated to the public in a series of presentations made to community organizations, businesses and neighborhood groups. Since September 2004, C-TRAN has distributed nearly 160,000 information pieces, commonly referred to as C-TRAN’s Ballot Measure Fact Piece, to citizens throughout Clark County. This piece was also inserted in The Columbian, Battle Ground Reflector, and Camas-Washougal Post Record newspapers. In addition, C-TRAN conducted a total of eight public open houses which were held immediately prior to the election between September 25 and October 23, 2004, at locations throughout Clark County and in downtown Portland (C-TRAN also placed fifteen ads in all the newspapers, including the Oregonian, advertising the open houses). Between the primary election on September 14 and the General Election on November 2, the local news media provided extensive coverage on C-TRAN’s ballot measure, with a total of 77 articles and letters to the editor appearing in area newspapers. Also important to note is that while not administered by C-TRAN, a private campaign committee formed to do what C-TRAN was prohibited from doing, which was to campaign for the passage of Proposition 1. This private group was responsible for traditional campaign activities, such as yard signs, campaign advertising, mailers, etc.
Home |Schedules & Maps |Fare Information |How To Ride
What's New |About C-TRAN |Related Links |Contact Us