Can you say “tipping point”?
Both the Oregonian and the Trib have articles on safety on MAX today, and Fred Hansen is quoted as saying he will speak to the future of Fareless Square during his City Club appearance next week.
Can you say “tipping point”?
Both the Oregonian and the Trib have articles on safety on MAX today, and Fred Hansen is quoted as saying he will speak to the future of Fareless Square during his City Club appearance next week.
229 responses to “MAX Times 2”
Sadly, there was jet another attack near a MAX station last night in Gresham. Details on the O’s website.
http://blog.oregonlive.com/breakingnews/2007/11/police_investigate_fight_stabb.html
I sounds like the last nail is being driven into the coffin for Fareless Square, and for the first time I think I support this idea.
If Fareless Square is retained, it seems like it is definitely time to re-think the way that it is set up. It has become clear to me that adding the Lloyd District was a mistake. There have been plenty of negative consequences, and few if any positive effects.
Why should upscale housing areas like the Pearl and RiverPlace enjoy free service when those of us that live in the Central Eastside have to pay for even a two minute jaunt across the Hawthorne Bridge?
Transit costs are climbing rapidly, and there is a pressing need for more buses, more frequent service, and more security. It only seems fair that everyone pay a share of this.
What if Fareless Square was only applicable to the buses in Downtown Portland?
This would continue the effort to faciltate car-free movement within the Downtown core.
What if Fareless Square was only applicable to the buses in Downtown Portland?
This would continue the effort to faciltate car-free movement within the Downtown core and perhaps alleviate the “criminal” element on MAX introduced by Fareless Square.
Getting rid of fareless square would be a real blow to the character of downtown. The ability to travel from one end of downtown to the other, from the Galleria to Old Town to the Lloyd center, is a part of what makes downtown work. I hope Fred comes up with a solution that keeps that ability in place.
Its interesting that the complaints about crime seem to be in Gresham, which doesn’t have a fairless square. But the solution is to go after homeless people downtown by having people pay a fare.
“I sounds like the last nail is being driven into the coffin for Fareless Square, and for the first time I think I support this idea.”
It’s gotta go, the 70’s feel good era is gone. Times have changed and policies have to change. Fareless square is not good for Trimet paying customers and it is not good for the system in general.
END FARE LESS SQUARE NOW!
“What if Fareless Square was only applicable to the buses in Downtown Portland?”
JEEZ LOUISE! Make ride around downtown a buck! Let that include the stupid streetcar and extend to nw 23 and all of sw Portland.
A BUCK IS FAIR FOR A RIDE AROUND DOWNTOWN and gets rid of people that use the system as shelter or free entertainment.
“Getting rid of fareless square would be a real blow to the character of downtown.”
YEA, IT WILL BE A BLOW FOR DOPE DEALERS and business as usual for the character of downtown. Ending fare less square is NOT going to hurt businesses or change traffic patterns!
Hey don’t miss this link on the story above!
http://blog.oregonlive.com/oregonianextra/2007/11/max.html
That crime map is EXCELLENT!
Of course what crime maps do not take into account, is all the crime that is not reported.
We can debate the statistics on this but unreported crime far surpasses reported crimes in actual numbers.
Yes, make them MURDER PEOPLE WHERE THEY ARE! Don’t let them murder in a different part of town! Or at least make them pay $1.75 to murder people like everybody else!
Seriously, people, am I the only one who’s ever studied debate and logical fallacies? Fareless Square does not cause dead Greshamites. And even if it did, you’re just saying you want people to be killed downtown.
Casey;
That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard!
Have a good day!
It sure is. Now I’m going to hop on the MAX and murder people because MAX makes people do that.
unreported crime far surpasses reported crimes in actual numbers.
That depends on the category of crime. Most murders, for instance, get reported.
Ending fare less square is NOT going to hurt businesses or change traffic patterns!
Of course it is. A family can park at Lloyd Center and get on the MAX and go to Saturday Market, the Chinese Garden and Pioneer Square at no cost. They can take their out-of-town guests downtown and get around without figuring out fares. People in the Lloyd District can go to lunch downtown.
If you think creating a fare for trips around downtown won’t change the character of the place, you are just living in a fantasy world. It will keep some homeless off, at least the honest ones that can’t bum a bus transfer. But it will keep a lot of other people off as well. The dope dealers? I doubt it. An short hopper isn’t that big a cost of doing business.
“Now I’m going to hop on the MAX and murder people because MAX makes people do that.”
Well if that’s what you want to do!
“A family can park at Lloyd Center and get on the MAX and go to Saturday Market, the Chinese Garden and Pioneer Square at no cost.”
Look Ross, a buck is not going to hurt anyone financially and it gets rid of people who have nothing better to do then ride around.
And I absolutely positively believe that ending fareless square WILL NOT change the character of downtown.
It will change the character of the transit system which is a major part of downtown, FOR THE BETTER!
Sorry Al,
I have to disagree with you here–Fareless Square is a great idea for downtown and we should keep it. If anything I think that smaller versions of this would work well in other Town/Regional Centers. For example; imagine a commuter gets off WES at Washington Square and is then able to hop on a bus for free within the Wash. Sq. Regional Center area. What a great way to promote ridership!
As for “dope dealers” or other sorts of criminal elements, I prefer to shut them down right at the door of my bus. I greet every customer (smile and look them in the eyes-so THEY know that I know that they are on MY bus),LOOK at every ticket or transfer and keep a sharp eye to my passenger mirror. In the past I have had to refuse service to people, or stop the bus until a situation has been calmed down by me (the folks over at the Training Dept. have some excellent strategies to use on misbehaving passengers). In general passengers quickly get the idea that I am the “captain of my ship”. If I were to give in to apathy and ignore what my passengers do, then is when trouble starts.
Now as for the crime stats map I think that it is misleading. Originally the mayor of Gresham complained about crime with in 1/4 mile of Trimet stations–this map only shows reported crime AT Max stations not the surrounding area–so there is no way to tell if this is just localized to the Max or if the whole neighborhood is having problems. Also, it only shows crime that is specific to Max. Wouldn’t there be a problem with these stats if say the number of Domestic Violence calls in the same 1/4 mile area showed the same levels of increase? (as compared to other areas). I personally do not think that there is an association between wife beaters and Max….
If anything we should expand Fareless Square. No one has shown any correlation between crime and free rides. OK some of the street kids ride around…well why can’t the PBA rent-a-cop ride MAX a bit more to get them or whomever to behave.
What a lot of small town hysteria about crime mixed with a pretty good dose of phobia for folks who dress differently, hit a streak of bad luck or just like to be weird.
Keep libraries free, schools free, and make transit free. Does anyone have any fare evasion data? The Gresham “crime wave” is fueled more by demographics than anything else.
“I have to disagree with you here–Fareless Square is a great idea for downtown and we should keep it. If anything I think that smaller versions of this would work well in other Town/Regional Centers.”
We will have to agree on disagreeing then. I really don’t understand why anyone would be against having a nominal fee for riding the system? ITS NOT FAIR TO PEOPLE THAT HAVE TO PAY!
If the whole system was free we have a different story altogether.
“In general passengers quickly get the idea that I am the “captain of my ship”.”
I don’t make a good captain, and I don’t like to be in charge of other peoples behaviour either!
BTW, any sensible person realizes that these crimes are not attributable to the max. Max isn’t causing crime. Max is part of the public and crime happens in the public.
Gang activity is a concern, its getting out of control everywhere now.
That’s always been one of my biggest gripes about fareless square.
ITS NOT EQUITABLE!
People in Beaverton have to pay $2.05 to get to downtown but everybody that lives in downtown gets to ride around for free!
SCREW THAT SH** END FARELESS SQUARE AND MAKE TRIMET PROVIDE A MORE EQUITABLE SERVICE REGIONALLY!
Of course, and the thing that nobody has mentioned yet, ending fareless square would denote a tremendous decrease in TRIMET ridership statistics, which include every boarding made in fareless square, fare paying or not!
AND, if you watched the video of the recently retired TRIMET veteran, would mean less money from the feds.
THE REAL REASON FRED DOES NOT WANT TO END FARELESS SQUARE…
The feds make the agency far more money than the stupid fare box!
Ross Williams Says:
“Of course it is. A family can park at Lloyd Center and get on the MAX and go to Saturday Market, the Chinese Garden and Pioneer Square at no cost.”
The Lloyd District now has parking meters along most of its streets, so I am assuming that you mean that this family can park for free at one of the Lloyd Center parking lots. These lots are privately owned and operated for the benefit of their customers. These costs are carried by the mall owner and passed on to the people that actually shop there. Someone who parks there without shopping there is passing the costs of their parking spot on to somebody else.
MAX fares cover less than half of the cost of providing the ride. So for a family of four, the general taxpayer is providing about $8.00 in subsidies for their “free” ride downtown.
Fareless Square is not a free service. A variety of government funds and grants are used to offset the lost revenue. Most, if not all, of these revenues could be used to fund additional transit service in the region.
So there is no “free ride” to downtown.
Wouldn’t there be a problem with these stats if say the number of Domestic Violence calls in the same 1/4 mile area showed the same levels of increase?”
According to the crime statistics published in the Tribune a couple weeks back, that’s exactly the case. Drunk driving and domestic violence calls are as high (as a proportion of total crime in Gresham) as the various other crimes listed. It suggests that the problem with the area within 1/4 mile of MAX is not “MAX-related crime” but “bad neighborhood.”
Al, regarding fareless square boardings, here’s what I commented over at the Tribune today:
– Bob R.
I should add to the above that I think the bulk of fareless boardings these days occur on MAX, so any impact to overall ridership will be less than that.
– Bob R.
So there is no “free ride” to downtown.
MAX fares cover less than half of the cost of providing the ride. So for a family of four, the general taxpayer is providing about $8.00 in subsidies for their “free” ride downtown.
Yeh, there is no such thing as a free lunch. Neither is the “free” parking downtown that you can get when you buy something. Its paid for by everyone who purchases things downtown.
We don’t charge people for sidewalks or for using the street either. They aren’t free either. What’s your point? That we should stop allowing pedestrians to use the sidewalk for free?
MAX fares cover less than half of the cost of providing the ride
And sidewalks cover none of the cost of walking on them. But then there really isn’t any cost to walking on them once they are there. And largely, there is no cost to using MAX within fairless square either. The trains have to run through downtown whether anyone is on them or not.
Using the bus to take short trips downtown during lunch is a convenience, but by no means a necessity. Getting rid of fareless square would simplify some logistical issues and raise revenue (especially for the streetcar). Maybe the extra revenue created by getting rid of fareless square can be used to add additional security to MAX trains and stations?
But you will see people who are frequent transit users who generally pay for their primary inbound and outbound trips and know the routes/schedules well, continue to use transit to get around the core downtown area but will be willing to pay to do so.
I doubt it. You will see people who have a transfer or an monthly pass using the system. But I think you will find people who pay cash fares or use tickets will be a lot less inclined to use transit to go downtown for the day. Once their fare expires, they have to buy another one every couple hours just to get around.
Maybe the extra revenue created by getting rid of fareless square can be used to add additional security to MAX trains and stations?
You are assuming there will be extra revenue. But you may lose more people who now pay to get downtown than you will recover in fares from people who are willing to pay to ride a few blocks.
Instead of buying two one-way tickets (total cost: $3.50 within Zone 1 and 2, or $4.10 from Zone 3), they’ll buy a day ticket ($4.25 All Zone.)
It’ll cost an extra 75 cents to go downtown and back from Zone 1 or 2. And a whole 15 cents if you’re coming in from Zone 3. And you’ll be able to ride all around the core all day.
Somehow, I don’t think that extra money will put off that many riders who were planning to “go downtown for the day.”
The major impact will be on the people who take advantage of the “free” parking at Lloyd Center — the ones who use mall parking or the movie theater lot as a park & ride.
A family can park at Lloyd Center and get on the MAX and go to Saturday Market, the Chinese Garden and Pioneer Square at no cost
If I were the owners of Lloyd Center I would be promptly towing away cars that took up spaces for my renter’s businesses.
Bob R;
What’s your opinion of charging a nominal fee for using the transit system downtown?
Even 50 cents would be appropriate imo, or are you just in favor of keeping things the way they are?
And if the Lloyd Center qualifies for fareless how come nw 23rd doesnt?
I believe that various members of this esteemed group have ridiculed me on the issue below, WHICH IS IN TODAYS TRIBUNE, thereby giving me credibility and you NOTHING!
+++The Willow Creek/185th Avenue Station is the most troublesome one, racking up more than 1,582 responses so far this year.+++
Greg –
The Lloyd Center people are fully aware that some MAX users use the Lloyd Center parking lot as a free pseudo “park-n-ride” … you can best see this in the theater parking lot. I’m guessing they believe that the fareless square arrangement brings them more shoppers overall than parking spaces lost, and the parking spaces used are near the station, not near the mall entrances, so except at the busiest times they aren’t actually losing available parking spaces for mall customers.
That being said, and this is coming mainly from my own perceptions because there is so precious little data about who really uses fareless square and where they are going, I think the increases in bad behavior really started happening after the fareless area was expanded to include Lloyd Center.
Al –
I really haven’t made up my mind on this issue. As I said above, there’s not much data, so we’re relying on perceptions. (Sadly, this seems to be the theme these days.)
If I had to issue an opinion today (please don’t hold me to this), I’d say scale Fareless Square back into a true “Square” downtown. Couple that with very frequent fare inspections right at either edge of the square (From Old Town to Rose Quarter and from 10th to PGE Park).
You could do this with 4-6 full-time employees and probably get 20-25% of all outbound train cars inspected this way. That would mean regular riders leaving the square would be inspected twice a week on average, which should be more than sufficient to send the message that frequent abuse of the fare system will result in getting caught.
As for the equity argument — aren’t the downtown businesses and the City of Portland kicking money into the TriMet budget specifically to support Fareless Square? If this is the case (anybody know the details? Or did I just flatly get this one wrong?), then it would seem other cities who wanted to implement a fare-free area of their own would be free to form a similar program in cooperation with TriMet.
– Bob R.
Are the only businesses that pay the payroll tax located in Multnomah County, and only in downtown Portland?
Are the only businesses that pay the payroll tax located in Multnomah County, and only in downtown Portland?
No, but if you look at the region’s payroll I think you will find downtown Portland has a good chunk of the payroll. What difference does it make. There aren’t any MAX trains running just to serve fareless square.
The major impact will be on the people who take advantage of the “free” parking at Lloyd Center — the ones who use mall parking or the movie theater lot as a park & ride.
Or anyone who pays to park downtown.
Somehow, I don’t think that extra money will put off that many riders who were planning to “go downtown for the day.”
I think you are wrong. I think you are missing why some people use MAX downtown to begin with. Once you eliminate fareless square “downtown” is no longer “a” destination it is a collection of destinations. You have to plan where you want to go and how you will get from one place to another.
MAX, and to a less extent the transit mall, have dramatically expanded the pedestrian environment downtown because of fareless square. You are going to see that environment contract.
“aren’t the downtown businesses and the City of Portland kicking money into the TriMet budget specifically to support Fareless Square?”
Yes, I believe $300,000. I’d be surprised if they’d make that much if they made all the Fareless Square trip people buy tickets, I think a lot of people would just walk…
However, how exactly does eliminating Fareless Square make it safer to ride the MAX in Gresham? If people are getting on in Fareless Square, and riding to Gresham, they should have a fare, exactly the same as if they’d gotten on at Hollywood TC and rode to Gresham. If the person isn’t going to pay the fare in one case, then they aren’t going to pay the fare in the other. And the only thing that is going to change that is enforcement of the existing fare rules. But simply changing the fare rules for downtown does nothing in that situation…
And the Hessian, I mean Wackenhut, guards are mainly useless. They just stand there at one end of the car. At the very least, they could at least walk from one end to the other, but if fare evasion is truly the problem that people make it sound like, why don’t they check fares?
And Beaverton doesn’t have the same problems that Gresham does… Why is that? Well for one, they have been patrolling their part of the system for years, they didn’t just decide to pull some publicity stunt and put some officers on MAX. About 25% of the time for at least the last couple years, there is a patrol car at Beaverton TC. They also have a couple bike cops that fairly regularly ride (on the MAX) between Sunset and Beaverton TC, and I fairly regularly see police officers patrolling the park and rides further west late at night…
“However, how exactly does eliminating Fareless Square make it safer to ride the MAX in Gresham?”
Eliminating fareless square eliminates some of the free loaders who also happen to ‘prey’ on various legitimate riders.
“No, but if you look at the region’s payroll I think you will find downtown Portland has a good chunk of the payroll. What difference does it make.”
WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE? Sheesh, you really disappoint me!
ONE GROUP OF TAX PAYERS GETS TO RIDE FOR FREE AND THE OTHER DOESN’T.
That’s the difference, GET IT?
I see the a large number of incidents on the crime map are car prowls.
Clearly, the ride-free-and-easy feel of the 50’s is gone. Those cars are causing crime; if might as well be a suitcase full of money and crack on wheels. Get rid of cars and we’ll cut the number of crime reports by like, 40%.
ONE GROUP OF TAX PAYERS GETS TO RIDE FOR FREE AND THE OTHER DOESN’T.
That’s the difference, GET IT?
So that means you get it?
“Eliminating fareless square eliminates some of the free loaders who also happen to ‘prey’ on various legitimate riders.”
Err, how? If the crime problem was in Fareless square, and if the people that were causing the problem wouldn’t have gotten on if they had to buy a ticket, then I’d agree with you. But that isn’t what happened, the problem is in Gresham, and the people that are doing things are either paying, or fare evading already.
What it sounds like is that you have an issue with Fareless Square, and want it removed. And that is fine, you are welcome to that viewpoint, but the recent incidents in Gresham don’t really have much to do with that…
“the problem is in Gresham”
You guys keep focusing on the microcosm instead of the macrocosm.
Ever heard the saying;
“can’t see the forest for the trees”
Well thats you guys that stick to your “nothing is wrong and nothing will ever be wrong” ideas.
There are some cities, like Chapel Hill, NC; Vail, CO; Logan UT; and Emeryville, CA that have entirely free systems. And there are plenty of cities that have “fareless square” concepts, including Seattle’s Ride Free Zone. I know the Bureau of Planning has long been considering expanding the Fareless Square to the entire Pearl District. I’d be in favor of expanding it to Nob Hill, too. The streetcar was initially conceived as a free system, and I believe that’s why it’s almost impossible to get punished for not having a fare on it.
Al –
I think you are a little misguided with your view on Fairless Square.
Just because a rider pays more riding in one area than another does not mean that the system in inherently wrong.
There are many reasons for why Tri-met and Portland would want to have a free zone only in the downtown area. It’s densest part of the city, has the most transit riders, has the most employers who pay Trimet’s tax, and the square probably encourages people to get used to using transit when they can hop on the bus or train for free first. Also, much like the subsidized free parking in downtown (2 hours free if you buy from downtown stores), it’s very reasonable to assume that fairless square brings in money for downtown retailers.
I don’t think that any of those factors apply to an area outside of downtown. And with all those differences I don’t believe it makes it unfair, either. Just like how it’s not unfair that you can travel in one zone for long distances out in the burbs, while that same distance would take you through 3 zones if you were closer to downtown.
It’s all part of Trimet trying to provide the best transit service they can. And with the number of transit riders increasing, it seems like they’re doing a fairly good job. Room for improvement, for sure, but they’re doing a pretty good job.
Chapel Hill, NC Population : 48715
Vail, Colorado is a town in Eagle County, Colorado, USA. According to 2005 Census Bureau estimates, the population of the city is 4589. …
Logan, UT map Current weather forecast for Logan, UT Population (year 2000): 42670.
Emeryville Demographics. Population – 6882.
IN OTHER WORDS, THOSE “CITIES” ARE NOT REALLY CITIES
——————-
The ride free zone is a portion of downtown Seattle where there is no charge to ride the bus. The ride free zone operates between the hours of 6 a.m. and 7 p.m. The ride free area extends from the north at Battery St. to S. Jackson St. on the south, and east at 6th Avenue to the waterfront on the west.
++Seattles fareless is smaller than Portlands, and it does not run all hours!+++
OK;
Thank you all for providing me with interesting debate for this evening, but alas, I must sign off for the rest of the evening!
AND I WANT TO MAKE THIS CLEAR;
From my point of view, Fareless square is working AGAINST the regular transit riders and does nothing to enhance the CITY OF PORTLAND.
Thats my point of view, obviously many people here disagree with me…
thanks and have a good evening!
“Emeryville Demographics. Population – 6882.”
I had no idea that it was that large. But it kind of misses the point, the reason the Emery Go Round is free is to get people from the San Fransisco Bay Area, (population – 7.2M) to the employers and shopping locations in Emeryville, the main hub in the system is the BART station. In that regard, it is actually a whole lot like Fareless Square. But the actual 7000 people that live in the city are not a very significant portion of the ridership.
The statement on thier website explains it best:
“The Emery Go Round shuttle is a private transportation service, funded solely by commercial property owners in the citywide transportation business improvement district. Emery Go Round is a service of the Emeryville Transportation Management Association, a non-profit organization whose primary purpose is to increase access and mobility to, from and within Emeryville while alleviating congestion through operation of the shuttle program.”
(For what it is worth, there are also several AC transit lines in the city, which you have to pay to ride.)
I just don’t see the correlation between there being a Fareless Square downtown and crime near the MAX stations in Gresham and Hillsboro. Are Portland residents riding out to Gresham without paying a fare and committing these crimes? I don’t see why we can’t use turnstiles where possible for stations outside of Fareless and increased fare inspection on trains leaving a fareless zone. Don’t abolish Fareless because of crimes committed ten miles away.
Fareless Square is a great thing for the expanding “downtown” area that now includes the Lloyd District and should include the Pearl, NW, and SoWa. Additionally, if the local businesses in the district pay for the “lost” revenue in addition to the normal payroll tax (as they do), then there is no disparity for riders. Hawthorne and Belmont businesses could band together and pay for making their streets fareless if they wanted to do so; it wouldn’t exempt them from the payroll tax they already pay. NW 21st/23rd and/or the Pearl businesses could do the same. This is good business, it brings people to your shopping district that otherwise wouldn’t be there. I don’t find it inappropriate that “short-distance” trips are provided for free in these dense areas (especially since businesses are footing the bill) and I think it would be wonderful to see other regional centers adopt fareless zones.
Its important to look at what New York City did in the 1980s to clean up the subway system as well as much of the city. One of the main things the police did was to go after fare-evasion. It seems like a minor crime to go after when there are more serious crimes but they found that those that didn’t pay subway fare were almost always the ones causing the larger crimes.
Even just having more fare checkers onboard would do a lot for the perception of riders that riding MAX is not anarchy on rails.
I’ve finally recalled an argument that even the die hard “save fareless square” folks are going to have to buy!
These are true incidents and they happened very often on various routes that I used to drive.
Bicyclists who attempt to commute from out in the burbs could NOT GET ON THE BUS because fareless square Bicyclists are using the bus to get from one end of fareless square to the other.
WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO SAY ABOUT THAT EH?
I wrote a story about some of my ‘adventures’ on the 8 line, which was so crowded and riotous that y’all can’t even imagine! People begged me to get on that bus but they couldn’t, guess why?
CAUSE IT WAS FILLED UP WITH PEOPLE RIDING FARELESS!
I’ve had year after year of dealing with the fareless square and let me tell you, IT IS NOT SERVING THE PEOPLE IT WAS INTENDED TO!
END FARELESS SQUARE, or make it just the downtown transit mall.
Stop ruining the whole system for the commuters who need these buses to get home and not to get up the street!
or better yet;
WHY NOT HAVE A FARELESS BUS, THAT JUST RUNS FARELESS?
Of course they would have to streamline fareless, why not?
Sorry Al–no sale!
Bicyclists take their chances with free racks in Fareless Sq. just like I had to do when I was working at PDX and rode my bike/72 line. I will say that when you want to catch the last 72 and it already has 2 bikes on–that 5 mile ride down 82nd is long, cold and lonely. Busses are–and always have been–a first come first served system. A more frustrating scenario–for drivers at least–would be picking up a powered “wheelchair” in F.S. going 4-5 blocks and then dropping them off. I have heard many drivers make this complaint in the bullpen at both Center and Powell. My opinion is that my job is 80% customer service and only about 20% driving the bus–if that is what the rider wants to do then “Welcome aboard”–I’m going to get them where they need to go.
THAT IS WHAT I HAVE TO SAY ABOUT THAT.
“at PDX and rode my bike/72 line. ”
Well those are fare paying customers going more than 1/2 mile so your ‘first come first serve’ argument holds water.
Your argument holds no water in the discussion of fareless square.
Wheelchairs obviously don’t count in either scenario and should be able to ride whenever and wherever they feel!
HOWEVER, and you might recall this;
WHEELCHAIRS used to get priority, and other passengers would actually have to leave the bus so they could ride. I had that happen on the 8 line.
That’s a lesson in ‘HOW NOT TO RUN A TRANSIT SYSTEM’.
That policy has been abandoned now.
More on topic,
I have seen some places, mainly private businesses, that have “active security monitoring” for lack of a better term. The way the system is set up is cameras, microphones, and speakers are installed at the site, but monitored at a central location. A security person at the central location can then watch many places at once and take various kinds of actions–such as; record video or take stills of people, activate the microphone and speakers to talk directly with people on screen, dispatch security or call the police. I wonder if such a system is feasible for MAX and it’s stations? It would allow Trimet to hire fewer people and use them more wisely…
“I wonder if such a system is feasible for MAX and it’s stations? It would allow Trimet to hire fewer people and use them more wisely…”
That happens to be an excellent suggestion and funny that you should mention that because I can get a whole setup for $99.00, hell, put me in charge of the security I’ll get the damn job done!
http://www.x10.com/promotions/ds7000e_bonus_mdk_fb109_v2.html
we would use this equipment:
http://www.x10.com/wireless_cameras/wireless_cameras.html
The funny thing about all this hub bub is that if the two of us could take control of this situation, we could get video surveillance with real time live monitoring RIGHT NOW! NO BIG DEAL…
The two of us could get the whole thing done, but the large unwieldy institution like TRIMET is paralyzed.
Yes Al, let’s shut down fareless square because it’s TOO POPULAR. Too many people use transit! The horror!
And yes, I’m familiar with the fact that Chapel Hill isn’t as big as Portland. Portland would have to be some sort of, I don’t know, trailblazer in this regard. And yes, not all fareless squares are the same. Pittsburgh’s Free Fare Zone, for example, excludes all those buses running before 4am, but light rail is free 24/7. And the buses, but not the trains, require fares after 7pm, ensuring that businesspeople ride free during the day while shoppers and restaurant-goers are encouraged to drive in the evening. I like our system better.
Al –
A couple of things about remote monitoring:
1. The equipment you linked to is for use in residential/small business applications only and has a limited range. It wouldn’t even (in real world terms) have a reliable signal from one end of the train to another. For true remote monitoring, you need a medium-to-high bandwidth link between your central dispatcher and every monitored vehicle. In about 10 years, high bandwidth pervasive data service in urban areas for mobile receivers (mostly likely provided by cellular carriers) will be widespread. Today it isn’t, or where it is, the solutions are highly expensive. I would estimate, to do it today, not including labor costs, you’d spent at least $15,000 in equipment per vehicle (more for large vehicles like trains) and $200+ per month per vehicle for whatever communications system you were using. Spend even more to eliminate dead zones in tunnels, remote areas, and “urban canyons”.
2. Once you go to remote monitoring instead of recording devices with after-incident review, you raise additional privacy concerns. These concerns may be alleviated with careful policy and program oversight, but it does fundamentally change the nature of our public areas of people know that a government employee may be listening in on their conversation at any given moment, without their direct knowledge.
Opinion summary: Let’s stick with real humans on real trains for enforcement for the time being. Look into remote monitoring again in 5-10 years and see if it can be done better/cheaper and if the privacy laws/procedures in other jurisdictions have caught up to the technology.
– Bob R.
“residential/small business applications only and has a limited range.”
Bob, you may be aware that I am also a live in landlord over here on nw 23rd ave. I have similar equipment in use at my property.
All the signals can be sent to any monitoring station anywhere VIA THE INTERNET!
“you raise additional privacy concerns.”
I think that riders would be very pleased indeed to know that the max stations are being monitored in REAL TIME. Which can actually help prevent a crime in progress vs a recording which does nothing to stop crime except attempt to identify criminals.
BTW, tapes are useless if you don’t know who it is on the tape!
“Let’s stick with real humans on real trains for enforcement for the time being.”
I agree, you need real humans on real trains too!
PUT THEM BOTH TOGETHER AND YOU HAVE REAL SECURITY!
All the signals can be sent to any monitoring station anywhere VIA THE INTERNET!
Yes, Al — Your properties are at a fixed location with a fixed Internet connection.
But you linked to wireless cameras which have a limited range … they need base station equipment to stream that signal over the Internet.
A lot of people think we live in a world of excellent cellular and WiFi Internet connectivity, but in fact we only do if you know where the coverage areas are and if you _aren’t_ _moving_. As soon as you try and do something like pervasive remote monitoring, our current network infrastructure falls apart.
There are massive dead zones out there, and inadequate redundancy for a transceiver moving between nodes.
Remote monitoring of buildings and fixed-position assets is possible cheaply today. Remote monitoring of moving vehicles, possible in some conditions with spotty coverage, but very, very expensive.
We still don’t have fully reliable, region-wide coverage for our POLICE and FIRE communications, and that’s primarily audio and a limited amount of data. (There are still dead zones and signal interference issues.)
– Bob R.
In my opinion, SMOOTH OPERATOR’S suggestion is excellent and something that COULD BE DONE RIGHT NOW!
Live monitoring of the max stations would be a great first step.
It wouldn’t even require that much capital investment.
“Remote monitoring of moving vehicles, possible in some conditions with spotty coverage, but very, very expensive.”
BOB;
I’m not talking about moving vehicles, I’m talking about the max stations!
IT CAN BE DONE, AND CHEAPLY!
Al –
Sorry if I misunderstood the context of your suggestions. Smooth Operator’s original reference to remote monitoring referred to both “MAX and its stations”, so I thought you were talking about vehicles as well as stations.
As for the stations themselves, yes I do think it could be done much more easily than vehicles. It _should_ be done, but it’s still going to need more than $99 cameras. You’re going to need commercial-grade cameras in weatherproof enclosures with good low-light visibility and sufficient resolution to ID a suspect, and you’re going to need a PA system and bidirectional audio, and a high-bandwidth Internet (or other realtime data communications) connection at each monitored station.
– Bob R.
Perhaps related, this Associated Press Article on the President’s federal budget proposals reveals large cutbacks for emergency responders, including this tidbit:
This thought is going to be diminished after Bob R.’s most recent post, but I had a strange thought when I read the article in the O this morning about the latest knife attack incident.
Mayor of Gresham announces more police patrols – next day, the senior citizen gets beat up.
Safety summits convened – knife attack later in the afternoon after the second one.
Anyone wonder if either the major media is cherry-picking incidents to report, or people affected by other incidents on other days aren’t speaking up, or… a secret government agency is causing these incidents to happen; similar in idea to the Sept. 11th, 2001 theories that seem to be gaining traction?
The media is cherry picking events.
For all the bluster, is there any evidence that crimes are more likely to occur because of proximity to the MAX? That is, given the increased foot traffic near MAX stations, is there more crime than anywhere else?
“You’re going to need commercial-grade cameras in weatherproof enclosures with good low-light visibility and sufficient resolution to ID a suspect, and you’re going to need a PA system and bidirectional audio, and a high-bandwidth Internet (or other realtime data communications) connection at each monitored station.”
OH BOB BOB BOB;
I am talking about monitoring the stations for activity that might require police to be dipatched, you don’t need any of that stuff!
We don’t need to ID a suspect, we need to watch for suspicious activity, such as a ‘gang’ starting to form.
Now if you looked at my supplier link, you would have seen that weatherproof camera’s start at $79.
DON’T COMPLICATE THIS ANYMORE THAN NEEDS BE!
Your starting to sound like a bureaucrat!
“““““““““““`
“Safety summits convened – knife attack later in the afternoon after the second one.”
There is no doubt that incidents that would have hardly been reported in the past are now making headlines, its big news and the public is up and arms.
The media prints what sells, its a free market!
given the increased foot traffic near MAX stations, is there more crime than anywhere else?
No.
That is precisely the point that I believe is lost on most who are pushing the safety issue. Given the levels of foot traffic, these areas do need to be patrolled proportionately, but the safety of a MAX train or stop (or a bus or bus stop, or a transit center) directly reflects that of the surrounding neighborhood. The MAX line itself is not the conduit for criminal activity any more than a major roadway or a small mall and it shouldn’t be the scapegoat for the mayors of Gresham and Hillsboro when violent crime occurs in their respective municipalities.
OH BOB BOB BOB;
Oh, Al, Al, Al…
I am talking about monitoring the stations for activity that might require police to be dipatched, you don’t need any of that stuff!
Al, this all emerged from Smooth Operator’s comment about bidirectional remote monitoring, which you quoted directly. So don’t go jumping up and down because you were really talking about something else.
What you are proposing is what TriMet is already doing — installing outdoor cameras at stations.
Now if you looked at my supplier link,
I looked at both your links, and I own such cameras myself. They are unsuitable for high-intensity outdoor uses such as transit stations.
And, yes, you do need decent resolution to ID suspects … if a crime occurs before police can arrive (or isn’t noticed by a dispatcher in sufficient time to contact police), then you’re going to need that surveillance footage as evidence to track down and ID a suspect, or you’ve got nothing.
– Bob R.
“So don’t go jumping up and down because you were really talking about something else.”
I like to jump up and down Bob, haven’t you figured that out yet?
And of course all the stuff goes on a hard drive as well as being monitored live for evidence later!
:-D
“They are unsuitable for high-intensity outdoor uses such as transit stations.”
SO THEY DON’T GET THAT EXACT MODEL!!
The point is, it can be done, and can be done rather cheaply.
++jump++
++jump++
Al, here is an outdoor weatherproof camera good for low light with moderate resolution, suitable for industrial applications:
http://www.cctvwholesalers.com/product.php?productid=16345&cat=311&page=1
That one is on sale for $349, and that’s about the best you’re going to do for a minimally ruggedized camera that you aren’t going to have to mess around with to fix every time the weather gets bad or the warranty expires.
Supposing you can fully cover a given station, depending on the design and accessibility of the station, with 4 to 8 cameras, you’re talking about a camera price of $1,400 to $2,800 per station. Add to that conduit to supply power and carry video signals to a central vandal-resistant low voltage equipment/communications enclosure, at least another $1,000.
You’re likely going to have to pay a security contractor or a union electrician with a low voltage license to property install that enclosure, conduit, and cameras. Conservatively, $200 per camera. Now we’re talking $2,800 to $4,600 per station. On top of that, you have to add some kind of communications link if there isn’t already one, such as an Internet connection. Installation and monthly expenses will vary widely.
A 4-to-8 camera webcam multiplexer (or a series of individual webcam encoders and a router) is going to run at least $500. That brings us to $3,300 to $5,100 per station.
Finally, you’ll need a decent multichannel DVR with audio and lots of storage back at your dispatch center. A 32-channel unit can be found on sale for $3,900:
http://www.cctvwholesalers.com/product.php?productid=16736&cat=314&page=1
That’s enough to do, say, 5 stations on average, or about $800 per station. That brings us to $4,100 to $5,900 per station.
And that assumes the contractor won’t make a profit installing it and won’t provide a service contract. So add on extra for that.
All of this is still reasonable on a cost-per-station basis, and should be done for stations that don’t already have it, but it is a far, far cry from $99.
(And, in case you didn’t know, I used to be in the CCTV business, working for an equipment vendor I helped found that made character generator products. I’m familiar with industry practices and what things really wind up costing.)
– Bob R.
LOL!!
I shoulda figured you’d come back with the complete line item proposal!
OK, $99 was stretching it, but this is a blog, we can stretch stuff here!
So figure its $10k per station, that’s peanuts for an operation like TRIMET!
BTW-
I hooked up my building with 5 camera’s for $1200.
Got the equipment from costco.com and had my maintenance man install it.
Well it just so happens that TriMet as a $560K grant to install cameras at stations. The article I read mentioned 5 in Gresham and 9 downtown, plus upgrades to the cameras in the Robertson tunnel.
Depending on how extensive the tunnel camera installation is (I’m guessing the bulk of the expense will be upgrading cameras in the tunnel), it looks like they’re talking about $20K or so per station for the full installation, unless there are other things the grant covers that the article didn’t mention.
I read elsewhere that the Gresham Central station, for example, will be getting 8 cameras.
– Bob R.
“I read elsewhere that the Gresham Central station, for example, will be getting 8 cameras.”
Are they gonna be monitored or just make tapes?
Making tapes is useless for preventing crime!
Are they gonna be monitored or just make tapes?
I can’t find a reference, but it is my recollection that this was brought up at either a I-205 or Portland Mall CAC meeting last year and it was stated that the current station camera network is monitored.
– Bob R.
Then they are on top of it, AND THAT’S GOOD!
thanks bob!
Even unmonitored cameras help prevent crime as long as (a) everybody knows the cameras are there, and (b) everyone believes they are being watched. As a rule, bad guys are less likely to do something if they think they’re being watched and/or taped.
One way to increase the “eyes on the street” effect of the cameras is to put every camera on a live feed to Tri-Met’s website. Any number of people could be watching at any given time. While a potential bad guy doesn’t know for a fact how many people are watching at any given time, they should know that they’re probably being watched and their actions are being recorded digitally.
Also, making tapes is very useful for preventing crime. Somebody steals a purse, you get him on a digital image clear enough to make out his face, that’s evidence. Better chance of being able to catch him and take him off the street. Plus, as I mentioned, bad guys are less likely to try something right in front of a camera. Not everyone, of course: people still rob convenience stores and get caught on tape. But it cuts the numbers down.
Of course, since the problem on MAX isn’t so much criminal behavior as loudness and rowdiness (or more accurately, people feeling threatened by loud, rowdy people), I don’t know how much use cameras will be. Being loud, obnoxious and rowdy isn’t illegal. It just scares people who aren’t used to it.
But since the issue is really one of perception, maybe the thought that cops are watching will make timid riders feel better. A lot of scared MAX riders seem to need a security blanket more than anything, and maybe the belief cops are watching on camera will provide it.
“One way to increase the “eyes on the street” effect of the cameras is to put every camera on a live feed to Tri-Met’s website. ”
WOWOWOWOWOWOW!!
That’s an absolutely stupendous idea!
GREAT!!!
I do think Fareless Square (FS) should be eliminated, although I agree that it is wholly unrelated to the discussion about what needs to be done to deter crime out in Gresham.
I respect Ross and others on this board who are advocating that FS should be retained or expanded, but in this case I think your logic is flawed and you are not understanding why FS should be eliminated.
FS should be eliminated because the existence of a large group of people who clearly and demonstrably ride the trains between Galleria and Lloyd Center without any meaningful intent (and that’s putting it kindly) deters otherwise fare-paying people from riding the train. Trimet – go talk to your customers and you will see that FS is a deterrent for many people and it is an embarrassment to those who choose to put up with it. My wife and I literally have to hold our breaths (not necessarily from smells, but mostly from nervousness) nearly every time we ride through FS.
It is my belief that Trimet keeps FS in order to inflate ridership figures, which they know will take a significant hit if FS disappears. What they don’t say (or seem to care about) is the effect on farebox revenue, which I believe would go up.
The notion that FS should be free because more Trimet taxes are collected downtown is absurd and offensive to businesses outside of FS who pay massive subsidies to Trimet. My company pays over $130k (probably $140k this year) to Trimet annually and our level of service is atrocious. For example, there are no bus stops within a half mile of our administrative office (which employs 30 people).
While it may be true that downtown businesses pay more in Trimet taxes overall, this is more than offset by the fact that their service levels are far superior to anyplace else in the region.
And the example of the family who will have to pay an extra $8.00 in order to drive to Lloyd Center and take a train to Saturday Market? That example is bogus on so many levels I don’t even know where to start. I’ll just say that the Sunset Transit Center model on the west side seems to be working quite well (even on weekends) despite the fact that payment is required to get downtown.
If there are any significantly ill effects from removing FS, they can be easily offset without having to reopen FS (validation/refunds for shoppers, for example).
“FS should be eliminated because the existence of a large group of people who clearly and demonstrably ride the trains between Galleria and Lloyd Center without any meaningful intent (and that’s putting it kindly) deters otherwise fare-paying people from riding the train. Trimet – go talk to your customers and you will see that FS is a deterrent for many people and it is an embarrassment to those who choose to put up with it. My wife and I literally have to hold our breaths (not necessarily from smells, but mostly from nervousness) nearly every time we ride through FS.”
That’s basically my issue. FARELESS SQUARE is not serving the people that it was intended to serve.
BOB R, LETS GO RIDE FARELESS SQUARE WITH OUR VIDEO CAMERA’S AFTER 9 PM (or 6pm for that matter) AND SEE FOR OURSELVES. (of course I already know this because I do it as part of my everyday life but nobody believes me, maybe they will believe you).
And this quote comes from the OREGONIAN which absolutely positively accurately describes the situation on max.
Those quality of life crimes that are keeping people off the trains,” Piluso said. “We’ve had a steep increase in complaints about that in the last 18 months.”
Mike Crebs, East Precinct commander for the Portland Police Bureau, said the main safety issue is “people being obnoxious and loud and yelling” and making other riders feel uncomfortable.
“If they ask them to be quiet, the rider gets slapped or hit,” Crebs said. “It isn’t like people are being stabbed all the time. . . . People are confined on that system, and they paid a ticket to get on there, and they have a right to ride that in peace.”
AND THIS IS EXACTLY THE PROBLEM!
“FS should be eliminated because the existence of a large group of people who clearly and demonstrably ride the trains between Galleria and Lloyd Center without any meaningful intent (and that’s putting it kindly) deters otherwise fare-paying people from riding the train. Trimet – go talk to your customers and you will see that FS is a deterrent for many people and it is an embarrassment to those who choose to put up with it. My wife and I literally have to hold our breaths (not necessarily from smells, but mostly from nervousness) nearly every time we ride through FS.”
That’s basically my issue. FARELESS SQUARE is not serving the people that it was intended to serve.
BOB R, LETS GO RIDE FARELESS SQUARE WITH OUR VIDEO CAMERA’S AFTER 9 PM (or 6pm for that matter) AND SEE FOR OURSELVES. (of course I already know this because I do it as part of my everyday life but nobody believes me, maybe they will believe you).
And this quote comes from the OREGONIAN which absolutely positively accurately describes the situation on max.
Those quality of life crimes that are keeping people off the trains,” Piluso said. “We’ve had a steep increase in complaints about that in the last 18 months.”
Mike Crebs, East Precinct commander for the Portland Police Bureau, said the main safety issue is “people being obnoxious and loud and yelling” and making other riders feel uncomfortable.
“If they ask them to be quiet, the rider gets slapped or hit,” Crebs said. “It isn’t like people are being stabbed all the time. . . . People are confined on that system, and they paid a ticket to get on there, and they have a right to ride that in peace.”
AND THIS IS EXACTLY THE PROBLEM!
“FS should be eliminated because the existence of a large group of people who clearly and demonstrably ride the trains between Galleria and Lloyd Center without any meaningful intent (and that’s putting it kindly) deters otherwise fare-paying people from riding the train. Trimet – go talk to your customers and you will see that FS is a deterrent for many people and it is an embarrassment to those who choose to put up with it. My wife and I literally have to hold our breaths (not necessarily from smells, but mostly from nervousness) nearly every time we ride through FS.”
That’s basically my issue. FARELESS SQUARE is not serving the people that it was intended to serve.
BOB R, LETS GO RIDE FARELESS SQUARE WITH OUR VIDEO CAMERA’S AFTER 9 PM (or 6pm for that matter) AND SEE FOR OURSELVES. (of course I already know this because I do it as part of my everyday life but nobody believes me, maybe they will believe you).
And this quote comes from the OREGONIAN which absolutely positively accurately describes the situation on max.
Those quality of life crimes that are keeping people off the trains,” Piluso said. “We’ve had a steep increase in complaints about that in the last 18 months.”
Mike Crebs, East Precinct commander for the Portland Police Bureau, said the main safety issue is “people being obnoxious and loud and yelling” and making other riders feel uncomfortable.
“If they ask them to be quiet, the rider gets slapped or hit,” Crebs said. “It isn’t like people are being stabbed all the time. . . . People are confined on that system, and they paid a ticket to get on there, and they have a right to ride that in peace.”
AND THIS IS EXACTLY THE PROBLEM!
“FS should be eliminated because the existence of a large group of people who clearly and demonstrably ride the trains between Galleria and Lloyd Center without any meaningful intent (and that’s putting it kindly) deters otherwise fare-paying people from riding the train. Trimet – go talk to your customers and you will see that FS is a deterrent for many people and it is an embarrassment to those who choose to put up with it. My wife and I literally have to hold our breaths (not necessarily from smells, but mostly from nervousness) nearly every time we ride through FS.”
That’s basically my issue. FARELESS SQUARE is not serving the people that it was intended to serve.
BOB R, LETS GO RIDE FARELESS SQUARE WITH OUR VIDEO CAMERA’S AFTER 9 PM (or 6pm for that matter) AND SEE FOR OURSELVES. (of course I already know this because I do it as part of my everyday life but nobody believes me, maybe they will believe you).
And this quote comes from the OREGONIAN which absolutely positively accurately describes the situation on max.
Those quality of life crimes that are keeping people off the trains,” Piluso said. “We’ve had a steep increase in complaints about that in the last 18 months.”
Mike Crebs, East Precinct commander for the Portland Police Bureau, said the main safety issue is “people being obnoxious and loud and yelling” and making other riders feel uncomfortable.
“If they ask them to be quiet, the rider gets slapped or hit,” Crebs said. “It isn’t like people are being stabbed all the time. . . . People are confined on that system, and they paid a ticket to get on there, and they have a right to ride that in peace.”
AND THIS IS EXACTLY THE PROBLEM!
“FS should be eliminated because the existence of a large group of people who clearly and demonstrably ride the trains between Galleria and Lloyd Center without any meaningful intent (and that’s putting it kindly) deters otherwise fare-paying people from riding the train. Trimet – go talk to your customers and you will see that FS is a deterrent for many people and it is an embarrassment to those who choose to put up with it. My wife and I literally have to hold our breaths (not necessarily from smells, but mostly from nervousness) nearly every time we ride through FS.”
That’s basically my issue. FARELESS SQUARE is not serving the people that it was intended to serve.
BOB R, LETS GO RIDE FARELESS SQUARE WITH OUR VIDEO CAMERA’S AFTER 9 PM (or 6pm for that matter) AND SEE FOR OURSELVES. (of course I already know this because I do it as part of my everyday life but nobody believes me, maybe they will believe you).
And this quote comes from the OREGONIAN which absolutely positively accurately describes the situation on max.
Those quality of life crimes that are keeping people off the trains,” Piluso said. “We’ve had a steep increase in complaints about that in the last 18 months.”
Mike Crebs, East Precinct commander for the Portland Police Bureau, said the main safety issue is “people being obnoxious and loud and yelling” and making other riders feel uncomfortable.
“If they ask them to be quiet, the rider gets slapped or hit,” Crebs said. “It isn’t like people are being stabbed all the time. . . . People are confined on that system, and they paid a ticket to get on there, and they have a right to ride that in peace.”
AND THIS IS EXACTLY THE PROBLEM!
I’ll just say that the Sunset Transit Center model on the west side seems to be working quite well (even on weekends) despite the fact that payment is required to get downtown.
I agree. I was not seeing the free trip downtown as the central issue. It is the ability to move freely about downtown once there that gets lost without fareless square. You can get on the train at the Sunset Transit center, stop at the library, go to the farmers market, walk through Saturday Market and head over to Lloyd Center for a movie without worrying about when your pass will expire.
I think eliminating fareless square will change the experience and character of downtown. I think there are other, and better, ways to take control of whatever inappropriate behavior is occurring.
Or perhaps even more to the point, you can drive to the library, park in the garage across the street and spend the rest of your day moving around downtown without ever buying a transit ticket.
“Or perhaps even more to the point, you can drive to the library, park in the garage across the street and spend the rest of your day moving around downtown without ever buying a transit ticket.”
Ross, that’s very nice in theory, and if that’s what was happening then I would be all for continuing fareless square.
For every one person parking in the garage and moving around downtown on the bus, you have 20 transients roaming all over the downtown area.
(DO NOT INCLUDE PSU STUDENTS IN THIS)
OK ROSS, YOU COME WITH ME AND MY VIDEO CAMERA, I’ll show you myself!
Its about time this group goes from writing in a blog to seeing it on the street for yourselves….
ROSS, 9-11pm, some saturday night, you and me, riding up and down fareless square, video cam in hand…
LETS SEE WHO’S RIGHT, ME, OR YOU !!!!
I’ll even put money on it to make it worth your while, say $500 that more transients are riding fareless square than shoppers, is it a bet?
A lot of the discussion here seems to assume that fareless square either stays or goes. I think there are a far wider range of possibilities.
Fareless square is now 32 years old. I doubt that it functions the same way it did 32 years ago, or that the needs in the environment it serves are the same as 32 years ago. It seems very appropriate to me that we examine the current situation and look at what fare configuration would best meet it. There are lots of possibilities. Fareless status might apply only to certain lines, or certain modes. The boundaries of the zone might shift. We might be fareless only during certain hours, etc.
No Chris, we have two very divergent points of view about:
WHAT IS GOING ON IN FARELESS SQUARE AND WHO IS ACTUALLY USING FARELESS SQUARE.
That’s what this discussion is all about!
WHAT IS GOING ON IN FARELESS SQUARE AND WHO IS ACTUALLY USING FARELESS SQUARE.
And are the answers to those questions the same for Streetcar, buses and MAX? Are they the same at every time of day? I suspect the answers on a Saturday morning are very different from a weekday late night! I know they are different between Streetcar on 10th and 11th and MAX between Old Town and Lloyd Center.
I already know the answer to this question, because I live out here!
Now some people on this blog think I am stupid or ignorant just like police sergeants as was evidenced by our conversations LAST SUMMER when I was soundly ridiculed for expressing my concerns about MAX SECURITY.
And months after our original conversations about MAX SECURITY, all hell breaks loose.
SO HERE WE ARE AGAIN, HAVING ANOTHER CONVERSATION ABOUT ANOTHER TOPIC,so, lets go see what’s going on for ourselves.
CHRIS-
After 7pm is when it starts getting weird.
After 10PM watch your back on the streets or in the MAX of Portland!
Here is a good post from the operators blog:
Erik et al,
Erik Halstead wrote:
> I think charging a fare actually has a legal component to it – because
> if you have a fare free system, the transit system becomes the same as
> a sidewalk – it’s very difficult to enforce a “loitering” law.
Well, you make a good point but see below.
>
> Whereas if you require a fare (even a $1.00 fare, or a 50 cent fare –
> anything) you are creating a legal requirement to 1: pay the fare to
> have access, and 2: use the system for a defined purpose.
True.
>
> If you don’t have a fare, how do you justify who is supposed to be on
> the transit system (going from point ‘a’ to point ‘b’) versus people
> who are just hanging out? Are fare inspectors supposed to ask every
> customer “where did you come from? Where are you going? Why are you
> travelling?”
>
OK, let’s take a devil’s advocate position here.
If there were no fare, there would be no need for fare inspectors. The
issue would then be one of public safety, pure and simple. You don’t
have to justify why you’re on the train or bus, you just need to observe
the law.
If the person was non-threatening, not using abusive language or smoking
or panhandling or dealing, why do we need to prevent him/her from
hanging out? Would we get some street people? Yeah, probably, but if
they’re doing no harm, why run them off the property?
* * * * *
I saw two burly county deputies in front of Central Library hassling
some kids who were smoking cigarettes on the stone benches on 11th Ave.
One cop said “OK, you can either leave or stay, but if you stay, I’m
going to watch you VERY carefully, looking for the slightest excuse to
hand you an exclusion order.” The kids didn’t look like hoodlums, just
regular scruffy Portland kids. (They even complimented my pooch, who is,
admittedly, quite cute.:-)) Maybe the cops knew them better than I did.
But I wondered why they were getting hassled. I did ask one of the
deputies what their offense was; he shrugged and walked away.
* * * * *
Friday’s Trib had a letter to the editor saying in part (I’m
paraphrasing) “I’ve seen a lot of eccentric people on the MAX. Well,
Portland is an eccentric place and eccentricity is not a crime.”
* * * * *
In NYC the subways run 24/7. A fare ticket is (I think) $2.00; the
stations are fenced and the turnstiles are 6-7 feet high. And most
stations have info booths that used to sell tokens before the switch to
TVMs. The people in those booths keep an eye on the turnstiles. Many of
the stations have rest rooms. Many of the stations have newspaper/snack
kiosks.
Result? THere’s a population of street people who literally live in the
subway. For the price of a $2.00 ticket, they live on the trains and in
the stations. The police (and there are MANY police) bust troublemakers
and criminals, but leave alone the people who are just “hanging out”.
Aren’t you glad TriMet doesn’t have those issues?
* * * * *
In many cities, uniformed people (cops, security guards, etc.) are given
transit passes and strongly encouraged to use transit as much as they
can, even if they’re off duty. Just the presence of the uniforms keeps
“showing the flag”. I know they do this in DC, probably NYC too. Is
there a policy on this in Portland?
* * * * *
Somehow we need to distinguish between the real crime, and the social
irritants that are part of life in a big city with a mild climate. I’m
not rich, but I do live in the Pearl, and I walk around this town a lot.
I see a lot of eccentrics. So? They don’t scare me, I’m a city kid.
OK, I’ve blathered long enough.
Later –
Mike
Some downtown business owners are convinced that if you do away with fareless square you will have fewer homeless downtown. They may be right, but it has little to do with security on transit.
“The notion that FS should be free because more Trimet taxes are collected downtown is absurd and offensive to businesses outside of FS who pay massive subsidies to Trimet.”
And that isn’t why it is free. Somebody, (I believe City of Portland, but it could be PBA,) is paying TriMet $300k/year to make it fareless. If the city of Hillsboro wanted to create a fareless zone in their city, and offered TriMet a bunch of money to do it, I imagine that TriMet would create a fareless zone there as well…
“And that isn’t why it is free. Somebody, (I believe City of Portland, but it could be PBA,) is paying TriMet $300k/year to make it fareless.”
Where’s Bob R when you need him!
THATS A HELL OF A GOOD DEAL THEY GOT THERE!
For $821/day they bought the entire fareless square?
HOW CAN I GET A DEAL LIKE THAT?
““““““““`
“They may be right, but it has little to do with security on transit.”
True enough, but since the whole system is noW under scrutiny its time to look at changing this too!
Generally, I support the abolition of Fareless Square in conjunction with the elimination of the zone system as a way to simplify the entire payment system. Every bit of complexity, no matter how slight, is a barrier to new riders. One fare ($1.75, $2.00, or $2.25) to ride anywhere on the system for two hours is simple. $4,25, $4.50, or $4.75 for a day pass (everywhere on the system, all day) is equally simple.
I was not seeing the free trip downtown as the central issue. It is the ability to move freely about downtown once there that gets lost without fareless square. You can get on the train at the Sunset Transit center, stop at the library, go to the farmers market, walk through Saturday Market and head over to Lloyd Center for a movie without worrying about when your pass will expire.
As I mentioned before, this can be solved by buying a day pass instead of the two tickets required for a round trip. From Sunset Transit center, the difference is only fifteen cents. And you get broader access than Fareless Square — hop the Streetcar to the Spaghetti Factory for lunch, or Trendy-Third to do some window shopping.
Or perhaps even more to the point, you can drive to the library, park in the garage across the street and spend the rest of your day moving around downtown without ever buying a transit ticket.
That’s a good point, although I don’t know what percentage of people who drive all the way downtown to shop make plans to get all over using buses, Streetcar and MAX. Most people I know who use transit around downtown park out in the ‘burbs and ride MAX in.
But take it as a given that there are a significant number of people who park and ride around downtown, and that the need to buy a transit ticket will drive them to shop at their local mall instead. Set up a system where the ticket they get when they park at a downtown structure becomes a transit pass for a party of up to six, as long as they stay together. (Not quite as flexible as the current system, true, since it prevents free rides for everyone if you split up…) Carpool in, park your car, and travel around together using your date-and-time-stamped parking ticket for transit. At the end of the day, when you leave the lot, turn in the ticket and pay for parking for however many hours you were there.
I really don’t see that getting rid of the Fareless area will have that much of a change in the downtown experience. I do see it as a way to simply the system for everyone: pay a fare and get on.
Of course, none of this has much to do with safety on MAX.
Matthew,
A $300k grant between two government agencies isn’t enough and certainly wouldn’t be considered as an arm’s length transaction; also my comment was in response to Ross’s post where he was justifying fareless square on the basis of more businesses (and thus tax collections) downtown.
“Of course, none of this has much to do with safety on MAX. ”
How about we leave it at this”
+It’s unknown if fareless square contributes to the behavior problems on the max in general.+
“For $821/day they bought the entire fareless square?”
Yes, it is a good deal, but the question is, if they eliminated it, would TriMet get $821/day more in revenue? I don’t think they would, a lot of the people would either not go to downtown at all, or would walk the 5 blocks between destinations. And for a lot of streetcar riders, they’d just buy a yearly pass…
And it isn’t like they are running extra buses just to handle fareless square trips, the buses&MAX are there already… Certainly, having to pick up and drop of the fareless riders is slowing the buses down somewhat, but it isn’t slowing down the trains in the slightest.
Ross’s post where he was justifying fareless square on the basis of more businesses (and thus tax collections) downtown.
I am not sure where that came from, but I certainly didn’t intend to justify fareless square on that basis. I don’t think what companies pay in taxes have much to do, or should have much to do, with determining transit service.
Every bit of complexity, no matter how slight, is a barrier to new riders … I really don’t see that getting rid of the Fareless area will have that much of a change in the downtown experience.
I think getting on Max and taking it where you want to go is about as simple as it gets. I suspect the folks who don’t think paying a fare downtown is a problem, have a monthly pass and won’t have to pay. I don’t know if people will pay a fare to get from Saturday Market to Pioneer Square. I suspect not.
This is also increasingly sounding like an effort to exclude “undesirable” people from the transit system based on ability to pay. If you buy a parking ticket, you get free transit. If you shop at a store, you get free transit. Why exactly are we doing away with fareless square? Apparently it is an attempt to exclude people based on ability to pay on the assumption that being poor makes you an “undesirable” character.
“Apparently it is an attempt to exclude people based on ability to pay on the assumption that being poor makes you an “undesirable” character.”
Oh Ross, you know what we are talking about.
We want the transit system to be used for TRANSIT, not for shelter, not for riding around because your too lazy to walk a block or two, and certainly not for scoping out the next target for pickpockets.
We are trying to improve the overall experience of the people that are using transit to GET HOME FROM DOWNTOWN and don’t want to deal with the transient population.
And all this talk has started because some people have refused to believe that there was ever any problem on the max so now its blown up in the faces of those people and turned into a media circus.
GET IT? (only a joke, dont get mad)
I just posted one of my world famous videos:
ODE TO THE OLD TRANSIT MALL!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YLH6U6Ed7A
REMEMBER THE MALL!
I don’t know if people will pay a fare to get from Saturday Market to Pioneer Square. I suspect not.
I certainly wouldn’t. I’d walk. It’s not that far.
But if I was going to spend the whole day downtown visiting multiple destinations, I’d buy the “all day” pass and take transit everywhere. Which is what I do whenever I’m a tourist in any city with a decent transit system: I buy the daily or the weekly pass (depending on how long I’m there) and make good use of it. In those months that I didn’t buy a monthly pass (good bicycling weather), I have purchased an all-day pass for the occasional “shopping, touring and entertainment” excursion into downtown.
(BTW, a Tri-Met all-day pass is a fantastic bargain: at $4.25, it is cheaper, both in absolute terms and relative to a round-trip fare, than an all-day pass in Seattle, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago or New York City.)
Getting rid of the free zone will not change downtown or make it less desirable as a destination. As I’ve pointed out a couple of times, ANYONE riding the bus downtown just for the day is paying a fare anyway, and an extra 15 or 75 cents more gets them an all-day pass.
I think getting on Max and taking it where you want to go is about as simple as it gets.
Eliminating fares completely would make the system incredibly easy to use. And I know people have made arguments as to why that’s better policy than a partial-farebox recovery system like we have now. I don’t buy the argument, because my own observations suggest that people don’t value something they don’t have to pay for.
This is also increasingly sounding like an effort to exclude “undesirable” people from the transit system based on ability to pay.
Well, yes. The nature of charging a fare is that people get to use the system based on ability to pay. But with the exception of fareless square, we’re “excluding” people from the entire transit system as it is. Again, you can make the argument that the whole system should be fareless so no poor people are excluded. Personally, I disagree; I’d rather the fares were lower (say $1.00 for a 2-hour ride and $2.50 for an all-day pass). Again, I’d rather people pay something than nothing, because most people don’t seem to value stuff they get for “free.”
But if the system depends in part on fares to fund it, I don’t see that excluding people who can’t or won’t pay the fare is particularly wrong.
“Again, I’d rather people pay something than nothing, because most people don’t seem to value stuff they get for “free.”
This is not a socialist country, this is a capitalist country.
Until we turn socialist everyone should have to contribute to the system that benefits all of us.
IF ITS REQUIRED FOR SOME PEOPLE TO PAY, THEN ALL PEOPLE MUST PAY.
Its the only fare and equitable way to handle it.
Otherwise make it completely fareless, hell lets make everything fareless, housing, electric, food, why stop at transit!
“We want the transit system to be used for TRANSIT, not for shelter, not for riding around because your too lazy to walk a block or two, and certainly not for scoping out the next target for pickpockets.”
Apparently you missed this story then:
http://www.theoutlookonline.com/news/story.php?story_id=119622905164666800
“For example, officers noticed a man in his 60s often asleep at the end of the line.
He wasn’t intoxicated.
He didn’t use drugs.
He always had his fare and never caused any trouble.
After getting to know him, police discovered he was just homeless with nowhere to go.”
Paying a few dollars a day (for a monthly pass) for a warm place to stay isn’t stopping people from using the MAX as a place to stay right now, so I’m not sure how forcing everyone to pay in downtown is going to somehow make the system better…
As someone who has rode the L in Chicago daily to get to and from school I can assure you that a) charging fares and b) restricting access (installing turnstiles) does not keep homeless people off of the trains. The fact is, a homeless person can probably scrounge up the $2.00 it takes for a 2 hour ride, and possibly even th $4.25 for an all day pass.
I’m not sure why the man on the street thinks that installing these barriers will make the Max any safer… I wouldn’t mind because I think something has more value when you have to pay for it. I’ve got no idea of the percentage of people are fare scofflaws, but reducing that percentage would be a net positive, regardless of how that affects crime.
I support making the entire system fareless, using citizen reporting (promoted with public campaigns like letting people know that you can get off one car, onto the other, and anonymously use the intercom to report an incident), using passes for uniformed police/security workers, using platform cameras, and using some reasonable level of TriMet security to ensure safety. Nobody should be allowed to use TriMet as a place to live, but there should be no universal exclusion of homeless people from public accomodations, either. Prohibit behaviors, not a class of people. I support fareless transit to promote sustainable transportation. And whether people are using transit to go work, shop, learn or play, it helps the economy as well as the environment. Whether those using TriMet are teens, the scruffy creative class, street people, the working class, parents with kids, or the extreme minority of the suit-and-tie-clad ranks in Portland is not of much concern to me. As long as no one is harming others or simply living on transit, I’m fine. Maybe others are too picky about whom they want to associate with, but that’s not really something the government should be enlisted to enforce. And yes, a lot more people would use transit if it were fareless. And more transit would be needed to accomodate it. And more money would be needed to pay for it. And no one would ever need a car in the city of Portland. And a lot less money would be needed for new car and truck infrastructure.
But Portland is probably content being a car city with an ego about its transit hobby.
If you want to compromise, I might be persuaded on nickel fares.
The nature of charging a fare is that people get to use the system based on ability to pay.
Now people are trying to figure out how to let some “desirable” people use the system without paying a fare (if they buy something from a store or pay parking they get free transit at no extra charge).
We are trying to improve the overall experience of the people that are using transit to GET HOME FROM DOWNTOWN and don’t want to deal with the transient population.
Right. The real point is not criminals or pickpockets or security, its excluding a certain class of people that make some other users uncomfortable.
And all this talk has started because some people have refused to believe that there was ever any problem on the max so now its blown up in the faces of those people and turned into a media circus.
Actually no one denied that some people are uncomfortable around the poor and homeless. Now that we have excluding the homeless from MAX in downtown Portland as the proposed solution for crime near transit centers in Gresham and Hillsboro, its pretty apparent that “crime” was never the problem. “Criminals” is really just some peoples’ euphemism for poor.
Until we turn socialist everyone should have to contribute to the system that benefits all of us.
So we should all need a pass to use the public sidewalk?
Which is what I do whenever I’m a tourist in any city with a decent transit system: I buy the daily or the weekly pass (depending on how long I’m there) and make good use of it.
I think you are reading a lot into your personal experience. But what does being a tourist have to do with people who run into one another downtown and decide to go to lunch? Are they all going to buy a bus pass? Or are they going to walk? I think walk. And for some people anything beyond six blocks is not what they consider walkable.
You can make arguments for eliminating fareless square. There are people who think it encourages people to drive downtown rather than use transit. But anyone who thinks the experience of downtown won’t change is missing what fareless square really accomplished. Without it, the cost of admission to all of downtown is a transit pass. Without one, you are limited to whatever parts od downtown you can walk to.
Well we are in another of the PORTLAND TRANSPORTS famous doo loops, around and around we go, nobody ever changes their point of view on the subject at hand.
Many of you steadfastly denied there was any security problem on the max, and those are the same people that support the continuation of the fareless square.
YOU WERE WRONG BEFORE, AND MOST LIKELY YOU’LL BE WRONG AGAIN!
Well we are in another of the PORTLAND TRANSPORTS famous doo loops, around and around we go, nobody ever changes their point of view on the subject at hand.
Many of you steadfastly denied there was any security problem on the max, and those are the same people that support the continuation of the fareless square.
YOU WERE WRONG BEFORE, AND MOST LIKELY YOU’LL BE WRONG AGAIN!
Well we are in another of the PORTLAND TRANSPORTS famous doo loops, around and around we go, nobody ever changes their point of view on the subject at hand.
Many of you steadfastly denied there was any security problem on the max, and those are the same people that support the continuation of the fareless square.
YOU WERE WRONG BEFORE, AND MOST LIKELY YOU’LL BE WRONG AGAIN!
Well we are in another of the PORTLAND TRANSPORTS famous doo loops, around and around we go, nobody ever changes their point of view on the subject at hand.
Many of you steadfastly denied there was any security problem on the max, and those are the same people that support the continuation of the fareless square.
YOU WERE WRONG BEFORE, AND MOST LIKELY YOU’LL BE WRONG AGAIN!
Well we are in another of the PORTLAND TRANSPORTS famous doo loops, around and around we go, nobody ever changes their point of view on the subject at hand.
Many of you steadfastly denied there was any security problem on the max, and those are the same people that support the continuation of the fareless square.
YOU WERE WRONG BEFORE, AND MOST LIKELY YOU’LL BE WRONG AGAIN!
“nobody ever changes their point of view on the subject at hand.”
Quite right, you haven’t changed your position yet…
“Many of you steadfastly denied there was any security problem on the max”
Can you find anyone that claimed that there weren’t any security problems on MAX? For instance I claim that it just isn’t that bad, and that many of Gresham’s MAX problems have to do with the fact that Gresham is a high crime area, and I blame most of that on the fact that they have one of the lowest number of police officers in the metro area per capita…
RIGHT,
Its not that bad, its all an illusion, its a media trick, all the police calls at WILLOW CREEK are because Gresham is a high crime area.
Thanks for clearing that up.
Have a good day!
The solution at Willow Creek is the conversion of parking lots to dense mixed use development with cafes open until 2am, lots of people coming and going. More “eyes on the street,” less crime.
“The solution at Willow Creek is the conversion of parking lots to dense mixed use development with cafes open until 2am”
Now I know for sure 1/2 the people on this blog are on drugs!
LOL!!LOL!!
ALRIGHT, let’s see about this claim that GRESHAM is a high crime area!
Overall Gresham Crime Index 6052.2/100,000
Overall Portland Crime Index 7680.2/100,000
WELL GOLLY GEE AND STRIKE ME BLIND, THE CLAIM THAT GRESHAM IS A HIGH CRIME AREA IS FALSE!
The crime rate in PORTLAND is HIGHER than the crime rate in GRESHAM.
Well there goes another argument for the “everything is fine” folks.
http://portlandor.areaconnect.com/crime1.htm
Somebody, (I believe City of Portland, but it could be PBA,) is paying TriMet $300k/year to make it fareless.
Specifically, it’s the Portland Office of Transportation. An April 21, 2006 article in the Tribune stated that they paid $274,000 a year at that time, and hoped “to stop subsidizing fareless ridership starting in 2007.” I can’t seem to find any mention of exactly how much, or where the money is currently coming from, in the current city budget on their website.
My initial thought is “hey Sam, would this get us any closer to fixing streets and improving sidewalks?”
So, other groups have been looking into ending it since well before the most recent flaps.
There is the perception that people are boarding trains, and in some cases buses, in Fareless Square, riding to the non-fareless areas and making people that are actually paying feel unwelcome. All it takes is one person to do this that gets reported by the media to create the perception.
As for the homeless that ride because they have no other place to go (some others also go to the Central Library, sit down, read the paper and generally cause no problems there), I think the issue goes beyond anything TriMet, the city, or the county could legislate pertaining to transit conduct… the issue that should be looked at is why they’re there in the first place. If it’s because there’s no room in any shelters, then look into that issue. If it’s because they don’t want to hear a preacher yell a sermon at them for thirty minutes, or because they have to be split up from their wife/kids/dog/etc., then that’s something else to consider. Now the ones that are there because they have no inclination of getting off illegal drugs, alcohol, or whatever… well they shouldn’t be on MAX either.
Well we are in another of the PORTLAND TRANSPORTS famous doo loops, around and around we go, nobody ever changes their point of view on the subject at hand.
I’d like to think that we have a conversation here, or even perhaps an occasional online version of an open house, but… I also don’t think the point of the site was to change anyone’s mind on anything. IMO, we should really agree that there are lots of differing views out there, not everyone will agree with all of them, and everyone has the right to think whatever they want, although it doesn’t make it true.
“I also don’t think the point of the site was to change anyone’s mind on anything.”
Your right of course, however sometimes it feels like we sure do beat these horses till they are long dead and rotting.
AND THEN WE BEAT THEM SOME MORE!
But what does being a tourist have to do with people who run into one another downtown and decide to go to lunch? Are they all going to buy a bus pass? Or are they going to walk? I think walk. And for some people anything beyond six blocks is not what they consider walkable.
So? Anybody who runs into someone they know downtown and decides to go to lunch probably will have several dozen dining options within a six block radius. I don’t see any great merit to providing them free transit just to open up a few hundred additional options. They’ll go somewhere, spend their money at a downtown restaurant, and enjoy dinner.
But anyone who thinks the experience of downtown won’t change is missing what fareless square really accomplished. Without it, the cost of admission to all of downtown is a transit pass. Without one, you are limited to whatever parts od downtown you can walk to.
No question, Fareless Square creates a different experience and a different set of incentives. That doesn’t necessarily make it “better.” But the fareless zone’s original purpose was to help build up downtown, and, three decades later, that’s done.
As it stands, the “downtown experience” wouldn’t be substantially different for people who take transit downtown. Their very affordable day pass will give them the same benefits as fareless square.
Of course, the downtown experience would be somewhat different for those people who drive downtown, park, and use Tri-Met to get around. They probably won’t want to spend an extra $4.25 for a day pass. But I expect that’s a fairly small subset of total transit users AND total downtown shoppers.
Now people are trying to figure out how to let some “desirable” people use the system without paying a fare (if they buy something from a store or pay parking they get free transit at no extra charge).
As I understand the point of Fareless Square, it was designed as an easy way to get people to come downtown to shop and circulate without having to pay a lot in the way of transit fares. In other words, it was created precisely to serve those “desirable” people, not to create a free-joyride zone for anyone who wanted to hop on transit.
As long as Tri-Met offers a cheap day pass, we can accomplish that same result without the fareless zone, and riders get the additional benefit of being able to access the Pearl District or Northwest 23rd or Hawthorne or South Waterfront or all of the above if they are so inclined.
The initial selling point was to make money for downtown retailers. But maybe there are other goals for a transportation system beyond making money for downtown retailers.
Again, car drivers are beat up in parking lots every day, and no one is suggesting that we stop funding our free streets. Perhaps MAX needs a bit more security (as do the streets), but this has been blown WAY out of proportion with media hysteria (and blog hysteria right here at PT).
When returning from business travel, I regularly ride MAX from the airport to Hillsboro very late at night, including the Friday night midnight departure. I have never seen anything remotely scary. Yes, weird characters board the train, but no one has bothered me or anyone else. I take common sense precautions like sitting in the front car near the operator, but I haven’t seen anything that makes me feel the need to alter my behavior.
So, on the subject of crime, my advice is “chill.” Allow TriMet and the cities beef up police presence a bit and see what the results are…they’ll probably be good.
And on the subject of Fareless Square, there should be a dialogue. This topic has nothing to do with the crime issue. I tend to think that free transit should be expanded rather than reduced–mainly in high density areas such as Hawthorne, NW 23rd, etc. I could see areas such as Orenco/Tanasbourne as good candidates for fareless treatment in the future, but a certain level of density would need to be achieved.
Conversely, cutting off the Lloyd district also cuts off the tourists at the convention center and Rose Garden (and going downtown DOES increase dining options exponentially for this group).
Anybody who runs into someone they know downtown and decides to go to lunch probably will have several dozen dining options within a six block radius. I don’t see any great merit to providing them free transit just to open up a few hundred additional options. They’ll go somewhere, spend their money at a downtown restaurant, and enjoy dinner.
Of course they will. Or they will decide to get in their cars and head to the Pearl or Northwest Portland or meet-up somewhere else. They won’t starve. But the experience of downtown is now different. It is no longer a place any more than Southeast Portland or Northeast Portland are places.
But the fareless zone’s original purpose was to help build up downtown, and, three decades later, that’s done.
I don’t think downtown will die overnight without fareless square. But I would bet it has a lot fewer visitors in a few years. And I bet there are businesses that decide if they need a car to get to meet for lunch with someone, its just as easy to drive to the suburbs as it is downtown.
other words, it was created precisely to serve those “desirable” people
Of course it was. Who cares about poor people? The sidewalks were put there to serve “desirable” people too. Should poor people charged to use them but not your “desirable” people. Maybe you should just charge a fee to enter downtown. Keep the streets safe for the “desirable” folks.
I humbly request that people resist the urge to play the “class warfare” card in an effort to dismiss the points that people (such as myself) have to advocate the elimination of Fareless Square. My intent is not to haul poor people off the train… it is merely to eliminate the motivation that people have to ride the train with no meaningful or positive intent. I realize that getting rid of FS won’t eliminate this entirely, but it would reduce it significantly and it would also increase farebox revenue as well.
“I humbly request that people resist the urge to play the “class warfare” card in an effort to dismiss the points that people (such as myself) have to advocate the elimination of Fareless Square.”
I SECOND THAT MOTION!
They are grasping at straws, they have no other issues/facts to support their point of view,so they make them up as they go.
I humbly request that people resist the urge to play the “class warfare” card in an effort to dismiss the points that people (such as myself) have to advocate the elimination of Fareless Square.
Greg – I don’t think all the arguments for getting rid of fareless square are “class warfare”. But I think some of them are. I am trying to figure out why anyone cares whether someone is joy-riding or not? Isn’t that essentially what tourists do? Wasn’t the tram built, in part, to encourage joy-riding?
Its not people’s intent that is at issue. Its who those people are. The complaint is about the badly dressed homeless guy who is drunk at 11 am, not the well-dressed guy who had one too many and is on his way home at 11pm. Whether you like it or not, this discussion is about class. Its about throwing homeless people off the MAX downtown, not getting rid of the criminals in Gresham.
Ross is very good at ignoring facts btw.
ross you may want to consider reading the posts BEFORE you make stupid comments like criminals reside in gresham:
ALRIGHT, let’s see about this claim that GRESHAM is a high crime area!
Overall Gresham Crime Index 6052.2/100,000
Overall Portland Crime Index 7680.2/100,000
WELL GOLLY GEE AND STRIKE ME BLIND, THE CLAIM THAT GRESHAM IS A HIGH CRIME AREA IS FALSE!
The crime rate in PORTLAND is HIGHER than the crime rate in GRESHAM.
Well there goes another argument for the “everything is fine” folks.
http://portlandor.areaconnect.com/crime1.htm
Overall Gresham Crime Index 6052.2/100,000
Overall Portland Crime Index 7680.2/100,000
Thus indicating, I suppose, that Rockwood has less crime than Southwest Hills. Of course the overall crime rates have nothing to do with security on transit. And crime statistics have nothing to do with excluding the homeless from MAX in fareless square.
Welcome to the Fearmonger Shop, pick your phobia and we can feed it.
LA subway is installing turnstyles:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/03/us/03transit.html
of course there is no way to have turnstyles on the portland transit system even if we wanted them.
Hi J –
This was brought up over in another thread … I’ll repost my comments here:
(Quoting Greg T.) Now I see L.A. is giving up its honor system, too.
Not entirely … primarily in the subways, where fare gates can actually provide a level of control.
Still, despite all the paranoia and kvetching about non-paying riders, the New York Times reports that fewer than 5% were found (in a recent study) to be riding without a valid fare:
Time will tell (shortly) if revenues are indeed boosted the net $5.77 million, which would pay off the capital costs of the fare gates in 5 to 6 years.
Portland doesn’t have a subway, and only has a few stations where fare gates would ever be practical (freeway-adjacent and the Zoo), so the application of LA’s methods probably wouldn’t work here in any meaningful way.
It seems strange, though, that $30 million plus $1 million per year couldn’t have been allocated to more security officers on the trains and in the stations.
– Bob R.
“Welcome to the Fearmonger Shop, pick your phobia and we can feed it.”
That’s an interesting statement Ross, letS look at another of your statements, your post immediately proceeding the fearmonger shop post.
“Its about throwing homeless people off the MAX downtown, not getting rid of the criminals in Gresham.”
So thats not fearmongering, your slandering the people of Gresham and accusing those of us against fareless square “throwing homeless people off the max”.
Ross, your really quite a character, the more I get to know you the more I just love the way you think.
I think the word they use for you type of thinking process:
MAGICAL THINKING
So thats not fearmongering
No, it isn’t. Its making explicit the reasoning some people have used for getting rid of fareless square.
your slandering the people of Gresham
There are criminals in Gresham, as there are in Portland. Nice try.
Lets be clear. There is a contradiction between the idea of a public space open to everyone and making a space that is comfortable for people who aren’t comfortable in a public space open to everyone. If you allow the homeless to use transit, some more “desirable” people will choose not to.
So this discussion really is about what kind of place Portland wants to be. Is it a city with public spaces open to all, or is it a place where people who are poor or eccentric are driven out of site because they make some people uncomfortable, frightened and/or embarrassed. And the battle over downtown is hardly limited to transit.
A few thoughts on turnstiles:
While turnstiles are obviously unworkable at most stations, if the freeway-adjacent stops are as unsafe as the current hype is making them out to be, might it make sense to have turnstiles at the street-level entrances, and at least keep the loitering and such to a more easily-patrolled area? Or, at least, if ridership levels can actually justify it; bear in mind, most systems with turnstiles have far more traffic per station than MAX; in fact, many individual stations have more ridership than the entire MAX system. Failing that, perhaps having officers stationed full-time at transit centers and the busiest stations might be in order.
Of course, the most stringent fare-collecting regime wouldn’t entirely change peoples’ perceptions of their safety, anyways. Here in Toronto—which has the most rigid system I’ve personally dealt with, along with being one of the safest cities on the continent—stories still appear periodically about safety on the subways; in fact, just earlier this year, a man was found stabbed to death on the train. On the other hand, I have to admit that there tend to be fewer “intimidating” types on the TTC than on the MAX, per capita, and very few homeless; and, since each station is manned, there tend to be few, if any loiterers.
Are there any innovative ideas out there to make stations and trains less appealing to those who are up to no good? The subway station near my place is also near a large high school; naturally, this would result in large groups of teenagers—not always the most desirable people to have around—gathering and hanging out. In response, the transit agency started piping Bach through the speakers, on the theory that it would exert a calming influence on those in the station, and/or make it a less pleasant place for teenage males to hang out. I have to admit, while they can still be seen hanging around a bit, and sometimes causing trouble, it seems to work.
Ross,
I doubt we will ever come to any agreements around the issues of transit security or fareless square.
Let’s leave it at that.
Ross,
I doubt we will ever come to any agreements around the issues of transit security or fareless square.
Let’s leave it at that.
Ross,
I doubt we will ever come to any agreements around the issues of transit security or fareless square.
Let’s leave it at that.
Ross,
I doubt we will ever come to any agreements around the issues of transit security or fareless square.
Let’s leave it at that.
Ross,
I doubt we will ever come to any agreements around the issues of transit security or fareless square.
Let’s leave it at that.
I’m reminded of the push by then Mayor Ivancie and the downtown business interests to restrict access to Pioneer Courthouse Square. Fortunately they lost, but some of those ranting here about so-called “undesirables” on MAX would have been right in there for an admission gate to the square. Not the Portland I want to live in.
But really, there is no good data behind any of this crime hysteria. I think two years ago the “crime wave” was downtown…aimed at street kids, etc. People who think we have a crime problem just need to get out into the wider world.
In any event the solution is what every cop will tell you…more eyes on the street, station or whatever; no surprise MAX appears to have more problems late at night when there are fewer riders.
Data doesnt mean anything if your the one hit over the head with the bat!
It seems to me that some of you folks don’t spend much time in downtown or in oldtown.
Why don’t you go down there some night, around 10pm, and go gather some of your data, and then submit it to the group here.
You guys really live a sheltered life, its too bad because y’all have this jaded view of the world.
It gets so boring listening to you upper middle class yuppies telling the rest of us how we need to get out more.
THE PROBLEM IS YOU NEED TO GET OUT MORE.
I’VE SAID IT BEFORE, I WILL SAY IT AGAIN, I WILL BE HAPPY TO ACCOMPANY ANY OF YOU NAY SAYERS DOWNTOWN ON A LATE NIGHT SATURDAY, AND LETS GO HANG OUT IN OLDTOWN, THEN RIDE AROUND FARELESS AND SEE WHATS REALLY GOING ON.
Then we can publish our story/video right here on the PORTLAND TRANSPORT BLOG.
Until you’ve actually lived downtown at night, you have nothing to say to the rest of us that do live down there.
Data doesnt mean anything if your the one hit over the head with the bat!
It seems to me that some of you folks don’t spend much time in downtown or in oldtown.
Why don’t you go down there some night, around 10pm, and go gather some of your data, and then submit it to the group here.
You guys really live a sheltered life, its too bad because y’all have this jaded view of the world.
It gets so boring listening to you upper middle class yuppies telling the rest of us how we need to get out more.
THE PROBLEM IS YOU NEED TO GET OUT MORE.
I’VE SAID IT BEFORE, I WILL SAY IT AGAIN, I WILL BE HAPPY TO ACCOMPANY ANY OF YOU NAY SAYERS DOWNTOWN ON A LATE NIGHT SATURDAY, AND LETS GO HANG OUT IN OLDTOWN, THEN RIDE AROUND FARELESS AND SEE WHATS REALLY GOING ON.
Then we can publish our story/video right here on the PORTLAND TRANSPORT BLOG.
Until you’ve actually lived downtown at night, you have nothing to say to the rest of us that do live down there.
Data doesnt mean anything if your the one hit over the head with the bat!
It seems to me that some of you folks don’t spend much time in downtown or in oldtown.
Why don’t you go down there some night, around 10pm, and go gather some of your data, and then submit it to the group here.
You guys really live a sheltered life, its too bad because y’all have this jaded view of the world.
It gets so boring listening to you upper middle class yuppies telling the rest of us how we need to get out more.
THE PROBLEM IS YOU NEED TO GET OUT MORE.
I’VE SAID IT BEFORE, I WILL SAY IT AGAIN, I WILL BE HAPPY TO ACCOMPANY ANY OF YOU NAY SAYERS DOWNTOWN ON A LATE NIGHT SATURDAY, AND LETS GO HANG OUT IN OLDTOWN, THEN RIDE AROUND FARELESS AND SEE WHATS REALLY GOING ON.
Then we can publish our story/video right here on the PORTLAND TRANSPORT BLOG.
Until you’ve actually lived downtown at night, you have nothing to say to the rest of us that do live down there.
Data doesnt mean anything if your the one hit over the head with the bat!
It seems to me that some of you folks don’t spend much time in downtown or in oldtown.
Why don’t you go down there some night, around 10pm, and go gather some of your data, and then submit it to the group here.
You guys really live a sheltered life, its too bad because y’all have this jaded view of the world.
It gets so boring listening to you upper middle class yuppies telling the rest of us how we need to get out more.
THE PROBLEM IS YOU NEED TO GET OUT MORE.
I’VE SAID IT BEFORE, I WILL SAY IT AGAIN, I WILL BE HAPPY TO ACCOMPANY ANY OF YOU NAY SAYERS DOWNTOWN ON A LATE NIGHT SATURDAY, AND LETS GO HANG OUT IN OLDTOWN, THEN RIDE AROUND FARELESS AND SEE WHATS REALLY GOING ON.
Then we can publish our story/video right here on the PORTLAND TRANSPORT BLOG.
Until you’ve actually lived downtown at night, you have nothing to say to the rest of us that do live down there.
Data doesnt mean anything if your the one hit over the head with the bat!
It seems to me that some of you folks don’t spend much time in downtown or in oldtown.
Why don’t you go down there some night, around 10pm, and go gather some of your data, and then submit it to the group here.
You guys really live a sheltered life, its too bad because y’all have this jaded view of the world.
It gets so boring listening to you upper middle class yuppies telling the rest of us how we need to get out more.
THE PROBLEM IS YOU NEED TO GET OUT MORE.
I’VE SAID IT BEFORE, I WILL SAY IT AGAIN, I WILL BE HAPPY TO ACCOMPANY ANY OF YOU NAY SAYERS DOWNTOWN ON A LATE NIGHT SATURDAY, AND LETS GO HANG OUT IN OLDTOWN, THEN RIDE AROUND FARELESS AND SEE WHATS REALLY GOING ON.
Then we can publish our story/video right here on the PORTLAND TRANSPORT BLOG.
Until you’ve actually lived downtown at night, you have nothing to say to the rest of us that do live down there.
Y’all can talk till your eyes fall out, nobody believes anything y’all say.
Y’all can talk till your eyes fall out, nobody believes anything y’all say.
Y’all can talk till your eyes fall out, nobody believes anything y’all say.
Y’all can talk till your eyes fall out, nobody believes anything y’all say.
Y’all can talk till your eyes fall out, nobody believes anything y’all say.
Data doesnt mean anything if your the one hit over the head with the bat!
Statistics doesn’t mean anything if you aren’t the one hit over the head either. They may or may not tell you something about how likely that is. What is your point other than you should be more afraid of being hit over the head than is warranted by how likely it is?
It seems to me that some of you folks don’t spend much time in downtown or in oldtown.
If you think it is so dangerous, why are you spending time there? Anyone who uses a reasonable amount of caution is going to be as safe downtown as a lot of other places in the city. MAX stops are safer than most places simply because there are more people around.
Welcome to the Fearmonger Shop.
“If you think it is so dangerous, why are you spending time there?”
I DO SPEND TIME THERE IDIOT!
ooops sorry, i mean:
I DO SPEND TIME THERE KIND SIR!
It seems to me that some of you folks don’t spend much time in downtown or in oldtown.
Why don’t you go down there some night, around 10pm, and go gather some of your data, and then submit it to the group here.
What are you talking about? I’ve been downtown late at night several times a week, most weeks, for well over a decade. I’m out there walking around at night or waiting for the bus or MAX in downtown, Old Town. Late at night. 9 pm, 10 pm, midnight, last train of the day sometimes. My anecdotes? Well over a thousand nights out there, in this area you seem to think is some kind of danger zone, and nothing bad has ever happened to me. Yeah, I see loud kids and homeless people, but I’m not frightened by simply having them around. Being panhandled is irritating, but I just say “no” and keep walking.
Of course, that nothing’s ever happened to me doesn’t prove anything doesn’t happen to anyone. But the fact that a person or a few people get attacked doesn’t prove anything about the general danger to the hundreds of thousands who don’t. That’s why your anecdote-and-stereotyped assertions are basically worthless as data, and why you, me, or anyone walking around downtown at night cannot collect ANY data that, on its own, will be worth anything at all.
You guys really live a sheltered life, its too bad because y’all have this jaded view of the world.
How can someone who leads a “sheltered” life possibly have a “jaded” view of the world? Do you even understand the meaning of the words you use? (I’m guessing you don’t, since you ascribed “magical thinking” to Ross when NOTHING he’s ever posted here even comes close to that.)
It gets so boring listening to you upper middle class yuppies telling the rest of us how we need to get out more.
Who here is an “upper middle class yuppie?” Do you have any knowledge of the personal lives, jobs, and/or incomes of any person posting here? (Chris is pretty easy to figure out, since he’s a semi-public figure, but what about everyone else?)
Do you even read your own posts? Or bother to understand what you’re saying from paragraph to paragraph? YOU are the only person here saying anyone needs to get out more, and yet you are personally attacking other people and putting words into their mouths.
And if you take this post as a personal slam on you, well, it’s really about the immature and irrational nature of your “arguments,” but feel free to take it as a personal attack if it makes you feel better. If you aren’t going to follow Rule #2, you can’t expect anyone else here to give you the same courtesy.
OK DJK….LETS MEET DOWNTOWN….
LET US ALL GO DOWN THERE AND SETTLE THIS…
IN PERSON…………
PUT UP OR SHUT UP….
MEET DOWNTOWN OR SHUT UP…
PICK THE SATURDAY NIGHT….
Ross writes:
“If you think it is so dangerous, why are you spending time there?”
Al screams back
“I DO SPEND TIME THERE IDIOT!”
Al, do you have some problem with basic English comprehension? You wouldn’t make such a public fool of yourself if you took the time to actually read and understand the question put to you. Ross asked a “why” question. It calls for a “because” answer.
But I’ll answer Ross’s question, since Al seems incapable of doing so. Al spends time downtown because he lives right at the edge of it.
This can be the first “group” activity of the portlandtransport blog….
LETS DO IT!
blah blah blah djk..
blah blah blah….
What would “meeting downtown” settle? You’re gonna look around and point out homeless people and groups of loud kids and scruffy-looking panhandlers and tell me they’re a threat, and won’t be the least bit interested in the fact that they aren’t actually doing anything except making you nervous by their presence.
AND I HAVE ALREADY GOT A RESPONSE TO THOSE WHO CALL ME AN EMBARRASSMENT:
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.showvids&friendID=173805839&n=173805839&MyToken=8cfa67ea-5869-40f4-8f11-2269358c33b2
lol……..
forget it……….
you guys are all talk an no action………..
I tried to post my video defense re:
Al is a disgrace;
but it knocked out by the spam filter…
“This is really, really dangerous. Let me show you!”
I think Al must be planning to bring a baseball bat along for a demonstration. :)
lol..
very funny ross…..
}:>
I will post the following quote and you all can ascribe it to whomever you want.
“Never argue with a fool because, it lowers you to their level and they will beat you with their expertise”
Perhaps we can now return to a more civilized debate?
Oh smooth operator,
you hurt my feelings soooo bad…..
I don’t think i will ever recover…..
{as ‘smooth operator’ hides behind his fake screen name}
And just so the moderator doesn’t get excited, I am not the one doing the name calling
We have all been here before, and will be here again
I’m sure.
Wow.
You’re really trying too hard to be “hardcore”, AL M.
Al –
Take a deep breath, sit on your hands, do whatever it takes to calm down a bit. There’s no need to keep stirring the pot.
You are the most frequent poster in this thread by like a 2:1 ratio (please don’t make me go and count). You’ve had your say, and others have had theirs, and it is clear that there are intense areas of disagreement.
We can voice those intense disagreements in a more civilized, less repetitive, less inflammatory manner.
– Bob R.
OK BOB,
got it, no more posts………
It happens to be an issue dear to my heart, which is why I get so wrapped up in it………
Just so ya know, I got my blog training on a politics blog that had every point of view imaginable, including nazi’s!
And you think this blog can get nasty!
You aint seen nothing let me tell ya!
I had a coworker that got beat up downtown, some street person wanted money, and my (ex) coworker didn’t give him any, (which isn’t the problem,) so the street person told my coworker he was fat and obviously didn’t need the money as much as the street person did. And my coworker proceeded to get really insulted and argued with him, and eventually got in a fight with the guy. (And this is the story he told me: One would think that people would tell the side of the story that would make them look better, so who know what really happens.) And so my coworker was afraid of downtown cause people get beat up there…
Me on the other hand: Some stranger insults me about once a week, and I ignore them. They may be homeless, or they may be driving a $40k car and yelling out the window, but the results are the same: I don’t escalate. (I may or may not be harboring secret desires to buy an RPG on the black market and remove the person that insulted me from the universe, but I don’t share that feeling with the person.)
So I think who you are makes a big difference about how safe downtown is or isn’t. For some people, (that, for instance, raises their voice and starts shouting when someone disagrees with them,) well, downtown or pretty much any place there are other people like them may be a pretty dangerous place. But on the other hand, I’ve gone into seedy bars in third world countries, (places that are actually dangerous,) and I’ve never been in any sort of trouble, mainly because of who I am… So the fact that I’ve never had a problem downtown or on the MAX, at any hour of the day or night may be mainly because of who I am, (and who I’m not.)
As such, Al, no, I’m not going to meet you downtown on a Saturday night, because I think you’ll end up picking a fight with someone, and then I’ll get hurt. But I’ll probably be in downtown until 2am this Saturday, and I’m fairly sure I’ll still be alive to post about it on Sunday.
you hurt my feelings soooo bad…..
I don’t think i will ever recover…..
{as ‘smooth operator’ hides behind his fake screen name}
Well Al,
I posted the quote that I did in a light-hearted attempt to raise the level of the debate. Needless to say, it did not work…
Well I don’t think the panhandling problem will persist too much longer…. I see cities all up and down I-5 are starting to ban it. Medford, Roseburg among others already have, now Salem’s next. I’ll bet Portland is the last to institute a ban, if at all.
I’ll bet Portland is the last to institute a ban, if at all.
Partial bans based on circumstances and actions may be possible, but an outright ban on panhandling in a public place is outright unconstitutional. Asking a stranger for money is as much a basic freedom of speech as is asking someone to support a candidate, asking someone to consider your religion, or asking someone to come into your store and spend money.
I think there might be an argument in limiting conversation on MAX to transit-related, non-money-related purposes (or, at the very lest, limiting movement throughout the train to transit-related purposes), but that’s about the limit of how far you can go. Panhandling on a public sidewalk where anyone can go is very constitutionally protected.
It is an activity at least as old as human civilization.
Who was it that said “laws against sleeping on park benches affect rich and poor alike”?
– Bob R.
This just came to my attention, its rather interesting;
http://youtube.com/watch?v=3TwYg7KJst0
AL M – Dude/Dudett, you need to learn (please) how to post on a blog. Try not to double, triple, and quadruple post on the blog, it is insanely ANNOYING to everyone else trying to follow the comments.
As for fareless square. Good riddance. The stench might go down on the downtown blocks and busses. I’m sick of seeing the transient and vagrancy loiter about like it is their private living room heater. It’s disgusting.
In many ways, I wouldn’t doubt if ridership goes up after the riddance of fareless square. Aside from that, fareless square generally doesn’t add to shopper convenience much. It mostly just carries around teenagers during the day downtown that run around, cause a fuss, and don’t spend anything at downtown establishments.
Many people I talk to downtown, amazingly they don’t understand how transit is paid for, but they do understand the fareless square bit. Especially if they live down here.
i remember being a teenager, and how excluded i was from many private spaces (malls mostly!). i grew up in the suburbs in new jersey, and there was a fair amount of private space where we were excluded from being.. well.. teenagers. loud. obnoxious.
we mostly hung out “downtown” in my town, or hopped on a train and hung out in manhattan. there really isn’t MUCH to do as a teen. teens have outgrown a lot of kid services/amenities, and aren’t old or mature enough to use adult services/amenities.
when i see a group of foul mouthed, cigarette stenched, loud and obnoxious teens, on the MAX i think, GOOD. they look like they are having fun. heading to pioneer courthouse square to meet friends. whatever.
i don’t see why teens should be expected to spend money, or be productive. i mean, c’mon! let them be kids.
Can you embed objects:
Can you embed objects:
No, not in comments.
Panhandling on a public sidewalk where anyone can go is very constitutionally protected
That’s easy enough to change, especially in Oregon. They change the constitution all the time when they enact new laws.
From the Bill of Rights, First Amendment, in the United States Federal Constitution:
You may be able to find ways to carefully craft laws against “aggressive” panhandling, laws against panhandling in motor vehicle right-of-way, laws against panhandling in enclosed spaces or transit vehicles, laws against panhandling in secure areas such as airports, etc.
But you’re going to have a very hard time banning (and I don’t think you should, for that matter) the practice of peaceably asking “brother can you spare a dime” while standing on a public sidewalk.
– Bob R.
Well if the vagrants are getting welfare and homeless assistance they should be forbidden from collecting any additional moneys from the public. I would tie it to their welfare payments. Make the law state if you’re caught panhandling and you receive public assistance, your public assistance will be terminated.
Although I’m not a lawyer, my understanding is that Bob R. is essentially correct. Laws can be (and are) written against aggressive panhandling and also panhandling in certain locations, but banning all panhandling would be not be allowed per the US Constitution.
Aside from aggressive panhandling, the only problem I have is with the panhandling “rings” that are located at various intersections and on ramps (I don’t believe they have set up shop on MAX, but I could be mistaken). Messing with any of them is one step removed from messing with the mob.
We should ban intersections and on-ramps, they obviously encourage this sort of vagrancy. :-)
Make the law state if you’re caught panhandling and you receive public assistance, your public assistance will be terminated.
You assume that everyone who panhandles is eligible to receive public assistance, or if eligible, have maintained their enrollment or do not suffer from an impairment which prevents them from enrolling or understanding they can receive benefits.
You also seem to be setting up a condition where anyone receiving government money can be told what to say and what not to say by the government. Outside of being in the military or a covert intelligence agent, handling state secrets, etc., that’s something I don’t want the government to be doing.
The government could just as easily pass a law that says “Claiming a mortgage deduction? Don’t speak ill of your bank.” or “Want to build a 2nd structure on your property? Don’t ask neighbors to come speak in your favor at a zoning hearing.”
You seem to have quite an authoritarian streak going. In just one week you’ve called for the government to step in and wipe out Dundee along the 99W ROW, step in and force a new Columbia bridge without further public process in Oregon of Washington, ban people from asking for money in public, and wished that the government had wiped out entire neighborhoods along Division and Powell many years ago to build the Mt. Hood Freeway.
– Bob R.
“We should ban intersections and on-ramps, they obviously encourage this sort of vagrancy.”
Totally, and think of the congestion benefits. Imagine how many cars would use I-5 at rush hour if there weren’t any on ramps, (at least, in this country.) The thing would be deserted, we’d be talking about narrowing it across the Columbia River, and everyone in the area would be in favor of tolling the thing…
Bob R. – Ha! funny.
All kidding aside though, what I meant by the “rings” was that some locations have literally turned into rackets. If another person were to go up to one of those intersections and try to stand there and ask for money, the “assigned” person standing there would either bully the new person out of there or pull out their cell phone and call up their “protection” to have them physically removed. So much for their first amendment rights.
Greg –
I would hope that the police and the public would see those protection rings as something to be monitored, infiltrated, and broken up just like any other mob racket. Unfortunately, when the victims (and/or the perpetrators) are seen as being homeless (whether or not they actually are), the public sometimes shrugs off the entire matter.
I do know from past experience serving on a grand jury (I can’t say too much about the specifics of the case) that sometimes street crimes affecting the homeless are indeed investigated and prosecuted, but I don’t know if it is in proportion to prosecution of similar crimes against the general populace.
– Bob R.
Totally, and think of the congestion benefits. Imagine how many cars would use I-5 at rush hour if there weren’t any on ramps, (at least, in this country.)
Isn’t that one of the ideas behind ramp meters? Once Delta Park and the new I5 bridge are done, I suspectfolks in North and Northeast Portland are going to find the ramps onto I5 closed, for all practical purposes, during rush hour in order to keep traffic flowing.
Of course ramp meters can also play a role in smoothing the flow of cars onto the highway. But if Oregon fulfills the commitments it made during the last CRC process to manage I5 to maintain traffic flow, people are going to have to wait a long time to get on the freeway.
If another person were to go up to one of those intersections and try to stand there and ask for money, the “assigned” person standing there would either bully the new person out of there or pull out their cell phone and call up their “protection” to have them physically removed.
Isn’t that how the Rose Parade viewing spots work? While I don’t want to defend the “professional panhandlers” syndicate, comparing it to the mob is a bit overblown. For one thing, they are engaged in a perfectly legal activity.
The success of the enterprise depends on there being only one person at each intersection. There needs to be some way to decide who that person will be or no one will make any money. What do you propose as an alternative? Because as long as their is no legal way of assigning sites, some people are going to use intimidation. Whether organized or not. What you are seeing is how self-regulation works when government is unwilling to smooth the wheels of commerce.
“What do you propose as an alternative?”
Permits and business licenses, of course, preferably by selling leases for the desirable locations in a public auction. (How can they go wrong? They could “raise money for the homeless” with the proceeds.)
And the city really should regulate those guys, they should require standards for the signs, (truth in advertising laws: if you say you are a vet with no leg from a land mine, you’ll need to be able to prove it,) and making them file taxes. Not to mention, if they are organized panhandling syndicates, (and not self employed,) they better be following the labor laws: 15 minute breaks every two hours, half hour lunch breaks every four, minimum wage requirements, and the company needs to be carrying worker compensation insurance in case one of them gets hit by a car…
Permits and business licenses, of course, …
Good luck getting that one passed. I can imagine the reaction to the city licensing panhandlers and leasing street corners for that purpose.
They should put a stop panhandling by using intimidation and harassment laws to stop it. I went to a City of Salem conference last night and one of the main topics was security and panhandling and down here we haven’t nearly as much of a problem as the Portland area. I think as more and more Oregon cities following Roseburg and Medford’s example, adopt stricter laws the panhandling vagrants will just exodus to Portland where people gleefully give money to them.
http://www.statesmanjournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007712040329
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCC3a_mPQ3A
Ross wrote:
“While I don’t want to defend the “professional panhandlers” syndicate, comparing it to the mob is a bit overblown. For one thing, they are engaged in a perfectly legal activity.
The success of the enterprise depends on there being only one person at each intersection. There needs to be some way to decide who that person will be or no one will make any money. What do you propose as an alternative? Because as long as their is no legal way of assigning sites, some people are going to use intimidation. Whether organized or not. What you are seeing is how self-regulation works when government is unwilling to smooth the wheels of commerce.”
It is not overblown. This is exactly how the mob works, and there are plenty of perfectly legal activities that the mob is involved in… this is no different from a storekeeper paying the mob for protection, except the storekeeper is also paying rent on top of it.
There is no easy alternative… that’s why it persists. I just said I didn’t like it, that’s all.
I’d love to carry on the conversation about Fareless Square but obviously things were sidetracked. Plus this page has so many posts on it that it’s taking forever to load. To be continued on another day/another conversation thread.
Hi all,
With all the discussion about Fareless Square — here and in the papers, including Tuesday’s Trib — I was impelled to see if I could learn more of the history. After all, I’ve lived here only 18 months. I figured it would be nice to know some facts before spouting off.:-)
I discovered that TriMet has a nice web page on the subject. I hadn’t seen it before, perhaps it’s new. But you might want to have a look at
http://trimet.org/about/history/farelesshistory.htm
and especially the PDF documents “Context and History” and “Public Policy Issues” that are linked from that page.
A couple of comments based on facts I’ve culled from these documents:
(1) Fareless Square was instituted in 1975, in a very different Portland. There was no MAX, no Pioneer Courthouse Square, and especially, no Pearl District or Streetcar.
(2) The boundaries were chosen basically to enclose the *business district*: I-405 on the south and west, the river on the east, and *Hoyt Street* on the north. Why Hoyt? North of Burnside was mostly industrial (the brewery and other stuff), and north of Hoyt was mostly railyards. On the other hand, the square did include some north-of-Burnside business blocks we now call Old Town.
(3) There weren’t many residents in the free zone, and it wasn’t designed for residents. Rather, the intent was to give downtown workers a convenient way to get around downtown — say, for lunch or shopping. Also handy for visitors.
(4) The extension to the Lloyd District occurred in 2001; the idea was to extend the free zone to include the “extended business district” on the Eastside. As it happened, this was convenient for convention-goers to get from the Convention Center over to downtown conveniently. Also handy for visitors staying in the nicer hotels downtown to get over to the Rose Garden.
Now for some opinions.
I’m not rich, but I do live in the Pearl. I appreciate the ability to jump on a bus or streetcar to get to the other end of downtown — Keller, PSU, etc. — which I and my wife do fairly often.
Should we be paying a fare to do so? Well, maybe, and I wouldn’t mind paying a moderate amount for an annual pass. On the other hand, it makes no sense to me to get an annual *Sreetcar* pass for $100, but a pass for the same trip on the #17 bus would cost a minimum of $715.
Should Pearl residents (who didn’t exist in the 1970s!) go fareless but inner Eastside residents have to pay? This makes no sense to me either. Yet those inner Eastside residents would have to pay that $715 for a pass. Why should they get shafted? That price is way too high. I know, it covers a much wider area, but that doesn’t do inner Eastside commuters much good.
Should Pearl residents go fareless but those who live in NW or SW, west of the freeway, have to pay? See above.
As the number of inner-Portland residents increases — on both sides of the river, some rich, some very poor, some in the middle — the whole fare structure needs to be re-thought. It’s getting balkanized and its design doesn’t fit the current Portland demographic distribution.
Eliminating Fareless Square might be part of the re-thinking, but keep in mind the basic principle that in fixing something that’s broken, you don’t want to end up fixing something that isn’t broken. An inner zone with an easy fare (maybe $1.00), and a really inexpensive, easy-to-buy annual pass (maybe $100, like the Streetcar), and sensible boundaries on both sides of the river, might work for all concerned. If $100 is too much for the really low-income downtown residents, subsidize it downward with some easy-to-understand way to qualify for the subsidy.
Let’s hope TriMet and the other Powers that Be consider the big picture in their re-examination of Fareless Square.
Mike
this is no different from a storekeeper paying the mob for protection
I think you misunderstand what the storekeeper is paying protection for. Its not protection from someone else, its “protection” from violence of the mob. Its an extortion racket pure and simple.
HEAR ME NOW LOOKS AT FREDS PROPOSAL:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=9IvbfKnNzZc
Ross,
Actually, you are failing to understand that the people who are standing at those intersections are paying for the exclusive right to stand and conduct a business (and panhandling is not the only activity some are engaged in), in what is supposed to be a public place.
I am not trying to demean homeless people or subvert their constitutional right to ask for money. I am just pointing out an activity that appears to be the same on the surface, but is in reality more complicated and, to me, more troubling (and as I said, not easily resolved).
I think it is one step removed from a mob-like activity, you obviously don’t. That’s fine.
MAX TIMES 3
http://amargul.blogspot.com/
It seems the vagrant bums are getting more aggressive in Portland. This weekend I was walking by Powell’s bookstore and this cracked out lady was aggressively harassing people as they walked out of the store. I went inside and the Powell’s employees didn’t seem to care even though she was harassing the customers. I also saw lots of vagrants sleeping on Burnside – one even had a whole rack of Wilwaukee Beer sitting next to him as he was pathetically begging for money. I don’t know why the Portland businesses tolerate such crap going on. They should hose them all down with a firehose or something to discourage this.
Greg,
West Burnside is the original skid row. You’re just noting a historic phenomena that has existed pretty much since Portland became a city of significant size. It’s part of what makes Portland, Portland.
Greg –
Clearly the answer is to: A) Eliminate bookstores, then B) eliminate major arterial streets. These are obviously causing the vagrancy problem on Burnside.
Regarding your fire hose suggestion, I would advise you not to do so when daytime temperatures are sub-50F and evening temps have been dropping into the ’20s. You could face negligent homicide charges, and then we wouldn’t have you to debate with on this blog anymore.
– Bob R.
My mother had a great suggestion for what to do with people on the streets with mental health issues. Give them bluetooth headsets. That way they don’t look like they are crazy and talking to themselves or to you, but simply on the phone…
Better yet fund mental health services. What did we expect when these services were cut, along with housing assistance in the go-go 80’s. With social services you can pay now or pay later.
“Give them bluetooth headsets.”
THAT IS FREAKING HILLARIOUS!
LOL!!LOL!!!
“Better yet fund mental health services.”
WHAT YOU SAY?
Our government do the right thing?
You must be young!
Capitalist pigs! Transit should be free to everyone, everywhere.
For everyone that pays taxes, they pay for 80% of every ticket sold on the Max. That includes 100% of tax payer money funding fairless square. I say do somthing better with the money you take from me. Shut down the max completely and make 84 wider. That would be a benifit to the people that actually contribut to socieity. Then when the people that depend on the max can think…. oh man I should have went to school….. what a looser I am.
For everyone that pays taxes, they pay for 80% of every ticket sold on the Max.
Not quite true. In the ballpark, but an overstatement.
Shut down the max completely and make 84 wider.
Where will this wider I-84 land? Most congestion on I-84 occurs with the I-5/I-84 interchange, not because of I-84’s width itself.
say do somthing better with the money you take from me.
What do you say about Public Libraries, Public Schools, Public Police Departments, Public Fire Departments, Public Unemployment Insurance, Public Health Assistance to Edler Citizens (Medicare) and Public Minimum Pension Supplement (Social Security)?
Are you opposed to Public Transportation entirely, or merely to the percentage? If it’s about the percentage of subsidy, what percentage is acceptable to you?
And of all the things written here, why chime on a long-dead 3-year old thread, anyway? After all, “Fareless Square” doesn’t exist in the same way anymore.
Not only that, why argue with an obvious troll who complains about uneducated poor people using transit while demonstrating a profound inability to spell? Yes, I’d say he is a “looser”…
why argue with an obvious troll
Point taken. In my defense (or at least as an explanation), I offer this:
http://xkcd.com/386/
Hey, that’s my wife and I! (I’m the one at the computer, obviously…)
But–at the risk of tweaking the moderator–does this constitute a precedent that calling a troll a troll is not considered a “personally directed remark”? Assuming that the troll in question is indeed a drive-by commenter making asinine remarks, as opposed to a regular contributor (no matter how asinine you might think they are…)
So you’re complaining that I didn’t bust you for your comment?
By all means, please flagellate yourself.
[whack] Ow.
There, that felt better, I’m now duly chastized.
But actually, it is a serious question. Forums on political topics such as portlandtransport.com occasionally attract comments from people whose only purpose is to be disruptive or offensive, not to argue in earnest. In some forums, even calling someone a “troll”, let alone harsher levels of commentary, is considered a no-no–it is, after all, an accusation that the poster is not arguing in good faith.
Maybe I ought to take of my lawyer hat… :)
The spirit of our rules of conduct is to treat all commenters on the assumption they are sincere. As such, labeling someone a troll is not consistent with that spirit.