End in Sight for Fareless Square?


Friday’s Tribune reported on a recommendation from a TriMet advisory committee suggesting that it might be time to terminate fareless square.

There seem to be a number of factors at play here:

  • TriMet is squeezed to pay for operating costs for the new Green Line, and could use the extra fare revenue.
  • The City of Portland is finding it difficult to pay its share of the subsidy for fareless square. With gas tax revenues declining, the other funding source for PDOT, parking meter revenues, it getting asked to pay for more things.
  • Some believe fareless square is linked to undesirable street behavior (drug dealing, panhandling, etc.) downtown and in the Lloyd District (as well as undesirable behavior on the transit vehicles).

I’m curious what readers think about that last point. In some ways it seems very classist. I’m also interested in thoughts on the theory that fareless square has served its purpose in changing the culture of how the region thinks about transit. Would that cultural change persist even if fareless square went away?

An alternate idea I have heard floated is to retain fareless square on rail, since after the mall alignment opens in 2009 there will be good north-south rail connections on 5th/6th and 10th/11th, while ending fareless service on buses, since only small parts of each bus line operate in fareless square. What do people think about that?

, ,

46 responses to “End in Sight for Fareless Square?”

  1. Eliminating fareless square for buses but keeping it for rail won’t help raise revenue, since hardly anyone will pay to ride a bus inside fareless instead of walking to rail.

    The idea of eliminating fareless square reminds me of the proposals for a sales tax–people are too used to things the way they are now to accept an inconvenient change.

  2. I think there’s a trojan horse at play here–the last reason is actually the first in their minds, IMO. The cops are frustrated because they can’t use asking for proof of payment as a pretext for detaining ne’er do wells in the Fareless area. Get rid of Fareless, and now they can stop anyone they want simply by asking to see their farecard.

    I wouldn’t be opposed to rail-only Fareless once the transit mall is finished; tourists don’t ride the buses that way anyhow. But I’d fight vigorously to keep the concept.

  3. I like fareless square. I use it. However, it’s probably not the right thing to do. The main reason to have public transportation is to reduce commuting by car, but the fareless square does nothing to reduce that. If they’re going to subsidize something, it really should be better and more park and ride structures and other ways to encourage commuters to use public transit.

    They should probably just have a tourist pass — 1, 3, 5 day, eg, at a reasonable price that gets you around town. They could have limited vendor locations that are better for the tourists, such as at the airport, in Pioneer Square, etc.

  4. Hi
    While most tourists may not ride buses as much, some do. I first visited Portland several years ago and definitely took the bus around. I also run into people who seem to be visitors (asking for directions, etc) on buses downtown.

    I spend a lot of time downtown and regularly run into visitors — who are impressed to find out they can just take MAX or a bus or the streetcar a few blocks and not have to walk back to wherever they parked their car. (People who’ve just been shopping and have packages definitely like it) So the fareless square idea seems like a tourist promotion as much as a way to reduce car trips. Let’s not be hasty in getting rid of it.
    In terms of enforcement, I rarely see fare collectors on MAX as it goes outside fareless square — which must be losing revenue. It seems to be common knowledge that there’s not much risk of being caught evading fares.
    As for undesirable behavior, it does seem ‘unPortlandlike’ to determine that people who ride for free in a certain area are causing all the problems. Wouldn’t panhandling increase if they had to drum up busfare more often? And what percentage of the undesirable behavior occurs on transit vehicles outside of fareless square?
    I hope there will be more opportunity for public comment before this decision is made.

    pdxrider

  5. I have been riding tri-met for 30 years off and on. To end the fareless square idea is preposterous. Many is the time that I come in from North Portland, where I live, spend a large share of my day in the downtown area and then take another bus or Max bus combo home. To have to pony up 3 or more times in the same day when a large share of my transit needs are downtown doesn’t seem good for the businesses I frequent. As far as the homeless, transient population is concerned, they need our help, not our disdain.

  6. ses, if you’re already paying two fares to get to and from downtown, an all-day pass is not much more expensive. I don’t think you’re the prototypical beneficiary of fareless square.

    I suspect the tourists, or the family going from the library to Saturday Market are the groups at risk, and the ‘rail-only’ option would seem to cover them.

    When we have N-S rail on the mall, I’m not sure losing fareless buses makes a lot of difference. And it might catch some people who are avoiding paying today even though their trip ends outside the fareless zone.

  7. I’ve been a big supporter of Fareless Square over the years, and it never fails to impress friends visiting from out-of-town.

    However, I feel that the experiment of extending the square to the Lloyd District has done more harm than good. I was reservedly in favor of this experiment at the beginning, but now I think it is time to retire that segment of the square.

    Here is a map of the current square:
    http://www.trimet.org/images/fares/farelessmap.gif

    Note that it isn’t really a “square” at all anymore, more of a “fareless downtown plus two east-west streets in the Lloyd District”.

    Although this configuration may have brought many more shoppers to the Lloyd Center from Downtown (or vice versa), it has also led in my opinion to a marked increase in negative activity on the trains in this area, from panhandling to solicitation and signature gathering on the moving trains.

    (TriMet claims that activities such as soliciting, signature gathering, and panhandling on moving TriMet vehicles is allowed so long as the activities are not “disruptive”. It is my opinion that these activities are appropriate for unimpeded public areas (sidewalks, public squares, etc.), but are inappropriate on vehicles because the passenger is essentially a captive audience.)

    I’d like to see crime statistics over the years for Holladay Park as well. There is at least a perception that safety has deteriorated in the park since the square was extended.

    The parking lot at Lloyd Center Cinemas, which could be prime real estate for transit-oriented development, has become free satellite parking for downtown and the Rose Quarter, with Lloyd Center footing the bill. (Perhaps they view it as a necessary cost which is offset by the additional shoppers coming via MAX and bus, I’m not sure.)

    That parking lot faces a beautiful park with a fountain, is adjacent to a major mall, hotels, office buildings, freeway access, etc. Is the best use for that spot really free parking for fareless square riders?

    Overall, I think fareless square is a great idea, but a balance must be struck between the size of the square and the types of activities the square supports.

    Perhaps it would be better to divert the money which is now being used to subsidize the square to provide safe, clean day-use facilities for the homeless including lockers, showers, clothes washing facilities, etc., and provide free passes to poor and homeless individuals who actually need to go somewhere such as visit family, medical appointments, job interviews, etc., without using the vehicles as simply a place to panhandle?

    If the square stays configured as it is today, then I suggest that TriMet develop regulations which constitutionally prohibit panhandling and solicitation, paid political canvassing, etc., on moving vehicles. I think there are ways to do this, but perhaps that is best left for another post.

    – Bob R.

  8. We are about to waste many more millions on light rail instead of what could be.

    Years ago we could have had a state of the art expanded bus system and ALL of it fareless.

    It’s the obsession with the high cost-low service light rail that hobbles our transit system.

    Cancel the light rail expansions, increase bus service, replace the bus fleet with new, make it all fareless, and save countless millions too.

    On another note, PDOT just took a $3 million hit to help out SoWa which is having cost overruns and TIF revenue shortfalls.
    What’s that do to PDOT’s budget shortfall?

  9. Eliminating Fareless Square will hurt downtown’s attractiveness for residents and visitors alike. One of the things a person counts on is being able to get around downtown easily once you’re there. This is more substantial to the recreational visitor than the weekday business person. I count on being able to get from Saturday Market to Pioneer Square without having to sweat. Fareless Square doesn’t, in my opinion, greatly reduce trips by car, but it increases the number of trips that otherwise wouldn’t have been taken. If this easy transit weren’t available anymore, downtown would see a slow deterioration of activity and business. The business community should be up in arms about this suggestion.

    If people were made to pay, the result would be mass confusion and fare-dodgers. It would be REALLY hard to enforce, since it’s so ingrained in Portland culture. They would have to spend so much on enforcement that it would negate any extra fare revenue.

    Some have said that people don’t ride the bus to get around downtown, which I tend to agree with, so if that’s true then making those few people pay wouldn’t result in much extra revenue, only confusion and the loss of a few riders.

    I understand that this is not the place to debate homelessness, but since it’s been brought up… Making downtown attractive to the homeless by spending government money to give them showers, lockers, bus tickets, etc. will just invite more of them to go downtown, increasing the problem. The beneficiary of this spending will be Seattle, as it’s homeless population will move south. Let’s treat the problem rather than the symptom.

    To the Lloyd Center extension, I really like that the MAX is free out there because I use it as a park and ride, which I know is wrong, but it’s so convenient. But if you want to make it a true square, here’s what we do. Reroute the Yellow Line through the Central Eastside and make the entire central city fareless!

  10. Steve Schopp Said: Cancel the light rail expansions, increase bus service, replace the bus fleet with new, make it all fareless, and save countless millions too.

    Steve –

    Although buses are initially cheaper when you use existing road infrastructure, I do not believe they are all that more economical in the long run when comparing identical levels of service.

    To achieve the level of service now provided by MAX, you would have to have about 4 or more conventional buses to replace each two-car light rail train. Those buses would require 4 operators rather than 1, and their associated salaries, pensions, health care, etc.

    Those 4 buses would need to be replaced 3X in the lifetime of a railcar, so that’s a purchase of 12 buses over time. Those buses also cost more to maintain and consume more energy per passenger mile than electric rail transit.

    The really big cost of rail transit is putting in rails where they do not exist (or were torn up in the past), but the bulk of this is now covered by federal funds.

    To achieve the same speed of service (for example, along I-84) as MAX, you’d need dedicated transitways. There are federal funds to pave busways, but a concrete transitway costs nearly as much as rail infrastructure and requires more maintenance over time than steel rail. There are also higher stormwater management costs.

    I’m all for buses, they are a great workhorse, but at a certain point it is better to scale up to rail transit.

    Look at just the I-205 portion of the Green Line. Are you seriously telling me that paving those transitways with concrete (and still building to the same level of grade separation) and buying all the extra buses required and then paying all the additional staff required would really be significantly cheaper in the long run?

    – Bob R.

  11. “TriMet is squeezed to pay for operating costs for the new Green Line, and could use the extra fare revenue.
    The City of Portland is finding it difficult to pay its share of the subsidy for fareless square. With gas tax revenues declining, the other funding source for PDOT, parking meter revenues, it getting asked to pay for more things.”

    Now, that wouldn’t be due to a “Tax and Spend” philosophy , would it?

  12. How about this?

    Remove farelessness from all the present routes.

    Add a few new routes that cover the present fareless zone and charge a small fare, maybe 25 cents or so.

  13. Steve –

    Buses are obviously “initially cheaper” but it’s by hundreds of millions which you brush over as if it’s not worth considering.

    The astronomical cost of light rail must be considered when forming any view on the “long run” comparison.

    Even when comparing “identical levels of service” buses are far more flexible, serve neighborhoods instead of fixed (rail) corridors and require less driving and parking to use.

    Your comparison of cost of service is selective spin and I find it outrageous.

    How do so easily get by the $100 million per mile cost as if it is nothing?

    You also forget the renovation/uprgrades rail stops and rail crossings require. Something which chewed through millions on Eastside MAX some years back.

    Discounting cost because “the bulk of this is now covered by federal funds” is also spin. It aint free money and eats through our transportation share of that federal funding leaving less for other needs.

    We don’t need to fix buses to a corridor like rail. Buses can and should be traveling on many arterials as needed to better serve neighborhoods, communities and more people.

    Your “dedicated transitways” comparison is light rail propaganda.

    “”””I’m all for buses, they are a great workhorse, but at a certain point it is better to scale up to rail transit”””””

    We never got to that point. Light rail was launched in a flurry of hype and our bus system was cannibalized to bring it about. A mere 7 CNG buses of 670 were acquired. Bus fleet modernization was sacrificed. Express bus service and neighborhood service was curtailed and requests for added bus service are routinely denied.

    There is no demand or need for the I-205 portion of the Green Line or the new “paving those transitways with concrete” straw man alternative you suggest.

    Honest, reasonable and modern bus service would be far cheaper and better on all counts including serving more people directly from more neighborhoods.

    Your narrowed choices of either light rail or paved transitways is a means to justify more rail period. It’s derived from the obsession with rail and the rail at all costs mentality.

    Your analysis is not comprehensive or inclusive.

    Too bad there won’t be any public votes on light rail.

    As demonstrated by the now BIG BOX/auto-oriented Cascade Station now having Costco Home joining Ikea Furniture light rail will not be “triggering redevelopment along 82nd avenue” as touted by planners. Instead, what is triggered is Clackamas County adopting a $25 million Urban Renewal district for the area.

  14. “There is no demand or need for the I-205 portion of the Green Line or the new “paving those transitways with concrete” straw man alternative you suggest.”

    Tell that to the people who have to take a local bus through the entire East side of the city to get downtown, when they could take the MAX and be there in about half the time.

  15. I’ve been talking to a lot of people at Tri-Met and other groups about getting rid of fareless. “Maybe” having a bus or two to carry a few for “fareless” trips. But subsidizing people for a few blocks here and a few here isn’t really the problem.

    Like someone said above, the real problem is that police can do nothing about bums, transients, drugs, or other crime and related problems in fareless.

    Personally I don’t mind being asked by a cop to prove I paid my fare. I always have my ticket or pass with me. What will also happen though that I will enjoy very much is the removal of the miscreants that do everything from harass commuters, tourists, and regular riders to desecrate various parts of the Tri-Met System.

    In the 20+ years that I have been riding Tri-Met vehicles to and from various points and the 5+ years of economic work that I have completed to know that removing fareless square will not incur a major cost to businesses, if anything it will decrease the required cost, but it will do a lot for the city in the terms of perception.

    Portland of course has a great reputation, except for the bum/miscreant problem. It’s world reknown for being a hand out city – i.e. one that perpetuate and exascerbates the problem of homelessness. Fareless Square is just one of the major contributors to this.

  16. “April 25, 2006 09:13 AM
    Steve Schopp Says:

    Steve –

    Buses are obviously “initially cheaper” but it’s by hundreds of millions which you brush over as if it’s not worth considering.

    The astronomical cost of light rail must be considered when forming any view on the “long run” comparison.

    Even when comparing”… etc., etc., etc…

    This wouldn’t be such a problem if the Government just STOPPED subsidizing transit. But everybody wants their little pet projects funded by Government hand outs. It’s a very very sad non-market based, non-economic reality based perversion of what will eventually catch up to America. If right of way was provided, the railroads have almost always just made their own path. All forms should have to do the same.

    Just imagine that 100 billion on the roads/interstate, 45 billion on public rail mass transit, 1.5 billion on intra-city transit (Amtrak), 12 billion on airlines, 10 billion on other modes, and who knows the other costs that are brought into the picture. Imagine that being back in the pockets of Americans. The economy would be better off, and we’d destroy a lot less of the country by subsidizing over expansion into sububia & the like.

    All totalled it’s a subsidy of about 25-75% (Give or take about 5%) of transportation costs by the Government(State/Feds/City). All for getting the least productive people the ability to go from point A to point B. Has it done anything for us? Not really, the only correlative increase in standard of living has been related to technological developments, mostly by private companies.

    But in this same argument, of all ironies, if subsidies went away rail transit would be FAR more realistic than many “anti-rail” and “pro-bus” people would think.

    Remember, the streetcars paid for themselves out of the fare box. The busses couldn’t even do that in most of the country even after fares more than doubled to cover the “startup” costs of busses.

    …anyway I digress. Who is John Galt?

  17. adron says “Portland of course has a great reputation, except for the bum/miscreant problem. It’s world reknown for being a hand out city – i.e. one that perpetuate and exascerbates the problem of homelessness. Fareless Square is just one of the major contributors to this.”

    True, Portland is turning into a homeless magnet; anytime you offer free services the word gets around fast throughout the ‘bo community. Churches and missions, which used to be the mainstays in helping down and outers, eventually found this out and had to be more cautious on how they helped people. Our do-gooders in city government are just waking up to this. Why don’t thay take their learning curve somewhere else?

    But is that Fareless Square’s problem? I always thoght that FS was a cool idea, and wished that I lived downtown. When I am visiting another city, I will take mass transit, simply because it is cheaper than a cab ride. The bigger problem is these ill-thought out BIG schemes that will just require more taxation and sneaker charges, like traffic tickets and assessments. It’s the “Tax and Spend” government mentality. Could not Portland be a city of moderates and reasonable solutions/ Why ape NYC and SF? We’re better than them.

  18. Steve Schopp replied:
    “Buses are obviously “initially cheaper” but it’s by hundreds of millions which you brush over as if it’s not worth considering.”
    “The astronomical cost of light rail must be considered when forming any view on the “long run” comparison.”
    “Even when comparing “identical levels of service” buses are far more flexible, serve neighborhoods instead of fixed (rail) corridors and require less driving and parking to use.”
    “Your comparison of cost of service is selective spin and I find it outrageous.”

    No, Steve, I do not brush over or “spin” anything. I said quite clearly that I was discussion equivalent levels of service.

    If you get rid of dedicated right-of-way, grade separation, etc., you wind up with a slower, less reliable service that gets stuck in traffic.

    Apples to apples, please.

    – Bob R.

  19. Bob. R.,

    I wish you would take a look at this link: http://www.trolleycar.org/tobesorted/railinfobytype.htm#existheavy

    Some argument could be made on how current the figures are, but it does show that every city’s exprience with LRT is different. The Boston Green Line appears to be a great idea. Portland seems to be mid range; so if you are a light rail proponent expect a lot of questioning, especially as costs climb higher. In 1979 it was promoted at $8 million per mile, but this doubled before completion of the Gresham MAX.

    I wouldn’t throw commuter rail out–certainly not–but we need to come up with a system that is much less subsidized. And also admit that it is not necessarily a cure-all in every American city. Look at the figures.

  20. Ron –

    I did read the numbers at that link you posted when you first mentioned it yesterday.

    The Portland figures (69,000+) appear to be TriMet’s numbers from either 2000 or 2001, before the opening of the Red or Yellow lines, but after the west side Blue Line extension opened.

    If you look at more recent 2005 numbers and include the portions of the Red Line which serve the same stations as the Blue Line, the totals for that corridor are now over 84,000.

    As you say, every city’s experience is different, and Portland is about mid-range (but growing rapidly.)

    I’m not sure why you bring up Commuter Rail. I’m skeptical about the utility or cost-effectiveness of Commuter Rail for this region. Since Commuter Rail still doesn’t exist in Portland, its difficult to see if the ridership goals will resemble reality, and even the modest goals projected don’t seem to justify the cost.

    – Bob R.

  21. That (Steve’s)is a great answer to Bob’s points.

    One thing rail advocates gloss over is that the initial capital costs
    are not only very high, but must largely be repeated every thirty
    years to replace worn rail, road beds, electrical facilities,
    stations, and so forth. The replacement cost is easily half the
    original capital cost and could be much more even after adjusting for
    inflation. So light rail not only requires huge subsidies, it is the
    transit system that keeps on consuming subsidies.

    Bob’s comparison of the number of drivers required for bus v. rail
    ignores the fact that drivers are only a tiny portion of the cost of
    transit. Lots of labor is required to maintain rail right of way
    which is not required for roads (or to be precise the road cost is
    paid for by auto and truck drivers). Over the course of a day, the
    average number of people riding Portland light-rail cars was just 30.
    That means a single bus could carry everyone on a two-car train
    except during rush hour.

    Bob is right that at a certain point it is better to scale up to rail
    transit. But you are right that Portland hasn’t reached that point,
    nor has anywhere else in the U.S. outside of Manhattan. Moreover, if
    you do reach that point, light rail is not the rail transit to scale
    up to. Note that New York got rid of all its streetcars decades ago
    and the only light-rail in the New York urban area is a line in New
    Jersey that is one of the worst performing light-rail lines in the
    country.

    Randal

  22. Bob R can pay all the bus driver operating costs for less than the interest on the initial construction cost. Buses are cheaper (tenfold) than rail cars and much less costly to maintain. You can get diesel mechanics and parts anywhere for very little. Train costs are very expensive and parts are outrageously priced because they are sole sourced.

    Express buses are and always have been faster that rail. Look at the Tri Met schedule for the express buses from Hillsboro before west side light rail and the light rail schedule now. Buses, even in the worst part of the peak commute, are much faster. AND YOU DON’T NEED DEDICATED BUSWAYS.

    Mel Zucker

  23. Bob is correct that it needs to be apples-to-apples when comparing MAX & buses. Downtown where MAX runs on the street, it might make since to paint bus-only lanes and use high-capacity buses. However, money used to build MAX along the Banfield has resulted in increased capacity, something that buses on the Banfield would not provide.

    As for the Green Line, I work near 82nd & Holgate and it is a pain to try to figure out the best way out there. It would be really nice to be able to simply walk to I-205 and have a single, fast way to get home. And anyone who thinks it isn’t needed needs to look at Line 72 and how people hate to ride it because it gets so crowded and late.

    Getting back on topic, as a person who lives in and often uses Fareless Square, there are some things that need to be considered:

    *It makes people lazy. For example, if it went away I might bike to Safeway instead of taking transit. Also, Fareless Square may well be one of the reasons why that Safeway does so well–I might shop somewhere else if I was on a bike.

    *Even with MAX on the mall, there are places in Fareless Square that are only served by buses. A good example is the area south of 1st & Lincoln. It would mean a farther walk to free transit (streetcar) for the highrises down there and for people (like me) who walk from south of I-405.

    *Free service works better on MAX since its just a matter of having fare inspectors only work outside the free portion. Bus operators can’t keep track of who’s paid and who hasn’t.

    *There is a history of Fareless Square on TriMet’s web site. It’s a good idea to read it before saying it should be ended. As for a totally fareless system, Vera Katz wanted it but found out it would be problematic. I think safety and the amount of new riders were issues.

    *When I went to Denver, it was odd not having fareless service.

    *There needs to be a study of who uses Fareless Square and what they would do if it didn’t exist.

    *Free service to Lloyd District is not a bad idea considering the downtown-like density that has popped up over there.

  24. There are practical and symbolic issues to fareless square. I worked downtown for a long time. I may have used the fareless bus a few times to go to PSU, but that is about it. More to the point, as a regular rider, I had a monthly transit pass whether I paid for it myself or it was provided by my employer. I don’t think that is unusual.

    There is however, a symbolic part to this issue. Fareless square has been a symbol of Portland’s support for transit useage. The assumption is people will park their car once – and then use transit within downtown. Whether they do or not, they can. And I think people underestimate the importance of that.

    Frankly, I think the security arguments are mostly hogwash.

  25. Randal O’Toole said:

    One thing rail advocates gloss over is that the initial capital costs are not only very high, but must largely be repeated every thirty
    years to replace worn rail, road beds, lectrical facilities, stations, and so forth. The replacement cost is easily half the original capital cost and could be much more even after adjusting for inflation. So light rail not only requires huge subsidies, it is the transit system that keeps on consuming subsidies.

    Rail requires periodic re-gauging and grinding, but lasts much longer than 30 years. Stations need to be replaced? Why? Do you mean shelters? Why wouldn’t bus shelters and stations similarly need to be replaced? Much of the original NYC subway system, stations and rail, is still in operation and some of it is over 100 years old.

    To provide rapid bus service along I-84, for example, you’d still need stations and large shelters and elevators to station level. That is not a cost of rail, that is a cost of a particular level of service. As I have repeatedly maintained, I am comparing equivalent levels of service.

    You accuse rail advocates of “glossing over” things, but the “buses are cheaper!” crowd rarely propose equivalent systems.

    Lots of labor is required to maintain rail right of way which is not required for roads (or to be precise the road cost is paid for by auto and truck drivers).

    Just because a cost can be allocated to someone else’s budget (PDOT instead of TriMet in this case) doesn’t mean it isn’t a cost. Buses cause more wear-and-tear on pavement than trains do to rail.

    Look at the current state of the pavement on the transit mall, which although well-built has had to be patched and re-patched over the years and must now be completely rehabilitated (with or without light rail), and compare to the state of the 20-year-old MAX rails.

    Over the course of a day, the average number of people riding Portland light-rail cars was just 30.

    This is a fun game. Over the course of a day, most private automobiles are empty, so clearly they aren’t needed. Over the course of a day, most people are not eating, so there must be too much food. Over the course of a day, freeway lanes are underutilized, so we can use fewer of them.

    Light rail and bus schedules are already adjusted for peak vs. non-peak hours… there are fewer trains per hour and fewer buses per hour in non-peak parts of the day.

    But if you want to talk about averages, TriMet lists boarding rides per vehicle hour as 31.4 for bus and 130.1 for rail.

    I ride several times a week during non-peak hours and I rarely, if ever, see a MAX rail car with as few as 30 people on it.

    Now, on to Mel’s comments…

    Mel Zucker said:

    Bob R can pay all the bus driver operating costs for less than the interest on the initial construction cost.

    Nice, intermix operating costs with capital costs. Way to bring clarity to the discussion.

    Buses are cheaper (tenfold) than rail cars and much less costly to maintain.

    Buses are around $285,000 (the last time I checked) and articulated light rail cars are going for about $3mil. As I mentioned before, you’d need at _least_ 12 40ft buses over the life span (30+ years) of a light rail vehicle to provide the same capacity. And at the end of those 30 years, railcars can be effectively overhauled rather than merely replaced. The original MAX cars are in great shape and still going strong.

    That’s $3,420,000 for the buses capital cost and $6,000,000 for the rail capital cost. Still more expensive for rail, granted, but not out of the league when you consider 4 bus drivers per year for 30 years (about $70K salary and benefits?) vs. 1 rail operator for 30 years ($8,400,000 for bus vs. $2,100,000 for rail)

    You can get diesel mechanics and parts anywhere for very little. Train costs are very expensive and parts are outrageously priced because they are sole sourced.

    Parts other than electronic control systems are not sole-sourced. Rail systems are subject to less wear-and-tear than bus systems and electric propulsion last longer than internal combustion propulsion.

    TriMet lists 2005 operating costs per boarding ride as $2.44 for bus and $1.54 for rail. TriMet defines operations costs as Transportation costs + maintenance costs (all related staff and materials) not incl. administration.

    Express buses are and always have been faster that rail.

    Only if you happen to want to go where that express bus goes, and only if that express bus does not get stuck in traffic.

    I’m all for express buses where there is demand. City-center to city-center is a good way to deploy express buses. But if you want to go somewhere along the line where the express bus does not stop, it is of no use to you. Express buses also have a high operating cost per boarding ride.

    Light rail provides a reasonable compromise by having greater distance between stops than buses (in most places) but stops that aren’t so far apart that areas become entirely unserved.

    Look at the Tri Met schedule for the express buses from Hillsboro before west side light rail and the light rail schedule now. Buses, even in the worst part of the peak commute, are much faster. AND YOU DON’T NEED DEDICATED BUSWAYS.

    Not an equivalent service. Did I mention I’m trying to compare equivalent services? If I used ALL CAPS like you do, would that help?

    Light rail, deployed carefully, costs less in the long run than buses, when comparing equivalent levels of service.

    – Bob R.

  26. Wait a minute-

    if the busways (normal roads) are paid for by gas taxes from cars and trucks, can’t (and won’t) busses get stuck in traffic like any other vehicle?

    Isn’t that the major benefit of rail transit? Dedicated right-of-way combined with a faster flow of operation (ie, entrance & exit)? When I rode the bus system in Seattle and Vancouver, it took a couple of minutes to get on and off the trolley bus everytime it stopped, as around 30+ people all had to validate their fares in an electric card reading system (in Vancouver).

    Which, by the way, is something we should move to, as its WAY faster than a change-machine. Prepaid digital cards (that you can recharge on the internet) are the way Trimet should go!

    =======

    Anyways, the point is, of course the right-of-way is going to cost money – so do roads. This seems like a decision the citizens of the city need to make, whether they want a faster, smoother (higher quality) ride or not than a bus stuck in traffic. Once you get a dedicated busway, they require similar upkeep, right?

  27. Justin asked:

    if the busways (normal roads) are paid for by gas taxes from cars and trucks, can’t (and won’t) busses get stuck in traffic like any other vehicle?

    Right… unless the lane for the busway takes away an existing auto lane, but I doubt that the anti-rail crowd would be advocating for that.

    Once you get a dedicated busway, they require similar upkeep, right?

    Yes, exactly. And to get the equivalent level of service that light rail offers, you have to take away an auto lane (ie, Interstate MAX) or add a dedicated busway (ie, I-84 MAX and future I-205 Green Line).

    – Bob R.

  28. Another fareless square thought:

    If, for some reason, fareless square is done away with, it will finally put an end to those arguments made by anti-rail folks that we should not count fareless square boardings when looking at ridership.

    – Bob R.

  29. I still want prepaid Trimet passes. I heard Hong Kong, Singapore and London have them… why do we still have stupid paper tickets??? Cost? =P

  30. [personal remark removed] … thinks that NYC subways are still running on the same rail they installed 100 years ago?

    >You accuse rail advocates of “glossing over” things, but the “buses
    >are cheaper!” crowd rarely propose equivalent systems.

    I have frequently proposed equivalent systems — for example, buses running on HOT lanes on frequencies equal to light rail.

    >Just because a cost can be allocated to someone else’s budget (PDOT
    >instead of TriMet in this case) doesn’t mean it isn’t a cost. Buses
    >cause more wear-and-tear on pavement than trains do to rail.

    The point is that when you share the costs with cars and trucks, the cost attributable to transit is low. When you create an exclusive
    transit right of way, whether for bus or trains, you have to allocate all the costs to transit.

    >But if you want to talk about averages, TriMet lists boarding rides
    >per vehicle hour as 31.4 for bus and 130.1 for rail.

    Obviously they don’t all stay on board for a full hour. Tri-Met reports 30 light-rail passenger miles for every vehicle revenue mile.
    That would have to mean an average occupancy of 30.

    [personal remark removed.]

    Randal

  31. There is no doubt that providing right-of-way for transportation is a major part of its cost. But that is also what provides the benefit that makes it competitive – whether rail, bus, taxi, auto, truck or boat for that matter. Freeways were all about providing uninterrupted right-of-way.

    When one looks at both public and private costs, there is no doubt that for trips in highly congested urban areas mass transit is cheaper than individual automobiles. There is also no doubt that rail based transit on exclusive right-of-ways is cheaper than buses caught in auto congestion.

    Rail is also more desirable, as measured by the choices people make when they have a rail and bus alternative. Most people find trains are faster, smoother, more comfortable and easier to get on and off. That esthetic preference is important for most people where cost is only one part of the choice. If esthetics and comfort weren’t important, people wouldn’t pay $30,000 for an automobile that provides the same transportation value that a $10,000 car does.

    Of course – riding your bike is cheaper and walking is cheapest of all if cost is the only concern.

  32. Randal O’Toole divined:

    “[reference to personal remark removed]… thinks that NYC subways are still running on the same rail they installed 100 years ago?”

    I said _some_ of it. Clearly not all of it.

    NYC is currently in the middle of an intensive rail replacement program. Note that NYC currently has about 10X the route-miles of Portland (and more than 10X the track miles) and is budgeting to spend $160mil/year on rail infrastructure replacement for the foreseeable future. Those rails are subject to far heavier loads and frequencies than Portland rails, and with extensive underground running are exposed to more corrosion problems than in Portland.

    Nevertheless, if you assume that Portland’s rails will be subject to as much wear and tear as NYC and will cost as much to replace and you divide by route miles, a Portland rail-replacement program would cost AT MOST $16mil/year to implement. Assume the worst that it takes 30 years to complete the whole program and you have $480 million to completely replace the whole rail infrastructure, absolute worst case.

    Even with that very high and very unlikely number, it is still not “easily half the original capital cost” which was asserted earlier.

    Tri-Met reports 30 light-rail passenger miles for every vehicle revenue mile. That would have to mean an average occupancy of 30. But apparently Bob would rather rely on fantasies than real numbers.

    Yes, I love to rely on fantasy numbers. You’re on to me.

    But, just to dip into reality for a moment, I just checked the TriMet FY05 numbers:

    Rail Revenue Miles: 3,960,856
    Rail Passenger Miles: 172,368,000

    That’s an average of 43.5 passengers per mile, not 30. The funny thing about averages, of course, is they include the extreme endpoints of the system and the very early and very late service hours. For most of the real service day, there are more than 43 passengers per mile per vehicle.

    How do buses compare?

    Bus Revenue Miles: 24,023,943
    Bus Passenger Miles: 230,061,600

    Average: 9.5. (Compared to rail’s 43.5)

    Rail carries more than 4.5X as many passengers per vehicle mile than bus.

    That’s right in line with my estimate that to replace a rail vehicle you’d need 4 buses.

    So much for “fantasy” numbers.

    – Bob R.

  33. I have edited out some inappropriate personal remarks in the comments on this thread. I would remind folks of the rules and I will take stronger action if need be.

    I would also remind folks that this thread is about the downtown fare policy, not about the economics of rail versus buses. Let’s try to stay on topic.

    Thanks.

    Chris

  34. Adron said

    >Remember, the streetcars paid for themselves out of the fare box. The busses couldn’t even do that in most of the country even after fares more than doubled to cover the “startup” costs of busses

  35. Ross Williams Says:
    >There is no doubt that providing right-of-way for transportation is a major part of its cost. But,,,,

  36. Bob said

    >> As I mentioned before, you’d need at _least_ 12 40ft buses over the life span (30+ years) of a light rail vehicle to provide the same capacity. And at the end of those 30 years, railcars can be effectively overhauled rather than merely replaced. The original MAX cars are in great shape and still going strong.http://www.globaltelematics.com/pitf/cfm1.doc.

    If you want to see how the best transportation systems in the world work, see the bus systems in Curitiba, Puerto Allegre and Sao Paulo. Their buses carry more than light rail, theretical and actual.

    Light rail cars seat 72 on the low floor cars and 76 on the older cars. assume 74 average. That means you can carry as many by two buses as by one rail car in Portland, not counting the larger articulated buses.

    NYC , the largest transit system in the US, uses buses for 12 years. The difference in cost between 2 buses and one rail car is $2,430,000. If you invest that at 6 % annual interest, you get you get $2,459,637 in interest only.You can buy lots of replacement buses for those 2 buses and have lots left over for everyhting else.

    Bob>>>That’s $3,420,000 for the buses capital cost and $6,000,000 for the rail capital cost. Still more expensive for rail, granted, but not out of the league when you consider 4 bus drivers per year for 30 years (about $70K salary and benefits?) vs. 1 rail operator for 30 years ($8,400,000 for bus vs. $2,100,000 for rail)

  37. Sigh…in the 1960’s Rosy was not doing fine and I highly doubt that it could have lasted much longer. While it may not have been subsidized, it was in ailing health and going broke. As for the 5 cents, the issue wasn’t with it but the fare increases that were to follow.

    Oh, and what about the fact that 2/3rds of the billion-dollar Big Pipe is needed because of road runoff, yet road users are paying for none of its cost?

  38. Mel Zucker wrote:

    First, forget theoretical capacity. It’s never a problem of capacity. It’s always a problem of usage.

    Right. The next time I’m using MAX and can’t find a seat, I’ll remember it’s not a problem of capacity.

    If you want to see how the best transportation systems in the world work, see the bus systems in Curitiba, Puerto Allegre and Sao Paulo. Their buses carry more than light rail, theretical and actual.

    Yes, from what I have read Curitiba is a great system. However, it is essentially a “surface subway” using radial express lines (of custom high-capacity buses) on dedicated streets (busways) interlinking with local “feeder” buses.

    A configuration not too different from a light rail system, except that the long vehicles run on rubber tires on pavement.

    It is difficult to compare such a system from a city with a far different economic situation and far different development patterns and automobile usage patterns than a typical US city. From what I understand, Curitiba also uses passenger loading densities and standing room standards which would be unworkable in the US, not to mention ADA requirements.

    Worth studying, but not proof that buses are cheaper.

    Light rail cars seat 72 on the low floor cars and 76 on the older cars. assume 74 average. That means you can carry as many by two buses as by one rail car in Portland,

    The vast majority of light rail trains in Portland are two vehicles. Thus, one driver is operating the capacity equivalent of 4 buses.

    As I clearly stated in my first post about capacity in this thread: “To achieve the level of service now provided by MAX, you would have to have about 4 or more conventional buses to replace each two-car light rail train.”

    As I have stated, oh, I don’t know, about six times now, I am speaking in terms of Equivalent Levels of Service.

    not counting the larger articulated buses.

    Portland did real well with articulated buses when it tried them before, didn’t it? If you expect them to perform well, you need dedicated ROW.

    NYC , the largest transit system in the US, uses buses for 12 years.

    And they use rail cars for over 30 years, sometimes over 40 years.

    The difference in cost between 2 buses and one rail car is $2,430,000.

    My comparison was between 12 buses and 2 railcars, which is equivalent capacity over the lifetime of the rail car. I already admitted that the initial capital costs of the buses was cheaper, but that $2+mil that you’d like to stick in the bank will have to go to the salaries of those 3 extra drivers over 30+ years.

    One driver instead of two but more in track maintenance, fare inspectors, station cleaners, elevator repairs and mechanics.

    I already addressed this (way back when I mentioned I was talking about “Equivalent Levels of Service”. Equivalent levels of service. Once more, with feeling: Equivalent levels of service.

    Busways require road maintenance, trackways require track maintenance. Long, specialized Curitiba-style buses require either special enclosed stations with faregates or fare inspectors. Those stations have to be cleaned regardless of being bus or rail. Busway stations along freeways (replace MAX with a busway along I-84) still require elevators.

    Tri Met has never properly allocated expenses between rail and bus. The most flagrant misallocation is the asignment of the light rail station feeder buses to the bus operations. Those routes are the most costly routes and exist only to feed light rail.

    “Feeder” routes feed transit centers, many of which are served by light rail. You can transfer to any other “feeder” route as well as light rail. Your example of Curitiba is a hub-and-spoke system of radial high capacity lines fed by “feeder” buses.

    TriMet allocates rail expenses to rail and bus expenses to bus. You would have them allocate some bus expenses to rail. Sounds like a disagreement, but not a “flagrant misallocation”.

    Of course, if we didn’t have a bus system, we would still need buses to get passengers around the light rail accidents, ice problems and breakdowns.

    A tired straw man argument. Nobody here has ever advocated getting rid of buses. I have stated in this thread and in many others how important I think buses are. Ever hear of the term “multimodal?”

    The Tri Met express schedules were based on the worst peak hour traffic. They always were faster than rail.

    I already stated that express buses have their uses, but they are only good for point-to-point service. If you want to stop somewhere along the line where the express bus doesn’t stop, you can’t use it. Light rail offers a reasonable compromise. If there is demand for say direct Hillsboro to Gresham service only 1 or 2 stops in-between, the costs/benefits of an express bus should be studied.

    Your comments about the simplicity of rail mechanics are, well, simplistic. You haven’t seen the innards.

    Thanks for assuming what I have and have not seen. I have, in fact, seen the innards of MAX light rail cars, being worked on in the shop. Both Type I (Bombardier) and Type II (Siemens).

    Your assumptions are, well, wrong.

    The parts are not compatible with the Czech trolleys and will not be compatible with the Wilsonville to Beaverton totally stupid commuter rail line.

    I have already indicated my skepticism of the commuter rail line.

    Do you even read my posts?

    – Bob R.

  39. Whe you make cost comparisons, you have to delineate WHO pays, not how much is paid.

    I don’t know why. Transportation systems are all public and whatever private costs are forced on users need to be considered in evaluating investment decisions.

    We have dedicated most of the public right-of-way to auto use. Once that right-of-way is full, the question often is whether creating dedicated right-of-way for transit is a better solution than trying to add more right-of-way for autos.

    I’m not sure “who pays” has anything to do with it. We all pay.

    You, also, need to consider time costs, which for almost every place in the US is less costly for auto users.

    That depends on how you evaluate “time costs”. Spending a half hour driving in stop and go traffic is quite different than spending 45 minutes reading the newspaper or book and drinking coffee while someone else drives. Or riding one’s bike or walking for that matter.

    Of course some drivers spend their time reading the newspaper, drinking coffee and chatting on the phone too …

  40. Just to make some effort to bring this conversation back to the question of fareless square. I think there is a real danger that Portland starts to assume that its vision of itself reflects a permanent reality.

    Without a fareless square people are going to drive from one end of downtown to the other. If you want to go to Saturday Market – they are going to try to park close by. Then they are going to drive to the Pearl for lunch. To Northeast Portland to go to the shops there etc. That is the pardigm in most cities, just as it is in most small towns and suburbs.

    It may be that light rail and streetcars can create the same “park once, use transit” environment that exists now without buses.

    Unless we are talking about a reduction in service, the money to pay for it has to come from somewhere. Iam not sure enough people are going to pay a full fare to go from one end of downtown to the other to make the farebox a significant revenue source.

    Likewise, I suspect the “riff raff” will just use the trains if they have to pay for a bus.

    So what are the benefits again of getting rid of fareless square? It doesn’t seem like there are any.

  41. I wanted to add an anecdotal observation about “riff raff” and undesirable behavior within fareless square.

    I think everyone here recognizes that I am a big supporter of public transit and I don’t harp on shortcomings unless I am quite serious about something.

    You see, yesterday I was verbally threatened with physical violence and death (whether or not the threat was genuine, I cannot ascertain) by asking a group of loud, rude young men to please quiet down.

    I have written up all the specific details of the incident and sent them to TriMet.

    The short summary is that a group of 6 or 7 got on downtown in Fareless Square, took up positions which blocked aisles and proceeded for multiple stops to shout boisterous threats about “capping” (N-word), “whores”, anti-gay slurs, the F-word was shouted every few seconds, they were slamming their fists against bulkheads and stomping their feet, and shouting about their guns.

    Much of this could be considered “rapping”, but the volume of this was quite literally shouting and it wasn’t always in rhythm. The other passengers looked shocked and alarmed, but did nothing. At about NE 7th Ave, a young woman tried to exit the train and they would not clear the way for her to exit her seat. She had to push her way through this group while the shouting continue. I can’t imagine how she felt.

    It was at this point that I turned around and in a raised voice (but not shouting) asked them to please quiet down. This is when I was told to “shut the F. up” and was threatened with death. A short argument ensued between me and the group and I was eventually shouted down.

    At Lloyd Center, this group split up and most got off the train.

    This is not the first time I’ve seen such behavior in Fareless Square, but it is among the most serious, 2nd only to the time a few years ago when I and a friend were threatened at knifepoint (by a crazed woman with a baby stroller!).

    This was at around 6:45 in the evening. I’m sure there were a lot of shoppers on the train who were taking advantage of the fareless system, and I wonder how many of them will ride again after this incident.

    Given the crime in Holladay Park (including the recent shooting), this and other incidents, and onboard panhandling, I really am leaning toward removing the Lloyd District portion and making Fareless Square a “square” once again.

    The Square concept works great as a short-hop downtown circulator. But today, the Square is nearly 2 miles wide. There needs to be a balance between utility for short rides and trip length… as trip lengths grow longer, more and more “riff raff” will feel comfortable using the system, because they will not have to get off shortly after boarding. The Square is out-of-balance right now.

    – Bob R.

  42. Bob R.
    thanks for your patient and well argued comments on this string. Always a breath of fresh air. And welcome back Ross!
    As to Bob’s last post re his most unpleasant ride on MAX, I have had a run in or two with loud people…playing radios, etc., who have a problem when asked to “cool it.” This doesn’t happen much on buses, as the operator is there, but trains can seem unattended.
    Eastside fareless is paid for out of Lloyd District parking meter funds; maybe some of those dollars should go to beefed up security for the RQ to Lloyd Center portion of the line before we ditche the whole deal. I wonder what my friends at Lloyd TMA think about fareless and its impacts.

Leave a Reply to Bob R. Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *