A heated debate broke out on a Streetcar capacity thread. So let’s elevate the discussion to its own thread.
Is the original purpose fareless square was designed to meet in 1974 still relevant? Should it be modified, eliminated?
A heated debate broke out on a Streetcar capacity thread. So let’s elevate the discussion to its own thread.
Is the original purpose fareless square was designed to meet in 1974 still relevant? Should it be modified, eliminated?
65 responses to “Rethinking Fareless Square”
The history and rationale are here:
http://www.trimet.org/pdfs/history/fareless1.pdf
Two quick ideas: 1. create a nominal fare that will not overly discourage use but will increase accountability 2. consider limiting the hours of fareless operation to core business hours
Trimet is stuck in the 70’s! Downtown centric routes, fareless square, fare zones, lack of express routes, and over-reliance on rail transit all need to go:
1. Routes should go where people go. Most people don’t go downtown unless they have to.. many are forced downtown for bus or MAX transfers. Many people [including myself] avoid downtown at all costs. Bus routes should be in the form of a “grid” for the most part.
2. No more “feeder” routes. If the light rail cannot support ridership in its own corridor then it shouldn’t be built [or removed], and if a station has low ridership it should be removed.
3. No more free park and rides. All this does is move the congestion, pollution, and parking problem from downtown to neighborhoods where people live. Moving a problem from one part of town to another does nothing to solve the problem.
4. Bring back express routes that had decent ridership. Create new ones where they make sense. Routes on the freeways would be great!
5. Remove the fareless zone from the downtown area..no more free rides! If downtown businesses want a free shuttle service, let them band together, fund, and operate one.. the businesses of Willsonville did just that– and their service is quite successful.
6. No more shiny new toys unless they can pan out in revenue. The existing rail lines have many problems that have yet to be addressed [such as grade separation, security issues] and any rail funding should go to that first.
7. Space bus stops 1/4 mile apart. As it is now, bus stops are on every one or two blocks.. and it takes forever to travel even a short distance with the bus stopping so frequently. Additionally, closely spaced stops encourage people to be lazy and promote obesity.
8. Create a less complicated fare structure that makes sense and could potentially draw a profit. An example:
$1.00 — One ride, no transfer
$2.00 — One ride, with transfer
$3.00 — One ride on Premium service [MAX or express bus]
$25.00 — One ride on the Portland Streetcar or Tram
Today’s Fareless Square has too many problems with too few compensating benefits. It makes fare cheating way too easy, homeless use it for rolling shelter, drug dealers use it for rolling stores, hooligans shake down passengers, etc. Mal-users decrease revenue and increase costs for security and fare inspections. They likely have a negative effect on usage because potential riders avoid riding a troubled bus, etc.
Even free routes that never leave Fareless Square would enable some of these problems to persist. If the PBA wants to maintain some kind of Fareless Square, let them do it entirely at their own expense.
We already have another rate increase scheduled for paying passengers. Certainly there are more to come as fuel costs escalate endlessly. It is long past time to pass a rate increase on to the non-paying passengers, too.
I think discussion of changes to fareless square should be put off until long after the transit mall is finished. Instead, we could discuss MAX light rail to Vancouver. Yes!
Anthony –
All of your suggestions are fair.. but I just wanted to point out that combined, many of them contradict themselves.
1. You suggested getting rid of the feeder routes to the light rail lines, but promoting a grid system. Well, first you have to consider all transit options in a transit grid system (Light Rail, Buses & Streetcars). The philosopy of the grid system is that the routes (all of them… all technologies) feed into each other … so if you have a light rail line without any bus lines (or other light rail lines) feeding into it, then it’s not part of the grid system and ridership would diminish and the route would be unproductive.
2. You promote the grid system, which creates a system where riders need to transfer more, yet you suggest a fare structure that makes riders pay more for these transfers that they have to make if you have a well developed grid system.
And just a few general comments…
3. I think you’d have many people disagree with you that MAX is considered a “premium” service based on many of the commments I have read on here about Downtown MAX service.
4. Did you really mean $25.00 for a Streetcar ride? Seriously?
5. I do agree with you that sometimes stops for local routes are spaced a little too close.
Just my two cents…
If Fareless Square is eliminated altogether I think there’d be some negative feedback from the community at large. Someone else here has proposed that the MAX continue to be fareless within the current Fareless Square boundaries while bus and Streetcar become full-time fare collectors, I think that’s a sensible compromise once the bus mall MAX is completed.
The major benefit would be on buses, where fare checkers would no longer be necessary outside of Fareless Square, and all riders would be guaranteed to have paid a fare. Streetcar revenues would also increase substantially. There’s also the issue of buy-in, perceived value of the transit system increases when it’s not free.
I think the comment about the reopening of the Transit Mall is on track. But I think TriMet’s timing will be to come up with a new policy to coincide with the opening of the Mall, not wait to develop the policy until after it opens.
homeless use it for rolling shelter, drug dealers use it for rolling stores, hooligans shake down passengers,
The most annoying problems are people chatting on their phones and taking up two seats with shopping or briefcases to avoid having to sit next to someone. But I guess paying fares won’t keep those riff-raff off the bus.
I think, if anything, the idea of fairless squares ought to be expanded to create new ones in Beaverton, Hillsboro and Clackamas Town Center.
The discussion of an entirely fareless system got shot down largely because it would create a huge increase in transit usage – sort of like providing free roads encourages their use. The net revenue from fares is not that great between the service delays it creates to collect them and the cost of operating the fare collection system.
The problem is that without a fare system you get a lot of people using (abusing?) the system for short hops where they would have walked. So you may end spending a lot of money on low value trips in dense commercial areas at the expense of better service to and from less dense areas.
You also have a control issue – how do you effectively exclude people who are disruptive. As I recall, that was what ended an experiment with fareless transit in Austin TX. They had a huge increase in riders, but the drivers felt they had lost control over behavior problems.
If the goal is to get people out of their cars and onto transit as often as possible. An increasingly fareless system – even in patches – would likely achieve that.
If you work in Hillsboro, you ought to be taking the MAX, not driving just to get across town. There shouldn’t be a fare for going from the Beaverton Transit Center to the Round to City Hall. Making those trips fareless would encourage transit usage and reduce traffic in the area. And that was part of the point of fareless square. Get even people who drive to park their cars and use transit to get around. Afterall, the folks with bus passes who use transit every day to commute don’t pay extra any way.
The discussion of an entirely fareless system got shot down largely because it would create a huge increase in transit usage
What’s hard for me to understand is why any transit advocates wouldn’t support an entirely fareless system, if we’re really looking to increase transit usage as much as possible.
Sometimes it feels like TriMet, and transit advocates, decidedly don’t want to increase transit usage…for example the refusal to include improved bus service as an option when looking at the “preferred alternatives” for the East Side Streetcar. One can like streetcars in the abstract –I do– but if it’s NOT the biggest bang for the buck (in terms of increasing ridership and transit opportunities) then why NOT improve other elements of the transit system instead?
It’s the challenge PDOT faces…are they a transportation agency, or a development agency? If they see themselves as the latter, they may succeed at that, while failing at the former. There are some inherent contradictions. It’s why we have some terrific transportation initiatives and projects, at the same time we lack basic fundamentals like sidewalks, and even improrved streets, in so much of our community.
A long way of saying I think Fareless Square is important in reducing the number of auto trips in the downtown because it serves transit needs well, and definitely cuts down on car usage in the core.
What’s hard for me to understand is why any transit advocates wouldn’t support an entirely fareless system, if we’re really looking to increase transit usage as much as possible.
Many transit advocates did. The question was where the resources would come from to pay for the increased usage.
But there is another issue. Does a “fareless square” encourage people to drive downtown instead of paying to use the bus or take Max. Its those people without a current transfer or bus pass who benefit from fareless square. The people who take transit to get there can already travel around downtown on their transfer.
But I think TriMet’s timing will be to come up with a new policy to coincide with the opening of the Mall
I think that is a mistake. The two things are not connected and connecting them in the public mind is a bad idea. It will appear that fareless square was eliminated to help pay the cost of the transit mall update.
It will appear that fareless square was eliminated…
Wow. Is this a done deal already?
Does a “fareless square” encourage people to drive downtown instead of paying to use the bus or take Max.
I’m sure it does to some degree. I know I’ve driven downtown, garaged my car, and spent a weekend day with my family running around downtown. But you also need to keep in mind the limited time frame for using transfers, hardly enough time to head out somewhere for lunch and then get back.
I still think the bottom line is the easier and cheaper –and more pleasant– transit is to use, the more people will use it. And that’s an important societal goal, worthy of substantial subsidy.
Aylene–
My comment about removing feeder lines is in reference to the fact that decent bus routes were turned into feeder lines at the opening of MAX. Not everyone wants to ride the train, but is forced to transfer because of the feeder system. The MAX should be entirely an limited stop commuter system, grade separated, and premium priced [it does have a premium cost after all].
The grid system would have its ups and downs, but if designed well, would have a maximum of two transfers for most trips.. One bus in the north and south direction, and one in the east and west direction. As routes are planned now, many people must transfer three or more times: one bus to the MAX, the MAX to downtown [or another transit center], and another bus to their destination.
The $25.00 was kind-of a joke.. but the street car, in my opinion, is utterly worthless; connecting two of the most expensive parts of town.
Rich people do not take public transit.
Trimet should get away from the goal of trying to lure middle class and rich folks from their cars, and work on their traditional goal to mobilize people who cannot provide their own transportation [for whatever reason].
Fareless square is a tremendous asset to downtown Portland and should remain. When the new transit mall opens I could see it being changed to only MAX and the streetcar, but the ability to keep people out of their cars when moving around downtown is something I don’t think we should give up. Have you ever driven in downtown Seattle vs downtown Portland? Keep people on their feet and on mass transit is definitely the way to go.
Thanks for creating a new post for this Chris, its an interesting topic. I dont want to retype my two submittals from the previous thread so I will just cut and paste…
First Post:
This may be considered blasphemy, but why shouldn’t we limit all “fareless” rides to those on MAX within the downtown/I-405 loop and the Lloyd District and remove fareless rides from all buses and streetcars. This change could start once MAX starts running north/south on the Transit Mall in 2009. People will still have a convenient option of jumping on and off MAX downtown or across the river to the Convention Center for free, but operators wont have the complexity of distinguishing between paying riders and fareless riders on buses and streetcars.
I have no idea how much money this would save TriMet or how it would affect ridership, but it would certainly help the streetcar to better fund its own operations downtown.
Is this a crazy idea? The fareless system we have now makes little sense to me now that transit options have expanded so much downtown and I am interested in hearing any suggestions to make it work better. Maybe fareless square deserves a separate posting Chris so we can generate conversation.
Second Post:
Chris – Fareless Square was created in the 1970s as an air quality measure since the Portland region was violating federal clean air standards on a regular basis. The rationale was that downtown workers and shoppers would be less likely to move their cars once they park downtown if they could roam free by hopping on transit for short trips.
While I doubt that the policy had more than a negligible impact on air quality, it was embraced by the public and has since remained as one of those local quirks that Portlanders are proud of. However, since the 1970s downtown transit options have exploded to include MAX and streetcar, not just on the transit mall but on the Morrison/Yamhill and the 10th/11th couplets. Once MAX begins service on the transit mall in 2009, several buses will be permanently shifted to parallel streets.
Like a lot of other people, I think that the fareless policy needs to be evaluated and rationalized in light of new conditions. Any change must also be easily understood by the riding public so they are not confused by what options are or are not fareless.
In the absence of much analysis, I think that making MAX fareless between the Lloyd District and downtown while making the streetcar and buses fully paid systems makes some sense. First, as of 2009 MAX will operate east/west and north/south through downtown and thus provide broader coverage than streetcar. Second, MAX operates through the heart of the office and retail core, streetcar does not. And third, MAX already operates across the river to the convention center and the Lloyd District.
Also, from a fare collection and inspection perspective, I would think it would be simpler to keep a fareless policy on MAX in the existing zone while making all bus and streetcar rides paid. There will still be fare evasion on MAX but it will be limited to MAX and we can clamp down on fare evasion that takes place on streetcar and buses.
Any additional revenue that is generated can be dedicated to operating streetcar operations downtown and across the river for the eastside loop. TriMet remains adamant, that they cant fund streetcar operations beyond their existing commitment.
I still think that providing a fareless option for downtown workers and shoppers to make short trips makes sense, but downtown living has exploded since the 1970s. The streetcar serves the heart of these new residential districts. Should those living downtown be provided free transit while the residents of the rest of the region pay for their service? I can see good arguments for both sides, but it is a question worth debating.
Anyway, my earlier post was just one idea. I am interested in hearing other ideas. Thanks.
BN
Have you ever driven in downtown Seattle vs downtown Portland? Keep people on their feet and on mass transit is definitely the way to go.
Yes, I was in Seattle not too long ago. Used the FREE mass transit downtown.
Yes – Seattle busses are free downtown before 7:00 PM. Why? After 7:00 PM, the fares are there to help prevent the riff-raff from causing problems.
I had no problem WALKING around downtown Seattle using the bus system. Seattle also has the Waterfront Streetcar line, which for now it’s running as a bus and is a fare-free bus regardless of time of day. (Back when it was an actual Streetcar it was considered outside the fareless zone, because it was deemed as a “premium service”.)
Imagine that – we can emulate the exact same right here in Portland. Have a fareless zone for busses prior to 7:00 PM, and scale it back to downtown (in other words eliminate the Lloyd Center extension). Have a free circulator bus that is funded by the City or the downtown businesses. MAX and Streetcar should always have a fare. And simplify Portland’s fare system so that fares are truly based upon distance travelled instead of the nonsensical two zone/overlap zone that we have now:
$1.00 – travel within Portland city limits (west of I-205)
Add $.50 for each additional zone:
Zone 2 (Inner Suburbs and East Portland) – East Portland, Clackamas, Milwaukie, Lake Oswego, Tigard, Beaverton, Cedar Mill, Hayden Island, Rivergate, and Linnton
Zone 3 (Outer Suburbs) – Troutdale, Wood Village, Fairview, Gresham, Oregon City, West Linn, Tualatin, Hillsboro
Zone 4 (Distant Suburbs; this zone should be served by frequent express busses) – Estacada, Sherwood, Forest Grove/Cornelius
Senior and Student discounts can apply but still be distance based. A peak hour surcharge of $0.25 or $0.50 should apply during rush hours as well.
The disruption of reconstructing the transit mall is confusing enough for transit users. If, after reconstruction, Tri-Met decides to enact new policies that eliminate or restrict fareless square, that may be resentfully seen as further hardship.
There is no consensus that fareless square is a problem; there are problems, but no consensus that its benefits do not outweigh its problems.
If we’re going to make changes to fareless square, make the decision after transit mall contruction is completed and MAX/bus operation there stabilized.
How about considering a MAX extension to Forest Grove? What with all the development out there, isn’t a MAX extension there a matter of more importance than this diddly pickieyoonish fareless square question?
I have noticed that there have been many comments about no one knowing the real effect of Fareless Square…
Hasn’t Tri-Met (or anyone else) evaluated the Fareless Square program to better understand it’s impact on air quality, congestion, ridership, parking, etc.?
It seems like that is the logical first step in this larger discussion of whether or not to keep it.
Fareless Square has long outlived its usefulness, has become an obsolete freebee that applies to only one locale within the city and is a slap in the face to the special privileges and immunities section of the Oregon Constitution. And yes, there will be some screaming and hair pulling if it is ended, but it is absolutely necessary so transit riders can start paying a greater and more equitable share of the price tag for transit service.
Ross Williams said: “an entirely fareless system got shot down largely because it would create a huge increase in transit usage – sort of like providing free roads encourages their use.” Sorry Ross, except for freeloading bicyclists, roads are not free to use. Motorists pay gas and fuel taxes, registration and license fees, and truckers pay a weight per mile tax to pay for and use the roads. Furthermore, some of these taxes and fees assessed on motorists also subsidize transit.
Transit should become more financially self-sustainable without motorist subsidies, and with the ridership paying the majority of the costs. Having been born and raised in Portland, and old enough to remember what it was like in the pre-TriMet era; in those days transit was operated by private for profit companies and they paid a franchise fee to cities like Portland to operate on the roadways.
Where as, many anti-auto, transit and bicycle advocates want to turn back the clock and get people out of their cars and on to transit and streetcars, then it is time to keep turning that clock back even more whereby no matter who owns it or runs it, transit pay must pay its own way and if possible make a profit. Portland Streetcar would then be required to pay franchise fees to have their tracks in the street just like other utilities pay franchise fees to use public right-of–ways for poles and pipes.
In the private operator days, transit had what they called the “Downtown Shopper”. The fare was about one third to one fourth of the regular transit fare. Today, instead of a free fareless area, business and/or employers could hand out tickets they purchase from TriMet good for an hour of short distance riding with distribution to customers and/or employees. The same type of tickets could be made available for purchase and distribution to the promoters of events and conventions held at the convention center and the Rose Garden. Fares would also be priced the same for short distance rides elsewhere within the TriMet service area. Examples include from the Expo Center to Kenton, Downtown Gresham to Rockwood, Hollywood to Lloyd Center etc.
As for the TriMet fare system itself, it should be made simpler, based on the distance traveled, the time of day and amount/choice of service provided in a given area. Additionally, transit fares on some routes must help pay for the high price of infrastructure. An example would be the proposed Columbia Crossing where the transit ridership exclusively needs to pay for any local match monies spent on transit crossing infrastructure.
roads are not free to use.
Sure they are. Unless you are paying a toll no one charges you to use the road. Sure you have to pay for your vehicle and fuel, but there is no extra charge for using the road in most cases. Of course nothing is really free, the bill gets paid somewhere.
Ross — The fuel tax, weight + mile tax, registration tax, licensing tax, and title fees, as well traffic fines, and parking meters are all a form of “toll” to use the roads.
Since it is impossible to avoid every one of these fees, each and every motorist pays to use the roadways that they use. Can transit users who have an average of 80% of their fare subsidized and 100% of their park and ride parking subsidized say the same? Can bicyclists who do not register their bikes nor do they purchase fuel or pay for parking say the same?
I can see the value to Brian Newman’s proposal to make Fareless Square only apply to MAX. I also recognize the criticism that downtown residents are getting a special privilege — free transit in their neighborhood — that no other resident of the region receives.
However, I advocate thinking long and hard before making any reductions in Fareless Square. After all, what exactly is the problem that this proposed solution will fix? Does this proposed fix actually solve the problem? Is it the only possible way to solve the problem?
Portland’s Fareless Square has set a precedent for free transit discussions around the world. It has done so because it fundamentally seems to be a good idea. I fully understand the arguments against continuing it, but I’m not sold on them.
Why shouldn’t we make it easy to move around downtown for free? Why shouldn’t we provide incentives for people to move downtown? If the region wants to concentrate new development in urban centers, shouldn’t there be as many incentives as possible for new residential development in the largest urban center?
Also, what about all the merchants on 10th and 11th avenues who benefit from the currently-fareless Streetcar system? Would they lose business if Streetcar were to become *non-fareless*? I understand that Streetcar is having trouble keeping capacity up with demand, but is abandoning Fareless Square the only solution?
Fareless Square is a part of Portland’s culture. I think what it comes down to now, is that any changes to Fareless Square should probably go to a vote of the people. If changes are made without a vote, I think there is going to be a lot of resentment, and some potential backlash against Tri-Met. I don’t think any of us want to see that.
Anthony –
1. Bicyclists pay for fuel. Most pay nearly 100% of their fuel costs at the grocery store.
2. Park & Ride commuters as well as any transit user with a job or small business pays (directly or via their employer) much of the transit subsidy (Payroll taxes and self employment taxes). I write the checks myself, so I know I pay in more than I personally utilized, and I’m still a transit supporter.
Terry –
I’ve really been trying to use my imagination to see how fareless square violates the privileges and immunities section of the Oregon Constitution. Does TriMet turn people away from free rides? Granted, you actually have to be present to receive the ride, but nearly every government service requires _somebody_ to be present where the service is delivered.
Nonetheless, I’m pleased that you interpret the privileges and immunities clause so strongly… it is the basis for support and enforcement of a number of our civil rights, and I hope you’ll join those of us who are fighting for equal marriage rights for same-sex couples.
– Bob R.
The $25.00 was kind-of a joke.. but the street car, in my opinion, is utterly worthless; connecting two of the most expensive parts of town.
Rich people do not take public transit.
If no one is riding the streetcar, why are we having this discussion?
And Terry, do you think it honest to say that you are paying for the road? And why shouldn’t non-transit riders subsidize transit riders? The transit riders are providing drivers a service, in terms of reduced congestion, and lowering gas taxes which would need to be raised to pay for greater infrastructure. Also, the rise in demand for gas that is avoided by the transit share (efficient use of petroleum) is a “subsidy” to drivers as well. You are being disingenuous.
1. Bicyclists pay for fuel. Most pay nearly 100% of their fuel costs at the grocery store.
There is actually some interesting tax law here. A business can deduct the cost of the [gasoline] fuel as an expense, and therefore not have to pay, (income,) taxes on it. A bicycle rider in the US, can not, and given that pedal cab operators need to eat about twice as much as a normal person, that is a lot of money. However, in Canada, you can deduct a portion of your food as a expense.
http://www.bikesatwork.com/cycling-for-profit/food-as-fuel.html
Fareless Square is a part of Portland’s culture.
So is public involvement, but TriMet doesn’t seem to care for that…
Let’s get back to the idea of fareless square:
1. Does it make a measurable impact on air quality? Obiviously we know that the most “polluted” areas of Portland are along the freeways – namely I-5 in North Portland – which are well outside Fareless Square.
2. Does it increase transit ridership? Probably, but to a meaningful amount? Does it encourage transit ridership to downtown – where people have to pay to use transit downtown?
In some areas of Los Angeles, the city (LADOT) runs their own busses outside of the MTA, and on select routes one can ride all day as long as they have a same-day transfer from a connecting form of transit (for example I used a MetroLink ticket) – even if the transfer itself is expired. Or one can ride for several hours for only a buck.
The routes are inexpensive to use and offer service long enough to be cheap; yet there is a nominal fee to use, the service is geographically focused on a specific area, and for people who are using transit from outside of the immediate area the rides are free. TriMet actually employs this principle with the 73-Washington Park Shuttle.
I could see similar routes – one to serve Tanasbourne; another to serve Beaverton’s city center; another in downtown Portland, and another in the inner Eastside; and another in Gresham.
Fareless until 7pm is one of the best ideas mentioned. At least make fares cheaper during rush hour. Regarding general criticism of fareless, the logic implying that better behaviour can be relied upon from people with money for a fare seems feeble.
The transit system needs official people on the traincars, streetcars, busses, that can ensure all riders a reasonable standard of courtesy and behavior from fellow riders. These people will help all public transportation riders to learn the rules entitling ridership. Follow the rules or you’re walking.
ws:
We’d be better able to pay for extra staff on Streetcar, MAX and buses if Fareless Square were abolished.
For me it boils down to the fact that TriMet could use the revenue. Once the MAX goes up and down the bus mall you can get people through a good portion of Fareless Square on the MAX alone, so you take the buses and Streetcar out of the equation and put the extra money towards capital improvements or keeping fares steady in the face of rising fuel costs.
Even though I’m coming late, there’s one thing I don’t see mentioned here: Keeping Fareless Square 100% unrestricted keeps it simple for tourists and other new riders who are riding due to “Fareless”.
Also, remember that even with MAX on the mall, there are many places inside Fareless Square that are served only with buses (say a trip down Everett). And the congestion, pollution, etc from a car trip between PSU and Lloyd District is not insignificant.
Lastly, when motorists pay for their share of the Big Pipe as well as more of their parking, we can consider the end of free transit.
I’m not good with them, but the numbers are out there, and in regards to them people claim that fares (only within fareless square?), don’t represent a particularly signficant percent of Tri-Met’s operating budget. In fact, I believe someone commenting earlier in this very thread alludes to that.
In response to this, the logic is that retaining fareless at least potentially represents a greater savings to the public in terms of reduced congestion and so forth, more than making up the amount of money that could be made through the elimination of fareless square.
I favor fareless in at least the present area. I also think that reinforcing the idea that individual citizens are taking responsibility for paying for the infrastructure they benefit from by paying a fare is good policy. When and wherever in the transit system, a fare is requested, it seems smart to closely associate the fare paid with something tangible and realistic that riders know they’re receiving in exchange.
If a fare really goes to provide cleaner, safer compartments to ride in, then maybe the public would support it (I believe it’s quite commonly known that fares don’t cover the costs of Tri-Met’s operation without subsidies to help out.)When people start throwing around the idea of fares, thinking it will successfully and justly exclude smelly people, dirty people, and those dealing drugs on the public transportation, the public is likely not to support the idea.
I’m not good with them, but the numbers are out there, and in regards to them people claim that fares (only within fareless square?), don’t represent a particularly signficant percent of Tri-Met’s operating budget. In fact, I believe someone commenting earlier in this very thread alludes to that.
In response to this, the logic is that retaining fareless at least potentially represents a greater savings to the public in terms of reduced congestion and so forth, more than making up the amount of money that could be made through the elimination of fareless square.
I favor fareless in at least the present area. I also think that reinforcing the idea that individual citizens are taking responsibility for paying for the infrastructure they benefit from by paying a fare is good policy. When and wherever in the transit system, a fare is requested, it seems smart to closely associate the fare paid with something tangible and realistic that riders know they’re receiving in exchange.
If a fare really goes to provide cleaner, safer compartments to ride in, then maybe the public would support it (I believe it’s quite commonly known that fares don’t cover the costs of Tri-Met’s operation without subsidies to help out.)When people start throwing around the idea of fares, thinking it will successfully and justly exclude smelly people, dirty people, and those dealing drugs on the public transportation, the public is likely not to support the idea.
I am trying to figure out what is broken here. It seems to me the issue is really paying for the streetcar, not buses. Once MAX goes down the mall you are really only talking about trips on Burnside and Everett that are served by buses but not by Max. On the other hand, eliminating the fareless streetcar shuts off the entire west end of downtown and the pearl.
Rather than reducing service in fareless square, perhaps the streetcar ought to be fareless and fully funded by a local improvement district along its routes. Ultimately the streetcar is a local circulator that is intended to support compact development. Property owners and merchants could recover most, if not all, of the cost in increased values and income.
In short, I think the goal should be to expand fareless service, rather than reduce it. I also think the distinction between streetcars and MAX will be lost on most visitors.
On the other hand, eliminating the fareless streetcar shuts off the entire west end of downtown and the pearl.
This is already legally a fare zone, yet non-enforced due to the City of Portland’s unwillingness to develop revenue sources to reduce TriMet’s operating subsidy through regional property and payroll tax revenues towards a transit service that is pointedly a local (downtown Portland) operation.
Rather than reducing service in fareless square, perhaps the streetcar ought to be fareless and fully funded by a local improvement district along its routes.
This should have been done before the Streetcar took a shovel to the ground. Now that it’s done, the City of Portland needs to repay TriMet for operating costs that were stolen from other parts of the service area; or the City of Portland needs to accept a service reduction within its city limits, with TriMet reallocating those services to outside Portland.
Yellow Line MAX service every 30 minutes, anyone?
In short, I think the goal should be to expand fareless service, rather than reduce it. I also think the distinction between streetcars and MAX will be lost on most visitors.
1. Find a way to pay for it, without stealing from other cities.
2. There is a huge difference between Streetcar and MAX – just go to http://www.trimet.org and look in the upper right hand corner of the page. From an outside observer’s standpoint, they share only two things in common – they’re both rail based transit, and they both are in downtown Portland.
(From an engineering standpoint Streetcar and MAX are more alike, but that concept seems lost on most people who try to claim that Streetcar is vastly different than MAX. All that’s different is that Streetcars are smaller and slower.)
This is already legally a fare zone, yet non-enforced due
Fareless square extends to I-405 to the west and Irving St to the North. The service described IS in fareless square and Streetcar DOES do enforcement outside fareless square, although we have to be very careful that the enforcement cost does not exceed the opportunity to capture the revenue.
It’s also not clear that fareless square “steals from other cities”. Both the City of Portland and the Lloyd District make direct payments to TriMet for this service.
All that’s different is that Streetcars are smaller and slower.
And that ought to be obvious to every visitor with a stop watch and tape measure. But then which is the MAX and which is the streetcar. And which one do you have to pay a fare for? There are plenty of Portland area residents who wouldn’t recognize whether what they were boarding was a streetcar or MAX.
Fairless Square is one of the special, good, progressive things about Portland that guidebooks and visitors rave about. It is heavily used and one of the few transportation services that is clearly worth its cost on the face of it. Hence, just like other equally worthy sources of civic pride which can/could be enjoyed without payment, such as Pioneer Courthouse Square and Artquake, the downtown business mafia can’t wait to get rid of it. Same you-know-what, different day.
We need to adopt a second civic slogan to supplement “Keep Portland Wierd.” I don’t have a catchy wording for it, but it needs to capture this idea clearly enough that even B-school dummies can understand it: Doing away with widely appreciated public goods because people use them is stupid.
And that ought to be obvious to every visitor with a stop watch and tape measure. But then which is the MAX and which is the streetcar. And which one do you have to pay a fare for? There are plenty of Portland area residents who wouldn’t recognize whether what they were boarding was a streetcar or MAX.
Ross – re-read my post. You and I are in agreement here.
AFAIAC, Streetcar and MAX don’t even have the same paint scheme; that should be enough to state that they are different – just as one can look at a TriMet and a C-Tran bus and know that they are from two different bus systems; even though both busses might actually be Gillig Phantoms.
I think if they’re going to eliminate fareless, they had better move to an Oyster-card like system, because I really don’t want to wait 5 minutes every time I board a bus downtown when people pull out their 5-year old nickel collections to ride 10 blocks.
If we actually had complete coverage in the Metro area with lightrail/metro system, people would pay… but it only covers certain areas right now: NE, SE, and SW Portland largely have zero MAX connectivity; few suburbs have service (Hillsboro, Gresham, and Beaverton), and we need need burb-to-burb connections.
Buses that run once and hour and take 3 hours to go from LO to BTC are a complete joke.
I think “fareless square” should really only cover The Transit Mall and the MAX between PGE Park (that’s right) and the Burnside/Old Town stop. No more free river crossings or east-west free connections.
I whole-heartedly agree that we need Express Busses.
Bob R said: “I’ve really been trying to use my imagination to see how fareless square violates the privileges and immunities section of the Oregon Constitution.”
The downtown community is receiving a special privilege not afforded to other neighborhoods within the TriMet taxing district.
Bob R also said: “Nonetheless, I’m pleased that you interpret the privileges and immunities clause so strongly… it is the basis for support and enforcement of a number of our civil rights, and I hope you’ll join those of us who are fighting for equal marriage rights for same-sex couples.”
And you will join in to support equal rights and right to use across the board for modes of transport including tax equity – motorists pay for roads (which they already do), bicyclists directly taxed to pay for all bicycle infrastructure, transit users pay for transit service-infrastructure and no more money spent on attempting to get people out of their cars. Joining the fight to end the discriminatory and predatory practice of siphoning off motorist paid taxes and fees to fund bicycle and transit projects will be welcomed.
Louis Haywood said: “do you think it honest to say that you are paying for the road?
Anthony answered this question when he said: “The fuel tax, weight + mile tax, registration tax, licensing tax, and title fees, as well traffic fines, and parking meters are all a form of “toll” to use the roads.”
Louis Haywood also said: “And why shouldn’t non-transit riders subsidize transit riders?”
Transit riders do not pay for the roads the busses run on, motorists do. Transit riders do not pay for streetcars, light rail vehicles, the tracks or the busses themselves either. Much of the Federal funding comes from the Federal Highway Trust Fund and that comes from the federal taxes on motor fuels. Furthermore, when Federal highway dollars are used to subsidize transit, it reduces the amount of dollars needed for infrastructure for the motorists paying the tax. At the very least, transit riders should be required pay the full costs of transit service operations.
Ross Williams said “I am trying to figure out what is broken here.”
Fare box revenues only cover 20 to 25 percent of the costs of providing TriMet’s services. What is broken is that transit fares need co cover a much larger share of those costs.
Ross – re-read my post. You and I are in agreement here.
I don’t think so. I was being sarcastic. Sorry.
I am saying that for all the differences MAX and light rail both just look like trains to the average person. Visitors will never keep track of which one they can ride and which one they are supposed to pay for.
Terry wrote: The downtown community is receiving a special privilege not afforded to other neighborhoods within the TriMet taxing district.
The downtown business community (and the Lloyd district) pay in extra to the TriMet system to subsidize fareless square. Any community is free to try something like that.
The fact of the matter is that the service (free rides in the central part of Portland) is available to all visitors.
Most regular transit users living in central Portland live outside of fareless square and have transit passes or another fare instrument anyway. The fareless square district primarily serves non-regular users.
If you want to talk constitutional inequality: Why am I required to own/operate a car in order to cross the Marquam or Fremont bridges? I can’t walk or bike across them. That’s a pretty heavy burden, just to cross a bridge which was built in part with general fund dollars.
– Bob R.
Judging from the conduct of this discussion on the subject of reexamining fareless square, it still seems best to take up the question after the transit mall reconstruction is finished.
Fareless square serves many people who would otherwise drive between downtown destinations, increasing traffic, or reduce their patronage of downtown shops and restaurants. Ending fareless square is likely to decrease transit use and harm downtown businesses.
Unless a debate is tempered by a fair consideration of opposing views, it is little more than a shouting match. It seems to me, this debate is habited by transit opponents shouting weak debate point. MAX and the Portland Streetcar are a phenomenal success! Period!
I know this isn’t a long diatribe so it might not be taken seriously – but here goes:
This all seems like a solution looking for a problem.
What exactly is the problem with fareless square?
It is one of the things that I loved about Portland when I moved here in the mid 90s and one of the things that friends and family love about Portland when they visit…
There was a report on one of the TV news casts a couple of evenings ago about TriMet fare evasion, mostly on Max. It was estimated that about one in ten passengers did not pay. It was also estimated that TriMet is loosing 4.35 million dollars annually because of it. This was due to the absence of fare inspectors checking for passenger receipts and because people could board in Fareless Square and then never pay a fare. The amount of money being lost should be motivation enough to end Fareless Square.
In addition, another good reason to end Fareless Square is that TriMet wants another five billon dollars over the next three decades to build upon and run the transit system. Instead of having the money coming from a Metro bond measure or taxes assessed on motorists, these funds should be coming directly from ridership through farebox revenues and surcharges.
Terry said:
“There was a report on one of the TV news casts a couple of evenings ago about TriMet fare evasion, mostly on Max.”
MAX fare evasion isn’t related to fareless square. Yes, a very small number of people think that MAX is free because they usually only ride it in fareless square, (a problem that is much worse on the streetcar,) but most fare evasion on MAX is willful.
In any case, when I see a fare inspector catching people, they tend to catch a lot more around Beaverton TC than near Goose Hollow. (Given that they are only 3 stops apart, I’m surprised by that too.)
And, while I would like to see more fare inspectors too, I assume that TriMet looks at the trade off between more fare inspectors and how many more people would pay as result, and uses that to determines how many to hire…
There is fare evasion on the bus network caused by fareless square. TriMet estimates it to be in the order of $300k/year.
nstead of having the money coming from a Metro bond measure or taxes assessed on motorists, these funds should be coming directly from ridership through farebox revenues and surcharges.
I disagree. Everyone benefits when people choose to use transit instead of driving, especially motorists. Everyone should pay at least a part of the cost. Ideally transit would be fareless, but whatever fares there are ought to be set to encourage responsible use of transit, not discourage it.
Since TriMet busses use the roads and TriMet riders receive goods that are transported over the roads; to achieve tax equity with motorists, farebox revenues should also to help pay for the roads, and road improvements too.
TriMet riders receive goods that are transported over the roads;
The cost of transportation is included in the price people pay for products, just as the cost of “free” parking is included in the cost of purchases.
to achieve tax equity
It seems to me tax equity implies that those who benefit more from society pay more for the cost of providing public services. Trimet is a public service paid for with taxes, the same way roads are a public service paid for with taxes.
Road taxes were never intended to create equity. The idea was simply for the taxes to increase as the need for new public roads increased.
“The most annoying problems are people chatting on their phones and taking up two seats with shopping or briefcases to avoid having to sit next to someone. But I guess paying fares won’t keep those riff-raff off the bus.”
So… the people chatting on phones are more annoying than the man with so much alcohol in his system that the fumes brought tears to my eyes, with excrement oozing out of his pants leg, who fell into the train and knocked my wife down?
——————————–
As to covering road improvements through fare boxes, in budgets over the past 15 years Tri-Met has wavered between covering 15 to 20% of their operating costs (not including expansion projects) through fares. I suspect if you took out the bus component, which comes closer to paying for itself, the numbers would be even worse. Simply to pay it’s own way, Tri-Met would have to raise fares to roughly five times their current level, so an all-zone ticket would be $10.00.
What are the chances of that happening?
Roads would be fine if two things happened: if a greater percentage of the monies collected went to highway improvements, and if fewer roads were “improved” by removing lanes, “calming” traffic flow, and generally increasing congestion intentionally.
So… the people chatting on phones are more annoying than the man with so much alcohol in his system that the fumes brought tears to my eyes, with excrement oozing out of his pants leg, who fell into the train and knocked my wife down?
Probably not to you, but there are whole lot more people chatting on phones.
My wife and I are from Austin, TX and recently relocated to Portland. We were stunned when our bus fares went up last fall. We thought raising the fares was horrific. Nevertheless, we rode public transportation to and from work every day. Upon relocating in Portland, we no longer take public transportation, ANYwhere! The fares are unbelievably high, and I am amazed there is not a public outcry. I cannot imagine how people making minimum wage and no vehicle can afford to go to work. What is going wrong? Why is the public having to experience continuous fare hikes and cuts in service?
Here is a paste-in of our current fares in Austin:
Local bus fare $0.75 (other cash fares and daily passes adjusted proportionally)
Local Day Pass $1.50
Express $1.50
MetroRail Adult (1 Zone $1.00, 2 Zones $1.50)
Express Day Pass $3.00
Stored Value Card ($15.00 value) for $12.00 (formerly half-priced farecard)
Adult 31-day pass $18.00 for local service; $36.00 for an Express pass
Adult 7-Day Local Metro Pass $7.00
`Dillo fare $0.50 (2 hour pass) & $5.00 for a 31-day pass
RideShare monthly pass $45.00
MetroAccess-certified individuals, seniors (65 and older), disability fare card holders, children under six, and law enforcement, fire and military personnel in uniform ride free on Local, `Dillos, Express, and MetroRail
MetroAccess 10-ride Ticket Book $7.00
MetroAccess monthly pass $22.50
Reduced fare (`Dillos $.25, FRS $.35, Express & Rail $.75)
If it helps, TriMet gets about $215 million in local tax revenue while Austin’s Metro gets about $160 million. The trick is that TriMet provides about 100 million rides with a much bigger fleet than Austin’s Metro’s 36 million rides. So Austin gets about $4.44 per ride in local tax subsidies compared with TriMet receiving about $2.15, or less than half as much.
TriMet’s local tax is payroll based while Austin Metro’s is a sales tax. Oregonians aren’t really too anxious to search for reasons for a sales tax.
I cannot imagine how people making minimum wage and no vehicle can afford to go to work.
How?
Oregon minimum wage: $8.40/hour.
Half-time min. wage worker (22 4-hr days): $739.20 (pre-tax)
Tri-Met all-zone pass: $86/month
So if you’re working a half-time minimum-wage job, your all-zone pass (your transportation budget) is about 12% of your monthly gross income.
That’s how. Painful, but doable.
But the broader point is accurate. Tri-Met is expensive compared to nearly every other system I’ve seen.
What are utilization rates of the two systems? Assuming similar costs for gas/electricity and for guys like Al–the biggest differentiator in how efficient a transit system is, is how full the busses and trains are. When vehicles run empty, or nearly so–money is being burned. When vehicles are full of fare-paying customers, the transit agency frequently can make money.
Of course, trimming low-ridership routes is problematic for several reasons (which have been discussed here in depth):
1) Leaves people without transit service altogether
2) May reduce ridership on other parts of the system–if the bus doesn’t come close to my house, I’m not going to be riding, period.
3) In some cases, no service means a reduction in the size of the taxing district.
I do find it a bit interesting, though, that Austin is subsidizing its transit system on a per-ridership basis more heavily than Portland is. (What’s the subsidy per capita for the general population, as opposed to per transit user/fare?)
Census Bureau has 2008 estimates for Austin’s MSA at about 1,653,000 and Portland’s at about 2,207,000. If we remove Clark County’s 425,000, Portland’s drops to 1,782,000 which is fairly close to Austin’s.
I don’t know how well Austin’s Metro covers its MSA – with service or sales tax. There could be a bunch of smaller transit providers such as CTRAN, SMART, and CAT.
Bottom line: Austin taxes its residents at a lower rate, but provides far fewer rides than TriMet.
Wow, Austin’s price structure is confusing. Portland’s pricing is a little high, but I can’t imagine how a monthly pass could only be $22.50 without requiring massive subsidies.
You’ll end up paying the difference one way or another.
I’m writing as someone who arrived here in 2006, moving from the DC area to the Pearl. I thus carry no historical baggage pro or con Fareless Square; I’m looking at it as it is now, and as it might be.
Fareless Square was first instituted in 1975, in a very different Portland:
– no MAX (and especially no MAX to the Zoo)
– no Pioneer Courthouse Square
– no Pearl District (railyards + industry)
– no South Waterfront
– no OMSI (at least not in its current location)
– no Trendy-Third Ave (AFAIK it was much more downscale)
The Fareless Square boundaries (Willamette River, 405, Glisan) made sense for that Portland. In my view, they don’t make good sense for the Portland we now have.
The boundary was extended in 2001, to include the Lloyd District. That made good sense — tie that district to the Convention Center area and to downtown.
I think it makes sense to extend them again, to cover the somewhat larger central core in the present-day Portland.
– There’s no reason the original Streetcar should be free except for teeny bits of line on both ends.
– It makes no sense to travel free to River Place but not all the way to South Waterfront.
– It makes no sense to travel free halfway through the Pearl, and not all the way.
– It makes no sense to travel free to the Rose Garden and Lloyd Center but not to OMSI or PGE Park.
I’d propose a Fareless Square that would encompass both streetcar lines — the existing one and the Eastside Loop. The full length of both lines. This would look even better after the new Milwaukie bridge is built. The point is that the Inner Eastside is intended to function as an extension of the central core.
Moreover, just as there’s an eastern “finger” to Lloyd Center, there ought to be a “western finger” as far as the MAX station under Washington Park.
An expanded free-travel area would put the vast majority of Portland’s visitor attractions inside the square.
There seems to be an idea floating around to abandon Fareless Square for buses, leaving it for rail only. I’m neutral on that idea; there are good arguments both ways.
It looks a little like TriMet is leaning towards either a steel-on-steel edition of fareless square or a $1 downtown fare for all modes, with the former apparently having better prospects.
How about an expanded downtown along Mike’s lines with the $1 fare combined with a low priced downtown pass?
The $100 annual streetcar pass is an incredible bargain for those whose transit needs are generally met by that service. The streetcar survey posted by Chris shows about 1/3rd of SOWA riders using the pass. Who knows if it will survive the eastside expansion, let alone the Johns Landing/Lake Oswego extension.
The streetcar survey posted by Chris shows about 1/3rd of SOWA riders using the pass.
Streetcar has struck a promotional deal with most of the developers in SOWA that you get a one-year pass when you buy your condo. We hope that people get in the habit and renew on their own dime when the first year is up.
There is no good argument to continue handing out FREE service in the face of service cuts!
It’s completely nuts and proves there are two classes of TRIMET users, the privileged inside Portland and everybody that lives outside of the
THE PEOPLES REPUBLIC OF PORTLAND
Al said
There is no good argument to continue handing out FREE service in the face of service cuts!
Al, I think you’re overreacting to a temporary downturn in the local economy. IMO, that’s not a good way to make policy.
It’s completely nuts and proves there are two classes of TRIMET users, the privileged inside Portland and everybody that lives outside of the THE PEOPLES REPUBLIC OF PORTLAND
Al, I think that’s a false dichotomy. If Fareless Square is bad for Portland, kill it. If it’s good for Portland, keep it. That’s an independent consideration from the poor treatment of the suburbs. We fix that by getting the suburbs to make themselves heard better in the halls of power. We don’t fix the suburbs by screwing the city.
Trouble is, there’s no effective path for citizen input into TriMet, so it acts unresponsively.
The TriMet board is way too Portland-dominated. That’s an outdated structure and really ought to be replaced by a more representative board, either directly elected or appointed by the counties’ officials, or placed under Metro, which already is such a representative structure.
I’ve raised the issue in this forum several times, and gotten such a ho-hum reaction that I’ve concluded that most of us would rather just kvetch on a blog than work for real change.
Al, I think you’re overreacting to a temporary downturn in the local economy. IMO, that’s not a good way to make policy.
It’s the ONLY way to make policy Mikey!
We fix that by getting the suburbs to make themselves heard better in the halls of power. We don’t fix the suburbs by screwing the city.
Well Mikey, there are those that HAVE and those that HAVE NOT, the haves get more, the have nots get less, and the world spins!
The TriMet board is way too Portland-dominated. That’s an outdated structure and really ought to be replaced by a more representative board, either directly elected or appointed by the counties’ officials, or placed under Metro, which already is such a representative structure.
I’d agree, to a point, but it does seem the areas with the most population get the most service, which is typically how an agency like TriMet should plan for service.
I don’t really know that we’d see much of a change, although it would be nice to see more loop routes rather than such a hub/spoke system like what we have now. The city makes it fairly easy to provide bus service as well, with the grid-shaped layout for most of the areas with the best service right now.
And I’m sure if any of the suburbs wanted to help fund other fareless areas, TriMet would probably be willing to work with them. I doubt any would care to try though.
Mikey said
The TriMet board is way too Portland-dominated. That’s an outdated structure and really ought to be replaced by a more representative board, either directly elected or appointed by the counties’ officials, or placed under Metro, which already is such a representative structure.
to which Dave replied
I’d agree, to a point, but it does seem the areas with the most population get the most service, which is typically how an agency like TriMet should plan for service.
now back to Mikey
Well, check out the board members at the TriMet website. There are 7 members: 4 from Portland, 1 from E. Multnomah (Gresham, etc.), and 1 each from Washington and Clackamas Counties. And they are appointed by the governor, not really representative of those areas.
According to wikipedia, Clackamas has about 338,000 and Washington about 445,000. Portland city has 576,000. If TriMet really stands for “tri-county…”, the two suburban counties don’t have nearly enough influence on the board. It ought to be more nearly proportional to populations.
I’m interested in the process issues here. If Al M. and Erik H. and some others are correct in their assertions, TriMet (meaning Hansen and the board) is not responsive enough to citizen needs, especially citizens of the suburban counties and especially bus riders.
The board structure might have made sense when TriMet was formed in the 1960s, but the region looks much different now. I’m not aware of any direct path for citizen input to the board.
And I’m sure if any of the suburbs wanted to help fund other fareless areas, TriMet would probably be willing to work with them. I doubt any would care to try though.
My impression is that much of the Fareless Square “subsidy” is provided by the downtown businesses and the hospitality/visitor industry. I agree with you that if other business associations wanted to subsidize other fareless zones, they might be able to make it happen.