Follow-Up: Police presence on MAX


The Gresham Outlook has a new article about the increased police presence on MAX in the Gresham area.

The full article details the efforts of police and the reaction of the riders. The end of the article provides 3 weeks’ worth of statistics, the first of which I’ll excerpt here:

Week one: Nov. 7-12

  • 800 citizen contacts
  • 56 exclusions from TriMet property
  • 13 citations, including five for lack of fare
  • 2 felony arrests

In my comment on the Outlook web site about the article, I mentioned the statistics were interesting:

Of the contacts that the police made with individuals (which are a subset of the overall number of people at a given station or on a given train), the rate of cite-able offenses was no greater than 1.6%, and the rate of exclusions from those contacts was no greater than 11%. The highest arrest rate from any of those weeks was 1.2% of all persons contacted.

This will provide more fuel for the debate: Do the statistics represent an unusually high rate of bad behavior on MAX, or (based on the number of police contacts with a subset of the transit-using public) do they show that the overwhelming majority of MAX riders are law-abiding and non-disruptive? If the statistics are high, will a sustained/permanent law enforcement presence be sufficient to substantially deter crime and bad behavior, and if so, what level is required and how many resources will be required to sustain it?

Update [2007-11-28 12:23pm]:

The Forest Grove News Times is now reporting the schedule/location details of the “Safety Summit”:

When: 10 a.m. – noon, Friday, Nov. 30
Where: Public Services Bldg, 155 N. First Ave., Hillsboro
Note: No time for public comment has been scheduled


29 responses to “Follow-Up: Police presence on MAX”

  1. I made a comment over at the Gresham Outlook that supports the police presence and supports the continued police presence.

    As far as I am concerned that story clearly illustrated the need for police action, and clearly illustrates the need for continued police action.

    Statistics only tell part of the story! The real story is found in between the lines of the statistics.

    Deterrence is the real story. And that is only accomplished by a strong law enforcement presence, and a continued law enforcement presence!

  2. (D)o they show that the overwhelming majority of MAX riders are law-abiding and non-disruptive?
    My guess is most all transit riders (not just MAX) are law-abiding, non-disruptive, and probably tired of having to put up with the ones that aren’t.
    Oddly enough, my strange transit stories involve riding buses.
    There’s a few things in the TriMet code that people aren’t supposed to do that I see sometimes, or hear about from others. My guess is people honestly don’t know about those… things like singing and/or playing musical instruments, etc. Hopefully those folks (assuming they have an otherwise clean record) would get some sort of warning before being fined.
    Either that or TriMet could start printing out copies of the Code sections pertaining to fare payment and rider conduct, and let people know that by being in a district vehicle and/or on district property that they implied that they read and understood the Code.

  3. What is a contact? And how many people actually used MAX in Gresham during this time?

    Frankly, it’s kind of annoying to have police chatting me up and asking for my transfer when it’s late, I’m tired, and I just want to go home in peace.

  4. do they show that the overwhelming majority of MAX riders are law-abiding and non-disruptive?

    Does anyone really doubt this? I think the statistics will just confirm people in their opinions. If MAX is shown to be safer than any of the surrounding neighborhoods, people who support an increased police presence will take that as vindication that deterrence works.

  5. Does anyone really doubt this?

    That comment was aimed not so much at the audience here, but at those who comment on other blogs and publication web sites. There’s a whole group out there who seems to believe that MAX is primarily a means of transporting the most undesirable and dangerous in our society.

    – Bob R.

  6. There’s a whole group out there who seems to believe that MAX is primarily a means of transporting the most undesirable and dangerous in our society.
    That’s their perception of it because that’s what they’ve been told. There are probably thousands in Portland that wouldn’t take either MAX or other transit service if their life depended on it, don’t listen to anyone that does, read a report on how one person was beat up, and therefore draw up that conclusion.

  7. 1- “My guess is most all transit riders (not just MAX) are law-abiding, non-disruptive, and probably tired of having to put up with the ones that aren’t.”

    2- “There are probably thousands in Portland that wouldn’t take either MAX or other transit service if their life depended on it, don’t listen to anyone that does, read a report on how one person was beat up, and therefore draw up that conclusion.”

    >>>> My comment on #1: This is close to the truth. The vast majority of riders are non-disruptive. But I think a good number of them are not paying the fare. And there are enough bad behaving riders to drive people away, esp. at night.

    On #2: Well, I won’t ride the east side Red or Blue Line at night, based on what I saw during my first year in Portland in 2001/2. That was 5-6 years ago!

    I just love the way the MAX fans (=railfans) are in a state of denial, rationalizing or minimizing the problems, when in fact they are very real.

  8. Of course, MAX will appear safer now. The word should be out on the street after all this publicity about police riding MAX, and the riff-raff is now avoiding MAX or behaving themselves when riding it.

    But the cost of all this ‘security’ lessens the supposed operating cost advantage that MAX was supposed to have over buses.

  9. “But I think a good number of them are not paying the fare.”

    Well, the stats say a different thing: 5 citations for lack of fare among the 800 people, so less than 1% of them are not paying fares. Yes, of course, when there are fare inspectors/police on the platform, or on the train, more people buy tickets, but still….

    The other thing: Fare evasion is different than disruptive behavior. Obviously, for TriMet’s bottom line, fare evasion is important, but as a passenger, I’d much rather have someone not pay a fare, and read a book, than pay a fare and have a loud conversation on a cell phone, (and having loud conversations on cells phones isn’t illegal…)

  10. There’s a whole group out there who seems to believe that MAX is primarily a means of transporting the most undesirable and dangerous in our society.

    I think there is a whole group out there that has never really forgiven MAX for being successful. They are a loud minority and it is a mistake to give their arguments credence just because the media likes controversy.

  11. “I think there is a whole group out there that has never really forgiven MAX for being successful.”

    >>>> Right, Ross: sucessful at screwing up transit service for me and countless other riders.
    Unlike the pro-auto posters, I actually use the transit system frequently, and I know what the real ball game is here.

  12. I had a lovely ride down Interstate yesterday on the MAX…warm, picture window view of the city, lots of interesting people who appeared to be from all over the world.
    And this AM the 8501 was full of Swan Islanders getting to work…85 service was increased from 9 hours/day to 25 hours with some of the old 5 bus service hours when Interstate MAX opened. What a win/win for transit riders in North Portland.

  13. Unlike the pro-auto posters, I actually use the transit system frequently, and I know what the real ball game is here.

    As I said, there is a group of folks that can’t stand MAX success. The reality is you are one of the few people who prefers a bus to taking MAX given the choice, as the ridership figures show.

  14. Just as I would expect, Ross and Lenny: robotic pro-MAX responses to my post. And who says that rail is not a religion around these parts?

    As for MAX being successful, you conveniently forget the lost ‘opportunity cost’ of potential ridership from having an nicely integrated bus rapid transit system instead of the fractured and inflexible set-ups we have now.

  15. Nick –

    And who says that rail is not a religion around these parts?

    I say. Thanks for asking.

    As for MAX being successful, you conveniently forget the lost ‘opportunity cost’ of potential ridership from having an nicely integrated bus rapid transit system instead of the fractured and inflexible set-ups we have now.

    You seem to be unaware that other American cities that have tried to create full-scale BRT systems have run into capital costs comparable to light rail.

    Take Pittsburgh, for example:

    The West Busway, completed in 2000, is similar in scope to Interstate MAX, about 5 miles long. But it was supposed to be longer… only the outer suburban portion was built (rather than an 8-mile route) due to massive initial bids way above projections. The final project cost $320 million (in year 2000 dollars), which when adjusted for inflation means the busway cost more than Interstate MAX, and by 2005 had attracted about 9,500 daily boardings.

    Interstate MAX, by comparison, carries over 40% more riders at a lower capital cost.

    Closer in to town, where the busway was not constructed, buses must run in mixed stop & go traffic.

    I’ve said it before: If you construct a true busway to provide the equivalent level of service of light rail in a corridor, the busway isn’t going to wind up being significantly cheaper. In Pittsburgh’s case, it is actually more expensive than rail.

    – Bob R.

  16. As for MAX being successful, you conveniently forget

    I didn’t forget anything. The original argument against MAX was that no one would ride it. Oops. There have been new iterations of the anti-MAX argument ever since.

    Just as I would expect, Ross and Lenny: robotic pro-MAX responses to my post. And who says that rail is not a religion around these parts?

    You are assuming others are as closed minded as the opponents of MAX. The fact is I initially advocated for BRT in the Milwaukie corridor. I changed my mind based on the evidence that it was going to have all the problems of MAX and fewer benefits.

    the lost ‘opportunity cost’ of potential ridership from having an nicely integrated bus rapid transit system instead of the fractured and inflexible set-ups we have now.

    There is nothing about true BRT that is less “fractured and inflexible” than MAX. Which was essentially what became apparent in the Milwaukie corridor. And it ends up being more expensive to operate and gets lower ridership numbers than the rail alternative.

    Most of the BRT advocates seem to be under the illusion that it would give them their express buses back. But it doesn’t really work that way. The tradeoff for express service from point to point is reduced service for people with stops in between. It doesn’t matter whether the local service is bus or rail.

  17. Nobody has done more in the “transit trenches” in North Portland than I have. I’ve had a hand in starting up three bus routes to Swan Island and damn well know the difference between good bus service, lousy bus service and what light rail offers…which is even better service at less cost. Plus the simple fact is many of the potential riders to whom I am selling transit every day will not consider a bus. Period. But will be happy to enjoy lightrail as soon as it gets to Vancouver.
    BRT just does not cut it….I dare anyone to try and make the case for BRT over LRT in the Barbur corridor, not to mention Milwaukie or Vancouver. BRT is some kind of 2nd class cult, if LRT is a religion.

  18. BRT is some kind of 2nd class cult, if LRT is a religion.

    LOL. And very true.

    Nevertheless, I’ll make the case for BRT-lite in the Barbur Corridor — not true BRT. Use existing lanes and run low-floor articulated buses, serving MAX-like stations (large shelters, ticket machines, boarding through all doors). Spend nothing on ROW and allow buses to run in traffic — preferably HOV lanes limited to car-pools and freight, or perhaps toll lanes.

    The primary cost would be in the stations themselves, together with any necessary signal pre-emption along the way. Four to six stops between Sherwood and Tigard TC, mostly at park & rides, and then another four or five stops between Tigard TC and the transit mall.

    I’ll also suggest a similar setup for BRT-lite on Powell-Foster out to Damascus.

    And yes, I think light rail should serve Tigard TC, but I’d prefer a Red Line extension that more-or-less follows the 76/78 route from Beaverton TC to Washington Square to Tigard TC. And then add a “Purple Line” MAX from Tigard to Hillsboro, so two MAX lines serve Tigard.

    Then add two all-day DMU lines from Tigard TC, one to Wilsonville and the other to Milwaukie, running just as frequently as freight service allows. Maybe fifteen minute-headways with some mid-day off-peak interruptions. Call those the Silver and Gold lines.

  19. Four to six stops between Sherwood and Tigard TC, mostly at park & rides, and then another four or five stops between Tigard TC and the transit mall.

    So, once again we are looking to REDUCE service by forcing people to DRIVE to a Park & Ride lot?

    Four-Six stops Sherwood-Tigard:

    Sherwood (downtown)
    Six Corners
    Durham Road (King City)
    Bull Mountain
    Walnut Street
    Tigard TC.

    Four-Five Stops between Tigard and Portland:

    74th Avenue Park and Ride
    Barbur Blvd. TC
    Burlingame
    Hamilton (only because it’s a transfer point).

    Congratulations, you’ve essentially eliminated the 12 line, and glorified the 94 line. Meanwhile, there are huge swaths of Barbur/99W without adequate pedestrian facilities to allow for pedestrian access; yet there are apartment/condo complexes along the road that essentially would be told that “they aren’t important enough for transit acceess”.

    The fact is that the 12 line doesn’t get impeded by the stops it makes – it gets impeded by:

    Problems OFF the 12-B line, such as on the 12-Sandy Line or the 4, 9 or 20 lines that the 12 co-mingles with,
    Bus Reliability Problems
    Overcrowding (obiviously there is a demand for existing service)
    Lack of HOV lanes, signal pre-emption
    Bus drivers who don’t properly use the queue-jumper lanes, or fail to use their “yield to bus” signals, or otherwise hold up at stops unnecessarily

    If you want to add express service, fine – but not at the expense of local service. Else it just creates more congestion as people have to drive to access transit (isn’t that rather pointless?). Another solution is to segment the 12 line into components that run local for a portion of the trip, and express, for example:

    A local in Sherwood that run express to Portland, stopping only at Durham, Tigard TC and either Capitol Highway or Burlingame),
    A local from Fischer Road to Tigard TC that then runs express to Portland,
    A local from Tigard TC to Barbur TC that then runs express to Portland,
    A local from Barbur TC to Portland.

    You then have a “BRT” corridor that preserves local access, negating those complaints about the “BRT isn’t better than LRT” cult followers (since we’re engaging in name-calling now). The LRT proponents don’t understand one principal benefit of BRT – is that BRT can serve both functions.

    LRT doesn’t do local service very well; nor can it provide “fan” service – where a corridor can have many busses run on it, and at the end of the corridor the busses can fan out to serve multiple destinations. Imagine a route from Portland to Hillsboro – all of the busses use the same central corridor from Portland to Beaverton, where some detach and serve various local routes. More busses continue on the corridor to Hillsboro, where they can fan out to serve local areas like Forest Grove/Cornelius, North Hillsboro, North Plains, Cornell/airport area, Minter Bridge, etc.

    That just isn’t possible with light rail (unless one builds a LOT of light rail branches, at an extreme cost.)

  20. Congratulations, you’ve essentially eliminated the 12 line, and glorified the 94 line.

    Who said anything about eliminating local service on Barbur?

  21. Hot off the Portland Tribune/Local News Daily website, it appears the demands for increased police patrols and security on MAX could ring the final bell for Fareless Square. (See the article “TriMet Rethinks Fareless Square” for details.)

    IMO, there are enough people who now pay $76/mo. (and I will add that riders of C-TRAN express routes that service areas within Fareless Square have been paying $105/mo. since May 2005) that are tired of being harassed in Downtown Portland that there finally could be enough to actually see action in this regard, beyond citizen committee recommendations.
    (In case anyone wonders, I fully support elimination of Fareless Square as soon as possible… 1-1-08 sounds like a good implementation date to me.)
    Granted, eliminating Fareless Square won’t solve the entire problem, but it’s a start – and will re-instill confidence in transit to those that continue to pay to use transit even through the toughest times.

  22. And then add a “Purple Line” MAX from Tigard to Hillsboro, so two MAX lines serve Tigard.

    My guess is the rider figures for a Hillsboro to Tigard line would be extremely low. There just aren’t that many people making that trip and there is almost nothing by way of destinations between those two points.

    I hesitate to call what you are proposing for Barbur BRT, but that type of enhanced bus service may make sense in some corridors like Barbur where finding dedicated right-of-way is difficult. And it might also make sense as a first step to extending MAX lines. For instance a Foster/Powell Max might initially stop at I205 with an enhanced bus operation to Damascus. They could also consider the same sort of operations south from MAX in Gresham to Damascus.

  23. where a corridor can have many busses run on it, and at the end of the corridor the busses can fan out to serve multiple destinations.

    I don’t think that is true. Operationally it makes almost no sense. And, as far as I know, that isn’t the way BRT works where it is used. Instead the “fan” is created with feeder routes with transfers to the corridor buses.

  24. I was up in Portland again on Saturday. I rode the Amtrak from Salem and then took the MAX to Beaverton. The usual foul mouthed punks were present everywhere but not a transit cop or Wachkenhut in sight (except a couple smoking at the Galleria stop). TriMet should have a ticket inspector at every door all the time checking to see if people are paying. Now I see L.A. is giving up its honor system, too. I think they should do it here and substantially hike fares to keep the rifraff from riding. I’m embarassed that the tourists who are enticed to ride our transit systems are exposed to such filth.

  25. The usual foul mouthed punks were present everywhere

    Greg, I gotta say, after reading your many posts over the years (including the multiple tantrums where you swore you’d never come back here … but welcome back all the same …), that you have the most incredible bad luck when riding transit. Or, possibly, your assessments of what qualifies as “foul mouthed punks” are based on a standard different from what most people might apply.

    Seriously, I ride transit frequently, including in east Portland and in Fareless Square, and although I’ve been one of the people calling for increased staff presence and deterrence of bad behavior, I’ve never encountered the level of outright contemptible behavior at the frequency you seem to report. Have you _ever_ had a ride on MAX that didn’t go wrong for you somehow?

    Now I see L.A. is giving up its honor system, too.

    Not entirely … primarily in the subways, where fare gates can actually provide a level of control.

    Still, despite all the paranoia and kvetching about non-paying riders, the New York Times reports that fewer than 5% were found (in a recent study) to be riding without a valid fare:

    The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority board voted last week to take the first step toward installing 275 ticket gates on the entire 17.4-mile subway and at many light-rail stations.

    The move came after a study given to the board in October found that some 5 percent of people who rode the subway, light rail and a new rapid bus line on weekdays did so without paying the fare, $1.25 one way or $5 for a daily pass. As a result, the report said, the authority lost about $5.5 million in revenue annually.

    Fare-collecting gates, which could cost $30 million to install and $1 million a year to maintain, would yield an extra $6.77 million in recovered fares and other savings, according to the report. The board voted 11 to 1 on Thursday to have staff members write a plan for installing the gates, with final approval expected in January.

    Time will tell (shortly) if revenues are indeed boosted the net $5.77 million, which would pay off the capital costs of the fare gates in 5 to 6 years.

    Portland doesn’t have a subway, and only has a few stations where fare gates would ever be practical (freeway-adjacent and the Zoo), so the application of LA’s methods probably wouldn’t work here in any meaningful way.

    It seems strange, though, that $30 million plus $1 million per year couldn’t have been allocated to more security officers on the trains and in the stations.

    – Bob R.

  26. Somehow this string got from crime to the BRT vs LRT thing. Oh, yes, “crime” is just another dart that BRT cultists throw at MAX. So one last word
    on that subject…
    Without a dedicated ROW in the peaks you do not have BRT, you have BT, which is what we already have. Once you cost out ROW, not to mention stations and the rebuilding of whatever street serves for some or all of the ROW, BRT is not much cheaper than LRT. see Metro study for Milwaukie options.
    Can there be some improvemments to the 12 out Barbur? Sure, but will they increase ridership, encourage transit oriented development? and operate at a lower cost? Not likely.
    The fact is that LRT changes the entire transportation/land use picture or at least that is the perception, which in marketing is not unimportant. Its not a sure thing, what is?, but it offers much better odds than BRT for achieving essential goals…more riders, denser development and lower costs/ride.
    One last thought on the crime hysteria…maybe this is a sign that lots of folks care about our transit system and want it to be as good as possible for everyone. Carry on!

  27. row?
    brt?
    lrt?

    ENGLISH PLEASE!

    Please don’t boil all of life down to cost analysis, thats really a pathetic way of dealing with life.

    Have a good day!

Leave a Reply

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