Mercury Blog: Fred Hansen Announces Proposals for Increased Security


The Mercury’s Blogtown PDX has a post about Fred Hansen’s appearance at the City Club, speaking about MAX security.

Check out the entire post for all the details. Based on that article, Fred’s proposals appear to boil down to:

  • Increasing the Transit Police Division staff by 10 percent.
  • Increasing fare inspections by giving Wackenhut staff the authority to write tickets and exclude unruly people, and increasing their staff from 15 to 36.
  • Fixing or replacing ticket vending machines. (It’s unclear if this is beyond the new machines already in the current budget.)
  • Partnering with Victory Outreach Community Services Inc. which seeks to prevent Latino youth from joining gangs.
  • Streamlining exclusion policies and making the code of conduct more enforceable.
  • Brighter lighting for existing stations and more security cameras.
  • Cut Fareless Square’s operating hours to 7AM through 7PM.

It appears that the Fareless Square hours limitation is something he seeks to have handled very soon with the TriMet board. Further changes to the square, if any, would be made as part of a larger public process.

UPDATE:
TriMet has posted two documents on their web site with more details:
http://trimet.org/news/releases/dec7security.htm
http://trimet.org/promotions/security.htm


107 responses to “Mercury Blog: Fred Hansen Announces Proposals for Increased Security”

  1. Hansen laid out a seven part plan to decrease fare evasion and increase security. Increased police presence on MAX, by upping the Transit Police Division staff by 10 percent, at a cost of $500,000. Increased fare inspections, thanks to the recent increase is Wackenhut private security on the system (from 15 to 36). Hansen’s working to give security officers “the authority to write tickets and exclude unruly people from the Trimet system.”

    It’ll be harder to come up with an excuse for your fare evasion, too—Trimet plans to fix up or start replacing the ticket vending machines, many of which are 20 years old, and not very reliable. “Your free ride on Trimet is about to end,” Hansen said.

    1. Where is the money going to come from?

    2. Why is it that TriMet can find money to fix a MAX problem lickity-split, but when it comes to fixing bus problems, it’s always ‘fix it with a rubber band and a band-aid and wait a few years’?

  2. Erm, I wouldn’t call fixing the vending machines, dealing with fare evasion or adding security “lickity split”. According to some posters here, this has been a problem going back two decades.

  3. As I mentioned in the post here, there is already some money in the current budget for fare machine replacement. It isn’t clear if these proposed measures are already going on the procurements previously underway.

    – Bob R.

  4. Cut Fareless Square’s operating hours to 7AM through 7PM

    What a farce. They should cut MAX’s operating hours from 7AM to 7PM. Outside of the ruthless hooligans, nobody rides the MAX during these hours. They should just partner up with a cab company to provide rides for those who need them “after” hours. It would get people from point A to B much quicker and be cheaper, too.

  5. Was that a joke GT? I guess I’m a ruthless hooligan, since I often ride after hours?

    I have to agree though. I got back from a trip to Hawaii a couple weeks ago and caught a late night train back to Portland from the airport with a bunch of ruthless hooligans who were disguised as businessmen. Don’t worry though; they didn’t fool me… I called the Trimet police on them.

    No but actually the cab idea is great. ‘Cuz all the cabs in Portland have bike racks, right? So I’m sure I won’t have a problem if I ever work late and need a cabby to drive me and my bike home… ;)

  6. Hooligans?!
    Must be the Timber’s Army, everyone knows how ruthless those soccer fans are. Only hooligans would cover themselves in body paint?

  7. nobody rides the MAX during these hours.
    I do, too; although I am much more likely to be riding a bus.

    The one time I really needed it was the one time I took a flight out of Portland Int’l. Airport. Someone else bought me the ticket as a gift (so I had no control over when the flight was), and I had to be at the airport at 5 AM. Fortunately, I lived within walking distance of Parkrose Transit Center, and used the first MAX of the morning to get there, at something like 4:10 AM or so.

    I don’t know if there’s enough cabs in Portland to handle all the demand that would be created if TriMet cut MAX service back to 7AM-7PM.

  8. OK. So there is going to be MAX service in the evening. I am unclear what limiting the hours of fareless square accomplishes. In combination with giving the security folks authority to check fares and write tickets, this sounds like an invitation to selective enforcement. The well-dressed will continue to ride free, while the guards check fares of people they consider dubious characters.

    The most important thing Fred seems to have addressed is creating an enforceable code of conduct. If that doesn’t exit, it is no surprise that things are going to get out of hand at some point. But I thought there were already rules against solicitation on transit.

    Do you suppose they will ban talking on a cell phone…

  9. They should just eliminate fairless square altogether. It was a nice idea in the beginning of MAX to encourage people to take the train, but I think PDX is well past that point.

    Also, they should increase enforcement on the trains.

  10. “Erm, I wouldn’t call fixing the vending machines, dealing with fare evasion or adding security “lickity split”. According to some posters here, this has been a problem going back two decades.”

    >>>> MAX itself has been a problem going back two decades.

    Now, with all this additional security, the supposed operating cost advantage of MAX over buses will narrow considerably.

    Also, late evening ridership, IMO, is not high enough to justify the cost of additional security. What we may see is an earlier end to MAX service (just like when they cut out 1:30 AM
    runs and added additional buses to #20, etc.).

  11. I wasted an hour listening to the radio rebroadcast of this city club event…..why did no one ask fred the critical question…..why does trimet consider it adequate to offer sporadic, unreliable buses that take 45 minutes to do a trip I regularly do in 8 minutes by car and used to do in 15 minutes by bike? As David Sideras pointed out in the Portland Tribune, this sort of transit will only attract those who either have far too much time on their hands, or have no other choice. After 20 years of this, I’ve had enough. I’m driving and parking.

  12. Why do you think the automobile is so popular in America.

    ITS SO MUCH MORE COMFORTABLE AND CONVENIENT;

    Public transit (in America) is uncomfortable, unreliable, inconvenient, and the inner city service can also be dangerous.

    Hell you can drive right into your driveway, only an idiot would choose to battle the forces of evil lurking on the streets of the city.

    I had to give up taking the max home at night because the walk home from the max station got too scary.

    OF COURSE THE DAMN BUS LEFT THE MAX STATION ABOUT 2 MINUTES BEFORE THE MAX GETS THERE!

    These schedules SUCK, its like they are planned so you miss your connections!

  13. It was a nice idea in the beginning of MAX to encourage people to take the train, but I think PDX is well past that point.

    Fareless Square existed long before MAX was even conceived and the complaints about the homeless and down and out have been going on for even longer. As I recall, one reason given for moving the Greyhound Bus station out of the center of downtown was that it attracted vagrants. Blaming public transit for social problems has a long history.

    Its not clear to me that having fewer people using trains or buses in the evening is going to make them safer. It will be interesting to see if that is how it works. My guess is most of the “problem children” are paying to get downtown. Its the other folks who will start driving from place to place instead of using transit.

    late evening ridership, IMO, is not high enough to justify the cost of additional security

    How would you know? I thought you never used MAX, especially at night.

  14. This is my opinion on the proposed fareless square posted at the tribune.

    ““““““““““““““““““

    OK. I can buy the fareless between 7-7, however I still think the idea S-U-C-K-S, and not just because it makes the idea of HOMELAND SECURITY a complete joke, (which it is anyway) but because it is;

    DISCRIMINATORY;

    Against all the riders that have to pay for using trimet.

    MAKE THE WHOLE THING FARELESS OR GET RID OF FARELESS SQUARE.

    END TRIMET APARTHEID!

    NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION!

    People that live in downtown don’t have to pay the tax therefore nobody should have to pay the tax. (aka fare)

    >I AM NOT GETTING ON THIS MERRY GO ROUND WITH YOU GUYS ON THIS AGAIN!

  15. “How would you know? I thought you never used MAX, especially at night.”

    >>>> But I am downtown at night at lot, and I watch to see how many people are on the trains when I am near MAX at those hours. Sometimes, I will take the MAX between 3rd Avenue and PGE Park to get home. So I DO have a good idea abou how crowded the trains are.

  16. Crime in US cities and suburbs is for the most part attributable to the automobile. Criminality is not due to transit use, neither bus nor light rail. Criminal behavior is due to economic forces that leave disadvantaged youth unprepared and disillusioned about their future. The automobile is most to blame for directing economic development that leaves so many behind.

    I repeat: the crime problem is not due to MAX or buses. The crime problem is more due to automobiles. The ignorant and reckless customers of General Motors Corporation have been taught to blame pedestrians.

  17. The crime problem is not due to the max, just like guns don’t shoot people, people shoot people.

    Its not the max, its the people, any reasonable person understands that.

    Max does however break down the “gated community” by allowing persons of a lower economic status (can be people without automobiles obviously)access to areas previously unreachable.

    Now there is a correlation between lower economic status and crime, thats not deniable either.

    ALL MR HANSON REALLY HAD TO DO WAS PUT MONITORED CAMERA’S AT THE MAX STATIONS AND DOUBLE THE POLICE FORCE.

    He cheeped out, obviously because he doesn’t think the problem is nothing but hype.

    I was disappointed, but I already know that you cant fight city hall and what the public wants doesn’t matter.

    Look at george bush for the shining example of that.

  18. or the correct wording is;

    Mr hanson does think the problem is nothing but hype.

    sorry…..

    you get my drift………

  19. Never allow yourselves to be fooled by the true nature of government.

    GOVERNMENT ONLY SERVES ITSELF!

    IT NEVER SERVES THE PUBLIC.

    Occasionally the power brokers will throw a bone to the people, but only when they have too, and only as little as they can get away with.

  20. Max does however break down the “gated community” by allowing persons of a lower economic status (can be people without automobiles obviously)access to areas previously unreachable.

    Ah, the Fearmonger Shop is open for your business.

    There is no evidence that criminals are any more likely to use transit to commit a crime than they are an automobile. Would you carry a TV home on the bus? Why do you think someone who was stealing one would?

  21. Max does however break down the “gated community” by allowing persons of a lower economic status (can be people without automobiles obviously)access to areas previously unreachable.

    Ah, the Fearmonger Shop is open for your business.

    There is no evidence that criminals are any more likely to use transit to commit a crime than they are an automobile. Would you carry a TV home on the bus? Why do you think someone who was stealing one would?

  22. Ross;

    I have no intention of getting into any more debates with you.

    I’ve had my say.

    You either buy it or reject it.

    You reject it, I can live with that.

    Al

  23. I’d like to see some informed discussion of the following two claims that seem to be implicit in the ‘End Fareless Square’ position:

    CLAIM 1: The revenues achieved by reduced fare evasion will outweigh the cost of a new fare collection system.

    Is this really true? Are the fare evasion rates claimed by Trimet accurate (i.e., well supported by recent intercept studies that sample the system as a whole)? Is the fact that many fare evaders would forego trips or find other transportation rather than purchase tickets being factored into the revenue estimates? Are the costs of building, maintaining, and staffing a new fare collection system being fully and accurately reported?

    CLAIM 2: Satisfactory reduction in fare evasion rates cannot be achieved simply through enhanced enforcement of proof-of-purchase.

    The fare evasion rate in San Diego is 2%. [See: ‘RT ads help teach transit etiquette’, Tony Bizjak, Sacramento Bee, October 8, 2007] This has been achieved through strong, consistent enforcement of proof-of-purchase. (In San Diego, riders are asked to show their tickets on 28% of their trips.) In addition, San Diego has been committed to the proposition that, as ridership grows, fare enforcement efforts must be increased to keep pace. What fare inspection rate would create an adequate deterrent to most fare evasion? (Surely, San Diego’s 28% is even higher than what’s needed to create a perception of aggressive enforcement and discourage all but the most incorrigible evaders.) What would it cost to achieve an adequate fare inspection rate and how would the cost compare to the capital investment, maintenance, and staffing cost of retrofitting all of Trimet for a new fare collection system?

  24. Clearly, what we need to do is put tolls on all our roads because that will prevent road rage.

    Free = violent, people. Don’t you get it?

  25. I have ridden the MAX, streetcar, and buses for 5 years now. Aside from the bus, I have never been asked to show a ticket (I ride several times a week).

    I do recall one time the streetcar driver at the Glisan stop announcing that he would be checking fares at the next stop. Almost 60% of the people on the crowded streetcar ran to the exits and got off. I was shocked (having a monthly pass). And 99% of them were hipsters or yuppies.

  26. Or put another way, Fred’s exploiting fear of “young people, homeless people and drunks” in order to push through money-making measures that were already in the works.

    I don’t care what the selling point for fareless square was in the 1970s. Sustainable transportation and attacking global climate change are goals that maybe Fred doesn’t care about but I do.

    Eliminate fares. Move toward a transportation system where cars are the minority. SOLVE A PROBLEM, DON’T JUST TALK PRETTY, HACKS.

  27. “Eliminate fares. Move toward a transportation system where cars are the minority. SOLVE A PROBLEM, DON’T JUST TALK PRETTY, HACKS.”

    hehe,

    well I dunno how practical that would be, but your right in one respect:

    IT WILL DEFINITELY GET PEOPLE OUT OF THEIR CARS!

    {of course the system would be so overwhelmed that you will be luck to get on!}

  28. The revenues achieved by reduced fare evasion will outweigh the cost of a new fare collection system.

    I don’t think that is an argument from Trimet. In fact, Fred Hansen seemed a bit skeptical eliminating fareless square would actually result in more revenue.

    I agree that an aggressive fare collection system would substantially reduce fare evasion. It would also target the so-called “criminal element” that are scofflaws by nature. But the reality is this discussion is not about real fare evaders, it is about targeting the kinds of people who are imagined to be fare evaders.

  29. “In fact, Fred Hansen seemed a bit skeptical eliminating fareless square would actually result in more revenue.”

    I don’t believe him!

  30. Al, of course ridership would skyrocket. It would likely have to be implemented gradually, such as with falling fares or an expanding fareless zone. At the same time, funding would have to increase to provide more capacity.

    I’m curious, it sounds from this and other comments that you wouldn’t be totally opposed to making the entire system fareless. It seems like equality between downtowners and suburbanites is part of the issue with you. Is that right?

  31. I’ve had my say.

    You either buy it or reject it.

    You reject it, I can live with that.

    There are no “gated communities” or anything that fits that description. You are using that term to to frighten people that their safe neighborhoods are going to be invaded by criminals using transit. It isn’t true. The Hollywood transit station is not crowded with criminals carrying their loot back from Laurelhurst.

    This claim that criminals use transit to get around, any more than they use automobiles and streets, is pure fearmongering that has been repeatedly directed at MAX and transit. I don’t doubt you believe it. The folks that have those fears can be heard at almost every public meeting where extending MAX to new parts of the community is discussed.

    So there is a market for those fears are out there. Welcome to the Fearmonger Shop.

  32. Casey & Al, I don’t think you should be nearly so certain that ridership will skyrocket if you make Trimet entirely fareless. Until it’s reliable and a lot fasteer than it is now, you couldn’t pay me to get back on the bus.

  33. Casey & Al, don’t be so sure ridership would skyrocket if Trimet weree entirely fareless. Until it gets reliable and a lot faster, I wouldn’t get back on the bus for free. Until you paid me a reasonable hourly rate for all my time that the bus wastes, I’m not getting aboard.

  34. elee;

    if it was

    F-R-E-E !!!

    I bet ya anything ridership would skyrocket!

    You see how idiots wait in long gas lines just to save a couple of pennies on the gas fill up!

    IF YOU MAKE IT FREE, THEY WILL COME!

  35. Also, with more people riding transit, there would be a much larger constituency to support improving transit, with more frequent service being a priority. (It would have to be, with increased ridership. Either that or articulated buses and other higher-capacity solutions.)

  36. I know, what about free weekends? It would work for shopping and tourism, it would create new transit riders (who, with increased familiarity, may begin to ride weekdays), and create a demand for more frequent weekend service, a weak point of our current system.

  37. Free is a great idea, but its not practical.

    Also, federal funds require a certain % come from fare box revenues.

    to wit:

    DON’T HOLD YOUR BREATH WAITING FOR FREE TRIMET.

  38. Ross,

    Are you actually trying to make the case that eliminating Fareless Square would NOT have a positive impact on farebox revenue? Heck, even Trimet seems to think that it is worth at least $274,000 a year (which is basically a steal for the amount of service provided within the square).

    I mean, I understand how it can be tiring debating people who regurgitate the same arguments, sarcasm, website links, youtube videos, etc…. but please, try to at least use logic and reason when making your case.

  39. Are you actually trying to make the case that eliminating Fareless Square would NOT have a positive impact on farebox revenue?

    I don’t think that is all that certain. The question is how many people stop using transit compared to the people who will pay for a ride just to get around downtown.

    Surveys of employees in Washington county have found that one of the major barriers to using transit it not being able to get anywhere during the day – for lunch, errands etc. It seems perfectly plausible that reducing people’s mobility downtown will reduce the number who choose to use transit in the first place.

  40. Greg, Eliminating fareless square would obviously increase ticket revenue, although one would think that the city of Portland would eliminate their payment to TriMet at the same time, so it might not result in a total increase in revenue: Certainly a lot of people that used to get on a train to go a few blocks might just walk instead…

    As for the service provided within fareless square, with the exception of the odd bus that ends up picking up a wheelchair and only taking them a few blocks, (therefore slowing down the bus,) the costs of providing the service is almost nothing. The trains or buses are already running there, it isn’t like they are running special service just in fareless square…

  41. Ross,

    It is really difficult to refrain from using sarcasm in reaction to your illogical arguments.

    There may be some people who would stop using the FREE downtown transit, but:

    a.) There are some people who will actually pay money for a quick, easy trip from one part of downtown to another; and
    b.) This army of Washington County residents that you speak of would simply need to pay a little bit more for a day pass. Your suggestion that they would stop using transit altogether instead of paying a bit more for a day pass is highly implausible, and there is no way that this would even come close to offsetting the increase in farebox revenue from people who would pay to travel within the square.

  42. it isn’t like they are running special service just in fareless square…

    I’ve asked TriMet if they can provide a list of funding sources and estimated costs, so that I can do a more detailed post here on the topic. I asked if they could quantify how many additional service hours (if any) are provided within the square.

    I do know that at various Green Line / Transit Mall CAC meetings last year, the topic was discussed and the idea of running a dedicated loop/shuttle train up and down the mall to improve headways in fareless square was discussed.

    (I can’t say for sure if it was entirely due to fareless square … the new mall will be considerably longer than the old mall and will make a lot of transfer connections, so it makes sense to have a mall circulator with good headways regardless of whether they’re fareless.)

    – Bob R.

  43. Matthew,

    According to Ross, eliminating Fareless would NOT increase farebox revenue (or at least it is highly uncertain according to him).

    And besides, there are no assurances that the money from the city will continue — and even if it does, it’s still taxpayer money being used for a service that everyone else outside the square pays for (fare evasions aside).

  44. it’s still taxpayer money being used for a service that everyone else outside the square pays for

    Yes, it is, but there is nothing stopping other local governments from establishing a fareless zone and contributing extra to TriMet to offset some of the costs of the service.

    Wilsonville is an example of a locality which provides free transit, although they do it entirely on their own after withdrawing from TriMet a few years ago. Wilsonville’s system offers free rides on certain routes in a specific area, for example.

    – Bob R.

  45. Yes Bob, I’m aware of this, but I’m also aware that Trimet needs to generate more revenue as they have emphasized capital projects over operations in recent years.

    I am the CFO of an employer who pays ungodly sums of money to Trimet in exchange for horrid service in the suburbs (no stops within a 1/2 mile of the main office); I support alternative transit including rail/streetcar/bike/bus, but I don’t think it’s too much to ask people who are travelling within the downtown core to pay a little bit for a ride that is still massively subsidized by businesses such as ours.

  46. Greg –

    A lot of people have monthly passes, they will not pay anything extra regardless of whether fareless square exists. So where does the extra revenue come from:

    1) Folks who live and work downtown who don’t currently buy a monthly pass.

    2) People who are downtown without a transit pass, either because they drove, walked, biked or the their transfer is expired. And who are willing to pay a round trip fare to get where they need to go rather than walk, drive or ride their bike.

    3) People who currently pay trip fares but decide they now need an all day or monthly pass just to have the convenience of getting around downtown.

    You are the one who is convinced all sorts of people are going to pay a round trip fare to go to a meeting instead of walking, driving or riding a bike. Who are those people?

    Who will choose not to use transit?

    The only people left. People who currently choose to use transit and pay trip fares. That often is because they don’t always use transit. They are users by choice and they can easily shift to the other alternatives they use. And I think a fair number are a lot like those folks in Washington County who don’t want to be trapped in an office park all day. Its easier to just drive.

    So which is the larger group? Unlike you, I don’t know. But if I were trimet, I wouldn’t be budgeting any service expansions based on a farebox windfall from eliminating fareless square.

  47. Greg –

    I guess I thought you were getting at an equality argument as some have made. I was pointing out that the supposed inequality of Fareless Square (with respect to people who ride predominantly in non-downtown areas) isn’t really there, because those fareless rides are being subsidized by the City of Portland.

    – Bob R.

  48. “According to Ross, eliminating Fareless would NOT increase farebox revenue (or at least it is highly uncertain according to him).”

    I guess what you are saying is that, according to Ross, TriMet’s revenue would be down more than $274k/year by eliminating fareless square…

    “And besides, there are no assurances that the money from the city will continue”

    There is no assurances that TriMet will keep fareless square fareless either… Actually, it seems like that is the more likely scenario at the moment… Most of us deal with uncertainty like that by reacting to things as they happen. I imagine that if the city cut off the funding, TriMet could make fareless square not fareless… Or at least, that would be how I’d respond if I was TriMet.

    “and even if it does, it’s still taxpayer money being used for a service that everyone else outside the square pays for (fare evasions aside).”

    It is impossible to refrain from using sarcasm in reaction to your illogical arguments: I didn’t know there was any fare evasion happening in fareless square…

    But seriously, if you are objecting to city money being spent in one place and not another, you should get out more. I don’t go out and hire a homicide detective for me personally because I don’t need one, (and when I do, I’ll already be dead, so I don’t really care,) but I’m happy to pay a little bit to the city so that they can employ one for use on other people, with the goal being that catching murders will keep me alive. Likewise, convincing more people to ride transit downtown ends up encouraging people to ride transit everywhere, and that reduces auto usage on the street in front of my house. Creating a fareless zone near my house wouldn’t have that benefit.

  49. As an aside, it occurred to me that $274,000 compares to a number of other normal civic expenditures.

    $274K per year is about $750 per day. I’d be willing to wager that the city spends that much per just for electricity to run the streetlights in Fareless Square.

    I couldn’t find an authoritative source, but I found one web site claiming that the electricity for a typical streetlight costs $80-$100 per year. I’ll use $80 for an example. That’s 22 cents per day.

    There are well over 500 block faces in fareless square, near as I can tell from looking at a map and multiplying the sides. If there are an average of at least 7 lamps per block face, and the lamps really do cost that much in electricity, then the city actually is spending more than $750/day to light them, but it doesn’t wind up being the source of a major controversy.

    Depending on the number of actual boardings in the fareless square area, the city could be paying just pennies per boarding. (About 1,500 or so fareless trips come from the Yellow Line alone, so that puts us under 50 cents per boarding right there.) Large numbers of short hops are the lowest-cost transit trip to serve on a per-boarding basis.

    My concerns with Fareless Square aren’t about the money involved. And it’s not a concern about the poor or even the slightly smelly, or noisy kids. My main concern is that over the years I feel I’ve seen an increase in people who go beyond loud and annoying into obnoxious and intimidating territory, and when I see them they typically get on and off entirely within Fareless Square.

    I don’t know if a 7am-7pm limitation on fareless square will eliminate this problem — I’ve seen problems occur at all hours of the day — but it might make things better for late-night riders who don’t have as many people in a vehicle to turn to if there’s trouble.

    – Bob R.

  50. Are there really that many problems before 7am? Or do people just like the number 7? Are there a lot of problems between 7pm and 8pm — times when people finish up shopping, go to a restaurant, etc. — that don’t occur between 6pm and 7pm, when it is just as dark outside and most people are done commuting home from work?

  51. I don’t know the reasoning behind the proposed 7am-7pm time frame. (Some would probably argue that there was no “reasoning” involved in the proposal at all. :-) )

    If time restrictions are adopted, I think it is advisable that the times be very easy to publicize and remember. On that score, 7-to-7 has a nice ring to it, but 8-8 would probably help evening shoppers and diners a bit more than 7-7 (at the risk of people who live and work entirely within the square having to pay a fare to commute to work in the morning when they previously did not have one.)

    – Bob R.

  52. Greg said: “and even if it does, it’s still taxpayer money being used for a service that everyone else outside the square pays for (fare evasions aside).”

    Bob said: It is impossible to refrain from using sarcasm in reaction to your illogical arguments: I didn’t know there was any fare evasion happening in fareless square…

    Bob, you know darn well I was referring to fare evasion outside of fareless square.

  53. 8-8 would screw a lot of AM commuters, who are already screwed to an extent by 7-7. Of course, I don’t want to diminish fareless square at all.

  54. And just so everyone tuning in knows who’s who … please be careful to note that we have two Gregs who regularly comment now. One, who formerly used to comment as Greg or Greg T. and others, now comments as GTinSalem. The current “Greg” is not the “Greg” of a few months ago, but “GTinSalem” is. :-)

    – Bob

  55. Well I know I’m talking to a wall in here, but what the heck…

    Several people have referred to the notion that Fareless Square encourages people to ride transit. Maybe that was true in the 70’s and 80’s, but I don’t think that is the case anymore.

    As someone who used to work downtown but now works in the ‘burbs, and who alternated between cars, bus, and rail, I can assure you that eliminating Fareless Square will NOT push the travelers within downtown back into their cars! It is BY FAR easier and cheaper (even if you had to pay with single zone tickets) to get around within downtown using the bus, MAX, or streetcar as opposed to trying to drive your car from one part of downtown to another. It’s not even close (in all but the most extreme cases).

  56. Another point I heard made was that people out in Washington County would “stay in their office parks” rather than come downtown during the day if Fareless Square was eliminated.

    As someone who works in Washington County and goes downtown occasionally (for business, or for lunch meetings), that seems to be a farfetched scenario. It takes so long to get downtown and back (regardless of how you get there), it hardly seems plausible that you would make that choice based on the “free” travel within Fareless Square. There simply isn’t time to travel around to multiple spots during the day when you add in the additional commute (home to work, work to downtown, downtown back to work, work to home) unless you plan on being gone the whole day, and in that case you’d just buy a day pass.

  57. One last thing and then I’ll drop it (for now):

    As others said, $274k/year amounts to about $750 per day. I read somewhere that Trimet has about 250,000 boardings per day (I assume weekends are somewhat lower)… I don’t know what the stats are between fareless square trips versus non, or passes versus tickets, etc…. but I find it hard to fathom that out of 250,000 boardings a day, you couldn’t scrounge out an additional 750 (0.3% at a buck a ticket) who are boarding within fareless square, and who would buy a ticket if fareless square were eliminated (and that’s not even considering potential extra revenue from fare evaders who begin their trips in fareless square but go elsewhere)

    I could easily be wrong and I have zero stats to back this up, but I think I’m right. Regardless, the theory may get put to the test anyway if/when the subsidy from PDOT disappears.

  58. 8-8 would screw a lot of AM commuters, who are already screwed to an extent by 7-7. Of course, I don’t want to diminish fareless square at all.

    Commuters wouldn’t be screwed at all by abolishing Fareless Square, unless they’re hopping MAX from Lloyd District to downtown. They have to pay fares to get there and back anyway, unless they already have a pass. (Those who already live and work in the Fareless area between Hoyt and I-405 probably can walk to work if they don’t have an annual Streetcar pass. ) Fareless Square really only benefits people who are shopping/touring/recreating downtown for several hours on end, and maybe people who want to hop MAX or a streetcar to slightly expand their lunch options.

  59. I thought I was done for the night, but had a brainstorm of a realization that I thought I’d share.

    We all have our opinions on Fareless Square, security on buses and trains, etc. I know I’ve stated my opinion here, and was one of the first in this latest round of heated discussion to do so. Part of the debate is fueled by self-proclaimed “experts” (including myself) who generally feel our personal opinion on the issue is correct and complete, and those who either don’t agree or partially agree should align to our personal opinion.

    That’s when all civilized discussion ends – ‘doors to my left, and thank you for riding TriMet.’

    We’re dividing ourselves needlessly, with every side citing ‘broad support for my position,’ when the reality is there really isn’t that much to discuss.

    I almost thought of starting an “End Fareless Square Now” website, however I realized doing that will further the end of civilized discussion, and probably wouldn’t do much to solve the problem – just more lopsided talk.

    When I think about it, it’s too bad that so many that otherwise support transit all have differing opinions of fare policies, traffic flow on the Portland Mall, etc., and all of us are “right” on the issue. Important yes, but life critical, no. Far cry from Clark Co. in 2005, when the discussion was over if there should be a bus, and where it should go.

    I’ve given my opinion. In a separate statement, TriMet said it’ll review its policies including Fareless Square. If they wanted to, Portland Transport as an entity could submit the comments about Fareless Square that we’ve posted as public comment for when the issue is officially brought up.

    If Fareless Square survives or not won’t in itself cause the Willamette River to run dry or cause everyone in the Middle East to get along.

    In the meantime, let’s just sit back, relax, and enjoy the ride.

  60. Jason –

    There are more than few night owls on this site. (I’ve been one for the past several days while working on a server maintenance project for a client … sadly in its 3rd late night.)

    I think there is more diversity of opinion about Fareless Square than nearly any other transit-related topic.

    Contrast the opinions on the Portland Tribune, which are largely anti-transit in nature (but not all of them), and Fareless Square to them is just one more insult to taxpayers, with comments on the Portland Mercury, where the mere suggestion of reducing Fareless Square hours has resulted in fierce criticism of TriMet, including accusations of “giving in” to Homeland Security propaganda, and any attempt to modify or remove Fareless Square is some kind of right-wing conspiracy.

    Somebody should really do a scientific poll on this. (And please, please include the data point of whether a respondent is an actual transit user or not.)

    My comments (I think) have been fairly middle-of-the-road and ambivalent about what to do about Fareless Square, and so far I’ve encountered derision on both sites for my discussion efforts. (I’ve been commenting online since the early ’80s, so I can handle it. :-) )

    – Bob R.

  61. Thanks Bob.

    Mostly what I’m saying is we all have an opinion, which isn’t the problem, and in fact, it’s a good thing… it’s when we repeat it over and over under the assertion that our opinion is the best and we’d better restate it just in case someone is just tuning in – whereas civil discussion would be stating our opinion once, and letting someone who’s new to the issue read the record.

    One thing’s for sure, that there’s going to be a public process over the issue. Perhaps the best thing for some of us with the time, energy, and/or passion would be trying to get involved with that in one way or another, rather than mindlessly droning on that our personal, probably unscientific view is best. I know, some people don’t like how slowly these go, but at the same time it’s best to give it a little time, so we don’t cave in to a knee-jerk reaction to some well-publicized events. (Some folks after the I-35W Bridge Collapse contacted the Sellwood Bridge Project folks and said ‘scrap the process, build a new bridge now, force everyone to accept whatever is built.’ It’s the same type of reaction we should avoid here.)

    In the meantime, what we have now might not be what a lot of people want, but it works to some extent. Add all of this to tempers flying over losing 5th and 6th for two years, Line 95(X), 7th in Vancouver permanently… 2007’s been a tough year around here for riders, advocates, and skeptics, and I’m glad it’s almost over. I can’t wait to ring in 2008.

    BTW – there’s going to be another article in the Tribune today (and currently on their website) that relates Fareless to decreased safety on public transit.

  62. BTW – there’s going to be another article in the Tribune today (and currently on their website) that relates Fareless to decreased safety on public transit.

    I saw it … I already got a comment into the queue (it won’t post until morning) stating how the two (Fareless Square and the violent incident in Gresham) should be considered separate, mostly unrelated issues.

    – Bob R.

  63. It is BY FAR easier and cheaper (even if you had to pay with single zone tickets) to get around within downtown using the bus, MAX, or streetcar as opposed to trying to drive your car from one part of downtown to another.

    One problem people have is believing that their own experience represents the norm.

    And yet, there are people who use their car now. And I don’t know how you make it cost less to drive your car a half mile than it is to pay $3.50 round trip on transit. If you drive downtown, you are paying for parking somewhere anyway.

    Which raises another reason people use transit. To get from wherever they park to work. Once you eliminate fareless square, you are going to need to deal with parking locations downtown, not just the number of spaces. A lot of people are not going to be willing to park their car and walk a half mile. And convenient parking is going to become one of the ways businesses compete.

    Another point I heard made was that people out in Washington County would “stay in their office parks” rather than come downtown during the day if Fareless Square was eliminated.

    You heard it, but no one said that. The point was that the ability to get around after getting to work is one of the barriers to people using transit to commute to work in Washington County. If you create the same conditions in downtown Portland, it will have the same effect.

    Well I know I’m talking to a wall in here, but what the heck..

    You are projecting yourself I think. You are so absolutely convinced there is no way eliminating fareless square won’t increase the take at the fare box to the point that you aren’t even bothering to consider the arguments to the contrary.

    Fareless Square really only benefits people who are shopping/touring/recreating downtown for several hours on end, and maybe people who want to hop MAX or a streetcar to slightly expand their lunch options.

    And people who use it to get to meetings or take other business trips. And people who park at a distance from work and … Not all those people on the streets downtown during the day fit into any one category. There are plenty of people who ride their bike to work, change clothes and use transit to get around the rest of the day. Anyone who needs to move around downtown during the day benefits from fareless square.

  64. Ross,

    I respectfully disagree with every single point you have made, except for one — I’m projecting myself. That’s true to an extent but then again so are you.

    Let me remind you… you started this conversation by making the case that removing Fareless Square would have NO impact on farebox revenue (regardless of the city grant). Even your pals in here aren’t going out on that limb.

    Virtually every scenario you drag up (regardless of the frequency) would have NO impact on farebox revenue, not a negative impact. The scenarios that I am bringing up (again, regardless of the frequency) would have a POSITIVE impact on farebox revenue. So all it takes is for me to be right once, once out of the 250,000 boardings per day, for me to be right and you to be wrong.

    If you want to frame the argument in terms of whether the revenue would exceed the grant, or the impact on total number of boardings, I think those are fair points (and subjective points, since as you mentioned, we don’t know for sure how many trips are for purpose X versus Y, etc.). But if you want to honestly make the case that removing fareless square would have ZERO impact on farebox revenue, you are tilting at windmills my friend.

  65. The mercury is a piece of crap btw.

    They put my name in their paper accusing me by innuendo of being a homophobe.

    I had to unplug my telephone for two weeks to avoid the media who were gobbling up that teenage kissing story awhile back.

    GET RID OF THE UNFAIR FARELESS SQUARE.

    END TRIMET APARTHEID.

  66. “The point was that the ability to get around after getting to work is one of the barriers to people using transit to commute to work in Washington County.”

    >>>> Right, Ross. One big reason that people can’t get around in Wash. County is because a lot of the bus lines are designed to feed your wonderfully inflexible MAX line, instead of serving the county properly.

  67. One big reason that people can’t get around in Wash. County is because a lot of the bus lines are designed to feed your wonderfully inflexible MAX line, instead of serving the county properly.

    If that were true, the number of transfers per journey over the years would have increased as light rail was deployed, especially after Westside MAX opened. Didn’t happen. Overall ridership increased, but the number of transfers per boarding ride has remained relatively constant.

    It doesn’t matter whether your transit vehicle runs on rubber tires or on steel wheels — if your destination is not along that vehicle’s route, you’re going to have to transfer. If you replace MAX with a busway, those buses either will have to remain on the busway (to provide equivalent capacity), or branch out in a particular direction, forcing transfers for people not travelling on the designated bus.

    – Bob R.

  68. you started this conversation by making the case that removing Fareless Square would have NO impact on farebox revenue

    No, I started this conversation by suggesting it was by no means certain what impact removing Fareless Square would have on revenue. To quote:

    The revenues achieved by reduced fare evasion will outweigh the cost of a new fare collection system.

    I don’t think that is an argument from Trimet. In fact, Fred Hansen seemed a bit skeptical eliminating fareless square would actually result in more revenue. ”

    The farebox was entirely your invention. It may well be Hansen was considering the loss of revenue from the city.

    So all it takes is for me to be right once, once out of the 250,000 boardings per day, for me to be right and you to be wrong.

    I suggest you try reading what I said. There aren’t 250,000 boardings per day in fareless square so that is a completely pointless number. In fareless square, the only people who would have any reason to pay a fare for a trip within fareless square, either drove downtown, walked, used a bike or have a transit pass that expired. They have three choices:

    1) Not make the trip,
    2) Use the mode that got them downtown to begin with or get a ride from someone else,
    3) Pay an additional fare to use transit.

    All it takes is enough people who decide to drive to work because they need to get to a meeting or meet someone for lunch who works elsewhere downtown to offset the people who decide to pay $1.75-3.50 for round trip to go to that same meeting or lunch date.

    Your argument is that it is brain-dead obvious that the second group is larger than the first. But then you insist no one would use an automobile to get around downtown. And there are plenty of people who do exactly that now even when transit is free.

    ‘Im projecting myself. That’s true to an extent but then again so are you.

    Actually, I’m not. I am looking at what the barriers are to transit use based on surveys of potential transit users. I am not convinced that eliminating fareless square will result in a net revenue increase from the farebox.

    BTW – here is a link (pdf) to a 1991 history of fareless square.

    To quote:

    “About 3,000-4,000 trips are made in Fareless
    Square each weekday. Without this benefit, downtown workers may be more inclined to drive to work rather than use transit.”

    “By offering downtown workers and shoppers free transit service within the CBD, Fareless Square would reduce short auto trips made within the CBD, thereby reducing air pollution.”

    That 1991 report also focused on fare evasion as the major cost and discussed why alternatives had been rejected in 1988:

    “Charging a special fare for Fareless Square trips was rejected because it would most likely not increase passenger revenue (most would opt to take their car, walk, or not make the trip rather than pay the fare), or decrease fare evasion.”

    So what has changed since then that people are now going to pay full fare?

  69. Ross,

    I asked a simple question: “Are you actually trying to make the case that eliminating Fareless Square would NOT have a positive impact on farebox revenue?”

    Your answer was: “I don’t think that is all that certain.”

    What has changed since 1991? Hmmmm, let’s see… gas prices, parking rates, downtown density, decreased mobility by auto within downtown, Westside MAX, Streetcar, Red Line, other projects coming online… maybe a better question would be what hasn’t changed?

    Fareless Square did its job. Downtown is now a vibrant place. You don’t have to bribe people with free rides in order to get them to go there, or to travel within the downtown core.

  70. you started this conversation by making the case that removing Fareless Square would have NO impact on farebox revenue

    Your answer was: “I don’t think that is all that certain.”

    And you are certain of your opinion based on absolutely no evidence. That’s fine, but the last time Trimet looked at the evidence in depth they concluded you are wrong. So I will just continue to be uncertain.

  71. “Overall ridership increased, but the number of transfers per boarding ride has remained relatively constant.”

    HOW THE HELL DO THEY KNOW THAT?

    Is there somebody standing on each bus watching to see who is using transfers and who is using money, and which transfers are even any good?
    ““““““““““““
    “In fact, Fred Hansen seemed a bit skeptical eliminating fareless square would actually result in more revenue. ”

    YEA AND 1+1 DOES NOT = 2

    Give us a break will ya!
    “““““““““““““““““““`
    ” I am not convinced that eliminating fareless square will result in a net revenue increase from the farebox. ”

    Yea well most of us know you live in DISNEYLAND anyway.
    “““““““““““““““““
    “And you are certain of your opinion based on absolutely no evidence.”

    NAH ROSS OLD BUDDY,

    His opinion isn’t based on evidence, its based on LOGIC;

    something you sorely need in your repertoire.

    signed;

    your pal al

  72. HOW THE HELL DO THEY KNOW THAT?

    A combination of rider surveys and observations made during official boarding counts.

    I’ve been the recipient of two rider surveys, myself. They do a very thorough job making sure everyone gets one and follow-up to collect as many as they can. The surveys include origin and destination, mode of travel, number of transfers, etc.

    – Bob R.

  73. I see this all the time, trimet keeps telling us how great things are and how much they support us, but for alot of people working there the opposite is the truth.

    My own personal experience is positive, but I hear an awful lot of negative from my co-workers.

    AN AWFUL LOT.

    What they say and what they do are not related.

  74. HAS TRIMET EVER COME OUT WITH ONE REPORT THAT WAS CRITICAL OF ITSELF?

    They came out with a report last year bringing up various issues with fareless square and suggesting an evaluation. (I bring that one up in particular because it’s on topic for this thread.) That could be interpreted as self-critical, because it suggests a change of course from current operations. Not the harshest stuff in the world, but it’s there.

    One more thing about ridership statistics: I happen to be able to observe two bus stops directly from my window. I have the boarding counts for those particular stops from a couple of recent years. In both cases, they are in the ballpark. (In fact, my own observation is that the stops have more boardings than TriMet says.)

    Unless TriMet has zeroed in on my office and has specifically manipulated the statistics for a few years so that I would see numbers matching boarding activity, I’m willing to accept TriMet’s other boarding counts. (I would be honored if such a massive conspiracy were underway just to manipulate what I see out my window.)

    – Bob R.

  75. LOL!!

    OK Bob,

    I don’t think their is any conspiracy other than one of exclusion of any facts that could be considered detrimental.

    I’ll conclude my daily rabble rousing by stating that:

    I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT ANY RELIABLE STATISTICS EXIST TO SHOW HOW MANY BOARDING ARE FARE OR TRANSFER.

    Whatever study they did on whatever lines for whatever period of time is suspect.

    THANKS BOB…

  76. Al –

    As an operator, can you tell us how the farebox system works on buses these days? Does the operator press a button to register when a boarding is from a transfer, for example? When a rider pays, is the type of fare purchased (2 zone, all zone, senior, etc.) registered? When I ride I’ve noticed some button-pushing and beeps from the farebox, but I haven’t stopped to ask what all (if anything) is being tracked.

    – Bob R.

  77. “As an operator, can you tell us how the farebox system works on buses these days? Does the operator press a button to register when a boarding is from a transfer, for example? When a rider pays, is the type of fare purchased (2 zone, all zone, senior, etc.) registered? When I ride I’ve noticed some button-pushing and beeps from the farebox, but I haven’t stopped to ask what all (if anything) is being tracked.”

    Bob-

    The fare boxes were set up to have the operators input data as to which type of fare a passengers purchases.

    That was ended some time ago however.

    Now when a passenger purchases a fare the operator only gives them a ticket but does not input any information.

    I don’t believe that there is any information gathered about the type of fares being collected at time of purchase, other than those occasional surveys, however I have never seen a survey taker gathering that type of information.

    Of course when the fare box is pulled the tickets can be counted. And I know that have data as to how often the lift was operated and how many people actually board the bus.

    BTW-those fareboxes are O-L-D! Some of them have been in use for over 30 years! They don’t count properly and go out of service constantly.

    WHY THEY DON’T UPDATE THEIR FARE COLLECTION SYSTEM, INCLUDING THE MAX TICKET MACHINES, is beyond me.

    They don’t even discuss it!

  78. Al –
    I hate to admit that I love your websites! The stuff on them is so believable (some of this stuff is similar to what I’ve experienced) it’s unbelievable!

  79. My family and I use Fareless square transit all the time, during various hours – including after 7pm. Restricting fareless will reduce our transit usage.

    That is just these 4 people that I can speak directly about.

  80. What was published on the video is exactly how the information came to me, so don’t get all in a huff.

    This is how police reports are written.

  81. attention gang of three:

    **djk**, **hawthorne**, **ross williams**;

    Your entitled to your opinions,

    let others be entitled to theirs!

    (not in caps, I am trying to comply with the rules of the blog)

  82. I hope the rest of you see what hawthorne pulled there:

    he called me a racist by innuendo, intentionally!

    ( I really really really want to use caps!)

  83. Al,

    Chill out. I didn’t call you anything. I pointed out a from your video. You made the conclusion.

    I did indicate that I think you spread fear in general. It’s not that I don’t think that there are issues, it’s that your hyperbole gets in the way of reasonable debate.

    Sleep well.

Leave a Reply to Bob R. Cancel reply

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