TriMet has a new press release out today outlining changes to the service cut proposal. They received over 1,500 comments.
Check out the press release for details.
In summary: Fewer cuts than originaly proposed to buses (5 lines cut instead of 12, but the “spared” 7 face other changes/consolidations.) MAX cuts stay basically the same as originally proposed, including on the yet-to-open Green Line. Further cuts will be proposed agency-wide due to reduced revenue projections, but won’t affect service in this round. If future service cuts are to be proposed, there will be another round of public involvement.
18 responses to “TriMet Updates Service Cut Proposals”
Well, I’m glad they spared the 63 … sort of. They combined it with the 18, and the new line apparently no longer goes downtown — I guess you transfer from MAX at PGE Park.
But by closing the new combined line on weekends, they’re still cutting off weekend access to the Japanese Garden and Rose Garden — at least for those who aren’t up to walking all the way from 24th and Burnside.
It definitely could be worse, but it’s still frustrating to see this happen. I’d rather pay an extra nickle or dime to prevent this, if it would make a difference.
What I don’t get is that it sounds like the cuts are going to be less worse, but that their economic situation is worsening, or at least not looking better.
Also, there’s some other possibilities they should look at:
*Buy some used articulated buses and use them to combine some closely-spaced express trips, e.g. on Line 94. There might be some available from downsizing agencies and they would result in double savings, since many trips deadhead the other way. Only getting 10-20 of them would lessen any disruption caused by not being able to use them (e.g. during ice storms).
*Combining Lines 10 and 70. I have been told that, when Line 10 was proposed to be cut back to the Lloyd Center, there was an outcry to have it at least go to the Rose Quarter. The combination would add transfers for riders going to/from and through the Rose Quarter on both lines, but cutting the extra service on Multnomah should take priority over cutting service where no nearby service exists (e.g. Sundays in Washington County where the 59, 67 and 89 may all go away). With the Green Line, there will be three MAX lines just south on Holladay Street (service possibly every 5 minutes).
*Canceling the 65 and having passengers transfer to the 39 at Capitol Hwy/Terwilliger or having the 64 serve Barbur/Bertha.
*Having Line 43 serve Lewis & Clark if it would be enough for L&C to cancel its own private shuttles. Note that the L&C ridership might be enough to retain the 43’s weekend service.
*Adding stops to Line 92 at Capitol Hwy/Terwilliger for transfers to/from Marquam Hill buses and possibly a few other places. Someone now wanting to go between the hill and south Beaverton has to take three buses (64/65, 56 and 45/62/92) or go through downtown.
*Getting rid of the Line 96 trip that deadheads all the way from north Wilsonville at 7:30 AM in the middle of rush hour.
*Having Line 99 use the faster McLoughlin between Milwaukie and Ochoco instead of Main if there is not going to be a Southgate park & ride. (Note that it sounds like the park & ride is back on, but will only be used until Milwaukie MAX opens, when it would become a south LIFT facility)
*Go back and put the Yellow Line along I-5 and all lines undergound through downtown Portland, so they could be faster and less disruption-prone.
cutting off weekend access to the Japanese Garden and Rose Garden
There may still be the Washington Park Shuttle during the summer and fall. It was mentioned at the board meeting this morning that they’re still looking at it. What I think should be considered is having the shuttle go down to 18th Ave and be the same as Line 63.
Two executive directors received retention bonuses in January: Neil McFarlane, executive director of capital projects, received a $25,000 bonus in addition to a $188,085 salary; and Steve Banta, executive director of operations, received a bonus of $15,000 in addition to a $181,892 salary. Both are subject to the planned two-week furlough.
There may still be the Washington Park Shuttle during the summer and fall.
Yes, they are keeping the Washington Park Shuttle, but that’s seasonal. Which is fine for the Rose Garden, since the roses don’t bloom until late spring, but the Japanese Garden hosts public events on a year-round basis. And a lot of those events are weekend things.
The thing that gets me about all of this is they’ve redone the service proposal to “preserve access,” but weekday-only during-the-day service isn’t access, especially if one doesn’t have a traditional work schedule and/or a short commute. I realize the ‘total free market’ folks say that people “choose” to live far from where they work, but the reality is the so-called “choice” for many is living on the opposite side of town an finding a place they can afford, or being homeless. Especially for the low-wage multiple-location type service jobs (fast food, coffee chains, etc.), where one could apply for a job at a location down the street and get hired, only to find out they’re hired for the store on the opposite side of the metro area.
There are also others that more strongly oppose the current proposal vs. the original, because it involves service reductions on higher ridership routes.
Call me nuts, but IMO I’m starting to think they should autocratically cut all service on the lowest-performing routes regardless of their location, use the time to inform people of the changes, and let them know they have two options: one is stay where they are and they’ll lose their transit service; the other is relocate to a location with transit service, along with information and referrals to social and charitable service agencies if one doesn’t have the means to move.
Of course, I still think the best option is to aggressively lobby Salem and maybe even D.C. for transit operating funds… IMO if the money can be “found” to turn private business failures into public debt as well as provide increased subsidies for supposedly self-supporting businesses, then there’s no reason money can’t be found to preserve transit service!
I apologize for the double-post, but when putting more thought into it, I wonder what/if could be done if they instead opened the MAX Green Line with 30-minute headways Monday-Friday Rush Hours only, similar to WES service?
Still, I think the best scenario would involve aggressive lobbying. If we could do it in Clark Co., Washington in 2005, then there’s no reason we can’t do it in Portland in 2009!
I apologize for the double-post, but when putting more thought into it, I wonder what/if could be done if they instead opened the MAX Green Line with 30-minute headways Monday-Friday Rush Hours only, similar to WES service?
To be honest, it’d kill ridership. I don’t even count on WES being operational if I need to get to anywhere along it’s path. I’d feel the same about the Green Line if they do that.
Jason McHuff wrote: Buy some used articulated buses
Only if TriMet only buys used LRVs for MAX going forward. TriMet desperately needs NEW buses and has already cut to the bone in this department.
combine some closely-spaced express trips
Also on the 72 that runs every 7 minutes apart on 82nd Avenue, and some inbound 12 trips that run sometimes back-to-back for absolutely no reason.
Adding stops to Line 92 at Capitol Hwy/Terwilliger for transfers to/from Marquam Hill buses and possibly a few other places.
Stopping at Terwilliger makes no sense. The stop (if there is to be one) needs to be at Sunset. But that’s a heavily used, congested stop.
A better option is stopping at Beaverton-Hillsdale Highway and Oleson Road. This provides a transfer between the 92 and 61, as well as allows passengers to jump between the 54, 56 and 92 (like the 94 stop at Barbur & Bertha along with the 12 and 65). Besides my inbound 92 stop always hits the red like at Oleson and there’s always three or four people waiting there, adding a stop there for the 92 won’t really add time on the schedule (whereas a stop at Sunset will.)
Canceling the 65 and having passengers transfer to the 39 at Capitol Hwy/Terwilliger or having the 64 serve Barbur/Bertha
This eliminates a Marquam Hill trip to Multnomah Village, a very well developed, “transit-oriented” community…not sure that is such a good idea.
I think it makes more sense to cancel the 65 as a Marquam Hill run and combine it with parts of the 39 and 43 lines to provide a southwest Portland neighborhood feeder; then route the 8 all the way up and over Marquam Hill to connect with the buses at Hillsdale and at Burlingame to provide frequent service to/from OHSU and points south.
Jason Barbour wrote: I wonder what/if could be done if they instead opened the MAX Green Line with 30-minute headways Monday-Friday Rush Hours only, similar to WES service?
Dave Hogan replied: To be honest, it’d kill ridership.
You can’t kill something that hasn’t been born yet. What is less than zero riders?
It isn’t opened yet, and it can/should be seriously considered. The Green Line MAX and WES prove that TriMet is more interested in “sexy” new projects over its existing transit passenger base – people who have already demonstrated their commitment towards riding TriMet.
Only if TriMet only buys used LRVs for MAX going forward.
*Only* ???
If tomorrow morning Fred Hansen went on TV and said “Hey, we’ve found a great deal on some good-condition used articulated buses, and some capital dollars to buy them, which will really help with crowding on some routes due to the other operational cutbacks we’re having to make”, would you disapprove of the deal because they didn’t simultaneously announce that for the foreseeable future they’d not purchase any new LRVs?
TriMet desperately needs NEW buses
I never said they didn’t. In fact, I think Fred Hansen himself said that at one of the board meetings. In addition, if you’re interested, I have a video up on YouTube of me asking Mary Fetsch about the lack of bus purchases.
The idea is that it takes a long time to have brand-new buses built, and that used ones can be obtained much faster, especially if there are agencies which are no longer needing them due to service cuts. Long term, I have no problem with those buses being replaced with new ones.
Also on the 72 that runs every 7 minutes apart on 82nd Avenue
Well, the Green Line should reduce the need for that.
some inbound 12 trips that run sometimes back-to-back for absolutely no reason
I thought that was because of poor schedule adherence–that those buses are supposed to be spread out providing better frequency. Overall, the issue I have with putting artics on local lines is that it can slow down service because serving more people per bus can mean serving more stops per bus and because everyone still needs to board one-at-a-time and pay or present a fare. This isn’t as much of a problem on express trips since the number of stops is limited. In addition, serving more people per bus can counteract the issue of being able to serve less people due to the limited amount of turnover. Also, there might not be the double savings gained by also eliminating a deadhead trip in the other direction.
Stopping at Terwilliger makes no sense.
Its the only place where people can transfer to/from the 65, which means more options up/down the hill. But Olsen would make sense for those wanting to head west on Beaverton-Hillsdale Hwy or up to Hamilton, in addition to somewhere there in Raleigh Hills.
eliminates a Marquam Hill trip to Multnomah Village
People could still transfer to/from the 44 or 45. But it would take away direct service to Line 1 without going down to Barbur and many riders do get on/off the 64 along Capitol. Overall, it would be good to know where Line 64 and 65 riders are going to/which line they are transferring to/from.
Bob R. wrote: would you disapprove of the deal because they didn’t simultaneously announce that for the foreseeable future they’d not purchase any new LRVs?
I would disapprove of the fact that TriMet will bend over backwards to buy brand new, gold-plated trains, but short-changes bus riders by forcing bus riders to ride in used equipment.
I would have no problem if TriMet purchased used buses as strictly a stop-gap measure — as in while NEW buses were being constructed and delivered. But I would have a problem if TriMet bought used buses while purchasing NEW light rail trains.
Jason McHuff wrote: The idea is that it takes a long time to have brand-new buses built
Yes, I know, there’s about an 18-24 month lead time for a new bus. That’s why TriMet should have had orders in stone for new buses long, long, long ago. But someone at Center Street (I can only surmise Fred Hansen) felt it was appropriate to cancel those orders while I don’t see any light rail projects equally delayed due to cost constraints (in fact it’s well known that the reason bus purchases were delayed is because funds that were intended to buy buses ended up buying light rail trains.)
Well, the Green Line should reduce the need for that.
Doubt it. The Green Line won’t serve any of the destinations (along 82nd Avenue) that people are using the bus to reach. It’ll relieve some pressure, yes, but as was perfectly demonstrated when TriMet attempted to reduce service on the 57 line after opening Westside MAX (by eliminating the artics) TriMet suddenly found that the 57s which used to have plenty of space were now standing-room only, and had to increase service frequencies.
I thought that was because of poor schedule adherence–that those buses are supposed to be spread out providing better frequency. Overall, the issue I have with putting artics on local lines is that it can slow down service because serving more people per bus can mean serving more stops per bus and because everyone still needs to board one-at-a-time and pay or present a fare.
TriMet began turning some outbound 94 trips into inbound 12 trips in the PM rush hour from Barbur TC to the Transit Mall where they turn again as a 94.
The problem is that they end up running just a couple minutes ahead of or behind another 12 bus and don’t really do much (since even if the regular 12 trip is off schedule, it still has to make stops if someone wants off.) So you end up having two inbound 12 buses (during the outbound peak!) as revenue runs, while outbound passengers are still waiting for bus service (because the outbound 12B probably got delayed as a who-knows-what-bus-before-it-got-to-Gresham trip.)
There are ways to deal with artics on local trips but dozens of transit agencies do it very successfully – Seattle and Los Angeles do, so does Vancouver B.C. Artics tend to have larger door openings than 40′ buses and thus have more room for a cash-fare rider to step aside while a pass rider can walk on by. In Seattle they use the Pay-as-you-Exit scheme when leaving downtown so there is no delay when boarding.
Its the only place where people can transfer to/from the 65
Not many more options, and it’s a very awkward place to stop a bus (you’re on a hill, on a curve, with mixed-speed traffic…) When I rode the 12 bus in the late morning I saw very few people with OHSU or VA badges who would transfer to the 65 at Barbur & Bertha, even if the bus was in front of (or behind) us. They’d ride on to downtown and catch an 8.
People could still transfer to/from the 44 or 45. But it would take away direct service to Line 1 without going down to Barbur and many riders do get on/off the 64 along Capitol.
I think I was mistaken, cancelling the 65 wouldn’t displace Multnomah Village (which is served by the 64, not the 65).
First of all, I’d like to note that used light rail vehicles aren’t generally available, since there’s fewer of them then buses and given the capital costs it takes to make use of them. In addition, there can be issues of compatibility. But when they are available, there can be a market for them. For example, Sacramento RT purchased some from San Jose VTA after VTA switched to low-floor cars.
The Green Line won’t serve any of the destinations (along 82nd Avenue) that people are using the bus to reach
The Green Line isn’t that far of a walk from 82nd, and I’d bet that some people will be willing to walk to it. Plus, some people riding Line 72 are probably going between east-west bus lines and don’t need to go down 82nd. Line 57, on the other hand, is much more distinct from MAX.
very few people with OHSU or VA badges who would transfer to the 65 at Barbur & Bertha
Well they may transfer to the 64 further down instead. But on weekdays in Spring 2007, an average of 19 people got on and 3 got off Line 65 at Barbur/Bertha going northbound and 40 off/5 on southbound. In addition, there were 23 on/1 off at Capitol Hwy going northbound (1 on/10 off southbound) and 60 on/5 off going northbound (40 off/0 on southbound) at other stops south of there. Lastly, it should be noted that the 65 is the remnant of the Milwaukie TC bus after the Sellwood Bridge was closed.
cancelling the 65 wouldn’t displace Multnomah Village
It would end direct service if the 64 was rerouted to serve Barbur/Bertha.
In a happy Friday to TriMet, I’ve just submitted my entire written comments via e-mail. I’m almost sure that someone will conveniently not read it before 5 PM tonight and therefore it will be considered “not received before the public comment period closed,” but I wanted to take the time to be comprehensive in my comments.
Since many of you here are probably interested, here it is:
First off, I am more strongly opposed to the March 25 Service Cut Proposal than I was to the original, as the revised proposal affects too much useful service in too many places.
I believe that TriMet should provide the public with overall level of service under four other conditions:
1. TriMet riders, staff, and management flood state and federal lawmaking delegations that the money must be “found” for continued necessary transit operations, and this is a much more important priority than propping up unprofitable private enterprises that should be operating “as a business” anyhow.
The way I see it, according to TriMet’s own October 2008 Factsheet (http://trimet.org/pdfs/publications/customer_profile.pdf), the primary reason for 30% of all TriMet riders using the system is for going to work, 26% is recreation (wouldn’t surprise me at all if all of this involves a business transaction of some sort somewhere), and 10% is shopping. That’s 66% of primary ridership directly contributing to businesses. If we consider the 5% primarily using transit for medical purposes as being a business activity, that’s 71%–almost three-quarters of ridership–directly contributing to the business prosperity of the region.
At the same time, businesses are killing TriMet through actions such as layoffs, closedowns, and salary cuts, which directly affect the payroll tax. When businesses do this, the community in general as well as the remaining employed people must rely on transit service more, as it becomes increasingly difficult to own/operate private vehicles with lower (or no) pay.
Therefore, I believe the TriMet payroll tax should be increased as an emergency measure to compensate for lower overall collections as a percentage of payroll, and should be calculated using what annual payrolls would be without businesses being able to factoring in employee salary/wage cuts after December 31, 2008. At the same time, I think now’s the right time for a permanent “TriMet Unemployment Tax,” to soften the impact created when employers reduce payrolls.
2. Green Line MAX is opened with an identical span/level of service as WES.
3. Opening of Green Line MAX is postponed indefinitely. (While waiting for a bus at Powell Blvd. & Milwaukie Ave. a few years ago, I overheard several operators say to each other that if TriMet doesn’t hire many more operators before the opening of the Green Line, that TriMet would be cutting service. This was way before any of this economic stuff was going on. General Manager Fred Hansen said himself at the March 25th TriMet Board Meeting that TriMet isn’t hiring.)
4. Shortened span of service district-wide (such as ending all service on all lines/modes all days of the week after the 11:32 PM pulse out of downtown Portland).
However, if service must be eliminated, I believe TriMet should autocratically eliminate all service on the lowest-performing routes (using the Appendix of the FY 2009 TIP, TriMet has identified the five lowest ridership routes [line number corrections in brackets] as [153]-South End Rd., 84-Kelso/Boring, 27-Market/Main, 86-Alderwood, and 18-Hillside), and use the time to direct those with no other transportation options and no means to move, to social and/or charitable organizations that can help them with either.
Some comments specifically regarding line 74-Lloyd District/Southeast: I use it when it runs because it is a quick and reliable route, unlike 72 and 75–I’ve waited upwards of 30 minutes for either of these at times, usually because they don’t show up for that long, and sometimes because all the buses for that length of time are too full to pick up any additional passengers. Many times, riders at stops along 39th Ave. board 74 because they’ve been waiting for a 75 upwards of 30 minutes, and are glad that something showed up as their groceries are spoiling from waiting at the bus stop so long. Others use it because it is the most direct, transfer-less route to their school (giving their parents peace of mind) or place of employment. Those who work in the Lloyd District are obvious choice riders, even though they’re usually riding old buses without air conditioning. Despite this, 74 is not a low ridership route as TriMet claims–many mornings, a 40-foot bus is filled to standing room only.
As for Fareless Square, I believe limiting to “rail only” will not fix any public perception issues (in fact, rider conduct on rail vehicles is a much larger issue than rider conduct on buses). I think Fareless Square should be permanently eliminated (with regular cash fares applying), and a Code of Conduct strictly enforced at transit stops in the downtown core, Rose Quarter, and Lloyd District areas; rules should include a prohibition on panhandling, petition pushing, and goods/literature distribution, as well as implied consent that by using or attempting to use transit service serving that stop that one agrees these rules are not a violation of their “free speech rights.” With Portland Mall connections less convenient than ever (especially after May), and the former Rose Quarter Transit Center being systematically destroyed, many more riders and potential riders will need to feel comfortable going downtown to make connections.
Instead, let’s give the free and discounted rides to those who have a reason for them. Specifically, I was impressed by TriMet Board Member Lynn Lehrbach’s comment at the January 28, 2009 Board Meeting that college students need free service (during discussion of Fareless Square). However, not all college students live and attend classes in Fareless Square (few could afford to do this). As an example, Portland Community College has no campuses within Fareless Square, and currently has internal funding to purchase several hundred Student Select Term Passes district-wide and discounts them, which sell out in several hours. Why not sell an unlimited amount to the college at the amount they discount them for (currently $175 a term)? That would immediately increase public perception of TriMet to thousands of PCC students, staff, and faculty throughout the Portland Metro Area.
One final set of thoughts on the Downtown Transit Mall and routing:
Choice riders of the 14 that are sensitive to issues I presented above in comments regarding Fareless Square, as well as issues surrounding “another transfer” aren’t going to walk four blocks to east/west MAX routes and/or other bus routes blocks away, they’ll probably just go back to driving. I still think it’s a mystery as to why 14 is “looped across the mall,” while silly-in-comparison routes like 1-Vermont; 31-Estacada, 32-Oatfield, 36-South Shore rush-hour only runs, seem to get preferential downtown treatment with stops along 5th and 6th. If 33-Fremont gets short-turned at Emanuel Hospital, will TriMet be fair and also loop 33-McLoughlin in the same fashion as the 14? (I obviously don’t want to see that, but I’m asking if TriMet will be fair in this manner.) And, I still think it’s wrong that promotional materials for the new mall have always shown a Type 4 MAX car at Pioneer Courthouse, along with a bus displaying “14-Hawthorne” on the sign.
I never understood why TriMet would want to slow down the 12 and 44 by continuing to route them through the SW 4th and Hall stop instead of putting them back on their original route on 6th.
Finally… I think both TriMet and the City of Portland are bluffing with C-TRAN regarding routing of their Portland Express service. Many of us who have ever used it believe it to be the hands-down best transit service of any mode provided by any agency in the Portland Metro Area. Before the old mall closed in 2007, individuals involved with the Pearl District went to C-TRAN Board Meetings to protest losing this service through their area! I realize the regional consensus is “light rail everywhere,” and “C-TRAN can just run service to Delta Park,” but there’s obviously a reason people have been paying $3 a ride or $105 a month since 2005 to ride them. In my opinion, C-TRAN should return to their original routing and should not be forced out of the former Rose Quarter Transit Center, letting everyone in Downtown Portland–regardless of where they are–enjoy a quick, air-conditioned, comfortable, hassle-free ride to wherever they want to go in Clark County, and vice-versa.
Thank you for reading, and your consideration.
Respectfully,
Jason Barbour
(The closing in the e-mail contained my current physical address, as well as 15 stop ID numbers I regularly use.)
Jason Barbour wrote: I never understood why TriMet would want to slow down the 12 and 44 by continuing to route them through the SW 4th and Hall stop instead of putting them back on their original route on 6th.
Because the first available bus stop on 6th Avenue is several blocks further north than the old stop. By not routing the 12 and 44 on 4th Avenue, those two buses would essentially bypass PSU – Portland’s largest transit generator. That doesn’t make much sense.
My beef is that TriMet IS sending the 94 on 6th instead of serving the stop at 4th & Hall which it currently serves. TriMet claims that the reason the 94 won’t serve that stop is because there are too many other buses serving that stop…the problem is that after the Transit Mall opens, there will be fewer busses stopping there than today with the 94 also serving the stop.
Instead, let’s give the free and discounted rides to those who have a reason for them. Specifically, I was impressed by TriMet Board Member Lynn Lehrbach’s comment at the January 28, 2009 Board Meeting that college students need free service
I disagree that college students “need” free bus service; the universities can pay for the “free” transit service just like any employer. Why do college students (who have the option to live on campus and thus not need transit, or close to their campus) need free transit when other groups who just as well “need” transit have to pay full fare?
I have no problem with young children (who are travelling with their parents) or senior citizens getting a break on fare, but otherwise everyone should pay their fair share, whether they put the cash in the farebox or in a TVM or whether they have a pass that is paid for by their school or organization or employer.
Otherwise excellent observations, Jason. Well put.
Jason,
After we have already invested the money to build the Green Line MAX, would you really be in favor of leaving those rails unused? Especially considering that the MAX system has a much better farebox recovery ratio than the bus system…and that’s even with the poor enforcement.
As to shortening the span of service times, this may be out of the realm of TriMet’s concern, but late night bus service decreases drunk driving. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind about this. Perhaps we could decrease the frequencies late at night. Although I was on the 12:00 a.m. #9 Powell last night (Thursday) and just about every seat was full. I know anecdotes aren’t statistics, but I personally have known many people to drive after a night out because bus service stops too early. Decreasing drunk driving is one of the greatest benefits that transit can bring to a city.
But I’m all for eliminating fareless square and raising the payroll tax.
After we have already invested the money to build the Green Line MAX, would you really be in favor of leaving those rails unused?
At the very least, it would be great to see the comparison between the idea and the current service cut proposal.
As to shortening the span of service times […] I was on the 12:00 a.m. #9 Powell last night (Thursday) and just about every seat was full.
I’ve also used extremely late-night service, including the 1:37 AM 14-Hawthorne before. I’ll concur with you on the seats being full, at the same time there are many trips that aren’t being made on transit that otherwise would be because many times, no connecting service is available at that hour. Yes it would be an inconvenience, especially to those who like to have some late-night fun or have a late arrival at PDX (and TriMet service works for them), but I’ve thought carefully and could live with knowing I’d better be on a bus going home a couple hours earlier than before, versus more people driving during commute hours. And yes, I realize that would affect people who’s shifts end at, say, 12:30 AM. But, if someome has to be at and/or leave work at 3:30 AM, they’ve been toast since 1986 anyhow.
I disagree that college students “need” free bus service […] when other groups who just as well “need” transit have to pay full fare?
Portland Community College (the example I gave as I have firsthand knowledge) is actually a commuter school, no on-site housing options available. My idea was not just regarding college students, the idea is to expand existing programs that provide discounted fares. This could include social service agencies, assistance to those truly in need, at-risk youth, convention-goers (one of the reasons given for wanting to keep Fareless Square has to do with tourism dollars–I’ve heard TriMet has a program where conventions and other special events can offer their patrons that their admission can also double as their transit pass), or whatever.
That way, those who are getting the “free” rides are not only paying for some of them, they’re also those who have a reason to go where they’re going, not those who bum transfers or use the transit vehicle as a toilet.