P.S.: Most of the platforms outside the FRZ are platforms separate from the sidewalks. Could we enclose those stations? That could cut down on a lot of fare evasion (all trips that don’t start downtown).
I do not see any YouTube videos regarding “how to ride a bus”.
I think the language about transfers could be clearer, though. It says the transfer is good for one hour, but I didn’t understand that it meant one hour past the estimated time the bus would reach the end of the line. This doesn’t effect all lines equally.
Now, if you all want an example of really obfuscated fare structure, check out the London Underground.
juke: P.S.: Most of the platforms outside the FRZ are platforms separate from the sidewalks. Could we enclose those stations? That could cut down on a lot of fare evasion (all trips that don’t start downtown).
There has been plenty of discussion about this over the years but it would be expensive. Keep in mind that 60% of frequent riders have passes, so what you see as fare evasion may include legitimate passengers.
Juke asks me: And as you said, disruptive behaviour is rare. But if it’s rare, why do you use it as justification for excluding all homeless folk? (Emphasis added)
Where did I ever say it was a justification for excluding any or all homeless folk?
I went out of my way to couch things in terms of behavior, not social or housing status. At this point I must conclude you’re just not listening.
Bob,
I think the remark was addressed to ws, not you–it’s a bit unclear from the thread though.
@Bob R. I guess I misread you. When I heard you say “But they DO HAPPEN. And if they happen often enough…” as arguing that, hey it does happen among homeless people, so the arguments about excluding homeless people have some merit. Apologies if that wasn’t the case.
I don’t think anyone argued to exclude homeless people, Juke.
Aaron, this whole argument was started when someone argued that abolishing the FRZ would be a good idea because it would keep homeless people of the trains. I never claimed that anybody proposed we explicitly ban homeless people, i.e. that we pass a law that says “no homeless people on a train.”
Aaron, this whole argument was started when someone argued that abolishing the FRZ would be a good idea because it would keep homeless people of the trains.
I thought that point was more that abolishing the FRZ would be a good idea because people couldn’t easily use the trains as a warm, dry place to spend hours with no destination in mind for $0. But I do now see a whole heck of a lot was said over the course of this discussion, with the “mobile homeless shelter” thing only coming up once or twice.
Juke:“Aaron, this whole argument was started when someone argued that abolishing the FRZ would be a good idea because it would keep homeless people of the trains.”
ws:No no no no no no and no. I never said anything about excluding homeless people.
I mentioned:
-That nothing in life is free, Tri-Met costs money and therefore we need to have fees to use the services as no fees results in abuse
-Homeless people are often big time users of the rail free zone, and are getting more services in return than the general public and are paying little into the pot. Again, abuse of services occur when they are free.
-Yes, homelessness on the streets is a large detractor to Portland and Tri-Met’s viability. Wake up already and look outside. I can’t candy coat that. Oregon has the highest homelessness per capita of any state (why is that?)
SUBSTANCE ABUSE AND HOMELESSNESS:
“A 2008 survey by the United States Conference of Mayors asked 25 cities for their top three causes of homelessness. Substance abuse was the single largest cause of homelessness for single adults (reported by 68% of cities). Substance abuse was also mentioned by 12% of cities as one of the top three causes of homelessness for
families. According to Didenko and Pankratz (2007), two-thirds of homeless people report that drugs and/or alcohol were a major reason for their becoming homeless. “
“…38% of homeless people were dependent on alcohol and 26% abused other drugs”
My point stands true about substance abuse and homelessness.
You typify the reactionary attitude I mentioned. Yes, I did not speak highly of homeless people in politically correct terms, I regret my use of words a bit, but my general overtone is what I believe.
-We should not build an accommodating city that tends to the symptoms of homeless or rejects to address such issues (sleeping on private property, substance abuse, public urination, harassing people, panhandling (a very big one)).
-We should, however, build an accommodating city where one can get treatment, whether mental or substance abuse, easily.
That’s the difference between my statement and people who want to do something about homelessness where their solutions to the problem are accommodating negative homelessness symptoms. It’s okay to tell the homeless person it’s not okay to sleep in your doorway of your business in my book.
Sorry to continue with this off topic post, I need to at least defend my stance here as words are being put in my mouth. If my stance is considered discriminatory, then so be it.
ws: I never said anything about excluding homeless people.
See, in your first comment you wrote “the rail free zone is one giant vagrant vessel” while listing your grievances with the FRZ, and I took that to be stating that homeless people on the MAX was a part of the reason we should end it.
My point stands true about substance abuse and homelessness.
I didn’t dispute that, I disputed your claim about “a decent percentage of homeless who got where they are in life under their own volition,” as in, are completely able to turn there life around without any help, and are just too lazy. I disagree wholeheartedly with the idea that people choose to remain homeless because we make it so accommodating.
Wake up already and look outside.
I am not saying homelessness is not a problem. Good grief. I’m saying that the whole focus should be on ending the causes of homelessness, not the symptoms.
You typify the reactionary attitude I mentioned.
Again, I do not think that word means what you think it means.
——
I’m kinda doubting this conversation is going to get anywhere productive at this point. I frustrated, not really with you or anyone else on this board, but more with my own inability to express in clear terms exactly what I find problematic about your framing of the issue.
I *kind of* regret using “vagrant vessel”. It rolls of the tongue well.
Regarding my substance abuse comments:
Admitting one actually has a problem is a great way to, you know, get help. There’s great denial among substance abusers which is a large barrier from them making a change. For those who are addicted to drugs other than alcohol, it starts with admitting they have a problem and also (hopefully) admitting they made mistakes by taking hard drugs in the first place.
That whole taking responsibility thing (some sort of dying art form).
Am I supposed to feel sorry for someone who chooses to take heroine? I don’t. (To not have my words distorted even more, that does not mean I don’t think they should have access to readily available drug treatment).
You are 100% correct, I used reactionary incorrectly.
14 responses to “”
P.S.: Most of the platforms outside the FRZ are platforms separate from the sidewalks. Could we enclose those stations? That could cut down on a lot of fare evasion (all trips that don’t start downtown).
I do not see any YouTube videos regarding “how to ride a bus”.
Actually…
@Aaron: It doesn’t explain anything about Fare Zones, though.
I think TriMet’s official guide to fare zones is pretty clear.
I think the language about transfers could be clearer, though. It says the transfer is good for one hour, but I didn’t understand that it meant one hour past the estimated time the bus would reach the end of the line. This doesn’t effect all lines equally.
Now, if you all want an example of really obfuscated fare structure, check out the London Underground.
juke: P.S.: Most of the platforms outside the FRZ are platforms separate from the sidewalks. Could we enclose those stations? That could cut down on a lot of fare evasion (all trips that don’t start downtown).
There has been plenty of discussion about this over the years but it would be expensive. Keep in mind that 60% of frequent riders have passes, so what you see as fare evasion may include legitimate passengers.
Juke asks me: And as you said, disruptive behaviour is rare. But if it’s rare, why do you use it as justification for excluding all homeless folk? (Emphasis added)
Where did I ever say it was a justification for excluding any or all homeless folk?
I went out of my way to couch things in terms of behavior, not social or housing status. At this point I must conclude you’re just not listening.
Bob,
I think the remark was addressed to ws, not you–it’s a bit unclear from the thread though.
@Bob R. I guess I misread you. When I heard you say “But they DO HAPPEN. And if they happen often enough…” as arguing that, hey it does happen among homeless people, so the arguments about excluding homeless people have some merit. Apologies if that wasn’t the case.
I don’t think anyone argued to exclude homeless people, Juke.
Aaron, this whole argument was started when someone argued that abolishing the FRZ would be a good idea because it would keep homeless people of the trains. I never claimed that anybody proposed we explicitly ban homeless people, i.e. that we pass a law that says “no homeless people on a train.”
Aaron, this whole argument was started when someone argued that abolishing the FRZ would be a good idea because it would keep homeless people of the trains.
I thought that point was more that abolishing the FRZ would be a good idea because people couldn’t easily use the trains as a warm, dry place to spend hours with no destination in mind for $0. But I do now see a whole heck of a lot was said over the course of this discussion, with the “mobile homeless shelter” thing only coming up once or twice.
Juke:“Aaron, this whole argument was started when someone argued that abolishing the FRZ would be a good idea because it would keep homeless people of the trains.”
ws:No no no no no no and no. I never said anything about excluding homeless people.
I mentioned:
-That nothing in life is free, Tri-Met costs money and therefore we need to have fees to use the services as no fees results in abuse
-Homeless people are often big time users of the rail free zone, and are getting more services in return than the general public and are paying little into the pot. Again, abuse of services occur when they are free.
-Yes, homelessness on the streets is a large detractor to Portland and Tri-Met’s viability. Wake up already and look outside. I can’t candy coat that. Oregon has the highest homelessness per capita of any state (why is that?)
SUBSTANCE ABUSE AND HOMELESSNESS:
“A 2008 survey by the United States Conference of Mayors asked 25 cities for their top three causes of homelessness. Substance abuse was the single largest cause of homelessness for single adults (reported by 68% of cities). Substance abuse was also mentioned by 12% of cities as one of the top three causes of homelessness for
families. According to Didenko and Pankratz (2007), two-thirds of homeless people report that drugs and/or alcohol were a major reason for their becoming homeless. “
“…38% of homeless people were dependent on alcohol and 26% abused other drugs”
http://www.nationalhomeless.org/factsheets/addiction.pdf
My point stands true about substance abuse and homelessness.
You typify the reactionary attitude I mentioned. Yes, I did not speak highly of homeless people in politically correct terms, I regret my use of words a bit, but my general overtone is what I believe.
-We should not build an accommodating city that tends to the symptoms of homeless or rejects to address such issues (sleeping on private property, substance abuse, public urination, harassing people, panhandling (a very big one)).
-We should, however, build an accommodating city where one can get treatment, whether mental or substance abuse, easily.
That’s the difference between my statement and people who want to do something about homelessness where their solutions to the problem are accommodating negative homelessness symptoms. It’s okay to tell the homeless person it’s not okay to sleep in your doorway of your business in my book.
Sorry to continue with this off topic post, I need to at least defend my stance here as words are being put in my mouth. If my stance is considered discriminatory, then so be it.
ws: I never said anything about excluding homeless people.
See, in your first comment you wrote “the rail free zone is one giant vagrant vessel” while listing your grievances with the FRZ, and I took that to be stating that homeless people on the MAX was a part of the reason we should end it.
My point stands true about substance abuse and homelessness.
I didn’t dispute that, I disputed your claim about “a decent percentage of homeless who got where they are in life under their own volition,” as in, are completely able to turn there life around without any help, and are just too lazy. I disagree wholeheartedly with the idea that people choose to remain homeless because we make it so accommodating.
Wake up already and look outside.
I am not saying homelessness is not a problem. Good grief. I’m saying that the whole focus should be on ending the causes of homelessness, not the symptoms.
You typify the reactionary attitude I mentioned.
Again, I do not think that word means what you think it means.
——
I’m kinda doubting this conversation is going to get anywhere productive at this point. I frustrated, not really with you or anyone else on this board, but more with my own inability to express in clear terms exactly what I find problematic about your framing of the issue.
I *kind of* regret using “vagrant vessel”. It rolls of the tongue well.
Regarding my substance abuse comments:
Admitting one actually has a problem is a great way to, you know, get help. There’s great denial among substance abusers which is a large barrier from them making a change. For those who are addicted to drugs other than alcohol, it starts with admitting they have a problem and also (hopefully) admitting they made mistakes by taking hard drugs in the first place.
That whole taking responsibility thing (some sort of dying art form).
Am I supposed to feel sorry for someone who chooses to take heroine? I don’t. (To not have my words distorted even more, that does not mean I don’t think they should have access to readily available drug treatment).
You are 100% correct, I used reactionary incorrectly.
You are being reactive to my statements.