A Couple of Things I’d Like TriMet to Think About

I’ve been following the impact of TriMet’s budget woes with great dismay. It’s very painful to watch this level of degradation to a system. There are a couple of particular choices that I think could stand some further review:

  • There’s no question the changes in fare policy make short trips less attractive. As this blog post by Sarah Gilbert makes clear, this effect is amplified for families. I think TriMet should carefully examine the potential for a family ticket of some kind that fixes a price for a parent and any number of children.
  • Now that the decision has been made to cut the Red Line short at downtown outside of rush hour, what happens if you turn it around at Gateway, rather than downtown? That would be a lot of service hours, and could potentially put a lot of bus service back on the table. Who gets hurt by this (there are still two other lines serving the corridor)? And who benefits? I’d love to see an equity analysis on this.
39 Comments

39 Responses to A Couple of Things I’d Like TriMet to Think About

  1. Nick
    February 9, 2012 at 11:43 pm Link

    Ideally, the red and green lines would just be merged. Of course, that’s not practical without extra infrastructure due to the strange 270 degree whatever-it-is that the red line was built to do near Gateway TC.

    And on a slightly related note: I wonder how many downtown stops you’d have to eliminate to speed things up enough to shave off an extra blue line train?

  2. Chris I
    February 10, 2012 at 6:42 am Link

    Blue lines between Gateway and downtown are jammed. They really do need duplicate service here for those getting on between Gateway and downtown. I will always try and time it so I catch a red line on the 84 corridor.

    I think we would be better off closing 3-4 stops between Lloyd and PGE park, to speed up service and save money.

  3. John D
    February 10, 2012 at 7:15 am Link

    I agree about the family tickets. In look at the numbers there is a huge disparity between children in poverty and seniors in poverty. Seniors in poverty are down to less than 10% of the population while families are hovering at 30% percent or more. Family tickets would also be a ridership creator.

    I also agree with Chris I. It makes no sense to merge the Green and Red lines even if it was possible. Every time I ride trains in that corridor they are pact which is most likely why
    Trimet decided to do the downtown turnaround option on the Red Line. Plus I always see several people getting on the Red Lineat Beaverton and Sunset TCs with luggage, now they will have to get ride a more crowded Blue Line train and of course taking up more area with their luggage.

    You really need to think about the unintended consequences of any action.

  4. EngineerScotty
    February 10, 2012 at 8:53 am Link

    And on a slightly related note: I wonder how many downtown stops you’d have to eliminate to speed things up enough to shave off an extra blue line train?

    This is a good time to do it. Explain, patiently to the good folks of the Goose Hollow Neighborhood Association, that TriMet can no longer afford the cost of the extra delay associated with the Kings Hill/Southwest Salmon stop.

    I mentioned it in another thread, but I’ll mention it again here. Everyone should go read this post by Jarrett on taking advantage of budget cuts to streamline operations and get rid of redundant and poorly-performing, but fiercely defended, lines or stops.

  5. John D
    February 10, 2012 at 9:44 am Link

    Killing any stop along the route once established is going to be difficult. However, how would ridership be affected but eliminating stops? Probably would not be a problem in downtown but in some other areas it could be.

    The Kings Hill/Salmon stop is ridiculous considering it is a block from the previous or next stop in one direction and a couple of blocks the other way to the busy Goose Hollow stop. However, what kind of political battle would you have to wage?

    Personally I like having frequent stops in the urban core to make it more accessible but do see stops that could be consolidated. The previous mentioned Salmon stop, how about consolidating the two stops at 3rd and 5th into one stop on fourth? Further make the Old Town stop only during Saturday Market days.

    After all at other times the place is a dead zone and one block from the Chinatown Stop. When the Saturday Market is going on the trains have to go slow anyway so it doesn’t hurt that much to have the stop for people going to the market.

    The 1 goes right in front of where I live but the 44, 54, and 56 are nearby. Does the one really have to travel to downtown? Or could it just offer good connections to other routes and save a bus? The same goes for the 45. I am sure some are going to be upset that their one seat ride to downtown is gone but do we really need it to be traveling to downtown? I think Trimet is doing a good thing by cutting it on Saturday and I would say during off peak hours also, but am sure there would be those out there saying “I will never ride transit again”.

  6. EngineerScotty
    February 10, 2012 at 10:24 am Link

    The political history of Kings Hill/Salmon is that the local NIMBYs, which include quite a few wealthy and powerful people, demanded the stop as a condition of not opposing westside MAX.

    Now that the line is open and operating and has been for more than a decade, a budget crisis is a PERFECT excuse to get rid of it. After all, it’s not as though Kings Hill residents will be able to then force MAX to close.

  7. AL M
    February 10, 2012 at 10:31 am Link

    OUTSIDE AUDIT!
    No paid for by TRIMET!
    Doesn’t the state have a version of the GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE?

  8. Chris I
    February 10, 2012 at 10:40 am Link

    I would eliminate the following stops:
    – Convention Center (one block from Rose Quarter)
    – Skidmore Fountain (one block from Old Town, too crowded on weekends)
    – Mall/SW 5th (one block from Pioneer Square)
    – Kings Hill (one block from Jeld Wen)

    I estimate that would shave off about 5 minutes. As for service levels, is an extra block really too much for people?

  9. Douglas K.
    February 10, 2012 at 12:03 pm Link

    I agree with Chris I. Tri-Met also put some capital money (maybe in NEXT year’s budget, or the year after) into moving the stops that remain, since the cost shouldn’t be all that great and you’d get better service coverage. Basically:

    Consolidate the Mall/5th stops with 2nd/3rd/Yamhill stops. Put the Pioneer Place stops between 3rd and 4th.

    Move the 7th Avenue stop across the street, closer to Grand, providing better Streetcar connections.

    Shift the Library/Galleria stops across 10th, so they’re between 10th and 11th. Again, better Streetcar connections.

    Move the Old Town/Chinatown station across the street to Couch/Davis, giving better proximity to UO and Saturday Market.

    Those changes wouldn’t be immediate, but they’d help the system work better in the long run — and also lock in the changes to keep the abandoned stations from being re-opened later.

    As for the Red Line, cutting it to Gateway-Airport service makes a lot of sense to me. Maybe it could even be run later into the night at that point, so it runs as late as the last Blue Line and/or the last buses that serve Gateway TC. (I find it inconvenient to come back on a late flight after transit has stopped running.) As for peak hour loads, just run some extra Blue Line trains from Beaverton TC to Gateway.

    Let me stress that any truncation of Red Line service should be TEMPORARY, lasting just long enough to get us through the budget crunch. Once the underlying funding issues are better in hand, regular Red Line service should be restored to Beaverton, and maybe even out to Willow Creek.

  10. Chris I
    February 10, 2012 at 12:26 pm Link

    Another reason why truncating the red line to Gateway is a bad idea: no more one seat ride to downtown for travelers and visitors.

    “Welcome to Portland. Our great city has light rail running right to the airport, and it’s only $2.50 each way. Simply hop on the train right outside the airport terminal. Ride it for 15 minutes to this transit center conveniently located in the middle of a freeway interchange. Get off your train and wait on the platform for 5-15 minutes. Make sure you watch your stuff, as this transit center has among the highest incidents of crime on the entire system. Now you get on a different train, and it’s just another 10-15 minutes to your hotel in Downtown Portland!”

    How many visitors will take this option? I think the Taxi companies would love it…

  11. Erik H.
    February 10, 2012 at 12:45 pm Link

    And on a slightly related note: I wonder how many downtown stops you’d have to eliminate to speed things up enough to shave off an extra blue line train?

    There are quite a few redundant and unnecessary MAX stops that could be easily eliminated.

    First off is the Civic Drive stop – the one that TriMet blew $3 million on, despite being just 1/4th of a mile from Gresham City Hall station. (For comparison, I walk well over 1/3rd of a mile to my bus stop, a simple bus shelter on the side of the road with no art or other amenities.) Bus riders shouldn’t be taking service cuts when TriMet found $3 million to blow on an unnecessary stop.

    Second, Gresham doesn’t need both the Gresham Central and Cleveland Avenue stops (the latter basically a “free” Parking lot, when there is a parking garage at Gresham Central).

    Further to the west it appears that optimal spacing is roughly every 20 blocks or about 1.3 miles. Since there are reasonable stops at 102nd, 122nd, 148th, and 162nd, the 172nd stop is a good candidate to remove and those riders can easily use 162nd or 181st. Likewise, Rockwood/188th (another stop that got $3 million in investment that didn’t save money or improve service) could close in favor of 181st and Ruby Junction.

    In the Lloyd District, both the Convention Center and the 7th Avenue stops are redundant. The Convention Center is way too close to Rose Quarter (and frankly the Rose Quarter stop is only kitty-corner to the Convention Center anyways), and 7th Avenue is surrounded by a TriMet parking lot to the north, and an unused event space to the south. The Lloyd Center stop at least has development adjacent to it.

    Downtown, the stops at Old Town/Chinatown and Oak/1st are low patronage and redundant; as is Kings Hill/S.W. Salmon. However the other stops along Morrison and Yamhill are all so highly used I think that the ridership necessitates multiple, closely spaced stops.

    On the westside, Beaverton Central is an easy target, Beaverton Creek is also largely underutilized as is Merlo/158th (basically a self-serving stop for TriMet employees). The 67 could easily provide service along 153rd and Millikan and connect with MAX at Millikan Way, also providing a transfer to the 62 line there.

    In Hillsboro, the Hawthorne Farm and Washington/12th Stops are easy targets.

    Figure two minutes a stop (including acceleration/deceleration time and the actual station dwell)…that’s 20 minutes shaved per trip.

    If stop consolidation is good enough for bus service, it is a mandatory exercise for rail service too. Every MAX stop has a very definitive operating cost to it; whereas most of the bus stops that have been eliminated through “bus stop consolidation” exercises had no actual maintenance cost aside from the one-time cost of installing a sign. Every MAX stop has a monthly electric bill, a landscaping expense, the cost of daily cleaning and garbage pickup, the cost of maintaining TVMs (and thus an associated phone bill). And none of those costs are recouped by the users of said station. Bus riders are lucky if their shelter gets power-washed once a month, and the majority of bus stop garbage cans are simply not maintained.

  12. nobody
    February 10, 2012 at 1:54 pm Link

    Stopping the Red Line at Gateway seems awfully short-sighted to me, a lot of folks who otherwise would take cabs from PDX-downtown take the MAX because it’s so convenient. Forcing a transfer at Gateway removes that convenience factor and essentially gets rid of a reason to take TriMet at all.

  13. ambrown
    February 10, 2012 at 2:12 pm Link

    A commenter noted on twitter (@acseger) that cutting the red line out west will have significant impact on people who bike to Beaverton stations (and as someone who used to board at Sunset TC, there are many people out there.)

  14. Chris I
    February 10, 2012 at 3:13 pm Link

    Yes. Bike space is already severely limited through the tunnel, now it will be even harder to come by. People better get used to locking bikes at the stations, or using those new secure parking facilities. Not very helpful if you have a ride at both ends, though.

  15. Douglas K.
    February 10, 2012 at 4:15 pm Link

    “Welcome to Portland. Our great city has light rail running right to the airport, and it’s only $2.50 each way. Simply hop on the train right outside the airport terminal. Ride it for 15 minutes to this transit center conveniently located in the middle of a freeway interchange. Get off your train and wait on the platform for 5-15 minutes. Make sure you watch your stuff, as this transit center has among the highest incidents of crime on the entire system. Now you get on a different train, and it’s just another 10-15 minutes to your hotel in Downtown Portland!”

    How many visitors will take this option? I think the Taxi companies would love it…

    Almost as many visitors as use it now, I suspect. I certainly would, given a $2.50 ticket vs. the exorbitant price of a taxi ride, and the very minor inconvenience of a safe, easy, sheltered cross-platform transfer at Gateway.

    Yes, safe. The Gateway station may have the most reported crimes, but it’s also really busy. Based on Tri-Met statistics, from 2007 to 2009 the Gateway station had an average of about 1.25 reported crimes against persons per month, including harassment, menacing, purse snatching and flashers. Those numbers necessarily INCLUDE fights between acquaintances, which are disturbing but not an actual threat. With nearly 200,000 people boarding every month. I like those odds. You could board twice a day at Gateway every day for fifty years and the odds are heavily in your favor that you would never be victimized.

    And by the way, it’s not “in the middle of a freeway interchange.” It’s adjacent to one.

  16. R A Fontes
    February 10, 2012 at 7:06 pm Link

    Three things, if it’s ok:

    WES:

    WES is an unmentionable in TriMet’s woe-is-us annual budget propaganda campaign.

    The most recent month for which TriMet provides data was December. It may have been an anomaly, or it may be a harbinger, but the numbers are not promising. Cost per ride: $19.25. Number of rides provided during December: 30,450. Therefore: total cost of WES during December: $586,162.50. Maximum amount riders could possibly have paid (i.e. all full fare cash tickets = 30,450 x $2.40) $73,080. Therefore: absolute minimum possible subsidy: ($586,162.50 – $73,080) $513,082.50. Therefore: Absolute minimum possible annual subsidy to WES at the December rate: ($513,082.50 x 12) $6,156,990.

    PSI:

    TriMet’s budget says that includes a $400,000 reduction of the amount it subsidizes Portland Streetcar; 10% of what it would have handed over. (Note: Jim Redden in the Tribune’s February 8 piece on TriMet’s proposed budget says that it’s “less than 10 percent of what TriMet provides each year”.) The latest PSI budget posted on line is for FY 2010 and has TriMet’s subsidy at $3.2 million, or about 58% of PSI’s entire budget. Now since $400,000 is 10% of $4 million, that would mean that TriMet’s contribution had been growing by at least 25% over three years. It also means that the streetcar subsidy will amount to at least $3.6 million.

    PSI and WES subsidies together amount to a minimum of $9,756,990, if the December WES numbers end up being at all typical for the year. That’s well over half of the maximum projected deficit for FY 2013. For comparison, and according to the Redden piece, the difference between the ATU and TriMet only amounts to $5 million.

    While WES deficits are essentially inflationary, the PSI subsidies could grow with every extension of the system.

    H fares:

    H fares weren’t touched, except for the reduction of the day ticket from $5 to $2. Granted, H riders are affected by the elimination of possible return trips on a single cash fare as well as FRZ elimination. Still, I feel insulted and patronized in not being expected to do my fair share in helping out with TriMet’s problems.

    ORS 267.320 says TriMet cannot charge those of us who are over 65 more than 50% of the standard fare except during commute hours. TriMet H fares aren’t being moved from the current $1 and the monthly pass is frozen at $26 while the full fare pass is going up from $92 to $100. So we’re paying significantly less that the statutory max, especially with monthly passes.

    If TriMet were to raise our fares penny-for-penny in step with what full-fare riders are being hit, the difference would probably cover ALL bus cuts. That same December performance report shows sales of monthly/annual H passes at 17,670, more than any other type. 4,243 10 ride H books were also sold. The report doesn’t segregate out H cash fares or day-tickets. BTW, we’d still be well under the legal maximum.

    I also believe that it would be more than appropriate at least to require full-fares from all passengers on WES, specifically including those who qualify for H fares (at least during the commute period as defined by statute). Actually, TriMet really should go well beyond that and charge a premium fare to all passengers for what is definitely a premium service.

  17. Chris Smith
    February 10, 2012 at 9:11 pm Link

    Just to clarify regarding the Streetcar budget. As part of the Federal application for the Streetcar Loop project, TriMet committed to provide $1.2M to operations for the Loop. That commitment is being maintained. So if the base for this year is $3.6M (I don’t know that this is the exact number, I’m just using it for the example) then the contribution next year is $4.4M ($3.6M – 400K + 1.2M). The commitment for the Loop is being honored, but the support for the existing service is being reduced, as it has been each time TriMet has reduced service overall.

    The overall effect should not reduce peak hour frequency for Streetcar, but it will definitely influence how many hours per day we can maintain the peak level of service.

    And yes, we appreciate the impact of introducing new service during a period of other service reductions.

  18. Andrew
    February 10, 2012 at 11:25 pm Link

    Wow, I thought I was the only one who thought that several MAX stations mentioned here (Kings Hill-Samon, Convention Center, 7th Ave., Chinatown, ect.) were horribly redundant and should be eliminated. One can only imagine how much faster things would be without them. It’s rather comforting to know I’m not alone there. I also appreciated the mention that bus stop consolidation were par for the course but train stop consolidation seem off the table. What a double-standard!

    I would personally advocate merging the 4th avenue and Pioneer Square stops into one straddling between 5th & 6th avenues. This way two stations become one and offer direct connections to trains on the transit malls without having to cross any streets. Very convenient. I can’t speak as to the stations in the suburbs as I have too little experience with them, Beaverton Central excepted. That one is pretty close to BTC and almost always dead when I’ve gone through.

    How would it be possible to make some of these suggestions to Trimet? The money saved could go towards keeping buses going. Frankly, I’m tired of my route always being full to the brim. Full buses mean high usage which is good, but it also means there aren’t enough runs to serve demand. There should always be some spare capacity, as it makes it easier to get on and off the bus, and if you’re carrying something like groceries, it makes all the difference. There’s nothing worse than having two bags of groceries on a full bus and trying to get to the door when you want to get off. I’m tired of doing it.

  19. EngineerScotty
    February 10, 2012 at 11:35 pm Link

    How would it be possible to make some of these suggestions to Trimet?

    I’m sure TriMet keeps a pickle jar (or the electronic equivalent thereof) full of such suggestions :), but you can send ’em comments here.

  20. zefwagner
    February 11, 2012 at 10:53 am Link

    I also think it would be a really bad idea to truncate the red line at Gateway. One reason has been mentioned, that it would be huge disincentive to using transit to get to and from the airport. Normally I am fine with easy transfers, but when people are carrying around luggage they want the journey to be as direct as possible. It would send a bad message to tourists as well.

    The other reason is that the shared stretch between Gateway and Rose Quarter really does need that capacity, and they are already proposing to cut off-peak frequency to every 20 minutes! What if they truncated the Red Line but used the savings to reduce fare increases and still made the MAX frequency cut? That would amount to huge cut along the Banfield.

  21. Chris Smith
    February 11, 2012 at 12:24 pm Link

    …they are already proposing to cut off-peak frequency to every 20 minutes!

    Between Gateway and Rose Quarter you have 3 lines. Even at 20 minute headways, that’s an average of a train every 6 minutes. If you cut that to two lines, then it’s every 10 minutes.

    My question is what the value of that capacity and frequency change is versus folks on buses who are completely losing service at some locations or times. That’s the equity analysis I’d like to see done.

    And if the concern is that turning back the Red Line is a big disincentive to airport travelers, you could spread the pain and proportionately reduce a mixture of Red, Blue and Green line trains.

  22. al m
    February 11, 2012 at 12:26 pm Link

    “My question is what the value of that capacity and frequency change is versus folks on buses who are completely losing service at some locations or times. That’s the equity analysis I’d like to see done.”

    ~~~>Is there any way of getting this done INDEPENDENT of TriMet?

  23. AL M
    February 11, 2012 at 2:01 pm Link

    ~~~>Is there any way of getting this done INDEPENDENT of TriMet?

    I guess that’s a “no” huh?

  24. Chris Smith
    February 11, 2012 at 2:08 pm Link

    It’s probably possible, but I think it might be more effective to put pressure on TriMet to do the analysis.

  25. al m
    February 11, 2012 at 3:20 pm Link

    If they do the analysis Chris, the results may NOT be reliable.

    Not that I don’t trust them mind you, but they are not trustworthy.

    ( I represent nobody but myself, as required by TRIMET TRANSIT DISTRICT, when any person aligned to the empire, speaks about empire business)

  26. Douglas K.
    February 11, 2012 at 5:50 pm Link

    I would personally advocate merging the 4th avenue and Pioneer Square stops into one straddling between 5th & 6th avenues.

    Purely from a station placement standpoint, that makes all kinds of sense. But I’m pretty sure that wouldn’t work on Morrison because of the Pioneer Courthouse, with its untouchable driveway and underground parking for the Very Important Federal Judges who work there. (You might suggest they could park in a nearby structure and walk a couple blocks to work like the rest of us mere mortals. That was suggested a couple of years ago and immediately dismissed for security reasons: walking out on the sidewalk like a normal person would expose them to terrorist attacks.)

  27. Bob R.
    February 11, 2012 at 6:15 pm Link

    “You might suggest they could park in a nearby structure”

    While on the topic of Things That Will Never Happen (TTWNH(tm)), you could suggest to the judges that they find office and courtroom space in any of the other very large federal buildings in the central city area that feature on-site parking.

    Then, once you’ve got all light rail lines converging on the same block, restore the beloved and much-missed Post Office to 1/2 of the ground floor of the courthouse. A central post office at the confluence of 4 regional transit lines and just steps away from many bus lines would be of great use to the public.

    Next, rent out the rest of the ground floor to retail/service businesses, so that the general public can experience and appreciate the courthouse on a daily basis, and the upper floors can be high-dollar office space. Maybe not “Class A” by office tower standards, but with the benefit of location, location, location…

    But those are TTWNH(tm).

  28. Dave H
    February 11, 2012 at 6:45 pm Link

    If TriMet goes through with these changes I can’t see how they’ll be anything but a bad joke to the rest of the country. $5 to take a bus to the store?

  29. al m
    February 12, 2012 at 5:27 pm Link

    One of our blogger pals attended the ‘open house’ yesterday, HERE is that report.

    I find this very disturbing in terms of public process and transparency..

  30. L Kirk
    February 13, 2012 at 12:50 pm Link

    Another thing that TRIMET should be thinking about when considering FAIRLESS Square…
    Am wondering if the LLOYD Business DISTRICT is going take action if FAIRLESS SQUARE is NO MORE.

    There was an agreement several years ago relative to FAIRLESS SQUARE in the LLOYD DISTRICT – the parking Meters vs FAIRLESS SQUARE – if FAIRLESS SQUARE is REMOVED for Budgetary purposes – THE CITY OF PORTLAND should then be REMOVING parking Meters in the LLOYD DISTRICT…??

  31. AL M
    February 13, 2012 at 2:20 pm Link

    THE CITY OF PORTLAND should then be REMOVING parking Meters in the LLOYD DISTRICT…??

    Hahahahahahaaaaaaaaa!

    You’re not getting it are you?
    Government is all about (holding my nose) SUSTAINABILITY!

    That is, how does the the executive class of government sustain their fat paychecks for pretending they are serving the public they prey on?

  32. PdxBarb
    February 13, 2012 at 9:47 pm Link

    One problem with the Max is inflexibility. In Chicago, trains can go from 2 cars up to 8 cars, allowing for flexibility depending on what time of day it is. Max stations seem to have only room for 4 cars (2 sets of 2 linked cars). You could alleviate crowding at certain times by adding more cars. I wonder why this option wasn’t chosen?

  33. EngineerScotty
    February 13, 2012 at 10:46 pm Link

    @PdxBarb,

    MAX is designed for two-car trains, no longer. The main reason is that trains longer than two cars would block traffic when stopped downtown (a two-car train is just a hair shorter than a downtown city block). However, most of the platforms are designed for two-car trains, and much of the switching, signalling, and control infrastructure is as well.

  34. Jeff F
    February 14, 2012 at 8:14 am Link

    PdxBarb is certainly right about Chicago. After a White Sox game (they have their own L stop) I was amazed at the service. CTA had not only laid on extra-long trains but also extra trains. They had temporary turnstiles to handle overflow and a crowd of employees directing people to open cars. Whoosh, train pulls in, hundreds of customers quickly board and whoosh, the train pulls out.

    Amazing what can be done with a lot of money and dedicated rail.

  35. EngineerScotty
    February 14, 2012 at 8:53 am Link

    [Regarding MAX service at major events]

    One good thing about the new ticket pricing scheme, where the cost of two tickets = the cost of a day pass, is that it can make handling big events easier, particularly for occasional users of TriMet who take transit to the Rose Garden or The Stadium Formerly Known As Civic to avoid parking hassles and fees, and don’t have passes.

    Under the current situation, there’s always a queue at the ticket machines of people trying to buy return tickets home. With the new pricing scheme, one can buy a daypass when they begin their journey to the game or concert or whatever, and simply then board the vehicle for the return trip without need of any additional hassle.

    And TriMet does provide extra trains for events like Blazers’ or Timbers’ games. They’re still limited to two cars, though.

  36. John Powell
    February 14, 2012 at 9:28 am Link

    With the new pricing scheme, one can buy a daypass when they begin their journey to the game or concert or whatever, and simply then board the vehicle for the return trip without need of any additional hassle.

    With the current pricing scheme, one can buy a day pass for twenty cents more than the cost of two all-zone tickets. You’d think it’d be worth twenty cents not to have to stand in line after an event. Probably most people aren’t aware, though.

  37. EngineerScotty
    February 14, 2012 at 10:12 am Link

    I suspect that many people aren’t. I’m assuming that TriMet will publicize the day pass a bit more once the new pricing scheme takes effect.

  38. EngineerScotty
    February 14, 2012 at 11:15 am Link

    Yonah Freemark takes a look at the President’s proposed budget, and what it means for transit. Both Milwaukie MAX and the LRT portion of the CRC are discussed.

  39. Chris I
    February 14, 2012 at 11:42 am Link

    The elimination of the FRZ will do wonders to cut down on the crush loads MAX experiences after Blazers games. Those folks will need to waddle the 8 blocks back over to Lloyd Center instead of needlessly cramming the trains.

Leave a Reply

By posting a comment, you are granting a license to Portland Transport for your comment. Please refer to The Rules.