John Calhoun:

It makes working downtown fun. When I used to work there I would hop on a bus for meetings across town and be there in less time than driving.

Bob T:

That bus is still there, for a fee. Or a monthly pass will take care of that. Would that make you drive instead? Don't compare making you pay part of the cost to taking away the bus altogether.

Bob Tiernan Portland

I have mixed feelings about the proposed changes for Fareless Square. On one side I can see the benefits of cutting costs, but I am wary that the MAX may not provide as fast a service as the buses do right now.

You can read my blog post on my new blog that goes more in depth!

http://pdxme.com/?p=181

Seattle manages to deal with the fareless bus thing much easier. They just collect fares differently depending on if the bus is inbound or outbound to the fareless zone.

If you are headed into the city, you pay on the way in. If you are headed out of the city, you pay on the way out.

If you are riding through the fareless zone, you just pay at the beginning and show your transfer at the end. Means the drivers don't have to remember.

Why must the transit system be self-sustaining? I'd rather see the entire transit system free to make it an even bolder alternative to single-occupant vehicles.

Further, the fare situation on the streetcar is absurd. The middle of it is free, the ends are charged, but they aren't far outside of the fareless area. Why not make the whole streetcar trip free? Bah.

This is a TERRIBLE idea. Lots of people take the buses from the MAX up to Portland State (the streetcars run very infrequently, and yes, they should certainly be free).

As for creating a zone of civility on the buses and the entire transit system, we can come up with better ideas than this.

Whenever I have relatives (from Boston and Calgary) visit here, they are horrified that there is a Fareless area. Especially since thier systems are all fares all the time. In fact, until Farless is eliminated in some way, my Calgary Cousin will not use any bus or light rail when he visits. I know of some business people who refuse to visit Portland because of the safety issues surrounding the Fareless area.

Farless has to go because the people who do use it, abuse it - to the point it is not safe for us or them. It's a gimmick that is way past it's usefullness.

Eric writes: "my Calgary Cousin will not use any bus or light rail when he visits..."

Uh, so what?! If someone is too stupid to use it, he can pay for a cab, walk, bike or (if he's really stupid) drive. TriMet buses do not exist for tourists anyway.

Tri-Met's whole fee structure is confounding and discriminatory. It rewards the wealthier residents who live close-in and penalizes lower-income residents who can't afford to. Any sane and equitable transit scheme would be flat-fee based and have no "fareless" area at all. In NYC, you pay per ride, whether you're traveling one stop or from the northern reaches of the Bronx to the eastern edge of Brooklyn. People are perfectly capable of deciding whether a subway or bus ride is worth their money or whether walking is a better bet. Furthermore, the simple scheme means it is so much easier always to be ready with the fare you need: one Metro card, good on any bus or subway in the city. You can put money on your card anywhere in the city, when it is running low. You can get a discount if you put at least $20 on your card, which helps keeps lines short because that's what most people do. With Tri-Met, you always have to be ready with two different kinds of tickets for different zones, and if you find yourself needing to go farther than you had anticipated, good luck finding a ticket machine that works. A flat fare would make it so much easier for people to function with a system that seems to be chronically incapable of maintaining working machines. Tri-Met should ditch Fareless Square and ditch zones. Stop subsidizing Pearl condo dwellers perfectly capable of springing for a short bus ride up the street on the backs of struggling outer Portland residents trying to get by.

So how do we replace Fred Hansen?

The unsustainable trajectory of state and local taxpayer funded subsidies to transit must be reversed. This requires establishing a step by step goal setting process to make all public transit services financially self-sustainable in the future - 60% financially self-sustainable by the year 2020, and 100% financially self-sustainable by the year 2035, if not sooner.

For TriMet to become financially self-sustainable, the first step in the process must be to increase fares, including charging for freight on transit such as transporting bicycles. Totally eliminating Fareless Square also must be part of that fare increase. Downtown Portland is a 20 minute walkable neighborhood and should not receive any special privileges other neighborhoods in Portland do not receive, including the immunity from transit fares. Totally eliminating Fareless Square will also significantly cut down on fare evasion over the entire the system

"When I hear people say TriMet's "not safe," I hear a class critique"

I disagree...especially when you get slapped in the head just because you were sitting in 'their seat' or verbally abused because you didn't give them you extra change.

The above happens more than you want to admit, but since it is considred 'expression' we can't do much about it now, can we?

The 70's FEEL GOOD idea of a FARE LESS SQUARE has longed outlived its usefulness. Now that citizens within the district are facing serious service cuts its an ABOMINATION to be offering free services to that special class of citizens that happen to inhabit downtown Portland.

Fare less square should be COMPLETELY ELIMINATED!

It clogs the system for actual commuters that are trying to LEAVE fare less, it provides a rolling shelter for people that have no where else to go, and its a enforcement nightmare.

I hardly believe the commentators remark that it is the ENVY of other cities.

That's laughable!

The only problem with Fred's decision is that it doesn't go far enough, GET RID OF FARE LESS COMPLETELY!

That’s right John, attack the automobile. That is what environmental zealots are programmed to do even though motorist paid gas taxes from the Federal Highway Trust Fund heavily subsidize and support mass transit. Instead of doing away with the welcome mat for open discussion from fourth generation native Oregonians like myself, and suggesting we move on, maybe it should be you that gets out of town.

Passenger paid transit fares (TriMet) cover only 20 to 25 percent of the operational costs of the service and little to none of the capitol costs. Motorist paid taxes and motor vehicle fees cover approximately 85 to 90 percent of roadway infrastructure costs in addition to subsidizing transit and specialized infrastructure for freeloading deadbeat bicyclists. Additionally, unlike transit service where the majority of the jobs produced (even in the private sector) are taxpayer funded, taxpayer subsidized and/or in one way or another under government contract; one in every ten jobs in the US are tied to the auto industry – the majority of them private sector jobs. The biggest threat to the environment and sustainability of our planet is the over population of the human race. Instead of enacting socialistic controls that endeavor to dictate the lifestyle, housing and transportation choices of the people that include the basic freedoms this country was founded upon, politicians and preservationists need to address and find incentives that inspire a reduction in population growth rather than attempting to accommodate it. Yes transit provides a service that a small percentage of the population actually uses, but paying for it has also become the ultimate government controlled ponzi scheme.

The system of fareless ride should not be abolished. No where in the world this type of system prevails. If the operational cost structures are available for viewing then I think lots of cities around the world would be interested in adopting such systems in their down town areas. It is also true that most of the cities of the world have their mass transit systems heavily subsidized but I think if a futuristic mass transit system could be developed which would use up and down elevated tracks then operational cost would go down. In my science fiction novel MEGALOPOLIS ONE 2080 A.D. I have given the engineering details of such a system.Please visit the website http://www.eloquentbooks.com/MegalopolisOne2080AD.html

First of all, TriMet's operations budget (e.g. the part which pays for Fareless Square) is not $874 million (actually $874,537,509) but $344,639,563 (though funds for certain other divisions could potentially be transferred to it).

But has been noted, with MAX coming on the mall, we're only talking about a) east-west service besides on Morrison/Yamhill and the streetcar route and, b) stops on the mall between MAX stations. Also, the general manager has said that there would be a pass for seniors/elderly who live downtown and need the extra stops.

Overall, we need to solve the real problem: the fact that downtown has to compete with suburban areas which have lots of "free" (100% subsidized) parking, get subsidized road funding like from Washington County's MSTIP and Clackamas urban renewal, and often don't have to pay the extra costs it takes to serve less dense development. And there's also motorist subsidies given to motorists like part of the pollution-cleaning Big Pipe and Interstate Highway financing.

Jeff first the transit market should be opened to competition. As it is the little guy is given the shaft in all of this. Poor people, or low income workers have it difficult in getting adequate transportation to and from jobs and we instead are helping the well to do developers.

This is why people like me have given up on the Democrats and instead focus on open markets. Just open the damn things up and get the Boot on the Neck Party off of my neck.

John Calhoun:

We should end the public transit subsidy just as soon as we can tax auto drivers for the full external cost they charge to the community....road subsidies from the general fund

Bob T:

I always get a kick out of this one. Okay, we'll talk about any subsidies from the "general fund", but only after rail projects no longer get a huge chunk of the gas tax money the drivers pay. In other words, don't take billions of gas tax dollars and then complain that auto drivers aren't paying their share.

John Calhoun:

sprawl infrastructure

Bob T:

Developers pay for much of this, more than you know. For example, a new subdivision with, say, a total of a half-mile of streets. The developer pays, and then when the subdivision is open for residential use the streets are turned over to the appropriate local government. And I doubt the city, free of charge, extends water pipes and adds pump stations.

Bob Tiernan Portland

,traffic police, sprawl infrastructure, etc. are costs that autos incur but are not paid by the owners.

John Calhoun:

As a small business owner I was paying a lot more than the bus fee. A monthly pass didn't make sense because I wasn't using it daily. The cost for a lot of the short trips seemed high. My choice would be to walk (not so fun in the rain) or skip the trip or drive on my way out of town. Sure I could pay the fee, but usually with correct change only it became a hassle.

Bob T:

Again, if you have to pay a fee the bus is still there. Don't equate the end of fareless square with a disappearance of the transit option. In this case, I'm not sure the bus option is to remain much of an otion even in one particular corridor downtown, once MAX starts up between Union Station and thru the bus mall.

Fareless square served (and will continue to serve) the purpose of increasing ridership numbers with rides that really don't mean much when you're talking about emissions and easing parking shortages. Three co-workers near 10th Ave who jump on Max to have lunch at Kells are insignificant rides. Their true alternatives would be to eat somewhere closer (short walk away), or eat in the workplace.

Bob Tiernan Portland

Chris Lowe:

one of the arguments for keeping Fareless Square for trains is that tourists supposedly find these more attractive. So arguing that the trains will replace the buses say for PSU students or others who need to get around downtown kind of runs against that argument, as you will end up with much more crowded, less tourist-friendly trains.

Bob T:

I don't know our rail options have to be tourist-friendly. if they are passenger-friendly, that's enough. When I planned my trip to Boston I looked into their rail options and decided to stay in Braintree, right across the street from a Red-Line station. I paid fares when I went in, and paid fares for short runs when in downtown if my time had run out. I expected to pay fares like I expected to pay hotel bills (and rental car, which I didn't take into the city but used to visit relatives in Norwood and Millis).

Bob Tiernan Portland

Chris Lowe:

...Curious what you'd think of that?

Bob T:

That's a lot -- check back Monday evening.

Bob Tiernan Portland

The only thing that light rail does for the community is to occasionally run over a free-loading commuter.

Pay for enforcement, or scrap fairless square. Light rail is unusable Friday mornings.

Full disclosure: I am a Hummer salesman and aim at cyclists.

Chris Lowe:

Bob T., you are evading the central weight of John Calhoun's argument, which is not road subsidies from the general fund, but costs of auto and truck transport that are externalized onto the environmental commons, the public health, and the public fisc. These include toxic air, water, soil, noise and heat pollution

Bob T:

I've never claimed to have the answers for all of these things, but I still need to see people acknowledge that a large chunk of gas tax money is taken for other purposes before anyone cries out that the drivers are not paying enough.

What you say about gasoline-powered vehicles (and that must be what drives the argument) can also be said about electric vehicles (light rail included) since the electricity is generated by burning coal, out of sight, out of mind.

I'll get to the rest of your list, but I can say that wealth is necessary for coming up with technologies for fighting pollution, so in some ways it can be said that our economy indirectly pays for much of this even if its not acknowledged. It was hard to come up with solutions hundreds of years ago when there was lots of pollution being spewed into the air by people trying to cook and keep warm, and with no sanitation system as we know it, but with no research and industrial capacity for dealing with anything. London is a lot less polluted now than it was in the 1600s for example.

Let me look at you list items.

toxic air, water, soil....pollution, both directly from vehicles...greenhouse gas pollutants

Don't you think we are always finding more and better ways to deal with these, and that in part it is made possible due to the wealth of the typical industrialized nation? Keep in mind that America's use of fossil fuels is divided into these categories (and note that there's some overlap so it comes out to more than 100%):

• 28% for transportation (incl air travel)
• 40% for generation of electric power
• 20% for direct heating
• 32% for industry

Yet we are cleaner than less industrialized or wealthy nations such as China and India because they have yet to catch up to us in having the capacity and the wealth and knowing how to go about it.

noise

Yes, it's a noisier world. Is new urbanism, with its goal of 5,000 or more people per square mile, going to be quiet? Maybe that's an unfair comment, but I do believe in trying to isolate the noise when we can, while recognizing that there are trade-offs. Trade-offs have been with us since the beginning. I doubt you can find too many people who'll vote for the end of air travel in order to eliminate that source of noise, for example.

heat pollution, both directly from vehicles and as a consequence of large impervious paved areas

I agree that too much paving is going on, but keep in mind that a lot of paving is required by stupid government mandates and codes regarding parking lots and even sidewalks. I've seen low-traffic intersections (such as SE Ochoco and SE Main) where the city came and put in new sidewalk sections at each of the four corners, stretching perhaps 25 feet in each direction, complete with ramp sections for wheelchair access, even though in my almost four years of working nearby we saw about one pedestrian per week.

But that's nothing compared to the unnecessary paving that goes on with all of the development. Is this mandated (perhaps to provide contracts for favored contributors, if not city workers?). You might want to find out. I think unpaved parking lots, once thought too rustic or unclean, should make a comeback in urban areas. Small gravel rocks are about all you need. The trade-off might be some lumpy areas. So what.

The paving or hard-surfacing of main roads started long before cars were imagined, and there were a number of good reasons for this that I hope you can acknowledge. The trend was for such roads -- heck, two of the major voices demanding improved, hard-surfaced roads connecting many towns and going many miles out into the countryside were the railroads, and (believe it or not) organized bicycling clubs.

I also think that driveways do not have to be paved. Is that a mandate? I don't know. Apparently many people who have gravel (or barely graveled) driveways next to their older homes are not exactly lining up to have them paved over.

social costs of auto crash mortality, and social and medical costs of auto crash injuries and long-term or permanent debilities and disabilities, just for starters

Nah, I'm not going to get into this one. I take driving safety seriously and think that more should be done, with an emphasis on law enforcement to see lane-changers or lane-weavers are far more of a problem than someone doing, say, 45 in a 30 zone in the same lane all the way.

But I can't take enough of this complain seriously enough since the same issue exists even if all cars were running on hydrogen fuel. Do you want non- or barely-polluting vehicles, or do you want to get rid of cars altogether? Will lighter, pie-plate thick cars (great mileage) cause more fatalities? If we get lighter cars for better mileage standards, will Ralph Nader sue the automakers when the death rate skyrockets? (But wait -- composite materials will soon be used, and they can be light yet strong. This is one of the by-products of wealth created by an industrialized nation that has to burn fuel to get to that point).

Chris Lowe:

To that we might add items such as the literal physical destruction of places like the old Lents Town Center in Portland by I-205, or the thousands upon thousands of rural small towns and small businesses that have been gutted since the 1950s by being by-passed by the interstate highway system

Bob T:

I don't have anything against the Interstate Highway System, but keep in mind that the people who ruined it (in the urban areas) were the politicians who had the clout to manipulate the routing to provide various advantages to many interests. That was not the idea. It would have been better off had the highways been allowed to steer clear of the urban centers, with exits a dozen or so miles from the edge. Instead, here in Portland, we got stuck with the east bank section, and a little farther north, a now-too-narrow section running past the Rose Quarter area that will be very difficult to expand, and the dangerous curves from the Terwilliger area to the Marquam Bridge - very curvey for an interstate.

I can't exactly buy your argument about all those towns that were bypassed by the Interstate System. In many ways, they're lucky. But let me get this straight -- are you saying that by being bypassed they became less attractive places to live (due to perhaps permanent or chronic job loss)? Wouldn't that make the residents give up and move to the big cities? Isn't that what many people want to see happen?

Chris Lowe:

or the neighborhoods whose quality of life is lessened in various ways by having high-speed arterials or even the next level down run through them, and the destruction of farmland and other vulnerable or restricted availability high utility land for roads and housing developments. This is just off the top of my head.

Bob T:

As for Lents, and other places divided by a newer Interstate Bypass or major arterial, that could also happen when a rail line goes in (and I also mean serious rail corridors such as what we might have had in the absence of the auto). I'm not sure if all of these things should always be considered in such negative ways. You can't freeze everything as it was, although there were better ways to do these projects.

Chris Lowe:

And, of course, public transit and cycling both contribute to the quality and expense of driving by reducing the number of cars on the road, thus reducing both congestion and road wear.

Bob T:

Yeah, I hear that one a lot. As if bus/rail/bike riders are doing the rest of us a favor. At least the cyclists are doing it on their own dime. But many, many of the transit users would not be auto owners/users otherwise for they'd live even closer to where they work.

By the way, so-call transit-oriented high density projects contribute a great deal to congestion, and this pollution, despite the hoopla to the contrary. You see, when an apartment complex is built next to or within a few blocks of a light rail line, you'll get perhaps one car per each unit. And almost all of these people will drive to work and other places despite the proximity of a rail and bus line. Traffic surveys reveal this -- I've participated in some of these. That means that without adding any road capacity, scores of additional autos are shoe-horned into that area. Add numerous projects like this along these corridors (even mile-wide corridors) and that's a heckuva lot of cars and pollution injected into the area, all under the dream of imaginary rail cars bursting with all the new residents.

Oh, and what is congestion, according to you? Not that I want to nitpick on something, but there seems to be a misunderstanding as to what this is. Many people seem to believe that congestion is a lengthy commute, even if the driver averages a decent rate of speed and stops only at the usual traffic lights and stop signs. Let's say, a commute from Tigard to McMinnville without any bunching up other than at some intersections. But that's not "congestion". That's merely a longer commute than many others have. I'll stick to defining congestion as very slow progress to go relatively short distances.

Chris Lowe:

Back around 1980 the father of a college friend of mine used to rail (so to speak) against the public subsidy of otherwise less efficient truck freight over rail freight in terms of using taxes to build and maintain the highways. What ultimately did down so much of the old rail networks was lack of reinvestment in maintenance. What he proposed was putting rail and road on comparable footing: not having the state own the entire railroad system as in most of the rest of the world, but having the state own and maintain the railbeds, while letting private companies compete in using them, just as with trucks and the highway system. Curious what you'd think of that?

Bob T:

Sounds interesting to me. I've always been hesitant to really compare a light rail (for example) and an expressway because in the former case the tracks cannot be used by individually-propelled vehicles entering and exiting in a regulated manner. People can complain about the costs of roads but people supply their own vehicles for the most part.

As for other rail, I think many tracked sections became worn out because trucking became more efficient at moving freight (and by the way, it was pretty stupid to regulate trucking like it was rail, but rail wanted that because they recognized this advantage and fortunately trucking was de-regulated in that manner). Rail transport of freight is apparently making a comeback for some reason, or so I've read in the past year. To get back to your point, if we did have rail government-owned ("public") rights-of-way, and if government wasn't petty and stupid, we could actually see an increase in use of rail by having multiple companies of various sizes use the tracks, and maybe there'll be more passenger rail lines. I'm no big fan of Amtrak, and I often wonder if we could have rail versions of freighters, i.e. passenger cars attached to freight trains. If many people are not looking for Cadillac service, they should be allowed to try lower-frills service. But in the shared track idea, there can be separate passenger lines. If we can get beyond seeing longer rail travel as fancy excursions and instead see it as just another way to get somewhere, a certain level can be found. I know Amtrak does use tracks owned by railroad firms, but that's an exception up to those lines, and the freight gets priority. I know all about the Amtrak stories since my folks spend three days in a sleeper car coming here every summer. The option has some appeal to me, and the only trip I can see as somewhat worth paying for (to avoid driving at least) would be going down to the Bay area. The cost of the private mini-room is a lot, however (and maybe worth it, once) -- but no wonder so many people opt to buy a $125 airline ticket and get there in 90 minutes.

One more thing, not that you want to get into this, but I believe rail service (freight and passenger) might very well be more efficient and common had we not had all of that railroad regulation in the 1870-1900 period. The railroad barons wanted that regulation, by the way, despite what many people believe. In the end, inefficiency was rewarded. Protections (in the form of "regulations") do tend to reward ineffciency, or at least to insulate companies from market forces that they should, by nature, be forced to deal with. Sadly, Bush and now Obama have rewarded firms in similar ways, at least in protecting them from market forces. Many big railroads were finding competition too tough in the old days (too bad), so lobbied for "regulations" that were ways of limiting competition. But too many people have been taught that these regulations were forced on them for various reasons. Well, no. The competition was good, and some going out of business has its good side. But some didn't want that, so lobbied for intervention. You might want to check out an obscure book that's in the Mult Co library system (I have my own copy) - "Railroads and Regulation, 1877-1916", by Gabriel Kolko, a socialist-leaning writer who nevertheless respects facts and prepared to accept reality over myth.

Bob Tiernan Portland

Chris Lowe:

While I understand that you are probably saying just do away with Fareless Square altogether, the implication of your remarks may well be that if TriMet is going to do it in half-measures, they ought to leave the fares on the MAX if that's what they want the tourists to ride.

Bob T:

That was a comment on fareless square in general, i.e. why should the presence of tourists have anything to so with it? Tri-Met is a transit agency (and not a very good one) and should have no policy regarding tourists other than what higher ups (local or state government) tell them to do.

By the way, note that there's an odd double standard regarding tourists, as local politicians see it. Car rental and hotel/motel taxes get increased from time to time, justified by "sticking it" to the tourists (who don't vote here) who are often described as leeches who come here and "use" our services etc w/o paying. Yet they are treated with free transit rides in fareless square (where they might spend all or most of their time). Never mind that many local people often need to rent vehicles (no exemption exists, so far as I know).

Chris Lowe:

I do think that the thinking here, insofar as it can be called that, is oriented to the Rose Quarter and Lloyd District, which both have the problems of being pedestrian unfriendly once you get off, hard to navigate, and just plain ugly, mostly due to being close to highways & quasi-highways & their junctions. I guess the hotels in Lloyd district end up making them some kind of tourist destination.

Bob T:

Again, the absence of fareless square doesn't mean that the buses and trains are not there just the same. The fact that I had to pay fares to go from Braintree into Boston didn't stop me--in fact, I was eager to go and was not put off by fares anymore than I was put off by not getting a free lunch at Durgin-Park.

Chris Lowe:

Conversely I think that PSU environs have a potential to be a place of interest for visitors if developed the right way, and that PSU ought to figure much more largely in these decisions, both from the point of view of the needs of students & workers on a commuter campus to get there, and of connecting students, staff and faculty to downtown for the benefit of downtown commerce.

Bob T:

We have a real problem here if this city, with so many people bragging about having mass transit to use and it being the "right thing to do", will not ride as often if they have to pay.

Chris Lowe:

This decision just seems arbitrary and random to me.

Bob T:

I don't think it's random--I think it's obvious and easy. Buses are not much of a presence in downtown and will be less so in a few months. Compare this to the attempt to end fareless square a few years ago at least after 7 pm or so, in order to deal with similar problems of problem passenger. They were going after easy targets, i.e. those people using MAX after the peak periods. Since they are not the bulk of the key ridership (few are going to work), Tri-Met didn't care and would have been able to make it appear as if they were doing something. I was at one if the hearings and spoke with Amanda Fritz about it afterwards and she saw it the same way.

Could there be some way of charging a quarter or 50 cents for rides in downtown?

Chris Lowe:

(BTW, I grew up in Needham, used to use the Green line (light rail) to get into the city, transferred to Red to get to Cambridge, tho' it required either a lift from my parents or parking somewhere in Newton at the beginning & end. My father used commuter rail to get to work, a publishing company close to the State House, had to transfer at South Station. Those trains ran on lines whose origins went back to the mid-1800s probably. Not so sure about Red Line in Braintree, & of course those trains like Blue Line are heavier, more like NY subway.)

Bob T:

I used several lines once I was in the downtown area (for going over to near Bunker Hill, for example) and they all appeared the same. They were actually good at moving people to where they needed to go, or close by, in large numbers, and therefore there's no reason for Boston PR people to constantly brag about how neat it is to have the system. A real working system instead of a brochure item.

Once in the city I did get around mostly by walking as I was taking it all in since in all of my boyhood and young adult visits to Norwood from the mid-60s to 1984 I had never been taken into the city save for a boring trip to the Ice Capades. It's a great downtown to walk around. That's why I went twice in two years, and need to go a few more times.

Bob Tiernan Portland

<hr/>