17 Responses to “ “Proposed TriMet service cuts and Fareless Square changes”

1. indy says:

   February 14, 2009 at 2:07 pm

   None of these particularly impact me. The MAX reduction seems somewhat drastic, but it probably saves significant cash. I’ve been on the first MAX out to the airport and had to stand before.

   Unlike our federal government, which seems to increase tax revenue spending when there is less of it, this plan makes sense to me.

   What will be the results as far as wage freezes for salaries/hourly employees of Tri-met? They should be frozen, as pretty much every other business and government office are also freezing pay increases…

   Also, has Tri-met ever used volunteers for work? I am thinking for example about when a bridge route is out, hiring stewards to help people find a bus or track.

   Reply
2. Fran says:

   February 14, 2009 at 3:58 pm

   I’m not surprised that they will hit the Yellow line harder than the others. Par for the course.

   However, I’ve been riding MAX for 9 months now, almost the entire length of the Yellow line and have been asked to show my proof of fare a grand total of FOUR times! I really think they could balance their budget if they just made a serious effort to enforce the fares.

   Reply
3. Christian says:

   February 14, 2009 at 4:12 pm

   Fran – completely agree. I think there are SO MANY MISSED REVENUE POSSIBILITIES with how fare is not heavily enforced.

   In any case, I’m formulating some thoughts and will probably have a post for them.

   Reply
4. Kevin says:

   February 14, 2009 at 10:01 pm

   Speaking of missed revenue possibilities there were three people at the Max stop today who were smoking in clear view of the “NO SMOKING” signs. If each of those people were given the maximum fine fare evaders get ($250) that would come out to $750. Given that there are CONSTANTLY PEOPLE SMOKING in clear view of the “NO SMOKING” signs Tri-Met could easily bring in thousands of dollars each day in fines if it wanted to. Right now fare and smoking ban enforcement are a joke and Tri-Met once agains decides to cut service instead of enforcing IT’S OWN RULES!

   Reply
5. Christian says:

   February 15, 2009 at 12:39 am

   Definitely agree, Kevin. Seriously. Not one single day goes by that I see someone or stand by someone smoking at a MAX / bus stop.

   It’s not only sad from the standpoint of these individuals lighting up right in front of a “No Smoking” sign… but it’s even sadder that we don’t have TriMet officials giving these individuals tickets. Let’s not even give them a warning – give them a $250. Hey, there’s a good chunk of lost revenue!

   Reply
6. Ed Borasky says:

   February 15, 2009 at 3:03 pm

   I think Fareless Square should be eliminated across the board. The fares are quite reasonable, and most regular Tri-Met riders buy monthly passes anyhow. Just make it part of zone one. You might have to have three fare classes: one zone, two zones and all / three zones.

   Reply
7. Kyle Meyer says:

   February 15, 2009 at 8:36 pm

   @Ed Borasky: I come from the other side of the coin; I live in Old Town, work downtown, play in Northwest, and go to school at PSU. Fareless Square is not just a nicety for the occasional downtown visitor, it is part of what makes downtown Portland so dense and livable. It’s a dedication to the philosophy of strong urban planning and makes this city renown throughout the country as a great one to live in.

   Taking away Fareless Square has an impact on every resident of downtown and promotes moving out of the core of the city, something our planners have been working against for over a hundred years.

   Reply
8. Adron says:

   February 15, 2009 at 10:49 pm

   I’d have to say, the smoking fines would be AWESOME. I HATE being the person asking people to stop puffing that stink rat mess around the platforms. It’s disgusting.

   I realized recently. If a baby poops itself, mother then takes baby to the wash room and clean baby up. Why don’t people when smoking go to the wash room and clean themselves up? Seriously, many smokers smell far worse than a baby poop. The difference is smokers chose to smoke, babies just have to poop. They aren’t enabled to not poop.

   Yeah yeah, I know, silly analogy, but damn spot on.

   So yeah, TriMet should start dinging smokers left and right.

   In addition to that please just bounce up those fares and get solid enforcement at the key points. It doesn’t have to be frequent, just frequent enough to prevent evaders and collect some revenue!

   As for the MAX cuts, that really sucks, but I can see the reasons. During the slow periods MAX is stupidly expensive to operate, but during the busy periods MAX is absurdly cheap to operate compared to bus service.

   …anyway, done ranting. This whole “shock” and “amazed” thing people seem to go through every time they realize TriMet has ZERO money and is heavily subsidized (yes, some people think it is a private company that operates in honest competition) never ceases to amaze me.

   TriMet runs by the skin of its teeth, if we want service at some point, either in fare or in tax or fees, we HAVE to pay for it if we want it. I’m ready to pay, anyone else out there?

   Reply
9. BryanK says:

   February 16, 2009 at 2:45 am

   I haven’t been able to find the answer to a question I have — perhaps someone here has an answer.

   If a ticket is written by a TriMet fare inspector (or a police officer for that matter), is it really the case that TriMet would receive the amount of the collected fine as revenue?

   If a police officer writes a traffic ticket, there is some split of the fine between the state, the court, and the jurisdiction that wrote the ticket. In a non-traffic matter (i.e. no valid fare or smoking where not allowed), I’m not sure what the split is, or who would collect the fine proceeds.

   I haven’t been able to find the details yet in the original statutes, but I suspect that this matter is not as simple as (1) officer writes a ticket for $250 to a violator and (2) $250 goes to TriMet when he pays the fine. I suspect TriMet gets something out of it, but not the whole amount.

   Can anyone reliably confirm or deny this, or provide info on how much of the fine goes to whom?

   Reply
10. David C says:

    February 18, 2009 at 2:19 am

    Greetings Christian!

    My take on the fares, Fareless Square and the service cuts, (from another TM op): Many of these things would have to be implemented simultaneously to work correctly.

    1: Eliminate transfers altogether. They are one of the biggest hassles out there. I heard C-Tran tried to do that once a few years back but had to reinstate them due to some federal stipulation..TriMet has better “pull” with the feds.

    2: Make the CASH fare $ 1.00–EVERY TIME you board. NO transfers. I believe they will actually make more money in the grand scheme of things. Heck, even $ 1.25, and $ 1.00 seniors/youth..

    Transfers will no longer exist, so no arguments about not enough time, wrong day code, cheating, etc. STILL ALLOW AND ENCOURAGE pass purchase (seniors & youth only would still receive fare “discounts” through advance ticket or pass purchase; just not necessarily at the farebox. A nickel increase at the farebox to seniors would be the only “visible” increase, and most of them are putting in $ 1.00 now.

    3: Retrofit the current farebox to allow “SMARTcards” that can either be swiped or scanned; to allow a pre-paid cash amount to be put on the card and be deducted upon “use” at the box. I know of several cities that use this system already; using GFI fareboxes (same farebox as ours, newer software..where have we run into that before..MAX platforms?) and smaller systems, with success.

    4: Create a new route, with say, 4 to 6 buses (to allow for heavy frequency and loads to start), that runs STRICTLY within the current boundries of Fareless Square. Put a special vinyl overwrap on the outside of these buses to CLEARLY identify these buses as operating only in the downtown fareless zone and even go as far as removing or completely covering the farebox.

    Now, finally, in addition to Bus Operators, who ARE NOT fare inspectors or Cops, “man” these buses with off-duty Portland Police officers doing volunteer paid overtime or with exissting Transit Cops. Either way word gets out fast that these buses won’t be a branch office for the dealers or your local motel 6. Having these officers on board will also ensure you won’t have a problem getting an operator to bid the run..no fares to collect AND full time “security”…
    Once the route has been established a while, only then could you CONSIDER switching to Wackenhut; since Portland PD would be close by..

    5: With the creation of #4 above, NO OTHER BUS OR ROUTE will be fareless, even those going through downtown. This is why you make the “fareless” buses wrapped in very “loud” vinyl to stand out- to make sure even tourists understand their purpose.

    6: Continue “fareless” with the MAX as it stands, with the current zone, but step up enforcement within the zone and at it’s boundaries.

    7: Start charging for some of the parking Trimet now provides free of charge for the areas closest to the downtown core (Sunset, Gateway, Parkrose, etc) It doesn’t have to be extravagant, and if you are a “regular” monthly pass holder, you get a discount. (admittingly, I’m not a big fan of this one.)

    8: As other posters have noted, step up dramatically the enforcement of existing rules & fines (smoking, fares, etc.) Safe & Comfortable has to be more than a punchline.

    9: Reduce service on the lowest producing routes. Eliminate as a last resort.

    Many of the routes TriMet has under target for reduction/elimantion have empty buses running on them a good part of the time and could be utilized better elsewhere. I have had times I operate with one or two people an hour (if that) on the bus.

    Service reduction/elimination always sucks, but in all honesty, if the reductions are making it 1/4 mile to the next bus service, it is still quite a bit better than most transit services.

    There you have it. Not all are popular, but sometimes it has to sting a little.

    Reply
11. Christian says:

    February 18, 2009 at 9:58 am

    David – wow, great comment. I think that idea about clearly indicating a bus that runs only within fareless square is a nifty idea. Not sure if it could truly work but I like the idea.

    And yep, #8 has been hit on several times in this thread of comments. It’s missed revenue! It really is.

    Reply
12. Shanana says:

    February 18, 2009 at 3:46 pm

    When I lived in Orlando there was a bus downtown that you could ride for free that traveled a big loop. It was marked differently from other buses so it was obvious it was the ‘free downtown only’ bus. I think something like that is a great alternative to the current Fareless Square system.

    Reply
13. Erik H. says:

    February 19, 2009 at 8:12 pm

    Responding to David C.’s comments:

    #1. I don’t think that C-Tran eliminated transfers for a federal reason – many transit agencies don’t provide transfers, in fact Cherriots doesn’t – but it had to do with creating the express fares.

    I’m not sure if I’d totally eliminate transfers, because some routes would be completely useless without the ability to conveniently transfer. I’d suggest that at transfer points an Operator can provide a transfer that’s limited to transferring to another bus at that location only, and is a one-time transfer. The second bus collects the transfer.

    Another solution that I have is to eliminate the concept of paying for a “ride”, but paying for “time on the transit system”. I think that for a set fare (i.e. $2.00) you should be able to get two hours of a ride in.

    #3 – the fareboxes are out there. Here’s a picture of one:

    http://www.gfigenfare.com/Products/Prod_Ody.html

    (This one is even more extensive – it supports contactless cards, magstripe cards, coin and paper currency – and can even process credit/debit cards!)

    #4/#5 – EXCELLENT idea. I believe that downtown could support a circulator bus that hits up the tourist spots, run it every 15-20 minutes with specially decorated buses, and IT be the free bus. Just like Seattle’s Waterfront “Streetcar” bus.

    #6 – I disagree, fareless needs to not discriminate against bus and MAX riders. It’s either fareless regardless of mode or everyone pays a fare. There is no reason why MAX should continue to be free, since this is where the fare evasion problem exists. (It’s TriMet’s P.R. machine trying to make it a bus problem, when it wasn’t in the first place. Yes, there is SOME evasion, but there is far, far more on the MAX system.)

    #7 – I think $10/day for parking is not unreasonable. Why should I as a “door-to-door” bus rider subsidize a free parking lot? Since many of the folks who support projects like MAX and the Streetcar complain that motorists get a “free ride” with “subsidized parking”, this is a perfect example of subsidized parking.

    #9 – this should be the last resort. Yes, there are a few bus lines that are…well…unprofitable. But TriMet is a public utility. Electric companies don’t get to pick and choose their customers, they have to provide the same service whether you’re in downtown Portland, or at the end of a half-mile long line extension in the middle of nowhere. Same with the water/sewer districts, or the telephone and cable companies.

    I believe that as long as the area is paying TriMet taxes, it deserves good quality TriMet service. Else TriMet has a moral, and legal, obligation to say “We can’t serve you”, immediately cease all tax collecting activities, and redraw the district map. Note that TriMet’s 84-Kelso/Boring route is not proposed for elimination – because TriMet doesn’t want to walk away from the tax revenue. Yet it’s TriMet’s worst performing route and doesn’t even serve an area that makes sense for bus service.

    Reply
14. Kevin says:

    March 5, 2009 at 10:28 pm

    It’s frustrating to see Tri-Met whine about not having enough money when they continue to not enforce their own rules. I ride the Max frequently and almost always encounter several people smoking at each stop. In addition it’s been roughly six months since my fare has been checked. Tri-Met is bleeding money left and right yet they want to take it out on people who pay to ride and who don’t smoke at Max or bus stops!

    Reply
15. Ed says:

    March 6, 2009 at 12:02 am

    #4 – part 2: security
    We MUST have some form of consistent and visible police and/or private security force present on public transportation simply because the public is there.
    Local TV news wonks show outraged citizens who seem to forget that it is not the MAX trains that cause an increase in crime, it’s the increase in riders.
    ANY place there is a large number of people (concerts, state fairs, protests) there is a proportional increase in crime.
    I imagine jurisdictional squabbling hinders implementing this across 3 counties and I can’t guess how many city and town police departments. Perhaps a public transit system needs to be treated as it’s own jurisdiction.
    Oh, and it could stand to be funded enough to do it’s job.

    Reply
16. David C. says:

    March 16, 2009 at 6:56 pm

    Erik H.-
    There are a few of us (You, Christian, Adron, Al & I to name some) that follow the same couple of blogs, and I always look forward to reading your insight and input, because it gives me a perspective on some the facts and info I wouldn’t have any idea where to go to get them. (no ego stroking here, just truth)

    I appreciate your input on “the list”; I still believe that there can be a way to eliminate transfers..at least in the severity as we currently know them. They are such a thorn in the side of Operators…

    I like the idea of $10. a day for the parking…and the downtown shuttle, here is an example of one city’s service:
    http://www.rtcwashoe.com/public-transportation-11
    (RTC Sierra Spirit)

    Thanks for the farebox example…nice! Where’s ours?

    As for MAX and Bus rides downtown..the only way I can see eliminating the “fareless” zone for MAX would be to have security/police ride the whole old fareless zone nearly indefinetly to enforce the new pay policy. Suggestions?

    David

    Reply
17. Ryan says:

    April 1, 2009 at 5:16 pm

    When is Tri-Met going to lower our fares??? With cuts in service and massive raise increases last year, riding a bus isn’t even cost effective for me anymore – 6 miles from work takes me an hour on 2 busses (and a LONG walk between them downtown) or 15 minutes driving, and at $4.60 a day to ride the bus, it’s just too expensive for what I get. Tri-Met raised fares last year due to gas increases, well gas got cheaper but did they lower their fares again?

    And tearing out the old bus mall was a terrible idea, the new shelters don’t shield against the rain and I see bad things happening with mixed bus, car and rail traffic… was kind of nice having a bus-only route. Too many buses now don’t go to the ‘bus mall’ – like the 43, doesn’t go anywhere near alot of the other lines. But I digress.

    Reply
18. TriMet finalizes service cuts | TriMetiquette says:

    April 21, 2009 at 8:53 am

    [...] discussions and thousands of comments, TriMet has finalized its list of MAX and bus service cuts.  Things look very similar to the original plan except for some changes to bus lines 31, 63, 89, 152 and 157 – the service cuts to these five bus [...]

    Reply