That seems like a remarkably balanced and considered approach, for which I applaud the PBA. Of course, they can't afford the bad press of shooting from the hip like Trimet.

I think this elimination of fareless square is just a fare increase disguised as a "solution" to intimidation and danger on the MAX. If not, then Tri-Met can use the additional fares to reduce fares overall.

Like THAT's going to happen!

Tell me again: How is it that requiring fares after dark will eliminate the problems?

It seems logical to me that if I were a dipshit who wanted to rob people and the price of doing so was just $1.75, I'd go ahead and pay it.

It also seems logical that if the thugs were moved off the buses and trains, they could just as easily mug people at the stops.

Duh!

Personally, I was intimidated on the MAX between Lloyd Center and downtown a year ago and I have no evidence whatsoever that the two fellows who decided I needed to have a bad day didn't pay their fares. Surely, if they had paid fares I would have been in exactly the same situation.

BTW, to my knowledge not one person on the crowded train called "911" on my behalf, either, so the innocent riders can be listed as part of the problem as well.

A number of uniformed officers and an unspecified number of plainclothes offers riding the vehicles would provide a lot more protection than fooling around with the fare structure.

"It's not about the money." (Really!) Fareless Square was first instituted in 1975, about the same time the first monthly passes were introduced. Prior to the (now-widespread) use of passes, downtown business interests and transit advocates both pushed for Fareless Square because it enabled people to commute by transit (paying once on the way to work and then again on the way home) and still be able to hop around downtown at lunch hour or whatever without paying an additional fare in the middle of the day. Today, with about 50% of transit riders using monthly or annual passes, Fareless Square is much less significant both in terms of an inducement for ridership or a revenue hit to TriMet. Bottom line: the Fareless Square proposal really isn't about the money, and, frankly, is not as important to the users as it would have been at one time.

"Fareless Square proposal really isn't about the money, and, frankly, is not as important to the users as it would have been at one time."

It's important to me and it might be important to others. However, given Tri-met's unbelievable sham of a "public hearing" this week, it makes it hard for anyone to assess that, doesn't it?

Fareless square is something I have been using since I moved here. I often walk from Irvington to MAX at Lloyd Center then bus it around downtown all day and sometimes into the evenings. In fact, I've been carless since May '07 in part because of the ease of use of buses and Max in the fareless area. In addition, I'd still like to see some numbers and rational analysis from Tri-met backing up their claims and assessment that fareless square should be eliminated and the tradeoffs if it is. As of yet, we have not seen any and that's just bad public policy and bad public outreach and input.

Thanks

It's still sort of a matter of principle though. I didn't ride around a ton when I worked downtown but it was worth it when I needed it. I'm not so jaded that I realize a lot of people who would hop on a bus or max for free for an errand will jump in their cars if it costs $2 to get on the max or streetcar to ride 8 blocks. Who cares if it costs more to operate. I thought that was the point. It's better for all of us to pay a little extra so that most of us don't have to deal with a constant traffic nightmare. Just seems like good sense to have fareless square. What does it cost to prosecute a