Thanks, Amy, for keeping those of us posted that could not be there today. I am so interested to hear what they do tonight as far as changing the format! As an Old Town resident, I use Fareless Square all the time. I am very confident that I would drive in bad weather rather than take the bus and pay - parking for a quick trip is cheaper and does not require exact change with a debit card. I imagine that I am far from alone.

Thanks, Amy, for keeping those of us posted that could not be there today. I am so interested to hear what they do tonight as far as changing the format! As an Old Town resident, I use Fareless Square all the time. I am very confident that I would drive in bad weather rather than take the bus and pay - parking for a quick trip is cheaper and does not require exact change with a debit card. I imagine that I am far from alone.

Holy sh-t! Anecdotal? She admitted that? It sounds like Tri-Met riders have some anecdotes of their own.

As long as we're making changes based on anecdote, how about addressing all of the anecdotal data I know for certain you got during recent surveying, TriMet, from riders of the 15-Belmont about how frequently the bus either (1) is too full to pick anyone up or (2) never comes at all, leaving you standing there for 30-45 minutes on this "frequent service" route?

b!X is on to something here. Shifting the burden of proof for major public policy changes from evidence to anecdote could really loosen up and potentially resolve a large number of community problems.

As an experienced public-meeting-goer, I can imagine almost an infinite number of solutions to a finite number of problems! Huzzah! I am now tearing up my public administration degree.

Last month there was a robbery at a house in NE Portland. The thieves are believed to have got there and back by car. Most break-ins happen after 7pm. Therefore, we should charge a toll for any cars on the roads after 7pm.

Ah, anecdotal evidence from the Portland Police. Always worrisome.

So are people less well behaved in Fareless? What accounts for the disparity? Or are the police officer/tri-met inspectors/Wackenhut goons just frustrated because they can't confront people for name and ticket in the zone?

To quote the mayor's report on an earlier issue created by police anecdotes:

"What we find more troubling than the disparity itself is an evident lack of institutional curiosity at the Bureau for determining, early and aggressively, if such a disparity existed."

At this evening's testimony meeting, I was struck by the sheer sense of entitlement the speakers expressed about free transit. Almost everyone who spoke expressed sentiment that they deserve to have transit provided to them for free.

Free transit is great, but do downtown riders deserve to have it--at the expense of people who live and work outside Fareless Square? I'm shocked that people don't realize it may be free to you, but it's not really free. Trimet drivers don't work for free when they enter Fareless Square, gas isn't free when buses are in Fareless Square--someone is paying for it. And right now, it's the full-fare payers who live in Gresham, Lents, Beaverton, North Portland, who are paying for Fareless Square.

Why do Oregonians consistently insist on benefiting from services they do not pay for?

I'm so glad someone is calling the question of real data with the police. That needs to be called more often!

Skinny:
Intersting rant against Oregonians . . . here are the facts of how Trimet is paid for.

http://trimet.org/pdfs/publications/factsheet.pdf

Indeed, very little of TriMet's operating costs come from fares. Fetsch says cutting Fareless Square back to the daytime hours would net $450-600,000. I'd be far more interested in this discussion—and up for ditching Fareless Square altogether—if that money would go toward things like making more lines Frequent Service lines (better and more reliable service increases ridership). But that cash would go toward safety and security, since Hansen is pitching this as part of his safety and security plan.

Meanwhile, TriMet is about to roll out a Westside Precinct to add five extra officers to patrol MAX from Washington Park to the west end of the line. The cost for that? About half a million bucks per year.

So consider cutting back Fareless Square in those terms—the money saved equals about five cops to patrol the system. Worth it?

I'll try to scare up figures on how much Fareless Square contributes to Portland. The Travel Portland (tourist bureau) loves FS, as it helps lure in convention goers and tourists. Downtown businesses—like an Old Town gallery owner that spoke this morning—like that customers feel free to hop from bars and restaurants to their galleries and other businesses. And lots of folks have testified to the benefits of curtailing drunken driving, by letting bar hoppers leave the car at home, but still get from club to club. It strikes me that those things combined probably bring in enough money to offset the up to $600,000 in "lost" revenue.

old guy, I don't see your point. I see that a significant portion of costs are paid for by fares; $75 million, in fact. But I don't want to drag this down into a discussion of Oregonians' relationship with taxes, so point taken and I take back what I said.

However, I think the following document provides a lot more information about Trimet's goals (which aren't really that sinister, but have nothing to do with safety) than the PR link you posted.

here:http://trimet.org/pdfs/tip/tip.pdf

I still think Trimet should eliminate Fareless Square entirely. I don't get the magic of the 7pm to 7am. What is the point of that?

There's a write up of tonight's meeting, here.

There's probably an excellent case to be made for ditching Fareless Square, accompanied by a cost-benefit analysis and more genuine motivations. Unfortunately, that's not how TriMet's going about it.

I believe that is the plan, though, for the "more comprehensive" look at Fareless Square over the next 18 months.

Amy (@11), unless I'm missing something, does that mean that transit officers are getting paid $100,000?!

TriMet covers their full package of benefits, too, and other costs associated with setting up the precinct.

Matt might know offhand approximately how much cops make. They do pretty well...

Amy,
Sure there is probably a good excuse for ditching fareless square with a cost benefit analysis. Why should we though? Fareless square generally benefits the good of the people. I'm not so market driven I care about the bottom line for TriMet. If it costs me $20 in taxes a year for TriMet to keep fareless square free then fine. I don't know, just seems dumb to cancel something that has worked for almost 30 years because a bunch of Greshamites decide they want to attack people out there. I ride Max/Bus in fareless square and don't see problems. I just don't get it as an experienced rider. Fred Hansen seems like a guy that hasn't been on a bus in 15 years anyway.

I don't know if anyone sees this as an issue or not, but the fact that Tri-Met is seeing the issue with crime occuring at night (bearing in mind, of course, that it is happening mostly outside the city of Portland, in Gresham) makes me worried about the future viability in extending Tri-Met's hours.. especially considering it's good for nightlife business, something which Portland is sorely and famously lacking, particularly for its increasingly younger population. But I digress..

This morning, I heard a cop talking about how pissed he was about the proposal because of what FS does to curtail drunken driving at night. It's not like me to side with the PoPo, but he was right and I'd pay to have the hours extended after beer-thirty. To reduce the hours because of crimes occurring out of town is just crazy, and why isn't this a Gresham police problem?

If I get mugged in Beaverton at night by a MAX platform is that Tri-Met's bad or Beavertron police's ?

Oh yeah, one more thing. Does anyone remember when that Tri-Met driver got beat up and robbed by a teenaged meth-head at the Beaverton transit center? They just alerted the police that they needed some protection there and that attack was on one of their employees. They didn't raise fares or limit service then. Does Tri-Met pay extra for the extra cop presence?