Rick Steves takes the Fremont Street Zipline

What were your opinions on SACRT? I think it has decent bones, it just needs an Airport connection and some improvements downtown.

I haven’t ridden the SD Tolley, but I’ve heard great things about it.

Idk- pretty good stop spacing, decent ROW separation (outside of Flower/Washington), and it really just needs better signal priority.

The vibes are definitely in the eye of the beholder though lol. LA is like that in general, tbf.

I do want to stress that I don’t think it should/will happen in many cities anytime soon. It’s just not as out there as some folks claim, and if a population values it then it’s workable. NYC especially has interesting elements- if free, buses would be like a moving sidewalk

The thing is fares only make up a minuscule part of the budget. Fare recovery is like ~10% on a good day. It’s nothing to sneeze at, but it’s also not great, and it’s constantly used as a political football. The operations budget wouldn’t pay for a lot of the “service improvements” either.

One of these would be sourced via operation funds, and the other relies on capital funds.

I wasn’t suggesting that any agency currently wants to pursue it in the PDX area. If they did, they would present it to voters via the proper channels.

My point was that the dichotomy of “free buses” or “better transit” is a false one. They would rely on different funding periods and sources.

NYC, because that was policy proposed by the current civic admin.

Kansas City, because their constituents decided to pursue it.

Luxembourg for the same reason.

In theory, any municipality that decides it’s a worthwhile goal to pursue (the reasons can be unique and endless).

Yup, especially because many folks rely on it in “emergency” situations where fumbling around with cash/weird fare zones is a hassle.

For regular users, it makes tapping an easier habit to build as well.

The agencies that serve constituents who ask for that as public policy.

That’s the mark of a “good” (read: accessible) system. I was shocked that Portland had it before Seattle or the Bay Area tbh.

Guess what factor is the only reason for “fare free” demands- an acceptance for market bearance.

The “we could have so much extra money with fares!!1!” argument is just some false cause bs. Every agency could have generated infinite $$ in theory if they priced their service to astronomic levels. That didn’t happen because of basic market bearance phenoms.

I’m saying that the funding for “service improvements” and “free transit” come from different agencies, with different itemizations, and different funding sources.

It’s like someone complaining about parks spending in lieu of pothole repair budgets. They’re sourced from different revenue streams.

Honestly kind of embarrassing to see such sloppy defenses from an “advocacy” sector.

Aren’t “poor people” the population that receives reduced fares at a higher rate (either by eligibility or through programs)?

In that case, it’s not really a surprise that they would report fare burden as the lowest of their issues. That’s a good thing, but it’s not an indicator.

It also doesn’t change the fact that your analogy is comparing apples to oranges.

No one. And no one is proposing free transit in Portland.

People are proposing free transit elsewhere, though. I have no objections to the decisions those constituencies make.

So you’re trading an actualized goal for a nebulous one? I would just say you’re a fool.

The funding for these projects come from completely different sources. Do you think apples are oranges?

Cool. Doesn’t change the fact that fare-based revenue is used as a cudgel to oppose the “service improvements” you claim to desire.

Weird how the “fare defenders” only oppose free or reduced fares for systems that receive a fairly low % of funding from dedicated sources.

A lot of the people who don’t ride buses very often

I’ve noticed “transit should pay its way/be completely supported by fares!” people tend to do the same thing.

No worries pardner, my hoss got a lil’ jumpy

Can’t wait to ride!

I’m hopeful for the DT subway progress though- Trimet’s purchase of the old Greyhound station implies (at least to me) that they’re starting to get their deck in order.

I think the elephant in the room is that Metro/Trimet are worried that they’ve largely reached their current “limit” in terms of rev. generation, and that’s why they’re treading lightly.

That’s why state action (w/ the WES/Regional Rail studies) is appealing, too. Still feels like a shell game, tho

The SW corridor proj. is still in the cards, but the more “popular” and prudent projects (alliteration moment) seem to be either already optioned in (Yellow to Vancouver) or focused on operational improvements (Subway Study, WaCo. grade crossing eliminations).

In regards to the Seattle comparison, they’ve had (and still have) pretty poor regional coverage compared to PDX. Don’t get me wrong, the 2 Line is great, but the Puget Sound has a long way to go (and their necessary improvements will likely be much more expensive in the long run).

For the funding mechanisms, or the mobility goals?

Funding mechanisms are their own thing (and beholden to different agencies/entities at diff. levels). On the other hand, it seems that the appetite for upgrades to the current system, rather than route mile expansions, have increased.