Proposed Modified Tram Fare Structure

By Sam Adams

I want to thank everyone who voted (over 750) or left comments (240) on my blog to share your perspectives on the ideal tram fare. Thanks, in part, to your input, I have been able to look at this issue from most all angles and develop a new propsed tram fare structure.

The Tram Executive Management Committee (TEMC) will meet at 7:30 am, Wednesday, January 24th in the Rose Room in Portland City Hall (1221 SW 4th Ave) to take public testimony and consider the following recommendation.

Rolled out for public comment in November 2006, the initial tram fare proposal was set at $4.00 per rider, per round trip, for all public riders. OHSU will be paying a separate estimated $1.2 million annualy to cover the fares of its employees, patients, students, and other customers who ride the tram.

Today, we propose a modification of this proposed tram fare to include the following provisions:

Tram rides will be free to Annual and Monthly TriMet and Streetcar transit pass holders
The Tram will sell Annual Passes for $100. Annual Tram Passes will be valid fare on the Streetcar System, but not TriMet buses or lightrail
For those without transit or tram passes, the fare will be $4.00 per rider for a round-trip pass. This fare will be valid for one round trip for the entire day on which it was purchased.
Daily tickets from TriMet and Streetcar will not be valid as fare to ride the Tram
Tram rides will be free to the public all day Saturday (9 am- 5 pm) and from 6:00 pm to 10:00 pm on Friday evenings for every weekend through the month of February

This is a more seamless approach than originally proposed, but not a totally seamless one.

The proposed modified tram structure benefits riders who will be using the tram as part of their usual transit. There are an estimated 110,000 TriMet annual and/or monthly pass holders. It also provides local residents with the option of purchasing an annual Tram pass that costs roughly $8.00 per month. Also, it will discourage automobile drivers from driving to the tram.

This has been made possible because OHSU has agreed to modify its existing agreement with the City of Portland and will pay 85% of the operating costs for the next five years, as opposed to the next two years as originally proposed, after which costs will apportioned between the City of Portland and OHSU based on actual OHSU and public ridership. The change limits the City's cost to approximately $240,000 annually (in today's dollars) for the next five years. Under this modified proposal, any fare revenue generated that exceeds the city's share of the operating costs will be split between OHSU and the city.

By 2010, on-street parking meters in South Waterfront are estimated to generate enough revenue to pay the City's portion of the tram not covered by fare revenues.

Why this proposal? Why not a totally seamless approach that also allows daily TriMet and Streetcar tickets to be used as fare on the tram as well?

While I agree with the original vision to make the Tram a completely seamless part of the region's transit system, the history of this project makes a good argument for a careful and conservative approach. There were cost projections that proved wildly inaccurate, and I do not intend to repeat those mistakes.

We need experience under our belt before we can know if we can afford to go to a completely seamless tram/transit fare structure. Since there hasn't been an urban aerial tram built in the U.S. since the 1960's, we simply don't know what ridership to expect. There are no comparable trams to help us forecast the ridership trends with sufficient accuracy. It is prudent to make long-term decisions based on actual experience.

And, we cannot afford to make a mistake and drain money away from other transportation needs. Portland already lacks the dollars necessary to maintain its existing transportation infrastructure, to say nothing of the need to make strategic investments in new infrastructure for our future. That's because the traditional funding mechanisms upon which we have relied to fund transportation no longer keep pace with the increasing cost of providing and maintaining the infrastructure. By example, in the next five years, due to flat revenues and rising costs, I will be required to cut over $60 million from PDOT's budget, on top of millions in cuts prior to these.

So, in considering how to pay for the Tram's annual operating costs, fares must cover the City's $240,000 share of the $1.76 million total annual Tram costs, while keeping the fares as seamless, equitable, and affordable as possible.

Sam Adams's recent posts | Print this page

Posted Mon, 01/22/2007 - 12:57pm.

15% for 5 years a bit risky in my opinion

Submitted by Bob R. on Mon, 01/22/2007 - 1:34pm.

Sam -

I generally like this proposal, it is not too far off from what I had in mind.

(Although I still wish that holders of TriMet book tickets would be included... many people who ride transit frequently but not daily use the 5-ticket and 10-ticket books rather than purchasing monthly passes. The tickets are a different physical size than single tickets or transfers and are easy to identify.)

However, I think extending the trial period to 5 years risks costing the city additional money. Here's why:

OHSU is paying to cover "the fares of its employees, patients, students, and other customers who ride the tram". That's a lot of classes of riders, and I think it will result in MORE than 85% of ridership.

For example, suppose OHSU-related rider ship is 1,500 riders per day. At 85%, that would mean there would be an additional 264 non-OHSU riders per day -- tourists, neighborhood users, etc. (1584 per 6-day week)

But other than tourists and the occasional person visiting a non-OHSU restaurant or a Marquam Hill resident, who would fall under the definition of a non-OHSU-related rider?

Suppose every weekend (open Saturdays, closed Sundays, right?) draws 1000 tourists. That still leaves 500 slots open during the regular week.

I think after the first two years, interest from local curiosity-seekers will wane and you'll have very limited non-OHSU use and some out-of-town tourist use, but not 15%.

Compromise: Set the agreement at 3 years, not 5, and take valid scientific ridership samples throughout year 3 to determine the correct ratio. The odds are in favor of a lower city percentage, so don't drag out 15% for so long.

- Bob R.

110,000 Tri-Met Pass Holders

Submitted by Sam on Tue, 01/23/2007 - 9:52am.

Bob R.,

Time will tell. We studied this issue very carefully and concluded with 110,000 transit pass holders that the City will have the subsidize if they are non-OHSU public riders -- the City needed more protection by extending the 85/15 agreement. The 85/15 agreement caps our cost at $230,000 per year.

Sam

How are OHSU-business riders identified?

Submitted by Bob R. on Tue, 01/23/2007 - 10:43am.

Sam -

Thank you for your reply. I sent an email last week asking for clarification on one issue, but did not receive a reply, perhaps you can address it here:

How are OHSU-related visitors (non-employees, no employee ID) who receive OHSU-paid rides to be identified?

I see three problems if the process is simply verbal:

1. The Tram employees are put in the position of judging everyone's stories.
2. The privacy of patients is jeopardized if they have to declare verbally, in front of strangers, that they are an OHSU patient.
3. "Freeloaders" not on OHSU-related business could simply lie and ride for free. Unless Tram operators are going to go into personal details (doctor's name, time of appointment) (another privacy concern), how could fare-evasion be stopped?

I propose that OHSU-related riders go into the Center for Health and Healing lobby (directly adjacent to the tram station) and obtain a ticket from the OHSU information desk. This A) lets someone other than a Tram operator, who has access to OHSU schedules and information make the determination of who gets an OHSU-subsidized ride and leaves the Tram operator free to concentrate on operating the tram, B) protects patient privacy, as they are now inside a medical building with the usual expectations that go with that and C) prevents fare evasion and also prevents arguments from breaking out in the line.

(You may already be implementing it this way, I don't know)

Thanks,
Bob R.

I think it's great that

Submitted by Frank Dufay on Mon, 01/22/2007 - 2:16pm.

I think it's great that there's a recognition that Tri-Met passes are honored on the tram. Good.

That I can travel from the Pearl district, on the streetcar, to the tram and up the hill, for $100 per year, seems inequitable when a close-in, one-zone bus pass costs folks $756.00, when purchased on a monthly basis. A two-zone annual pass weighs in at $814.00. Why should the bus cost eight times more, for a less desirable ride? And a shorter one at that?

In the meantime, we're discouraging occasional riders from taking mass transit by requiring a separate fare for the tram. ONE round trip to the hill from my inner SE neighborhood is $7.40. A dozen such trips almost buys a year's pass on the streetcar AND tram.

It just doesn't seem very equitable. And it sounds like OHSU will be taking ALL the profits from their park and ride lots serviced by the Tram.

Frank: if you have to ask,

Submitted by Got Logic? on Mon, 01/22/2007 - 6:19pm.

Frank: if you have to ask, you can't afford it (in reverse).

Why no one-way fare option?

Submitted by Anton Vetterlein on Mon, 01/22/2007 - 2:39pm.

Why no one-way fare option?

Tram/Streetcar Annual Pass

Submitted by Sam on Tue, 01/23/2007 - 9:58am.

Anton,

Thanks for your work on this issue. To avoid congestion at OHSU and surrounding neighborhoods, we want to encourage people to board the tram at the bottom of the him and return using the tram. People that need to tram for frequent one-way trips are encouraged to buy an annual pass.

Sam

The City that Discriminates.

Submitted by Terry Parker on Mon, 01/22/2007 - 4:40pm.

Discrimination – discrimination – discrimination. The city receives nothing financially from Tri-Met and streetcar pass holders. It is either free to all users or all users pay the fare. Who do you think already subsidizes transit – the public, and just who do you think pays for all those free rides on the streetcar – the people who pay to park downtown. The City that works is definitely broken, Under PDOT, the City’s motto is definitely The City that Discriminates.

Downtown parking is subsidized

Submitted by Bob R. on Mon, 01/22/2007 - 6:26pm.

Terry wrote: "and just who do you think pays for all those free rides on the streetcar – the people who pay to park downtown."

Your comment comes at an opportune time because I was downtown today and thinking about parking issues and noted the prices of a number of private garages and lots.

The fact is that private surface and structured short term parking costs up to $4/hr, with a minimum daytime rate of $2/hr, most places averaging $2.50/$3.00.

On the street and in city-subsidized "Smart Park" garages, the rate is set at $1.25/hr.

This disparity is most obvious in the Pioneer Place garage... the basement floors of this garage are privately operated and the upper floors are a Smart Park garage. There are separate entrances/exits for this. The private garage charges double what the public garage costs.

Parking in the private garage has little added benefit unless you are on the very bottom floor where there is a tunnel to the mall. All other parts of the garage, public or private, require an elevator or stairs to access the street level or the mall.

Downtown Portland parking has long been subsidized because merchants wish for customers to have a convenient, low-cost place to park. Some still even validate parking.

I'm not going to argue about the merits of offering this subsidy here, but it *is* a subsidy because it is paid for by the city and priced below market rate. Only some of those revenues are used to support the streetcar.

- Bob R.

go by streetcar/tram

Submitted by Bob on Mon, 01/22/2007 - 7:12pm.

Then buy a streetcar pass. They are only $100 a year. If you use it every day then you will really get your moneys worth.

The city that doesn't discriminate

Submitted by Stu on Tue, 01/23/2007 - 12:18pm.

You seem to be missing a big factor here. Yes, the taxpayers subsidise transit. But do you really think road build and mend themselves? Who do you think is paying the cost of all the car drivers out there?

Subsidising transit actually saves the city money, because it means less traffic, hence lower costs for building and repairing roads, traffic enforcement, emergency services, etc etc etc. The exact balance is up for debate of course, but some subsidy is hard to argue against.

Personally, I walk to work, and bike or use transit the rest of the time. So why should my taxes subsidise car drivers??

Logic Not Justified

Submitted by Terry Parker on Mon, 01/22/2007 - 11:00pm.

If the same discriminatory logic applied to the tram fares was applied to downtown metered parking it might go like this: If you have a convertible, you can park at a meter for free. If you have a blue car you can park free only on odd numbered Thursdays, but only in the month of February. Downtown parking passes would be available for $100.00 a year that when displayed would allow you to park free at any meter in the City. Parking passes would also be honored for free rides on the tram and on the streetcar. Wait, the street car is already free in Fareless Square so parking passes for the street car would only be good at the ends of the line to no where. But wait again, most of the people who go to the end of the lines just cheat the system and ride for free anyway.

If TriMet passes and/or streetcar passes are good for a subsidized free ride on the tram, then an extra tram zone charge of no less than $10.00 monthly should apply to both passes so the City taxpayers get a financial return for all members of the public riding the tram. It must be pointed out City council members are the public servants for all taxpayers, not just those with transit passes that lobby for more subsidies. Therefore, parking receipts from downtown parking meters (where some of the money is used to subsidize streetcar operations) should also be good for a free ride on the tram.

There will come a time when there is a backlash from taxpayers in general for the excessive amount of taxpayer dollars the City is spending to subsidize this full sized toy streetcar layout - complete with moving accessories like the tram - that only benefit a small portion of the population – many of whom live in luxury housing in the South Waterfront also subsidized by taxpayers.

Not Really

Submitted by Bob R. on Tue, 01/23/2007 - 12:18am.

Terry Wrote: "If the same discriminatory logic applied to the tram fares was applied to downtown metered parking it might go like this: If you have a convertible, you can park at a meter for free. If you have a blue car you can park free only on odd numbered Thursdays, but only in the month of February."

Actually Terry, the correct analogy would be: If you park downtown in a space and then do business with a merchant who paid the majority of the costs of building that parking space, that merchant will pay for your parking.

This is the case with the tram: OHSU is paying the costs for passengers who are OHSU employees or have OHSU-related business.

- Bob R.

re; Not Really

Submitted by Terry Parker on Wed, 01/24/2007 - 10:43am.

Bob,

I was not addressing OHSU covering the costs of their employees and/or patients riding the tram.

Tram fares for the public should NOT be defined into classes by how they arrive at the tram or how they pay for that arrival. The tram is financed as a separate entity from any other mode of transport.

Terry, Bob R. wrote a very

Submitted by Dan Callaway on Tue, 01/23/2007 - 10:30am.

Terry,

Bob R. wrote a very compelling reply to you showing how the city also subsidizes parking downtown. The fact that city owned and/or managed parking structures/parking spots charges below market prices shows that parking is, in fact, subsidized by the city. It seems a little misleading to me that you choose to argue against only one subsidy (to which I don't deny, transit IS subsidized) but yet you ignore other subsidies that minimize the power of your arguement.

Additionally, the fact that the city is not actually paying out money from the budget for parking spaces but yet is for mass transit is completely irrelevent. It's plain and simple: to charge below market prices for a product or service is a subsidy.

Trial influences results

Submitted by John Reinhold on Tue, 01/23/2007 - 8:37am.

I think that the methodology chosen for the "trial" will influence the results, thus throwing off the real numbers.

Simply, since tri-met tickets are not allowed, those people are unlikely to use the Tram.

So you will never get an accurate picture of who wants to use it. Since you are subsidizing only certain demographics - you will obviously see more of that demographic use the tram.

The tram is useless to occasional users if they have to pay $4 on top of their $4 Tri-Met tickets (well, $1.70 each way right now). If I needed to get to the top of the hill I would not take the tram, I would just take bus 8 and save $4.

So the statistics captured over the 5 years will not reflect real numbers. It reflects numbers influenced by subsidies to skew to one demographic.

What good is a transit system that you can't use all pieces of it?

We'll get a decent -- if not perfect -- ridership count

Submitted by Sam on Tue, 01/23/2007 - 10:10am.

John,

You might be right that, "...the methodology chosen for the "trial" will influence the results..." But I don't think it will prevent us from getting a decent -- if not perfect -- idea of public ridership. If need be, we can always do a market survey in the future as well.

If we have opened Tri-Met and Streetcar ticket transfers as valid Tram fare, we would have likely witnessed the loss of significant tram fare revenue.

I cannot risk digging PDOT into a deeper financial hole than the current $327 million.

A couple of factual corrections: Streetcar tickets are good all day on the date they are purchased. Tri-Met tickets are good for 2 hours. Tri-Met tickets are valid on the Streetcar and vice versa.

Sam

Once the City has paid

Submitted by Lenny Anderson on Tue, 01/23/2007 - 1:23pm.

Once the City has paid parking in SoWa why not extend fareless "square" to include that area plus the Tram, making Streetcar and the Tram free. I recall that there was an understanding that had NWDA embraced paid parking, Streetcar, if not TriMet, would have been operated without any fares up to NW 23rd.
In the meantime,the idea is not to make money, but to reduce motor vehicle trips. And somewhere lurks the uneasy feeling that if the Tram is free it will be overwhelmed with fun riders and OHSU will loose the capacity it needs. I guess its easier to lower or remove fares than to impose them later if you miscalculate the Tram's popularity. Good luck!

I like the idea of free

Submitted by Got Logic? on Tue, 01/23/2007 - 9:12pm.

I like the idea of free streetcar and tram rides for all. And once Tri-Met has paid for all their buses, they should stop collecting fares. That would increase transit ridership and decrease congestion.

And property taxes should be free to increase home ownership and reduce rents. That would make living in Portland cheaper and decrease homelessness.

Citizens Segregated by Class – Not Treated Equally

Submitted by Terry Parker on Wed, 01/24/2007 - 10:30am.

ARTICLE I Section 20, the “Equality of privileges and immunities of citizens” clause in the Oregon Constitution reads: “No law shall be passed granting to any citizen or class of citizens privileges, or immunities, which, upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens.—“

Basically that means citizens should be treated equally. However Commissioner Adams’ fare proposal to the tram board separates tram riders into classes based on how they arrive at the tram and how they pay for that arrival.

Since the city receives nothing financially from streetcar and TriMet pass holders, allowing these pass holders to use their pass to ride the tram gives them a free ride, 100% subsidized by city taxpayers, all of which are also stakeholders in the tram.

Furthermore, since the tram is governed by a different board than both the streetcar and TriMet, both have separate boards, all have separate budgets and funding mechanisms, there is a separation of the tram and the trolley, and a separation of the tram and TriMet.

To allow for consent to equality of citizens and class of citizens, and make transport seamless between both the streetcar and the tram and TriMet and the tram, streetcar and TriMet pass holders would be required to pay an extra monthly or yearly “Tram Zone” charge on those passes, equal in price to yearly or monthly tram only passes offered for sale to all citizens. That extra “Tram Zone” charge would then go directly to city coffers for to help pay for the City’s portion of tram operating costs and entitle the pass holder to ride that tram for as along as the pass is valid.

Action by the Tram Board to approve Commissioner Adams’ tram fare proposal only demonstrates a divisive exploitation of public funds and how far political forces will go to enact social engineering – even if it violates the Oregon Constitution and practices discrimination.

The real problem that is becoming more and more prevalent is that public servants, including elected officials, no longer represent all taxpayers; they only represent those who fall in line with their personal agendas.

How fair is the fare?

Submitted by Rusty Blog on Wed, 01/24/2007 - 12:25pm.

Query:

How many OHSU employees have Tri-Met passes?

When I worked for the County, I was provided one for free. Seems to me my friend who works at OHSU is actually given one by her employer.

So, if I'm right, OHSU employees get a free ride. Which leads me to wonder how fair this modified fare system actually is...

Personally, I'm incredibly insulted that, beyond having to pay for a tram that's cost was astronomically above the promised price tag, we're now being asked to pay a fare that's almost twice what was promised initially.

If OHSU employees get the added benefit of never actually having to pay to use it, that's just the kicker on my official decision that this tram utterly sucks...

ohsu subsidy

Submitted by Hillard on Thu, 01/25/2007 - 10:28am.

Rusty,

Just to shed some light on your questions,

OHSU employees can buy an all-inclusive one year trimet pass for $246 - that's gone up considerably over the years. It was free in 1996, and $125 just a year or two ago... OHSU pays a somewhat discounted rate for those passes, something like $800. The internal subisidy is covered by the sale of on-hill parking passes for those who drive. An annual employee parking pass is about $1100, and the waiting list to get one is on the order of 3 years.

I personally will be very surprised if the 85/15 split comes out to be anywhere near fair at the end of the five year study period. Aside from a few curiosity rides, I can see essentially no reason why anybody would come up the hill, except to visit OHSU. We should start a betting pool. I'll take 1% non-ohsu ridership for $5, please.

I think this tram is a dumb idea overall, in terms of cost vs. what it does for OHSU and the city directly. But that was OHSU's choice. It does allow ohsu to build down at the waterfront and extend itself off the hill, but remain a single campus. OHSU's other option was to build out in Hillsboro at their West Campus. The way I see it, the tram was a relatively low cost concession by the city to keep the development here. The city could have just handed OHSU a check and it would amount to the same ransom. Considering the kinds of things other cities do to keep their big businesses happy, it's not so bad.

Of course, I don't know what the real cost of SoWa and anything else might be.

-Hillard

Free Passes

Submitted by John Reinhold on Wed, 01/24/2007 - 1:30pm.

Rusty:

Any employer can provide free Tri-Met passes to their employees. The passes are not free, however. The employer must buy them from Tri-Met.

Depending on the location of the employer - differing rules can apply as they have different transit goals in different locations. But most of the time the employer pays a discounted rate.

I have worked for employers that gave the pass free, I have worked for employers that just passed on the discount rate to interested buyers, and I have worked at employers that gave no passes.

You are welcome to get a job at OHSU if you want the free Tram ride.

Not looking for a free ride...

Submitted by Rusty Blog on Wed, 01/24/2007 - 4:29pm.

I'm looking for a fair fare. We've been discussing this over at the Metroblog. OHSU employees pay about $400 less per year than average people for an annual bus pass. But, besides that, my understanding is they ride free with an OHSU badge (if I'm wrong, let me know).

The average taxpayer in Portland who doesn't have the benefit of an OHSU ID or a subsidized bus pass, and has to pay full price for the benefit of riding a tram that they helped fund, with the initial understanding that a Tri-Met fare would constitute fare for the ride.

I guess my issue is that the "Modified Plan" tries to convince Average Joe that he's being considered, primarily with the promise of a few extra free rides in the onset of the tram, but ultimately he's getting screwed in favor of OHSU, which pulled us into the Tram with a gun to our head in the first place.

Not quite "free"

Submitted by Bob R. on Wed, 01/24/2007 - 4:38pm.

Rusty wrote: "they ride free with an OHSU badge"

Actually, not quite "free"... People boarding the tram with an OHSU badge will be counted against OHSU's ridership share. OHSU will pay operating costs in proportion to how many people are counted as OHSU-related riders. Thus, OHSU is paying for that particular ride and not the city.

However, my concern is with "freeloaders" and with medical privacy: If just anyone can show up and say "I'm an OHSU patient", do they ride for free? Otherwise, how do they "prove it"? I don't want the tram operations employees to get involved in these decisions -- it could also violate medical privacy.

OHSU should issue vouchers from their information desk. This keeps things reasonably private and would add a barrier to those who wish to lie to avoid the $4 fee.

I asked about this earlier in this discussion but have not seen a reply from Sam or his staff, so I'll ask again: In practical terms, how will OHSU-related riders who do not have an OHSU ID be categorized and identified?

- Bob R.

Follow-up to Bob's thought...

Submitted by Rusty Blog on Wed, 01/24/2007 - 5:08pm.

If and when OHSU's share of the costs go up, how will that benefit Average Joe? Will the ticket price go down? I'm willing to bet the answer will be a resounding "no."

Maybe the taxpayer's share will go down, but will we see that reflected in our tax bills? Again, no. Once government gets your money, they find ways to allocate it as "needed." So if they don't need to give it to the tram anymore, it'll go somewhere else.

So when will I as an average Portlander ever truly benefit down the road? And when will I get a fair fare?

Let's all say it together. "NEVER".

Tram is a Scam

Submitted by Jay Kearney on Wed, 01/24/2007 - 5:34pm.

It is. Pure and simple. Sold as one thing delivered differently. Very Greasy. The definition of the modern day politico. We elected you to think. So give it some thought. Come up with palatable ways to get the price you need. Things we would like. We are paying for this after all.
Consider one way fares. And what is wrong with a transfer? Let us pay it off a little at a time. If you are in a hurry, put lottery machines top and bottom and video poker on the tram. Surely you can come up with something

Ironically, the broader

Submitted by Got Logic? on Thu, 01/25/2007 - 6:00am.

Ironically, the broader public subsidy of South Waterfront is orders of magnitude higher than what has been spent on the tram scam. And we'll never know exactly how large that subsidy is, because the PDC and City Council don't want the public to realize how large it will eventually become.

How many of those thousands of new biotech jobs have been filled so far (excluding transfers from pre-existing facilities)? Any guesses?

Water, water everywhere and not a drop to drink?

Submitted by Willy Wonka can! on Thu, 01/25/2007 - 6:55pm.

The city is scrambling to repair FOUR BUSTED WATER MAINS (is different parts of the city) the same day they dedicate the Tram. 4 water mains in one day must be a record.

South Waterfront is sucking up all the Urban Renewal dollars and much of the discretionary spending, while Portland's infrastructure is literally cracking, bursting, and bubbling up into the streets. Oh well, it could have been worse: it could have been 4 sewer mains. No reason not to reelect all the incumbents, no sireeee! They doing a fine job...just fine.

I will never forget that image of the BES semi-truck being lifted out of the monster sinkhole by crane.

Rich irony indeed.

Hillard and Got Logic,

Submitted by Jerry on Thu, 01/25/2007 - 11:24pm.

Hillard and Got Logic, According to the SoWhat projects identified in the NM Agreement and the subseqent eight Amendments, the cost to Portlands taxpayers alone for a twenty year life of the URD will approach $1.5 BILLION assuming the present days interest rate on the financing costs. As we know, the 20 year life of the URD is very conservative since not one of Portland's eleven URD have ever been retired in twenty years. So the $1.5 BILLION is even low. This does not include the recent 8th Amendment that "stole" taxpayers dollars from Portland's general fund to the tune of $43 MILLION, plus the interest on this amount.

All of this does not include millions of state and federal dollars that are being plowed into SoWhat. The public would be amazed if a truthful auditing of all attributal costs are added up for SoWhat. The SoWhat URAC doesn't even have a 5 year and 20 year budget that reflects all the identified projects and their costs. Almost every project in SoWhat has been overbudget, like the tram. But even the planned pedestrian bridge once budgeted at $1.5M in now $10M and increasing (and still with three proposals). Not even the trolley extension to SW Bancroft was on budget; an additional $3M was "stolen" from PDOT's budget (our streets) to meet the cost overruns. The Greenway Trail ($40M) hasn't even been started because the Parks Bureau hasn't the money. Plus the parks have no funding. There is little money (only part of it from federal/state sources) for the transportation improvment projects promised for SoWhat. Gridlock is coming. But we have the tram going from point A to B that solves all the tranportation problems.

As Jack Bodanski keeps posting at Bojack.org, SoWhat will be bankrupting our city. But, even if it doesn't, the public/taxpayers deserve to know the true cost of SoWhat so they can mortgage their children, and plan on decreasing dollars to our educational system, streets, police, firemen (are you listening Leonard?), etc.

Sam Can I suggest one

Submitted by paul gronke on Sun, 01/28/2007 - 5:03pm.

Sam

Can I suggest one modification to your proposal?

I think each resident of the City should be able to obtain one daily round trip ticket for free.

We could obtain such tickets by showing up at City Hall with a utility bill, property tax bill, or other proof of city residence.

In my case, I have a family of six that I would like to take once in a while up the tram, but $24 for six minutes of "entertainment" is asking a bit much, particularly when my taxes are already paying for the construction and maintaince of the tram.

This means you'd still obtain significant revenue from the tourists, but at least city residents get their one "tourist" ride a year free of charge.

An easier to administer alternative might be to have a "free" weekend once a year, free only to those able to show identification showing an in-city address.