$$ The Ideal Tram Fare: What's Your Opinion? VOTE! $$

$ appears to be a reasonable amount with valid streetcar or Tri-met ticket. Perhaps $2.50 with valid ticket.

NO trimet passes... ALL PERSONS, 2.00 EACH RIDE. the city and some of ohsu. a private for profit hospital built it. the cost of running it need to be borne by the riders or tear it down and sell the scrap to china. ,,, since we bought the metal there in the first place

It seems (based on news media reports) as if the most benefit will be by OHSU and less so for regular commuter and tourists. The public shouldn't subsidize this project. Haven't we paid enough? I wonder if some of the cost could be recovered by having an "upgrade" fee of .30cents to transfer between the various public transit system (bus/max to tram or vice versa), otherwise full current transit fare for Tram only. This would be similar to the current system. If you buy a one-two zone ticket and you want to go into zone three, you pay an upgrade.

Regarding the "public subsidization", I may be biased, I live on the east side of town and liklihood that I will ever ride the tram in very small. It feels like another project in town that brings up the feeling that why should I as a taxpayer pay through my taxes for a benefit I will not enjoy. Mind you there are some projects I don't mind because of overall city-wide benefit, the Tram just doesn't feel like city-wide benefit that I support

If the tram was put in to benefit mostly OHSU, then the cost of the tram should be low. $4 dollars is more than reasonable for coming and going trip. Why not have half the cost go toward raising money for OHSU patient or anyone who has an illness.

This was very well-put - I believe that there has been far too much Portland tax $$$ spent in the last five years on projects that improve and/or benefit the West side of Portland almost or completely exclusively. I'm starting to think we need to rename each side of the river much like Minneapolis and St. Paul in Minn.

Examples:

The PDC buying the Armory for what was probably 3-4x its actual value, to create a venue that will have ticket prices only West-sider can afford.

The "East-Side" Esplande, which is a cute trick of naming, since it's still on the West side of the city, technically, because I-5 has become the true divider of east/west, not the Willamette.

The street car, of which there is much talk of expanding to the east side but continues to be a west side project only.

This tram, which as the writer I am replying to points out, I will likely *never* use but am subsidizing.

I could continue this list with many more examples but I do not want to belay the point.

John,

Thanks for your comments. I share your concerns. Take a glance at the East Portland Budget Townhall on the front page of this website. To help address inequities, I recently invested 56% of the citywide transportation safety funds into East Portland. But, as you point out, we have a long ways to go.

Sam

I completely agree. This tram is one of the biggest wastes of money on a local level that I have ever seen. the only question is in what way was the city blackmailed by OHSU to build that monstrosity?

I entirely agree with D. Except that I live on the westside. The Tram is mostly to serve wealthy doctors as they go from their million dollar condos to their PillHill offices. We taxpayers have subsidized this boondoggle enough. First, the City should NOT allow the ratio of OHSU/PDX funding share to decrease from 85%/15%. Second, the promise that the Tram would be part of a seamless transportation system must be honored. D's suggestion of how to fix the fares has merit. You've damaged a neighborhood, covered the waterfront with parking lots, ruined the views of Mt Hood and spoiled the Greenway ...what more do you want?

how about $1.70 for riders with Oregon I.D. and $4 for everyone else? transfers,passes accepted of course.

The simpler the better - charge out of staters more so that the already-taxed Oregonions don't pay a "double jeopardy" type fee - a high cost tram ticket on top of the outrageous amount of tax dollars that have already been poured into this project. Bill's idea of $1.70 for Oregonions and $4 for tourists is an excellent compromise.

My main concern is that the $4/one round-trip ride will only cover the projected costs of maintaining the tram and will not:

a. Help pay back some of the massive overhead and overruns in the cost of building the thing.

b. Not truly cover maintenance costs, which I hate to but must assume have been vastly under-estimated just as the building costs were, and may be as high as 10x the current estimate by that comparison.

c. The cost does not have a built-in automatic increase to cover what will be guaranteed increases in maint. costs over the years, plus periodic major rebuilds or repairs that happen to other trams every 5-10 years regularly.

I wonder if it's been running all week?

After so many public dollars have been spent to construct this project, I feel that the Tram must be self-supporting. It does not serve the community as a whole, it serves a very small population at a tremendous cost.

Make the Tram $1.70 as promised and raise parking fees on the Hill to raise any needed revenues. The increased parking fees will increase tram ridership and net more fares.

"Punish" "bad" behavior; "reward""good."

Reply to Chris' original suggestion - I agree that you should honor all the folks who have TriMet passes, tickets or transfers but only sell, at a higher rate like $4.00, single tickets at the tram itself. That way you honor your original promise but allow for "tourist prices" for the folks who come for a single ride. These should be round trip with a one hour time limit on the expiration. I assume OHSU will have a way of giving passes to folks who are not employees but who need to ride the tram for an appt.?

I favor a seamless transit system for a number of reasons. The chief one being that "outer" southwest Portland is woefully bereft of transit options. At the same time, new public works projects of various kinds seem to be continuously initiated throughout the downtown and eastside neighborhoods. Although the tram is located in what I call the "inner" southwest, it still provides a link to the rest of this "forgotten" area. Who knows, maybe we'll even see sufficient bus service to encourage ridership some day. And perchance we can dream of sidewalks along busy arterials, such as Multnomah Blvd, connecting neighborhoods to local commercial centers.

Todd,

You are right about SW Portland not having enough sidewalks along busy arterials. The cost of sidewalks are paid for with an assessment to the adjacent property owner. Most SW Portland property owners have never been assessed this fee and thus have few sidewalks. But, I am working with SWNI Transportation Committee to try a new approach to address this long-standing problem. I also put $500,000 in the most recent PDOT budget to address some of the transportation safety issues in SW Portland - but we have a long way to go.

Thanks for your post.

Yours,

Sam

Run it like they do at the ski resorts. That seems to be a proven mechanism as almost all resorts have a similar fare structure, including to some extent timberline for the Magic Mile Chair.

For regular users/commuters using the tram would pay a slight premium for their annual/monthly/book tickets that give full systemwide access including the tram. Don't penalize those who wouldn't use it. Ski resorts with trams work this way.

7 day passes can be priced with an unlimited option use during the 7 days or with a lower cost one time use round trip option. The 1st for visiting business people who would use it for commute purposes and the 2nd for tourists who intend to use the tram once. One day passes can be priced similarly.

And then for the sightseer a one time ticket with TRAM access would be $4 which should also allow for system wide access to the rest of the mass transit system for the normal 2hr time window and or day pass of similar configuration.

My concern with opening up the tram to all tri-met riders at existing tri-met fares is that it may overload the tram and prevent or limit its intended use. If the ridership is at capacity a priority set of rules need to be enforced. This is also done at ski resorts. Intended users get priority over the sightseers

These are all very good suggestions.

I support keeping the fare as a benefit of Regular Transit Riders, i.e. Valid with Monthly Passes or Bus Ticket Books, and incorporating the transit upgrade fee of .30 cents. (Bus- Drivers would need to put a special “T” punch hole stamp on the transfer) We should certainly capture the tourist revenue by implementing the $4.00 cost for the
Occasional single ride tickets.

It dose seem that the OHSU patient rider ship has been
overlooked... Since there is a large portion of low income patients that receive health care at OHSU, their cost of using the Tram must be
taken into account. In consideration of that, the solution should include having OHSU pay for and issue tram tickets to patients they refer between the two locations in addition to their over all budgeted contribution (What ever that percentage is determined to be) These solutions coupled with the revenue generated from the parking meters provides a comprehensive fare based Tram program that serves our city without posing an hardship on it's citizens.

OHSU will cover the tram fares for their employees, patients, students, and other folk using the tram for OHSU business.

...and VA patients, too.

I agree 100% with Modest Ticket Proposals idea. Portland has had to close, how many schools, because of a "budget crisis" in the last few years. Yet somehow they have the cash for a tram. Maybe Portland should sacrifice a few thousand more children for the All Mighty OHSU.

FYI - Public funds used to pay for the tram legally could not be used to fund schools.

Could Federal Transportation funds that were spent on the Vera Katz Eastbank Esplanade have been spent on the Sellwood Bridge replacement instead?

Could Federal funds anticipated for the Burnside-Couch Couplet be directed to the Sellwood Bridge replacement?

Which (of these three projects) are more critical to our regional transportation grid?

A) Burnside Couplet

B) Sellwood Bridge replacement

C) Eastbank Esplanade

I am not sure about the funds used on the East Bank Esplenade.

Multnomah County, which owns, oversees, and maintains the Sellwood Bridge, has started the process which will end up identifying what type of new bridge (or repairs, though that seems less likely) will be built to replace the current Sellwood Bridge. I am fairly sure that we'll be receiving federal funds for this project.

I doubt that it will be competing for funds with the Burnside project, since those projects will be pursuing different funding sources/mechanisms.

Also, the Burnside project, redesigning one of the most dangerous streets in the city and remedying its intersections -which produce the most pedestrian fatalities in the city- is more than a cosmetic upgrade. Increasing the safety of Portland's streets is Sam's number-one transportation priority. Fixing Burnside definitely falls in this category.

Sam/Roland:

If the City can "partner" with OHSU to build a Tram, they can certainly "partner" with Multnomah County to replace the Sellwood Bridge or staff Wapato Correctional Facility. If the City of Portland can find the legislative authority necessary to acquire an electric utility or build and operate a Tram, then "Bridge Financing" or the "acquisition" of additional jail beds should be a piece of cake.

I'm confident that Multnomah County will find a way to accept transfer payments from the City of Portland, even if they have to do so in the dark of night. They were very receptive to creative solutions when Portland Public Schools were in desperate need, or when they jumped on the same sex marriage bandwagon.

City, County, and Metro leadership need to begin approaching our regional problems with a "can do" mentality instead of the tried (and failed) "can't do" mantra. Public safety should trump public relations.

We can do anything we want to do (respecting constitutional law). If city'county ordinances or state law stands in the way, there is every reason to expect our legislative bodies (City/County/State) WILL CHANGE THE LAW.

The "not my jurisdiction, not my budget, not my problem" status quo is not meeting the needs of the public you serve. If our public servants fail to address the existing gaps in public safety, education, and infrastructure, our quality of life and economic vitality will continue to decline.

As for the Burnside/Couch Couplet, I am eager to learn how pedestrian safety will be enhanced by the addition of light rail. The biggest line items in the budget have NOTHING TO DO WITH public safety and everything to do with redevelopment of a blighted area and expansion of the property tax base. Your cosmetic vs. safety dichotomy if misleading: effective cosmetic and safety improvments can be accomplished with 10% of your current budget.

It seems like the tone of my last post was misunderstood.

I was not trying to imply that city cannot or is not doing anything, only that the County is in the lead for this project.

The city IS working quite closely with the County to address the Sellwood bridge issue. We are working with them closely through an already underway process, but short of your suggestion trying to wrest authority from the county and trying to speed things up(productivity of that aside), the process is moving forward fairly well.

You should check out the project's website, take a look at the participants, where in the process the project is, and since you are obviously passionate about the bridge, consider personally participating in the public meetings that have been taking place for some months now.

http://www.sellwoodbridge.org

"Wrest authority from the county?" Where did you read that? If you have already "partnered" with them on the bridge, are you at liberty to say how much money the City of Portland may be willing to contribute to solving the problem?

I blieve the County is in desperate need of financial assistance and shuttle diplomacy to help heal the wounds of dysfunctional leadership and King Solomon's Sword school of budget cutting.

When the "County Jail" is matrixing bad guys due to lack of jail space, they aren't transporting them to the county line. In fact, most of the perps are walking out of the Justice Center into the heart of downtown Portland. A "county problem" becomes a "city problem" at the sidewalk's edge. But for more than two years, we have sat idly by while a brand new jail sits vacant. It's still vacant: there is still no grand opening in the works. At what point should we believe the City that Works just isn't working anymore?

We have known for more than a decade that the Sellwood Bridge is overutilized and (quite literally) falling apart. Despite the critical role it plays in the regional transportation grid (and regional economy), there IS STILL NO PLAN OR BUDGET TO REPLACE IT. Enough is enough: it's time for the city to buy themselves a seat at the table. How much should that cost? I don't know: but if you ask Ted, Jeff, Lisa, Lonnie, and Maria I'm sure they can provide you with some guidance.

It would be a crying shame to replace the most overworked two lane bridge in the state with another two lane bridge that will be outdated before it's even built. Especially when you realize the new bridge may not be replaced for another 100 years!

My advice: if the county is going to take your $5 to $20 million dollars of CoP taxpayer funds, let them know (in advance) that any solution that doesn't include at least 4 lanes of vehicular traffic is a non-starter.

Rather than partnering with the County to address these issues, the City of Portland is spending too much time and too many resources on visioning, politicking, and grandstanding on the polemics of the day. Trans-fats? Ethanol mandates? Foreign policy? Relocating PIR? ARE YOU JOKING?

We have a brand new jail that's never been slept in and a bridge that is falling into the water with traffic lined up in two directions.

As Lee Iaccoca famously said, "Lead, follow, or get out of the way."

Tax increment financing for the SoWa Urban Renewal District takes money away from schools, police, fire, maintenance and much needed infrastructure improvements.

Ohhh Yeaaaa,

The loot from taxpayers that is stashed in the "right pocket" cannot be used to fund any taxpayers projects thats should come out of the "left pocket"! (legally that is, haha...)

Boy oh boy, wasn't the American revolution started due to tax problems?

I think we need AMERICAN REVOLUTION PART TWO!

Ohhhhhhhh Yeaaaaa.........

This is the only reasonable, realistic, and serious (not cynical nor sarcastic) idea proposed in all the replies I've read. Being guilty of cynicism and even maybe sarcasm, I am serious that SkinnyGal has a great idea here.

This idea submitted by Skinny City Girl:

"Definately try to split the difference. Let Trimet pass holders go for free and sell multi-ticket packages for the tram only. Charge $6-$8 for single tickets. Tourists and people who ride for fun twice per year won't care. If it only costs $4, tourists won't think it's worth doing. Do PR promotions like "Two Dollar Tuesdays" or "Free Fridays" or something to keep us locals happy."

This is a great idea. And what is wrong with running a vote/poll like you are on the blog. It doesn't leave any room for new ideas like this to get expressed and voted on.

I think a lot of people are just voting to keep it cheap because they figure some day they might ride it and don't want to pay $4 or even more. But they don't seem to realize that by doing so, they'll be paying for it with their tax dollars whether or not they ride it. This is sorta typical of human beings in general, who tend to be short-sighted about money and other things in general.

Some of the operating costs could be recaptured, but not at the expense of regular commuters (or whoever is going to depend on the tram. I'm not sure who will be riding it on a regular basis other than OHSU people).

I love this idea! :)

But TriMet offers "unequal" discounts to seniors and students. And Oregon law bestows plenty of unequal privileges.

So do we look to increase inequalities, or look to increase --and enforce-- equal rights for everyone?

That I may someday get a discount for being a senior --regardless of ability to pay-- doesn't make a lot of sense. But there's at least some theoretical nexus between the policy and its goal of making transit affordable for those most dependent on it and maybe less able to pay.

There is NO nexus between having discount tram passes for medical professionals, versus their patients or neighborhood residents. In fact, there shouldn't BE a special tram pass that gets docs to their cars and back. Better to have them invest in Tri-Met passes, and maybe, more likely use the entire system, for their entire commute.

Do some folks have discounted Tri-Met passes available, especially in the Lloyd District TMD (or many employee groups). Is this fair and equitable? Is life always fair?

The Constitution doesn't guarantee equality. It simply lays out the principles. It's up to us to enforce their application.

My name is Grace Messenger and I am Disabled. I use a walking stick to help me. I went to Tri-Met in early September as I do every month and bought my Honored Citizens Bus Pass. I had valid fare, because I had my Medicare Card. On September 11, at 5:30 PM Bus 17 stopped at Center Street. We were boarded by Fare Inspectors. Fare Inspector John Coryell (#1394) came to me and asked to see my bus pass, he then said "Get off the bus!" I got up and he was behind me pushing me out the back door. He asked to see my ID, I asked him"Don't you want to see my Medicare Card?" He ignored me. I asked and tried to show him three times. He said "You don't look disabled enough to have an Honored Citizen bus pass!" He called Tri-Met, and due to a computer error, I was not in the database. I didn't need the Honored Citizen Card. 'ANYONE WITH A VALID MEDICARE CARD IS AUTOMATICALLY AN HONORED CITIZEN' Even though I had valid fare, he wrote a $94.00 Citation and told me to be in court on October 5. I instead mailed my 'not guilty' plea. The trial date was set. Caryell was mad that I didn't show up. I ruined his chances to railroad me and make him look good to his Supervisors. He was getting his 'quota' of Citations, and I was an unwitting Victim of discrimination, harassment and undue stress. I was put on several Meds to help me. On October 29, he sent a Cop to arrest me, the Cop was a friend of mine, and Caryell didn't know it. He said that Caryell threatened harassment and blacklisted from Tri-Met. When I told him my side, he was angry and threw up his hands and said " I want NO part of this mess, I pray you win!" He huffed off, got in his Cruiser and sped off. I was served a court paper, and on it was "Arrested/Cited on Sept. 6" He lied about the date and said that he arrested me for another violation. The Court cannot find that report!!! Nov. 30 Criminal/(Felony) Court. He had pushed for Criminal Court instead of Traffic Court. We went up before the Judge and Caryell said "Grace had invalid fare- I cut him off with Evidence and Facts including Tri-Met fliers on the Honored Citizen Policy and the Americans With Disabilities act. The Judge said "Case Dismissed!" Caryell, when faced with the Truth, looked like a fool. Good! Chalk it up for the Disabled! Yee-hah! I want everyone to be warned about this man and others who condoned his actions. Please keep me anonymous due to continued harassment, thank you.

Frank Dufay, I support your comments

Frank: Your displeasure with the Tram is causing you to make somewhat ridiculous statements. Those citizens are not getting a break and using the tram for less than non-OHSU employees. They are paying the same $4 as everyone else, it's just that their employer is subsidizing their ride. Your employer could do this too, if they chose to.

their employer is subsidizing their ride.

Not of their employer --OHSU-- is NOT paying the Tri-Met payroll tax. Nor paying property taxes.

And getting their "subsidy" through funding from the State of Oregon as a quasi-public institution.

Your kidding right?

OHSU pays no TRIMET tax, A-N-D no property tax A-N-D gets funding through the State of Oregon??

OH MY GOD!! I better stop reading these posts before I go ballistic...ignorance is bliss.......

how do u spell..

P-O-R-K !!!!!!!!!???????????

I haven't rode on the TRAM yet, can't afford it. Honored Citizen passes zap my income. Bring the fares down, soon, only the rich will be able to afford to ride.

Why does everyone forget about the Coffee shop? No Starbucks either, Seattles Best Coffee Shop. Mmmmmmmm.
Anyway, I want to visit a gift shop, I need some coffee, I am hungry and have to pee-WAIT an oasis!!! Southward-Ho!

Let's not fool ourselves. After the novelty wears off, the tram will be used primarily by OHSU patients and employees and by tourists. It would be the exception for others to regularly connect into the prior TriMet systems for which a transfer or "seemless" ticket is needed.

True mass transit which actually serves the masses is worthy of public subsidy within reason. Do we actually expect those not travelling to and from OHSU to regularly commmute via tram to streetcar to bus (or vice versa), which would be the only legitimate basis for public subsidy?

It's fun for now to watch the tram from my office, but a ride should not be free simply because one otherwise rides a TriMet bus to downtown using a pass which is ALREADY publicly subsidized.

Take off the rose-colored glasses already. OHSU has clearly demonstrated its awareness of the windfall it is reaping from the tram project. Fares should be separate from TriMet tickets and cover costs. I'm willing to bet that OHSU will subsidize employee use of the tram and give tickets to patients.

...is 15%, unless you have access to information I don't.

You don't actually believe that 15% figure, do you?

Commissioner Leonard estimated the City's share at $14.5 million (or 25%) without including any of the "soft costs" (PDOT staff time, consulting/legal fees, design competition, etc.).

Jim Karlock documented another $14 million in TIF kickbacks, detailing that "OHSU has been paid:

$5 million cash from borrowed TIF funds from the PDC for something labeled "commercializable biotech research space" .

$3 million cash from borrowed TIF funds for reserving 100 parking spaces in a future building OHSU will be building. (the OHSU retail/commercial/parking building)

$3 million cash from borrowed TIF funds for structural upgrades in that future building.

and $3 million TIF cash in matching funds for lobbying for fed funds for that future building."

It's also worth noting the City gave (au gratis) OSHU the land that the east terminal is located on (worth $4 million) and there is another $3.7 for "transportation related contingencies"...And none of the "construction cost" or life cycle cost estimates include a nickel for insurance or financing.

And we are spending how much on the PPB's youth gang outreach program? What a farce!

I don't believe the tram will run every day of the year. Currently, the tram is scheduled to be open Monday through Saturday and closed Sundays and holidays.

I don't believe the Tram is for the "public" as its clear it will not run 365 days a year. this too validates the fact, this is really for the employees at OHSU. As a taxpayer, yes, I might ride once just to "see" as I am not a skier (haha) But for me a (taxpayer) to pay $4 per person I would rather drive my car, spend the time driving the beautiful roads up to the hospital "talking" with my kids. at least then I can come and go when I want and know why I am "paying" for parking...I think OHSU and the employees should be paying a lot more as the tram only benefits me or anyone I know if they needs services..if it happens to be running on the day I have a freind or relative being seen. I'll take my chances driving. I have lived here for 25 years and my local hospitals and providers do a great job and certaintly don't charge me to get to their building for services I still have to pay for...this has been a very "sneaky" way for the hospital to get what they wanted at the taxpayers expense and did we forget that there really isn't "affordable" living in the buildings built...I make a fair living and I couldn't afford a "coat closet" in those places...who did get those nice new living spaces...DOCTORS and OHSU people...they can afford it.. they AREN'T paying for the "tram scam"!!! $1.70 is MORE than FAIR for the FARE!!! OHSU is ripping off the people who support it the most...thanks for nothing..

I am not quite sure that I understand your question. Hopefully this will help answer it, but if it doesn't, please let me know and I will try again.

First off, you are talking about a 61 cent difference, not $1.69. ($4.00 - $3.39= 61 cents)

Here is the calculation: $1.76 million divided by 441,000 (total number of riders 1400/day x 315 days) = $3.99.

So, that is how we get the cost per passenger.

I will try to stay on top of the questions post, but please remember that today, MLK day, is a city holiday and city staff are off. I am meeting with Federal Transit Administration folks from DC with Sam, and will only have sporadic access to a computer today because of that.

I know how you calculated the cost/passenger for the full running costs; what I want to know is how you get the fare down to $1.70 in the full-subsidy situation.

The claim, in the original post, is this:

[IF] the city should just find the $240,000 to subsidize the 15% of the operating costs that the city is on the hook for [THEN] we could [...] set the fare for $1.70.

If the city put up its share as no-strings subsidy, the remaining 85% of $1.76 million is $1.496 million. Your calculation again with that figure:

>> $1.496 million divided by 441,000 (total number
>> of riders 1400/day x 315 days) = $3.39.

So I am talking about a $1.69 difference: $3.39 - $1.70, that is, the calculated fare minus the proposed fare.

Or, to look at it from the opposite angle: 441,000 riders paying $1.70 each will provide $749,700 in revenue which, out of $1.496 million, leaves a $746,300 shortfall.

Where is that shortfall going to come from?

There is obviously a fudge factor involved, since you are putting 15% of $1.76 million at 240,000 whereas the calculated figure is 264,000. I assume this is related to some estimate of the number of passengers who will not arrive at the tram with Trimet pass in hand. Nonetheless, it does not seem a sufficiently large fudge factor to account for the almost 2-fold difference in calculated vs proposed fares in the full-subsidy situation.

Basically, the answer is that for the first two years, OHSU is going to cover 85% of the operation costs - $1.5 million of the $1.7ish million total - no matter what.

They are covering those costs regardless of what we set the fare at.

So, from the city/taxpayer perspective, the only question we have is about covering the $240,000 or so that consititutes the 15% share of the operating costs. The fare we set will affect the amount of money we take in to cover that $240,000.

But, after I think a little more about your question and my answer so far, I guess that the most straight-forward answer may be is this: if we (the City) set the tram fare low, OHSU will end up contributing significantly more to cover the operating costs...

So while I wouldn't necessarily break down the costs and everything the way that you have, I think that the missing $1.69 you are after is accounted for in the increased liability for OHSU.

Now remember, though, this is just for the first two years. After that, this 85-15 deal will be readjusted (per current agreements).

So, if we set the fare low now, OHSU will bare the brunt of any revenue gap (subsidy) for the first two years, but thereafter, the city will be on the hook for more and any subsidy to tram operations will be more equitably shared between the city and OHSU.

from my reading, there is nothing "basic" about any of the enroning of the tram project costs. can anyone point any of us to an indepent review of this project to date?

as far as fares go - portlanders should be able to ride this transportation option like they can ride others. our passes should work on the tram. the rich people are going to drive their huge, expensive cars up that hill anyway. public transport is clearly beneath the sw hills set.

tourists can pay $10 for a round trip. let the hotels, the PBA and the hoodwinking hoodlums who are stealing all that city money as part of the southwaterfront ripoff figure out how to make the numbers work. the tram should be a source of revenue to the city of portland, not a source of endless excuses and cost overruns. these projects should be, I don't know, funding schools, parks, neighborhood investment - not making ohsu more rich.

at 9 million, the tram looked great. even though I still love the tram, it now looks more like another example of city incompetence. good luck.

Bob,

Thanks for your post. All tickets must be validated before they are used. Tri-Met writes $200.00 tickets to non-valid ticket holders or non ticket holders each day. I will pass along your comments.

Sam

The cost of security and ticket takers might increase with more users, otherwise, the costs are pretty stable.

A recent study was conducted wherein a collection of Trimet Fare inspectors and Transit police officers converged on several Max trains as soon as the left fare less square to see who had valid fares and who didn't.
No citations were issued. The study concluded that 50% did not have valid fares.

For the Record:

While OHSU employees are not going to personally be paying for tram rides, they are not getting them for free.

OHSU will pay for the fares of the OHSU riders.

Thanks for that clarification, Roland - I would like to clarify, also, that the intention of my post, above, was not to suggest that OHSU employees be allowed to ride without anyone paying for their fares, but that OHSU be required to cover the costs. Similarly, I think that it would be best for the City of Portland if such apparently free rides were given to all those people whose ridership will increase the OHSU portion of the cost-sharing calculation two years from now.

For example, if patients going to appointments at OHSU are counted in the OHSU side of the cost-sharing equation, their fares should be paid by OHSU. One easy way to set this up would be to have a sign in the tram advertising that patients can turn in the form provided (or available at the admitting desk) when they are admitted to the hospital. Consider the Canadian VAT refund forms as an example.

Or maybe OHSU could have an admitting kiosk at the base of the tram, which would serve only to inform the hospital that the patient has arrived and give the patient their free ride. This would have the added benefit of allowing the hospital to know what sort of cases are coming up the line - and have appropriate care providers and equipment ready at the top for emergencies. The admitting and triage mini-desk could be (nick)named something cute, like "pill bottle".

gets funding from who??? Oh yeah, taxpayers, both state and federal.

How nice, not only did taxpayers ultimately pay for the tram, we have to pay to ride the stupid thing.

You guys are real geniuses!

By no means should this be taken as saying that OHSU has been an angel in this process, but I do want to make clear a few things.

1) While taxpayers did pay for a share of the tram expenses, OHSU picked up the majority of the tab- they and developers covered about 85% of the $57 million.

2) OHSU gets the majority of its funding from paying patients, students, and competitive grants (usually out of state).

3) Only 3.6% of OHSU's budget comes from the state of Oregon.

Again, I am not saying that there is not fault to be attributed to any particular party (obviously there is plenty to go around), but I do think that many tram naysayers utilize a narrative that picks and chooses what details to include so that they can try make their point.

For instance, focusing on the $57 million price tag and (erroneously) implying that taxpayers paid that whole amount, when in reality the city only contributed 15% of those costs.

Or, similarly, saying that OHSU is publicly financed, which, while technically true does not paint a full picture, since public financing accounts for a small part of its overall budget.

More on OHSU's budget here:
http://www.ohsu.edu/ohsuedu/about/facts/funding.cfm

done that, Roland. Is there any objective, audited funding data available? I'm more prone to believe numbers not coming from OHSU themselves. And I see nothing on that page referring to federal funds paid to OHSU. Remember Oregon has about a one to one ratio of federal taxes paid to federal taxes received.

And I'm fully aware local taxes didn't pay the full amount of the tram.

However, there were numerous land give-aways and financing agreements that easily pushed our tax contributions above 15%. And what are the terms and details of the LID that's paying for the majority of OHSU's share?

How much is OHSU paying for their employees fares?

OHSU will pay $1.5 million for all of their employees and patients to have access to the tram over the year. (This is 85% of the total operating costs.) The per passenger breakdown will depend on ridership.

Two issues:
*Roland says OHSU will be paying for OHSU staff and patients. If so, the City's share should have an equal cost per ticket. More data is needed.
*Rick says a seamless system was part of the original deal. One way to keep that promise is to issue an undated all-zone transit ticket as part of a $4(?) tram fare. Like tickets issued at MAX stops, the ticket could be used for the trip home if the originating ticket has expired, or any future trip. It's a little less seamless than a free tram ride for transit users. It might also get a few more people initiated into public transit.
The Fundamental Law of Economics says There Ain't Now Such Thing As A Free Lunch (TANSTAAFL). The planners of this were stupid to propose a free ride to sightseers, unless they can show a public benefit, measured in dollars, at least as great as the public cost.
We have examples in Iraq where leaders have set a poorly-considered course, and are unwilling to change course when it's obviouse the early promises won't work. We msut be willing, even in Portland, to admit our errors and move on. The promise of free rides was, in my opinion, an error.

Thanks for your input...

The issue of one-way fares is definitely on the table. The original thought, though, was that whoever goes up will want to come down, and that by doing round-trip tickets, we could potentially cut the need for another employee and/or machine at the top station selling and/or inspecting tickets.

That said, this has come up a lot, so we are rethinking the original premise.

Thanks again.

Nenriette, the discussion of what to charge, if any, is about paying only for the operation costs, not the debt of the project of $57.5M of hard costs only.

The object here should be to reduce vehicle travel down to SoWa...

With all due respect, Lenny, if that were the object, you don't let OHSU build three surface parking lots. Public policy maybe should be "reducing vehicle miles traveled"...but massive parking lots well above the district's planned limitation doesn't get us there. It brings thousands of new vehicles into South Waterfront daily.

Is there something unreasonable about at least using OHSU's parking revenues from their parking lots to help pay the operating costs of the tram, that services those parking lots?

And what about OHSU paying the Tri-Met payroll tax? Why should they continue to be exempt from paying, but beneficiaries of the transportation system?

The City's share of the cost of building the tram is not $57M, but $8.5M. A 15% share that was financed by tax-increment financing.

The ticket fare is not designed to pay this financing back. Rather, future property tax revenues in the South Waterfront District will pay back the City's building costs.

"The ticket fare is not designed to pay this financing back. Rather, future property tax revenues in the South Waterfront District will pay back the City's building costs...."

HAHAHAHAHA!! That's funny, Jesse. Were you able to type that with a straight face?

The SoWa TIF scheme won't even begin to pay the debt serviced on the tram, much less the principal.

And what about all the tax dollars OHSU has collected from us over the years? How about we stop funding OHSU -- sounds fair, doesn't it?

Peter Kholler's laughing all the say to the bank, on top of his $405,000 salary.

You might want think about checking a few basic facts before you make such flippant comments as these Chris. Only 3.6% of OHSU funding comes from state appropriations. That's about 42 million dollars out of a budget of over a billion. Furthermore, the states funding is limited to activities such as education and community service, not building a tram.

As a public corporation, budget and funding sources are a google search away. Before posting such misleading and, ultimately ignorant, accusations, I suggest you check your facts.

me ignorant?!? At least I have the guts to post my real name, "Connie Chung."

And I know exactly where you got your "facts." You aped exactly the same data found here:

http://www.ohsu.edu/ohsuedu/about/facts/moneygo.cfm

Those are some real objective facts, Connie.

I suppose you don't have any access to independently audited funding data -- if there is such a thing. And your source doesn't mention federal $$ (read; us) given to OHSU.

And,what happened to all those biotech jobs promised by OHSU bigwigs? Not one research facility is slated for SoWa. Funny how they don't mention that anymore. All this tram 'linchpin' nonsense has created an URD that's underfunded by tens of millions of dollars.

So Connie, don't attempt to call me ignorant. This tram is a scam of the highest order.

I enjoy seeing morons like connie chung getting smacked down. it is obvious, to me, that you(chris) work for yourself while cc is most likely part of the city(problem) government.

Chris's financial analysis is far superior than any of the shell games I have seen coming out of the city and the developers.

finally, I would like to know how I could wrangle money from public schmucks based on "future revenues" and government giveaways. hell, if I could lie to my investors, horribly mismanage a large capital project while underestimating operating expenses and muse on how much to charge my sucker customers while considering my run for mayor, I would be tempted to do it, too.

this is what democracy looks like. this is also what public mismanagement of funds looks like(chris, the word "scam" is inflammatory!). get used to it.

Dr Kohler's salary ws $600,000 plus perks

Jesse:

The $8.5 million estimate of the City's share of Tram Construction is laugh out loud funny.

What about the $13 million in Federal Funds that will be spent on neighborhood projects that were used to enhance support from local residents?

What about the transfer of $3.4 million of "local funds" owed to a future OHSU project which the City "reimbursed OHSU" for?

What about the millions in soft costs (PDOT staff time, design fees, consultants, legal fees, etc)?

What about the millions the PDC funneled back to OHSU or the developers and OHSU with sweetheart deals and Kiss me Kate land giveaways.

Sam's office has lost all credibility on how much the city has spent on the tram. It is clearly in your political best interest to continue to understate the city's subsidy of SoWhat and the Tram.

The most interesting metric of all: how money tens of millions will be siphoned off the general fund to cover the TIF financing costs? What impact will that have on the PPS budget over the next 15 years?