A D V E R T I S E M E N T
A D V E R T I S E M E N T
Contributed graphic
The grant will pay for more than half of the $4.95 million project —including new eastbound and westbound platforms, improved lighting, new security cameras, new ticket vending machines, other security measures, public art and track treatments such as cobblestones or bricks to make it look more urban.
ADVERTISEMENTS
Gresham’s urban renewal agency has won a $3 million grant – the second largest in the city’s history – to rebuild a Rockwood MAX station.
The grant to fund a remodel of the 188th Avenue light-rail station was awarded through the state’s Connect Oregon program, which funds transportation infrastructure in the form of rail, aviation, marine and transit using state lottery dollars.
“This has been a long time coming,” said Janet Young, Gresham’s urban renewal acting executive director, during a Thursday, Nov. 20, meeting of the Gresham-Rockwood Urban Renewal Commission. The agency applied for the grant in 2005 during Connect Oregon’s first grant cycle, but was a runner-up then.
The grant will pay for more than half of the $4.95 million project – including new eastbound and westbound platforms, improved lighting, new security cameras, new ticket vending machines, other security measures, public art and track treatments such as cobblestones or bricks to make it look more urban. Tracks now running through Gresham are surrounded by gravel and look more like freight rails, said Rebecca Ocken, urban renewal manager.
“It’s thrilling, it’s just thrilling,” Ocken said. “This is the first significant infrastructure program for the urban renewal district,” both in terms of dollar amount and community impact, she added. It’s also one of only a few awarded in an urban area.
The city’s largest grant was a $5.25 million federal grant that helped fund the overhaul of Powell Boulevard.
TriMet is contributing $300,000 to the Rockwood project and the city’s urban renewal agency is paying the remaining $1.65 million. The commission also is allocating a $300,000 Metropolitan Improvement Plan grant earmarked for designing boulevard treatments (wider sidewalks, street trees and such) for East Burnside Street between 181st Avenue and Stark Street since the light-rail station is on Burnside. Construction is to begin in November 2009 with the station to be complete in September 2010.
The station, like the others on the MAX system’s East Side Line, is 23 years old. Rebuilding and revitalizing the station would improve transit rider’s experience on the train, as well as complement redevelopment of the surrounding area, the commission wrote in its grant proposal.
Property directly south of the station is slated for development as a cultural marketplace.
Commissioners plan on planting “a low maintenance grassy substance” on the land that used to house the old Fred Meyer building to provide a green place for eyes to rest until the property is developed, Ocken added.
Think of how much could be done with that (taxpayer) money.
And we're spending it on MAX.
Just appalling.
(email verified)
Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 10:15 AM
Looks more like freight rails?
Gravel runs almost the entire distance of the Max line because it is a rail system. This gravel bed is needed to keep water from collecting on the tracks. Are all city/county managers as ignorant as Ocken?
Revamping the 188th station will do nothing for the city of Gresham, and planting grass seed certainly won't make it more appealing for those who are smart enough to know the "triangle" is a hopeless, crime infested wasteland.
That money would be better suited for Public Safety, funding more police officers and patrol units. Something that IS needed for the area.
(email verified)
Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 02:23 AM
Why are we bailing out this station?
We were told if we build Max it would attract good businesses!
This was a thriving Fred Meyers shopping center before the Light Rail was built.
We can't keep bailing out the failure that follows Light rail.
(email verified)
Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 05:30 AM
I'm an older light rail/bus rider and it seems to me if there weren't so many free rides given to people or special perks in the form of "honored citizens" or "foreign citizens" (yes they do have thier own low cost passes)they might be able to support the light rail system. I can see giving low cost passes to the elderly but even people in certain drug recovery programs get them. It's gotten ridiculous.
(email verified)
Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 06:10 AM
The Original Taco House just closed as well. What does that tell you about the area? I hear that the restaurant was broken into so many times that he was forced to close. That and he didn't feel the location was safe for his employees and customers.
You'd figure that a mexican restaurant that's been in business for 30 odd years would be able to thrive in an area populated by "ethnic" groups... But the resident/visiting "groups" would rather sell drugs, shoot and stab each other.
Can I have my chunk of the $3 million back? If not, how about using the money to close that station...
(email verified)
Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 07:28 AM
Why didn't Tri-Met pay for this? Are they a profit company? So why are they building more lines if they cant keep the ones up to date that they hove now? As like any other company they should have to provide for them self. If they can't afford the upgrades then raise prices, or lower it to get more riders. Why not ask the people what they want and you might get more riders and then you'll have more money and fix your own stations along your route.
Tir-met could and should have gone about this whole MAX line around the city differently. Make it harder for passengers to sneak on with out paying. Turn styles with a employee to sale tickets like most other cities mas transit systems.
Max, its a free ride now there using your tax money for there company.
Gee I'm sure there are many other private companies that need help too.
(email verified)
Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 08:41 AM
Can you imagine how well three million dollar's worth of razor wire would do to keep the scum inside Rockwood? I propose we fence the whole area off... and let anyone who wants to be there go in.
As long as they don't come back out.
(email verified)
Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 10:21 AM
Nice to know the most pressing need for $4.95 million is replacing a MAX station. World must be in great shape. People should be mad as hell!
(email verified)
Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 02:24 PM
The previous comments are all valid, but does anyone drive through that area after MAX stops running (about 2 A.M.)? No trains, no shoppers, few pedestrians, BUT I see groups of young ethnic men walking around carrying baseball bats. Did practice just end (at 2 A.M.) or is something else going on?
(email verified)
Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 06:21 PM
Maybe part of the makeover will be a baseball diamond
(email verified)
Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 05:23 AM
Let's be excited about spending urban renewal dollars on Tri-Met? As a business owner and resident of the tri-county area, I pay more Tri-Met taxes than I will EVER see returned to me in services. In fact, where I live and where my business is located there is no service. So, if the station at 188 needs improvement (which I have no doubt it does) let Tri-Met pay for it--they have lots of my cash.
I guess the mentality is: if there is a grant available, apply for it regardless of how funds can be used. I'll bet whoever at City Hall wrote this grant request never stopped to ask his/herself if this was a project the Rockwood renewal plan should even be involved with.
(email verified)
Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 09:51 AM
TAX DOLLARS ARE TAX DOLLARS ARE TAX DOLLARS.
Boy the whining and moaning you guys do over the most ridiculous stuff never ceases to astound me.
URBAN RENEWAL IS FOR STRUCTURAL IMPROVEMENTS, DUH!
Like buildings, sidewalks, TRANSIT CENTERS.
GET OVER YOUR TRIMET PHOBIAS, it makes you all look like ignorant dolts.
(email verified)
Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 10:57 AM
I am a longtime Max commuter but feel that Tri-met can do more to provide a safer and more efficient system by eliminating all those useless Max stops that in large part create security problems. Being from NY, try adding Turn styles to help minimize the criminals and trouble makers. Get rid of those passes for drug addicts. Why do working people have to bear the costs for deadbeats and criminals. I guesss in some cases, crime does pay!
(email verified)
Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 12:10 PM
Pouring maple syrup on a cowpie don't make it a pancake Al. People will (rightfully) avoid this station, and Tri Met in general, until they make the system safe.
That means Tri Met taking the necessary steps to get the junkies, drunks, gang bangers, and other human vermin off the system.
(email verified)
Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 12:21 PM
Ignorant dolts is right. Sheesh.
(email verified)
Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 01:15 PM
We are told that Light rail attracts businesses and improves the neighborhoods it goes through.
It didn't happen at 181st, in fact it has gone from a thriving shopping area to a slum with businesses moving away. Now the LIGHT RAIL supporters want us to take urban renewal funds which is a tax shift that raids school police fire and social services to rebuild another light rail station and the area around it.
Urban renewal has been abused by Tri Met because it is a giant pot of money and light rail is very expensive and unsustainable.
----
"TAX DOLLARS ARE TAX DOLLARS ARE TAX DOLLARS."
al m
-------
No they are not and should not be wasted.
------
URBAN RENEWAL IS FOR STRUCTURAL IMPROVEMENTS, DUH!
Like buildings, sidewalks, TRANSIT CENTERS.
al m
------
Building,and sidewalks should be built by the property owner not the taxpayers and transit center should be built by the transit user fees. Urban renewal has been abused by Tri Met and the transit supporters.
Light Rail is not sustainable
.
(email verified)
Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 05:31 AM
"Pouring maple syrup on a cowpie don't make it a pancake Al. People will (rightfully) avoid this station, and Tri Met in general, until they make the system safe."
~~>Nobody has ever explained to me how is it THAT TRIMET IS RESPONSIBLE FOR CRIME IN THE CITIES IT SERVES? Last time I looked crime is HANDLED BY THE POLICE, not the transit agency. Do you call up the police when you need a ride somewhere, no, you call Trimet scheduling or a taxi!
Oh yea, you guys want TRIMET TO PAY FOR IT! Right, as I said previously, TAX DOLLARS ARE TAX DOLLARS ARE TAX DOLLARS. Why don't we (trimet) just open our own police department then, completely independent from all the other existing police departments!
"No they are not and should not be wasted."
~~~>OH I SEE, $700 billion to bankers is not wasted? TRILLIONS spent killing innocent people bankrupting are country are not wasted?
"Light Rail is not sustainable"
~~~>OH, AND THE AUTO INDUSTRY IS? Huh huh, and that's why they are now begging for socialism to save capitalism.
I don't even know why I waste my time trying to reason with unreasonable people such as you folks that comment on the Tribune blog.
(email verified)
Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 08:40 AM
Even though Urban Renewal and TriMet are both supported by taxes taken out of our collective pockets, shouldn't Tri Met be responsible for taking measures to install security at its stations or on its trains? Why not start with what is already in place as far as tax dollars collected are concerned? Why just throw good money after bad?
As long as TriMet is not having an adequate number of fare inspectors, it is creating an attractive nuisance by allowing gang members to ride for free a congregate at stops. Look at the crime stats for Gresham and how close to MAX stations the largest number of gang related calls to police are. When thugs can ride for free, intimidate passengers both on the trains and at platforms, buy and sell drugs with impugnity, shouldn't TriMet do SOMETHING to mitigate the attractiveness of its stations and free rides it provides to those who would do harm?
If I put in a swimming pool, and did not provide a fence, then let anyone and everyone swim there on the honor system, and then someone drowned, you can bet it would be MY BACON for creating a dangerous attraction with no supervison. That would be deemed irresponsible on my part. Why is it any different with TriMet?
Why is it just fine for TriMet to build a line, not provide adequate security, let thugs take over, and then another entity comes along to do what TriMet was not even willing to ATTEMPT to maintain? Tax dollars ARE tax dollars ON TOP OF tax dollars, so allowing TriMet to remain irresponsible is not good stewardship of THOSE tax dollars. I think that's all most of us are saying.
(email verified)
Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 10:26 AM
"shouldn't Tri Met be responsible for taking measures to install security at its stations or on its trains?"
~~>yes sir, I happen to agree with you here, however this system was designed on the 'honor' system decades ago for reasons that have not fully been explained. Planners should have made entry to max less accessible by securing stations.
HOWEVER, the fact that there might be some people inclined to criminal activity is not the fault of TRIMET!
You contend that somehow TRIMET is responsible for this behavior, THAT IS ABSURD!
"IF put in a swimming pool, and did not provide a fence, then let anyone and everyone swim there on the honor system, and then someone drowned, you can bet it would be MY BACON for creating a dangerous attraction with no supervision."
~~>That maybe true, however if the person willingly went into your pool then how is that your fault? If some little baby crawled into your pool and drowned then that might be a different story. HOW ARE WE AS A SOCIETY SUPPOSE TO SUPERVISE ALL THE PLACES THAT ADULTS FREQUENT? You want a police officer patrolling every road? That's what your asking of the transit district!
***And the tax dollar issue is a red herring due to all the money that is being flushed down the toilet so as to save the banks and occupy a bunch of innocents in a land that wants nothing to do with us.***
(email verified)
Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 11:45 AM
FYI- I AM NOT A LIGHT RAIL SUPPORTER,and there has been an increase in police presence on the system for quite awhile now.
SOME OF YOU FOLKS OVER HERE AT THE TRIB BLOG ARE NEVER GOING TO BE HAPPY WITH ANYTHING TRIMET DOES, just admit it.
You see nothing good at all, obviously, you were all McCain supporters, focus on the bad, fear, superiority.
Your entitled to feel that way, luckily your not in control.
(email verified)
Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 12:01 PM
I agree with Al. The crime problem stems from the results of Smart Growth Housing built in Rockwood, and all along the MAX line, for the sole purpose of segregating the lower income into certain neighborhoods. Mixed income areas have a lower concentration of crime. MAX does seem to facilitate the distribution of crime along the MAX Service area. Buses do not seem to have as many problems, I believe because the driver demands a minimum level of behavior from the riders. A "Conductor" on each train would minimize inappropriate behavior on the MAX, but it would not prevent its export to other communities, and it would be VERY costly. As far as rebuilding the station at Rockwood? Well, you know what the say, "you can put lipstick on a pig....." - you know the rest.
(email verified)
Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 12:40 PM
Al, regarding my pool theory: "That maybe true, however if the person willingly went into your pool then how is that your fault?"
Check the city codes and you would find that simply by HAVING A POOL and NOT FENCING IT, it would be MY FAULT IF ANYONE WERE TO DROWN OR INJURE THEMSELVES in or around my pool. It is a very basic idea. Ask my neighbor who had to install chain link fence around his pool when an inspector said the hog wire fence he already had up was more like a ladder than a fence- not enough of a deterent and not tall enough to comply with the existing codes. If you have something that attracts people and do not make an effort to control access to it, it is your own liability.
In my opinion, by not inspecting for fares, like they used to do when this east side line first came into town, TriMet has created an attractive nuisance. They DID used to have lots of fare inspectors who checked to make sure the honor system was working. That seemed to work fine. I appreciated their presence. They were not on every train, but you never knew which one they might pop up on. That was a plus. People still tried to ride for free, but ran the risk of getting caught. Fare inspectors are all but gone now.
Should I put in a pool and then ask for Urban Renewal dollars to fence it and make upgrades? I am thinking a cobblestone deck around it would be pretty and add rustic charm.
As for your assertion that I would have to have been a McCain supporter, you could not be any farther off the mark if you tried. Moreover, I do find many things that I am quite happy about- this fiasco is just not one of them.
Mark is right about lipstick on a pig. If crime were not tolerated on and around MAX vis a vis enough security to drive it elsewhere, it would be elsewhere. As things stand, much of it is on and around MAX. TriMet tolerating it allows it to proliferate. Is it TriMet's fault there is crime to begin with? No. Is TriMet guilty of allowing it to go unchecked by doing as little as possible to migigate it as far as trains and platforms are concerned? You betcha.
I'll be happy with TriMet when there are enough tangible changes that are adequate. Short little fences at a few stops is not going to do it. Letting others pick up the slack for them when they are clearly not doing what they could and should be doing is not going to cut it either.
If TriMet's Fred Hanson had any pride or even a little bit of spine, he'd be ashamed of himself and what MAX has degenerated into. Even mediocrity would be better than what he has to offer the public.
(email verified)
Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 02:18 PM
Light rail was build on the honor system because that was one way to justify the cost of it.
It was a experiment that many said would not work. The neighborhoods were much better then and Tri-Met promised big saving if we used the honor system.
In the beginning we were told once light rail was built it would need less money to keep running compared to running buses.
Unfortunately that has turned out to be untrue
(email verified)
Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 02:43 PM
OH I SEE, $700 billion to bankers is not wasted? TRILLIONS spent killing innocent people bankrupting are country are not wasted?
"Light Rail is not sustainable"
~~~>OH, AND THE AUTO INDUSTRY IS? Huh huh, and that's why they are now begging for socialism to save capitalism.
al m
--------------------------
Very good change the subject and don't explain why it is ok for Light Rail to run so far in the red. Tri Met only collects about 18% of the operating cost at the fare box and none of the capital construction, or upgrades to the stations or any of the new rail cars.
But it must be ok scene we waste money on other boondoggles
(email verified)
Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 02:50 PM
Another genius-level commentary from Al M. the highly educated, dual degree Trimet bus driver.
"You see nothing good at all, obviously, you were all McCain supporters, focus on the bad, fear, superiority."
If they don't agree with you, they must be McCain supporters. Wow, that sure sets 'em straight.
No doubt about it Al, that education did you alot of good.
Imagine what kind of insufferable @$$hat you would be without it.
Please feel free to go away and leave us "unreasonable people" to our limitless ignorance.
Tool.
(email verified)
Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 02:55 PM
SOME OF YOU FOLKS OVER HERE AT THE TRIB BLOG ARE NEVER GOING TO BE HAPPY WITH ANYTHING TRIMET DOES, just admit it.
a lm
--------------------
Tri-Mets problem is it is using more than it's fare share of taxpayers money from Auto and fuel taxes, the Tri-Met business tax, urban renewal taxes, earmarks from Washington DC.
Tri Met use to promise is if we build light rail it will reduce congestion. Now we are told it will reduce congestion in the future or it won't get better but it will not be as bad as it would if we do not build it.
We were told that light rail is less expensive than buses, but it is not.
Tri Met needs to be held accountable for their past promises.
I will be happyier with Tri-Met when the fare box pays at least 50% of the cost of buses, Trains, tracks, stations and operating cost. It would be a step in the right direction
(email verified)
Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 03:03 PM
The purpose of TriMet Bus service is to deliver a small number of the population daily to and from markets, and the cost is justified by additional income tax revenue from business. The purpose of MAX is to justify attracting and spending additional federal and local tax revenue and to support regional planning initiatives. The cost of MAX Light Rail can never compete with the value of Bus Service. As for the value of the honor system, it costs more to enforce compliance than to expect people to act in an honorable fashion. To expect that fare enforcement will detour crime is quit a stretch.
(email verified)
Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 03:41 PM
All this wonderful proposed work on a system that has done nothing but increase the crime in Rockwood, drive away business and provide a method for the miscreints to move about our fair cities.
Why are the taxpayers paying for an upgrade to a private system? And where is the plan to ensure that riders are actually having to pay a fare to board the train? Of course they won't install a fare required entrance system, because that we equate to a deserted Max station.
But alas, have not fear. When the Dems are in control, fuel prices will soon soar (as they desire them too) and people will flock to the crime train to get to work.
(email verified)
Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 10:29 PM
"Check the city codes and you would find that simply by HAVING A POOL and NOT FENCING IT, it would be MY FAULT IF ANYONE WERE TO DROWN OR INJURE THEMSELVES in or around my pool."
~~>First of all that is PRIVATE PROPERTY, not usable by the public. Secondly, we do live in a litigious society, which is one of the pitfalls of advanced civilization with multiple levels of bureaucratic systems. Does a public park have a chain link fence on it? Does a city street have a chain link fence?
"In my opinion, by not inspecting for fares, like they used to do when this east side line first came into town, TriMet has created an attractive nuisance."
~~>Your right on this issue, no doubt. But this system was conceptualized 30+ years ago and back then things were "groovy" as you may recall. Yea, that was a stupid thing to do, but this is Portland.
"As for your assertion that I would have to have been a McCain supporter, you could not be any farther off the mark if you tried."
~~>I apologize for that remark. :-(
"In the beginning we were told once light rail was built it would need less money to keep running compared to running buses."
~~>Can you provide any documentation to back up that statement?
"Another genius-level commentary from Al M. the highly educated, dual degree Trimet bus driver."
~~>Here is the usual type of blogger that we run into over here at the TRIBUNE blog. The blogger that has to stoop to some sort of personal attack in order to make themselves feel superior. It's pathetic.
"I will be happyier with Tri-Met when the fare box pays at least 50% of the cost of buses, Trains, tracks, stations and operating cost. It would be a step in the right direction"
~~>Will you please provide me with documentation from any transit system in the world that meets that criteria.
"The purpose of TriMet Bus service is to deliver a small number of the population daily to and from markets, and the cost is justified by additional income tax revenue from business."
~~>I disagree with MARK plenty, but he always understands issues and is literate enough to post complex theories clearly. The above statement is correct.
FURTHERMORE, there is another reason for the light rail fixation, and they never talk about it either:
http://rantingsofatrimetbusdriver.blogspot.com/2008/11/truth-about-light-rail.html
(email verified)
Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 08:35 AM
"I will be happyier with Tri-Met when the fare box pays at least 50% of the cost of buses, Trains, tracks, stations and operating cost. It would be a step in the right direction"
~~>Will you please provide me with documentation from any transit system in the world that meets that criteria.
al m
-------------------
Rose City Transit was self supporting and paid taxes before the State and local governments said they could not raise the fare by a nickel.
The state invented Tri Met and added the business tax, which was about a .25 cent increase per rider and opened the can of worms we have today.
We also have laws that don't allow any transit agency to compete with Tri Met.
It is hard to compete with a government monopoly with taxing authority.
(email verified)
Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 09:28 AM
PLAN COULD MAKE MAX SELF-SUPPORTING
Oregonian, The (Portland, OR) - Thursday, June 23, 1988
Author: FOSTER CHURCH - of the Oregonian Staff
Summary: An initial grant of $6.5 million has been set aside by a Senate panel
A Senate panel approved money Wednesday that could boost private development in downtown Gresham and make MAX the first rail transit system in the country to pay for itself.
``I think the concept that is literally being pioneered here is exceedingly significant,'' said Portland City Commissioner Earl Blumenauer, who is working with the Urban Mass Transportation Administration to study public-private partnerships for transit. ``We are trying to make transit work under the new rules of less federal subsidy and higher cost recovery. And what is contemplated here under Project Break-Even is targeted economic development where government money is used to kick things off, but most of the investment is from other sources.''
(email verified)
Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 10:03 AM
"Rose City Transit was self supporting and paid taxes before the State and local governments said they could not raise the fare by a nickel."
~~>I would like to see EVIDENCE of this statement. I have asked Jason Mchuff to research this issue.
"It is hard to compete with a government monopoly with taxing authority."
~~>Why don't we just privatize everything then? Like the police and the fire and the water department and the roads. Wonderful idea. THEY CAN ALL FOLLOW THE BANKS EXAMPLES OF HOW TO MANAGE THINGS!
"PLAN COULD MAKE MAX SELF-SUPPORTING"
~~>I'm not against that idea, I just don't think it happens anywhere. And why is it such a tremendous crime in your eyes to subsidize movement for people that are unable to afford to purchase, insure, and maintain a private automobile? They hand out subsidies to all sorts of businesses, LIKE THE BANKS FOR THE TUNE OF $700 BILLION, making the whole transit issue A RED HERRING!
(email verified)
Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 10:42 AM
"It is hard to compete with a government monopoly with taxing authority."
~~>Why don't we just privatize everything then? Like the police and the fire and the water department and the roads. Wonderful idea. THEY CAN ALL FOLLOW THE BANKS EXAMPLES OF HOW TO MANAGE THINGS!
al m
------------
what does the police,fire,water dept roads and banks have to do with outlawing the private sector from competing with Tri-Met transit monopoly.
(email verified)
Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 10:53 AM
"PLAN COULD MAKE MAX SELF-SUPPORTING"
~~>I'm not against that idea, I just don't think it happens anywhere. And why is it such a tremendous crime in your eyes to subsidize movement for people that are unable to afford to purchase, insure, and maintain a private automobile? They hand out subsidies to all sorts of businesses, LIKE THE BANKS FOR THE TUNE OF $700 BILLION, making the whole transit issue A RED HERRING!
AL M
----------------
Now are we changing the subject to bailing out banks again.
So are you saying if it is ok to bail out banks it must be ok to bailout Tri-Mets light rail monopoly?
That doesn't seem to be a very good endorsement of Tri Met and light rail.
(email verified)
Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 11:02 AM
Al m- apology accepted. Thank you.
Mark- "To expect that fare enforcement will detour crime is quit a stretch."
So keeping non-fare paying thugs off (or to a minimum) is not going to help? Are you kidding me?!?!?! Tell that to Laurie Lee Chilcote, the gentleman who was beaned in the head with a baseball bat by a non-fare paying gang banger. When there were adequate fare inspectors, these punks were escorted off the train.
Would fare inspectors eliminate crime 100%? No. Would they drive the punks back off? Many of them, yes. As evidenced by how prolific the thugs have become when there are pretty much NO fare inspectors, I do not think it is a huge stretch to think that having them again would push some of the crime back into the shadows. Just as sure as sewage flows downhill, criminals look for places to commit crimes where they are less likely to get caught. When there are virtually no controls in place, the criminal element is attracted to it.
Ever go into a Bi-Mart store? I worked at a variety store next to one a few years back. In the store where I worked, kids came in and shoplifted. Adults did, too, but kids were a huge problem. Then one day I noticed that Bi-Mart did not seem to have this problem. By restricting access to those who had paid for a membership, they eliminated much (probably not all) of the unsavory element that my store had to serve. In the same way that Bi-Mart keeps a number of undesirable people out of their stores, forcing users of MAX to buy a ticket before having access to the trains would keep a number of thugs off. That the whole system was poorly designed so as to allow non-fare paying people to loiter at the platforms is another aspect of the problem. Turnstiles might be better than fare inspectors in the long term, but I'd settle for fare inspectors for now.
I've ridden MAX both with and without fare inspectors, and I'll take two live officers with radios over none (and no prospect of any coming on board) any time.
(email verified)
Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 11:19 AM
alm: are you related to mat thew van tes s?
(email verified)
Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 11:39 AM
"GET OVER YOUR TRIMET PHOBIAS, it makes you all look like ignorant dolts."
This was in your first post, Al.
"I don't even know why I waste my time trying to reason with unreasonable people such as you folks that comment on the Tribune blog."
This was in your second post, Al.
Then your last post contains this gem:
"~~>Here is the usual type of blogger that we run into over here at the TRIBUNE blog. The blogger that has to stoop to some sort of personal attack in order to make themselves feel superior. It's pathetic.
Yep, your high-minded dedication to open-minded, tolerant debate avoiding ad hominem at all costs, is an example for us all to follow.
Really.
Honest.
(email verified)
Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 11:55 AM
"hat does the police,fire,water dept roads and banks have to do with outlawing the private sector from competing with Tri-Met transit monopoly."
~~~>The police, fire, and roads do not allow competition, and the banks are the example of free market failure!
"So are you saying if it is ok to bail out banks it must be ok to bailout Tri-Mets light rail monopoly?"
~~>That's exactly what I am saying! Bailing out multi-million dollar executives is ok in your eyes but subsidizing transit is a big crime eh? Your thinking process needs some fine tuning, SIR!
["Inbreeding Defiles The Gene Pool"]
~~>When you develop the ability to use your mind over your emotions I will attempt to dialog with you.
{"Ever heard of reality?"}
~~>Why don't you try posting in a continuous recognizable blog name, instead of the sniveling coward anonymous way.
I'm used to you guys having been participating on this blog for years now.
Your name calling, attempts to demean me, cowardly anonymity in making your childish posts do not discourage me.
Those of you who participate in this sorts of activity just demean yourselves and lower the quality of the TRIBUNE BLOG in general,which is too bad, because I happen to like the PORTLAND TRIBUNE and the way it handles its news stories.
(email verified)
Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 11:57 AM
~~>That's exactly what I am saying! Bailing out multi-million dollar executives is ok in your eyes but subsidizing transit is a big crime eh? Your thinking process needs some fine tuning, SIR!
Al m
--------
I don't think anyone on this thread has said bailing out the banks was ok.
You just assumed it.
I'm opposed to bailing out banks and Tri-Met
(email verified)
Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 07:44 PM
"I'm opposed to bailing out banks and Tri-Met"
~~>Providing public transportation is no different than providing police or fire services, its DOES NOT GENERATE PROFIT.
BTW-Head researcher Jason Mchuff has found that ROSE CITY TRANSIT was about to go out of business!
(email verified)
Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 08:03 PM
BTW-Head researcher Jason Mchuff has found that ROSE CITY TRANSIT was about to go out of business!
"al m"
------
Rose city Transit was not allowed to raise their fares.
By who you might ask? Oregon government agencies and politicians! The same people that started Tri-Met!
Just connect the dots.
(email verified)
Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 08:34 AM
~~>Providing public transportation is no different than providing police or fire services, its DOES NOT GENERATE PROFIT.
"al m"
-------------------
Protecting individual citizens with Police and later fire departments has been the job of local governments. Providing transit started in in Portland around the 1960's.
Providing poor transit has become the norm serving only a very small percent of the metro area, charging us Rolls Royce Prices.
If Tri-Met was paid for at the fair box, it would have to try to provide good service, because Tri-Met would have to please the customers.
Tri-Met is paid even when it fails it's customers.
Why should they, they have plenty of money
(email verified)
Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 08:50 AM
Browse archive
The Portland Tribune
News feed
Find a paper
Enter a street name
or a 5 digit zip code
Our Portland website design and marketing company created custom websites for these top providers of Portland pest control services, Portland cleaning services and Portland florists.
Search engine marketing, website templates, portland web design and website promotion by Webfu // 503.381.5553
New down and fleece north face jackets. The largest selection of North Face Jackets available online. Free shipping on orders over $40.00
See the latest styles of ski jackets and backpacks from The North Face.
Become a Naturopathic Doctor. Developing future leaders in health care. Named by The Princeton Review as one of the best med schools in the country. Bastyr University.
Facebook
Digg
Del.icio.us
Newsvine
Stumbleupon
Reddit
Re: MAX stop to get makeover
"“It’s thrilling, it’s just thrilling,” Ocken said. “This is the first significant infrastructure program for the urban renewal district,” both in terms of dollar amount and community impact, she added."
Yes, just thrilling; Urban renewal dollars being spent to upgrade a MAX stop that should be updated by TriMet and have ADEQUATE SECURITY DEVICES provided by TriMet, who staunchly refuses to do so.
Yes, it will be an improvement, but in that part of town, it would not take much to have an improvement, and while much has been done to improve the Rockwood triangle area in the last several years, but I still do not see any signifigant new businesses coming to the area. Several long-time businesses HAVE closed.
I looked at my tax bill this week and wondered what we are getting for our Urban Renewal dollars that are collected, so this story is timely for me. I used to think it was a good thing to invest in the rattier parts of our community, but after the meager results we have to show for it, I have to wonder if it is worth it. Better crosswalks along Stark and Burnside between 181 and 190th- are you kidding me? That's IT?!?! And now an improved MAX platform at one of the scariest parts of town? What's next- public art and public toilets at 162 and Burnside to accomodate and intellectually stimulate all the drug dealers and hookers?
Forgive me if I am less than enthusiastic about this "signifigant" project.
"Centennial Neighbor"
(email verified)
Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 09:51 AM