more from tri-met:
History of Fareless Square Operations in Downtown Portland
Tri-Met's Fareless Square is a well known, integral part of the fare structure. Although it appears
to be a constant, in fact it has undergone many changes in its 16 year lifetime. Following is a
synopsis of how Fareless Square has evolved, and its inter-dependency with the overall fare
structure.
Fare Collection Before Fareless Square
The traditional method of fare payment for transit systems is pay-as-you-enter (PAYE) which
works as follows: passengers enter through the front door and at that point pay their fare or show
their transfer. The advantage of PAYE is that drivers can monitor fares and ensure that every
rider has paid at least the base fare before completing the trip. This was the system used by Tri-
Met prior to the inception of Fareless Square. All trips within the downtown area cost the base
fare.
Original Operation - 1975
Modeled after Seattle's downtown "Magic Carpet" service, Tri- Met's Fareless Square began in
1975 two years before the opening of the Transit Mall. From the inception of Fareless Square, it
was recognized that fare evasion and fare inspection could be a problem. To help mitigate the
possible revenue loss, Tri-Met first implemented Fareless Square with PAYE on trips going
towards downtown, and a pay-as-you-leave (PAYL) system on trips going away from
downtown. In downtown, passengers could board through all doors.
However, PAYL did not work well on crowded buses where passengers struggled to get past
standing passengers so they could pay their fare as they disembarked. PAYL resulted in travel
time increases due to delays in passengers exiting the buses. This required additional buses and
operating expense during the evening peak hours. Bus operators felt the PAYL system did not
eliminate fare evasion. Determined evaders simply walked off the bus at the end of their trip
without paying their fare.
First Revision - 1979
To eliminate the costs of the time delays, in 1979 Tri-Met suspended Fareless Square and
returned to PAYE between 3-6 PM weekdays but retained Fareless Square and PAYL downtown
all other hours. However, the on-again/off-again system created confusion for passengers.
Second Revision - 1982
PAYL was replaced with PAYE all directions all hours in 1982 when Tri-Met implemented self-
service fare in anticipation of the start-up of MAX service. Rather than have drivers monitor
fares, passengers were responsible for having valid proof of payment, either a transfer, validated
ticket, or monthly pass. Checking fares became the responsibility of a force of 30 fare
inspectors. Because operators were not responsible for monitoring fare payment and to take
advantage of the new articulated buses with three double-wide doors, passengers were allowed to
board any door. Fare evasion increased significantly during this time since passengers could
enter and leave the vehicle without ever having paid a fare.
Third Revision - 1984
With the elimination of self-service fares in April 1984, Tri-Met returned to driver monitoring of
fares and the fare inspection staff was eventually reduced to five. However, since passengers
could still enter through the rear doors in the Mall without paying their fare, this system still did
not take full advantage of driver monitoring. Fare evasion remained a problem.
Elimination Proposal - June 1986
In 1986, a proposal was taken to the public to eliminate Fareless Square. The proposal was
designed to address Tri-Met revenue issues especially fare evasion and the costs of fare
inspection. The proposal was dropped, however, because of public support for Fareless Square
in providing intra-downtown mobility and meeting regional air quality goals.
MAX is Introduced - September 1986
MAX was designed to be fully integrated with the bus system. This design takes maximum
advantage of vehicle and manpower resources, and simplifies the system as well. To simplify
the fare structure, MAX and bus fares are as comparable as possible. Although fares must be
purchased and validated before boarding (operators do not check fares on MAX), passengers do
not need to know a completely different set of rules for MAX versus bus trips. Unlike many
transit districts, the two modes are completely integrated. Buses feed MAX stations where
passengers are required to transfer in order to continue their trip downtown. Since bus/MAX
transfers were integral to the system, the fare structure also needed to be integrated. The fare is
the same regardless of which vehicle is boarded first, transfers are free, and both MAX and the
bus are free within Fareless Square.
With the opening of MAX in 1986, the number of fare inspectors was increased. Since
passengers do not pass by an operator on MAX, fare inspectors assume the role of driver
monitoring. However, the number of inspectors dedicated to Fareless Square on the buses was
decreased since 1986 from five to one or two.
Fourth Revision - 1988
In 1988, modification of Fareless Square was again considered in order to lower the amount of
real and perceived fare evasion. Public testimony at public hearings often indicated that paying
riders felt "cheated" by fare evasion associated with Fareless Square.
At the time, Tri-Met estimated that Fareless Square, the source of nearly all bus fare evasion,
cost Tri-Met $250,000 - $300,000 annually in unpaid fares. Given the concerns with fare
evasion, several options for Fareless Square were considered:
1. Eliminating Fareless Square was rejected because it did not address the regional needs for
air quality improvements, and intra-downtown mobility for transit patrons and auto
commuters.
2. Options for maintaining Fareless Square at only select hours or select days (e.g. 10 a.m.
to 3 p.m. weekdays and all day Saturday and Sunday) were rejected. Time based fares
would be inconsistent with the goal of a simple fare system that encourages ridership.
3. Allowing Fareless Square trips only at select bus stops was rejected for two reasons: 1) It
would be too confusing and would defeat the goal of encouraging ridership through
simplicity, 2) It would not provide a high enough level of service to meet the goal for
intra-downtown mobility.
4. Charging a special fare for Fareless Square trips was rejected because it would most
likely not increase passenger revenue (most would opt to take their car, walk, or not make
the trip rather than pay the fare), or decrease fare evasion. Passengers could still ride past
the boundaries of Fareless Square without proper fare payment.
5. Replacing Fareless Square with a downtown shopper shuttle was rejected because it was
not cost effective. Further, past experience has shown that people either take their car
thereby reducing the benefits of Fareless Square, walk to their destination, or do not make
the trip rather than wait five or ten minutes for a shuttle.
6. Retaining Fareless Square and increasing fare inspection around Fareless Square was
rejected as not cost effective. Driver monitoring of fares was seen as a more cost
effective alternative to inspecting passenger fares.
Tri-Met opted to retain Fareless Square with minor modifications. To increase the ability of
operators to monitor fares, decrease the potential for fare evasion, and simplify the system, Tri-
Met retained PAYE and returned to front door boarding for the entire system, including within
Fareless Square. All passengers are now required to enter through the front doors and either
show proof of fare payment or indicate to the operator that they are only traveling within
Fareless Square. No fare inspectors are permanently dedicated to Fareless Square, although
there are periodic inspections on the perimeter and on problem routes. The return to driver
monitoring and PAYE has improved driver job satisfaction by allowing more control over fare
evasion.
The current method of operations appears to be the most cost effective for reducing fare evasions
costs. Without 100% positive checks of all passengers, the fare evasion rate for buses is
probably nearing its potential lower limit. The periodic spot checks of problem routes appears to
provide adequate coverage of the bus system.
A March 1990 Fare Evasion Review determined that 1.87% of all riders on buses leaving
downtown evade the fare. Because riders can board the bus in Fareless Square without paying
even the base fare, Fareless Square is the costliest source of bus fare evasion. The annual cost of
this fare evasion is an estimated $310,000-$325,000. (Tri-Met, Fare Evasion Review, March 9,
1990, KPMG Peat Marwick.) Fare evasion on MAX was determined to cost between $150,000
and $157,000 annually, an evasion rate of 4.81%. Not all of the evasion on MAX can be
attributable to Fareless Square, however, since there is no driver monitoring and the evasion
could be taking place outside of Fareless Square.
Fareless Square Today - 1991
Tri-Met supports the public policy decisions which created and maintain the existing Fareless
Square. Through an iterative process, the current configuration of Fareless Square and the fare
structure appears to have struck a balance in terms of public policy needs and operational
concerns. Although a limited amount of fare evasion does occur, Tri-Met management is
satisfied with the current operations of Fareless Square.