Until recently, Tristan Isaac considered a bus ride an extravagance.
Since moving to Portland four years ago without a car, Isaac has found the cost of regular adult TriMet fareâ$2.50 for a two-and-a-half-hour pass, $5 for a day pass, or $100 for a monthly passâtoo expensive to be a daily option.
âIf I had to go somewhere on budget, Iâd use my bike, but if I were going somewhere special, Iâd take the bus,â Isaac says. âBecause $5 a day really adds up.â
Last November, Isaacâs bike was stolen. Having lost his job, he couldnât afford a new one, but he knew TriMet had recently introduced a low-income fare program, wherein people who earn around $24,000 or less a year can qualify for a monthly TriMet pass for $28.
Isaac enrolled, and it instantly changed the way he gets around the city.
âI donât worry about taking the bus anymoreâitâs the last thing I think about,â he says. âItâs relieved a lot of stress.â
Isaac is an organizer with OPAL Environmental Justice Oregon, an activist organization that focuses on the intersections of transportation and environmental policy. OPAL played a key role in pushing TriMet to adopt the low-income fare program, but its members are now eyeing an even more ambitious goal: a completely fareless TriMet.
That idea is just one piece of a new transportation platformâa sweeping slate of goals OPAL intends to campaign forâthat the organization announced on June 19. Other goals include additional dedicated bus lanes, expanded transit service, and the return of a program to help riders navigate the system. But an enirely fareless public transit system is the most aspirational, big-picture goal of OPALâs new platform.
Considering that about a quarter of TriMetâs current operating budget comes from fare revenue, any transition to a fareless system will require a lot of policy work. But given OPALâs track recordâin addition to pushing for low-income fare, the organization also campaigned for a longer transfer period for single fares, which TriMet adopted in 2014âtheir plan is getting serious attention.
âOne of the broadest, and we think most effective, tools in the toolbox would be the solution of fare-free TriMet. It solves so many problems at once.â
Advocates of a fareless system see it as an important step to alleviating many problems faced by Portlanders: worsening traffic, displacement of low-income people, poor air quality, and climate change. They believe now is the time to add new questions to the public discourse around transportation in Portland: Should TriMet eliminate all fares? And, perhaps more crucially, could TriMet eliminate fares?
Aaron Golub, an OPAL board member and a public transportation researcher at Portland State University, is currently working on a policy report that will explore the potential benefits and economic feasibility of transitioning to a fareless system. Golub co-authored a similar report detailing a path to low-income fare in 2016.
âOur report for the low-income fare was actually fairly pivotal,â Golub says. âIt actually urged TriMet to do their own study, which corroborated our work.â
TriMet rolled out the low-income fare program in July 2018, after receiving funding from a major transportation package passed by Oregon lawmakers. In January 2019, the public transit organization announced that it was already on track to outpace its first-year enrollment goal of 15,000 riders.
Advocates at OPAL are hopeful there will eventually be a similar success story about fareless transit.
âOne of the broadest, and we think most effective, tools in the toolbox would be the solution of fare-free TriMet,â Golub says. âIt solves so many problems at once.â
When Shanice Clarke imagines a fareless public transit system, sheâs reminded of a quote from author and activist Audre Lorde: âThere is no such thing as a single-issue struggle because we do not live single-issue lives.â
As an OPAL board member, Clarke is especially focused on the environmental benefits of a fareless system. Incentivizing transit by eliminating fares would likely increase ridership, bringing in riders who previously relied on cars. That, in turn, would lower Portlandâs carbon emissions.
OPALâs team also sees fareless transit as the most straightforward, effective way to make TriMet more accessible for every Portlander. Low-income riders would be relieved of any financial burden, and riders who could just as easily drive or take a Lyft would be given a new incentive to use TriMet instead. Meanwhile, occasional riders unfamiliar with the logistical workings of TriMetâlike tourists or people who only take transit for special eventsâwouldnât have to worry about the hassle of navigating a fared system.
TriMet, however, believes the system would be less accessible if it did away with fares. TriMet spokesperson Roberta Altstadt says Portland âwould not have the transit system we have today if it was free.â
To run a fareless system, Alstadt says, âyouâd have to cut way back on service.â
âIt would have a really negative impact that I donât know if people are necessarily thinking about,â she adds.
There is some evidence to back that up. From 1975 to 2012, downtown Portland had a âFareless Square,â meaning riders who stayed in an area of about one-and-a-half square miles did not have to pay to use public transit. Despite the programâs popularity with both visitors and locals, TriMet killed Fareless Square when it changed the way it charges for single fares, converting from a distance-based system to a time-based system. At the time, TriMet also cited the need for additional fare revenue from downtown riders. In the years since, TriMet has successfully increased service in traditionally underserved areas like outer East Portland and the suburbs.
Jarrett Walker, a public transportation consultant and author based in Portland, agrees that instituting a fareless system could present a problematic dichotomy. He says that while heâs not necessarily against the theory of fareless transit, putting the onus on TriMet to fill in the funding gap would inevitably lead to service cutsâmaking routes slower and less reliable, and causing riders with other options to flee the system.
âThe worst possible thing for low-income people is a transit system that only low-income people ride,â Walker says, âbecause thatâs a transit system that not enough people care about, and a system thatâs not significantly relevant to environmental demands or fixing congestion.â
Walker points to other countries, like Britain and Australia, that have had success subsidizing discounted fares through social services budgets, rather than putting the burden on transit agencies. He says a similar, government-led program could work for a tiered or fareless system in Oregon, because it would leave TriMetâs budget intact.
âBefore we talk about making a transit system free, we have to think about where the access is and who has access to it.â
OPAL recently announced its new campaign, but its more detailed policy report wonât be released until July. Fareless transit advocates say they would potentially be interested in passing a long-term funding mechanism at the state or regional levelâlike the $2 billion business tax passed by Oregon legislators this year to cover a school funding gapâto fill the resultant hole in TriMetâs budget.
âThe idea that they would go fare-free and not expand service but shrink itâwe wouldnât want to see that either,â says Orlando Lopez, an organizer with Bus Riders Unite!, OPALâs transit advocacy arm. âWhat we would want to see would be finding a new revenue, not shrinking TriMet.â
And increased service is another part of OPALâs new transportation platform. Next year, people in the Portland metro area will vote on a multi-billion dollar transportation bond measure, and the Metro Regional Governmentâwhich oversees the tri-county regionâis currently in the process of determining what that bond will fund. Because bonds expire, the measure probably wouldnât be used to directly fund a permanent fareless transit systemâbut it could pay for transit-oriented infrastructure projects, like dedicated bus lanes or even a new MAX line, to help TriMet accommodate new riders flocking to a fareless system while making service cuts.
Metro Councilor Juan Carlos GonzĂĄlez, who represents Washington County, has been vocal about TriMet service disparities between Portlandâs city center and its surrounding suburbs. Heâs adamant that this issue needs to be addressed before any conversation about fareless public transit can begin.
âBefore we talk about making a transit system free, we have to think about where the access is and who has access to it,â says GonzĂĄlez, who was elected to the council last year. âThe transportation system in Washington Countyâyou can make it free, but how much of an impact is that going to make in terms of drastically shaping ridership?â
A fareless system would also, by definition, eliminate the need for fare enforcement. TriMetâs fare enforcement systemâin which contracted security workers TriMet staff and law enforcement officers conduct fare checks on buses, MAX trains, and MAX platformsâhas been the subject of controversy in recent years. In 2018, a Multnomah County Circuit Court judge ruled that the agencyâs fare enforcement tactics were unconstitutional because they include stopping people without reasonable cause for suspicion, an illegal practice for law enforcement officers.
âThese dragnet searches violate the rights of all people who are stopped, whether or not they have proof of fare,â said Matt dos Santos, legal director for the ACLU of Oregon, in a statement released after the ruling. âThis has an outsized effect on people of color, because it increases the already disparate impacts of over-policing and over-prosecution.â
TriMet recently changed its fare enforcement policiesârather than giving criminal citations to people found without valid fare, the agency now uses fines and community service orders to penalize those caught without a ticket. It also offers exemptions for people who qualify for, and subsequently enroll in, one of their reduced fare programs.
But for Oregon House Rep. Diego Hernandez, who recently introduced legislation that would outlaw fare enforcement, those measures arenât enough. Hernandez, who supports fareless transit, points out that law enforcement tends to disproportionately target communities of color and low-income peopleâand that extends to fare enforcement.
âWith a fareless system, all of these symptoms we see from a fare-based system would disappear,â Hernandez says. âIn terms of good public policy, a fareless system just makes sense if your goal is to provide an equitable system.â
âIf someone approached me with a whole different goal in mindâto support my experience as a transit rider, as opposed to jail meâit would have gone a lot differently.â
Part of OPALâs larger campaign includes bringing back rider advocates, which were part of TriMetâs ranks until they became a casualty of budget cuts in 2009. Like fare enforcers, rider advocates used to be a fixture on TriMet vehicles, offering advice for people navigating new routes and using de-escalation techniques if disputes arose between passengers or between a passenger and a TriMet operator. Amalgamated Transit Union 757, the TriMet operatorsâ union, supports the return of rider advocates.
Ana del RocĂo also supports it. A transit-dependent New York City transplant, del RocĂoâs interaction with a fare inspector at a MAX platform prompted the 2018 ruling against fare enforcement. In March 2018, Del RocĂo told a fare enforcer she had an annual pass but wasnât carrying it with her that day. The officer asked for her full name, so they could look her up her annual pass information. When she failed to give her full legal nameâwhich is different from the name she usually goes byâshe was arrested for giving a police officer false information.
Del RocĂo says that if she had been stopped that day by a rider advocate, rather than by a police officer, it would have made âa world of difference.â
âIf someone approached me with a whole different goal in mindâto support my experience as a transit rider, as opposed to jail meâit would have gone a lot differently,â she adds.
TriMetâs Altstadt says the transit agency trains its fare enforcers to also assist riders with basic questions about routes and fares. She says enforcement is helpful not just for ensuring people pay fares, but also for upholding public safety. In June, for example, a routine TriMet fare check resulted in police arresting a man who was in illegal possession of a gun.
âThey got a gun off the street, and hopefully made the community a little bit safer,â says Altstadt. âThere are a lot of people that, if you canât follow a simple rule like paying your fare, maybe you canât follow other rules of society.â
The debate over fare enforcement is just one of many conversations about Portlandâs transportation system. OPALâs platform announcement came just one week after Chloe Eudaly, the city commissioner in charge of the Portland Bureau of Transportation (PBOT), announced that PBOT would be aggressively pursuing additional dedicated bus lanes throughout the city, which transportation experts hail as a cost-effective way to bring in new riders by making public transit faster and more reliable. At the same time, transportation activists and politicians are fighting an expansion of Interstate 5 in the Rose Quarter, pushing the city to make streets safer for pedestrians and cyclists, and clamoring for congestion pricing, in which roads are tolled during high-traffic times.
Given the fluid nature of transportation policy in Portland, itâs not outlandish to imagine a future with fareless public transit, despite the need for more policy work to determine how that might come to pass. But for OPALâs Clarke, this isnât just a fight about fundingâitâs also a campaign to reshape the way Portlanders think about public transit.
âGetting from Point A to Point B is a basic human right, just like access to education or health care,â Clarke says. âAnd it shouldnât have a price tag on it.â