As noted on my other blog, the TriMet public hearing today, on whether to cut the hours of Fareless Square, turned out to be a ridiculous waste of time and public resources. The TriMet board does not attend public hearings set up specifically for citizens to give their opinions to the decision-makers. Instead, TriMet paid to use a nice auditorium, providing snacks, friendly staff helpers, and a stenographer, so that citizens could travel to the location and stand at the microphone ..... to allow the stenographer to record their remarks.

I was somewhat disillusioned with "open decision-making" in Portland, after my first run for election. This experience today gives a whole new dimension to the term, "token public hearing".

Just in case the stenographer missed some of my testimony, here's what I said:

I'm Amanda Fritz, a candidate for Portland City Council and here to stand up to oppose cutting the hours of Fareless Square. [The previous testifier had mentioned one of my opponents, saying "I hope he will stand up to oppose cutting Fareless Square". Maybe that candidate is planning to participate at the second hearing.]

I'm here because I am a lifelong bus rider, and I care about the decisions TriMet makes. I'm impressed that so many people are here because we care about those decisions. I am disappointed no member of the TriMet board is here, and that the hearing is not even being videotaped. I served on the Portland Planning Commission for seven years, and would not have considered making decisions relying on transcripts of public testimony. I ask the stenographer to please record, "Her voice shook with passion, and she waved her hands wildly in the air to emphasize her point!"

I want to see more collaboration and synchronicity between TriMet and other local and regional governments. Eliminating Fareless Square does not seem to me to mesh with City of Portland policies.

Where is the evidence that people who do not pay fares cause crime problems? The letter from Fred Hansen says only, "Our customers tell us that the aggressive panhandling, the loud and obnoxious behaviors and drug dealing is facilitated by the lack of requiring a fare". How do these customers know that people causing problems haven't paid? Do they ask to see the transfer? The letter continues, "They also believe the problems are substantially more apparent in the nighttime hours". "Believe"? Doesn't TriMet have statistics and evidence to back up this proposed change?

The letter also says that increased revenue will be dedicated to increased security on MAX. Let me get this straight: This proposal would charge bus riders all over downtown, to pay for increased security on the few light rail lines, two of which run to outlying cities. How is this fair?

I am a registered nurse. I have worked swing shift for 26 years. Eliminating Fareless Square will unfairly impact swing and graveyard shift workers, Portland State students, custodial crews moving between buildings downtown, and restaurant employees and patrons. How is that fair?

The fact that Portland no longer has a carbon monoxide pollution problem is evidence that Fareless Square is a success. Where is the evidence that eliminating it will not cause a return of the problem?

My final question: Do crime levels and locations shift on New Year's Eve, when the entire system is fareless? Changes should not be made until all these questions can be answered.

The best way to improve safety on TriMet is to encourage more Portlanders to use transit. Eliminating Fareless Square in the evenings and at night is unlikely to do that. Rather than eliminating Fareless Square, we should be exploring ways to expand fareless service, improve service, expand routes, and increase ridership.

Yes, I know, I said "expand" twice, and repeated "service", too. It was the best I could do on the fly. While tempted to edit it now, that is what I said so that is what I'm posting.