A sharp exchange about transit, a councilor’s rideshare regret, and a substantial bump for Vision Zero and the transportation budget were among the notable moments from a marathon, 12-hour Portland City Council meeting Wednesday.
The 12 councilors were tasked with approval of an $8.5 billion budget. Using Mayor Keith Wilson’s proposal as a starting point, councilors filed over 120 amendments prior to the meeting. Only about 30 amendments were discussed and/or voted on (I haven’t seen the final list), and there’s more budget action to come on June 11th; but Wednesday’s meeting gave transportation reformers plenty to sink their teeth into.
While a successful bid from Councilor Angelita Morillo to swap $2 million in proposed Portland Police Bureau funding for parks maintenance grabbed most of the headlines, council also passed an increase to rideshare (also called transportation network company, or TNC) user fees that will have a substantial impact to the Portland Bureau of Transportation budget. And Councilor Jamie Dunphy helped Councilor Tiffany Koyama Lane make good on her promise to boost spending on the Vision Zero program.
Let’s start with the new rideshare fee.
People currently pay a 65 cents per ride fee to use a rideshare company like Uber or Lyft in Portland. Eyeing those 8 million annual rides, Mayor Wilson proposed doubling that fee to $1.30, a move that would raise $5.1 million in additional revenue for PBOT. Councilor Steve Novick (with councilors Morillo, Green and Dunphy as sponsors) put forward a motion to raise the fee to $2.00 per ride for an estimated total of $5 million in additional transportation revenue.
Novick said the change was necessary because, “We know the transportation bureau is starved for money…and I think we should use every dollar we can to address our failing streets.” Then Novick shared regret over his role in allowing rideshare companies to operate in Portland at all — when he cast one of the deciding votes during his former council tenure 10 years ago. “I actually now believe that that was a mistake,” Novick shared. “At the time, some environmentalists thought that [Uber and Lyft] would reduce the use of cars… Instead, it just resulted in more cars in the streets and more carbon emissions. And I think as long as they’re out there, then we should use it to raise money for transportation.”
The most vocal opponent of the increased fee was Councilor Eric Zimmerman. He said he’s uncomfortable passing on the higher costs per ride to end-users. Then Zimmerman tried to make the case that Portland needs to maintain cheap access too Uber and Lyft because the state of TriMet is so bad it’s not an option for many people. He said he’s heard of Portland State University students who unenrolled for classes because they planned to take transit to class, only to become uncomfortable due to safety concerns while riding it:
“A number of students were taking Uber and Lyft in, and they didn’t prefer it, but because of the situation on TriMet — which is, as some people in this dais have said, our largest homeless shelter — where dangerous behavior happens every single day, where TriMet has had to hire over 200 safety specialists in order to make the trains and the busses barely palatable… I don’t want to raise taxes on individual Portlanders, particularly when the other alternatives are pretty crappy right now.”
“I don’t know why it’s always the men that are, like, six-feet tall, they’re terrified of being on the bus. It’s really not a big deal.”
Those remarks sparked an immediate response by Councilor Angelita Morillo:
“As the only person here who’s dependent on transit — because I don’t have a car, I don’t have a license, and my mom only knew how to drive a motorcycle, so we never learned how to drive — I don’t know why it’s always the men that are, like, six-feet tall, they’re terrified of being on the bus. It’s really not a big deal. I ride the bus all the time. I’m five-foot-two and 130 pounds, so I think we will all survive it. People love the bus. I see people fall in love on the bus, and the reality is that we need this funding for our budget.”
When it came time to vote, the fee increase passed 8-4, with councilors Olivia Clark, Dan Ryan, and Loretta Smith joining Zimmerman in opposition.
With the rideshare fee increase in the bank, Councilor Jamie Dunphy put his amendment on the table that would use that new revenue to fully fund recent cuts to PBOT’s Vision Zero work. The past two city budgets have axed contributions from the city’s Recreational Cannabis Tax Fund to PBOT to the tune of $677,664 ($400,000 last year and $277,664 this year). The bulk of that money was used to fund Vision Zero-related projects and programs. Dunphy proposed an amendment to use a portion of the new rideshare fee revenue to restore those cuts.
Speaking in favor of the move, Councilor Koyama Lane said, “We need to show Portlanders that we’re serious about this. These are our streets. We have a responsibility to make them safe for everyone. We need to make Vision Zero whole.”
Because Dunphy’s amendment initially sought to decrease General Fund dollars going into PBOT (knowing that new rideshare fees would be available instead), some councilors expressed concern that only Vision Zero would be funded, while “livability” needs like dismantling derelict RVs and other programs wouldn’t get as much funding. So Dunphy split out that part of the amendment and it will be discussed it at their June 11th meeting.
The amendment ultimately passed 8-4, with councilors Ryan, Novick, Zimmerman, and Smith all voting “no”.
Another notable amendment, Councilor Loretta Smith’s attempt at a bond issuance and financing plan for the Sidewalk Improvement and Paving Program (SIPP), failed by a vote of 4-8. Surprisingly, a chief architect of the program, Councilor Mitch Green, voted against it. He said he felt the plan was “premature” and wants to wait for more financial analysis around the cost of the debt.
Council didn’t discuss any of the Mayors proposed parking fee increases.
From here, councilors can still make tweaks to amendments and there will be another bite at the budget apple on June 11th — one week before it must be adopted on June 18th.
Thanks for reading.
BikePortland has served this community with independent community journalism since 2005. We rely on subscriptions from readers like you to survive. Your financial support is vital in keeping this valuable resource alive and well.
Please subscribe today to strengthen and expand our work.
More taxes and a 2 million dollar cut to public safety. The Portland doom loop is accelerating it seems.
A few dollars here
A few dollars there
Everywhere a few dollars
Pretty soon you won’t be able to have a roof over your head or food on your table . . .
Maybe if the police can control themselves and make it a year without losing millions of dollars in lawsuits for police brutality, they can get some bonus funds.
Money for cops isn’t to benefit cops, it’s to benefit Portlanders who need someone to pick up the phone when they make an emergency call.
Agree. And isn’t interesting how the leaders who say they are the voice of the people don’t listen to “the people”
DHM pollsters found that 69% of voters would support a ballot measure to “require the City of Portland to maintain a police force size no smaller than the average for large cities in the United States.” That support remained stable after pollsters offered arguments for and against the measure. After hearing those arguments, 68% of voters supported the idea, and 27% opposed it.
https://www.wweek.com/news/city/2025/05/19/portland-voters-support-nearly-doubling-size-of-police-force-polling-shows/
69% of people who responded to the survey want more cops.
So, you don’t think a steady increase in the PPB budget (interupted only by the $75m budget shortfall of 20/21) to the tune of 62% in 10 years is listening?
Through the teens, PPB failed to recruit to fill the positions that were going to be emptied by a large number of officers approaching retirement. They had 85ish vacant, fully funded sworn officer positions and are backfilling hours with overtime.
Despite a massive increase in their budget, response times have more than doubled in the last 10 years.
I’d think all the DOGE supporters (who are usually also law & order types) would be all over the massive inefficiency here.
Sure, but another recent poll shows that Portlanders would rather cut police than cut parks. So by giving PPB a slightly smaller increased budget to give parks a slightly smaller decreased budget, it seems that the council is acting in accordance with what people are asking for.
https://www.wweek.com/news/city/2025/04/23/council-requested-poll-show-portlanders-would-prefer-cuts-to-police-over-parks-and-fire/
A poll pretty much only promoted to people who would answer favorably.
We need to be honest about this. Portlanders don’t want public safety cut. The vocal minority needs to go.
First, as I’ve said elsewhere, PPB’s budget is not being cut. It is now being increased by a slightly smaller amount than the mayor requested.
Second, I don’t know why the poll Mary S relied on is any more reliable than the one I cited. That poll was: 1) funded by down-town real estate business interests; and 2) the results were selectively leaked to news outlets, rather than released in full, as stated in the article Mary S linked. The one I cited was done at the request of government officials and released its results in full. They were conducted by the same exact pollster (DHM Research). Part of the point I’m making is that polling is difficult and they can show conflicting results.
Finally, people can have conflicting view of what constitutes public safety. To me, abundant public services (like parks) that promote lots of people being outside and in public and on the streets is a core feature of public safety. Conversely, additional funds for an unaccountable organization that regularly attacks protestors and journalists, costs the city millions in lawsuit settlements, and decided to stop enforcing traffic safety laws to score political points is not the only or the most effective way to increase public safety.
What “political points” did the police score by disbanding the traffic unit (at the direction of the mayor)?
First, the stories that I found about the disbanding of the traffic unit (which include the chief’s memo announcing the reorganization) all suggest that this was an internal police decision and not directed by the mayor. (https://www.oregonlive.com/crime/2020/12/portland-police-to-move-traffic-officers-canine-cops-to-patrol-next-year-to-fill-shifts-cut-overtime-and-improve-response-times.html). Let me know if you were thinking of something different.
Second, I was referring to this: https://bikeportland.org/2023/08/08/portland-police-bureau-officer-admits-no-traffic-enforcement-messaging-was-politically-motivated-377939/amp
It may have been slightly more precise to say that police held a press conference to highlight the lack of traffic enforcement just to score political points, when they knew that approach was harmful to public safety. Their (admitted!) approach on the press conference is indicative of their overall unaccountability. If they were willing to signpost that no one would be caught for breaking traffic laws as part of a throwing a tantrum about even modest measures of accountability, then I think it’s more likely than not that they were also willing to make staffing decisions with political, as opposed to safety, goals in mind. We just don’t happen to have the (frankly shocking and incredible) quote that Jonathan managed to get about the original staffing decision.
Do you think the police make major policy changes and announce them at a press conference with the mayor without the mayor, who is the elected official the police answer to, signing on and approving those changes?
I think everyone involved knew exactly what the impact on public safety would be, but compared to what? Do you think the alternative to disbanding the Traffic Division was simply not disbanding the Traffic Division, without cutting back somewhere else?
Of course they’re going to milk it, but that doesn’t mean that was their primary motivation. Do you really think the police chief and mayor conspired to see people killed in order to get two more votes (which, looking at who is there, they probably already had) on City Council?
The most parsimonious explanation is that something had to be cut, and the police chief and mayor decided traffic enforcement was the least bad. Conspiracies do exist in this world, but mostly they don’t.
Hi Watts, You said that the mayor made the decision. I looked for evidence of that and couldn’t find any. You imply the mayor was at the press conference in question, but a quick scroll of the video doesn’t show him speaking.(https://katu.com/news/local/portland-polices-traffic-division-to-address-high-number-of-traffic-related-deaths).
What I found (and linked to) makes it look like the chief of police was the one who made the staffing and organizational decisions for how to use his budget in his bureau, which doesn’t strike me as that far fetched.
I’m open to the idea that I’m wrong on this, but rather than provide me anything that would tend to show that, you accused me of concocting a conspiracy theory.
As to the bureau’s motivations, I am again going to rely on the record and the quote from Sgt. Engstrom, the person who led the press conference: ““We needed to create a stir to get some change, to get them [city council] to fund us back up. And I mean, that’s the honest truth. I know, that could make things more dangerous.”
I don’t particularly care what their ‘primary’ motivation was. The fact remains that they did something they knew was more dangerous explicitly for political purposes.
I do not dispute that the police sought political gain from the cuts; I only dispute claims that the mayor was not involved, and that the cuts were primarily motivated by politics. If you are not claiming either of those things, then we don’t actually disagree.
I don’t have documentary evidence that proves the mayor was party to the decision to close the traffic division, but my involvement with city government for years has led me to observe that bureaus rarely if ever made major decisions without the councilor-in-charge approving it. The police have always been particularly politically sensitive (one reason the mayor almost always oversaw them directly) and it is simply inconceivable that the mayor didn’t approve a change as important and public facing as that one.
As for whether Mayor Wheeler was at the news conference announcing the disbanding, I was going from memory, and may be mistaken about that. His physical presence (or lack thereof) does not change my assessment about his involvement with the decision.
But, as I said, I’m not sure we actually disagree; it sounds like more a question of emphasis.
The vocal minority got appointed to the charter commission and rigged the system so they maintain a slight majority.
2/3 District 1 councilors (who each got 8,500 votes out of 160,000 people) voted to defund police in a district that is unarguably and overwhelmingly pro-police.
This system is not democratic.
I’m with you, Watts. Police are vital for public safety. I’m convinced that the single biggest thing we could do to improve safety for cyclists and peds is enforcement of traffic laws, which means funding the police at a sustainable level.
Come back when they don’t have so many open positions. They have no business whining about funding when they haven’t filled the spots they have open now.
in 23/24 PPB’s total expenditure on salaries, benefits and OT was $172.6 of which $17m was OT.
The OT is expected to rise to $25m in 2024/2025 FY.
So not giving them $2m taken from PP&R will result in not being able to raise OT hours by 8%
How is more money to cops not a benefit to them? If it means more staffing, it means reducing workloads of existing staff – I’d call that a benefit. If it means higher salaries, that’s obviously a benefit.
I didn’t say it did not benefit the funds, but that is a side effect. The primary reason for funding the police is to benefit the public.
Damaging the public in order to inflict some pain on the police seems counterproductive if our goal is to protect the public.
Was it a cut, or a decision to use new revenue in a different way?
The PPB won’t stand or fall on $2 million. Even in the time of “defunding” the actual budget went down little if any, it was largely symbolic and much less than the percentage that we’re now looking at reducing across all bureaus. The police budget, like the national defense budget, is often held harmless in lean times.
If Portland is supposed to mandate doubling the police force to some national average, numbers I have yet to look at, where is that money supposed to come from and what officers would we hire to fill the positions?
Gee, since the PPB got $11m added to their budget in the initial budget amid a massive revenue shortfall, I don’t think giving $2m back to PP&R (from whom it was taken) is actually defunding them.
EDIT:
2015/16 $190m
2024/25 $308m
62% increase in 10 years.
The cost of living has gone up in excess of 20% in that time in Portlan
But, just keep beating that horse. It’s barely a bloodstain now.
According to the OPB article, this isn’t a cut and framing it as such is misleading. They are declining to increase the PPB’s budget. In other words, their proposal maintains the status quo.
Kanal called it an “uncrease,” which is pretty funny.
I find it insulting, as should anyone (like myself) who’s been victimized and had to spent 25 minutes waiting for 911 to pick up the phone.
These people do not represent us, and neither does this news outlet. It frankly makes me angry when real people are hurt and people like you kick back and have a wonky laugh. It’s shameful and it’s why people are leaving our city.
Thanks for the comment. I am not here to “represent” anyone. I’m curious though, what people have been hurt by a police budget increase that was not politically viable and so it was allocated toward parks maintenance? I’m laughing at the politics and the funny word.
I’m glad that others have mentioned that this is not a cut to the police budget. The police budget is going up from last year and the year before that. It is going up from the “requested budget” for this upcoming year. The mayor proposed an increase to the police budget when the city is at a deficit and making cuts across the board. The council voted for a slightly smaller increase than what the mayor proposed; it is not a cut.
The PPB budget for FY25-26 (even without the $1.9 million) will still be: 1) $34 million higher than it was in FY 23-34; 2) $8 million higher than it was in FY24-25; and 3) $19 million higher than the requested amount for FY 25-26.
$2 million is 0.5% of the $318 million PPB budget number for the year.
Page 226/408 here: https://www.portland.gov/budget/2025-2026-budget/documents/fy-2025-26-proposed-budget/download
The rideshare fee, can the city later legally use it, for example, to fund the police department or to build more housing?
That will remain to be seen. Currently, the fees can only be used for regulatory work relating to the TNCs. Council plans to pass an ordinance soon that will give them more flexibility w the fee revenue. I imagine they’ll write it so it can only be used for transportation stuff.
So it will be unlike the utility license fee (ULF), a fee charged for ripping up the street for adding or repairing pipes, wires, cables, and so on, and the subsequent repairs and repaving? Originally it was supposed to be for the newly-created PBOT, then the council took 40% for general services, then 60%, now at least 97%, with transportation getting less than 3%. If a fee isn’t nailed down by (state) law, council will grab it with their sticky five fingers.
I <3 Angelita Morillo. It’s refreshing to hear elected officials tell it like it is.
Yes, let’s entitlesplain to those who don’t get to use trimet as some fun, late morning run around on the fancier routes. Way to denigrate and other people who rely on trimet to get somewhere 0dark30 or head home in the evening breathing in unpleasant fumes trying not to make any eye contact that will agitate the restless.
Trimet is just fine, nothing to see here, my route is great so it’s all great. Utter lack of self awareness that she actually represents Portland now.
As one of Morillo’s constituents and also a 5’2″ woman who rides transit everywhere – mostly on very early/late buses full of “the restless” – I also found her comments refreshing. I’ve had plenty of sketchy encounters on transit and a few outright dangerous ones, but for the most part it’s a completely fine experience. I think fearmongering from people like Zimmerman who don’t use transit is significantly less helpful than anything Morillo said.
“Angelita Morillo…”
“…let’s entitlesplain to those who don’t get to use trimet as some fun…”
What are you doing right now?
As someone in this segment, I can say that I’m not afraid of riding public transit, but I’ve had enough negative experiences over the years that gives me pause when recommending it to more vulnerable friends and family members (women, children, etc). The busses are generally fine, though. I’ve noticed more issues on MAX, and around the MAX stops in the city.
TriMet isn’t scary (for the most part), just slow and generally unpleasant. Sometimes it’s great!
My GF is a 4’10” 105lb 55yr old woman. She prefers buses for this reason, but doesn’t shy away from the MAX.
The MAX (and buses) have improved dramatically over the last year.
The biggest issue is still lack of service and lack of well thought out connections.
It’s not 2010, a rideshare is not just for tech bros and late night partiers anymore. It is used by people who don’t own a car, disabled people, and the elderly who can’t drive anymore, hourly workers that need a last minute rides. This fee will be passed on to them.
I am the fist to look at bike and transit options, but sometimes those are not options. So let’s not pretend that rideshare is not a valuable service for many members of our community who can’t or choose not to drive.
Yep, the tech bros have long left Portland and moved on to Boise and Austin. Places where the local government functions and without taxing or “feeing” them to death….
Taxis existed before “rideshare” and were beholden to regulations that managed the number of cars on the road and held drivers accountable for their performance and safety.
Ride share flipped all of that on its head by using venture capital funds capable of withstanding millions if not billions in losses in a race to the bottom in an attempt to build their own taxicab monopoly.
Did some good come up of this? I guess. Radiocab now has an app where you can book a ride. But you could always just call literally any cab company 24/7 and do the same thing. No smart phone needed.
“…tech bros have long left Portland…”
When Mary S keeps saying something that doesn’t make it true. Is there a tech bro tracker app? When a person makes a general statement like that maybe we should get a source, even if it’s just that old devil NYT.
Uber and lyft are designed to sabotage public transit which genuinely provides needed transportation for disabled people and the elderly who cannot afford or use gameified dynamic pricing on MAGA techbro “apps”.
Uber and its CEO donate $1m each to Trump’s inaugural fund
It’s a difficult situation. My mother wasn’t healthy enough to use public transportation and Uber (as despicable as it is as a company) drivers were able to give her an independence she wouldn’t have had.
How does rideshare take away from public transportation when public transportation is so bad and doesn’t offer point to point service? And yes they should never have been green lighted in Portland after starting their business illegally. Shocked that the council made a mistake.
Because of it’s inherent limitations and inefficiencies, transit is vulnerable to new transportation options that provide significantly better service. As it turns out, many people are willing to pay more to get more.
A bus ticket is $2.80 for 2.5 hours, then $5.40 for the full day, maxing out at $100 a month.
A single rideshare will cost atleast double that of a full day pass, and the amount you pay for the rideshare is only good for that one single ride.
Ride share is tremendously more expensive; the fact that it is so popular despite the price shows people are willing to pay a lot to not use TriMet.
That doesn’t speak well of transit in Portland.
Ahh yes, the capitalist way. Ruin a public good by undercutting it in price (via labor exploitation) or circumventing rules, then point to the fact that they ruined it to say people don’t like the public good actually.
“Ruin a public good by undercutting it in price”
Uber does not undercut TriMet on price. Far from it. You have to pay a LOT more not to use TriMet.
They undercut taxis, by paying worse, and this takes away riders of trimet, causing a cycle of “why fund trimet because it has some low use lines”, removing lines.
They make an artificially cheap service that undercuts and chips away at the more sustainable alternatives.
They may undercut taxis, but taxis are no more a “public good” than Uber is, and are no more environmentally sustainable.
Uber does compete with TriMet, by providing a significantly improved service at a much higher cost. The fact that so many people are willing to pay to avoid TriMet suggests its service does not work well for a lot of people.
Taxis were regulated by cities and states and provided real jobs — and in some cases union jobs with benefits. The fictitious independent contractor positions created by predatory tech unicorns were sociopathically designed to oppress workers by creating positions without labor protections or even a ****ing minimum wage.
I don’t disagree, but that’s a different problem than what I was responding to.
I’m not a big fan of TNCs myself; The only times I’ve used one of these service in that past couple of years is when TriMet screwed me on the way to the airport and I was desperate.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/30/opinion/uber-stock.html
PS: Apologies for citing the horrible New York Times but it was the best source
I think the historic rise of Uber et al. was strongly related to undercutting taxis on price via lower labor costs. It’s unclear to me how much this mattered in Portland, but at least in Chicago, the deregulation of the taxi industry was a loss for both cab drivers (who earn less now than they did pre-Uber et al.) and the public (who generally pay more than they did pre-Uber et al. – or at least on trips to O’Hare).
But I think there are knock-on effects to public transportation as a result of social change that occurred while Uber/Lyft prices were outrageously low via Venture Capital fare subsidy. I came of age right as this happened (graduated high school in 2014), and in undergrad it was always cheaper to split an Uber two or three ways than it was to ride the bus (Columbus, OH). (In my email, I see 3 mile trips split 2 ways that cost less than $5 in 2015… sort of surreal actually). As a result, I didn’t really ride transit outside of rare situations where I had to travel a reasonably far distance alone and couldn’t bike (I rode a COTA bus like 10 miles to job interviews in the burbs a few times). Evidently, I arrived in the public transit ridership pool eventually, but for many of my friends who likely would have been bus riders as young, relatively poor professionals in the late 2010s, it just wasn’t really something we did.
Calling it a “ridershare” is a stretch. The overwhelming majority of rides are indistinguishable from a taxi ride, especially in a place like Portland.
Hourly workers, the elderly, and disabled people rely much more heavily on the bus, and use a taxi service as a last resort. In this context, itd be best for the city to use this money to improve bus service (via more bus lanes allowing TriMet to provide more service for the same cost). It’s only a valuable service if you can afford it, and living on extremely limited income makes you very price sensitive and unlikely to choose a product that costs 10x more than the bus
As it should be. “Rideshare” is not actually rideshare. They are app-based taxi services, and are a major contributor to congestion, illegal parking/standing, and bike lane conflicts. We should be taxing it.
I don’t use rideshare.
I can’t even afford a smartphone.
I’m low income and disabled, and qualify for reduced-fare transit and rely almost entirely on Trimet to go anywhere.
I don’t believe that I’m in a minority of low-income transit passengers.
I’d love for someone to prove that I am somehow in a minority when compared to low-income rideshare users.
It is somewhat satisfying to see Novick admit what an awful mistake his decision to allow predatory VC-funded tech unicorns unfettered access to our streets (and after they started offering wildcat SUV rides illegally).
When will the many “abundant housing [for the rich]” market urbanists admit that their fawning libertarian support for uber and lyft was a mistake? I await the melancholic mea culpas from prominent Sightline employees and PNW/PfE/Strongtowns members with bated breath.
PS: F*** uber and lyft.
I’d like to see him declare that allowing Airbnb in was also a mistake, and that in order to address the housing shortage, they will disallow short-term rentals of units that could be long-term rentals.
Holding my breath starting… now
Strongly incentivize (e.g. via policy, fees, clawbacks, vacancy taxes) the creation of long term rental units from uninhabited residential housing units (ADUs and other non-owner occupied homes).
COTW, although for livability concerns .
I can believe that people could have bad experiences on Trimet, but as a person who rides it all the time (3 bus lines) and has done so for many years, I have zero experience with fear or violence. Where does Mr. Zimmerman live in District 4 where he’s afraid to ride the bus? I live in the scruffy part of SE Portland and other passengers are good and even considerate, even though I’m almost 90 years old and you could probably knock me over with a feather.
To be fair (why?), he wasn’t saying he is afraid, but some nebulous probably largely fictional hypothetical someone else was afraid. In an anecdote.
Afraid, no.
Vigilant, yes.
Eyes and ears open, yes.
Seen things on TriMet I wished I never saw, many times.
One good thing that I witnessed this week. I haven’t been checked for my fare since before COVID. At Rose Quarter there were about 2 dozen TriMet personnel who checked fares. On my train, one person hadn’t paid and walked away.
It was so nice and refreshing and I only hope it happens regularly. Maybe if it does and the word gets out that there’s no more free rides the system will improve.
SW Portland doesn’t have bus service. I don’t like Uber and Lyft for all the reasons listed by other commenters. But I also don’t have any bus service to speak of, so I drive, guilt free cuz my city isn’t giving me any other option.
Zimmerman is not frightened to ride the bus, he’s served in the military for a couple of decades, and saw combat IIRC.
So I didn’t find Morillo’s comments cute, not at all, they were offensive and disrespectful. And performative.
Zimmerman left for Iraq a month after I got back and it was still a horrible mess over there. Running convoy like he did is no joke and he did a great job. Considering his experience and reading how Morillo tried to flippantly denigrate him overloaded my head a bit.
Your comment is much more tactful and thoughtful than I was able to do.
You read, I watched. It was more cutesy on video. Dan Ryan got it right in his newsletter today:
Too many Council decisions now serve national narratives and political agendas that don’t reflect the reality on our streets. I won’t stand by while performative politics replaces practical solutions.
I just now watched it on BP Insta and then made the mistake of reading the comments which were hugely complimentary of Morillo’s empty sarcasm (at least they were until I got tired of reading sycophantic admiration).
Hopefully a majority of the council listened to what Ryan said!
Which experience is more relevant: Zimmerman’s “running convoy” in Iraq or Morillo’s riding the actual transit service that Zimmerman was shitting on?
Both is anecdotal and susceptible to confirmation bias, so neither should be the basis for policy formulation.
Are you arguing that experience is irrelevant for policy formulation? Personal human experience is anecdotal and subjective by nature, but I still value judgment and relevant experience in my political leaders.
I’m arguing that data is more important.
Data are only capable of settling factual disagreements. I think they need interpretation to effectively inform good governance.
Data always needs interpretation. Of course.
But if the question is whether people are not riding TriMet for safety and security reasons, data is the way to answer it, not the personal experiences of one (or two) riders. If the question is whether this reduced ridership (if it is in fact reduced) is a problem is a better answered with data than personal anecdote. And so on.
While I strongly agree that our leaders should make decisions based on actual conditions, including honest appraisal of the efficacy of current policy, I disagree with your view that data is more important than judgement. The important question for this debate is whether or not it’s a good idea to charge uber rides $2 to subsidize trimet. Facts have a bearing on that debate, but so do a lot of philosophical beliefs that don’t lend themselves to simple measurement.
I didn’t say that data is more important than judgement; I said it’s more important than anecdote, or Morillo’s personal experience — if Morillo has had good luck on TriMet, it sheds no light on the problems that other people report.
No one has proposed subsidizing TriMet by taxing Uber — the funds raised will be used to balance the city budget. I have not expressed an opinion about whether I think that’s a good idea, but Zimmerman said that the cost would be borne in part by PSU students who don’t feel safe using TriMet, a group who Morillo essentially told to “man up”.
You’re right, of course, about the intended purpose of the uber surcharge. It’s to partially offset the city budget shortfall and unrelated to trimet. You’re also right about Zimmerman’s argument — he’s saying we shouldn’t tax uber rides because trimet is too dangerous. As I’ve argued above, I think he’s playing off of purposefully inflated criticisms of trimet. But, in any event, the point he is trying to make cannot be established by measurement (i.e. answered with data).
No, he said we shouldn’t tax Uber rides because too many people perceive TriMet as being too dangerous. Whether it is actually dangerous is a different question.
We could use data to ask if in fact riders (other than Morillo) are in fact avoiding TriMet because of perceived danger, and to what extent. And from that we could make a more informed policy decision about whether those avoiders should be paying more to support the city budget.
We could also ask the political question of what the ramifications of students not riding the bus are and if we should care, and I would really like to explore the question of what the city can do to make people feel safer using TriMet (if, in fact they currently feel unsafe as Zimmerman claimed).
Either way, the exchange between Morillo and Zimmerman was not helpful or respectful.
I grant that some insight could be gained by asking potential riders if and to what extent they are avoiding trimet due to perceived danger. Such data would describe potential riders’ perceptions (both of trimet and of their own motivations), and I’m guessing it would difficult/expensive to collect high quality data sets. Polling is an obvious way to produce such data, but it is notoriously unreliable. Instead of worrying about peoples’ feelings, which are very hard to predict, quantify, or control, my preference is that the city focus on delivering high quality and effective services. If the city can make trimet feel safer, that’s great, but there will always be vocal Porltanders who slag the bus off — we shouldn’t surrender the public square to them.
I don’t think “surrendering the public square” is on the table.
Maybe raising revenue by taxing those who can’t or won’t use TriMet, but can’t or don’t want to drive themselves, is good policy. I don’t know — there’s been precious little discussion of that question.
But what I do know is that city councilors should show one another, as well as the general public, a basic level of respect.
So as I mentioned, not all trimet experiences are the same. Some people have a nice experience, like you and Morillo. Some people don’t get a chance to have an experience since trimet service doesn’t run near their home, like Lisa and for some of us our trimet experience was at time physically dangerous, discomfort able and full of fear that at times we’d find ourselves in an actual violent experience or late for work if we managed to bail from the MAX to avoid the situation. Not to mention the general mental discomfort.
For Morillo to discount many of our lived experiences so flippantly and for you to say we’re using “dog whistles” to describe our real experiences is insulting, annoying and evidence of an inability to see outside your privileges. If Morillo will so willingly shut down, impugn and other a fellow council member, I imagine she will do the same to regular citizens. Not a very good way to represent.
“I imagine she will do the same to regular citizens”
Koyama-Lane always responds to emails. Morrillo never has.
Hi Jake9. Thanks for engaging from a position of honesty and good faith. I agree that transit experiences are highly subjective — your experience carries the same validity as others’ experiences. My perspective is shaped by my transit experience for sure. I’m not a daily bus rider, but I have logged extensive travel on trimet on many routes and at many times of day over 3 decades. In the 90s one of my officemates once remarked that he would not ride the 4 because there were “too many gold teeth.” At the time I was happy to ride the 4, and I remain so today. When I do, I encounter many other riders who appear to be comfortable with the risk level. Our experience is also valid, and I don’t think the trimet ridership writ large is vulnerable to privilege induced groupthink. In fact, I would argue that underserved viewpoints are overrepresented in bus riders. Morillo’s (and my) viewpoint may be one of privilege, but the sentiment she was expressing is widely held.
Zimmerman brought the issues we are discussing up by saying that the bus was so ghetto that students could not ride it to PSU. That was the immediate context of Councilor Morillo’s sarcastic remark. It falls squarely in the tradition of my erstwhile officemate’s remarks. Both my officemate and Zimmerman were invoking the same cultural “there goes the neighborhood” context that is old and familiar. That’s what I meant when I called his assertion a dog whistle. A little sarcasm does not seem like a terrible (or offensive) way to respond to such a provocation.
Hi Micah,
You just negated my and many others experiences again.
I just finished saying and you agreed that everyone’s experiences vary day to day and route to route and then you went ahead and said it was okay to throw sarcasm at Zimmerman who represents various people and class levels. Morillo insulted Zimmerman and anyone else who has faced adversity on trimet including my partner who was too scared to ride it to PSU in the 2010’s and so had to drive.
You apparently think it was okay because Morillo on her own did not have bad experiences on trimet. I am honestly happy for her and you. Meanwhile, Zimmerman was representing constituents concerns while Morillo used only her own experience to dismiss his and his constituents concerns.
Im sorry your old office mate was biased if not outright racist. I myself have had racial epithets yelled at me in two places which were Fort Knox, Kentucky and the MAX (several times). You may not want to believe that, but it happened and was a dangerous situation both times it happened on MAX.
I understand that you are a fan of Morillo and that’s great. I don’t really like or dislike her or Zimmerman. Council should be a serious place and it was unfortunate to see it devolve into a kindergarten. I was hoping for more on such an important topic.
Hi Micah,
I just reread your post and I understand it better now. I believe you are suggesting that Zimmerman is racist like your old coworker in saying that the bus is unsafe or unpleasant to ride to PSU.
That went right over my head I’m afraid and my other post didn’t factor that in. I (and many others) think trimet and the MAX especially are unpleasant/unsafe for a wide variety of ethnicities. Race baiting didn’t even enter the picture when I was talking about my experiences, but I realize now that it did for Morillo and her fans on BP Insta. If racist tropes are what you’re against than I understand that, but I don’t think criticism of Trimet automatically equals racism.
Hi Jake9, you have given me the benefit of the doubt in this emotional debate, and I really appreciate that. Thanks! I’m sorry your partner did not feel safe on trimet, and I acknowledge there is a lot of bad behavior on trimet that can be scary. I believe your partner could have successfully and comfortably used trimet to attend PSU (as myself and my partner did, albeit in an earlier era), but I fully accept their determination about their own comfort level. What I would say about their avoidance of trimet is that it exhibits an unusual degree of risk aversion by urban standards. There absolutely is risk associated with being in the city (“Just living in the city is a serious task” as the old Ice-T song goes) that is undeniably more impactful for vulnerable folks. But normal people still go out to bars at night, go to the park alone, and ride trimet.
I agree, and I don’t think Zimmerman “is racist” (or my old officemate, whom I greatly admire). I think the significance of race, class, disability, etc. in urban governance, especially transit services, is very complex, and I certainly don’t have many solutions to offer. What I would say is that these kinds of conversations (whether trimet or a given neighborhood is ‘safe’, e.g.) exist in a historical context that everybody is influenced by and serious interlocutors are aware of. By invoking fear, Zimmerman was pulling the same emotional strings that Trump so deftly plucks when he talks about “American Carnage” and “shithole countries”. Haiti is not a shithole, and neither is trimet. Zimmerman’s statement was ridiculous, and Morillo had a point in her clapback. She was speaking for all of us transit supporters, and that’s why I complemented her statement. It seems like a pretty small joke that Zimmerman supporters could let go. FWIW, I check all the privilege boxes (cishet nonhispanic White male with no disabilities). I don’t live in Morillo’s district, and, TBH, I’m pretty ambivalent about her politics. I do live in Ryan’s district, and I ranked him 3rd. But on this one, Morillo is right and Ryan is wrong.
Hi Lisa, it’s really nice to ‘see’ you in the BP comments! Morillo’s comment was in response to Zimmerman’s invocation of the old and ugly dog whistle that trimet is so dangerous, dirty, and distasteful that respectable people would not patronize it (“city’s biggest homeless shelter”, “barely tolerable”). This disingenuous trope has been prevalent since at least the 1990’s, and it’s always been false. Not only were his comments wrong, they were offensive and disrespectful to those of us who like, ride, and support TriMet. I’m glad Morillo did not let the mischaracterization go unchallenged as has happened many times in the past (perhaps a reflection of the more diverse viewpoints included in the new council, which now has an actual transit user?). Nobody thinks Zimmerman is too afraid to ride the bus, but neither does anybody think that a $2 surcharge on Uber rides will destroy PSU enrollment.
Disingenuous? Always been false? I’ve had transit rides, even recently, where it was certainly true, so I know it’s not always false. TriMet can be dangerous, dirty, distasteful, and barely tolerable; it can also be a great way to get around and a pleasant experience. Both can be true, even for the same rider on the same route one day to the next. A lot depends on who the other passengers are at that moment, how they are behaving, and the condition in which previous passengers left the vehicle.
If TriMet is going to recapture its former riders, and recruit new ones, it needs to reduce the prevalence of bad trips to the extent that the narrative that has taken hold in the public mind fades away. This is a clear case of the cure being much harder than prevention, and it’s clear TriMet still has a lot of work to do.
To get me to ride more regularly, service simply has to be much faster. I tend to ride off-peak when road traffic is light and service is less frequent. If it takes half the time to ride my bike (or drive), I’m not paying to taking transit, no matter how clean the bus.
There are two theories of the case implicit in your posts that deserve to be disambiguated: 1) people don’t ride trimet because it’s too dirty and you’ll get shot; 2) people don’t ride trimet because it takes 10 times longer than driving. I think a lot of people would say they care more about 1), but their behavior (i.e. propensity to ride trimet) is more influenced by 2). So yes, trimet has a lot of work to do to present an appealing and safe rider experience, but I think they could make a lot of progress just by running the routes they have efficiently and competently and using future service changes to make the service faster and better integrated.
No one’s getting shot on TriMet. Stabbed, occasionally, and every once in a while someone’s ear gets gnawed off, but people aren’t getting shot.
And TriMet doesn’t take 10 times longer than other modes; The FX ride I considered taking a few weeks ago was only three times longer than driving, even though the bus would have taken me exactly door to door. It was, according to Google, twice as fast as walking would have been. That’s the FX, Portland’s deluxe vanguard of high performance bus service, for a trip that could not be more easily served, aboard one of their loud, vibrating, squeaky premier tier of vehicles.
So yes, we agree that TriMet has a lot of work to do. Improving the perception of safety is difficult but possible. Dramatically reducing travel times, especially for complex trips, is probably not.
My opinion hardly matters. What’s more important is what all the people think who could potentially ride TriMet, but don’t, perhaps paying much higher fares to Uber instead for a service they are comfortable using and that actually meets their needs.
Yeah Micah with all respect to Lisa, I kind of agree. It’s important to call out how much the public view of transit can be based on histrionics. Politics as aside as we can put them, undermining transit through hyperbole is helping no one.
But it’s also important to view our public transit agency with realistic eyes. Trimet is a just okay agency in North America, but a terrible one relative to a lot of cities around the world in developed countries. Calling out exaggerated views on transit is a behavior I want and hope to see from council members. BTS stats: <400 people died on transit in the US, and >40,000 people died in car crashes (7500 of which were people walking). But I’d rather see an honest and open discussion on how to improve it functionally.
I admit doing it on social media is a little distasteful, but that’s the medium we’re all stuck in for better or worse and is the most effective ATM. I’d rather people read research and news on the benefit of transit and become informed on how we are all better off when modes are more fluid, but I’ll settle for a bit of dog and pony to expose skewed takes.
I don’t hold that trimet provides great (or even sufficient) service. What I do know for sure is that as long as I have been familiar with trimet I’ve heard lurid claims about how dangerous and dirty it was.
What about towing severe parking violators? PBOT mouth piece said they can tows with $500 or more; or 6 or more outstanding citations. That was all talk. Sure the system can do so, but it’s not required to do so and they’re really falling behind on it.
A lot of revenue can be milked from those people in forcing them to pay the fines, or by selling their cars and using that to satisfy citations.
Just enforce the laws on the books.
Ticket cars parked in the wrong direction, ticket those with expired tags, and pull people over for speeding.
But the DSA and DSA adjacent City Council members (Morillo, Avalos, Kanal, Novick, Green, Koyama-Lane, Dunphy) will say enforcement is racist…..it’s back to 2020 for them. How did that approach work out for us in Portland?
For my neighborhood we started hearing gun fire every couple weeks fired near the park that we have. Then the car breakins and car theft began. Even had one elderly neighbor move out of Portland due to the crimes perpetrated against them personally. Probably the final straw was 2 people on their roof trying to break into their skylight.
I, and I bet my neighbors, never want to go back to those days of a DA who didn’t want to prosecute criminals and antifa fascists rioting in the streets.
If you notice, DSA and their ilk never preach self-accountability. It’s always the fault of someone else.
Well, they see everything as racism. Even treating people equally.
By all means, let’s make it more expensive to be “car-less.” Ubers obviously form the occasional/emergency component of that lifestyle.
Tri-met, bikes, scooters, have their limits–like say in snow or at 3am, or going to places that are increasingly locating outside of city limits.
Awesome city council–way to think this through.
The new City Council have shown their true colors. They will tax us to death instead of making the necessary cuts.
They really didn’t take the time to cut the wasteful spending that has plagued us for many many years.