Thursday, January 28, 2010
future new bus procurements. This slow down of new bus procurements means
that buses normally scheduled for retirement at 15 years of age, will now be
maintained to stay in-service for as long as 18 years. Operator seats are
wearing out, and Worker's Compensation claims have increased considerably.
($314,370 total, primarily with the Isringhausen, from July 2000 through
June 2005. In a letter dated February 23, 2005 from the Oregon Occupational
Safety & Health Division, relating to a TriMet fatality, item 01-03 states
that: "Since the inception of the Isringhausen operators seat in 1986,
injuries to legs and backs were documented. The manufacturer states the
maximum weight of 290lbs be used. It is therefore recommended that the
Isringhausen seat be re-evaluated and an alternative seat or weight
restriction be re-assessed for the operators.") There is no formal operator
seat rebuild program in Bus Maintenance, nor are there monies budgeted to
run such a program. An operator seat rebuild program, beyond the newly
established practice of replacing seat cushions and covers every 90,000
miles and doing repairs when needed, would need to be instituted in order to
stop the continued breakdown of older bus operator seats, increase the
endurance of newer bus operator seats, reduce Worker's Compensation claims
on Isringhausen seats, and increase the quality and durability of all
operator seats. Bus Maintenance proposes the following three options for
funding in order to perform this work within the FY07 to FY13 timeframe:
Project Justification - Option 1 - Rebuild both Isringhausen and USSC seats
in-house: Option 1 proposes that all Isringhausen and USSC operator seats be
rebuilt in-house. This option would continue with the utilization of both
Isringhausen and USSC seats until such time as all fleets with Isringhausen
seats are retired. There are 236 Isringhausen seats needing to be rebuilt at
6 hours of rebuild per seat, and 364 USSC seats at 12 hours of rebuild per
seat. Rebuild part costs for Isringhausen seats are approximately $1,329 per
seat, and USSC rebuild part costs are approximately $600 per seat. Total
seven-year labor and parts costs are $947,327 for Isringhausen and $514,524
for USSC, for a total program cost of $1,461,851 to rebuild the fleet, as it
exists today. However, continuing costs per year of approximately $220,000
would have to be added to Bus Maintenance's Materials & Services and
Personnel Services budgets in order to retain the rebuild program after the
initial seven-year period is over, plus 1FTE would have to be added in FY07
and kept indefinitely in order to keep the rebuild cycle at every 3 years
for Isringhausen and 7 years for USSC.
(Note. labor hours for rebuilding of the seats were obtained from King
County Metro (for Isringhausen), and a combination of KCM's hours and a
preliminary tear down and rebuild from TriMet's Upholstery department for
USSC. Exact hours and part costs may be initially higher for TriMet given
the newness of the proposed program (i.e., lack of training, and retirement
and signup turnover). Also this option would not reduce Worker's
Compensation claims, since the Isringhausen seat would remain. There is also
some concern that parts for the Isringhausen will become obsolete within the
next 2-3 years, making it necessary, at such time, to purchase new seats to
replace the Isringhausen.
Project Justification - Option 2 - Buy new USSC seats for the entire fleet:
Option 2 proposes that 600 new USSC seats be procured over a seven-year
period - 288 the first two years, and 52 each year thereafter. USSC has
agreed to credit TriMet $75.00 per seat for each USSC seat returned to them
as core, but will not do the same for Isringhausen seats. Therefore the
initial FY07 higher cost of $1,610 per seat ($379,960 total) to replace the
existing 236 Isringhausen seats not having any core value. Also included in
this option are the approximately 150 per year seat cushion/cover
replacements (every 90,000 miles) that would continue to be made regardless
of new purchase. Total seven-year cost of this option is $1,112,244to buy
new USSC seats for the fleet, plus cushions/covers, as it exists today.
However, continuing costs per year of approximately $115,000 would have to
be added to Bus Maintenance's Materials & Services budget in order to
maintain this purchase scenario after the initial seven-year period is over.
Project Justification - Option 3 - Buy new USSC seats for the entire fleet
except 1400's and 1600's: Option 3 proposes that 539 new USSC seats be
procured over a seven-year period - 227 the first two years, and 52 each
year thereafter. USSC has agreed to credit TriMet $75.00 per seat for each
USSC seat returned to them as core, but will not do the same for
Isringhausen seats. Therefore the initial FY07 higher cost of $1,610 per
seat ($281,750 total) to replace the remaining 175 Isringhausen seats not
having any core value. 61 of the original 236 seats are for 1400 and 1600
series buses and will be retired within the next 2-4 years and therefore
need not be replaced with new USSC seats. However, the remaining 175
Isringhausen seats will be replaced under a scheduled movement plan, with
older USSC seats, as those seats are themselves replaced. This would
eliminate all Isringhausen seats, greatly reduce Worker's Compensation
claims made by injury from the Isringhausen seat, and conserve funds by not
placing new seats on soon to be retired fleets. Also included in this option
are the approximately 150 per year seat cushion/cover replacements (every
90,000 miles) that would continue to be made regardless of new purchase.
Total seven-year cost of this option is $1,014,034 to buy new USSC seats for
the fleet, as it exists today, minus the 1400 and 1600 series buses.
However, continuing costs per year of approximately $115,000 would have to
be added to Bus Maintenance's Materials & Services budget in order to
maintain this purchase scenario after the initial seven-year period is over.
Option 1 - Labor amounts indicated would increase FTE costs in the
Upholstery Shop by one FTE in FY07 and continue indefinitely, and the parts
costs to rebuild the seats under this option, considering there is no
warranty, would suggest that Option 1 is cost prohibitive. In addition,
CarMac, the sole distributor of Isringhausen parts, currently has a six-week
turnaround time for parts delivery - and it is anticipated that Isringhausen
parts will be discontinued and become obsolete within the next 2-3 years.
Option 2 - Replacing operator seats for the entire fleet would eliminate the
need for a rebuild program. With an exchange program TriMet would also gain
a 5-year warranty on all metal components, a 3-year warranty on all plastic
and moving components, and a 1-year warranty on upholstered components.
Labor to remove an old seat and install a new one is minimal, so no
additional FTEs would be needed, there are no training issues since the old
seat is unbolted and removed, while the new one is placed on and then
bolted. Also, part costs yearly increases for replacement don't exist since
a contract for new, with a locked in price per seat, would be procured.
Option 3 - Same as Option 2, only operator seats for the 1400 and 1600
series buses will not be replaced, because they will be retired within the
next 2-4 years. These seats will be replaced with older USSC seats, as those
seats are themselves replaced. This would eliminate all Isringhausen seats,
is expected to reduce Worker's Compensation claims made by injury from the
Isringhausen seat, and conserve funds by not placing new seats on soon to be
retired fleets. This option would save an additional $98,210 over Option 2,
would also eliminate the need for a rebuild program, a warranty would be in
place, and no additional FTEs would be needed.
It is Bus Maintenance's recommendation that the Agency fund Option 3 - Buy
new USSC seats for entire fleet (except 1400's & 1600's), at a total FY07-13
cost of $1,014,034. Given the 290lb restriction and the obsolescence of the
Isringhausen seats, a rebuild program as seen in Option 1 is cost
prohibitive, not only in part and labor costs, but in Worker's Compensation
claims as well. For $447,817 less than the Option 1 proposed rebuild
program, the Agency would acquire new seats; gain a 5-year warranty on all
metal components, a 3-year warranty on all plastic and moving components,
and a 1-year warranty on upholstered components. No additional FTEs would be
needed, since labor to remove old seats and install new ones is minimal.
There would be no training issues during sign-up and retirements, because
the exchange of the old seat for the new seat is relatively easy. USSC seats
are rated at 600lbs, so OSHA recommendations are addressed, and the
degradation of the seat over time is less than that of a 290lb rated seat.
In addition, annual part cost increases would not occur, since a contract
for new, with a locked in price per seat, would be procured.
Operator left the end of the line late. Train 9005 was calling from
Hillsboro Central to get in, operator of train 9028 was over three minutes
late leaving Hatfield and was not in his cab when control called him.
Operator of train 9028 stated he was walking to the cab and that he lost
track of time, when asked if there was a problem that control was unqaware
Sunday, November 29, 2009 7:09 PM
Once again this is a scheduling issue as train 9006 is due at Hatfield at
19:04 but can't get in because train 9005 is due
to leave at 19:04...its no wonder our operators can't get any recovery
time...its all eaten up while waiting at Hillsboro
I am not a schedule writer but I believe I would not a schedule a train into
hatfield until the Eastbound train clears to
make room. If one were to look at hatfield they would find many trains due
in before a train departs Hatfield.....
7:28 PM / TRAIN 9028 / OAK STREET N / Traffic Problems / Operator reports
making a Hard Stop due to a DK that staggered out into the ROW in front of
moving train. Supv 9519 responding from RQ. After the man stepped back up on
the sidewalk, he fell over into the side of the train two or three more
times before he finally moved far enough away for the train to proceed
safely up to Oak St. Called 911 for a welfare check, incident number 1272.
Sent Chain-of-Custody to REM & Claims. 507762 Merged
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
6:46 PM / TRAIN 9004 / MALL/SW 5TH AVE W / Passenger Problem / Train 4
advises dwelling at Pioneer Square WB with the bridgeplates deployed for a
full light cycle, but the woman failed to board the train, so the train
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
7:41 AM / TRAIN 9028 / GATEWAY TC S / Traffic Problems / Car 103A. Used MB
to avoid a bicyclist at 97th and Burnside. Operator reports this same biker
everyday plays chicken with the train. No reported injuries. Sent
Chain-of-Custody 509294 Merged
Thursday, December 3, 2009
3:48 PM / TRAIN 9026 / CLEVELAND AVENUE W / Passenger Problem / passenger
was standing on bridgeplate area where it says do not stand and operator had
have passenger move in order for bridgeplate to retract.
4:25 PM / TRAIN 9032 / PIONEER SQUARE SOUTH E / Traffic Problems / Police
were blocking the ROW at SW Yamhill, east of SW 6th ave making an arrest.
Friday, December 4, 2009 1:58 PM
Child left at Fairplex, 9510 is there now looking for them. 9510 has the
child at Fair Complex. Mother and other children had boarded train 01, Mr.
Hunt's train leaving the three year old child at Fairplex. Mom is boarding
the eastbound train 26 going back to Fairplex. Child reunited with Mom at
8:05 AM / TRAIN 9025 / OLD TOWN/CHINATOWN S / Auto in ROW / Operator
reported Bus # 1784/ Line 85 ran the red light out of Rose Quarter when
train was leaving on a proper preempt. Stokes called Waddington to take care
Bio-Hazard on the train. operaator was instructed to off load the
train.Train was SB at Main Street Platform.
Operator reported that an Blk. Male was threatening him and refusing to
leave the train. Supervisor was en-route. the male was refusing to leave the
train. The male then left the train and the supervisor arrived that the male
was threatening him. police were called inc#653. male left the area before
police arrived. police were notified were the
male was going.
Incident 1214 Fire called with a stop for trains at 15 and Morrison for an
apartment fire. Had to turn 9021 back due to Fire trucks in the ROW. Did
start a bus bridge. Were able to cancel bus bridge before we got any buses
on scene.Started at 15:34 ended at 15:48. Had 9043 do a blue line run to
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Train 24 reports a delay attempting to depart Galleria. Someone knocked on
his door stating that an elderly gentleman got his cane stuck in the door of
the Type 1, as the trains signal came up. Operator then stated that he got a
follow-up intercom call stating that the man was stuck in the door, but that
this was not valid information. Requestiing data packs for Claims and will
refer to FORT Mgrs., to see if investigation is warranted, as the operator
may have deboarded the individual away from a platform.
At the request of D. Allison, 9510 will meet with the
operator at Elmo and confirm what took place. 9510 and the operator will
submit a report.
Sunday, December 8, 2009
9067 was blocked at 5th and Couch by a transit police car with none inside.
I called 911 to inquire about this
and they stated they did not have anyone in the area but they would send
someone to check. While 9067 was
speaking with me on the radio some passengers were screaming at him to close
the doors. he had the doors on
release so if someone wanted off or on. He told the passengers he would get
right back to them and just wanted
on record in case they call in.
Sunday, December 11, 2009
4:25 PM / TRAIN 9062 / 5TH S / Auto in ROW / Operator called to say there
were many instances where he had to slow or stop early at platforms because
of cars doing illegal right turns from the ROW. I didn't know where or how
to document this, so I selected "Delay" as the Incident type.
Operator selected for the yard at RJ signal 120 as per his paddle, but
forgot to clear his cars first. He selected with
route code 01, began to depart on a proper, but stopped once he realized
what he had done and called Control. His
doors were still on the platform, but he was off his call loop. I had him
exit his cab, clear his cars and then called a
route for him without further incident.
Once in the Control room, he was still berating himself for his error. I
reassured him that he did the right thing by stopping and calling control
once he realized what he was about to do and
I expect him not to make this same error again.
Rail Incident - Training Referral Email sent to
RailTransMgrs@tri-met.org group - date/time: 12/11/2009 18:41
at about 19:10 Train 9027 called from the yard limit sign. the operator was
Monica Domingos-2508. She incorrectly
selected for the yard, although she was really suppose to be relieved at
197th EB at 18:52. She said she read her
paddle wrong and thought she pulled into the yard. The relief operator (Carl
Jones-6411) said he knocked on her
window at the 197th platform because he was not sure if this was his train
since the overhead read "out of service".
When she pulled into the yard, I asked her (via the radio) if she had
passengers on her train. She said she did not
because Wackenhut cleared her cars at 197th. When I asked Monica if she saw
Operator Jones on the platform,
knocking on her window. She indicated that she did but she ignored him and
selected into the yard anyway.
When she came into the control room I asked her to show me her paddle. She
did have the correct paddle for run 32 which
showed a route code of 00 from Hatfield/Gov. Upon checking SCADA, she ran
with a route
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Operator reported he had to stop abruptly for a bus that tried to run
through the intersection on a red at 5th/Morrison. Bus is now sitting in the
intersection blocking the ROW. Supv Berlin also saw the bus with a red
Sent Chain-of-Custody to REM & Claims for abrupt stop. AdeS
A TriMet bus is sitting on the tracks at 6th/Montgomery with is flashers on.
Bus Dispatch says they are trying to move it,
Mechanics truck just past 5th & Montgomery @ 1651 on it's way to the
broke-down bus. The truck arrived and bus is clear of
the ROW @ 1657... trains are rolling 13 minutes down.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
When the operator made an announcement asking to have someone push a
passenger intercom button so he could clear the
cab alarm, someone pulled a red knob instead. Train left PDX 10 minutes
Friday, December 18, 2009
Operator reports a fight with 5 female teenagers involved. BOEC called,
their incident #1258. Police on scene at 1525. It
took the police over 10 minutes to arrive. The suspects walked right by them
on the upper platform as they were exiting
their car. I could not raise them on my radio net. 9514 arrived after
police. We rolled the trains after victim told police she did not want to
file a complaint. We had 7 trains holding to facilitate the suspects leaving
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Reliefs at Gateway continue to plage ontime performance. Southbound Redlines
obtain clearence all the way into Gateway during the eastbound Green line
Operator relief. This rouetinely delays not only the Greenline but the
trains behind it.
[EMS] 6:49 PM / TRAIN 9002 / SUNSET TC W / Other Train . . 4 Three people
trapped in elevator WB at Sunset Trasit Center. Emergency number keeps
hanging up. Cannot communicate with people inside. Unit 9507 responding. 911
called incident number 0912 03166 Kone called conf 3607692. ETA 25 minutes
Paged out. I requested the operator of Train 41 to make contact with the
people inside to let them know that help is on the way. Kone finished at
20:00. Unit 9504 relayed that Kone tech wasn't happy with the fix but that
it would be ok for now. I asked for a phone call to clarify. On the phone
Unit 9504 said that the tech didn't have the tools required to do a great
job, but did an adequate job to where he felt confident that the elevator
was safe to use. I also reminded him about the phone issue. The tech will
relay that to "Ken" (his supervisor?) and that it will be looked at in the
Train 9064 reported that parents and children were separated along the
banfield at either 42nd,60th, or 82nd. She
reported that parents and children were reunited at 42nd ave. 9531 responded
from GTC to talk to parents who where
going to wait at 42nd ave. Operator of train 64 was somewhat distraught and
not clear as to exactly what transpired.
9522/9523 arrived at 42nd at 19:21. 9522 made contact with parents. All
parties boarded in Hillsboro. 2 children got off
at 42nd EB. Mother did not get off in time with baby. Mother and baby rode
EB to 60th. Got off at 60th and caught a
WB back to 42nd where they were reunited with children. 9522 to submit
report as well.
Parents separated from child. 9070 reports from passengers on the train that
the parents got off at Main St, but the three
year old child did not. Operator waiting with child until Police, unit 1780
or 9531 arrive to relieve. BOEC called by
phone, they have dispatched it out to TPD; incident # 1575. Police on scene
at Division at 2049, TPD 1780, along with
Mother whom they picked up at Main and brought to Division. 9531 on scene.
Reports requested from both train
Operator and 9531. Information paged to Fort Mgrs. Mr. Allison called in for
details. Chain of custody for LRVs
processed. 9531 transported the people involved back to Main St to provide
some extra customer service. Next trains
northbound were quite a while out.
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Operator reports a white male DK wearing a blue hoodie, blue jeans & boots
was drinking a beer on the train. Operator took the beer away from him & he
is just sitting there. Supervisor Unit 9512 is responding. Control called
911 for a transport, incident number 1291. Supv holding train until the
police to arrive, train will back-trade with train 8. The man apparently
boarded new cars when train 1 and 8 swapped consists and has left the area.
Supervisor lost track of him. Train 9001 is 15 min lateleaving from
Cleveland. Foot Supervisors will board Train 1 and check on the individual.
Monday, December 21, 2009
Field Technician reports a semi truck has hung up on a pinch point
attempting to navigate the turn from SB 18th Ave into
the PGE Park/MAC Service driveway. WB tracks blocked. Held train 9020 for
approximately 8 minutes. Train 9044
held at Galleria. Truck cleared ROW and WB train 20 passed before truck
attempted to reposition, blocking both EB and
WB tracks. Trains will call (9044 @ PGE Park WB and 9002 @ Salmon St EB).
Truck has backed out of the driveway
and trains are clear to pass 0720.
9537 called me on the phone and asked me for an acid # because an operator
entered his cab after knocking at 197th
WB. It was a type 4 so the operator couldn't reach around and open it
himself. The operator said Dan Lindner came in
and then went out on his own. He entered the cab again at 122 or 102. When
Operator King asked him to leave the cab,
he did and didn't come back again. King said he wasn't going to even
complain, however he talked to Micheal Oliver
and he said he should write a report on the incident. When I talked to Brad
he seemed fine I also asked him how he was
and he told me he was fine. I told him if he needed anything. Then he called
me at approximately Hawthorne Farms
and say he needed to be relieved. 9531 heard the encounter and she said she
talked to him at the end of the line at
Hatfield and Brad was just fine.
Sunday, December 27, 2009
Train Operator Bolivar called in from Gov Center looking for his train.
Turns out Operator Mitchell had taken his cars
by mistake. She was already at Hawthorn Farm eastbound, she was embarrassed
and apologetic, promised not to do that
again. I doubt further counseling is required, but the training referral is
for informational purposes.
Rail Incident - Training Referral Email sent to RailTransMgrs@tri-met.org
group - date/time: 12/27/2009 17:08
Monday, December 28, 2009
Report of hard stop. Operator out to check on passengers. One passenger not
requesting medical; Two passengers requesting medical. Medical arrived at
0942. Operator reports he was coming into 162nd EB platform and dropped
something. He reached down to get item, and was overshooting platform.
Applied EB to stop train. Train stopped about three feet off platform.
Passengers called on intercom to report injuries. Supervisor on scene to
collect information. Data pack request filed with shop. One passenger
transported to Adventist. One refusing transport. Supervisor reports 4
passengers for medical to see. Train removed from service at 162nd and
returned to yard. Manual blocked train 7 around incident train. Ran trains
41, 62 via the center track at Gateway TC. Trains rolling at 1013.
12:59 PM / TRAIN 9089 / UNION STN/5TH & GLISAN S / Traffic Problems / Late
due to a bicyclist running a red light.
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Yellow / Green line trains will run between Expo and CLackamas due to the
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Operator was EB on Morrison when he reported contact with a auto at 4th and
Morrison. 911 was called Inc # 1183.
Operator then lowered the pantograph. Supervisors were sent. All trains in
the area were stopped. Operator then
was instructed to key out and check for injuries. Medical arrived at 1605.
Police arrived at 1610. Supervisors 9510,
9522 & 9526 arrived at 1611. No reports of injury. Supervisors took pictures
interviewed driver of auto and
passengers. Supervisor reported that the coupler head had made contact with
the auto. After investigation was
completed supervisor did a complete ground inspection and the train was
cleared to raise the pantograph and proceed
when safe to do so into the platform. Supervisor 9522 stood on the corner
and insured all traffic lights were working
as intended. (they were). All clear at 1629
Driver of auto cited for running a red light.
Check list was completed.
Chain of Custody and Data Packs pulled and sent to claims
Operator reported that she had a near miss with a postal car. The car came
from behind a WB train at Skidmore
straight at her whith the car lights off. She got the train stopped. no
contact was made. Operator stated that she was
going between 8 - 10 MPH and when she saw the car she was going even slower
and was able to get the train
stopped. Operator was able to get the train pulled into the platform.
Supervisors were sent to meet the operator.
The supervisor took over the train at Skidmore and offloaded the train at
Rose Quarter and taken to double Tree
Siding. Supervisor reported that the operator could not continue her run.
Supervisor 9522 was sent to take the
operator back to Elmo and pick up a new operator.
Operator will do a report and a Tri-Star 801 form.
The Operator of train 9066 is now at 12 hours of service and needs to come
back to the yard. I called the station agent to see if there were any report
operators to take over the train for him, he said that there were not any
operators left. We will loose service on train 9066 for the remainder of the
Friday, January 1, 2010
Operator out of cab at 197th west for a passenger calling on intercom asking
for security. A black male, 25 yrs,
wearing black shirt exposed himself to a female passenger. Called 911,
incident number 747. Police arrived at
0854. Train is rolling at 0902.
Sent Chain-of-Custody to REM & TPD.
Operator requesting help with someone she can't confirm is breathing because
of his slumped over body
posture and the amount of clothing he is wearing. WACA called; their
incident # 53. After I was off the phone,
she now reports that the fellow smells of alcohol and has stirred. Medical
arrives at 1155. 9508 on scene at
1157. 9508 moved the train up to west portal out of service as the Operator
had to use the facilities and then
when she returned the police wanted to interview her. This event delayed
additional trains, 9042 and 9003
westbound and 9007 eastbound. 9046 was returned to Service at 1234 eastbound
from West Portal pocket,
short lined at Double Tree and back on time westbound.
Police ended up taking the fellow into custody; he was not transported by
Saturday, January 2, 2010
We managed to allow a cute cuddly dog stack trains up east and west bound
along the Banfield.
Sounds of an argument brewing to a fight on the trailing car via the PIS. No
visual. Police called; their
incident # 1300. Police on scene at 1933. Police on scene, subject off the
train, but police blocking the ROW by
1938. Police have taken the fellow in custody. ROW clear by 1941.
Six minutes after the first incident on this consist, evasive action 525707,
we had an argument/fight occur on this train, incident 525708. We believe in
the trailing car, 301. Officer Jason Maurry, #43487, called later by phone
requesting the data packs be pulled. So the data packs for 525707 will also
hold the data for incident 525708. Refer to 525707 for chain of custody
Monday, January 4, 2010
Commercial loss of Power. City crews are working at 162 & Halsey and the
power loss is affecting traffic signals and pre-empts at 162 to 148th both
directions. All trains are having to stop sound warning and proceed when
safe. 9529 & 9527 are at the intersection with flares and are flagging
traffic and trains. Multnomah Co arrived at 1625 and reset the signals and
Pre-empts. All working as intended at 1630.
Train 9020: Operator 17 minutes down westbound at BTC, delaying trains 40,
08 and 48. 9533 and 9534 will off load at Merlo
Rd. Bringing her into the yard. Filled by new operator and cars from Elmo on
time westbound. When asked why she was so
late, she explained that she had to SOP 162nd and 148th due to a power
outage and then had to wait to get through the Gateway interlocking. The
following train 08 picked up her passengers a few minutes later.
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Operator had called Control by radio from Hollywood requesting for a
supervisor to meet her at Gateway and have the supervisor operate the train
from Gateway to Cleveland and back, due to the fact that she was running
fifteen minutes (or so) late due to an earlier mechanical issue. Supervisor
at Gateway not available for this purpose. Yard train 11 used to fill on
time from Cleveland for train 26, with the intent that train 26 would
operate WB on train 11s time. Supervisor at Cleveland requested same from
operator of train 26 who stated that she would leave when she was good and
ready. Supervisor reiterated the request that she take only the time that
she needed to and return WB at 0750, and that that didn't necessarily
include taking a cigarette break. Operator responded that her right to take
a cigarette brake was guaranteed by the ADA and then broke communications
with the Supervisor. Verbal notification to Dan Stokes and through Dan
Stokes to Don Allison. No further action
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Train 9014 is holding at PGE due to an auto accident at 14th and Yamhill.
Police will not allow 9513 to drive or push the vehicles off the tracks.
They are now just waiting for a tow. Supervisors stated that he asked the
officer if he could just move the vehicles off the tracks and the officer
said NO we will just wait for the Tow truck. Train 9014 is now 20 minutes
late. Train hs now missed meet in CBD
Friday, January 8, 2010
Operator called reporting a suspicious white male had boarded the train at
Mount Hood station SB, short sandy blond hair, wearing a purple shirt under
a black jacket. He is carrying a briefcase or other satchel exhibiting wires
or something similar from it. He was also utilizing a cigarette lighter on
board the train. The operator reports that he has a suspicious demeanor and
appearance. When the operator opened the cab door to admonish him from using
the lighter, he appeared very nervous. Supervisor 9514 arrived on scene
1514. 9-1-1 incident #1194 9-1-1 arrived at an unknown time
approximately 1517 hours they were searching the train car by car. Unit 9514
is in contact with police at this time and
discussing options. At 1522 hours, unit 9514 stated that train 40 was clear
to roll. Police are still with subject; he may be allowed to board following
train. Train 50 abandoned Gateway to PDX to fill WB for train 40. Train 40
released to roll
and is in 48s timeslot; 48 will le
Unit 1774 called in requesting EB/WB trains bypass WCTC platform due to a
HOT item. 9529 reported the item was by
the north side of the new PCC building, out of sight.
Had WB trains make good PA announcements to let passengers know a shuttle
bus would be transporting those needing to go to Willow Creek. EB trains
stopped at the platform, but did not open their doors. 9529 opened a door
with a crew key to board passengers. EB shuttle bus from Quatama to Willow
Creek for passengers needing that stop.
Red Line trains offloaded at Elmo WB and brought into the yard oos.
9529 said EDU was coming from downtown to inspect HOT item (23:10).
9529 was given permission to run trains normal at Willow Creek WB/EB
Sunday, January 10, 2010
Train 46 received report of a passenger on the lead car that is passed out.
911 inc. # 1377.
Medical arrived at 20:20. 9515 enroute from 102 & Glisan.
Individual is reported to be a Hisp male, laying on the floor of the train.
Individual is breathing, but unresponsive and wearing a bathrobe and black
Individual off the train and train cleared to roll at 20:25.
Transported by AMR # 331 to Emanuel Hospital. Emergency responders had
already departed Parkrose by the time Supervisor
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
We have signal problems on Steel Bridge again, delaying all trains. Central
Control was forced to by-pass trains from signals 14, M26, & M16. Eastbound
trains could get a clear on signal 10 when a WB train was moving from signal
14. Pages sent, delay notice put pout on transit tracker, and a Bus Bridge
was set up with Mall trains looping downtown. Train Operations finally back
to normal service at 12:45.
Train 9025 called and said that she had a passenger emergency call saying
that there was a man that was having a seizure
in her trailing car. I had the operator exit her cab and check on the man.
In the mean time I called 911, Incident # 1552,
and they are sending Medical. I called Supervisor 9513 and he arrived at
Thursday, January 14, 2010
9513 called and said that Medical arrived at 19:00. 9522 called at 19:06 and
said that they were clear of the train and train 9025 was clear to proceed.
9522 called and said that AMR unit # 609 was going to transport the man to
Emanuel Hospital. 9522 called and said that we were clear of Medical and the
incident at 19:17.
Friday, January 15, 2010
Op called in stating that a woman said she was assaulted by a man on the
train. The woman requested Police.
Called 9525 to respond; had 9007 hold for Police.
Both man and woman walked away from the platform and into the park by Lloyd
Center. I then had the train roll on a proper.
Chain-of-custody in process; 911 IN# 921.
Operator reports a white male DK urinated on side of train then boarded
trailing car # 304 at the first door at coupled end. Called 91, incident
number 676. BTC Police arrived at 13:43; cleared train to roll @ 13:47.
Train 9003 called and reported that when he had the preempt at 10 and
Yamhill a car turned in front of him and made contact with auto. Operator
had to use Maximum Brake and used high horn.
Operator was instructed to pan down.
Police arrived on the scene @ 2009 police were called by non trimet employee
but I did receive incident # 1630
9513 arrived 2011
There were no injuries and both auto and train are moveable.
There was some damage to the active end coupler of car 211A
Driver of the auto said that she had a green light.
Data packs and event recorder will be pulled. Chain of custodies have been
NO FTA notification does not meet critria. Supervisor and operator will
There were no injuries on the train, supervisor stated that the passengers
on the train said it wasnt a hard stop.
After speaking with the operator when he came into the yard he stated that
the auto was running paralle with the train and turned left onto 10th ave
Driver of th
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Operator of Train 1 received an emergency intercom call stating that a woman
on the trailing car had her cell phone stolen by a man that ran off the
train at Lloyd EB. 911 inc # 1087. Train 1 holding at Hollywood and 9519
enroute. Train 1 rolling at 16:20.
9519 arrived at 16:21. Victim, her husband, and good samaritan/translater
standing by at Hollywood awaiting police arrival. Police arrived at 16:31.
Individual matching suspect description boarded the trailing car of Train 44
and train was held at Hollywood for police arrival. Train 44 cleared to
proceed at 16:35.
Suspect described as a Hisp male, early 20's, wearing a blue flannel shirt
and carrying a black backpack.
Victim named Esperanza Cortez, Hisp female, 5 ft., 39 years old, wearing a
burgandy sweater and blue coat.
TPD Atkeson/ # 44965 requesting data pack for trailing car 310 from incident
Police responding to Train 4 EB at RQ for report of 3 DK males on the
trailing car creating a disturbance. 911 inc # 1194. Individuals described
as 3 Hisp Individuals removed from the trailing car and Train 4 cleared to
Individuals taken into police custody.
9524 responding. Police on the way to 82nd Ave max for a disturbance. MH in
a stripped hoody making threats.
Police arrive. No crime. Suspect has left.
9532 called east air trying to stop 9004 from departing from 82nd AVE. We
got the train holding for medical for a juvenile that is unresponsive at
60th w/b. Medical on the way, their incident # 643. Medical on scene at
1202. Medical has subject off the train at 1206. We are all clear at 1219.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Train was missing the side crank tool. The Operator had to retrieve one so
was late leaving the Yard.
The Operator of 9071 called WB into GTC to say he had some commotion on his
lead car and was going to get out and
check when he reached the platform. I called 9509 and he stated he was
already there. 9509 called and requested 911 with
priority for a fight between 2 passengers.. I called 911 and they arrived at
06:10. 9071 was delayed for 5 minutes.
Data packs have been requested by 911.
Chain of custody has been sent to REM.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
M. Brian Playfair
4012 SE 17th Avenue
Portland, Oregon 97202
Dear Mr. Playfair:
This letter is in response to your correspondence dated November 19, 2002 concerning
sworn police officers receiving free transportation from Tri-Met.
OREGON GOVERNMENT STANDARDS AND PRACTICES COMMISSION STAFF
OPINION NO. 02S-030
STATED FACTS: In 1980 the Tri-Met Board adopted Ordinance No. 75, making a
specific legislative finding that the requirement for security for drivers and passengers
on Tri-Met buses would be met by augmenting Tri-Met’s own police surveillance and
protection by encouraging local and state law enforcement officers to ride Tri-Met buses
at no cost to the officers. In addition, the board made a finding that the fare exemption
is of assistance to local enforcement agencies in apprehending offenders who use the
transit system in the execution of crimes. In 1987, the board extended the fare
exemption to include light rail vehicles.
The fare exemption is based on the expectation by the board and staff that sworn police
officers present on Tri-Met vehicles would respond in their official capacity and take
police action if the need were to arise. It was the belief of the board and staff that the
presence of sworn officers on Tri-Met vehicles would increase Tri-Met security
resources for arrests and protection of individuals and serve as a deterrent to criminal
Section 19.20 of Ordinance No. 75 is entitled “Exemption from Fares.” Section 19.20(C)
states “Regularly sworn officers of local law enforcement agencies within the Tri-Met
boundaries, and the Oregon State Police, are exempt from payment of fares on District
vehicles upon displaying police identification or police badges upon request when
entering or remaining upon any District vehicle.”
M. Brian Playfair
GSPC Staff Opinion 02S-030
November 25, 2002
This ordinance establishes a policy that encourages local law enforcement officers and
Oregon State Police Officers to provide added protection for drivers and passengers
and to discourage incidents occurring on the busses.
RELEVANT STATUTES: The following Oregon Revised Statutes are applicable to the
issues addressed herein:
244.020(15) “’Public official’ means any person who, when an alleged violation of
this chapter occurs, is serving the State of Oregon or any of its political
subdivisions or any other public body of the state as an officer, employee, agent
or otherwise, and irrespective of whether the person is compensated for such
244.040 “Code of ethics; prohibited actions; honoraria. The following actions
are prohibited regardless of whether actual conflicts of interest or potential
conflicts of interest are announced or disclosed pursuant to ORS 244.120:”
244.040(1)(a) “No public official shall use or attempt to use official position or
office to obtain financial gain or avoidance of financial detriment that would not
otherwise be available but for the public official's holding of the official position or
office, other than official salary, honoraria, except as prohibited in paragraphs (b)
and (c) of this subsection, reimbursement of expenses or an unsolicited award
for professional achievement for the public official or the public official’s relative,
or for any business with which the public official or a relative of the public official
QUESTION: Would it be a violation of Oregon Government Standards and Practices
laws for a police officer to accept free transportation from Tri-Met under the provisions
outlined in the stated facts?
OPINION: ORS 244.040(1)(a) prohibits a public official from using, or attempting to
use, their official position or office to obtain a financial gain or the avoidance of a
financial detriment that would not otherwise be available but for the public official’s
holding of the official position or office, other than official salary, honoraria, the
reimbursement of expenses or an unsolicited award for professional achievement for
the public official.
The Supreme Court, in Davidson v Oregon Government Ethics Commission, 300 OR
414, 712p. 2d 87 (1985), identified the broad policy of Oregon’s ethics laws as ensuring
that government employees do not gain personal financial advantage through their
access to the assets and other attributes of government. In that case, the Supreme
Court held that a public official could not use his official position to obtain financial gain
for himself where, through access to his governmental body’s buying power, he
purchased an automobile at a discount price. The Court emphasized that the term
M. Brian Playfair
GSPC Staff Opinion 02S-030
November 25, 2002
“use” in ORS 244.040(1)(a) includes availing oneself of a benefit not available to the
general public. The Court applied a “but for” test, i.e., but for his position, the public
official would have been unable to purchase the car at the discount price and, thus,
obtain a personal gain. 712 p 2d 92.
The stated facts indicate that, for sworn police officers to receive free transportation on
a Tri-Met vehicle, the officers are expected to respond in their official capacity and take
official police action when the need arises. An additional incentive to the fare
exemption is that the presence of sworn police officers on Tri-Met vehicles would
increase Tri-Met security resources and serve as protection to individuals and as a
deterrent to criminal activity.
It is the belief of GSPC staff that, given the stated facts, the police officers would be
performing official duties which, the officers took an oath to perform and the officers
would not be in violation of ORS 244.040(1)(a) by accepting free passage on Tri-Met.
This staff opinion is a supplement to Oregon Government Standards and Practices
Commission Staff Opinion No. 02S-029 issued on November 12, 2002.
THIS RESPONSE ADDRESSES ONLY THE APPLICATION OF ORS CHAPTER 244
TO THE FACTS STATED HEREIN. ANY RELEVANT INFORMATION, WHICH WAS
NOT INCLUDED BY THE REQUESTER OF THIS OPINION IN THE STATED FACTS,
COULD COMPLETELY CHANGE THE OUTCOME OF THIS OPINION. OTHER
LAWS OR REQUIREMENTS MAY ALSO APPLY. THIS IS NOT A FORMAL
ADVISORY OPINION PURSUANT TO ORS CHAPTER 244.280. THIS OPINION
DOES NOT EXEMPT A PUBLIC OFFICIAL FROM LIABILITY UNDER ORS
CHAPTER 244 FOR ANY ACTION OR TRANSACTION CARRIED OUT IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THIS OPINION. THIS OPINION IS ONLY MY PERSONAL
ASSESSMENT AS THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE OREGON GOVERNMENT
STANDARDS AND PRACTICES COMMISSION.
Please contact this office again if you would like this opinion submitted to the Oregon
Government Standards and Practices Commission (GSPC) for adoption as a formal
advisory opinion pursuant to ORS 244.280.
L. Patrick Hearn
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Telephone: (503) 823-7307 Fax: (503) 823-4347
OFFICE OF THE CITY AUDITOR
TDD: (503) 823-6868
HEARINGS OFFICER'S ORDER
TriMet vs. Steve P. Mansell
CASE NO. 3090530
(TriMet Exclusion Number 165108)
HEARING DATE: January 5, 2010
Steve P. Mansell, Excluded Party
Rail Supervisor Mark Levingston, for TriMet
HEARINGS OFFICER: Mr. Gregory J. Frank
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
Timelines: The Hearings Officer finds the following concerning the Notice ofExclusion being issued:
TriMet issued the Notice ofExclusion to Mr. Steve P. Mansell on December 25,2009. The case was forwarded to the City ofPortland Hearings Office on December 29,2009. The Hearings Office mailed a hearing-notice to the parties on December 29,2009, within the time prescribed in the TriMet Code. The notice contained the required information concerning Mr. Mansell's rights in the hearing process.
SufficiencyoftheNotice ofExclusion: Acopy oftheNotice ofExclusionwasprovidedtoMr. Mansellwhenhe was excluded. The notice did reference the violating conduct/applicable code provision.
Stays: The exclusion was subject to an automatic stay upon being issued.
Mitigating and/or Aggravating Factors: The Hearings Officer fmds Mr. Mansell's conduct on December 25,2009 interfered with the safe operation ofa District Vehicle and posed a serious threat to his personal safety.
Probability that the excluded individual engaged in the conduct supporting the exclusion: Mr. Mansell appeared at the hearing and testified on his own behalf. Rail Supervisor Levingston appeared at the hearing and testified on behalfofTriMet. The Hearings Officer makes this decision based upon the testimony ofMr. Mansell and Supervisor Levingston and the documents admitted into the evidentiary record (Exhibits 1 through and including 3 and 5 through and including 7). Exhibit 4 was not admitted because Mr. Mansell did not have a copy, at the hearing, ofExhibit 4 and the Hearings Officer determined that with the presence of Supervisor Levingston neither party would be prejudiced by the exclusion ofExhibit 4.
CASE NO. 3090530 Page No. 2
Mr. Mansell and Supervisor Levingston, by their testimony at the hearing, agreed that on December 25, 2009 Mr. Mansell did climb upon the back "coupler" (equipment at the end ofa Max train car used to connect to another Max train car) and ride for a distance. Mr. Mansell stated that he only rode upon the "coupler" because the doors were closed. Supervisor Levingston stated that a driver ofa bus following the Max train observed Mr. Mansell riding on the "coupler" and contacted TriMet dispatch who in tum contacted Supervisor Levingston and the TriMet Max train operator. Supervisor Levingston stated that the Max train operator stopped the Max train and asked Mr. Mansell to get offofthe "coupler" and then waited for Supervisor Levingston to arrive. Supervisor Levingston stated that the Max train, upon which Mr. Mansell was riding the "coupler" was delayed by Mr. Mansell for approximately 5 minutes.
Mr. Mansell received a Notice ofExclusion on December 25,2009 for allegedly violating TMC 28.15 D (4) (Interferenceffrespass on Right ofWay). The Hearings Officer finds no dispute among the witnesses that Mr. Mansell did get upon and ride a Max train "coupler" on December 25, 2009. The Hearings Officer finds that riding a Max train "coupler" constitutes, while on the TriMet right-of-way, a hazard to Mr. Mansell and interfered with the timely passage ofa TriMet Max train. The Hearings Officer finds it more probable than not that on December 25,2009 Mr. Mansell did violate TMC 28.15 D (4). The Hearings Officer finds the Notice of Exclusion issued to Mr. Steve P. Mansell on December 25, 2009 is valid.
Special Exceptions: The Hearings Officer fmds Mr. Mansell is transit dependant and partially disabled. The Hearings Officer finds that Mr. Mansell needs access, Monday through and including Friday, to bus lines 8 and 15 and the Blue Line Max trains between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. The Hearings Officer notes that Mr. Mansell was infonned at the hearing that if similar conduct occurs (endangering his personal safety and the safety ofothers on the TriMet system)· and he requests a qualified exclusion such request will likely be denied.
ORDER AND DETERMINATION:
1. Validity ofthe Notice ofExclusion:
The Hearings Officer modifies the Notice ofExclusion issued to Mr. Steve P. Mansell on December 25, 2009.
Length ofthe Exclusion:
The exclusion shall become effective with this Order, on January 13, 2010, and shall conclude on April 7, 2010 at 5:00 p.m.
Scope ofthe Exclusion:
Mr. Mansell shall have access, Monday through and including Friday between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., to bus lines 8 and 15 and Blue Line Max trains.
This order has been mailed to the parties on January 7, 2010, not more than five (5) business days following the hearing, and will become final on January 13, 2010.
CASE NO. 3090530 Page No. 3
5. This order may be appealed to a court ofcompetent jurisdiction pursuant to ORS 34.010 et seq.
Dated: January 7, 2010
Anneal Form nal!e 2
TriMet Fare Insnection System nrint out
Issuinl! Person's Affidavit
Monday, January 18, 2010
doors trapped his son in his stroller.
But the father doubts the video’s validity, saying it doesn’t reflect the panic and fear he felt.
In an e-mail accompanying the video, TriMet spokeswoman Mary Fetsch said, “While this remains
under investigation, we are providing the video showing that the sensitive edge worked as the father had
difficulty boarding the train with a stroller that did not have a left front wheel.”
Andrew Kiloh doesn’t dispute that. In fact, he wonders why TriMet didn’t release video of him on the
station platform, waving the broken stroller wheel at the MAX driver in an effort to explain he needed
more time to board the train.
“The driver looked right at me,” he said over the phone from his Gresham home. “I don’t think they
understand they are a public service and they don’t treat their customers with any respect.”
Kiloh filed a complaint with TriMet following the Sunday, Jan. 10, incident at the Gresham City Hall
MAX station. He said his 2-year-old son, Gavin, got trapped in his stroller as the MAX doors closed,
opened, closed and opened again.
He told reporters one of the stroller’s wheels popped off, slowing him down as he and his fiancée
boarded the eastbound train.
With the doors closing, reopening and closing again, Kiloh said he struggled to free his son while
screaming for help. He feared the train would leave the platform, smashing his son into a nearby rail.
Kiloh said he didn’t have time to hit emergency buttons, but because it happened at the front doors
next to the operator, she should have heard his screams for help.
He also expressed frustration that the train operator, when confronted at the end of the line when
Kiloh got off the train, blew him off.
“Do you realize you just closed the door on a child?” Kiloh said he asked the driver. She reportedly
replied by telling him he should have been on the platform when the train arrived. When he said the
broken wheel delayed him, she said, “Well, you should have moved faster.”
Video shot from four angles within the train shows the front of the stroller – missing a wheel and with
its front end off the ground – stop between the open doors. The doors close on the stroller but
immediately open up as Gavin’s mother, who was already on the train, rushes over to help.
As she picks the stroller up and pulls it inside, the doors close again, this time near the handles. The
doors open right away. Then with the woman pulling and Kiloh pushing, they get the entire stroller on
Kiloh then hands the woman the missing wheel and she pops it on the left front end of the stroller.
Although he’s viewed the video, Kiloh thinks it has been sped up to make it look like the doors open
faster than they did. “Not true, not true at all,” Kiloh said. He claims that instead of opening in half a
Father disputes TriMet video of child trapped by doors Page 1 of 2
second as shown in the video, it took one to two seconds for the door to open the first time, even longer
the second time.
Fetsch said doors on the MAX are designed to reopen if something blocks them. Also a MAX train
can’t leave the station if all the doors are not closed.
But Kiloh points to a recent incident as proof to the contrary – TriMet’s firing of a MAX driver for
ignoring emergency calls from a father separated from his 3-year-old son.
As the father and son got off the train holding hands, the doors closed between them, trapping the
father on the train and leaving the child stranded on the platform.
“So that’s proof the doors don’t always open if something is blocking them,” Kiloh said.
Fetsch said in that case, the father pulled his hand back as the doors closed, so the door sensors didn’t
register that they needed to open. The real issue was the driver not responding to the father’s calls for
help, Fetsch said. “It had nothing to do with the doors; the doors worked fine.”
In addition, she has watched video surveillance of Kiloh on the platform and said he doesn’t appear to
be waving a stroller wheel at the driver or struggling with the stroller. “You don’t ever see that
Kiloh acknowledges that in his panic, the doors may have seemed closed longer than they were. And
that the doors did open as designed. “But not fast enough,” he said. “My son was trapped, in my eyes.”
As for his complaints about the driver, “We’re looking into that,” Fetsch said.
Copyright 2010 Pamplin Media Group, 6605 S.E. Lake Road, Portland, OR 97222 • 503-
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Executive Director, Operations
Non-Union Regular Full-Time
4012 SE 17th Avenue, Portland, Oregon
Print Job Information |
Description Benefits Supplemental Questions
TriMet is a municipal corporation providing public transportation for much of the three counties in the Portland, Oregon metro region. TriMet operates a multi-modal transportation system that provides more than 100 million boarding rides per year. This extraordinary organization has earned international recognition for building a world-class transit system in a large metropolitan area where livability and preservation of the quality of life are taken very seriously.
We are seeking candidates for the Executive Director, Operations (EDO) position. The EDP is accountable to the General Manager for all TriMet operations, managed by nine direct reports. Operations is the largest division in the agency with approximately 2,100 employees, a general fund budget of $260 million, annual capital expenditures of more than $150 million, and assets that include 654 buses, 254 lift buses and 127 rail cars.
TriMet’s reputation is built on high-performance customer service. The EDO’s leadership and management are instrumental in delivering effective, economical and safe service on a consistent basis by ensuring that the district has outstanding service planning, appropriate and well maintained vehicles, reliable schedules and most of all, well-trained and customer-oriented employees. The EDO’s key responsibilities include service planning, maintenance, safety and security, transportation operations, scheduling, labor relations and workforce development.
Candidates should offer bachelor’s degrees and extensive management experience in large, complex transportation organizations (i.e., diverse, geographically-spread, multi-modal, multiple technology organizations). Both public transit and private transportation company backgrounds will be considered. We are seeking strength of leadership with specific experience managing large and diverse workforces, unionized employee groups, and customer service intensive organizations. Ability to address both strategic and tactical issues is essential.
If you qualify, please submit your complete resume to our executive search consultants via e-mail at firstname.lastname@example.org. Our search firm is The Pringle Company, P.O. Box 25392, Portland, OR, 97298. Our search leader is Roger Pringle, 503/221-0048 (office), 503/789-9401 (cell).
Email Updates • RSS News Feeds • Contact/Feedback
© 2008 TriMet • Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon • Portland, Oregon
Defendant appeals from the judgment of his conviction for interfering with public transportation, ORS 166.116(1)(a), assigning error to the denial of his motion for a judgment of acquittal (MJOA). In particular, defendant contends that he had not "enter[ed] or remain[ed] unlawfully in * * * [a] public transit station," ORS 166.116(1)(a), in violation of a TriMet exclusion order because the area at the Hillsboro Transit Center where he was walking when he was arrested was not a "Transit Dedicated Light Rail Platform[ ]" as defined in the Notice of Exclusion. We agree with defendant and, accordingly, reverse.
In reviewing the denial of an MJOA, we view the evidence and reasonably related inferences in the light most favorable to the state. See State v. Hall, 327 Or 568, 570, 966 P2d 208 (1998). Consistently with that standard, the material facts are as follows: On January 27, 2008, Hillsboro police officer Bunday issued a TriMet Notice of Exclusion to defendant for riding on a MAX train without having paid the fare. As pertinent here, the notice stated that defendant was "excluded from and prohibited from entering or remaining upon, the TriMet system, as described in the attached Exhibit D" for a period of 60 days.(1) As described in detail below, Exhibit D to the notice specified that the exclusion applied to, inter alia, "Transit Dedicated Light Rail Platforms."
On February 16, 2008, during the period of exclusion, Hillsboro police officer Morse saw defendant walking on the westbound MAX train platform at the Hillsboro Transit Center. The transit center is a complex that includes not only platforms for eastbound and westbound MAX trains but also bus shelters and bicycle racks, as well as two buildings that are immediately adjacent to the westbound train platform. One of those buildings houses a Hillsboro police substation, and, in the walkway between the two buildings, there are public pay telephones.
Unlike at some other TriMet locations, where access to platforms is restricted to persons possessing proof of fare, the MAX train platforms at the Hillsboro Transit Center are open to members of the public without proof of fare. Consequently, members of the public without a MAX ticket and who have no intention of riding the MAX train can use the westbound platform--the location where defendant was walking--to gain access to the adjacent pay telephones and police substation. Similarly, members of the public can, without proof of fare, enter the platform area to park their bicycles at the adjacent bicycle racks.
Morse recognized defendant from a previous encounter and knew that he was subject to a currently effective TriMet exclusion order. Accordingly, he arrested defendant, and defendant was charged by complaint with one count of interfering with public transportation, ORS 166.116. That statute provides, in part:
"(1) A person commits the crime of interfering with public transportation if the person:
"(a) Intentionally or knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in or on a public transit vehicle or public transit station;
"* * * * *
"(3) As used in this section:
"(a) 'Enter or remain unlawfully' has the meaning given that term in ORS 164.205."
ORS 164.205(3), in turn, defines the term "enter or remain unlawfully":
"'Enter or remain unlawfully' means:
"(a) To enter or remain in or upon premises when the premises, at the time of such entry or remaining, are not open to the public or when the entrant is not otherwise licensed or privileged to do so[.]"
Defendant waived trial by jury, and, after the state presented its evidence, he moved for a judgment of acquittal. Defendant argued that, given the terms of the exclusion notice--and particularly the description of the scope of exclusion in Exhibit D--his presence on the platform did not violate the exclusion and, thus, was not "unlawful" for purposes of ORS 166.116(1)(a). Defendant contended, particularly, that the platform where he had been arrested was not a "Transit Dedicated Light Rail Platform[ ]" as defined in Exhibit D, because that area was not used solely for purposes of transit but, instead, could be used by members of the public who are not TriMet riders for a variety of purposes not related to mass transit, including making telephone calls at the pay telephones, contacting the police at the adjacent substation, and parking bicycles. The trial court denied that motion without comment. When defendant renewed his MJOA at the close of all evidence, the court again denied the motion, observing that
"[p]eople that are excluded are excluded from transit dedicated light rail platforms in general. This was a transit dedicated light rail platform."
On appeal, defendant assigns error to the denial of the MJOA and reprises his arguments before the trial court. We begin with the operative language of the exclusion notice, including Exhibit D. As noted, the face of the notice, under the heading "Effect of this Notice," provides, "Unless your exclusion is modified or set aside * * * you will be excluded from and prohibited from entering or remaining upon, the TriMet system, as described in the attached Exhibit D." Exhibit D provides, in part:
"Notwithstanding any definition of the geographic boundaries of the District Transit System contained within [ORS] 267.010, resolutions affecting TriMet's boundaries, contract provisions, the TriMet Code, any formal legal designation of certain property as owned or controlled by TriMet, or elsewhere, the geographic boundaries of the District Transit System, for the purpose of enforcing TriMet regulations through exclusions, or enforcing exclusions through arrest or criminal citation, shall be construed as limited to the areas that are readily discernable as TriMet property, as defined herein. No person shall be issued a Notice of Exclusion for conduct that occurred outside of the boundaries defined herein. In addition, the 'part of the District Transit System [from] which said person is excluded' shall be limited to the following:
"1. TriMet Vehicles. * * *
"2. TriMet Parking Facilities. * * *
"3. Partially or Fully Enclosed Bus Shelters. * * *
"4. Transit Dedicated Light Rail Platforms. Transit Dedicated Platforms include those platforms that are used solely for the purpose of transit and have no shared use with the public or public walkways, through-ways, or sidewalks, and includes adjoining stairways, ramps and elevators.
"5. Trackways * * *."
At first blush, the use of the term "'part of the District Transit System [from] which said person is excluded'" seems inscrutable because there is no explicit referent in the text of the notice or the balance of Exhibit D. However, contextually, it is patent that that language corresponds to, and is derived from, TriMet Code section 28.18B., which provides:
"A person excluded under TMC Section 28.18 may not during the period of exclusion, enter or remain upon any part of the District Transit System from which said person is excluded. An excluded person who enters or remains upon any part of the District Transit System from which the person has been excluded may be charged with the crime of Interfering with Public Transportation (ORS 166.116) or the crime of Criminal Trespass in the Second Degree (ORS 164.245)."
Given that context, Exhibit D, by its terms, limits the scope of the exclusion to five precisely defined types of locations that do not collectively comprise the totality of TriMet's property. That is, a person who is subject to the exclusion would not violate that exclusion--and, derivatively, ORS 166.116(1)(a)--merely by entering upon TriMet property; rather, the state, to establish a violation, must demonstrate that a defendant intentionally or knowingly entered one of the five specifically defined types of locations. Consequently, in the circumstances of this case, the inquiry reduces to whether the westbound MAX train platform at the Hillsboro Transit Center was a "Transit Dedicated Light Rail Platform[ ]" as defined in Exhibit D.
Defendant contends that the uncontroverted evidence established that the platform could be, and was, used by members of the public, including those who are not TriMet passengers, for a variety of purposes that are not related to mass transit, including to make pay telephone calls, to park and lock their bicycles at the bicycle rack on the platform, and to gain access to contact police at the adjacent police substation. Defendant reasons and asserts, consequently, that the westbound platform was not a "Transit Dedicated Light Rail Platform[ ]" because it was not "used solely for the purpose of transit" and that it did have a "shared use with the public or public walkways [and] through-ways."
We do not understand the state to dispute defendant's characterization of the nature and multiplicity of the platform's shared public uses. Rather, the state contends that defendant's understanding of the scope and content of "Transit Dedicated Light Rail Platforms" is erroneously restrictive. Specifically, the state stresses that the operative provision begins, "Transit Dedicated Platforms include * * *." (Emphasis in state's brief.) The state then highlights the distinction, in its view, between "means" (as a term of exclusive definition) and "includes" (as a term of nonexclusive description). That is, the state posits that "includes" in this context functionally connotes "including, but not limited to." Thus, in the state's view,
"platforms that are solely dedicated for transit purposes and have no shared public use are only a part of a larger category, i.e., all transit dedicated light rail platforms. In other words, transit dedicated light rail platforms are not limited to those that are solely dedicated for transit purposes and have no shared public use."
As further contextual support for that construction, the state points to other provisions of Exhibit D that either begin with "include" but subsequently qualify that description with limiting "but not including" language or explicitly employ terms of exclusion.(2)
The state's efforts are unavailing as contradicting the plain language of the pertinent provision of Exhibit D. Again, that provision reads:
"4. Transit Dedicated Light Rail Platforms. Transit Dedicated Platforms include those platforms that are used solely for the purpose of transit and have no shared use with the public or public walkways, through-ways, or sidewalks, and includes adjoining stairways, ramps and elevators."
The operative term in that provision is "[d]edicated." "Dedicate" means, as pertinent in common use, "to set apart or devote formally or seriously to a definite use, end, or service." Webster's Third New Int'l Dictionary 589 (unabridged ed 2002).
Consistently with that understanding, "include" in the definition connotes "means"--that is, "Transit Dedicated Light Rail Platforms" means platforms that are used solely for transit purposes and does not include those platforms for which there is a shared public use. Conversely, to construe "includes" as the state urges--viz., that "Transit Dedicated Light Rail Platforms" includes all platforms used in part for transit purposes, regardless of the nature and degree of the shared public use for nontransit purposes, ignores or obviates the sense and significance of "dedicated."
Further, under the state's reading, the wording "that are used solely for the purpose of transit and have no shared use with the public" would be gratuitous, as self-evident. That is, if the universe of "Transit Dedicated Light Rail Platforms" includes all platforms with any transit-related purpose, however slight, then, of course, that universe includes "those platforms that are used solely for the purpose of transit." Logically, linguistically, and functionally, it is counterintuitive to define an (allegedly) broadly inclusive class solely by reference to its most indisputably obvious member. Accord Kelly v. Hochberg, 231 Or App 155, 160, 217 P3d 699 (2009) (addressing construction of "recreational purposes" definitional statutes, which stated that the term "includes, but is not limited to" a variety of listed uses); Friends of Yamhill County v. Yamhill County, 229 Or App 188, 193, 211 P3d 297 (2009) (noting that, under principle of ejusdem generis, a court, in construing statutory definition that begins with "includes" followed by "an open-ended statutory list," "is limited by the common characteristics of those things already in the list").
We thus agree with defendant that "Transit Dedicated Light Rail Platforms" for purposes of Exhibit D means those used "solely" for transit purposes and does not encompass those with a "shared use with the public." We further agree with defendant that, even viewed most favorably to the state, the evidence in this case did not establish that the westbound MAX train platform at the Hillsboro Transit Center was a "Transit Dedicated Light Rail Platform" as so defined. Consequently, defendant's presence at that location did not violate the exclusion order, and there is no evidence that defendant had otherwise "enter[ed] or remain[ed] unlawfully" in that location. ORS 166.116(1)(a). Accordingly, the trial court erred in denying the MJOA.
1. The notice specified that, unless defendant timely requested a hearing, the exclusion would take effect 10 business days after receipt of the notice. Defendant requested a hearing, staying the exclusion, but his challenge was unsuccessful. Accordingly, the exclusion became effective on February 14 for the period through April 12, 2008.
Return to previous location.
2. The state refers, for example, to the provisions of Exhibit D pertaining to "TriMet Parking Facilities" and "Trackways":
"2. TriMet Parking Facilities. TriMet parking facilities shall include all parking lots reserved for transit purposes, including park and ride facilities, and including all driving pathways to and within a parking lot, but not including adjacent sidewalks or walkways.
"* * * * *
"5. Trackways: All trackway areas where pedestrian traffic is prohibited, but excluding all areas of trackway in downtown Portland where tracks lay upon city streets, and excluding areas of trackway located at signalized or signed intersections designated for pedestrian or vehicular crossing."
Return to previous location.
Monday, January 4, 2010
Say Good BYe TO My Little Friend
The long delayed death of Fareless Square.
For those of you not familiar with the fareless square in Portland Oregon. Its first important to go way way way back to the primitive days of 1975. On TV we were getting down to Kojac, the streets of San Francisco, All in the family and Sanford and son. In the theaters Jaws was the big deal on the radio the earth shattering Captain and Tennille was singing "Love will keep us together" and if that wasn’t enough for you Glen Campbell was also hitting you with a little “Rhinestone Cowboy.”
It was a crazy time, the hippies were dead, the Beatles were gone, Vietnam was over, Nixon had flown the coup and Disco was raising its ugly head. In this Post hippie era Portland seemed to be making even worse decisions then usual. Five years earlier Portland created a flag something we had lived without for over a hundred and fifty years and when this hideous idea came to fruition. This travesty some how managed to evoke the strange pot smoking earth kissing philosophy of the Northwest and yet still look vaguely fascist. Here you judge.
Bad ideas were as common as Birkenstocks and crappy long hair back then. One of these “Utopian concept vs Reality” ideas was this, making the transit area in downtown Portland a Fareless Square. To be sure they had plenty of justification and all of them seemed like they could be true. “It fights pollution” was a major one, remember cars in 1975 were as big as a dump truck and would cause shifts in the tides of the ocean when you drove them.
Mainly this idea was a copy of what other cities were doing and a symbol of the sort of central thinking that dominated that time. Trimets job back then was serving a tri-county area and by service I mean bringing them all into downtown Portland. Thus Trimets little symbol that originally showed everything directed downtown.
You will notice the modern badge of Trimet is lacking the arrows showing a more holistic image of “connection & Love” The new image is saying, “Quick hug someone!”
“But now the time has come to face that finale curtain” -- Frank Sinatra
So it has been decided that it’s time to kill Fareless square for the buses. The powers that be are creating instead a rail free zone. This will mean the MAX trains and Portland Street Cars that crosses down town will be free in the central area but buses you have to pay for.
The idea of ending Fareless square has elicited howls of complaints from the type of people and organizations that everyone in Portland usually ignore. Homeless advocates (that name scares me) and the self appointed, self-important “Riders Union.” Riders unions has inspired me to make an “Air Breathers Unions” in Portland more on that latter. So we have the inevitable protest because hey this is Portland and we hate change.
So I thought I would hit you with a Bus driver’s point of view. That would be a point of view you don’t see in the news, or hear from Trimet and because it doesn’t rhyme well, you will never hear chanted at a protest by the Riders Union. Here are what I hear bus drivers saying.
This argument is based on what I call “Unfareness”
It’s safe to say that if we didn’t have every company in a three county area paying employee taxes we would not have Trimet as we know it. This pays half our budget and that demands a little bit of respect in my book.
It is expensive to run Fareless and current estimates are about $800,000 in lost revenue per year. This is no small sum when you add it all up since 1975. Slap on a little interest on it and you have an entire large section of light rail there. How about a fleet of new buses to replace the crappy old beast we have running.
Old buses hurt drivers. It also cost lots of money to pay for back injuries and time off of work. I have seen this and have experienced it first hand. I didn’t miss work but I was in enough pain to never want to drive a model 1600 again.
The cost of Fareless is not just the loss of revenue it’s what could we have done with that revenue to make our system better.
King Portland is the idea that Portland is the center of the universe and that all things must flow to it. This idea was a dominate one back in the 70’s and it was not until the late 90’s that it started to fade as the surrounding areas grew and Portland stayed more or less the same. In the old days Portland was the big dog but now the pack of other cities not only outnumber us but are pretty big them selves.
So the question is why don’t they get fearless squares are well? What about Gresham, Beaverton and all the others who could “enhance their transit experience” by having free central cores? Any argument you can make about Portland having a fareless square, every one of these major cities can also make for their cut of the free pie.
The truth is that Portland is no more due a free central area then anyone else. Maybe back in the day when Portland dwarfed those little bergs but not anymore. Portland is no longer King. Portland is like a prince or maybe a Baron.
Ask any driver that does a late night run and they are giving one another high fives over the loss of fareless. This may not make sense to those who have appointed them selves as watchdogs of transit but here is a clue “Fareless Square Causes Trouble” That is why drivers hate it, that is why everyone is happy its going away.
I could fill a book with experiences of the fareless kind the problem is no one would believe me. They would think I was on some sort of vendetta but in truth Fareless can be a huge problem. Not all the time mind you but just talk to drivers and you will find out the truth.
This is what kills me. Self appointed watchdog groups who say things like “What goes wrong in fareless square, tell me?” I say, “Wait you are the experts? You are the watchdogs you don’t know? How good a job are you doing if you have no idea about what is going on?” That would be like the FAA being manned by people who knew nothing about how planes are made or flown.
The Rail Free Zone
The rail free zone is just an interim step until everyone is paying for his or her ride. There is no shame in that. Everyone pays a bit and rides that is what makes it work. If you don’t pay, you shouldn’t ride. Sooner or latter the inherit unfairness or of the situation will add pressure to do away the rail free zone maybe not now but soon and for the rest our lives.
Someday it will all be fare until then you all Roll Easy My Friends.