[cityscapes]

Originally Posted by Encolpius

I don't know if the Streetcar should be cheaper than other public transit, but I second 2oh1's complaint about priorities. If new development is going to be concentrated in neighborhoods that a minority of residents can afford, then at least the new revenues created by expanding the city's tax base should be distributed equitably to fund services that improve the quality of life of all residents. Instead, tools like urban renewal districts and tax-increment financing (and yes, streetcars) are merely recycling investment into the same neighborhoods, driving their rents even further out of reach. The logic is easy to understand: it rewards developers and those who finance them for investing in the central city. A vibrant central city stimulates tourism, attracts employers and talent, supports a thriving culinary scene. But how does that help the majority of residents whose salaries aren't rising to keep pace with the rising cost of living, unless it provides everyone with better amenities that they can afford?

The principle of taxing wealthier citizens to ensure equality of access and opportunity to poorer citizens is not some kind of newfangled socialism but in fact coeval with democracy, which developed of course in Athens, the West's first metropolis. Such a basic element of the social contract shouldn't still be controversial, yet most other first-world cities are far ahead of American ones in this respect. Including London, which another poster mentioned -- it may be absurdly expensive, but the poor and even much of the middle class are somewhat cushioned by the massive amounts of public housing built from the 1930s-70s, plus free public healthcare, very efficient public transit, and many other world-class amenities like great parks and free museums. English universities were free until 1998, as they still are in Scotland. Anyway...

Public transportation in Portland should be free: it's as basic as roads and sidewalks to ensuring accessibility to all and even more fundamental in terms of offsetting the geographical inequalities created by the private housing market. Bus service, which seems (from my non-resident perspective) to have not improved a whit in the last decade, should be expanded to provide good service throughout Portland, at least, particularly the outlying neighborhoods that have seen a massive population increase due to the exodus caused by gentrification. If money can't be found for this, despite Portland's newfound prosperity, then it's hard to see how most Portlanders can be persuaded to support the 'smart growth' strategy that includes halting the expansion of the UGB.

Why should public transportation in Portland be free while at the same time you hold London up as a model cushioning the poor and middle classes yet the base cash fare in zone 1 is GBP 4.80 which at todays exchange rates is $7.44 for ONE RIDE. I know the contactless fare is 2.30 but that's still 3.50 a ride unless you buy the pass which isn't exactly cheap either. And don't even get me started on the flawed provision of social housing with the RSLs and the Right to Buy scheme not to mention the poor condition most of the housing is in or the deficit built up of housing units that should have been built in the UK in the past few decades.