HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Pacific West > Portland > Transportation & Infrastructure


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #841  
Old Posted Jul 24, 2015, 3:32 AM
2oh1's Avatar
2oh1 2oh1 is offline
9-7-2oh1-!
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: downtown Portland
Posts: 2,471
Quote:
Originally Posted by cityscapes View Post
I understand your frustration with the price increase and the new logo, but why shouldn't the streetcar fare be more similar to the bus fare or max?
It should be. But, it should also have its primary goal be to meet the transportation needs of Portlanders rather than having its primary goal be to serve as a tool for development. That's my gripe. They prioritized the Pearl (before it was a neighborhood), SOWA and inner-inner-inner-inner SE. It's time to prioritize people.

At this point, they might as well abandon their price structure and make it identical to the rest of Trimet. Actually, when the next price increase comes (probably in 2016) it'll be priced the same.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #842  
Old Posted Jul 24, 2015, 3:38 AM
rsbear's Avatar
rsbear rsbear is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Texas - Hill Country
Posts: 822
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2oh1 View Post
I'm offended by this price hike.

In just a few years, the price of an annual pass on the Portland Streetcar has risen from $100 to $400 - and we lost fareless square - yet the streetcar has been focussed primarily on development rather than on the transportation needs of Portlanders. Does the streetcar go anywhere near Hawthorne, Bellmont, Mississippi or Alberta? Oh, heck no. But they wasted no time extending it to South Waterfront and a part of mostly non-residential inner SE where developers are building tiny studios that will rent for $1400 a month and up.

I didn't mind the city using the streetcar as a tool for development when it was cheap to ride, but now that the price has quadrupled to $400 a year, there's no excuse for prioritizing developers over Portlanders. Or, to put it another way... if the streetcar is going to prioritize being a tool for development, let developers fund it. If developers can't fund it, then lay the damn tracks where Portlanders live, work and play.

I'm extremely pro-development, but I am even more anti-discrimination, and focusing on potential future residents who can afford $1400 a month studios over the needs of everyone else who lives in Portland sure feels like discrimination to me. Oh, thank god, people moving into the upcoming 21 story Skylab building in inner SE will be able to keep their BMW's with out of state plates in their $150/mo underground parking and ride the streetcar instead. Oh. Thank. GOD. Meanwhile, everybody who lives in Southeast, Northeast and North Portland are ignored. And, please, let's not kid ourselves into thinking the CL loop somehow benefits 99.9999% of those who live in SE Portland. The tracks in SE go nowhere near where most residents of SE Portland live.

$400 annual passes for a system that ignores the majority of the city is offensive. I love the streetcar, but I find it offensive that it's designed to be a tool for development when the price is jumping to $400 a year, especially when the next major price hike is probably only a year or two away.

It doesn't help that the streetcar has a brand-spankin'-new logo. Gone is the Portland skyline with tracks. It's replacement is a generic S in a circle, likely chosen because so many of the residents in the new inner-SE $1400/mo studios haven't lived in Portland long enough to know what the skyline looks like. I wonder how much the new logo cost, keeping in mind that changing the logo means updating every single sign, vehicle, web page, and every single piece of paper associated with the system. Talk about a stupid waste of money. Well, at least the streetcar is making such a huge profit that they have money to burn on something as trivial as a new logo without raising prices on riders, right? Oh, wait.

I think the Portland Streetcar needs new leadership and a new focus.
If you can't afford a newly-built apartment in the central city it's not because you're an "Oregonian", it's because you don't make enough money.

The article said that at the new $2.00 fare, fare box revenues will cover 15% of operating costs. Seems like the non-riders and developers who are subsidizing the Streetcar are the ones who should be complaining.

Why would one expect one form of public transit to charge a different fare than the others? A (highly-subsidized) ride is a ride, is a ride, is a ride.

PS - I've been an advocate of public transit since the before the first MAX line was proposed, so I'm not meaning to negative towards the Streetcar in this post.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #843  
Old Posted Jul 24, 2015, 4:18 AM
2oh1's Avatar
2oh1 2oh1 is offline
9-7-2oh1-!
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: downtown Portland
Posts: 2,471
Quote:
Originally Posted by rsbear View Post
If you can't afford a newly-built apartment in the central city it's not because you're an "Oregonian", it's because you don't make enough money.
In the last three years, I've seen the apartment next door to mine go from $995/mo to $1605. I can't even count the number of people I know who have been priced out of their neighborhoods. It's not just new apartments - I only mentioned new apartments because the streetcar has prioritized new neighborhoods over existing ones. And when I talk about housing, I'm not talking about me. I have a place and all is well... but holy cow, I worry. I worry for my friends. I worry for the people who work at the stores I shop in and the pubs I go to. I think we all should worry - or at least care. How do we keep Portland a place where the people who work here - the people who don't have swanky condos and high paying tech gigs - how do we keep Portland a place they can afford? Or are we just gonna shrug and be cool with the idea of it being a city for the rich and to heck with the rest.

The streetcar price hikes from $100 to $200 to $400 strike a nerve for me because the system still prioritizes the wants of developers over the transportation needs of the rest of the city. I think it's time for that to change.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rsbear View Post
Why would one expect one form of public transit to charge a different fare than the others? A (highly-subsidized) ride is a ride, is a ride, is a ride.
As I said, I don't. I'm fine with the streetcar bumping prices all the way up to regular Trimet bus & MAX fares. My gripe is that the system has increased from $100 a year to $400 a year so quickly, yet it still prioritizes developers over the needs of the rest of the city.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #844  
Old Posted Jul 24, 2015, 4:32 AM
cityscapes's Avatar
cityscapes cityscapes is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Portland
Posts: 722
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2oh1 View Post
In the last three years, I've seen the apartment next door to mine go from $995/mo to $1605. I can't even count the number of people I know who have been priced out of their neighborhoods. It's not just new apartments - I only mentioned new apartments because the streetcar has prioritized new neighborhoods over existing ones. And when I talk about housing, I'm not talking about me. I have a place and all is well... but holy cow, I worry. I worry for my friends. I worry for the people who work at the stores I shop in and the pubs I go to. I think we all should worry - or at least care. How do we keep Portland a place where the people who work here - the people who don't have swanky condos and high paying tech gigs - how do we keep Portland a place they can afford? Or are we just gonna shrug and be cool with the idea of it being a city for the rich and to heck with the rest.

The streetcar price hikes from $100 to $200 to $400 strike a nerve for me because the system still prioritizes the wants of developers over the transportation needs of the rest of the city. I think it's time for that to change.



As I said, I don't. I'm fine with the streetcar bumping prices all the way up to regular Trimet bus & MAX fares. My gripe is that the system has increased from $100 a year to $400 a year so quickly, yet it still prioritizes developers over the needs of the rest of the city.
The streetcar runs through Downtown, NW, and the oldest part of SE Portland. It's unfair to say this route runs through new neighborhoods when it's primary route runs through parts of this city that were the first to be developed by white people. The Pearl was an old neighborhood but what was expanded is new, and South Waterfront is new. Nothing else.

I think Portland does a fair job with affordable housing and it's really not that expensive here yet. Just compare prices here with other coastal cities and you'll realize that yes prices are rising here but it's really not that out of the ordinary when you have a broader context. I don't really understand where people that get priced out are going to go. When I moved back here a few months ago and got a job in the suburbs I had a brief moment where I considered moving to the burbs because I do not like driving long distances, but when I realized that prices weren't that much different I decided to stay in inner SE where I wanted to be and be able to walk to my friends. One of whom lives in affordable housing in a nice new building with decent amenities. Walking past it you'd never know it was affordable housing. Not a lot of cities can say they contain multiple properties like that so I think we should look at some of the positives about Portland rather than just panicking about prices going up and envisioning some doomsday scenario where we turn in to SF part 2.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #845  
Old Posted Jul 24, 2015, 4:40 AM
rsbear's Avatar
rsbear rsbear is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Texas - Hill Country
Posts: 822
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2oh1 View Post
In the last three years, I've seen the apartment next door to mine go from $995/mo to $1605. I can't even count the number of people I know who have been priced out of their neighborhoods. It's not just new apartments - I only mentioned new apartments because the streetcar has prioritized new neighborhoods over existing ones. And when I talk about housing, I'm not talking about me. I have a place and all is well... but holy cow, I worry. I worry for my friends. I worry for the people who work at the stores I shop in and the pubs I go to. I think we all should worry - or at least care. How do we keep Portland a place where the people who work here - the people who don't have swanky condos and high paying tech gigs - how do we keep Portland a place they can afford? Or are we just gonna shrug and be cool with the idea of it being a city for the rich and to heck with the rest.
I understand and totally agree with your concern. As someone else noted above, the problem is not unique to Portland. LA housing is absurdly expensive. The median price for the WHOLE county is now over $500,000. New SFHs 35 miles from the West Side start around $700k. You can't find a decent home in Studio City (where I live) for less than a million. Most are 1 1/2 to 3 times that. Home ownership is becoming a haves and haves-not fact of life in this country and I don't think anything can be done about it. Land in our large city centers is becoming so expensive that "affordable" housing is being relegated to the exurbs.

Last edited by rsbear; Jul 24, 2015 at 5:16 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #846  
Old Posted Jul 24, 2015, 5:11 AM
maccoinnich maccoinnich is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Portland
Posts: 7,389
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2oh1 View Post
It's time to prioritize people.
15,000 riders a day aren't people?

I guess I could see your point if it was just going to through areas with lots of new buildings and no one was using it. But they are. The streetcar has fantastic ridership. Get on it during the day and it's usually packed.
__________________
"Maybe to an architect, they might look suspicious, but to me, they just look like rocks"

www.twitter.com/maccoinnich
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #847  
Old Posted Jul 24, 2015, 6:16 AM
2oh1's Avatar
2oh1 2oh1 is offline
9-7-2oh1-!
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: downtown Portland
Posts: 2,471
Quote:
Originally Posted by maccoinnich View Post
15,000 riders a day aren't people?
I'm not saying it doesn't get used. I'm saying they've been prioritizing developer dollars over the needs of existing neighborhoods. The streetcar prioritizes future neighborhoods over existing ones.

- The Pearl, before it was a neighborhood.
- South Waterfront.
- Lloyd, but they skipped the biggest destination in the Lloyd. WTF?
- South Waterfront.
- Industrial SE. Not residential SE. Nope. Just the part of inner SE with the most potential for developers.

I've always minded the idea that the system prioritized future residents over current residents, but that was easier to overlook because the streetcar was also so cheap to ride. But as the price doubled from $100 to $200 and then doubled again to $400... I find myself asking questions that I don't like the answers to. Questions I should have been asking from the start. Why does the system prioritize neighborhoods that don't exist over neighborhoods that do? Let's not kid ourself about the Pearl. If you've been in Portland long enough, you know what the Pearl District was before the 2000s.

The answer to the question of prioritizing future neighborhoods over existing ones is: the streetcar was designed to be a tool for development. And that's not a bad thing. I strongly believe the streetcar sped up development of the Pearl, SOWA, Lloyd and inner SE. And that's fantastic. I'm surprised it didn't speed up development of the Conway blocks (and who knows. Maybe it did). But it does feel somewhat discriminatory to design a mass transit system that prioritizes glistening new towers and swanky highrises over congested neighborhoods that already had more pressing needs for improved mass transit. And I know the word "discriminatory" is a heavy word, but I believe it fits here. Why don't residents of Hawthorn and Belmont matter (for example)? Well, they have busses. But busses aren't good enough for SOWA?

I'm glad the streetcar goes to SOWA. I'm glad it's going to lead to massive amounts of development all along inner SE and Lloyd. That's fantastic! But why are future homes for future residents more important than existing ones? I'll be the first to admit, I overlooked these things because the system was so cheap, and for that, shame on me. But the price has quadrupled in a relatively short period of time. I think it's time to shift the priority toward serving more deserving neighborhoods. I say "more deserving" because it seems only fair to meet the transportation needs of existing neighborhoods before prioritizing new ones. Sorry your mass transit is sketchy, but in 20 years, this other neighborhood where almost nobody currently lives is gonna be a big deal, so it gets the streetcar now. Wait. What?

I guess the price increase was just the spark that made me stop and really think about it. The price to ride the streetcar quadrupled in just a few years, but the focus of the system is still on developers rather than on Portland's mass transit needs. The only part of SE and NE where the streetcar currently goes is the part where almost nobody lives yet - and that's by design. The streetcar is there to encourage development. That's great, but what about the people who live in neighborhoods that already existed? Are they less important because their neighborhood isn't new?

I realize it's not popular to say these things, especially on a forum that's all about development. And I am not badmouthing development. Yes, I worry about the escalating costs of housing, but I love that so much housing is being built, and I love that even more is on the way. LOVE it! I love that our urban growth boundary isn't expanding, which means more infill instead of sprawl. LOVE IT! But I'm bothered by the fact that the streetcar is asking more and more of riders while focusing more and more on developers. It's time for somebody to realize the vast majority of the city lies east of where the streetcar goes.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #848  
Old Posted Jul 24, 2015, 6:32 AM
RED_PDXer RED_PDXer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 793
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2oh1 View Post
I'm not saying it doesn't get used. I'm saying they've been prioritizing developer dollars over the needs of existing neighborhoods. The streetcar prioritizes future neighborhoods over existing ones. But why are future homes for future residents more important than existing ones? I'll be the first to admit, I overlooked these things because the system was so cheap, and for that, shame on me. But the price has quadrupled in a relatively short period of time. I think it's time to shift the priority toward serving more deserving neighborhoods. I say "more deserving" because it seems only fair to meet the transportation needs of existing neighborhoods before prioritizing new ones.
OK, let's start from the top. Streetcar is used quite heavily. Period.

Streetcar serves existing neighborhoods and new neighborhoods equally. It provides a transportation service.

Rent prices have increased because there is a housing shortage in the region.

Explain to me and the rest of us why streetcar favors new neighborhoods over older?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #849  
Old Posted Jul 24, 2015, 6:34 AM
RED_PDXer RED_PDXer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 793
if you actually read the streetcar website you'll see that the increased fare results in additional service. how is that a negative? People can complain about change, but they seem to often miss out on the benefits of change. Sure, streetcar will cost more, but the benefits are...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #850  
Old Posted Jul 24, 2015, 6:54 AM
2oh1's Avatar
2oh1 2oh1 is offline
9-7-2oh1-!
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: downtown Portland
Posts: 2,471
Quote:
Originally Posted by RED_PDXer View Post
Explain to me and the rest of us why streetcar favors new neighborhoods over older?
The Pearl. Do I need to remind you what the Pearl was in the 80s and 90s? When the streetcar was being designed, the Pearl was a future neighborhood.

SOWA. You're right. How could I forget the sea of houses, condos and apartments in SOWA back in the 90s.

Lloyd. C'mon now. It's basically a new neighborhood as far as apartments and condos go. Lloyd has been under developed forever.

Industrial SE. It's not like streetcar tracks roll through residential SE. Hawthorn, Belmont, Mt. Tabor, etc etc etc. Not a chance. But in 20 years, the part of inner SE along the river where the streetcar is now will be very residential. Again, prioritizing future development.

Even NW. The tracks go through the most under developed parts of NW to reach 23rd and then turn around. Why didn't they lay the tracks through the more residential parts of NW where people lived back in the 90s when the system was designed? Why didn't it loop through Goose Hollow? (answer: because it was designed to be a tool for development, and by the late 90s, there was less interest in development in Goose Hollow, which was already a far more established neighborhood).

Heck, let's even consider downtown. Other than PSU, the streetcar tracks were laid down through the most under-developed parts of downtown (the west end). Oh, how quickly people forget what SW and NW 10th avenues were like before the year 2000. Eventually, it was expanded along Harrison, but that was done to reach SOWA.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #851  
Old Posted Jul 24, 2015, 6:59 AM
urbanlife's Avatar
urbanlife urbanlife is offline
A before E
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Milwaukie, Oregon
Posts: 11,752
I get what is being said, I for one would love to see new streetcar lines being built to existing neighborhoods throughout Portland. We have a good foundation with the first line and now the circle line, now we need to start building off of that to really make the streetcar effective.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #852  
Old Posted Jul 24, 2015, 12:05 PM
Encolpius Encolpius is offline
obit anus, abit onus
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: London
Posts: 803
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.

Last edited by Encolpius; Jul 24, 2015 at 1:40 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #853  
Old Posted Jul 24, 2015, 5:13 PM
eric cantona's Avatar
eric cantona eric cantona is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Encolpius View Post
Public transportation in Portland should be free
I'm (genuinely) curious: is there anywhere on earth that this has happened in the modern era?

It's a fascinating concept when considering trends towards densification/urbanization and carbon reduction needs here and elsewhere.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #854  
Old Posted Jul 24, 2015, 5:34 PM
babs babs is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by eric cantona View Post
I'm (genuinely) curious: is there anywhere on earth that this has happened in the modern era?

It's a fascinating concept when considering trends towards densification/urbanization and carbon reduction needs here and elsewhere.
The streetcar operates a bit differently from both the bus and MAX in that most people who ride those are forms of transportation are on it for a while until they reach their destination. The streetcar is more of a hop on and hop off service where most people only ride it for a few stations. Perhaps a better option might be to do a distance based fare similar to what other transit agencies do on their rail service. So maybe a two station hop is 50 cents, three stations is 75 cents, four is $1, etc...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #855  
Old Posted Jul 24, 2015, 5:45 PM
Abide's Avatar
Abide Abide is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 388
Quote:
Originally Posted by eric cantona View Post
I'm (genuinely) curious: is there anywhere on earth that this has happened in the modern era?

It's a fascinating concept when considering trends towards densification/urbanization and carbon reduction needs here and elsewhere.
Public transit is free in Corvallis. Has been for several years.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #856  
Old Posted Jul 24, 2015, 6:08 PM
cityscapes's Avatar
cityscapes cityscapes is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Portland
Posts: 722
Quote:
Originally Posted by Encolpius View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #857  
Old Posted Jul 24, 2015, 6:22 PM
2oh1's Avatar
2oh1 2oh1 is offline
9-7-2oh1-!
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: downtown Portland
Posts: 2,471
Quote:
Originally Posted by Encolpius View Post
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?
One Thousand Percent THIS.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #858  
Old Posted Jul 24, 2015, 6:39 PM
Encolpius Encolpius is offline
obit anus, abit onus
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: London
Posts: 803
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abide View Post
Public transit is free in Corvallis. Has been for several years.
I didn't know that, but it's great to hear. Another example is Tallinn, the capital of Estonia, which also has universally free wi-fi (another sensible innovation, in my opinion). Its population of 435,000 makes it slightly smaller than Portland (though much smaller metro). Tallinn's a pretty cool city, btw (it's got the things going for it that many Scandinavian cities do, and has also become a sort of suburb of Helsinki since Estonia joined the EU; I know a couple of people who have moved there in the past few years).

Quote:
Originally Posted by cityscapes View Post
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.
You're preaching to the choir with the stuff on housing policy, believe me. Still, the legacy of council housing is what makes it possible for London to be the thriving, multicultural city it is today. Regarding transit fares, they're not quite as bad as you make out. Paying cash on buses isn't even an option anymore; the Oyster/contactless pay-as-you-go bus fare is £1.50. Needless to say, frequent riders end up paying less using weekly tickets or annual passes; transit is also significantly cheaper for students and free throughout the UK if you're over 65.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #859  
Old Posted Jul 24, 2015, 6:53 PM
cityscapes's Avatar
cityscapes cityscapes is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Portland
Posts: 722
Quote:
Originally Posted by Encolpius View Post
I didn't know that, but it's great to hear. Another example is Tallinn, the capital of Estonia, which also has universally free wi-fi (another sensible innovation, in my opinion). Its population of 435,000 makes it slightly smaller than Portland (though much smaller metro). Tallinn's a pretty cool city, btw (it's got the things going for it that many Scandinavian cities do, and has also become a sort of suburb of Helsinki since Estonia joined the EU; I know a couple of people who have moved there in the past few years).



You're preaching to the choir with the stuff on housing policy, believe me. Still, the legacy of council housing is what makes it possible for London to be the thriving, multicultural city it is today. Regarding transit fares, they're not quite as bad as you make out. Paying cash on buses isn't even an option anymore; the Oyster/contactless pay-as-you-go bus fare is £1.50. Needless to say, frequent riders end up paying less using weekly tickets or annual passes; transit is also significantly cheaper for students and free throughout the UK if you're over 65.
My student Oyster expired last September and then I had to pay the normal month pass but the student one is still pretty expensive especially when converting it to USD.

I moved right after the buses went cashless and it was great, I wish Portland would do that. So much time is saved when people can't fiddle around with money when they board. When everything is on an e-fare system it's also faster because a machine is checking whether fares are valid rather than the driver.

At the end of the day someone has to pay for the service as nothing is really free. If they made transit or wifi free in Portland the money would have to come from somewhere (most likely higher taxes) so the services and related infrastructure could be paid for. If the max, trimet busses and streetcar were free I'm pretty sure that payroll tax would increase to cover the loss of income from fares.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #860  
Old Posted Jul 30, 2015, 3:24 AM
cailes cailes is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Seattle
Posts: 314
The last time I checked, Mississippi, N Williams, NE Alberta, SE Division, SE Belmont, et all are developing just fine on their own without a streetcar so there is no "chose this neighborhood over another" methodology going on.

Its EXPENSIVE to expand and operate rail service. Pick any neighborhood not served and tell me why it would be better with the streetcar?
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Pacific West > Portland > Transportation & Infrastructure
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 4:42 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.