I don't think anyone has said that streetcars pay for itself; it is that the streetcar (and light rail, and Amtrak, and light rail) supporters claim that motorists require a subsidy and that it's simply fair that the rail modes get their fair share.

Yet, it's proven that at least in Oregon, motorists DO pay their fare share - unless you want to blame motorists for spiraling healthcare costs or costs of the military to invade certain oil producing nations. (Two arguments which I don't buy into.)

For every $1.00 in federal fuel tax revenue - $.20 of it gets siphoned off (no pun intended) and goes to the "mass transit account" to pay for streetcar, light rail and other projects (in many cities it pays for buses, but TriMet gladly turns down easy-to-find federal dollars for buses). The City of Portland does not use property tax revenues for street maintenance (unless you count leaf pickup, but that's no longer true), and the State of Oregon's only income tax contribution to ODOT's budget is roadside litter pickup (which is essentially a shell game; it used to be paid for by the sale of personalized license plates -- that money now goes to funding two Amtrak trains from Portland to Eugene that run on average 25% full - or less - the train has nine coaches and typically only needs two of them to handle the entire passenger count south of Portland.)

I find it sad and counter productive that we're really looking to put all of the small businesses in that area out of business. Do I go to the Mountain Shop, knowing I have to pay for parking - no, I can travel out to Oregon Mountain Community, or to REI at Clackamas. Same with Vic's hobby shop, the car stereo place, etc.

Is it possible there are developers with their eyes on some of these parcels?

Motorists do pay for themselves. We've set up a system where we pay gas tax and we pay taxes to the Bureau of Transportation to provide facilities for OUR preferred needs. Afterall, we're the public and they work for us.

This is the greatest overall problem in Portland in my opinion. We've grown used to the belief that the government is some external power that tells US how it's going to be. No, the government represents us pooling our money to achieve the things that we collectively agree that we want it to do.

We don't agree on light rail. It has lost at the polls multiple times. Yet the government decides we need it and imposes it on us. I think that 90% of urban renewal projects would be voted down, but we don't get to vote on any of them. This is another very expensive example of the government that we pay for simply telling us how it's going to be. With an implicit "shut up and like it."

Do I go to the Mountain Shop, knowing I have to pay for parking - no, I can travel out to Oregon Mountain Community, or to REI at Clackamas.

For whatever reason, people are trained to think in the following terms: anything I choose to incur is not actually a cost, whereas anything someone else charges is a cost. Thus, choosing to drive an extra 15 miles to Bridgeport Village does not "cost" me anything in the form of extra gas or time. However, paying $.50 extra to park on NE Broadway is a fee, and thus a cost.

I don't get the logic, but there you have it.

Do people feel entitled to free parking? If so, why?

"The subsidies are largely invisible to drivers who park their cars — and thus free or cheap parking spaces feel like natural outcomes of the market, or perhaps even an entitlement. Yet the law is allocating this land rather than letting market prices adjudicate whether we need more parking, and whether that parking should be free. We end up overusing land for cars — and overusing cars too. You don’t have to hate sprawl, or automobiles, to want to stop subsidizing that way of life." (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/15/business/economy/15view.html)

Do I go to the Mountain Shop, knowing I have to pay for parking - no, I can travel out to Oregon Mountain Community, or to REI at Clackamas.

Umpire, I have no idea where you live, but you don't have to spend much time driving elsewhere for the costs to exceed an hour or two of parking.

$1.60 per hour doesn't seem excessive. I think Seattle has a tiered system ranging from $1.50-$2.50 per hour. Parking in San Francisco is up to $3.50 per hour.

Meanwhile, in the city two hours south:

"Five weeks after free parking became available in downtown Eugene, business owners and managers are noticing improvements but still see need for change.

In early October, city officials removed parking meters and created two-hour free parking spots in a 12-block radius downtown in order to attract more people to shop, eat and visit downtown Eugene.

'I think it's great, and it's opening up people's minds to coming downtown,' said Mitra Chester, who owns the fashion shops Deluxe and Kitsch with her husband Aaron.

Potala Gate co-owner Kyizom Wangmo noticed positive customer feedback, and said the fact that people don't have to worry about parking meters is an improvement."

And,

"Besides giving drivers two hours of free parking, all downtown parking garages offer free parking for the first hour and free parking all day on Saturdays and Sundays."

http://www.dailyemerald.com/news/two-hour-free-parking-spaces-draw-people-downtown-1.1767368
(This link is sometimes slow to load.)

The Mountain Shop has a customer parking lot, for Pete's sake.

"Do people feel entitled to free parking? If so, why?"

We pay for the construction and maintenance of public streets. I do expect the city to bend over backwards to provide ample free street parking wherever it can.

Another viewpoint on how parking meters can improve business:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVteHncimV0

Why does the city feel entitled to charge for parking on public streets funded by the taxpayers?

Two words: Washington Square

To Joey's comment, "Do people feel entitled to free parking? If so, why?

"The subsidies are largely invisible to drivers who park their cars — and thus free or cheap parking spaces feel like natural outcomes of the market, or perhaps even an entitlement. Yet the law is allocating this land rather than letting market prices..."

The free market is working perfectly when it comes to your so-called "free" parking.

When I, as a suburbanite, pull up to Freddy's, sure I don't pay to park just as I don't pay for Freddy's electric bill for lighting or heating while I'm shopping in the store or the cost of the cashier to ring up my purchases. It is part of the cost of doing business - and Freddy's does have some leeway in determining how many parking spaces they build. Yes, there are some government regulations which exist to ensure that a business does not "take over" parking on public streets that are for the public use. (How would you like it if the parking in front of your home was always occupied by a business a block away so that your friends/family could never park nearby?)

There are other businesses in the area that choose NOT to provide ample parking, and those businesses don't get my business. Bridgeport Village is a prime example - I NEVER go there, because trying to find a parking spot is downright impossible. They have chosen to make parking limited to encourage shoppers to stay for longer, rather than to be able to get in and out.

Businesses that charge for parking - or downtown Portland, for that matter - are adding an additional cost. Does the Macy's or Nordstrom downtown charge less for an item than its Washington Square location (where the mall store has to pay for a part of the mall's operating costs and parking lots - and Macy's owns their part of the parking lot at Washington Square, the original parking garage?) No - they charge the same to the end-user, but Macy's chooses to absorb my cost of parking at Washington Square while downtown it either has to pay other costs or absorbs additional profit.

There is no such thing as a free lunch and the anti-suburban/anti-automobile forces seem to think that motorists are downright stupid in that we get everything for free. We are constantly reminded of the taxes we pay for the infrastructure we use - can that be said of a Streetcar rider who often doesn't have to pay a fare to ride the Streetcar? At least bus riders have to pay a token fare, even if it doesn't cover the full cost of operation, it is something to show for the privilege - Streetcar riders, with just a few exceptions, expect that the region pays for their expensive mode of transportation.

perception matters as much or more than reality when it comes to the price of parking. the perception, at least, is that it costs more when you have to pay to park. clever folks can rationalize why it's cheaper to feed a meter than park for free, but to the rest of us idiots, it feels like yet another corner of our personal finances where we're getting nickel-and-dimed to death, so we shop elsewhere. it's not complicated.

Another area that I WILL NOT BE SHOPPING IN

Thanks
JK

umpire: . . Is it possible there are developers with their eyes on some of these parcels?

Yes.

Joey:Do people feel entitled to free parking? If so, why? . . .

Goes on to sound like you are anti-auto.
Question to ask then, should bicycles be allowed to park for free?

There is resentment towards our city that spends millions of dollars for pet projects and then needs more money and in this way they can nickel and dime us. Plus the money made from ticketing!

Inconvenience and added stress to need to have the correct change and/ or use a card and then a l w a y s having the time element hanging over one’s head. Coffee with a friend,- oh, my meter, hope I don’t get a ticket, etc. Going to a meeting,- don’t know how long it will last, will have to be excused to run out and move car?

The issue of too much control over us plays into this as well. Is there no where we will be allowed to go or be without constantly having more demands from us, not just in money, but in stressful ways?

Wasn't it Mark Twain who said, "Whiskey's for drinkin', parking's for fightin'?"

The actual dollar cost is relatively negligible for me at least. The bigger cost is time. The current meters take up to 3 minutes to authorize credit cards. Add to that the tromp back and forth to the meter, and it adds a not insignificant amount of hassle that I will go out of my way to avoid.

” How would you like it if the parking in front of your home was always occupied by a business a block away so that your friends/family could never park nearby.” You should ask the folks that live near New Seasons on Hawthorne and at 33rd and Killingsworth.

” Does the Macy's or Nordstrom downtown charge less for an item than its Washington Square location?” Those two stores validate parking and last I heard it costs Nordstrom about 1.5 million bucks a year. So the answer is yes.

I personally hate the computer meters, and would rather go back to the old fashion coin operated models. Meters were originally used to instill turnover of the parking space. Not to generate revenue. Merchants actually like them. You can see that on holidays the folks that work downtown park all day on the street and that really limits parking opportunities for shoppers.

PJB, the meters do not accept American Express -- prejudicial against those who use no other card and carry little cash or coin. Some of the downtown lots do accept AmEx, suggesting that it should not be difficult to ameliorate this inconvenience. But the amelioration of inconvenience is a novel notion to PBOT.

And speaking of novel notions, is there ever a cost-benefit analysis of parking meters in new areas such as East Broadway and Weidler? Eugene, for example, plans to evaluate the removal of meters:

"In January, city officials and members of the Community Planning Workshop, an experimental branch of the University's department of planning, public policy and management, will review the program.

John Benton: Does the Macy's or Nordstrom downtown charge less for an item than its Washington Square location?” Those two stores validate parking and last I heard it costs Nordstrom about 1.5 million bucks a year. So the answer is yes.

You didn't answer the question:

Are the sales prices of items sold at their downtown locations less expensive than those sold at the mall locations, in which the mall locations must pay rent and general mall overhead, plus parking and other costs; while the downtown locations need only pay for the space occupied by the store itself? Nordstrom and Macy's don't have to pay anything for the general upkeep of downtown Portland; street maintenance; Pioneer Place or Pioneer Courthouse Square - other than general property taxes; and the mall stores pay the same property taxes to, in the case of Washington Square, the city of Tigard.

I'll suspend disbelief for a moment and assume that the people claiming drivers are already paying the full cost for parking are correct.

Eliminating or absorbing the marginal cost of driving and parking leads to waste and overuse. Making parking "free" adds to the already subsidized and distorted market for driving.

Drawing a parallel to something most people accept, what do you suppose would result if there was no marginal cost imposed for water or natural gas usage? People would have no incentive to limit their use, and would thus wastefully use more than they need. Due to market distortions, that's occurring with driving and parking. Now consider that overuse leads to even greater levels of pollution and congestion, of which drivers pay only a tiny tiny fraction.

I drive the majority of miles I travel in a week. I understand that paying for parking is a necessary part of some trips. I don't complain about it because $1.60 per hour is underpricing parking in most areas, especially where ALL the spots are full at that price.

Can anyone provide the respective costs for the streetcar track bed and rails versus the overhead catenary pole and wire system (a la an electric trolleybus system)? The mayor and his staff have steadfastly declined to provide those numbers since January 2009 despite repeated requests at public forums.

Portland has been down this path before as a visit to Tri Met's website

http://trimet.org/about/history/transitinportland.htm

will attest.

This is the website entry for the 1930's:
"With the Great Depression gripping the nation, buses and trolley coaches began to replace electric streetcars. Several interurban rail lines discontinued passenger service as ridership declined. The aging streetcar system began converting to buses and trolley buses. In time, Portland enjoyed an extensive trolleybus network, particularly on the east side."

Wouldn't it be great to enjoy that extensive, more affordable, trolleybus network again. Trolleybuses work great in San Francisco, Vancouver BC, and elswhere. Who knows what the savings to the taxpayers would be. Unfortunately, we can't as the rail lobby won't divulge the figures.

"Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it." Edmund Burke

I avoid places where I have to pay to park. I also avoid places where it is a pain to find a spot.

I am not alone.

Erik H.: Businesses in downtown Portland do pay an extra fee to the City of Portland for the privilege of being there. It has the odd name of the "Downtown Business Property Management License Fee." It's levied on every business and property owner downtown who is responsible for a water bill and is based on a building's elevators and square footage. For a building like Nordstrom, it runs into tens of thousands of dollars a year.

Two more words: Bridgeport Village.

Pristine movie theaters with the latest technology and no panhandlers or parking meters. McCormick and Schmicks is just across the street, and there are several other restaurants worth trying.

Sorry hipsters...no food trucks. No bike shops (unless you count REI across the street). No used CDs or Dr. Martens.