They are kidding themselves with the 93% figure - no way in hell are they getting much of a return so soon after going fareless.

Funding issues? How about spending issues? Operating costs are over $24,000 a day!

What a HUGE surprise! Maybe they can cut some more bus lines or hire some more six-figure managers to cover the costs of operating all their shiny new street car lines that hardly anybody needs or uses. Wait, I forgot to throw some fare increases into the mix. While we're looking to drum up money to pay for the poor underfunded streetcar, perhaps a cadre of fare inspectors to harass commuters at MAX stations? Just spit-ballin' here . . .

Hahahaha Keep Portland Weird!

Media really needs to stop writing "lower-than-expected" when it comes to street car revenue. They put out those projections knowing full well they were nowhere close to reality because it's what you do when you want a bad idea to make it to market. Ask Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld.

When can we get over the idea that transit should pay for itself? We don't ask highways to do that and they cost orders of magnitude more.

It's faster for me to walk than to take the streetcar. I'm gonna say that as long as that's the case, it's gonna lose money. It was cute when it was free, but now that you're supposed to pay for it? Yeah... Nope.

Chris: Because highways are useful to a huge number of people. People don't mind paying for things when they can use them regularly. When transit is as useful, people can live with it not breaking even. But useful the streetcar ain't, and when the useful transit we do have (re: the bus and, to a lesser extent, lightrail) is already running out of cash, the problem is exacerbated exponentially.

Chris, there's one type of public transit that does pay for itself... Bike sharing. In DC, after just 1.5 years in operation, the system covers 100% of its operating costs through user fees.

Chris, useful transit may be subsidized (but hopefully as little as possible). In Portland, that is the bus system and most MAX lines. Transit meant for postcards and tourists that no one actually uses should not be subsidized.

Why does anyone think that streetcars are about moving people around??? There is a reason they aren't under the umbrella of tri-met and that is that streetcars have nothing to do with mobility and everything to do with urban development. We trade safe streets to bike on for pearl district type development which increases property tax revenue. For better or worse that is the point, not moving people from one place to another, which is why it doesn't matter that you can beat the streetcar by walking.

Sooo, streetcars are not about moving people around.
Riiiight.
Very logical.