Streetcar Update on Development

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xeus

If the new trolley nets negative $2 million, it's not appropriate to refer to that as "losing" money?

---

Quite simply, because the overall economic impact of the streetcar exceed the expenses and revenues of the operation of the streetcar itself. I know you, and I know you're smart enough to understand that concept.

If you put money into a 401(k), do you call it "losing" money? If not, why not? You're spending it on something that provides no guarantee of any kind of return, just like the streetcar. Or do you call it an investment, because you're counting on it to increase your overall wealth in the long-term?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kahns Krazy

Quite simply, because the overall economic impact of the streetcar exceed the expenses and revenues of the operation of the streetcar itself. I know you, and I know you're smart enough to understand that concept.

---

Yes, that's the optimistic projection. I have yet to see the "overall economic impact" defined, at least as it relates to Xeus Q. Taxpayer. Somehow I doubt my forced "investment" in OTR will result in lower taxes or increased property values in Pleasant Ridge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kahns Krazy

How many things are you going to make up in this thread? Have you ever heard of Executive Transportation? You may have, since you rode one to Pittsburgh with some other XH members. They run regular routes to the airport. Have you heard of Megabus? They run regular routes out of Cincinnati as well. To my knowledge, no employees of either company have been arrested nor have any busses been impounded. The building I work in provides regular bus service to downtown and Eden Park. The perimeter downtown parking lots provide shuttle service to downtown. The Dupree house runs a regular bus service. I'm pretty sure I can go on and on.

---

Megabus and the Airport Shuttle go out of town. They don't do any stuff in town. If I wanted to start a bus service leaving Cincinnati I am sure that could be done. If I wanted to start a bus service outside of Cincinnati and drop off in Cincinnati that would be different too. I don't know if you can use the Deupree House bus service. That is an Episcopal retirement home. Churches and schools can have busses too. And parking lots do have shuttles, that is not what I am talking about.

If the Deupree House bus started going on the most profitable Metro Routes, making multiple stops, picking up and dropping off everyone they would be told to cease and desist. If they kept doing it they would be arrested and the bus would be impounded.

We have rented a private bus before to go to a game. You can do that too. It is legal and you can go anywhere you want. Renting a private bus to take you anywhere you want really isn't public transit, which is what we are talking about. You complain that I am expansive and verbose but you then make me have to spell it all out and spoon feed you. Metro has a monopoly on public transit in Cincinnati. They don't do airport runs to Kentucky. They don't do charters or shuttles from parking lots. They don't do church trips or old persons homes. They do widespread public transit.

And if you drive Kentucky on 275 you can see part of what I called the Northern Kentucky Business Corridor. Do you have a better name off the top of your head for the expansion of business and commerce in Kentucky during our lifetimes? That is what I called it. You keep freaking out about it. The companies and the commerce are real. You work at one of them.

The Metro goes out of town as well. I'm still waiting for you to point me to the code that makes it illegal for me to operate a scheduled bus service, even after admitting that there are many companies that do it. You are expansive and verbose so that you don't have to document your claims.

I'm glad you mentioned that I am part of the mythical Northern Kentucky Corridor that seems to stretch from the river to past the airport. The compay I work for is located in Covington as the result of an enormous tax incentive from the local and state government to relocate from Cincinnati.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snipe

Look at the growth of Mason and West Chester or parts of the Northern Kentucky business corridor. Did all of those developments arise because of those little local governments? That is silly..

---

I guess the answer for the "Northern Kentucky business corridor" is yes then. The development arose because of local governments and would not exist without it. It isn't silly. It's a fact. I appreciate you supporting the point that private development needs local government involvement.

Also interesting that you point to Mason and West Chester as growth areas. I wonder why you picked the two areas that have part of the interstate highway going through them. Is it possible that public transportation infrastructure encourages growth?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snipe

If the Deupree House bus started going on the most profitable Metro Routes, making multiple stops, picking up and dropping off everyone they would be told to cease and desist. If they kept doing it they would be arrested and the bus would be impounded.
.

---

That's like saying it's illegal to sell food in Cincinnati because if you pulled a grill up in front of The Precinct and started selling steaks they would arrest you.

I believe you are correct that if you started running an unlicensed bus route available to the public on existing Metro routes, you would probably be told to stop, just like if you were running an unlicensed restaurant, taxi, street vendor or practially any other business. That's way different that saying that if you were to establish a properly licensed public bus system, you would be arrested and have your property taken from you.

Fear monger!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snipe

Also of interesting historical note is that private for-profit companies used to provide public transit in Cincinnati and all over the nation. Cincinnati used to have 100 million users over a year, they used to deliver them on time and on schedule for a profit with no public subsidy. Today Cincinnati Metro only serves out 25 million trips, and the fares only pay around a third of the total cost of operating the government owned system, which gets the rest from taxpayer subsidies. Something that was once provided by the private market for a profit is now provided by the government at a substantial loss.

I read a paper by the Reason Foundation that charted the increase of costs for publicly run bus systems since subsides begand in the mid-60s. The costs outpaced every cost of living indicator including medical costs. It was a PDF so I couldn't post the graph. They also note the difference between private bus companies has not risen so much per mile, because they don't get the subsidies.

Cincinnati Metro has a monopoly too. You can't get a bus and start your own route. They would arrest you and impound the bus. It wouldn't even matter if you demanded no public subsidy or rape of the tax-payer.

You have to wonder about the wisdom of having the government run the transit. It is just another thing it doesn't do well.

Another historical note is the bus boycotts during the civil rights era. The privately owned companies didn't want to discriminate against their customers. People enacted laws to make them. They still refused and they threatened to arrest the owners. The owners even fought the racist Jim Crow legislation in court. The real racism there was done by the government, not the private market.

And then their is Amtrak.

Our government has a lousy record in transit, as with most endeavors.

---

You picked one particular comment which I have highlighted. I quoted it in full to put it back into context. As you can see I even mentioned private bus companies in my original post. I know private bus companies exist. You and I have taken private charters to Pittsburgh and to a Xavier game here in town. My intent was not to deny their existence, as I pointed out that the costs of public transit have gone up per mile compare to the costs of private bus carriers since the begining of subsidies. If my intent was to deny the existence of private bus companies I wouldn't have cited them in my argument. I am also aware of church busses, school buses (which are now private), airport shuttle buses, the MegaBus, Greyhound and parking shuttle buses.

As for the specific law, regluation or permit approval process I have to confess I am ignorant of the specifics. Do you actually contend you could buy a bus and start competing with metro on one of their profitable routes?

As for the Metro going out of town, the Metro is actually the Southwest Ohio Regional Transit Authority:

Quote:

---

Southwest Ohio Regional Transit Authority

The Southwest Ohio Regional Transit Authority (SORTA) is a tax-supported, independent political subdivision of the State of Ohio and is a government entity. SORTA operates Metro fixed-route bus service and Access paratransit service for people whose disabilities prevent their riding Metro buses.

SORTA is governed by a 13-member volunteer citizens’ board of trustees. Seven trustees are appointed by the City of Cincinnati and six are appointed by Hamilton County. Hamilton County appoints three of its own trustees and one each representing Butler, Clermont and Warren counties. The funding relationship between SORTA and the City is established by the City/SORTA Agreement of 1973.

---

The routes are coordinated by the board which is appointed by the City, the County and people representing other counties. Routes into other counties would be approved in cooperation with those counties. SORTA is a part of the Ohio State government. It is a government entity. It has the power of eminent domain. The power to deny a person a permit to operate a private bus route probably exists within SORTA, because SORTA is the Ohio State Government. Maybe a specific law or statute exists in the Ohio Revised Code, Hamilton County Code, or Cincinnati Municipal Code. I am not familiar with the code.

This was the source for my comment that you didn't like:

Reason Foundation: Competative Contracting Of Transit Services

Quote:

---

In most metropolitan areas, the public transit agency is the only legal provider of public-transit services. Private entrepreneurs may be arrested, fined, and their vehicles impounded for offering nonsubsidized transit services to the public. Transit can be provided by the private sector without subsidy in some areas and for some routes as it is in areas of New York and Miami. Deregulation could save public money; it could result in innovative and responsive van and bus service, particularly in low-income minority neighborhoods; and, because of low barriers to entry and almost universal driving skills, it could foster the development of entrepreneurial activity, particularly for minorities, as it has in South Africa. State and local ordinances that give the transit agency the exclusive right to operate or regulate transit services could be modified to permit free entry (subject
to minimal regulatory requirements for safety, insurance, proper licensing, and coordination) of commercial transit services.

---

I have an email into SORTA. I asked what law governs a private company starting a bus route in Cincinnati. I asked them if it is OK to start up a new route. I will tell you what they tell me. Being a government agency, I would be somewhat surprised if they even respond.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xeus

Yes, that's the optimistic projection. I have yet to see the "overall economic impact" defined, at least as it relates to Xeus Q. Taxpayer. Somehow I doubt my forced "investment" in OTR will result in lower taxes or increased property values in Pleasant Ridge.

---

If that is the criteria you are using, then you are probably right.

I guess I should be opposed to my "forced investment" of $3.6 million tax dollars to build a new firehouse in Pleasant Ridge, as I don't think that will raise my propery values or decrease my taxes.

I don't understand why this one particular project has become a lightning rod for public comment. I think if people got this involved in the ongoing capital activities of their local, state and federal governments, we could avoid a lot of waste.

Did you know, for example, that the City's investment the Riverfront park is projected to be $21 million of a total $120 million project, $80 million of which is straight tax dollars? This park is projected to lose at least $600,000 annually. I don't think this project is going to increase your property values or decrease your taxes any either. Based on your arguments against the streetcar, I have to believe you're against this park, too?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kahns Krazy

If that is the criteria you are using, then you are probably right.

I guess I should be opposed to my "forced investment" of $3.6 million tax dollars to build a new firehouse in Pleasant Ridge, as I don't think that will raise my propery values or decrease my taxes.

I don't understand why this one particular project has become a lightning rod for public comment. I think if people got this involved in the ongoing capital activities of their local, state and federal governments, we could avoid a lot of waste.

---

I was wondering that myself. The passion this brings out of people suggest that many people would be completely against the streetcar even if it were completely paid for every year. I have watched grown men of COAST, the NAACP, and even Tom Luken resort to name calling and screaming and yelling. What is it about an investment to the core city that brings out such anger? It would have been good to benchmark these questions and passion and anger against other public improvements currently under consideration and under construction.

For instance, how many city residents really support the widening of I-75, which has already begun in the absence of an Enquirer poll and/or intense local media scrutiny? How many Cincinnatians support the construction of the Waldvogel Viaduct? Do they know it will cost $70 million? Do they even know what it is?

Then there's this - Sometimes Cincinnatians simply change their minds once these projects are finished and the benefits are obvious. Renovating Fountain Square a few years ago was a very unpopular idea. Who would now say we shouldn't have done it?

If we're serious about increasing public transportation use here, we're going to have to invest in trains. In 2008 as fuel prices reached $4.00, Metro's bus ridership was flat to declining. That year, rail ridership set records all around the country. Of course the streetcar isn't light rail, but its a start and has a strong chance(in combination with all the other development going on) of helping to make the core of our city vibrant once again.

Kahns,

Who does the licensing? The government? Who would you be in competition with? The government? So you are saying if I could get the government's permission to compete with the government it would be OK. I would agree with that. The problem would be getting the government's permission, not passing some inspection.

So if I bought superior busses and hired qualified drivers do you think the Metro would let me compete with me during rush hour on profitable routes or routes that might take away their business or take away from their budget and power base?

I doubt it would be hard to undercut Metro. In reading up on this I saw an article in Dayton and Atlanta about privatizing the school bus service. In Atlanta and Dayton they reported that Cincinnati saved 40% when privatizing bus services for schools.

40% is a lot. Public transit in Cincinnati used to private owned and private funded and run for profit without subsidy. The last time we had a street car it was privately owned and run for profit. Today Metro only covers roughly a third of their operations though fares:

http://www.go-metro.com/images/2009revenue.gif

If 40% of that is government bloat, that would translate into 38 million dollars. Metro costs taxpayers close to 59 million dollars a year (in 2009) in taxes and subsidies. That is a lot of money we are spending every year. And this from a service that used to operate for profit without public subsidy.

And how green is public transit if we spend all of these resources to do it? If the fare for Metro is $1.75 and fares only cover 38% of the budget, the real cost of a fare is $4.65 per rider, or $9.29 round trip. Of that $9.29 round trip cost, $5.75 is paid for by the tax payer. Those are eye opening numbers. Couldn't the market come up with something better than that.

I recently went to Washington DC and took the DC Metro. It is a train that serves DC and the outlying suburbs. The line at the train station seemed to be a mile long. It was on a weekend and they didn't adjust the schedules even if a big event was coming to town. You had to wait for over an hour.

Once on the platform the DC Metro had a captive audience (like an airport). My kids were hungry and thirsty and I looked around for something to eat or drink, but they sold nothing. I would have overpaid for a coke and a snickers bar, but I didn't have that option.

Now tell me, would a privately owned profit-seeking company do those things? When a big event happened, would they increase the number of trains to sell more tickets? Would they sell me overpriced drinks and snacks? Government owned institutions are built to lose money. It is in their DNA. It is what they do. And they combine it with a spectacularly poor level of customer service. Welcome to the Bureau of Motor Vehicles. No private business can operate like that. But when you have a monopoly, you don't have to worry about that.

Cincy Metro just fired their CEO, Marilyn Shazor. She was the first female and the first African American CEO in SORTA history. She came from the Cincinnati Metropolitan Housing Authority, which gives away government subsidies for rent. She had no former transit experience. SORTA was paying PTA, the company that negotiated her contract 22,520 a month for her and other unlisted services. That is over $270,000 a year. She had a great life story and she gave interviews about her life. Truly inspiring stuff. They have a six chapter interview made for government television that you can see here. From government subsidized housing, to government subsidized transit, and even to be lionized on government subsidized television. Her life is one big successful government subsidy.

Now would a private company do that? Would a private company enter into a contract for a CEO for $270,000 a year for someone who had no public transit experience? Would they do it because it would be such are great story? Are we kidding ourselves?

Note again that CMHA was her previous employer. See this article: Group: Racism and sexism at CMHA 'beyond belief' . Hiring people at CMHA is a big racial and political affair. There are black people that don't like white people running CMHA and there has been racial tension at their board meetings.

From another article

Quote:

---

The reprimand said that Rosenberg, at a Dec. 15, 2009, meeting, commented that the board should hire as executive director an African-American woman candidate for the purpose of "appeasing (the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development) and because she is a racial minority and a woman, that would be a double whammy."

---

Hiring people to work at the Housing Authority or at SORTA is a political event. All of SORTA's board members are political appointments. Does it surprise anyone that they choose an African American woman? It is a "Double Whammy". It is a great story. They can all pat themselves on the back and talk about how far we have come. But would a private company interested in maximizing profit hire a woman with no transit experience and enter a contract for $270,000 a year? I don't think so. That was a political decision, not a business decision. As taxpayers, we all pay for that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snipe

As for the specific law, regluation or permit approval process I have to confess I am ignorant of the specifics. Do you actually contend you could buy a bus and start competing with metro on one of their profitable routes?
.

---

First of all, I don't believe Metro has any profitable routes, and I think that is why there isn't any private competition. When they ran the Bengals Shuttles, they charged $5 each way and described those routes as "break even". That was before the run-up in gas prices. Secondly, no, I don't think a private bus can pick up passengers at existing Metro stops or run on existing Metro Routes any more than I can set up an office in City Hall. I do believe you can establish a new transportation option if you get the proper licensing and meet whatever operating requirements exist. You might even need to own the property at all of the stops. UC runs a regularly scheduled bus from Clifton to Victory Parkway that is available to the public. Corporex runs a bus with regularly scheduled stops between the office building on Gilbert and downtown.


Let me know if you hear something from SORTA. I am quite curious to hear what they say.

Also, if I win the powerball, I'm going to start my own bus route between Oakley, Hyde Park and Mount Lookout. We'll see if I get arrested and my bus impounded.