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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kahns Krazy

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.

---

Why do you think that? Did we avoid waste in this instance of intense public scrutiny? The street car is going to cost over $100 million and then it will lose money every year. Did the public attention do anything to mitigate that?

I agree with a lot of your rants about the Cincinnati Metro / SORTA. There is lots of room for improvement there. The city agrees with you as well, and even went so far as to study options for creating a new transit authority. It's kind of an interesting read.

http://city-egov.cincinnati-oh.gov/W...'200800909'

I also agree that private industry is more efficient than public sector. Private industry would cut out all the unprofitable bus routes. I'm not sure that's in the greatest public interest though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kahns Krazy

I agree with a lot of your rants about the Cincinnati Metro / SORTA. There is lots of room for improvement there. The city agrees with you as well, and even went so far as to study options for creating a new transit authority. It's kind of an interesting read.

http://city-egov.cincinnati-oh.gov/W...'200800909'

I also agree that private industry is more efficient than public sector. Private industry would cut out all the unprofitable bus routes. I'm not sure that's in the greatest public interest though.

---

I got an error when clicking your link. I would like to read it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snipe

Why do you think that? Did we avoid waste in this instance of intense public scrutiny? The street car is going to cost over $100 million and then it will lose money every year. Did the public attention do anything to mitigate that?

---

I obviously support the streetcar. I think the overall impact will make it one of the most valuable public projects on the table. Even so, it damn near lost a vote. I think there are worse projects that get approved that might not if subject to this level of public discussion on the costs and benefits

Do we really need a fourth park on the riverfront? Is that worth over $100 million right now? I'm sure it will be very nice. Other than the Banks, there's zero developable land around it though, so other than being a pretty park on the river, it's really going to be limited on how much it can attract new residents or businesses to the area. If it were up to me, I'd put that on on the back burner until the economy improves.

On a much smaller scale, there's $200,000 in the capital budget for "Council Chambers Video Production System". Seriously? What the hell is that? People make award winning films on $5,000 video equipment. I'm pretty sure all Council Chambers needs is a handful of flip video cameras and a youtube account.

I think it was your idea that projects should compete for the available dollars. Put all of the capital project ideas on the table. Rank them all, then fund the ones with the best scores first until you run out of money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snipe

I got an error when clicking your link. I would like to read it.

---

hmm. try copying and pasting this:

HTML Code:

---

http://city-egov.cincinnati-oh.gov/Webtop/ws/council/public/child/Blob/23272.pdf;jsessionid=87452B0F32D536F9E08F28ED45F3F1C8?rpp=-10&m=1&w=doc_no%3D'200800909'

---

I found it by searching "City/SORTA Agreement of 1973" on google.

Thanks for the link Kahns. It is interesting and somewhat encouraging that they took a fresh look at what they had to do to reorganize it.

Here are some links from Reason Magazine:

A Desire Named Streetcar, Chapter XXVIII

Quote:

---

And when your local councilman or mayor or senator or president or Better Business Bureau fundraiser comes around and tells you the only thing that keeps your hometown or state or region or country from being world class is the lack of a 19th-century technology that costs bazillions to build, bazillions to operate, and bazillions to tear down and start over when the monorail is the nostalgic wave of the future, tell 'em to lower your taxes, cut stupid regulations, and go to hell.

---

Clang Clang Clang Goes The Trolley

Quote:

---

Indeed, the Queen City is flat-ass busted to the tune of a $50 million budget deficit and a school system that is cutting its budget by $21 million.

In shoveling scarce funds to projects that are useless at best and catatsrophic at worst, Cincy is, alas, a model for virtually every other municipality in the country, maybe the world. Phase One of the Great Streetcar Revival plan is upon the place that drunken statesman Winston Churchill once mumbled was "among America's most beautiful inland cities," a $128 million boondoggle that will surely double or triple in price as the years of construction wear on.

---

Why Cities Decline, Case Study No. 1,223 (Idiotic Streetcar Edition)

Quote:

---

The project is a fantastic example of how city officials delude themselves into thinking that whipped cream and sprinkles--or a goddamn transit technology that is one of the most frustrating, underperfroming rides imaginable--can save cities. What is it about trains? Or light rail? Or streetcars? Is there a Freudian analysis that's relevant here?

Why won't cities such as Cincinnati do far more basic things to lure people back into their craptacular clutches? The list might include: Generally reducing taxes and regulation so that it's relatively cheap to live and easy to do business in an area; creating a safe climate with regards to crime; reforming a public school system so people who don't have kids (a majority pretty much everywhere) don't have to worry about school issues and people with kids have some decent measure of choice; not spending billions of dollars on the owners of jerk-off sports teams.

---

Terrifying Picture of City Pension FUBAR Coming Soon to Your Hometown!

Quote:

---

Here's some news from a tale of municipal (and, hence, taxpayer!) woe from the toddlin' town of Cincinnati, which just earlier this week decided it was so flush with cash that it could afford to toss hundreds of millions of dollars down the craphole on a freaking streetcar. The topic today is one that is playing out in basically every city hall in the country. And every state capitol building. And at Social Security. It's We Are Out of Money, public-sector pension edition.

Our story thus far: Cincinnati's public employee retirement system is mired in a Gulf spill-sized ocean of red ink. The powers that be spent the past nine months figuring out just how bad the situation is, and yesterday they had a public meeting about the man-made disaster. Let's listen in, via the Cincinnati Enquirer's account:

Quote:

---

Without substantive changes, the $2 billion system could see a projected $1 billion long-term shortfall balloon to $1.5 billion within five years....

Even if the plan achieves what many see as wildly optimistic investment returns, it still could lose up to $30 million a year. Not recommendations that, to avert those doomsday scenarios, City Hall might be asked to come up with an immediate cash infusion of as much as $439 million or nearly double its annual payments....

---

Retirees are understandably freaked that their benefits are going to be cut, but it's worth asking how Pete Rose's hometown and so many others got in this suicide squeeze. Travel back to the 1990s, when the system was "flush with money."

Quote:

---

At that time, the city enhanced the annual cost of living increase retirees receive, added vision and dental benefits to health coverage, raised a death payment to cover funeral expenses from $2,000 to $7,500 and increased a so-called "benefit multiplier," the percentage of salary that city employees earn toward their pensions for every year of service.

Those changes increased the pension system's costs, an issue that has become more problematic amid soaring health costs, increasing life expectancies and a shrinking city workforce that now has only one city employee paying into the system for every 1.46 retirees drawing benefits from it.

Other factors that have dug a deeper financial hole include $574 million in investment losses in 2002 and 2008, changed assumptions about prospective earnings and expenses, and inadequate city funding - the latter being, contrary to many retirees' belief, a negligible element in the overall picture.

---

So what you want to do, Cookie Puss? How you gonna fix the system? The first thing to note is that the city's hands are somewhat tied in terms of screwing with core pension benefits. Which means that the costs will ultimately not be borne by the retirees but by future retirees in the system and, ultimately, taxpayers.

---

The whole system is going to break. That is my fear. Sometimes I think I am some sort of paranoid freak because everyone else is business as usual.

And I voted for the Streetcar, and I was aware of all the arguments against it. I have no one to blame but myself. It is madness.

Didn't Cincinnati have streetcars over 50 years ago? Didn't Cincinnati tear them down because people were using other transportation, namely cars?

So why do we tear something down for lack of use and then build it again 50 years later?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XU 87

Didn't Cincinnati have streetcars over 50 years ago? Didn't Cincinnati tear them down because people were using other transportation, namely cars?

So why do we tear something down for lack of use and then build it again 50 years later?

---

I wasn't around for that. The current story is that it was an intentional effort by GM to boost car sales. I have no idea if that is true or not. As Snipe pointed out, it was once the case that public transportation was run by for profit concerns. That would make public transportation vulnerable to being bought out and scuttled by a car maker that also happened to own the largest bus manufacturing facility.

After building the streetcar, I think we should resurrect the subway. And we have some of the tunnels built already.

Fortune favors the bold! Regardless of your position on the streetcar I think most believe that over the next ten years we will see a significant increase in the number of people living downtown. Take it from someone who lived for awhile in an urban setting........a necessity within walking distance or on the streetcar route will be a grocery store. Not a Jungle Jims but not a UDF either. Any partners out there?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sweet16

Fortune favors the bold! Regardless of your position on the streetcar I think most believe that over the next ten years we will see a significant increase in the number of people living downtown. Take it from someone who lived for awhile in an urban setting........a necessity within walking distance or on the streetcar route will be a grocery store. Not a Jungle Jims but not a UDF either. Any partners out there?

---

The old Club Chef property on Bank Street off of Central would be an excellent place for a Kroger or a WalMart Superstore. You could have a Trolley Junction with the Lynn Street Trolley Line that can take people to the Museum Center. Get that done and I will be the biggest Streetcar supporter ever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snipe

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.

---

To put this in perspective, I went down to the ball game last weekend and took the bus with my kids. It costs $1.75 a person and the total milage we traveled is about two miles (I live downtown). The real cost of that with taxes and subsidies is what I noted above, that is about $9.29 round trip per person, or about $30 bucks for me and my boys.

Consider that when I just checked the MegaBus website for going to Chicago next weekend. I can get on the nice comfy Megabus next Friday and go to Chicago for $15. That was the lowest fare they quoted leaving on Friday. Coming back Saturday I got a price of $10.

It would cost me $10 next Saturday to travel 300 miles on a comfy, clean Megabus with free Wi-Fi. Of I could go to a Reds game and back and it would cost $9.29 for about 4 combined miles. MegaBus does this without subsidy and for a profit. That is the wonder of the private market.

I have a faith in free markets and free people. Free The People!

==================================

Edit: The Megabus prices I quoted were two weeks out, not one. From Friday October 1st and coming back Saturday October 2nd. The MegaBus is much cheaper when you buy fares in advance. Prices rise when you buy on demand, and they could be much larger ($40)

I don't get the megabus model. I'm not sure what their long term plan is, but those prices just can't be sustainable.

I also just checked, and the lowest price I see is $39 outbound and $15 back. I hope you pulled the trigger if you were planning to go.


Just don't get on this one:

http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/images/news/to...use-bridge.jpg

It's $1.75 if you live within the City of Cincinnati. The fares do go up slightly if you come in from northern Hamilton County - it's $2.65 one way/$5.30 round trip. If I'm going downtown for a Reds daygame/other appointment, I'll just go to a Park & Ride near Winton & Kemper and take the bus as opposed to going downtown. That's still a relative bargain compared to a)the costs that Snipe mentioned above and comparable or cheaper than a number of downtown parking garages where you would park for 3+ hours.

Then again, if it's a nighttime sporting event, I'll just head down to Newport On The Levee and pay at most $5 for parking and then hike across the Purple People Bridge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kahns Krazy

I don't get the megabus model. I'm not sure what their long term plan is, but those prices just can't be sustainable.

I also just checked, and the lowest price I see is $39 outbound and $15 back. I hope you pulled the trigger if you were planning to go.


Just don't get on this one:

http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/images/news/to...use-bridge.jpg

---

I was wrong on the dates, it wasn't next weekend I checked but Friday the 1st and Saturday the 2nd. Two weeks from now and it is $15 going out and $10 coming back. They key to low rates on Megabus is buying them well in advance. You can go to $10 to $40 once the seats start selling.

Megabus is taking advantage of the information age. All tickets are sold on the internet. They have no reservation employees. They also don't have any bus stations. They don't own or maintain any property in any of those cities that they visit. I don't know where they park the buses or take them for service, but they cut out everything they don't have to have.

The prices are fantastic and I have heard good things about the service and wi-fi. Has to be more comfortable than Metro and you could get lost on the internets for awhile.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snipe

The old Club Chef property on Bank Street off of Central would be an excellent place for a Kroger or a WalMart Superstore. You could have a Trolley Junction with the Lynn Street Trolley Line that can take people to the Museum Center. Get that done and I will be the biggest Streetcar supporter ever.

---

I don't know if saying that site would be "excellent" for any type of store you suggest. The neighborhood wouldn't be able to sustain it, and I wouldn't doubt that it would be a monetary loser for the company that put it in. It's like the Kroger in OTR, that store doesn't make money, but it is impossible for Kroger to close it too.

Just drive down Linn and look at all the empty storefronts in the supposed "Park Town Shopping Center", it just doesn't make any sense to put in businesses in economically depressed areas of town.

I HATE dayton.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PM Thor

I don't know if saying that site would be "excellent" for any type of store you suggest. The neighborhood wouldn't be able to sustain it, and I wouldn't doubt that it would be a monetary loser for the company that put it in. It's like the Kroger in OTR, that store doesn't make money, but it is impossible for Kroger to close it too.

Just drive down Linn and look at all the empty storefronts in the supposed "Park Town Shopping Center", it just doesn't make any sense to put in businesses in economically depressed areas of town.

I HATE dayton.

---

Thor, I made that comment in jest but I do also advocate it. The Bank Street site I proposed is also the site of the CityLink Homeless Maul. We fought that in court and lost, and now I would love the transit authority to take it away from them by eminent domain. And yes it was a joke and yes I want it and yes I am a hypocrite using government to deter private property rights.

If the Bank Street site was used with eminent domain you could have a frontage on Linn Street and Central Parkway. The site is huge. I think it is five acres and you could add in another five or so if you took it to the Parkway and bought up the parking lot next to it add in some of the streets you could close. Name one other area in Downtown that also has enough space for a major transportation junction and a shopping center.

If that site was the only major grocer or shopping center downtown and it was part of the Streetcar route it could kill two birds with one stone. And the Streetcar needs a place to rest at night too, we have plenty of space for that here. Better than a Homeless Maul.

When we get the Drop Inn residents we are screwed. All of my property is going to be boned right in the ass by mentally unstable and addicted people. The hammer is going to come down on the West End as far as I can see. You can't sell $250 penthouse flats in OTR without moving those pyschos, and they are going to move right next to me.

I guess it sucks to be me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kahns Krazy

I obviously support the streetcar. I think the overall impact will make it one of the most valuable public projects on the table. Even so, it damn near lost a vote. I think there are worse projects that get approved that might not if subject to this level of public discussion on the costs and benefits

Do we really need a fourth park on the riverfront? Is that worth over $100 million right now? I'm sure it will be very nice. Other than the Banks, there's zero developable land around it though, so other than being a pretty park on the river, it's really going to be limited on how much it can attract new residents or businesses to the area. If it were up to me, I'd put that on the back burner until the economy improves.

On a much smaller scale, there's $200,000 in the capital budget for "Council Chambers Video Production System". Seriously? What the hell is that? People make award winning films on $5,000 video equipment. I'm pretty sure all Council Chambers needs is a handful of flip video cameras and a youtube account.

I think it was your idea that projects should compete for the available dollars. Put all of the capital project ideas on the table. Rank them all, then fund the ones with the best scores first until you run out of money.

---

That sounds like an idea that I would like, so I will take any credit. I certainly agree with the premise. The concept of opportunity cost means that we will do some things in lieu of something else. We only have so much money, so we should do what is most important.

The funny thing is that SORTA is going to take over the management of the Cincinnati Streetcar. Liberals are for public transit generally and Conservatives are not so much (that is a generalization). But if the Streetcar fails it is going to cause cuts in the budgets of Metro, which serves a good amount of poor people. Metro's demographics of daily riders are not the middle class but the working class and the poor. Again, we have exceptions, but that is the scope of it broadly. I use the Metro. If the Metro went away it wouldn't hurt me much. Many people depend on Metro, and for those people adding the Streetcar might just hasten the day that SORTA goes out of business.

At some point the whole SORTA system might get walked away from. That is one possible outcome. 59 million dollars went to prop up the Metro system in 2009 alone. At some point those funds might not be available. Cincinnati has pension problems. They have to pay real dollars and they have to find them somewhere. The State of Ohio pension is underfunded (though not as badly as many actors, I think we are in the high 80's percentage wise, compare to Illinois around 55%). But it is still underfunded.

One option would be to not do the Streetcar, and to privatize the Metro. That would probably serve poor people the best.

In another post you said:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kahns Krazy

I also agree that private industry is more efficient than public sector. Private industry would cut out all the unprofitable bus routes. I'm not sure that's in the greatest public interest though.

---

What is in the public interest? We spent 59 million subsidizing Metro in 2009. What if private industry cut the unprofitable routes? Metro has more poor and black riders than anyone else from my estimation. Do you think the unprofitable routes are black neighborhoods or white neighborhoods? I don't know, but it might be that a privatized Metro didn't cut the poor black neighborhood out at all.

And what if they did? People can adjust. They can move. Poor people rent, and they like to rent on bus lines. Give it a year or two and watch people react. Even if we find that it is not in the 'Greatest Public Interest", compare that to spending 59 million dollars to prop up the whole system. How many people are we really subsidizing?

What if the new system cut off 50,000 people? If 50,000 people were cut off and 59 million dollars of subsidy were also cut off, that would mean that we would have $1,180 dollars of former public subsidy available to spend per person on those 50,000. For that amount you could buy them all a used car for Christ’s sake. And we subsidize it every year. Buy them a new used car every year.

And who is to say if you privatized things the whole system wouldn’t be both better and cheaper? You honestly don't know that and neither do I. I have my suspicions though, and my loyalty doesn't lie with the over bloated government system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snipe

Thor, I made that comment in jest but I do also advocate it. The Bank Street site I proposed is also the site of the CityLink Homeless Maul. We fought that in court and lost, and now I would love the transit authority to take it away from them by eminent domain. And yes it was a joke and yes I want it and yes I am a hypocrite using government to deter private property rights.

If the Bank Street site was used with eminent domain you could have a frontage on Linn Street and Central Parkway. The site is huge. I think it is five acres and you could add in another five or so if you took it to the Parkway and bought up the parking lot next to it add in some of the streets you could close. Name one other area in Downtown that also has enough space for a major transportation junction and a shopping center.

If that site was the only major grocer or shopping center downtown and it was part of the Streetcar route it could kill two birds with one stone. And the Streetcar needs a place to rest at night too, we have plenty of space for that here. Better than a Homeless Maul.

When we get the Drop Inn residents we are screwed. All of my property is going to be boned right in the ass by mentally unstable and addicted people. The hammer is going to come down on the West End as far as I can see. You can't sell $250 penthouse flats in OTR without moving those pyschos, and they are going to move right next to me.

I guess it sucks to be me.

---

Speak the truth Snipe. Speak it.

If (or rather, when) ShittyLink goes in, kiss the West End goodbye. You know it, I know it, and it seems like everyone else wants to promote OTR over the ACTUAL inroads that have been made in the West End. All that new W.E. construction, busting up gangs like Tot Lot and the like, for nothing if that crap goes in.

I HATE dayton.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snipe

The prices are fantastic and I have heard good things about the service and wi-fi. Has to be more comfortable than Metro and you could get lost on the internets for awhile.

---

I've done the Megabus to Chicago, and I will likely do it again. The wi-fi was pretty unreliable when I was on it. I'd say it worked about 30% of the trip. The bus adds about an hour to the trip between the stop in Indy, the snack stop and generally going a little slower.

Our departure bus was also delayed over an hour on the return trip. The down side of no bus stations is that when something goes wrong, you're sitting on the sidewalk outside of Union Station. Fortunately, it was a nice day. If not, it would have been miserable.

But it beats driving. Especially in Chicago traffic coming into town. I arrived relaxed and ready to go. If I had driven, I would have been tired by the time we got there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sirthought

That's where you are wrong. Development is happening because of it. Even before it was a done deal people were angling in anticipation.

All the development that has happened in the past ten years has been led by different leaders within the city that are trying to turn things around and bring more people and services back into the urban core. The streetcar is a service that accelerates that all the more. And they've been trying to get some form of this accomplished for 20+ years.

Again, read the article and you can see all the wheeling and dealing that's happening just to gain a foothold around this service that's going to provide an anchor for more services to attract residents and visitors.

On a different note. Many of you don't seem to understand the concept of taxes. On one hand we have people griping about police,fire and other city people loosing their jobs, and on the other hand griping that the city has to lower the tax bar if they expect any business to want to bother to do business with it. People are complaining that we have an area that has been neglected and isn't worth an attempt to save it with public dollars, yet everyone acknowledges that even if they had the funds they'd be uncertain about investing in that area unless they knew it was going to turn around completely outside of their purchase.

Well, that's really going to get us somewhere, isn't it?

This is a big-assed city with services that cost a lot to maintain. Paying for that means taxes from businesses and residents. That simple. Sometimes to bring more businesses and residents on board we have to offer amenities that are attractive to people. It's obvious some investors are pleased as punch the streetcar is going to be there. Whole neighborhood groups were lobbying for which route it would take.

We haven't seen anybody raise a finger to improve these areas forever and you want to say the streetcar isn't a motivator?

The only two groups that have been facilitating any significant development have been UC (using tax dollars to help make way for other bank loans) and 3CDC, which although is privately funded, they are merely guiding mostly independent developers through the process by assisting them with loan applications and grant funding (taxes).

Building something worthwhile can't exist on private funding alone. Taxes help at all sorts of junctures and they always have. Otherwise, we'd all still be living on a farm, lighting a candle on our way to pissing in an outhouse.

---

Wrong. The development downtown and in OTR has happened independently from the streetcar and would have taken place even if Mallory had never even championed the idiotic idea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by _LH

Wrong. The development downtown and in OTR has happened independently from the streetcar and would have taken place even if Mallory had never even championed the idiotic idea.

---

This may be a valid point. Are Streetcar proponents taking credit for development that was going to happen anyways and using it to support their cause? Is it kind of like Obama's 'Job's Saved' statistic in that a bunch of stuff that has nothing to do with said policy is going to be used to prove that the policy is a good idea?

I don't know the answer to either of those questions and I don't think it will be particularly easy to find that answer, either. How do you know what development in OTR to attribute to the Streetcar?

I have to think that the overall resurgence of the fountain square area and the downtown business and entertainment district is starting to spread into the edges of OTR right now, with our without the Streetcar. That doesn't mean that the Streetcar isn't helping to spur development in OTR, but I don't think that they deserve all the credit either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boozehound

This may be a valid point. Are Streetcar proponents taking credit for development that was going to happen anyways and using it to support their cause? Is it kind of like Obama's 'Job's Saved' statistic in that a bunch of stuff that has nothing to do with said policy is going to be used to prove that the policy is a good idea?

I don't know the answer to either of those questions and I don't think it will be particularly easy to find that answer, either. How do you know what development in OTR to attribute to the Streetcar?

I have to think that the overall resurgence of the fountain square area and the downtown business and entertainment district is starting to spread into the edges of OTR right now, with our without the Streetcar. That doesn't mean that the Streetcar isn't helping to spur development in OTR, but I don't think that they deserve all the credit either.

---

The answer is zero. None of the development in OTR or downtown recently (last 12 months) or further back has anything to do with the streetcar. All of these projects were going to happen either way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XU 87

Didn't Cincinnati have streetcars over 50 years ago? Didn't Cincinnati tear them down because people were using other transportation, namely cars?

So why do we tear something down for lack of use and then build it again 50 years later?

---

87 -

Don't you know that everything's cyclical? DUH!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by _LH

The answer is zero. None of the development in OTR or downtown recently (last 12 months) or further back has anything to do with the streetcar. All of these projects were going to happen either way.

---

Rookwood Pottery would disagree with you.

http://cincystreetcar.files.wordpres...eg?w=510&h=691

But I agree most development aside from Rookwood would have happened anyways. However, due to the uncertainty of federal funding before July, the more fair timeline question you should ask is what businesses decide to locate themselves within 2-3 blocks of the line 12 months after July.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by _LH

The answer is zero. None of the development in OTR or downtown recently (last 12 months) or further back has anything to do with the streetcar. All of these projects were going to happen either way.

---

Quote:

---

Longtime Westwood-based real estate investor Fred Berger saw in 2008 a perfect combination of desperately low real estate prices and the promise of future growth in the neighborhood. He spent the next 2½ years buying up about 35 sturdy brick apartment buildings in Over-the-Rhine, Pendleton and the West End, all in states of neglect. He paid as little as $10,000 for one property.

"It was a risk, because the trolley wasn't for sure at the time, but that's when you get the best buy," he said. He's spent about $500,000 renovating 40 units in the buildings, now available for either market-rate or subsidized tenants. He has at least twice that left to go.

---

Are you calling Fred Berger a liar?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snipe

That sounds like an idea that I would like, so I will take any credit. I certainly agree with the premise. The concept of opportunity cost means that we will do some things in lieu of something else. We only have so much money, so we should do what is most important.

The funny thing is that SORTA is going to take over the management of the Cincinnati Streetcar. Liberals are for public transit generally and Conservatives are not so much (that is a generalization). But if the Streetcar fails it is going to cause cuts in the budgets of Metro, which serves a good amount of poor people. Metro's demographics of daily riders are not the middle class but the working class and the poor. Again, we have exceptions, but that is the scope of it broadly. I use the Metro. If the Metro went away it wouldn't hurt me much. Many people depend on Metro, and for those people adding the Streetcar might just hasten the day that SORTA goes out of business.

At some point the whole SORTA system might get walked away from. That is one possible outcome. 59 million dollars went to prop up the Metro system in 2009 alone. At some point those funds might not be available. Cincinnati has pension problems. They have to pay real dollars and they have to find them somewhere. The State of Ohio pension is underfunded (though not as badly as many actors, I think we are in the high 80's percentage wise, compare to Illinois around 55%). But it is still underfunded.

One option would be to not do the Streetcar, and to privatize the Metro. That would probably serve poor people the best.

In another post you said:



What is in the public interest? We spent 59 million subsidizing Metro in 2009. What if private industry cut the unprofitable routes? Metro has more poor and black riders than anyone else from my estimation. Do you think the unprofitable routes are black neighborhoods or white neighborhoods? I don't know, but it might be that a privatized Metro didn't cut the poor black neighborhood out at all.

And what if they did? People can adjust. They can move. Poor people rent, and they like to rent on bus lines. Give it a year or two and watch people react. Even if we find that it is not in the 'Greatest Public Interest", compare that to spending 59 million dollars to prop up the whole system. How many people are we really subsidizing?

What if the new system cut off 50,000 people? If 50,000 people were cut off and 59 million dollars of subsidy were also cut off, that would mean that we would have $1,180 dollars of former public subsidy available to spend per person on those 50,000. For that amount you could buy them all a used car for Christ’s sake. And we subsidize it every year. Buy them a new used car every year.

And who is to say if you privatized things the whole system wouldn’t be both better and cheaper? You honestly don't know that and neither do I. I have my suspicions though, and my loyalty doesn't lie with the over bloated government system.

---

The Megabus comparison is kind of distorting the projections of what a privately held mass transit company would charge it's customers in an urban setting. Megabus, if you need it today, would cost 39 dollars one way to Chicago, 78 round trip. You have just 3 time slots to pick from if none of the shuttles are sold out - early morning, mid day, and late night. Also, these shuttles have been on the market for months. I could buy a ticket for early January at this point for as low as 10 bucks.

I've tried doing the math on while riding this Cincy-Chicago shuttle, it's pretty tight. If everybody bought their ticket for 10 bucks and only 30 people are on the bus, that's a losing deal. Nevertheless, I'm sure they've got their rates set at profitable margins, as megabus is a real success it seems. 78 bucks round trip for 70 people, now that works out nicely.

Still, under what circumstance would a local route start booking in advance to ensure ridership? Under what circumstance would the last person booked (perhaps the new visitor walking around looking for something to do in Cincinnati) be willing to pay 4x as much to go from, say, kenwood mall to downtown? Further, what locations in Cincinnati represent Columbus, Indianapolis, Chicago - the only cities megabus offers for destinations from Cincinnati? Downtown, UC, err, Kenwood Mall? If megabus could offer trips from Bloomington, Lafayette, South Bend, Dayton, Toledo, Findlay, Greensburg, Terre Haute, Middletown, Athens, Chillicothe, and on and on and on, wouldn't it? It can't because there isn't the private interest to do it. If there was, perhaps 1 stop per week in some towns? Booked way out in advance? These comparisons of Megabus and Metro aren't really correct.

Do people in Bloomington need a bus service to Dayton? Ahh, no.

Do people in Price Hill need a bus service to Norwood? Ahh, yes.

So the 9 dollars or so you say a bus ride really costs to downtown when including subsidy may be somewhere close to what a private company would charge, IF they were offering the extensive times and routes that Metro does. They wouldn't do that though. They'd cut all kinds of routes, and charge more at the more popular ones. You'd have less routes and smaller buses for more out of pocket per rider than they pay now. Ridership would plummet at 9 bucks a ride, or for service that only included the local highlights. You can't make 59 million dollars of subsidy disappear and expect the same level of service. Therefore, it is not a wasted 59 million dollars. People benefit, the public benefits, heck even local retailers and employers benefit from this service. Unless you can come up with a business plan that provides equal service for equal cost, I don't see any reason to follow the private business piper into the sea. Besides, again, as we all know, why would a nice little old private business do any harm? They just want to make a buck!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by _LH

Wrong. The development downtown and in OTR has happened independently from the streetcar and would have taken place even if Mallory had never even championed the idiotic idea.

---

I know I'm right because my clients, who shall remain unnamed, are some of those developing property there. They talk shop with me about who is developing what around there and the street car is always a key to the strategy. They've been talking about this for years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sirthought

I know I'm right because my clients, who shall remain unnamed, are some of those developing property there. They talk shop with me about who is developing what around there and the street car is always a key to the strategy. They've been talking about this for years.

---

But you are wrong as development like Gateway Quarter, Restaurant Row, Fountain Square, The Banks, the casino and the new high rise were all done independently from any streetcar. Sorry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JimmyTwoTimes37

Rookwood Pottery would disagree with you.

http://cincystreetcar.files.wordpres...eg?w=510&h=691

But I agree most development aside from Rookwood would have happened anyways. However, due to the uncertainty of federal funding before July, the more fair timeline question you should ask is what businesses decide to locate themselves within 2-3 blocks of the line 12 months after July.

---

Even Rookwood's move was due to them getting money from the state of OH. It had more to do with that as they made the decision to move way before the streetcar was even tossed out. Of course they are going to want it NOW and claim it was the reason they moved but it simply is not true.

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnat...0/daily13.html

This grant was the real reason they moved to OTR not the streetcar.