Streetcar Update on Development

**xeus** · 09-28-2010, 08:18 PM

Originally Posted by Kahns Krazy

The streetcar could be full to capacity on every single run from the first day, and LH will still insist it's a failure

It could be full to capacity on every single run and lose a bunch of money, right? I know you don't like the word "loss", but the point is that we aren't in the black on this thing for a long, long time ... if ever.

How do we know when this has been the right decision? What are the metrics, and what is the timeline?

_LH · 09-28-2010, 08:19 PM

Originally Posted by Kahns Krazy

It's totally pointless to argue with LH. It's like the old "UC is a lock for the tournament". Even when UC went to the tournament, LH was still insisting I was wrong and he was right. The streetcar could be full to capacity on every single run from the first day, and LH will still insist it's a failure, like he's somehow now arguing that he didn't call downtown a ghost town.

At this point, arguing against the streetcar is pointless. It's coming. You might as well argue that winter will be a failure. To me, the logical thing would be if every stakeholder in Cincinnati or Hamilton county would be thinking of ways the streetcar can be successful. Your tax dollars are paying for it, after all.

Many would same the same for you as well. The door swings both ways. You were wrong about UC in that argument and time will prove you wrong here as well.

Just so you know, I hope the streetcar is a huge success and that the fairytales you all believe come true but those that understand Cincinnati and those that live and work here know it will be a huge money loser and will not deliever on the promises many have stated.

_LH · 09-28-2010, 08:19 PM

Originally Posted by xeus

It could be full to capacity on every single run and lose a bunch of money, right? I know you don't like the word "loss", but the point is that we aren't in the black on this thing for a long, long time ... if ever.

How do we know when this has been the right decision? What are the metrics, and what is the timeline?

Ouch!!

Kahns Krazy · 09-28-2010, 08:35 PM

Originally Posted by xeus

It could be full to capacity on every single run and lose a bunch of money, right? I know you don't like the word "loss", but the point is that we aren't in the black on this thing for a long, long time ... if ever.

How do we know when this has been the right decision? What are the metrics, and what is the timeline?

I don't think so. I believe at capacity, the fares would more than offset the operating costs. I can check on that for you.

Edit: Here's some numbers for you:
The capacity of the streetcar is 130 passengers. Running every 15 minutes on average (every 10 minutes peak, every 20 off peak, 2 directions) according to the feasibility study, would result in fares exceeding operating costs by approximately $2 million per year. I guess you would refer to that as "profit". That even assumes that each person gets on at one end of the line and gets off at the other. Real life capacity would be greater than this, because the same seat can be sold more than once on each trip.

Based on some of the numbers in the feasibility study, the theoretical capacity of the existing line in a given year is about 15 million riders. I'm not sure what that would do to the operating costs, but it would likely generate excess fare revenue in the neighborhood of $10m a year.

I would say we are in the black if (a) the area around the streetcar increases in value, generating incremental property taxes, (b) the population increases in the area, generating income taxes, and (c) commerce increases in the area, generating jobs and sales taxes. You would take that impact over the life of the streetcar line - say 30 years, and discount the incremental cash flows (including the operating costs) back to the present day. You'd compare that to your initial investment.

When you consider all of that, you would also consider the trends that existed before implementation. That is, if the area was losing 1,000 residents per year and starts adding 1,000 residents per year, the net impact is 2,000 residents gained.

Kahns Krazy · 09-28-2010, 08:54 PM

Originally Posted by _LH

Many would same the same for you as well. The door swings both ways. You were wrong about UC in that argument and time will prove you wrong here as well.
.

To borrow your line, the only thing that swings both ways here is you. Wait, maybe that's not exactly how you put it. Anyway, my argument was that UC was a lock for the NCAA tournament. UC, in fact, went to the NCAA tournament. You were wrong, and there is proof.

Time proved me right that time, and time will prove me right again.

**GuyFawkes38** · 09-28-2010, 09:20 PM

Not directly related to OTR, but seems like an appropriate quote from Will Leitch of Deadspin fame (http://deadspin.com/5486157/):

The sleeping city desperate for a revival.

Cincinnati and St. Louis are more similar cities than is often noted. A baseball tradition unrivalled by any city other than New York or Boston. An urban sensibility that's both more cosmopolitan and more backwoods that anyone on either side of the extreme is willing to admit. A downtown area that's far lovelier than people realize and vastly underutilized. The impossibility of grabbing a bit to eat past 9:30 p.m. without having to find a casino. A simmering history of racial divisiveness. The color red. The difference is that, baseball-wise, Cincinnati has been dormant as St. Louis has been ascendant; the Reds are long, long overdue. I've spent many, many evenings in Cincinnati, and that town is rabid to care about its Reds again. If they get hot and are close in September, that place will froth into a frenzy. It will carry them.

yeah, there really is potential for a lot more development in downtown and OTR. It's a lovely setting.

XU 87 · 09-28-2010, 10:09 PM

Originally Posted by Kahns Krazy

At this point, arguing against the streetcar is pointless. It's coming.

You may have a point there.

_LH · 09-28-2010, 10:24 PM

Originally Posted by Kahns Krazy

To borrow your line, the only thing that swings both ways here is you. Wait, maybe that's not exactly how you put it. Anyway, my argument was that UC was a lock for the NCAA tournament. UC, in fact, went to the NCAA tournament. You were wrong, and there is proof.

Time proved me right that time, and time will prove me right again.

You were wrong then and wrong now. UC was not a lock at the time you claimed they were. Locks can lose out and make it. UC was not in that position. I also believe UC didn't make it in at all that year. Andy Kennedy's year. You lose.