jim uber

^ Obviously the streetcar, at least phase I, and the bus system are on totally different scales. I'm not sure exactly how the operating subsidy for the streetcar will be handled (in particular, whether the SORTA subsidy will have to be increased or, as you assume, will stay level and have to now serve the streetcar line as well). However, since the current SORTA city subsidy is on the order of $30M, while it seems the operating deficit for the phase I streetcar is on the order of $1M, it would seem that even in the worst case the bus system wouldn't suffer terribly. I think the main issues with the Metro bus service is lack of initiative and innovation. The Metro seems satisfied to run a bus system for poor people who just take the service offered cause they don't have any other transit options. While that's a commitment that obviously must be made, Metro should set its sights on ridership across the economic spectrum.

You are so right about everything, except the last. The only pizza in Cincinnati I would even try to brag about is Pomodori's, cause its real wood fired pizza.

Yes, that's what I'm talking about. And, more important, in my opinion, those issues are absolutely critical. For some ideas about what I'm talking about, expressed much better than I could ever do, see the human transit article http://www.humantransit.org/2010/07/paris-converging-vehicles.html and perhaps especially the recent New York Magazine piece "Subway on the street" about some things they are trying to do with their bus system (not that New York is the world leader here, but they are relatively close, and it may be good for some of us to visit there to see firsthand their experiments). That article is here: http://nymag.com/print/?/news/features/67027/

Eighth, my comment was "fare system/structure". Metro is not powerless to set their rates and how they are structured, how fares are collected, whether or not to use a zone system, etc. These are known critical issues in any mass transit system.

If you have got an old building especially, I do not think you should be cleaning your brick with anything close to something that would eat paint. If it's painted, re-paint it. If it's not, enjoy the patina, perhaps after a light brushing with very mild solutions and a soft brush.

A link to the very interesting human traffic blog on "converging vehicles" http://www.humantransit.org/2010/07/paris-converging-vehicles.html Making buses that have the same (or as nearly the same as possible) attributes as streetcars is such a logical idea. METRO can not be asking themselves "why don't more people use our service?" They should.

I found it interesting that the cost for a monthly fare card is exactly the same as if I paid the cash fare for 5 round trips / week. Very strange incentive system. Any organization like SORTA must be paying very close attention to their fare system/structure, if they are paying attention to anything at all. Those decisions say a lot to me about their internal decision making, and how they view their customers.

FYI, unfortunately the August SORTA board meeting has been cancelled. The next regular meeting is on September 21, 9:30 a.m. and are held in the Mt. Adams Board Room, the Gwynne Building, 602 Main Street, Suite 1200, Cincinnati, Ohio (downtown). Also, the Planning & Development Committee meeting will be held on the second Tuesday of each month at 9 a.m. and the Operations & Maintenance Committee meeting will be held at 8:30 a.m. immediately preceding the board meeting.

^^Ram, good points; I (re)posted a list of my own at "A Better Cincinnati Metro"

A few examples of how I think that SORTA could/should improve, to add to the (probably more important) notion of non-differentiated buses and rail transit: - They have one of the worst web sites I've seen for a major city transit agency. In 2010 this is NOT a small deal, and the fact that they haven't recognized the need to put resources into this area makes me think they are disconnected from reality. The fact that the board hasn't taken them to task for this makes me question their commitment and judgement. Go to sorta.com right now, and find the system map. When you get too frustrated and want the answer, let me know. Their trip planner is kludgy and finicky and slow. - Sorta thinks that this is 1940 and a bus station is a pole with a red stripe on it. Visitors always laugh when I tell them this, and think I am kidding. In well run places where working people rely on the bus system, bus stations should have signs saying which buses stop there, and they should list the scheduled times and show a map. They should use signage that is prominent and that can be noticed from 100m away. Again this is not a small deal. It would be better to have fewer bus stops that are more informative and well marked. - Metro requires coins or bills or a monthly fare pass. I need to request and pay additional for a "transfer" across "zones" that few people understand. I can not buy an unlimited day pass or 2 day pass or a week pass. All of this can and should be made easier and more transparent. I should have a card that I can put money on and fares should be automatically deducted, just as one example. Valid transfers should be free and automatically determined, based on end to end distance and not a fixed geographic zone. - They seem to reject potentially productive relationships with large employers, such as UC, Children's, P&G, etc. It took them forever just to come up with a fare card for UC students and staff. My understanding is that negotiating with them on these agreements is very difficult. Before the fare card you had to show your UC ID. The fact that they ultimately found out they were losing revenue shouldn't have been a surprise. - They do not embrace technology or its potential. Finding out via a text or web site where your bus is should be simple at this point. - As already mentioned, their routes are antiques. I wonder how their consultants analyze data to understand the potential demand for routes that they might design. They simply don't seem proactive in the least. In Seoul, for example, the mayor of that city declared that all of the routes would be optimized to be better coordinated, to reflect changing demographics, and to work with the extensive subway system. People complained but it was done. Metro seems to have no stomach for systemic review and change.

^^ done. Didn't know I could do that.

While I am a very enthusiastic supporter of the streetcar, for the entire duration of the campaign (that others have fought), I've regretted seeing the concept of efficient mass transit dragged down into inefficient mudslinging: young versus old; urban versus suburban; wealthy versus poor; rail versus bus. I found this recent post by the urbanophile (http://www.urbanophile.com/2010/07/18/its-time-for-america-to-get-on-the-bus/) really interesting. It borrows from others to talk about *how* bus transit can be very different from how it is now, and can complement other transit like the streetcar. I think the arguments are persuasive, and parts of the implementation seem inexpensive and based on common sense. Let's face it, from an operating subsidy perspective alone, SORTA and the buses are the 1000 pound gorilla in the room, and will be for some time. Plus they are going to operate the streetcar. Maybe it is time that some of us (I'm willing to give it a shot, to the extent my "talents" are adaptable) start spending some time discussing how to make the bus system much better, and much more consistent with the planned streetcar, so that those modes of transit become undifferentiated. Maybe it's time to use the luxury of this first streetcar win to realize that we've been goaded into a war with buses by the opposition, who don't really love buses as much as they hate the city. Let's think about ways to undermine their shaky foundation by expanding the truth telling about transit. Let's figure out ways to help SORTA do their job better, so that the bus system works with the streetcar when phase I is complete. Maybe its time to start taking trips to cities that successfully integrate a non-differentiated bus and rail network, instead of continuing trips to Portland? I know that SORTA board meetings are the third Tuesday of each month, 9:30 AM. That's today. I've asked to be put on the email list (you can too: [email protected]), but of course that didn't seem to work for todays meeting, so I had to ask again. I'll be attending next month's meeting and heading to Coffee Emporium afterward. If there's interest, maybe we can have some discussion here about the merits of engaging SORTA in productive ways, and what those might be, and follow up after the board meeting.

While I am a very enthusiastic supporter of the streetcar, for the entire duration of the campaign (that others have fought), I've regretted seeing the concept of efficient mass transit dragged down into inefficient mudslinging: young versus old; urban versus suburban; wealthy versus poor; rail versus bus. I found this recent post by the urbanophile (http://www.urbanophile.com/2010/07/18/its-time-for-america-to-get-on-the-bus/) really interesting. It borrows from others to talk about *how* bus transit can be very different from how it is now, and can complement other transit like the streetcar. I think the arguments are persuasive, and parts of the implementation seem inexpensive and based on common sense. Let's face it, from an operating subsidy perspective alone, SORTA and the buses are the 1000 pound gorilla in the room, and will be for some time. Plus they are going to operate the streetcar. Maybe it is time that some of us (I'm willing to give it a shot, to the extent my "talents" are adaptable) start spending some time discussing how to make the bus system much better, and much more consistent with the planned streetcar, so that those modes of transit become undifferentiated. Maybe it's time to use the luxury of this first streetcar win to realize that we've been goaded into a war with buses by the opposition, who don't really love buses as much as they hate the city. Let's think about ways to undermine their shaky foundation by expanding the truth telling about transit. Let's figure out ways to help SORTA do their job better, so that the bus system works with the streetcar when phase I is complete. Maybe its time to start taking trips to cities that successfully integrate a non-differentiated bus and rail network, instead of continuing trips to Portland? I know that SORTA board meetings are the third Tuesday of each month, 9:30 AM. That's today. I've asked to be put on the email list (you can too: [email protected]), but of course that didn't seem to work for todays meeting, so I had to ask again.

^^ Salient points yes, and the third is the most important in my opinion. It argues that the streetcar will repopulate and reinvigorate OTR as a neighborhood. Those people do need to come from somewhere. When you have a city like Cincinnati, which has been on the downslide for some time, it is more natural for people to assume that any growth must come at our own expense, in some sense. Personally, I think that one effect of the streetcar will be that, over time, we'll keep more of our own young population after college. They'll choose to live in OTR and, hopefully in time, raise families there.

By 2020 OTR will have 10,000 new residents (I really believe that). Most will be conceived on the streetcar.

Jeez, Eighth, give me something to disagree on! I have to say, emphatically, that you are misrepresenting my statement about population effects, and I'm willing to accept the blame for that. I don't think the streetcar will attract new residents, anymore than I think I can ride a bike without a chain. But there is something that happens when you put a frame, wheels, handlebars, seat, and chain together. Why is it so difficult to either explain or think about the city and its infrastructure as a complex system of moving interacting parts? Has evolution left us so inept at developing intuition about those sorts of systems, that we have to devolve everything into its components? Is a city a streetcar, a street, a car, a water line, a sewer, a building, a job, a store, a person, or all of those things together? The answer is obvious; maybe we just like to argue, and win.

I'm not so sure about that. While it's true there would be no population gain, there would likely be an economic gain for Cincinnati were this to happen. The reason is, much of the Westwood resident's spending probably takes place outside the city limits, whereas a city resident, especially one content to drive little or not at all, will buy goods locally and focus his or her spending power within the city, probably within a half mile of the streetcar line. These people will also buy more services from vendors inside the city limits. My wife and I are perfect examples. What we don't buy on eBay, we buy from vendors in Downtown and OTR almost exclusively. So I think the gravitational pull of Cincinnati residents back to the center, even if it doesn't result in population growth, probably results in net new economic activity. Plus, consider what happens to the old house in Westwood. With higher fuel prices, it might well be reoccupied by someone who would might have otherwise lived in Green Township, say. This discussion is at the heart of the streetcar debate. The streetcar's great, but it is more fundamentally part of a plan to densify the city and capture more of the spending of people who hold well-paying jobs in Downtown and Uptown. Sure, we get their taxes now. But we need their spending too. And, perhaps more importantly, their civic engagement. Indeed, great points. I'd just reemphasize John's point that these issues are the center of debate, and more than that, issues like the operating expenses are a ruse drummed up by detractors. Also, as a slight addition to John's points, everything he mentions will also entice a greater variety of retail opportunities in the core, further reducing my need to venture out for purchases (for example, until recently, I had to venture out with my car to get to a pet store or a vet).

I agree that you should not discount migration from neighboring states, and even tourism. Also, migration of kids tired of the distant suburbs is fine with me as well. All projections, like the ones you cited, are based on history, and that's why really successful people don't pay too much attention to them, because they're the ones writing history. The streetcar is, if nothing else, a symbol of history breaking for Cincinnati, at least for many people. It signifies a measure of optimism that should not be discounted.

^ And, property tax revenues are TINY compared to the benefits of a fully revitalized OTR, downtown, and uptown. Benefits that include jobs and associated income taxes, sales taxes, lower crime rates, and lower greenhouse emissions. The streetcar doesn't alone account for those of course, but folks like DanB just steadily refuse to admit that they even exist. If they are right, the streetcar would be bad policy, but fortunately they'll be proven wrong. By the way, I've always been curious in the context of these kinds of questions, just how are we supposed to regard the $30M+ annual Metro city subsidy? If a $1.5M operating shortfall is bad, I guess Metro should have been scrapped long ago.

^ Yeah, it's hard to know a mid-sized city by just visiting, without someone to show you the ropes. For example if you were anywhere near Fountain square on most any summer Thursday evening (the center of downtown), you'd have run into a big crowd for salsa night. That said, last week in particular seemed strangely calm down here. Maybe it was the post-holiday weekend drying out.

But it's not a business. Transit is a public service that was once run by private enterprise. So were U.S. roads during the Laissez Faire era. But their lack of availability in rural areas and the abuse of trusts (conglomerates) prompted a public takeover of each starting 100 years ago. Are you ready to defend the comprehensive route planning process conducted by Metro and their consultants? I'd be interested if you were, cause I'd then have more faith in their efforts. What I've seen in the past, admittedly through attending presentations, and not from the "inside", gives the strong impression that they don't have a good handle on why people use or don't use their product, and how the demand for *potential* routes is structured. Also, for a public service agency, they seem to do a terrible job of interacting with their public in useful ways.

This thread concerning routes and Metro makes me think that a very interesting and special part about the streetcar is the public exposure and scrutiny that the route configuration receives. What a completely different picture compared to the bus routes we have, and a refreshing difference, even if people with strong opinions disagree about the final configuration. I guess this is another reason why the "fixed route" of the rail lines makes a difference in comparison to the mutable routes of busses; in this case during its planning.

Amen. And I'd also add, you get dumb and inconvenient fare structures; a monthly pass is $70 which... you guessed it... turns out to be exactly equivalent to 5 round trips/week. With the added restriction of starting on the first of each month. You expected to be rewarded for being a daily work commuter? Nope, we'd rather have empty busses. As one comparison, the Metra trains to south Chicago offer the following monthly, 10-ride, and single zone fares: $58.05, $18.30, $2.25. As expected, you are enticed to, not repelled from, purchasing volume tickets. This seeming lack of insight is an example of what makes me nervous about Metro running the streetcar.

I don't know what to say to this. Yes, there have been good ideas to come from cities, but there have also been good ideas to come from suburbs and rural areas, too. Ideas come from people, not from places. I disagree. They mostly come from people interacting in useful ways in space. Interactions in suburbs are designed to be less frequent and have ended up also being less useful. That is self-evident to anyone who has lived in both. Business *development* is the engine of our economy, and it happens in cities. Poaching established businesses with established capital and ideas and carting them to the suburbs because it is cheaper and has free parking is not business development. It is poaching. "Beloved?" Now you're being clueless and illiterate in addition to arrogant and condescending. I live an urban lifestyle and love it, and I've made no secret of that on this thread, other threads, or in real life when talking with my suburbanite coworkers. I'm just not willing to share in the anti-suburb hate that permeates this site and poisons any attempts to develop more constructive ties between cities on suburbs based on mutual interest rather than on zero-sum resource competition. I don't have to know you or understand anything about your lifestyle to comment the way I did on your clear and persistent defense of the migration of city population to surrounding suburbs. Why? They haven't left the area. Those people and businesses are moving to areas where they believe they'll be happier, healthier, and wealthier. If the city cannot offer that to them, then it cannot fault them for their choice. And, in case you haven't been following any of the positive news on this site, there have been cases of businesses moving back into urban cores as well. There *is* a positive case to be made for urban living, which I make at every opportunity. That said, I stand by what I said earlier: Until the cities can offer size, safety, and schools, they will continue to hemorrhage families to the suburbs, and businesses will (and have already begun to) follow the residents. "Why? They haven't left the area." Do you want to retract that one? Look, there are so many problems that underlie the issues with schools and crime etc. that you mention. But the fact is that many of our cities have been depopulated in the span of three generations. Do you actually think the cities themselves caused all of this, and must now just "fix their product"?

Gramarye, of course we all know that there are increased costs associated with density. I hope that you are not actually trying to deny that cities are the economic engines of our economy, where our best ideas are born. Simply put, if that were not true, then we wouldn't have cities. Successful cities are always associated with the most prosperous economies and with growth. Ohio is not growing, and our cities need help. Your beloved suburbs will die with us, despite your pleas that you are not poaching or taking something that you do not own. If things weren't changing, pretty soon you'd have nothing left to poach; then where will your growth come from? Where will your people come from to fill your houses and free parking lots? Seriously, you think masses of people are migrating from out of the state to a suburb of Cincinnati or Cleveland? You may not call it poaching when population and resources flow from Cities to adjacent suburbs, but you should put aside cultural differences and call it a problem.