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.

 

 

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.

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. 

 

To be fair, the paint stripe marking stops is just a secondary thing, there's always a sign too.  That said, I was very disappointed to see that they rolled out all new signs and didn't bother putting route maps or any other helpful information on them.  That was a big missed opportunity, and an expensive one to remedy now that it's already done. 

 

Also, just because a route hasn't changed much over the years doesn't mean it's a bad thing.  Within the city limits, it makes sense that many bus lines follow the old streetcar lines, because the neighborhoods grew up around them and that's where the most density and wide corridors are.  There are, I will admit, many seemingly logical routes that aren't served, and many suburban routes that take horrible zig-zagging paths that make little sense and add a lot of time to the trip. 

 

I agree the website is a joke, and the payment system is awful.  I don't know what to say about relationships with large employers etc., but I don't think it's fare to put all the blame on Metro.  UC especially seems to want such big discounts that it would really hurt Metro's bottom line.  I don't know al the details, but it's definitely a two-way street there. 

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.

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.

 

- 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.

 

 

I make websites, love transit, and love simple, informative, easy to read maps.  I'll see if I can't through together some website/route guide examples in some spare time over the next couple weeks. 

  "Any organization like SORTA must be paying very close attention to their fare system..."

 

  Unfortunately, fares are set by politicians, with all the associated issues. A private company can set fares according to the market; metro has its hands tied, so to say.

 

    If I were in charge of Metro, the first thing I would do is start tracking revenue by route. I asked a planner at Metro once if there were any routes that turned a profit, and he told me that they don't even know.

 

   

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.

 

  Pardon me if I'm wrong, but I thought that the City of Cincinnati has a controlling interest on the SORTA board, and that the City of Cincinnati has the ability to approve or reject fare changes proposed by Metro.

 

  I agree with you that the fare system, including everything from rates to zones to the method of collecting fares could use an overhaul.

 

 

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/

 

 

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.

 

Well, this answers the question of where the operating subsidy is going to come from.  From SORTA. 

 

While one can appreciate rationalizing the SORTA system to achieve efficiencies, would the savings be used to operate the streetcar or improve service (improve frequency and reduce fairs) for the bus riders?  If not then the situation would be of cutting service to bus riders (say, eliminating bus lines or stops, or increasing fares) and using these savings or fare hikes to subsidize the streetcar.

 

There is an equity issue here since bus riders (if Cincy is like other similar places) are usually transit dependent in some way or lower income and can’t afford a car.  And the streetcar is intended not necessarily as transit but also as a urban development tool for the center city. 

 

The initial streetcar service would be used by a lower income and transit dependent population since the line traverses poorer areas (i.e. OTR).  Serving this particular population is not the goal of this line.  The increased use to justify the streetcar would come from the new residents who would move into the infill housing and adaptive re-use projects and tenement conversions.  And these would be upper middle class professionals of various sorts, moving in as part of a gentrification of the neighborhoods around the streetcar.

 

The operating cost subsidy coming out-of-hide from SORTA would be used to indirectly subsidize a gentrification effort. Not only would bus service to transit-dependant populations be cut but the streetcar would be part of a strategy to relocate a lower income population.

 

This equity issue came up in Los Angeles, regarding the LA bus system being tapped in various ways to subsidize the rail transit system.  This led to the formation of the Bus Riders Union, a lawsuit, and a consent degree favoring the bus riders. 

 

From wiki:

 

The Bus Riders Union was able to achieve relatively quick success. Soon after formation and represented by Connie Rice and others from the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, they were able to obtain an injunction on the elimination of the monthly pass. With the MTA, they came to an agreement to a consent decree in 1996, which called for the creation of a semi-monthly and weekly pass, reducing prices for the monthly pass, holding fare increases to the level of inflation, and providing new services designed to connect minorities and the poor to job and medical sites. However, the most important part of the consent decree is a restriction on the number of standees on a bus. MTA could not allow more than a "load factor", or passengers on the bus divided by number of seats, of a certain amount.

 

I think Cincinnati could do better than this, and find a way to equitably fund operation expenses for the streetcar while not harming the bus system. 

 

^ 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.

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). 

 

This might end up being a political question.  I was speculating if there might be some way to ensure there is an increased subsidy for the streetcar without cutting into bus operating budget. 

 

Perhaps there would be some way to do TIF-like tax capture from the population moving to the streetcar line neighborhoods.  This way the population benefit could be an indirect source of the subsidy.

 

In re broading the ridership base, the streetcar would actually help on with this since people would start to become accustomed to using transit.  But increasing frequency and reliability would be the way to start marketing beyond the transit-dependent (based on my experience with transit elsewhere).

 

  There are a lot of routes that serve the corridor between U.C. and downtown, though they don't all take Vine Street. In theory, replacing portions of some bus routes with the streetcar could actually result in improved service at the same cost, since operating expenses for rail are lower than for an equivalent number of buses.

 

    Of course, changing routes at all is going to leave someone unhappy.

 

    Cincinnati Metro already suffers from the gentrification issue.

Tellingly, COAST has offered no suggestions to Metro as to how it could improve its service and maximize the return of tax dollars.  So far as I know none have ever attended a SORTA board meeting, aside from Stephen Louis, who was booted from the board several years ago but still advertises that he presently serves on the board. 

 

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).

 

This might end up being a political question. I was speculating if there might be some way to ensure there is an increased subsidy for the streetcar without cutting into bus operating budget.

 

 

Since this thread is about building "a Better Cincinnati Metro", it's worth mentioning that the entire funding scheme needs to be reworked if Metro is going to operate properly.  Right now, the city of Cincinnati provides nearly all of the funding for a service that extends far beyond city limits.  While I think that the budget would increase when the streetcar comes online, I'd have no major issue with city funds being diverted to cover a service that is 100% within the city limits.

 

  There are a lot of routes that serve the corridor between U.C. and downtown, though they don't all take Vine Street. In theory, replacing portions of some bus routes with the streetcar could actually result in improved service at the same cost, since operating expenses for rail are lower than for an equivalent number of buses.

 

 

 

I did some back of the envelop calculations on this and if you turn back the 20, 21, 64, 46 and 78 buses where they hit the streetcar and give the riders a free transfer, you save 4,855 minutes of operations a day from the buses (to put it in perspective the 41 and 51, 2/3rds of the system's crosstowns, use 4,827 minutes of operations a day). 

 

While there might be a longer trip time for the riders of these routes due to the transfer, there would be two pronounced benefits.  The first would be both transfer locations would take place at grocery store (Findlay and/or University Plaza Kroger) this would help with the food desert problem that many communities face and save the riders money on a transfer to shop for groceries.  The other benefit (realized for the 20, 21, and 64 riders) would be they could transfer in either direction (to Uptown or Downtown) for free and not have to go down to gov't square to do so.

 

Alternatively, you could turn back 1/2 of those routes and still save money on operations or make those routes closed door service after they pass the streetcar down to gov't square and save money on operations.

 

Basically you have every bus in the system act as a near in circulator and a long haul carrier right now, the streetcar can help by taking over the circulation functions and let the buses have greater capacity for long haul.

 

 

^also, even if you didn't use any of that freed up operating time for the streetcar, you could add two new crosstowns for the same operating time. 

I was thinking the bus lines all terminate downtown? 

 

What you could do is something like they did with the CTA L.  They used to run the Evanston Express straight into the Loop (maybe a stop at Belmont or thereabouts) for rush hour, but operated it as a local service while in Evanston, with the usual stops.  South of Howard, nearly non-stop to the Loop (and in reverse for the evening rush).

 

You could do a similar concept with busses & streetcar, but not limited to rush hour, for regular sevice.  Run the busses right into downtown with minimal stops for transfers in the streetcar service area.  They'd operate as quasi-expresses while in the streetcar zone, but then go to regular service beyond. 

 

I dont think you'd want to just terminate them at the streetcar end-of-the-line.  Then it would be almost repeating the issues with the old interurbans and the Cincy original Cincy streetcars, where there where these transfers at the interfaces of the service areas. 

 

The idea is that residents living in the center city wanting to go outside of the streetcar service area could use the streetcar to get to a bus transfer point to transfer to an outbound bus, but not create to a hardship for bus riders inbound into the center city from outlying areas, where they wouldnt be forced to transfer to the streetcar.

 

 

I agree with Brad that terminating some routes at an Uptown transfer point is a good idea (why didn't you pick 17,18,19? -- too busy?).  That's the sort of innovative thinking that SORTA needs to be doing right now in anticipation of what's to come.  Uptown is a major destination in its own right, and if a fraction of the people who work and go to school at UC could be enticed to take metro, the buses would be packed. 

 

Indeed a focus on the major uptown employers, and learning how transit needs to serve them better in all aspects, would be a good place to start.  The fact that Cincinnati Children's operates their own extensive private shuttle service throughout uptown is a testimony to SORTA's failure to do this.

 

Once the streetcar approach to Uptown is nailed down, it would be useful to analyze Brad's uptown terminal idea, possibly to include a visible transfer hub with the needed capacity (a very mini Uptown Govt square), such as at the new uptown commons redevelopment. 

 

Jeffrey, I know that this won't be great news to all riders of Metro who would have to transfer.  Let's not forget, however, that focusing on Metro's current riders is a failed proposition from the start.  The problem is that there aren't enough of them, and that's exactly because the system doesn't serve the larger community.  Those prospective riders need to be targeted in the conversation. 

 

The benefits of creating a very strong uptown/downtown circulator based on the streetcar is too important and logical to deny, and redesigning the bus system to aid this should yield efficiencies like Brad mentions.  There are ways to minimize the pain of a transfer.  One way would be to anticipate the increased ridership on the streetcar if riders were redirected at uptown, and plan accordingly.  Some of the options to explore include dedicated transit lanes; preferential stoplight timing; increased number of cars/frequency (requiring additional capital costs, I realize).

 

By the way, ALL transfers from any line to any other line headed in the same dominant direction, should be free for one hour from the time the rider departs.  And the Downtown focused zone system is an antiquity.

 

 

I agree with Brad that terminating some routes at an Uptown transfer point is a good idea (why didn't you pick 17,18,19? -- too busy?).

 

I assumed a Vine Street route for the streetcar to Uptown.  If you terminated 17, 18, 19 you would lose all service to W Clifton on the hill.  For 17, 18, 19, I think a better plan would be to have 18 and 19 run as mini expresses until knowlton's corner maybe having 4 stops from gov't square to knowlton's (Hughes, Clifton/MLK, Ludlow/Good Sam, Cincy State) and have the 17s pick up the distribution along the trunk of the line.

 

This article discusses some of the themes we've been hitting on- http://soapboxmedia.com/devnews/0727metrobussystem.aspx

 

Another thing I have been thinking about is where BRT could work and the answer I keep coming up with is there is virtually no where we have the street room to run it except maybe Central Parkway, Reading Road (probably the best candidate) and Columbia Parkway (which already kind of offers BRT as there are like 3 lights on the whole thing).

The 3/4 line (Montgomery Road) needs some TLC in any redo of the system. It is very efficient if you can get on the freeway flyers in the morning and afternoon into downtown - not so much if you go through town. It is nearly impossible to use public transit to get from the NE neighborhoods to UC and Uptown more generally.

 

In terms of connecting w/ the streetcar system, the 3/4 would benefit from any Gilbert extension or Madison Rd. extensions. It would have benefited greatly from the plans that used the Xavier area as a major distribution point.

 

Sections of the line could be redone for BRT, but not the entire line (most of Gilbert and parts of Montgomery through Evanston and Norwood away from the neighborhood business districts.

I agree with Brad that terminating some routes at an Uptown transfer point is a good idea (why didn't you pick 17,18,19? -- too busy?).

 

I assumed a Vine Street route for the streetcar to Uptown.  If you terminated 17, 18, 19 you would lose all service to W Clifton on the hill.  For 17, 18, 19, I think a better plan would be to have 18 and 19 run as mini expresses until knowlton's corner maybe having 4 stops from gov't square to knowlton's (Hughes, Clifton/MLK, Ludlow/Good Sam, Cincy State) and have the 17s pick up the distribution along the trunk of the line.

 

Or, you could still have a mini express with 18,19 but just between an uptown terminal at Uptown commons and knowlton corner.  I don't think the W. clifton coverage warrants more than a single line.

 

This article discusses some of the themes we've been hitting on- http://soapboxmedia.com/devnews/0727metrobussystem.aspx

 

Wanted to accent that article too.  Very encouraging as it appears engaging with Metro on some of these ideas would be well received, as they are already pointed in that direction.  Interested to hear what they are thinking regarding efficient boarding/unboarding, fare collection systems and structures, number of stops (there are twice as many as needed), route posting and signage.  The article stops short of talking of such things, but I assume all is being considered in such a major overhaul.

 

 

Another thing I have been thinking about is where BRT could work and the answer I keep coming up with is there is virtually no where we have the street room to run it except maybe Central Parkway, Reading Road (probably the best candidate) and Columbia Parkway (which already kind of offers BRT as there are like 3 lights on the whole thing).

 

Reading as an addition to Columbia would seem to be great.  By the way, just because Columbia operates as essentially BRT, doesn't mean it couldn't benefit greatly from being so designated.  Sounds like an easy candidate for a BRT rollout experiment.

 

There's definitely way too many closely-spaced bus stops, though I'd be curious to know how well patronized they all are.  Even though there are many stops that doesn't mean they're all used.  Of course if an area becomes more developed (such as Eastern Avenue/Riverside Drive) then those stops might get more use and it would hurt travel times. 

 

Also, BRT isn't about just skipping stops or driving on highways.  For it to really be useful it has to be isolated from traffic jams.  That means separate bus-only lanes, traffic signal preemption, and wide stop spacing with real shelters and fast loading platforms.  A corridor like Central Parkway seems like it might work, but the trouble is that there's not a whole lot there to serve once you get past Brighton.  You probably wouldn't need separate lanes either since it doesn't get that congested.  The same can't be said for Columbia Parkway.  Buses will get stuck in traffic (especially outbound) just like everything else, which negates its value and simply makes it another express suburban service. 

 

On streets like Reading, Gilbert/Montgomery, Madison, Clifton/Ludlow, Glenway, Hamilton, or Harrison the main impetus to speed is the large number of traffic signals and many stops.  While that could certainly be improved upon, the bottlenecks in those corridors are also the places where squeezing a bus-only lane through would be the most difficult.

 

It seems like the best way to approach BRT is to treat it like light rail but without the tracks or the wires.  The corridor itself is the important part, and once that's established then the operations can really be dialed in.  When the ridership warrants, rails can be installed to increase capacity.

To me it seems like BRT then upgrading to Light Rail is paying for infrastructure twice.  Sure there will be some investments that carry over, but I would think it would be better to identify good BRT corridors that will remain BRT (and reading seems like a good one).

It doesn't matter how many of the bus stops are patronized.  Since we have way too many, whether patronized or not, we can't spend money even on basic things like decent signs.  They should be fewer and uniquely identified, so that it looks like we actually have a bus system.  Stops should help people learn how to use the system effectively; more than a red stripe that tells people where to stand.

 

I'm aware that BRT is not only skipping stops.  The idea of an experiment is the most logical, precisely because it focuses our energies on what it will take to designate the corridor, provide the dedicated transit lanes, implement the stoplight signaling, and build the visible stops.  Then we have the chance to see what happens.  I realize that taking a lane out of service would sound ridiculous to most people.  I'm sure it did in New York and other places that did it before them.  That's because we haven't had the benefits fully explained to us, including what the riders experience will be.

 

Maybe we don't have the dense corridors that would make BRT work?  It would have to offer significant advantages to cars in order to make sense.  That also means that you'll be seeming to screw over a lot of people in their cars by taking away yet another lane.  I guess it's hard to convince people that it can work, when we have no experience with trusting mass transit.

I’m not a big fan of BRT, the investment in separate lanes and infrastructure would be better spent on rail elsewhere.  What Metro needs is much simpler, 1/2 as many stops, much larger signs at the 1/2 that stay, and a map at every stop.  They also need a little redesign, including a better map and a better website. 

 

1/2 as many stops might not even be the answer, it might need to be 1/3 or 1/4.  Within the one block of UC’s campus on Clifton Ave. there are 5 or 6 stops.  There something like 150 feet apart.  It’s no wonder the only signs they can afford are 6x8” or whatever tiny size they are...

Yeah the signs at each stop would help immensely.  These signs need to show both the route in the vicinity of the stop and how the line travels through downtown and the UC area if applicable.  In Columbus they have the current bus schedule in the shelters.  Why Cincinnati can't do that I don't know. 

 

The most confusing bus situation is when you're headed outbound and the line splits.  For example there are four different #17's.  There needs to be a sign at the stops showing people exactly where each #17 goes and exactly how it will be lettered on the bus's sign board.  Or better yet, give them each a different godamn designation, like 17A, 17B, 17C, etc.  They'll tell you they do that with the different destinations but those don't mean anything to someone riding for the first time. 

 

 

 

^ I completely agree on your practical list.  They also need a new fare structure and a modern means for fare collection that is fast, efficient, and rewards frequent users.

^They are working on stored value cards but need federal money to make the upgrade.  Many everything you are suggesting they are working on, but they need some money to make it happen.

The stored value cards are much more useful from an accounting perspective because they can gather more accurate ridership pattern data, at the very least where people are getting on and where they transfer. They do not, however, know where they get off.  Nevertheless it is a significant improvement over cash or tokens.   

 

The big, big advantage of the Washington Metro's system whereby riders scan stored value cards on the way in and the way out is they can see exactly how riders are using the system.  With buses this is not possible due to the rear door or with honor system streetcar/light rail. 

 

 

 

 

Actually, the system I used when I lived in Seoul required  you to present the card on entry and exit.  It stored exit information on the card somehow, so that a transfer was automatically valid for the next 30 minutes after exit.

 

^They are working on stored value cards but need federal money to make the upgrade. Many everything you are suggesting they are working on, but they need some money to make it happen.

 

I am skeptical.  They just spent money on how many hundreds of little signs that say, unhelpfully, "bus stop".  I also enjoy the contrast between the entire grassroots streetcar effort, and all of this that they are "working on", which precious few seem to know about.  They are our transit agency.  We fund them.  They need to spell out what they intend to do in an inclusive manner, and sell it to us.

The easiest answer would be a card that includes RFID - I'd probably still require scanning of some sort entering the bus/streetcar (to keep order and avoid a culture of fair skipping), but the RFID would signal when someone leaves the transit option.

 

Cincinnati generally lacks duplicate avenues along its corridors which makes any investment in BRT or light rail more substantial than places that are basically a grid.

Yeah the signs at each stop would help immensely.  These signs need to show both the route in the vicinity of the stop and how the line travels through downtown and the UC area if applicable.  In Columbus they have the current bus schedule in the shelters.  Why Cincinnati can't do that I don't know. 

 

 

COTA only has a few of these shelters with schedules, but if you do happen upon one they are very helpful. Does Metro really have none?

The easiest answer would be a card that includes RFID - I'd probably still require scanning of some sort entering the bus/streetcar (to keep order and avoid a culture of fair skipping), but the RFID would signal when someone leaves the transit option.

 

Cincinnati generally lacks duplicate avenues along its corridors which makes any investment in BRT or light rail more substantial than places that are basically a grid.

 

Eastern Avenue and Columbia Parkway?

 

Yeah the signs at each stop would help immensely. These signs need to show both the route in the vicinity of the stop and how the line travels through downtown and the UC area if applicable. In Columbus they have the current bus schedule in the shelters. Why Cincinnati can't do that I don't know.

 

 

COTA only has a few of these shelters with schedules, but if you do happen upon one they are very helpful. Does Metro really have none?

 

He speaketh the truth.

 

I was amazed when Government square opened (the major downtown transit hub).  As I recall it took them about a year after opening to display a system map.

 

This signage is critical but I imagine expensive.  Again, fewer bus stops but more effective ones.

 

I'm enthusiastic about the directions Metro is moving in, but I think they need the help of an involved citizenry.  They give off too many signs of an inefficient bureaucracy. 

Eastern and Columbia Parkway is probably the main exception - though that corridor poses another common problem in transit in Cincy - those stretches that allow for buses/transit to cover a lot of distance quickly are rarely moving through high density neighborhoods (see discussion about the Uptown streetcar connector), but along corridors where BRT/light rail/heavy rail could really do great things you are either completely disrupting already narrow streets or looking for leftover rail right of way (which generally avoid neighborhood business districts - because most NBD's in Cincinnati were developed along streetcar corridors when the streetcars were the dominant form of transit between neighborhoods and downtown.

I think the #4 should probably be rerouted from Reading onto Burnett between MLK and Erkenbrecher.  As-is I'd bet an awful lot of people are discouraged from using the bus who work at the hospitals because of the walk from Reading, which is about a quarter-mile but out of sight of Reading so seems much longer. 

Cincinnati web designer creates ‘Mobilizing Metro’ iPhone app

http://www.urbancincy.com/2010/07/mobilizing-metro/

 

Aaron Renn recently wrote that It’s Time for America to Get On the Bus. He argues that cities should look at improving the quality of their bus service to eliminate the negative perception and attract more riders. He states that while there’s a “legitimate case for rail” in many cities (including Cincinnati), adding high-quality bus service to the plan can expand the reach of the transit network at a lower cost.

 

Riders of Cincinnati Metro buses would agree with Renn’s ideas. Metro is often criticized for lacking many of the “amenities” which are now common on other cities’ buses. For example, permanent shelters displaying clear route maps and real-time bus arrival information would make riding an unfamiliar route much easier. Re-loadable fare cards would eliminate the hassle of carrying exact change. Integration with Google Transit would make trip planning easier.

 

Fortunately, Metro is making progress on some fronts. A new communication system is in the works which will provide riders with real-time bus locations on their smart phones. New articulated buses are providing a much-needed increase in capacity for heavily-traveled routes. Improvements like these are being made as allowed by Metro’s tight budget and other grant sources.  But ideas for innovation at Metro are also coming from outside the organization.

 

Web designer Ian Monk came up with the idea for an iPhone app called Mobilizing Metro that makes it easier to find routes and nearby destinations.  The app would be able to pinpoint your current location and display what routes pass nearby.

 

Monk explains, “I distinctly remember a friend of mine, who lives right along the 17/18/19 route, thinking that the buses didn’t run on Sunday because he didn’t know when they came or where they went.”

 

In order to differentiate the app from similar ones, Monk decided to integrate several types of destinations into the interface.  “It can also filter them so that only destinations within a couple blocks of a chosen bus line show up,” he said.  That makes it easy to find restaurants, bars, post offices, or parks that are completely accessible by public transit, making car-free living much easier.

 

Monk developed a Flash-based version of the app while he was a Digital Design student at UC.  He recently entered his app into the Cincinnati Innovates competition with hopes to win funding to continue development.  If he receives one of the prizes, which range from $1,000 to $25,000, he hopes to enlist the help of another developer to create iPhone and Android versions of the app.

 

You can vote for the Mobilizing Metro app at Cincinnati Innovates to help Monk win one of the awards.

 

With advances like a mobile app, convenient fare cards, and improvements to stops, Metro will continue to attract more riders that have other transit options.  Since Metro will also operate the Cincinnati Streetcar, they have the opportunity to integrate buses and the streetcar into a seamless system.  And although we should continue to get on board with an expanded rail system, we should also make the most of the Metro system we currently have and encourage more Cincinnatians to get on the bus.

 

(See the article on UrbanCincy for photos and a link to vote for this idea on Cincinnati Innovates.)

Maybe this will help push Metro in a more positive direction?

Metro board: Fired CEO misled us

Shazor raised doubts about her credibility, performance

 

By Barry M. Horstman • [email protected]  • August 23, 2010

 

Credibility questions and a poor performance - marked by rising bus fares, cuts in service and plummeting ridership - are behind Metro CEO Marilyn Shazor's surprising dismissal last week, current and former board members said Monday.

 

As the Southwest Ohio Regional Transit Authority prepares for a special meeting Tuesday where Shazor's removal is to be discussed behind closed doors - board members said a recent episode in which she purportedly misled them sealed her dismissal.

 

 

Commenter claims the "trolley" was voted down by 75% but is being built anyway.