So what does this mean for OTR and parking in laymen terms...

It means that no residential parking program has been approved yet for OTR. The program that council approved and the mayor vetoed today would have sold passes for $109/year. The Business Courier is reporting that Cranley would like to sell the passes for $1,500/year (which is more than what it costs to park in most garages in the neighborhood). However, without council passing a plan that gives the mayor and/or city manager the authority to set the rate, I don't think Cranley's proposal can be put into place.

It means a whole lot of people are going to start being dramatic and residents won't have a parking plan for awhile until people come to their senses and act like adults.

Cranley's resistance to this plan doesn't make sense from a policy standpoint... but really even less so from a political standpoint.

 

Because here's the thing. This is the first veto that a Cincinnati mayor has used in 13 YEARS. All because he wants to introduce a residential parking plan, on a whim, that would be the most expensive parking plan in the country. Does he really expect to find allies for that? No matter what way you slice and dice it (blame the streetcar, blame crime, blame Obama, whatever), there is no reason for Cincinnati to have the most expensive residential parking plan in the country. That's just pure nonsense. No one from any voting base is going to back that. What on earth does he expect to win here?

It's actually a brilliant political move.  Cranley is hijacking the negative anti-black/welfare queen sentiment directed toward OTR for the past 30-40 years and throwing it on the privileged class that has taken their place.  He's recasting the two minutes of hate.   

Hopefully it means the whole idea of residential permits goes away. I have parked a car on the street everywhere I’ve ever lived – OTR, CUF, and New York City, and never felt the need for on-street permits.

 

Of course, this also means the city needs to stop aggressively expanding parking meter locations and hours.

 

Also, the $1500 a year is a complete joke. It's almost 3 times what I pay to park in a lot downtown.

 

Here's Cranley's rationale on his veto: http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/mayor/news/mayor-cranley-vetoes-residential-parking-plan-for-over-the-rhine/

 

 

He states pretty clearly that he's opposed to any neighborhood having a residential parking permit program:

 

Now there are even more reasons to oppose this OTR residential parking plan— Downtown residents are demanding the same treatment. Our budget — which includes paying for police and firefighters -- depends on revenue from parking meters. Allowing a residential parking plan in Downtown would open up new deficits in our budget that we have worked so hard to balance.

 

Will Hyde Park Square be next? Clifton’s Gaslight District? Northside? Mount Lookout Square?

 

There is no fairness in saying “yes” to OTR but “no” to downtown or other neighborhoods.

 

For these reasons, I believe it is my duty to veto this legislation.

So, if he is consistent with that logic, will he work to repeal residential parking permits that are already in effect in other neighborhoods like Pendleton?

Cranley will never miss an opportunity to take a few digs at OTR:

 

If metered, these parking spots have great value to the taxpayer.  They are valuable because the city has and is investing nearly $50 Million into OTR during the past decade, with millions of dollars more planned.  Tax abatements in OTR have exceeded $100 million. And, of course, the taxpayers are building and operating the streetcar.

 

[...]

 

And I take particular pride in knowing that low-wage workers -- bartenders, waiters, waitresses and others -- will have just as much access to these free spots as the new resident living in a $600,000 tax-abated condo.

There are $600,000 condos in OTR?!

$1500/yr for a guaranteed spot is pretty typical for surface lots downtown but kind of ridiculous unless you can lock down a space right by your residence. However, $108/yr for a guaranteed spot is a give-away to the 450 lucky souls who are first in line to get a pass.

 

With 6,000 residents and only 400-450 free spots, I really don't know how you design a reasonable and fair plan. Maybe something block-specific?

It was close to block-specific when I lived in Cambridge, MA about fifteen years ago.  If I remember correctly the zones were usually 2 or 3 streets wide and then about five blocks long.  They had ladies who walked around chalking tires all day every day.  You had to move your car every weekday even if you had a permit.  That's how they limited car ownership to actual commuters.  Having a car that you didn't drive to work was almost as much responsibility as having a dog. 

It was close to block-specific when I lived in Cambridge, MA about fifteen years ago.  If I remember correctly the zones were usually 2 or 3 streets wide and then about five blocks long.  They had ladies who walked around chalking tires all day every day.  You had to move your car every weekday even if you had a permit.  That's how they limited car ownership to actual commuters.  Having a car that you didn't drive to work was almost as much responsibility as having a dog. 

 

NYC has "alternate side parking" that is supposedly for street cleaning. The real purpose is to discourage people having cars they don't use every day, and to generate revenue via tickets. For 2 hours in the middle of the day every Tuesday and Thursday you can't park on one side, and every Monday and Wednesday you can't park on the other. If you don't need your car on a weekday, you still have to drive around and find a spot on the correct side of the street. At the designated time, without fail, a van full of meter maids will show up in each neighborhood and ticket every car they can get their hands on.

 

But to get back on topic, I don't think OTR has nearly the parking difficulties that Cambridge and NYC have. I don't even think OTR is the most difficult neighborhood in Cincinnati to find parking in - CUF probably is.

There are $600,000 condos in OTR?!

 

I think the most expensive condo I saw listed was for 750,000. It ain't cheap living in OTR.

CUF is probably #2 after Mt. Adams, although a lot of Mt. Adams homes have been rebuilt with garages.  Oddly most of the garages in CUF on streets like Chickasaw and Stratford are too narrow for modern cars and instead their roofs are used for keg parties. 

 

If OTR were to truly boom all the way up to McMicken and E. Clifton, it would mean lots of cars would start parking on Mulberry and W. Clifton, areas that now enjoy endless free parking. 

Hopefully it means the whole idea of residential permits goes away. I have parked a car on the street everywhere I’ve ever lived – OTR, CUF, and New York City, and never felt the need for on-street permits.

 

Of course, this also means the city needs to stop aggressively expanding parking meter locations and hours.

 

Also, the $1500 a year is a complete joke. It's almost 3 times what I pay to park in a lot downtown.

 

 

In the CBD, we pay $155/mo - $1860/yr for a surface parking lot space that isn't guaranteed.

The $108 plan wouldn't bother me, and the status quo also does not bother me.  A $1,500 on-street permit would be absolutely ridiculous and I do not believe there would be any demand for it.

 

One thing I take issue with in the veto logic...

 

If you were trying to recoup the investment into OTR put up by the taxpayers of the other 51 neighborhoods over the past decade, (a statement that in itself has its own issues,) wouldn't you want a residential permit in place so that OTR visitors would be forced into city meters or 3CDC garages instead of finding a free space?  That way you could collect money from the significant portion of the visitors that come from outside the city limits or even outside Hamilton County. As it is, you're saying it's better to leave money on the table because there's a chance a city resident from outside the neighborhood *might* be able to snag a free spot on a Saturday night. 

 

But like I said, I'm fine with the status quo.  Right now in the NWcorner of OTR South of Liberty, the unmetered spots are off the beaten path enough that true tourists don't want to park there, but they are available for residents, people visting residents, and people working in the neighborhood.  Maybe after another year or so of development I will see a need for a residential permit program like this but not so much now. 

 

There are $600,000 condos in OTR?!

 

I think the most expensive condo I saw listed was for 750,000. It ain't cheap living in OTR.

 

Highest I've seen is a house for $595,000. Never seen a condo over $350,000

The highest sale in OTR was in the American Building and it was for well over a million. But after that the most expensive sales have been around 600k for large single family homes. Ryan Messer's home is for sale for 900k and another a few over for 700k. But those haven't sold yet obviously.

1420 Race is for sale for $650k, it's a 3000 sq. ft. single family home that's part of Westfalen condo association.

Dang he grew a beard? This first year in office must be getting to him.

Dang he grew a beard

 

 

Plenty of time for that on St. Helena. 

 

Hopefully it means the whole idea of residential permits goes away. I have parked a car on the street everywhere I’ve ever lived – OTR, CUF, and New York City, and never felt the need for on-street permits.

 

Of course, this also means the city needs to stop aggressively expanding parking meter locations and hours.

 

Also, the $1500 a year is a complete joke. It's almost 3 times what I pay to park in a lot downtown.

 

 

In the CBD, we pay $155/mo - $1860/yr for a surface parking lot space that isn't guaranteed.

 

I pay $45 a month for the lot adjacent Paul Brown Stadium. I didn't realize how huge the disparity was just a few blocks away from the periphery.

It's $200/month in the Great American Tower, I believe. 

This is short notice, but you can email any questions about Cranley's veto of the OTR permit plan to the Enquirer by 1:00 and they might just ask them to Cranley at 1:30:

 

Here’s a link to the info: http://www.cincinnati.com/story/opinion/editorials/2015/05/07/cincinnati-mayor-john-cranley-parking-otr/70939386/

 

This is short notice, but you can email any questions about Cranley's veto of the OTR permit plan to the Enquirer by 1:00 and they might just ask them to Cranley at 1:30:

 

Here’s a link to the info: http://www.cincinnati.com/story/opinion/editorials/2015/05/07/cincinnati-mayor-john-cranley-parking-otr/70939386/

 

Sound isn't working for me. Anyone else?

This is short notice, but you can email any questions about Cranley's veto of the OTR permit plan to the Enquirer by 1:00 and they might just ask them to Cranley at 1:30:

 

Here’s a link to the info: http://www.cincinnati.com/story/opinion/editorials/2015/05/07/cincinnati-mayor-john-cranley-parking-otr/70939386/

 

Sound isn't working for me. Anyone else?

 

Nope, I get videio but no audio. I tried a few different browsers before checking Twitter:

 

"We are unable to provide the live video of the mayor’s talk with our editorial board. Follow @cweiser for updates."

 

So now Cranley is saying to the Enquirer that he'd like to get rid of the other two existing residential permit zones in the city, but also on the other hand that it might be a good idea to auction off parking spaces in OTR to the highest bidder? Where is this coming from?

 

Most all large cities with historic, dense, mixed-use neighborhoods have some form of parking permits for residents. And they price them reasonably. Columbus has over 30 different zones (including popular neighborhoods like the Short North, German Village, etc - comparable to OTR), and the cost is 25 bucks a year. Aside from people who can't read signs getting towed/ticketed, they're completely non-controversial.

 

It seems like the mayor is just intent on adding headaches and making it undesirable to live in these neighborhoods. Also, it would seem to discourage dense development which doesn't have abundant off-street parking. Either gouging residents with exorbitant rates to park on public streets, or opposing permits across the board forcing people to compete in a free-for-all with employees and visitors just to park in their own neighborhood are both terrible choices IMO, but they seem like the only two extremes Cranley supports. Ugh.

Even Covington and Newport have on street parking permits, and the Cincinnati Municipal Code has an entire chapter dedicated to the process of creating on street permit parking zones in residential areas. This is just another example of something completely mundane and normal for most cities. Cranley is catering to his voter base, many of whom haven’t been outside of Cincinnati much, if at all during their lives, and don’t know how the real world operates. It's the same mentality that is at the core of the streetcar opposition. Nearly every city in America the size of Cincinnati or larger has a form light rail, but people still think it's the worst idea in the world.

Mayor Cranley is quite the hypocrite in his defense of his veto of the OTR Parking Plan, whether you agree with him or not.  Specifically hypocritical where he points out "Tax Abatements" for properties redeveloped in Over The Rhine and also the 148 Million Dollar Streetcar through Over the Rhine.

 

http://www.wcpo.com/news/local-news/hamilton-county/cincinnati/mayor-john-cranley-vetoes-parking-plan

 

"They are valuable because the city has invested nearly $50 million into OTR during the past decade, with millions of dollars more planned. Tax abatements granted in OTR are valued at more than $100 million. And, of course, the taxpayers are paying to build and operate the streetcar system, at a cost of $148 million and rising.

 

That’s a quarter-billion dollar taxpayer investment in Over-the-Rhine."

 

Let us analyze this for a minute, Mr. Cranley:

 

1.) I am sure that is correct that the city has invested $50 million into OTR during the past decade.

 

2.) I seem to remember a quote by Mr. Cranley on an article of Cincinnati Public School arguing that incentives and tax abatements are reducing payments to CPS.  Mayor Cranley responded that without the tax abatements and other incentives there would be no development, so in reality CPS is talking about money that wouldn't be there anyways, so that is a mute argument:

 

"Cranley insists the schools aren't being cheated because the projects wouldn't have happened without incentives.

 

"What they're talking about losing is make-believe money," Cranley said. "There would be no tax revenue at all without the incentives.""

 

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2015/03/29/cincinnati-gives-away-millions/70592636/

 

Mr. Cranley, what is it then?  Why would OTR have to "Pay" to payback abatements if you said that there would be no tax revenue at all without the incentives???  I know you were talking about all incentives when on the CPS subject, but seriously, wouldn't property tax abatements be the least intrusive to the city out of all incentives, considering they weren't paying anything out before the abatements?

 

3.) On the streetcar, let's take a second to look at this.  First off, the $15 million Duke Lawsuit isn't settled, so right now the actual amount is $133 million.  Sure you put taxpayers on there, but let's get real, $45 million of the project came from the Feds.  In the context you have put it, on purpose for certain, is to make it seem like local taxpayers put all that money in themselves.  So why don't we just divide 45 million by the 319 million people in the USA = $0.14 per person, multiplied by 297,000 people living in the City of Cincinnati = $41,896.55.  That is how much of the grant the Feds took from the city of Cincinnati.  Add that to $88,000,000.00 you get $88,041,896.55.

 

Also, the context you put this, on purpose I am certain, is that the streetcar just goes through Over the Rhine, which we all know, many people do seem to think this in the region.  You know how to play it Mr. Mayor...

 

Anyways, let's just divide it in half since about half of the streetcar is in OTR and the other half is in the CBD... is this true guys?  For this case, that would put it at $44,020,948.27 for OTR portion.

 

So if you meant what you said in the Enquirer article, "What they're talking about losing is make-believe money," Cranley said. "There would be no tax revenue at all without the incentives.", then you shouldn't count tax abatements against OTR, so that puts it at $0.00.  Using simple logic, the Streetcar portion in OTR should be $44,020,948.27, and using your numbers at face value that the city has directly invested $50,000,000.00 into OTR, then the total should be $94,020,948.27, which is less than a tenth of a billion dollars, in the last ten years, which is less than ten million dollars per year, in the last ten years, which is less than 1% of the total city Budget of $1,000,000,000.00 per year.

 

"That’s a quarter-billion dollar taxpayer investment in Over-the-Rhine." - Mayor John Cranley, on defending his veto of parking permits backed by all 5 democratic council members.

 

Mayor Cranley, you can BS a lot of people, but people in the know see right through it.

FWIW, I know a nurse who has patients in the Pendleton area of OTR, and who claims to have an extremely hard time finding parking there due to the permit program. 

 

Hopefully, once the streetcar is operational, more people in OTR will be inspired to get rid of their cars.  Of course some won't be able to, but honestly, isn't this a major rationale for the streetcar and the redevelopment of OTR in the first place?  The densely-built neighborhood just wasn't meant to be home to very many people with cars.  Almost all new construction and many rehabs have incorporated off-street parking into their designs, but that's obviously not possible in every case. 

 

IMO some peoples' complaints about the parking situation and their desire to enjoy ridiculously low rates in OTR seem antithetical to the urbanist cause.

To me the issue of needing cars in Cincinnati gets better with all the new developments, introduction of streetcar and bus improvements.  However, Cincinnati still has a bit to go before people are able to get rid of their cars en masse.

 

We've been able to go down to one car because I insisted on taking a job in Downtown/OTR which enables me to walk to work.  However, that isn't a possibility for everyone as jobs have sprawled so much to areas without decent mass transit.

 

Not only that, but services and businesses are just now returning to the basin.  I can now go to the doctor Downtown which wasn't an option years ago.  There are also some gaps in retail.  For example, there wasn't a decent hardware store with good hours until recently when Acme Lock extended their business hours.

 

I agree that there is something anti-urban about residential parking permits, but we must recognize how things currently are versus the urban ideal that may exist in the future.

I think overall, whether you agree with the permit veto or not, I think it is worth pointing out how Cranley uses exaggerated numbers to almost spite OTR.  I don't know enough about the permit program to know for certain, but if Cranley wonders why some people really don't like him, it is because he seems to use any opportunity to spite OTR.  Just let it go Mr. Cranley, no need to beat a dead horse, just state your facts as you had them, those are good and respectable enough, i.e., public streets for all the public to use...

The problem is that the more noise OTR residents make, the more effectively they can be targeted by Cranley as selfish and classist.  Residents and neighborhood advocates (cough) would do well to keep a low profile.  It's not as if the area is truly at a breaking point with regards to parking. 

This is one of the few times I actually agree with Cranley.  Resident permit parking is stupid in my opinion.  Every place I've ever seen it implemented created this silly effect where on street parking was empty during the day when everyone had driven to work and packed with residents and non-residents in the evening when the residency enforcement ceased after 5:00 pm.  When they put it in over near the old SCPA those streets went from being packed during the day to nearly empty.  Totally inefficient.

Coming soon: Feed the meter with the tap of an app

 

Cincinnati is close to a new parking deal with international data giant Xerox, but this time the city would be in full control of the system.

 

The controversial old plan called for leasing the parking system to the region's port authority and its private partners – including Xerox – for decades in exchange for an $85 million upfront payment to use for several economic development projects. But Cincinnati Mayor John Cranley followed through on a campaign promise, killing the deal the same week he was elected in November.

 

The worry under the previous deal was that Xerox would aggressively write parking tickets and increase meter rates to hit revenue incentives, and the city wouldn't be able to do anything about it under the terms of a 30-year lease.

 

Cont

 

Nearly a year later...

Payment app coming to Cincinnati parking meters

Business Courier

 

Soon, visitors to downtown Cincinnati will be able to pay parking meters with their smartphones, WVXU reports.

 

An update presented to a Cincinnati City Council committee on Monday said the app could be available sometime in July and will allow parkers to pay upfront or add time to meters.

 

The process could get confusing, though, because the additional time added from a phone won’t be displayed on the meter’s screen. Cincinnati parking manager Bob Schroer said the decision was made not to display that added time because it can take a toll on parking meter batteries. While batteries are guaranteed for three years, other cities using pay-by-phone service have seen batteries fail within three to six months because of the stress on the system.

 

Cont

Wow, the pay by phone option sounds quite poorly designed.  I don't know whether or not to be excited about this feature if the implementation is going to be this bad.

Agreed

 

"City workers will be installing stickers on the meters to describe how the pay by phone app will work. "

 

Why isn't this explanation in the app. I've seen people staring at the new pay machines trying to understand just how to pay. Now they also need to read up on how to use the app.

As an Information Technology professional I can tell you that when a solution requires too much explanation and does not give accurate feedback to the user it always, always, always ends up in failure.  If this implementation is as bad as it sounds then we can expect a huge backlash.

As an Information Technology professional I can tell you that when a solution requires too much explanation and does not give accurate feedback to the user it always, always, always ends up in failure.  If this implementation is as bad as it sounds then we can expect a huge backlash.

 

I concur. Here's how I'd imagine the IA:

 

Driver A parks their car. They walk to the Pay Station and press pay for parking similar to how it works now (pay with card, receive a receipt that displays on windshield). Said receipt has a large, prominent "Park ID" that you would enter into the app to add additional time. The meter maids would then be able to check via some sort of handheld device how much time is left on the "Meter" by entering that Park ID or scanning a barcode.

 

Alright, not let's go find out what the actual procedure is....

 

Okay, well it looks like this doesn't really apply to the Pay Station method. But not displaying the time seems ridiculous. I can see it now: all the court visits of people with parking tickets claiming the meters were broken.

As an Information Technology professional I can tell you that when a solution requires too much explanation and does not give accurate feedback to the user it always, always, always ends up in failure.  If this implementation is as bad as it sounds then we can expect a huge backlash.

 

As a fellow IT professional, I couldn't agree more.  Incidentally, I recently discovered that the new pay machines and the newer meters will not recognize swipes from my Visa (which works everywhere else).  Worse, it doesn't give an error, it simply adds the 10 courtesy minutes to the meter, which is REALLY confusing when you're trying to pay for an hour.  I only figured it out when my wife swiped her AMEX after losing patience with me.  I thought the meter was broken until that happened.  Maybe I'm the only one with this issue, though...

 

 

Also, I don't trust the meter maids (meter persons?, but meter maids sounds so much better!) to actually confirm whether someone has renewed via the app, since the meter itself won't reflect this.  That's just human nature.  If the main UI says expired, occasionally someone will get a ticket because someone else was checked out or distracted while doing their job.  The exception to this would be if the meter maids are always ignoring the meters completely and issuing tickets solely based on the UI of an iPad or something.

As an Information Technology professional I can tell you that when a solution requires too much explanation and does not give accurate feedback to the user it always, always, always ends up in failure.  If this implementation is as bad as it sounds then we can expect a huge backlash.

 

As a fellow IT professional, I couldn't agree more.  Incidentally, I recently discovered that the new pay machines and the newer meters will not recognize swipes from my Visa (which works everywhere else).  Worse, it doesn't give an error, it simply adds the 10 courtesy minutes to the meter, which is REALLY confusing when you're trying to pay for an hour.  I only figured it out when my wife swiped her AMEX after losing patience with me.  I thought the meter was broken until that happened.  Maybe I'm the only one with this issue, though...

 

My issue wasn't with the card not being read, but rather not swiping at all. There is VERY little give in the credit card slots on these machines. If your card is even slightly bent (which all of my are from being in my wallet in my back pocket), it won't be straight enough to enter the internal slot. I went to 4 different pay machines before I realized that was the problem. My girlfriend just wanted to me to walk away because the machines were "clearly broken". Thankfully I kept trying because I don't think that was going to hold up in court.

"City workers will be installing stickers on the meters to describe how the pay by phone app will work. "

 

Why isn't this explanation in the app. I've seen people staring at the new pay machines trying to understand just how to pay. Now they also need to read up on how to use the app.

 

Some instructions! There has to be a better way then some sticker that can be vandalized / removed. And why aren't they replacing meters at The Banks (where pic of meter was taken) with the parking boxes?

 

I signed up for a Passport Parking account via an email address. If you use a phone number, you may be sent up to 5 text messages each time you use the app. Not sure why you wouldn't just get said message via the app...

"City workers will be installing stickers on the meters to describe how the pay by phone app will work. "

 

Why isn't this explanation in the app. I've seen people staring at the new pay machines trying to understand just how to pay. Now they also need to read up on how to use the app.

 

Some instructions! There has to be a better way then some sticker that can be vandalized / removed. And why aren't they replacing meters at The Banks (where pic of meter was taken) with the parking boxes?

 

I signed up for a Passport Parking account via an email address. If you use a phone number, you may be sent up to 5 text messages each time you use the app. Not sure why you wouldn't just get said message via the app...

 

As far as I know, refilling meters is still in direct violation of the Municipal Code. Is this going to become Cincinnati's version of outdated, unenforced laws - similar to the places where it's still illegal to eat ice cream on Sundays?

It doesn't legalize or encourage unlimited refilling of the meters.  That is still illegal.

 

Say you park at a 2 hour meter but only put 45 min in.  Then you realize you are running late... you are allowed to go up to the total 2 hours that you were allowed in the first place by paying for the extra time.  It doesn't legalize paying for 6 hours at a 2 hour meter.

What about after hours? Didn't city council approve the elimination of maximums after 5pm on weekdays (not sure about weekends)?

Is this going to become Cincinnati's version of outdated, unenforced laws

 

I'm pretty sure it's already unenforced. Like adults riding bikes on city sidewalks. Visit the 4th & Sycamore Skyline any weekday lunch and you'll see the wait staff running out to feed the meters.

 

It doesn't legalize or encourage unlimited refilling of the meters.  That is still illegal.

 

Say you park at a 2 hour meter but only put 45 min in.  Then you realize you are running late... you are allowed to go up to the total 2 hours that you were allowed in the first place by paying for the extra time.  It doesn't legalize paying for 6 hours at a 2 hour meter.

 

I have yet to use the system... if you park at a 2 hour meter and pay the meter for 2 hours, can you later go into the app and add more time?

 

It doesn't legalize or encourage unlimited refilling of the meters.  That is still illegal.

 

Say you park at a 2 hour meter but only put 45 min in.  Then you realize you are running late... you are allowed to go up to the total 2 hours that you were allowed in the first place by paying for the extra time.  It doesn't legalize paying for 6 hours at a 2 hour meter.

 

I have yet to use the system... if you park at a 2 hour meter and pay the meter for 2 hours, can you later go into the app and add more time?

 

The app will not let you repay at a meter once you've hit the meter's maximum allowable time.  2 hours between 9am and 5PM for 2/3 of downtown & OTR, 4 hours for 1/3 depending on the zone.  After 5PM the maximum allowable time is 4 hours anywhere in DT or OTR so you can fill up through all of that.

My head hurts after reading the last 10 or so entries.  All of this over parking?  Makes me want to go back to good old quarters and dimes.....

 

Seriously Cincinnati, get your sh^t together.