I wonder if we'll see the $40 million Elmore St. viaduct plan to South Cumminsville return. 

The goal of the business community is to redirect as much of this new 1% sales tax to non-transit projects as possible, while simultaneously reducing Cincinnati's earnings tax. They want to simultaneously call it a "transit tax" to get Better Bus Coalition and other transit supporters to go along with it, but spend enough of it on projects like the Western Hills Viaduct to convince suburbanites to vote for it. Right now, the prevailing idea is to give .7% to buses and .3% to road projects. That wouldn't give Metro enough additional money over what they bring in now to make meaningful improvements to its service, and should be a non-starter IMO. Metro needs at least .8% or .9% in order to add real BRT routes, modernize its fleet, roll out a tap fare card, open the Riverfront Transit Center, etc.

1 hour ago, taestell said:

The goal of the business community is to redirect as much of this new 1% sales tax to non-transit projects as possible, while simultaneously reducing Cincinnati's earnings tax. They want to simultaneously call it a "transit tax" to get Better Bus Coalition and other transit supporters to go along with it, but spend enough of it on projects like the Western Hills Viaduct to convince suburbanites to vote for it. Right now, the prevailing idea is to give .7% to buses and .3% to road projects. That wouldn't give Metro enough additional money over what they bring in now to make meaningful improvements to its service, and should be a non-starter IMO. Metro needs at least .8% or .9% in order to add real BRT routes, modernize its fleet, roll out a tap fare card, open the Riverfront Transit Center, etc.

 

0.7% would double the local contribution to Metro. 

Oh god, this tax is going to divide the electorate and fail if that .7 and .3 idea is really the prevailing thought.  If this idea gets more teeth I'll be contacting everyone involved and letting them know the mistake that it is.  I trust the BBC though, I think they have enough leverage to move this to .8 or .9, hopefully this is the starting point that the business community came up with, and not the end number.

Real BRT is going to be amazingly expensive.  None of Cincinnati's major thoroughfares are consistently wide enough to stripe a bus lane for the whole length. 

 

I do think there is a lot of potential in creating a busway from the Vine St. hill around Hollister to the hospitals by tunneling under the crest of the hill to Corry St.  Then a busway could continue north between Jefferson Ave. & Turner Hall, then tunnel under the complicated Jefferson/Vine/MLK interchange.  That second short tunnel would surface around the Vontz Center and continue on a busway between MLK and the new Neuroscience building eastward toward Reading.  There is also potential for that same tunnel to enable Vine St. buses to pass under that messy intersection via a portal near Nixon Ave.   

And "real BRT" isn't just some painted bus lanes either, that's simple express bus service.  At best there's only five lines in the whole country that can be considered real BRT at all, and they still miss many of the key factors.  It' basically needs to be light rail in a reserved median, but with buses instead of rail vehicles.  That's Central Parkway scale infrastructure, and even then only really south of Liberty.  Gilbert and Spring Grove are the only other radial thoroughfares that even come close. 

According to the Reinventing Metro plan, 0.7% isn't enough to fund any BRT, while 0.9% is enough to fund 4 "BRT corridors" if we get an 80% federal match.

We just need to make sure we hold Metro to the attributes they laid out on their blurb about BRT.

 

As a quick overview of the potential Reading Rd line:

 

MidPointe to Roselawn business district- no need for bus lanes, not many intersections and doesn't get backed up.

Roselawn to the lateral- should re-stripe for 3 lane design.  Bus lanes, if they fit.  if not, at least get a separated bus stop

Lateral to Sherman- Bus lanes

Sherman to Paddock- Not many intersections, traffic doesn't get bad until Paddock, no change.

Paddock all the way to McMillan- Bus lanes needed, already have viable with road width.  This is the most important stretch, top priority.

McMillan to Dorchester- no change

Dorchester to Main- Bus lanes all the way (already have bus lanes on main)

39 minutes ago, jjakucyk said:

And "real BRT" isn't just some painted bus lanes either, that's simple express bus service.  At best there's only five lines in the whole country that can be considered real BRT at all, and they still miss many of the key factors.  It' basically needs to be light rail in a reserved median, but with buses instead of rail vehicles.  That's Central Parkway scale infrastructure, and even then only really south of Liberty.  Gilbert and Spring Grove are the only other radial thoroughfares that even come close. 

 

Not really. Madison Road is plenty wide enough. Here's an example, using the existing ROW:

 

 

You should check out what Albuquerque built for their BRT project (somewhat confusingly called Albuquerque Rapid Transit, or ART). It is center-running, and in places where the road is wide enough, there is a dedicated bus lane in each direction. However, in narrower sections, there is a single bidirectional bus-only lane. I'm not sure what they plan to do in these sections, but there are two possibilities. Either, you can coordinate the buses so that they pass each other at stations; or you can just have the peak direction use the single lane and have the off-peak direction use the general travel lane, where there shouldn't be a huge amount of traffic anyway.

 

I also see that Indianapolis is building "super stops" on bus routes that aren't BRT, which is an excellent idea. They include a raised platform for "near-level boarding" (the ramp would still need to be extended out for wheelchair users), and theoretically you could also install TVMs on these platforms to allow for pre-boarding fare payment, which would really speed up those routes.

Apparently what is now being proposed is 0.8% for Metro and 0.2% for road infrastructure. If we can make sure that the 0.2% is dedicated to specific projects like fixing Columbia Parkway and building the new WHV, and not used as a slush fund for whatever pet project the Lindners want, I think it's a good idea.

25 minutes ago, taestell said:

You should check out what Albuquerque built for their BRT project (somewhat confusingly called Albuquerque Rapid Transit, or ART). It is center-running, and in places where the road is wide enough, there is a dedicated bus lane in each direction. However, in narrower sections, there is a single bidirectional bus-only lane. I'm not sure what they plan to do in these sections, but there are two possibilities. Either, you can coordinate the buses so that they pass each other at stations; or you can just have the peak direction use the single lane and have the off-peak direction use the general travel lane, where there shouldn't be a huge amount of traffic anyway.

 

I also see that Indianapolis is building "super stops" on bus routes that aren't BRT, which is an excellent idea. They include a raised platform for "near-level boarding" (the ramp would still need to be extended out for wheelchair users), and theoretically you could also install TVMs on these platforms to allow for pre-boarding fare payment, which would really speed up those routes.

 

Cleveland's BRT line along Euclid Ave is also center running.

 

https://goo.gl/maps/KXbBQdi3NQL2

Those Albuquerque roads with BRT in both directions were 7 lanes originally like Liberty Street currently is. Center turn lane with median, two travel lanes and one parking lane in each direction. You can look at old Google Street View Images here.

 

I'm not opposed to this idea, but I think it's difficult to implement in Cincinnati. Madison Road is 6 lanes just south of Oakley Square. It's about 5 lanes between DeSales Corner and O'Bryonville with a bike lane in each direction. Reading Road is typically 5 lanes without any bike lanes.

 

The Indy Super Stops are essentially the "Uptown Transit Center" which is just a series of enhanced bus stops. I support these, and it probably encourages people to walk further distances, which allows Metro to more easily remove the stops that are in quick succession.

15 minutes ago, taestell said:

Apparently what is now being proposed is 0.8% for Metro and 0.2% for road infrastructure. If we can make sure that the 0.2% is dedicated to specific projects like fixing Columbia Parkway and building the new WHV, and not used as a slush fund for whatever pet project the Lindners want, I think it's a good idea.

 

Setting up a sunset on the 0.2% infrastructure tax would probably make more people supportive of the idea. Attach specific projects, and automatically roll back the 0.2% after a certain amount of money is raised or a certain number of years have passed. 

The problem with Madison is that there aren't many prospective bus riders in the wealthy and thinly-populated (relatively) Hyde Park area.  Also, it seems unlikely that any space on MLK will be sacrificed for bus lanes anywhere along its entire length from Victory Parkway to Clifton Ave.   They aren't going to reprogram the signals at the I-71 interchange, either, to the advantage of buses coming from Madison. 

 

And the big problem with "BRT" is that it can be anything, but it's never actually rapid transit, which used to mean full grade separation.  There is no such thing as a fully grade-separated bus route anywhere in the United States. 

 

 

54 minutes ago, DEPACincy said:

 

Not really. Madison Road is plenty wide enough. Here's an example, using the existing ROW:

 

 

 

That's not BRT though, that's express bus service.  There's no separation from the travel lanes to prevent blocking by delivery trucks, garbage trucks, right turning vehicles, or anything else.  It's not center-running, which isn't necessarily a prerequisite, but it helps with prioritization and navigating through intersections.  There's not really much else to evaluate.  

9 minutes ago, ryanlammi said:

The Indy Super Stops are essentially the "Uptown Transit Center" which is just a series of enhanced bus stops. I support these, and it probably encourages people to walk further distances, which allows Metro to more easily remove the stops that are in quick succession.

 

It should also be noted that the Uptown Transit Center was designed with signal priority in mind. After the stop at Taft and Vine, buses heading north were supposed to get a queue jump heading onto Jefferson. That's why this short bus-only lane was installed, allowing buses to continue straight from the bus stop across the intersection. Unfortunately DOTE objected and the transit-only signal was never installed.

 

8 minutes ago, ryanlammi said:

Setting up a sunset on the 0.2% infrastructure tax would probably make more people supportive of the idea. Attach specific projects, and automatically roll back the 0.2% after a certain amount of money is raised or a certain number of years have passed. 

 

I haven't yet seen an article explaining what was proposed today, but it seems like they want to permanently keep it 0.8% for buses and 0.2% for roads. That does seem a little odd. Is there anywhere else that funds its roads and bridges with a countywide sales tax?

24 minutes ago, taestell said:

 

It should also be noted that the Uptown Transit Center was designed with signal priority in mind. After the stop at Taft and Vine, buses heading north were supposed to get a queue jump heading onto Jefferson. That's why this short bus-only lane was installed, allowing buses to continue straight from the bus stop across the intersection. Unfortunately DOTE objected and the transit-only signal was never installed.

 

I almost wrecked in this spot last weekend.  I turned left from McMillan onto Vine and someone coming uphill on Vine blew the red light and tried to pass me using that bus lane. 

 

 

 

27 minutes ago, jjakucyk said:

 

That's not BRT though, that's express bus service.  There's no separation from the travel lanes to prevent blocking by delivery trucks, garbage trucks, right turning vehicles, or anything else.  It's not center-running, which isn't necessarily a prerequisite, but it helps with prioritization and navigating through intersections.  There's not really much else to evaluate.  

 

 

The big problem with spending a lot of money to replace existing traffic signals with a system that holds for buses and gives them a jump is that wealthy people can object and have them...turned off.  That's what happened in Cleveland on Euclid. 

 

 

USDOT should require that if any BRT project receives federal funding and has signal priority installed, it can't be turned off later, or else the federal funding would have to be repaid.

5 minutes ago, taestell said:

USDOT should require that if any BRT project receives federal funding and has signal priority installed, it can't be turned off later, or else the federal funding would have to be repaid.

 

They're just setting the stage with these express proposals for endless fights down the road.  Does anyone here really think that the hundreds of wealthy people who live along Madison Rd. in East Walnut Hills and Hyde Park will tolerate bus lanes being built down the center of their precious roadway?  Will those people tolerate signal timing that in any way slows down their commutes and errands? 

 

If we want true express buses in this city it's going to have to be on roads that nobody cares about.  Spring Grove is just about our best hope. 

 

14 hours ago, jmecklenborg said:

If we want true express buses in this city it's going to have to be on roads that nobody cares about.  Spring Grove is just about our best hope. 

 

Which is why I think they chose Reading and Glenway.  That stretch of Reading specifically does not include any wealthy neighborhoods and is the most popular bus route in the city.  It would be the ideal pilot BRT route.  At the least, the ridership numbers would be large enough to (hopefully) keep The Enquirer of its back.

 

The next ones would be Hamilton Ave (I could see some of the newer, richer Northside and College Hill residents objecting) and Montgomery Rd (Definitely will be issues if it goes past Silverton)

Edited April 10, 20196 yr by 10albersa

21 hours ago, jjakucyk said:

 

That's not BRT though, that's express bus service.  There's no separation from the travel lanes to prevent blocking by delivery trucks, garbage trucks, right turning vehicles, or anything else.  It's not center-running, which isn't necessarily a prerequisite, but it helps with prioritization and navigating through intersections.  There's not really much else to evaluate.  

 

Correct. But streetmix doesn't have a BRT option for illustration. BRT can fit in the same footprint as that example though. Just reverse the lane positions. 

21 hours ago, jmecklenborg said:

The problem with Madison is that there aren't many prospective bus riders in the wealthy and thinly-populated (relatively) Hyde Park area.  Also, it seems unlikely that any space on MLK will be sacrificed for bus lanes anywhere along its entire length from Victory Parkway to Clifton Ave.   They aren't going to reprogram the signals at the I-71 interchange, either, to the advantage of buses coming from Madison. 

 

And the big problem with "BRT" is that it can be anything, but it's never actually rapid transit, which used to mean full grade separation.  There is no such thing as a fully grade-separated bus route anywhere in the United States. 

 

 

 

Route 11 up Madison is the 5th busiest route in the system. And East Walnut Hills, Hyde Park, and Oakley are continually adding more young residents who want to have the bus as an option but are unlikely to use it right now because it takes too long. And Madison has excess capacity in its current form for the amount of volume it carries. 

21 hours ago, jmecklenborg said:

 

 

The big problem with spending a lot of money to replace existing traffic signals with a system that holds for buses and gives them a jump is that wealthy people can object and have them...turned off.  That's what happened in Cleveland on Euclid. 

 

 

 

When did this happen? I was just there a couple of months ago and the BRT still gets signal priority. 

2 minutes ago, DEPACincy said:

 

When did this happen? I was just there a couple of months ago and the BRT still gets signal priority. 

 

 https://usa.streetsblog.org/2014/06/12/the-ridiculous-politics-that-slow-down-americas-best-brt-route/

 

 

 

 

 

 

7 minutes ago, DEPACincy said:

 

Route 11 up Madison is the 5th busiest route in the system. And East Walnut Hills, Hyde Park, and Oakley are continually adding more young residents who want to have the bus as an option but are unlikely to use it right now because it takes too long. And Madison has excess capacity in its current form for the amount of volume it carries. 

 

We need way more buses on existing routes.  The frequency on most routes is abysmal.  Bus ridership is high on Reading because several bus lines use it.  People who live in Avondale can ride a variety of buses in a variety of directions.  Meanwhile, Metro pulled the #18 & #19 off Clifton Ave. around 2010, leaving only the #17.  There are like 45-minute gaps in the middle of the day for the bus route that goes right past McMicken Hall and the dense Clifton Heights neighborhood.  There needs to be a bus every 10 minutes on Clifton Ave. like there used to be. 

 

24 minutes ago, DEPACincy said:

 

Correct. But streetmix doesn't have a BRT option for illustration. BRT can fit in the same footprint as that example though. Just reverse the lane positions. 

 

BRT in a median needs extra room for the stops/shelters.  With curb running it uses the existing sidewalk footprint for that. 

 

11 minutes ago, DEPACincy said:

 

Route 11 up Madison is the 5th busiest route in the system. And East Walnut Hills, Hyde Park, and Oakley are continually adding more young residents who want to have the bus as an option but are unlikely to use it right now because it takes too long. And Madison has excess capacity in its current form for the amount of volume it carries. 

 

I find that shocking, I would have thought it near the bottom.  Of course the actual numbers are crap (4,600 passengers/day).  Still, for Hyde Park/Oakley the time isn't really that bad, it's the frequency, which is abysmal (I see Jake just beat me to that statement).  Past Withrow High School where the two 11 routes split, rush hour frequency is only every 30 minutes, with 40-50 minutes more common for the rest of the day.  Even where 11-Erie Hyde Park and 11-Madison Oakley overlap, 15 minute rush hour headways and 20-25 minute off peak is still crap. 

40 minutes ago, jjakucyk said:

 

BRT in a median needs extra room for the stops/shelters.  With curb running it uses the existing sidewalk footprint for that. 

 

Right. But the lanes in the example I made are wider than they need to be, and there's a center turn lane that doesn't need to exist for the entirety. I think there's enough room for center running, but there is definitely enough for curb running and I think that's fine too as long as there's clear separation and signal priority. 

 

Quote

I find that shocking, I would have thought it near the bottom.  Of course the actual numbers are crap (4,600 passengers/day).  Still, for Hyde Park/Oakley the time isn't really that bad, it's the frequency, which is abysmal (I see Jake just beat me to that statement).  Past Withrow High School where the two 11 routes split, rush hour frequency is only every 30 minutes, with 40-50 minutes more common for the rest of the day.  Even where 11-Erie Hyde Park and 11-Madison Oakley overlap, 15 minute rush hour headways and 20-25 minute off peak is still crap. 

 

True. Increasing frequencies throughout the system would go a long way. 

1 hour ago, jmecklenborg said:

 

 https://usa.streetsblog.org/2014/06/12/the-ridiculous-politics-that-slow-down-americas-best-brt-route/

 

 

This is from 2014. The issue seems to have been resolved because the bus definitely gets signal priority now. 

16 minutes ago, DEPACincy said:

 

This is from 2014. The issue seems to have been resolved because the bus definitely gets signal priority now. 

 

I think the last time I was in Cleveland was...2010.  Someone who lives there now could answer definitively. 

 

As for Madison Rd. specifically...it seems like an express route could simply avoid Hyde Park and O'Bryonville entirely by getting on I-71 at Dana, then exiting at MLK and serving the hospitals and UC. 

 

A busway between the Mad Frog, UC, and MLK at I-71 could be used by many routes.  But it would cause big trouble at the bottom of the Vine St. hill, where something big would have to change to enable buses to speed through the 5-way intersection. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

16 hours ago, DEPACincy said:

 

This is from 2014. The issue seems to have been resolved because the bus definitely gets signal priority now. 

 

It definitely still gets a transit-only signal. Since it's center-running, it must have a transit-only signal otherwise it doesn't work.

 

That's not the same thing as it getting signal priority. Signal priority means that as the bus starts approaching the intersection, conflicting directions start getting red lights and the transit "go" signal is activated. So the bus basically never stops at a red light.

 

Without signal priority, the bus would have to wait at the intersection until the transit "go" signal phase came up in rotation naturally. There is still a transit-only signal, it's just not "prioritized".

In Cincinnati, I think signal priority is more important than dedicated lanes. Even during rush-hour, most of these arteries are mostly congestion-free. Along Madison, it gets a bit congested in O'Byronville, but otherwise is free flowing. Most of Reading is free-flowing with just a bit of backup at big intersections, but in my experience the intersections "clear" every time (in other words, you never/rarely have to wait two cycles, even in the worst traffic). If a bus could get signal priority, that would give the vast majority of the speed benefits.

 

I spend a lot of time in Mexico City, where the "MetroBus" system mostly uses dedicated lanes and it absolutely makes sense there since congestion is so bad. But since we don't have major congestion problems here in Cincinnati, I'm not sure it's worth the cost (both in terms of construction costs, and "cost" of the right of way) to have dedicated lanes. 

Thank God for Line 1 (Insurgentes).  One of the most convenient BRTs I've ever been on in the world.

9 minutes ago, ColDayMan said:

Thank God for Line 1 (Insurgentes).  One of the most convenient BRTs I've ever been on in the world.

Agreed. My in-laws live on Insurgentes Sur and there's a stop less than a block from their building. Such a great line.

1 hour ago, jwulsin said:

Agreed. My in-laws live on Insurgentes Sur and there's a stop less than a block from their building. Such a great line.

 

...and a nice Liverpool too...

4 hours ago, taestell said:

 

It definitely still gets a transit-only signal. Since it's center-running, it must have a transit-only signal otherwise it doesn't work.

 

That's not the same thing as it getting signal priority. Signal priority means that as the bus starts approaching the intersection, conflicting directions start getting red lights and the transit "go" signal is activated. So the bus basically never stops at a red light.

 

Without signal priority, the bus would have to wait at the intersection until the transit "go" signal phase came up in rotation naturally. There is still a transit-only signal, it's just not "prioritized".

 

Ah okay, I thought it got signal priority because as I was sitting at a light on Euclid a bus pulled up and the transit signal immediately changed. I guess it was just perfect timing haha. 

New benches coming to Cincinnati neighborhood bus stops

 

After a lengthy debate Friday morning, the Cincinnati Planning Commission approved new guidelines that will allow the Southwest Ohio Regional Transit Authority to place metal benches with advertising throughout the city at key bus stops.

 

But it wasn’t easy. The issue, which has been languishing since January when the planning commission directed SORTA to get more community engagement, faced some turbulence as commission members questioned what the benches will be made of and whether advertising on their backs would be allowed to contain obscene material.

 

The latter concern was brought up by Vice Mayor Christopher Smitherman, a planning commission member who noted that there is an ongoing controversy over a Roselawn business that uses a word referring to a female body part on its signage.

 

“I want the benches. I support it. There’s signage happening in Roselawn I can’t even read,” Smitherman said. “It looks like pornography. I certainly don’t want to see something like this on a public bench. Can they say no?” (**ColDayMan note..."DA FUQ?"**)

 

The short answer: Yes. SORTA’s advertising policies bar nudity, profanity and obscenity, said SORTA’s interim CEO, Darryl Haley.

 

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2019/05/03/new-benches-coming-to-cincinnati-neighborhood-bus.html

 

It better be .07+.

 

It will be voted down if all they are selling is "we need to balance our budget."  Hide that behind some service improvements and a fancy BRT sales pitch, and you'll get it passed.

To me, anything less than 0.8% is not even worth doing. Why go through the effort to pass a new bus tax if it's not even going to fund real BRT?

 

On 4/9/2019 at 4:41 PM, taestell said:

According to the Reinventing Metro plan, 0.7% isn't enough to fund any BRT, while 0.9% is enough to fund 4 "BRT corridors" if we get an 80% federal match.

 

man thats frustrating. Then when nothing of note happens, people will be like "see?? it was a waste of money!"

This whole plot is centered around reducing the city earnings tax from 2.1% to 1.8%, as if that will be a watershed in the city's history.  

Chris Wetterich added some additional commentary on Twitter explaining that it might still be possible for us to do some amount of BRT with a 0.7% earnings tax if we get a federal match. Apparently the original study did not consider federal funding at all. I'm still not thrilled about us putting all of the effort into a ballot issue that's only 0.7% and maybe includes 1 good BRT route in the best case scenario.

 

59 minutes ago, jmecklenborg said:

This whole plot is centered around reducing the city earnings tax from 2.1% to 1.8%, as if that will be a watershed in the city's history.  

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that if you live in a city with a 2.2% earnings tax and work in Cincinnati, you pay 2.1% to Cincinnati and that remaining 0.1% to the city where you live. If Cincinnati lowers its income tax rate (but the city where you live doesn't), you'll pay 1.8% to Cincinnati and 0.4% to the city where you live. So it actually won't result in more "take home pay" for workers, it'll just redirect more of that revenue to Blue Ash, Cheviot, and other suburban cities in the region.

Anyone who has an income tax rate above 1.8% will benefit from Cincinnati reducing their income tax rate.

 

Most municipalities have a reciprocity agreement, where you aren't taxed twice for your income. You always pay income taxes to the municipality you work in first.

 

If you live in a place with an income tax rate of 1.8% or less but work in Cincinnati, you will generally get a reduction in your total income taxes taken out because you still won't be paying income taxes to where you live, and your tax rate in Cincinnati will go down 0.3%. Blue Ash has a city income tax of 1.25%, so you will not pay any taxes to Blue Ash on your income if you live there and work in Cincinnati. You will pay 0.3% less of your income and still send 1.8% to Cincinnati.

If you live in a place with an income tax rate of over 1.8% and work in Cincinnati, you will still pay the exact same amount of income tax money, but instead of sending 0.3% to metro, that money will go to the city you live in. Covington has a city income tax of 2.5%. Instead of paying 1.8% to Cincinnati, 0.3% to Metro (via Cincinnati) and the balance of 0.4% to Covington, you will now pay 1.8% to Cincinnati and 0.7% to Covington. So you won't see a reduction in your tax liability, but will just shift some of that money from Metro to Covington.

 

If you live in a municipality with a tax rate between 1.8% and 2.1%, you will see a slight reduction in your taxes, and the difference between your municipality's income tax rate and 1.8% will be sent to your home municipality.

^That's correct, generally, but very very few Cincinnati suburbs (at least in Ohio) have rates above 2% so the discount wouldn't go to another municipality. 

 

St. Bernard, Lockland, Arlington Heights, and Cincinnati are at 2.1%, but I don't see any other Cincinnati suburbs at or above that level. https://thefinder.tax.ohio.gov/StreamlineSalesTaxWeb/Download/MuniRateTableInstructions.aspx

 

12 minutes ago, ryanlammi said:

Anyone who has an income tax rate above 1.8% will benefit from Cincinnati reducing their income tax rate.

 

Yeah, don't spend it all in one place.  If you earn $50,000, you save about $150.  But then the sales tax you pay goes up $50-150/yr depending on how much junk you buy.  

 

At most we're talking about a savings of a large pizza for the typical person.  

2 minutes ago, jmecklenborg said:

 

Yeah, don't spend it all in one place.  If you earn $50,000, you save about $150.  But then the sales tax you pay goes up $50-150/yr depending on how much junk you buy.  

 

At most we're talking about a savings of a large pizza for the typical person.  

it depends on where you live, too. If you live in Deerfield Township, and spend almost no time in Hamilton County except to work, you'll see savings.

 

If you live in Covington and spend a lot of time/money in Hamilton County, or if you live/work in Colerain Township, you are worse off because your income tax doesn't change, but you have an increased sales tax in Hamilton County.

IF we got BRT, what corridors would be best?

48 minutes ago, ryanlammi said:

Covington has a city income tax of 2.5%. Instead of paying 1.8% to Cincinnati, 0.3% to Metro (via Cincinnati) and the balance of 0.4% to Covington, you will now pay 1.8% to Cincinnati and 0.7% to Covington. So you won't see a reduction in your tax liability, but will just shift some of that money from Metro to Covington.

 

^ True, but on top of that, you'll also be paying a higher sales tax. (I am assuming that if you work in Cincinnati, you spend at least some amount of money on buying things within Hamilton County, even if that's just going out to lunch occasionally.)

 

So the way many suburbanites will view this is that their income tax will stay the same but a new sales tax is being added to fund Metro on top of what they're already paying. They will gloss over the details and not realize that the existing Metro income tax is going away because they won't see their paycheck increase. Meanwhile Covington and other area cities will rejoice in the fact that they are suddenly getting more tax revenue without having to pass a tax increase.

 

For that reason, I think it would have been wise for Cincinnati to increase its city earning tax at the same time that the Metro earnings tax is repealed. Instead of what the Chamber wanted to do — pass a 1% sales tax, dedicate 0.7% of it to transit and 0.3% of it to other infrastructure — just pass a 0.7% sales tax for the bus and repurpose a portion of the existing Metro earnings tax for other infrastructure. That way Cincinnati could "claim" one third of that windfall (maybe earmark it for specific infrastructure projects like WHV and Columbia Parkway?) instead of letting it all go to other cities.