7 minutes ago, DEPACincy said:

It seems like Mann has decided that he needs to take the anti-urbanist, anti-progressive lane in his Mayoral run. That's going to backfire on him big time.

 

People said the same exact thing about Cranley. He beat Qualls and Simpson by being the less progressive candidate.

 

Cincinnati may be a blue city but nearly a third of the voting population are Republicans. They're going to vote for the more conservative candidate. All Mann has to do is get 2/7 of the remaining voters and he wins.

2 hours ago, ryanlammi said:

It didn't backfire on Cranley.

 

1. Cranley was running against Yvette. Mann is running again PG. PG is much more popular, well-funded, and supported by the business community. 

 

2. The electorate continues to shift left in the city. 

2 hours ago, Ram23 said:

 

People said the same exact thing about Cranley. He beat Qualls and Simpson by being the less progressive candidate.

 

Cincinnati may be a blue city but nearly a third of the voting population are Republicans. They're going to vote for the more conservative candidate. All Mann has to do is get 2/7 of the remaining voters and he wins.

 

Where do you get this stuff? A third of the population are Republicans? 

 

In 2018, Dewine got 23% of the vote in the city. Renacci got 21%. Chabot got 17%. In 2016, Trump got 21%. Romney got 24% in 2012. McCain got 24% in 2008. Bush got 31% in 2004. 

 

The number of Republican voters in the city is less than one quarter and it has been shrinking for decades. I feel like you guys just make up numbers sometimes. 

 

22 minutes ago, DEPACincy said:

 

Where do you get this stuff? A third of the population are Republicans? 

 

In 2018, Dewine got 23% of the vote in the city. Renacci got 21%. Chabot got 17%. In 2016, Trump got 21%. Romney got 24% in 2012. McCain got 24% in 2008. Bush got 31% in 2004. 

 

The number of Republican voters in the city is less than one quarter and it has been shrinking for decades. I feel like you guys just make up numbers sometimes. 

 

I didn't waste the time to look up the percentage because it had no impact on the point being made - that the more conservative of the two Democrats has an advantage because he will start with all the Republican votes by default. Therefore he only needs to win a small portion of the Democrats over, he doesn't have to appeal to all or even most of them. This is true whether the number is 20% or 30% and it's a part of why someone like Cranley was able to win two elections.

Edited August 10, 20204 yr by Ram23

3 hours ago, Ram23 said:

 

People said the same exact thing about Cranley. He beat Qualls and Simpson by being the less progressive candidate.

 

Cincinnati may be a blue city but nearly a third of the voting population are Republicans. They're going to vote for the more conservative candidate. All Mann has to do is get 2/7 of the remaining voters and he wins.

 

55 minutes ago, DEPACincy said:

 

1. Cranley was running against Yvette. Mann is running again PG. PG is much more popular, well-funded, and supported by the business community. 

 

2. The electorate continues to shift left in the city. 

 

 

The business community will support PG. He is well funded, and has the connections with the business power players. He is generally Pro-Development but his biggest problem is he sometimes tends to lead with his passion first and then he has to walk things back a bunch. The business community will ultimately keep him in check, but it will lead to a few dysfunctional moments in my opinion.  Mann wont be able to get enough of the GOP support because he will split with PG who is well funded by those in the business community. He will also struggle with African Americans to which PG is building a solid base and working hard to win over. 

 

I think the only way PG loses is if someone like Alecia Reese decides to throw her hat in (assuming she loses the commissioner seat). She would pose a real challenge to PG and could win over some of the more conservative voters who like her style of pragmatic leadership. 

If this holds, good news for SORTA

 

Probably in big part because of the prevalence of online purchases now charging sales tax.

6 minutes ago, ryanlammi said:

Probably in big part because of the prevalence of online purchases now charging sales tax.

That was my guess as well. 

23 hours ago, Ram23 said:

 

 

I didn't waste the time to look up the percentage because it had no impact on the point being made - that the more conservative of the two Democrats has an advantage because he will start with all the Republican votes by default. Therefore he only needs to win a small portion of the Democrats over, he doesn't have to appeal to all or even most of them. This is true whether the number is 20% or 30% and it's a part of why someone like Cranley was able to win two elections.

 

The percentage DOES matter though. It's not one third, it's more like 20% at this point. And that is a huge difference. Plus, PG has the backing of labor and the business community. Cranley was the business candidate and had greater support among labor too. Yvette had a mountain to climb and almost knocked him off. It's apples and oranges. But one thing is for sure, Cincinnati is no longer a place where Republicans have to be pandered to in order to win. It's not 2004. 

Metro's Express Ridership is down 83.7% for July, averaging 2.8 riders per express trip. 

 

 

6 hours ago, thomasbw said:

Metro's Express Ridership is down 83.7% for July, averaging 2.8 riders per express trip. 

 

 

I honestly can't believe they brought it back at all, has to have been due to drivers more than need. It already is known to serve a wealthier demographic, ridership fell precipitously right away and won't come back as quickly as local. 

The suburban counties pay for those express routes, not the Cincinnati earnings tax Hamilton County sales tax. 

11 hours ago, jmecklenborg said:

The suburban counties pay for those express routes, not the Cincinnati earnings tax Hamilton County sales tax. 

That's only true of the 82X, 42X and 71X where Clermont, Warren and Butler counties use their federal formulaic funds to pay for those routes. 

 

That's not true of the 2X, 3X, 12X, 14X, 15X, 23X, 25X, 29X, 30X, 38X, 40X, 52X, 74X, 75X, 77X & 81X

^ which are some of the highest subsidy routes per passenger, whereas the 71X is one of the least. Butler Co has not resumed their 42X service. 

Cincinnati, Hamilton County plan overhaul of Southwest Ohio Regional Transit Authority board

 

 

Cincinnati and Hamilton County leaders have agreed to an overhaul of the board that runs the Metro bus service.

 

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2020/09/16/cincinnati-hamilton-county-plan-overhaul-of-southw.html

Quote

Under the plan agreed to by Hamilton County Commissioner Denise Driehaus and Mayor John Cranley, the county will appoint eight voting members to the board, while the city will appoint five. Three non-voting members will be chosen to represent Butler, Warren and Clermont counties, which do not contribute any local tax money to Metro.

 

This structure doesn't make any sense. Now that Metro is funded at the county level, the County Commissioners (who are appointed by all residents of Hamilton County) should appoint all of the board members. What is the justification for City of Cincinnati residents being double-represented (they vote for city officials that pick the 5 city representatives + the county officials who pick the 8 county representatives)? People who live in Norwood, Cheviot, or Blue Ash pay the exact same amount into the system and deserve the same representation. This is nothing more than the City of Cincinnati refusing to let go of control of SORTA even though they have relieved themselves of the burden of funding it. If I were a Mayor or City Council member of another municipality in Hamilton County, I would sue the county over this.

I think there is some benefit to having people specifically in the city having a real voice in the board. I don't think it's the case anymore, but it used to be the expectation that the County didn't care about the City, and they would likely in the past have appointed 13 Green Township residents to decide the fate of the bus system.

 

I think a requirement that X number of board appointees have to get city approval or live in the city could be a good thing, but yeah. Could the justification be that a lot of the bus operations are centered in the city, they aren't paying taxes on those properties, and they are inheriting investments made by the city for decades?

1 hour ago, ryanlammi said:

I think a requirement that X number of board appointees have to get city approval or live in the city could be a good thing, but yeah. Could the justification be that a lot of the bus operations are centered in the city, they aren't paying taxes on those properties, and they are inheriting investments made by the city for decades?

 

I don't know if this is what they were thinking but I certainly think it is correct. SORTA owns a lot of tax-exempt facilities in the city. City residents are the core of the user base. And city residents have invested in the system for generations. They deserve extra say.

I believe the City of Cincinnati donated the bus fleet to SORTA and in exchange SORTA agreed to maintain certain service levels within city limits. To me, that is a fair agreement, at least for the remaining lifetime of the current fleet. However, saying that "Cincinnati historically funded the bus system, therefore they permanently deserve special privileges in appointing SORTA board members" does not seem fair.

 

Remember, an overwhelming majority of city residents (76%) voted to give up control of the system and hand it over to the county, and then a majority of county residents voted in favor of taking the system over. Neither of those ballot issues had a footnote stating that, oh yeah, even though the county is going to take over the funding of the system, the city will retain special privileges over the composition of the SORTA board. Remember that 2/3 of Hamilton County residents don't live in the City of Cincinnati. Everybody wants to talk about how we should take a more regional approach for transit and other issues, but when it comes time for the city to give up control...

22 minutes ago, taestell said:

Remember that 2/3 of Hamilton County residents don't live in the City of Cincinnati. Everybody wants to talk about how we should take a more regional approach for transit and other issues, but when it comes time for the city to give up control...

 

But what percentage of Metro riders live in the city? What percentage of the route miles are in the city? What percentage of vehicle time is in the city? All just as relevant as total population. Plus, so many other local arrangements are bad for the city, why can't we let them have this one? If we're going to be mad about the city being overrepresented on the SORTA board, let's take a look at the OKI board too. The city, and Hamilton County, are both WAYYYY underrepresented on that board, to an insane degree. The city makes up like 15% of the OKI population and only has less than 2% of the seats on the board.

Surprise, surprise.  People vote for a feel-good Cranley bus tax and now they're surprised that there are hidden consequences.  

^Except the consequences are pro-city. I was fully expecting the County to appoint all members. 

19 minutes ago, DEPACincy said:

But what percentage of Metro riders live in the city?

 

City residents are also county residents, meaning they vote for County Commissioners, who should be the ones appointing all of the SORTA board members.

 

5 hours ago, DEPACincy said:

SORTA owns a lot of tax-exempt facilities in the city. City residents are the core of the user base. And city residents have invested in the system for generations. They deserve extra say.

 

That's kinda like saying that, even though the Cincinnati Zoo is funded by the county, City Council should be able to appoint 40% of the members of their Board of Directors because their main property is located inside the City of Cincinnati's city limits and they don't pay property tax on it. Fun fact: the Zoo was also started as a private business that was later taken over by the city, before it became a separate non-profit organization funded by the county. And yet the city retains no special power over the modern day organization.

 

I understand the suspicion that @ryanlammi raised, that we could potentially have an anti-transit County Commissioner who would appoint an anti-transit person to the SORTA board. However this seems very unlikely to me. County politics have changed dramatically in the past 10 years or so, and I just can't see some city-hating anti-transit person from a township getting on Commission anymore. And even if they did, you would need 2 anti-transit County Commissioners to get the majority needed to approve putting an anti-transit person on the SORTA board.

27 minutes ago, jmecklenborg said:

Surprise, surprise.  People vote for a feel-good Cranley bus tax and now they're surprised that there are hidden consequences.  

 

Wait, I'm completely ok with these consequences and it is exactly what I expected. I didn't expect the county to get to appoint all the members. So we have one person on a message board that you read who is not happy with the make up of the new board and you view it as some kind of confirmation? Weird.

1 minute ago, taestell said:

 

City residents are also county residents, meaning they vote for County Commissioners, who should be the ones appointing all of the SORTA board members.

 

 

That's kinda like saying that, even though the Cincinnati Zoo is funded by the county, City Council should be able to appoint 40% of the members of their Board of Directors because their main property is located inside the City of Cincinnati's city limits and they don't pay property tax on it. Fun fact: the Zoo was also started as a private business that was later taken over by the city, before it became a separate non-profit organization funded by the county. And yet the city retains no special power over the modern day organization.

 

I understand the suspicion that @ryanlammi raised, that we could potentially have an anti-transit County Commissioner who would appoint an anti-transit person to the SORTA board. However this seems very unlikely to me. County politics have changed dramatically in the past 10 years or so, and I just can't see some city-hating anti-transit person from a township getting on Commission anymore. And even if they did, you would need 2 anti-transit County Commissioners to get the majority needed to approve putting an anti-transit person on the SORTA board.

 

Good points all around. I still disagree. I'm fine with the city having an advantage in this respect. Again, I'd point to all the other boards and commissions where the city gets the shaft. The city having extra representation on the SORTA board (but still less than they did pre-sales tax) seem like something that isn't that big a deal to me.

The Main Street bus lane is finally getting some red paint.

 

Anyone else think the red paint sends a confusing message when the bus lane is only in effect 12% of the time? 88% of the time, it's just regular parking. 

Hopefully people just stop parking there altogether and they turn it into a transit lane 100% of the time. 

Yeah, better that the default perception is "bus only lane" rather than "just another lane."  

Early in the pandemic, the city should have "temporarily" made the bus lane in effect 24/7, citing the reduced demand for on-street parking. It would have worked out so well that there would be basically no resistance to making it permanent once the trial period was over.

With the new Countywide funding model, SORTA is now proposing a restructuring and simplification of their fare system

 

Here are the current fares

 

Awesome - a tax increase and a fare increase for the most common basic fare.  

A tax increase, a tax decrease, and a fare increase for anyone in Cincinnati.

 

A tax increase and a fare decrease for anyone outside of Cincinnati, but in Hamilton County.

 

We did repeal an income tax in addition to the sales tax increase.

Gentrification is pushing zone 1 residents into zone 2. It really feels like the positives outweigh the negatives in the long-term here

I don't see how this is a "simplification" at all. Sure they "eliminated zones and zone fares" but then they classified bus routes into 3 categories and are charging a different fare for each category.

6 minutes ago, taestell said:

I don't see how this is a "simplification" at all. Sure they "eliminated zones and zone fares" but then they classified bus routes into 3 categories and are charging a different fare for each category.

 

It's half as many different fares, no?

18 minutes ago, taestell said:

I don't see how this is a "simplification" at all. Sure they "eliminated zones and zone fares" but then they classified bus routes into 3 categories and are charging a different fare for each category.

 

I think it's a simplification.

 

$2 if you're taking a local route in Hamilton County.

$2.65 if you're taking a local express route in Hamilton County.

$3.75 if you're entering or exiting Hamilton County from a surrounding county.

 

That seems a lot simpler to understand than trying to figure out if you are going to be entering or exiting the city municipal boundaries. Plus having a different fare for Harrison, OH and a different fare for each surrounding county.

 

Also, I appreciate the free transfers for 2 hours instead of a $0.50 transfer. Unfortunately you have to have the app to get it.

58 minutes ago, Dev said:

Gentrification is pushing zone 1 residents into zone 2. It really feels like the positives outweigh the negatives in the long-term here

Agreed. The Colerain, Hamilton, Winton, and Reading corridors and everything in between are likely landing spots for these people, outside of city limits.  The Reading BRT will be a benefit that mostly affects the low income neighborhoods along that corridor as well.

53 minutes ago, ryanlammi said:

That seems a lot simpler to understand than trying to figure out if you are going to be entering or exiting the city municipal boundaries. Plus having a different fare for Harrison, OH and a different fare for each surrounding county.

 

I'm not sure why they currently charge a different fare for each suburban county. Maybe some counties were chipping in some money towards SORTA to subsidize those routes? Good that they're standardizing these.

 

The merger of Metro zones 1 and 2 was already promised as part of the countywide sales tax passing — the City of Cincinnati isn't funding SORTA so they no longer get a special discounted rate.

 

53 minutes ago, ryanlammi said:

Also, I appreciate the free transfers for 2 hours instead of a $0.50 transfer. Unfortunately you have to have the app to get it.

 

Eliminating transfers is great, but IMO, they should just go to a time-based system.

 

Hamilton County 2-hour pass — $2

Hamilton County all-day pass — $4

Hamilton County Express 2-hour pass — $2.65

Hamilton County Express all-day pass — $5.30

System-wide 2-hour pass — $3.75

System-wide all-day pass — $7.50

 

A 2-hour pass would be good for your any boardings within that timeframe, so it could be used for initial boarding and any subsequent transfers within 2 hours. Paper tickets could even be validated when inserted into the fare box so you would get two full hours past your actual boarding time, not time of purchase.

 

Of course this would also be much easier if Metro had tap fare cards like other cities have had for 15+ years. All of the math would be handled automatically so people wouldn't have to think about it. On your first local boarding, it would charge $2. Any additional taps within 2 hours would not deduct any more fare because they're considered free transfers. If you tap again later in the day you get charged another $2 and have another 2 hour free transfer window. The system could also treat the day pass rate as a "daily maximum", so if you rode Metro a third time the same day, there would be no additional charge.

1 hour ago, taestell said:

 

I'm not sure why they currently charge a different fare for each suburban county. Maybe some counties were chipping in some money towards SORTA to subsidize those routes? Good that they're standardizing these.

 

Correct, the counties contracted Metro to run those commuter routes.  I don't know why they were motivated to standardize the fare when each of those routes costs a different amount to run.  

 

 

This conversation between two Germans in NYC unexpectedly turns to the lousiness of Cincinnati's bus system at the 9:40 mark:

 

The SORTA operations committee authorized contracting a 6-month study of how to use SORTA-owned ROW going forward (still needs full board consent but seems like a formality). Discussion (mostly background) centered around OASIS and areas near the Wasson Way. Probably would have been nice to see this before the Issue 7/22 votes, but I digress - at least it'll be something recent and an analysis to talk about/debate and to see where the new board composition stand. Have the members/changes been announced? I haven't seen anything about that other than the agreed upon composition between city and county. 

 

Also wondering if anyone else saw the detailed Cincinnati Metro Redesign Proposal shared to Reddit. Pretty detailed to say the least. 

^I really like that all of the lines will be extended south from Government Square to Second/Third St.  Probably the weirdest change would be the erasure of the insane #1 and Mt. Adams buses made to go north to...Tri-County Mall.  Meanwhile, Union Terminal would still be a route terminus, but of a much less bizarre route. 

 

 

Metro's Express ridership is way down and it doesn't seem to be recovering like the regular ridership. I did a little back of the envelope math and its costing about $75 per passenger, per trip to run these routes right now. 

^Obviously, most of these riders are likely middle class or upper-middle class choice riders who work office jobs downtown with reliable schedules. Most of these people are probably easily able to work from home during the pandemic, or have access to a car, but chose to take the bus before the pandemic.

 

Do you know what the cost per trip was last year?

14 hours ago, shawk said:

The SORTA operations committee authorized contracting a 6-month study of how to use SORTA-owned ROW going forward

 

Does 6-month mean it would take that long to complete the study, or taking into account trends over a 6-month window?

Sorry - the contract will last 6 months, meaning that we should be getting a report this summer. 

 

@thomasbwhave you gotten ridership by route? It hasn't been on the slides how it used to. 

 

@ryanlammiyour response is definitely an accurate portrayal and part of the myth behind choice riders. 

 

If I'm reading the past reports right, their KPI goal is $9/passenger/route but it tended to be $12-14 pre-COVID from a quick glance at the public reports. 

32 minutes ago, shawk said:

Sorry - the contract will last 6 months, meaning that we should be getting a report this summer. 

 

@thomasbwhave you gotten ridership by route? It hasn't been on the slides how it used to. 

 

@ryanlammiyour response is definitely an accurate portrayal and part of the myth behind choice riders. 

 

If I'm reading the past reports right, their KPI goal is $9/passenger/route but it tended to be $12-14 pre-COVID from a quick glance at the public reports. 

They haven't done a per route breakdown since the pandemic started. That per-rider static sounds about right. 

 

If you ended express service, you'd likely save pretty close to enough in operating costs to make the rest of the system fare-free.