In terms of ease of "BRT" implementation, I'd rank:

1. Reading

2. Glenway

3. Montgomery

4. Hamilton

 

I'd put money on Reading getting the first one.  I'd say its a toss-up between Glenway and Montgomery for the second line.

14 minutes ago, 10albersa said:

 

My route (78) isn't getting reduced headways until 5 years down the road, according to the neighborhood improvements page, which means never.

 

I would kill for Metro+ (since we aren't under consideration for BRT) on Vine/Springfield Pike, our ridership numbers warrant it.

The 78 gets better frequency in 2020 according to this- http://reinventingmetro.com/uploads/Neighborhoods/Cincinnati Routes Maps v1.0.pdf

57 minutes ago, taestell said:

 

Well, by Metro's own definition, they say "BRT operates 50% of its route in designated bus-only-lanes." So what is the likelihood that they are actually able to keep their promise and build 50% dedicated bus lanes along these four corridors?

 

 

So, no signal prioritization? Will there be offboard ticket machines? GCRTA has let the Health Line go to s**t but at least they built it "right" when it was installed. I wouldn't call the CSU Line or CMAX "real BRT", and I have a feeling that's what SORTA is basing their ideas off of. 

^ Their full criteria for what they consider "BRT" is a few posts up, I was just using 50% bus-only lanes as one example. Because honestly, even if SORTA wanted to add bus lanes to these four corridors, I don't see the city letting that happen. Considering how hard it has been to even take 1 lane away from cars (see Liberty Street) or to get bike lanes added anywhere in the city, I don't see how it's possible to add 2 bus lanes to these corridors without residents and business owners throwing a fit. I think what's likely going to happen is that Metro will buy some more of the Metro*Plus buses, introduce "Plus" service on these corridors where they have promised BRT, and say "we'll work with the community to add bus lanes, signal priority, and off-board fare payment", and those things may or may not actually happen.

6 hours ago, thomasbw said:

The 78 gets better frequency in 2020 according to this- http://reinventingmetro.com/uploads/Neighborhoods/Cincinnati Routes Maps v1.0.pdf

 

I only saw the 2023 frequency boost.  I wonder if they will go down to 45 min headways in 2020 and 30 in 2023... Or are they improving only one of the segments to 30 mins (Lockland vs Springfield Pike) in 2020 and then the other in 2023.

8 hours ago, DEPACincy said:

 

We know you hate BRT. 

 

When Withrow was renamed Withrow University High School, it was still a lousy high school, not a university. 

 

There is no term RRT for "railroad rapid transit".  The term BRT is salesman-speak for moderately improved bus service and too often an ugly streetscape. 

 

The much-vaunted Boston Silverline BRT from Logan Airport takes 20+ minutes to travel 2 miles, despite hitting 55mph for one of those two miles in the Ted Williams Tunnel.  Really:

 

So is BRT that once had timed signals but doesn't anymore thanks to rich people complaining about red lights still BRT?  Is BRT that was designed back in 1995 to go straight from the Ted Williams Tunnel into a dedicated tunnel to South Station still BRT when conflicting interests force it to surface and do a crazy 10-minute double-back in the South Waterfront?  Is BRT still BRT when it gets into a traffic jam in the Ted Williams Tunnel caused by a traffic problem in East Boston? 

 

 

9 hours ago, jmecklenborg said:

The term BRT is salesman-speak for moderately improved bus service and too often an ugly streetscape.

 

That is mostly true in the United States, but not so true in the rest of the world. There needs to be some standardization of the term, but I don't know how that's achievable.

Right, transit planners and anyone who's used it in other countries (Bogota Colombia is the standard) refer to BRT as essentially light rail but with buses.  Nearly exclusively separated busways and/or tunnel operation, off-vehicle fare collection or proof-of-payment, platform-level boarding, multi-door boarding, high-capacity vehicles, full signal priority/preemption, stop passing/queue jumping ability.  What US transit agencies propose instead, or what the projects get watered down to, is merely conventional express/limited bus service.  You could call it a bait-and-switch or simply a misunderstanding/misrepresentation, but I certainly wouldn't call anything SORTA is proposing BRT. 

26 minutes ago, Robuu said:

 

That is mostly true in the United States, but not so true in the rest of the world. There needs to be some standardization of the term, but I don't know how that's achievable.

https://www.itdp.org/library/standards-and-guides/the-bus-rapid-transit-standard/

 

Call it a "busway" if you must, but if we get in the Silver range on this rubric I think that's more than adequate to call it BRT. Whether that's possible or even proposed is another story. 

9 minutes ago, jjakucyk said:

Right, transit planners and anyone who's used it in other countries (Bogota Colombia is the standard) refer to BRT as essentially light rail but with buses.  Nearly exclusively separated busways and/or tunnel operation, off-vehicle fare collection or proof-of-payment, platform-level boarding, multi-door boarding, high-capacity vehicles, full signal priority/preemption, stop passing/queue jumping ability.  What US transit agencies propose instead, or what the projects get watered down to, is merely conventional express/limited bus service.  You could call it a bait-and-switch or simply a misunderstanding/misrepresentation, but I certainly wouldn't call anything SORTA is proposing BRT. 

 

The bait-and-switch part is in reference to promising BRT in the campaign to get votes. I don't think it's a lack of understanding, although I could be wrong. I expect transit professionals to know what BRT means, and most should probably be familiar with the rating standard @shawk linked to.

 

Edit: Or at least to become familiar with these things while researching best practices, which should be done in the process of conceiving a "BRT" project.

^ They need something to fix public transportation in the area. As loathe as I am to taxes and espouse a libertarian viewpoint, this is a worthy venture and even if it does not get much of what we would like to see, it is still worth supporting because it helps to stabilize the system at the very minimum. 

11 hours ago, jmecklenborg said:

 

The much-vaunted Boston Silverline BRT from Logan Airport takes 20+ minutes to travel 2 miles, despite hitting 55mph for one of those two miles in the Ted Williams Tunnel.  Really:

 

It takes 17 minutes to get from Logan to South Station on the Silver Line. I've done it many times and the timing has been consistent. I've never run into a problem. The crazy loop is weird but it beats the hell out of an Uber or taxi. 

 

This quibbling over what is and what isn't BRT is dumb. Most people have never heard the term. What SORTA is proposing is vastly improved public transit for the region. I hope we eventually get the Hamilton Avenue line built because I will use it often. I don't care if we call it BRT or Express or whatever. I'll just be glad to get to my destination faster than I currently can on the 17.

I mean, people don't get that "rapid transit", by definition, means a totally closed system.  The NY Subway and Washington Metro don't interact with any other sort of vehicle.  We have several examples of "busways" in the United States, such as in Pittsburgh or the Orange Line in Los Angeles.  Each were former rail ROW's that were rebuilt as bus-only streets.  But in all U.S. examples there are at-grade interchanges. 

 

 

1 minute ago, DEPACincy said:

 

This quibbling over what is and what isn't BRT is dumb. Most people have never heard the term. What SORTA is proposing is vastly improved public transit for the region.

 

Specific words absolutely matter.  The tactical use of language is where power comes from. 

 

All SORTA is doing is bringing back bus service to roughly what it was before the 2011-2012 cuts and adding 24-hour service on the main lines.  This isn't a profound improvement.  And it's doing so by shifting taxes from a progressive method to a regressive method.  

 

We just lost Macy's despite NYC's earnings tax being twice ours.  This theory that the so-called business community has that Cincinnati's earnings tax (which is already significantly lower than all others in Ohio and even directly across the river in Covington and Newport) is holding back the city is a joke.  It's Tea Party fearmongering. 

22 minutes ago, jmecklenborg said:

All SORTA is doing is bringing back bus service to roughly what it was before the 2011-2012 cuts and adding 24-hour service on the main lines.  This isn't a profound improvement.  And it's doing so by shifting taxes from a progressive method to a regressive method.  

 

I can't speak to this, because I wasn't here in 2012. A lot of my neighbors weren't here then either. We don't care if it was better before and got worse we just know Cincinnati public transit SUCKS and we want it to be better. 

 

24 minutes ago, jmecklenborg said:

 

We just lost Macy's despite NYC's earnings tax being twice ours.  This theory that the so-called business community has that Cincinnati's earnings tax (which is already significantly lower than all others in Ohio and even directly across the river in Covington and Newport) is holding back the city is a joke.  It's Tea Party fearmongering.

 

I mean... Yea, this is true. Zero disagreement here. But that doesn't change the fact that we need to improve the bus system and this is the politically palatable way of doing it. I've talked to folks on the west side and in places like Anderson Twp. The only way we're ensuring this passes is by focusing on the roadway improvements and the tax break that people who work in the city and live in the suburbs are going to get.

Correlation of Walk Score, Transit Score, Bike Score and Population in City of Cincinnati Neighborhoods. 

Full list

Population density would probably be a more valuable data point

20 minutes ago, thomasbw said:

Full list

 

I wonder if population density wouldn't be a better choice here. With population you run into the modifiable areal unit problem. 

 

EDIT: Saw @ryanlammi beat me to the punch. Great minds, and all that!

Edited February 7, 20205 yr by DEPACincy

26 minutes ago, DEPACincy said:

 

I can't speak to this, because I wasn't here in 2012. 

 

The old routes are still visible on the signs.  The #17, #18, and #19 were duplicative all the way from Knowlton's Corner to Downtown.  This meant there was a bus passing in front of McMicken Hall every 5-10 minutes pretty much all the time.  After the cuts, the #18 was eliminated completely (which, incidentally was my neighborhood's bus growing up) and the #19 was rerouted from Clifton Ave. to Mt. Auburn via Jefferson Ave.  Outbound, you were able to wait for a bus on Clifton Ave. that would take you up Hamilton Ave., up Colerain, or shift on North Bend and then up Cheviot Rd. to White Oak.  That was just one corner of the bus system. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3 hours ago, Robuu said:

 

That is mostly true in the United States, but not so true in the rest of the world. There needs to be some standardization of the term, but I don't know how that's achievable.

 

It's because there's no such thing as actual BRT activists in this country, only rail opponents.

 

13 hours ago, jmecklenborg said:

 

There is no term RRT for "railroad rapid transit".  The term BRT is salesman-speak for moderately improved bus service and too often an ugly streetscape. 

 

The much-vaunted Boston Silverline BRT from Logan Airport takes 20+ minutes to travel 2 miles, despite hitting 55mph for one of those two miles in the Ted Williams Tunnel.  Really

 

So is BRT that once had timed signals but doesn't anymore thanks to rich people complaining about red lights still BRT?  Is BRT that was designed back in 1995 to go straight from the Ted Williams Tunnel into a dedicated tunnel to South Station still BRT when conflicting interests force it to surface and do a crazy 10-minute double-back in the South Waterfront?  Is BRT still BRT when it gets into a traffic jam in the Ted Williams Tunnel caused by a traffic problem in East Boston? 

 

1 hour ago, DEPACincy said:

 

It takes 17 minutes to get from Logan to South Station on the Silver Line. I've done it many times and the timing has been consistent. I've never run into a problem. The crazy loop is weird but it beats the hell out of an Uber or taxi. 

 

 

I’m with Jake on this one. His post of the Silver Line gave my flashbacks of how miserable that connection was. I lived just off the Red Line and therefore connected to the Silver Line to get to the airport regularly once it opened. What we needed was a direct, fast connection from South Station to the airport.  The silver line does not provide that.  The route through Seaport should have been a separate line, period. 

42 minutes ago, ryanlammi said:

Population density would probably be a more valuable data point

Agreed, anyone have that info? If so I'll add it. 

1 hour ago, DEPACincy said:

This quibbling over what is and what isn't BRT is dumb. Most people have never heard the term. What SORTA is proposing is vastly improved public transit for the region.

 

Then Metro should educate the public about what BRT actually is and/or not lie and tell the public that we're getting 4 BRT routes when what we're actually going to get is 4 Metro Plus-style limited stop bus routes that come nowhere close to "true" BRT or even Metro's own watered-down definition of BRT.

37 minutes ago, jmecklenborg said:

 

The old routes are still visible on the signs.  The #17, #18, and #19 were duplicative all the way from Knowlton's Corner to Downtown.  This meant there was a bus passing in front of McMicken Hall every 5-10 minutes pretty much all the time.  After the cuts, the #18 was eliminated completely (which, incidentally was my neighborhood's bus growing up) and the #19 was rerouted from Clifton Ave. to Mt. Auburn via Jefferson Ave.  Outbound, you were able to wait for a bus on Clifton Ave. that would take you up Hamilton Ave., up Colerain, or shift on North Bend and then up Cheviot Rd. to White Oak.  That was just one corner of the bus system. 

 

I loved the frequency of the #17/#18/#19! 

 

I thought the #18 was being merged into the #17 which would have made the #17 more frequent, but that never seemed to happen.

 

I was never a fan that the #19 had to take over part of the #39 which was eliminated.

19 minutes ago, taestell said:

 

Then Metro should educate the public about what BRT actually is and/or not lie and tell the public that we're getting 4 BRT routes when what we're actually going to get is 4 Metro Plus-style limited stop bus routes that come nowhere close to "true" BRT or even Metro's own watered-down definition of BRT.

 

We are getting what they put up on their site. I'm not sure what else they can do but give the actual definition that they are using? They only have so many resources to "educate" the public and they are holding several public information sessions, running TV and radio ads, etc. I feel like people have unrealistic expectations.

51 minutes ago, GCrites80s said:

 

It's because there's no such thing as actual BRT activists in this country, only rail opponents.

 

Old Man Beaman in Nashville fought The Amp, which was the now-forgotten BRT line that was to have been built on West End Ave. near Vanderbilt and connected to 5-Points in East Nashville.  This was back in 2015 or 2016, before the much-bigger light rail & bus subway tunnel that was proposed under fun-loving Mayor Barry and went down in flames at the polls.   

 

Beaman owns like 15 car dealerships around Nashville, including the massive lots that are now worth well over $10 million between downtown and Vanderbilt.  It would be like if there was a giant Ford Dealership right in the middle of Short North, fronting High St.  

38 minutes ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

 

 

I’m with Jake on this one. His post of the Silver Line gave my flashbacks of how miserable that connection was. I lived just off the Red Line and therefore connected to the Silver Line to get to the airport regularly once it opened. What we needed was a direct, fast connection from South Station to the airport.  The silver line does not provide that.  The route through Seaport should have been a separate line, period. 

 

The full history of the silver line is that it was compensation lobbed at Roxbury after the MBTA failed to fulfill its promise to restore rail service on Washington Ave. after the el was torn down around 1986.  The orange line trains now operate as a modern rapid transit line, albeit parallel to the Northeast Corridor tracks and along the path for a cancelled expressway.  As such, the new orange line's stations are in weird locations.  

 

So the Orange line, today, operates along the path of what could have been a busway.  And instead the Silver Line operates on Washington Ave., where a subway should be.  

 

The silver lining to the silver line is that its improvement to transit service in Roxbury was minimal, staving off gentrification.  

 

The silver line was sold as a one-seat ride to Logan, but the purpose-built tunnel at South Station still hasn't been completed, 20 years after the service began, so you still have to transfer.  

 

 

 

 

With Population Density

 

 

https://www.go-metro.com/projects?fbclid=IwAR3yNydQUOG9swy3aq16EwKW9XSkeEDKvWqlvWSQwFQvXhK_3qWABjIZcYI

 

Construction camera for the Northside Transit Center is live at the bottom of this page

6 hours ago, taestell said:

 

Then Metro should educate the public about what BRT actually is and/or not lie and tell the public that we're getting 4 BRT routes when what we're actually going to get is 4 Metro Plus-style limited stop bus routes that come nowhere close to "true" BRT or even Metro's own watered-down definition of BRT.

They don't say 4 BRT routes. They say 2 of the 4 will happen. It's including something like 20 miles of BRT which ends up being 2 routes. And then the rumor I heard was that the other two routes would indeed get Metro-Plus style routes. 

Cranley has announced his candidacy for Ohio Governor in 2021.  

 

Now it's crystal-clear why Cranley waited until his second term to enact his long-planned transit tax shift.  If the thing in March passes, in 2012 he'll be able to claim that he significantly lowered Cincinnati's earnings tax.  No mention will be made of the see-saw action with the county sales tax.  Or the "infrastructure" slush fund created to entice the electorate.  

Conservatives back countywide transportation tax

 

Two leading West Side conservatives said Friday they will back a 0.8% sales tax that will be used to expand bus service throughout Hamilton County and fix roads and bridges.

 

Hamilton County Auditor Dusty Rhodes, a Democrat, and Ohio House Majority Leader Bill Seitz, R-Green Township, endorsed the tax, which is on the March 17 ballot, at a news conference at Westwood Town Hall.

 

Rhodes’ support was particularly notable because he helped lead the opposition in 2002 to the last transit levy on a Hamilton County ballot, the MetroMoves measures, which would have expanded bus service and built several light rail lines.

 

“That was a boondoggle from the get go. It would have taken 10 years to get there,” Rhodes said in an interview with the Business Courier. “This is transportation, bus transportation. No streetcars are in it, thank God. It’s a device to get people to jobs, which is the major thing for me. Plus, the city earnings tax is going to be reduced."

 

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2020/02/14/conservatives-back-countywide-transportation-tax.html

Everyone loves a slush fund!

Not sure if this photo was always up on the Reinventing Metro site, but it appears that the 2 BRT routes are Reading and Glenway.  These are the 1st and 3rd busiest routes in the system (Hamilton Ave being #2). And those are probably the 2 cheapest routes to build out if I had to guess.

http://reinventingmetro.com/index.php?page=improvements

7 reasons to vote no on 7:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/news/opinion-7-reasons-for-taxpayers-to-vote-no-on-issue-7/ar-BB10DJgd?ocid=spartandhp

^ Written by the same scam artist who's behind the so-called "Ohio Voter Integrity Project".

50 minutes ago, taestell said:

^ Written by the same scam artist who's behind the so-called "Ohio Voter Integrity Project".

 

She's also given over $2000 to Ron Paul, so I don't think I'd trust her judgement. 

 

https://www.campaignmoney.com/political/contributions/barbara-holwadel.asp?cycle=12

She also commented on an anti-vaxxer meme on Facebook someone else posted on her timeline stating it was barbaric to let infants get these vaccines. 

1 hour ago, jmecklenborg said:

7 reasons to vote no on 7:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/news/opinion-7-reasons-for-taxpayers-to-vote-no-on-issue-7/ar-BB10DJgd?ocid=spartandhp

 

Ok, I couldn't resist. Her piece if FULL of misinformation and lies. Here are some examples:

 

Quote

Taxpayers of the county have never gotten to vote on representation at City Hall and the issues facing the city of Cincinnati.

 

So? If you don't live in Cincinnati why would you get to vote on representation at City Hall? Also, what does this have to do with Issue 7? She conveniently leaves out that if Issue 7 passes then the county will have a majority of members on the SORTA board, so county taxpayers will have a bigger say. 

 

Quote

Personally, I was opposed to the streetcar as soon as someone told me many years ago it would take $17 per rider for the streetcar to break even. 

 

Again, nothing to do with Issue 7 but also a lie. According to the NTD, the operating expenses for the streetcar are $7.81 per unlinked passenger trip. 

 

Quote

Once in place, citizens will have minimal recourse for grievances and opposition to the bureaucrats’ plans.

 

What? Citizens will have the exact same recourse they've always have. They get to elect the officials who make the decisions and hire the "bureaucrats." 

 

Quote

Job Hubs are spreading throughout the region. From Lawrenceburg to Milford, and from Liberty Township to Florence, jobs in our area are expanding outwardly. It is impossible for the government to predict who needs a ride, where and at what time in large enough numbers to make gas-guzzling buses financially viable.

 

The two largest employment centers in the region are Downtown Cincinnati and Uptown Cincinnati. Hamilton County has led the way in job growth for the past several years, with the City of Cincinnati accounting for a sizable chunk of that. This decade the City of Cincinnati is the third fastest growing municipality in the state, in absolute population growth. Hamilton County leads the region in new housing unit permits, with over 40% of those permits coming in the City of Cincinnati for the past several years. Also, the use of "gas-guzzling buses" betrays either a complete lack of understanding of air quality management or a willful attempt to deceive. 
 

Quote

Sales taxes adversely affect the poor more than middle- and upper-income residents by consuming a more substantial percentage of their income.

 

This is actually true. However, she gave over $2000 to a presidential candidate that wants to create a flat tax that would be disastrous for poor and middle income people while accruing huge benefits to the very rich. Something tells me she's not sincere in her concern here.
 

Quote

We could subsidize Uber and Lyft and taxi rides that promote fuel efficiencies for rides when and where they are needed.

 

LOL wait til she finds out that Uber and Lyft rides are already heavily subsidized by venture capitalists and that those companies have yet to turn a profit. Also, does she really think paying everyone to take Uber would be cheaper or better for the environment than having buses? If so, she's even dumber than I thought. It's more likely that she is being insincere again. 
 

Quote

Reason six is high sales taxes are bad for business.

Putting aside the point that "high" is subjective, there's absolutely zero proof of this. 
 

Quote

And the "Bus Rapid Transit" program calls for dedicated bus lanes on the already cramped freeways – another outdated idea.

This is a lie too. The BRT plan says nothing about freeways. That's a great idea though. An HOV lane for car pools and buses would be a great idea. Many cities are implementing them. I guess they didn't get the memo that they are "outdated." 
 

Quote

 Efficient 21st century solutions for needed public transportation deserve a chance to emerge organically from the free market that has made Cincinnati such a great place to live, work and raise a family.

 

Ah, there we go. THE FREE MARKET WILL SOLVE ALL OF OUR PROBLEMS. We should just stop building roads then. Let businesses build their own roads if they want them. 

Related:

 

https://www.citylab.com/environment/2020/02/uber-lyft-pollution-data-carbon-emissions-ride-hailing-study/607063/
 

A new report by the Union of Concerned Scientists evaluates another, less-examined ramification of the ride-hailing sector: its environmental toll. The study estimates that the average U.S. ride-hailing trip results in 69% more pollution than the transportation choices it displaces, based on federal vehicle efficiency statistics, data collected by state and local transportation regulators and previous survey-based academic research. The effects are likely even worse in downtown areas, where riders are more likely to choose on-demand rides in lieu of cleaner modes of mobility.

.

.

.

Anair and his colleagues first compare the pollution associated with the average, non-pooled ride-hailing trip to the pollution from the same trip in an average passenger vehicle, and finds that the on-demand rides generate 47% more carbon emissions. Although ride-hailing vehicles tend to be more gasoline-efficient than America’s fleet of individually owned cars — for-hire drivers often buy these cars for the express purpose of towing people around — Anair and his colleagues found that the fuel savings was not enough to make up for the many miles that ride-hail drivers log without anyone in the back seat (“deadheading,” in taxi-driver talk). As many as 40 percent of all miles driven by Uber and Lyft across six major U.S. cities were without passengers, according to a joint study released by the companies last summer, reported on first by CityLab.

Does anyone know how Issue 7 is polling?  Admittedly it's anecdotal, but I'm in a local Facebook group with about 12k members and it seems to be a 90/10 ratio against it.  I'm sure it will be much closer, but it is a little concerning. 

I'm not sure where the yard signs are coming from.  Was there an event?  Nobody - like zerobody - from Metromoves or the 10+ year streetcar saga has been invited into the "process" or in any way has advocated for this thing.  

 

It's amazing how Cranley managed to get everyone running for office to also advocate for this issue.  They got all the rank-and-file Democrats countywide to put it on their literature, plus many republicans.  

 

Think back to Metromoves - it was out there in the open ocean being whipped by all of the people who have now formed a safe harbor around this thing.  

 

This shows you that this is really all about a tax shift and creating the infrastructure slush fund to avoid stadium drama in five years.  

 

14 hours ago, jmecklenborg said:

Nobody - like zerobody - from Metromoves or the 10+ year streetcar saga has been invited into the "process" or in any way has advocated for this thing.

 

Instead they are sending out mailers bragging about how "Hamilton County Conservatives support Issue 7" including Dusty Rhodes!

15 hours ago, LAW 21 said:

Does anyone know how Issue 7 is polling?  Admittedly it's anecdotal, but I'm in a local Facebook group with about 12k members and it seems to be a 90/10 ratio against it.  I'm sure it will be much closer, but it is a little concerning. 

 

7 minutes ago, taestell said:

 

Instead they are sending out mailers bragging about how "Hamilton County Conservatives support Issue 7" including Dusty Rhodes!

 

I honestly cant see it passing. End of the day, majority of voters do not live in the city, they do not see a sales tax increase to improve 1) Buses they do not use and 2) Roads, which they consider the state's responsibility to fix, worthy of imposing the sales tax increase. 

 

I could be wrong. I personally am going to vote for it, but I don't see that this is going to pass. I think with the emphasis on bus transportation that the majority of voters do not use and will not be affected by, I can't imagine them passing this. Plus sales tax increases have such a bad history in the county from the stadium to the now .2 increase the county just pushed through last year, voters will be leery to do this again.  The County doing what they did last Summer/Fall may have poisoned the well on this. 

Ideally, they would have bumped up the earnings tax or left it alone and asked for .25 sales tax increase, but the business community gets what they want.  I want more frequent service along route 78, so I'm voting yes, no matter the cost.  The one silver lining from the sales tax funding mechanism is at least some portion of it is funded via people who don't live and work here, but visit and spend money.

3 minutes ago, 10albersa said:

Ideally, they would have bumped up the earnings tax or left it alone and asked for .25 sales tax increase, but the business community gets what they want.  I want more frequent service along route 78, so I'm voting yes, no matter the cost.  The one silver lining from the sales tax funding mechanism is at least some portion of it is funded via people who don't live and work here, but visit and spend money.

 That is true, but sales taxes have a bad stigma here. Look how many have been proposed and failed since the stadium sales tax in 96.

1) Metro Moves

2) Jail tax (multiple times)

3) Music Hall (Union Terminal passed)

There has probably been 1 or two more.

 

It was a good idea allowing the tax to improve roads too, however, many people still will not connect the dots on this since they think the general fund is responsible for roads. That is the hardest part of it. It does not matter if COAST gets behind this, there are too many people that do not like the sales tax to vote for it IMO

The other side of the equation is that the R team doesn't have the presidential primary to vote in March 17th, I think SORTA was probably banking on that when they chose this as the date to put it on the ballot. But now, Biden has fully run away with the nomination and D turnout may be lower than initially anticipated.