Posted January 17, 200718 yr Big changes ahead for public transit? THE ENQUIRERBY DAN KLEPAL | [email protected] January 16, 2007 CINCINNATI - Public transportation in Cincinnati and Hamilton County could be in for a major overhaul by the end of the year. Elected leaders in Cincinnati and Hamilton County are forming a group that will look at all aspects of public transportation: how it’s funded, which communities it serves, how much it costs to ride, and even what types of vehicles people ride in. Members of the Southwest Regional Transit Authority (SORTA), which oversees the Metro bus system, also will be part of the group. Read More...
January 17, 200718 yr Combine this with the encouraging news that is coming out about streetcars in Cincinnati...and you see a picture that is beginning to change in Cincy. Maybe its a coincidence that this is happening now that Dems now control the city, county, and state.
January 17, 200718 yr You put the democrats in charge and good things happen. You put the republicans in charge and sprawl happens.
January 21, 200718 yr You put the democrats in charge and good things happen. You put the republicans in charge and sprawl happens. I'm glad you don't oversimplify things
January 23, 200718 yr This is just fan-frickin-tastic :x SORTA re-elects trustees CINCINNATI ENQUIRER January 23, 2007 CINCINNATI - The board of trustees of the Southwest Ohio Regional Transit Authority, which operates Metro bus service in Greater Cincinnati, re-elected Lamont Taylor chairman and Stephan Louis vice chairman. Taylor is an employee relations representative for Frisch's Inc./Golden Corral. Louis markets and sells medical devices and has been involved with the Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional Council of Governments. Read More...
January 23, 200718 yr Is this the same Stephan "I hate public transportation" Louis who helped defeat the light rail initiative a few years ago? Bravo! :clap:
March 21, 200718 yr Regional transit panel proposed BY JOE WESSELS | CINCINNATI POST March 21, 2007 CINCINNATI - Hamilton County Commissioner Todd Portune thinks it's time to take a more regional approach to addressing public transportation issues that affect not only Greater Cincinnati but Northern Kentucky and southeastern Indiana as well. He is proposing creation of a regional transit board of city and county elected officials, plus members of the current Southwest Regional Transit Authority board, who oversee the Metro bus system, to take a look at the current model and offer suggestions for improvement. He hopes to have it in place by this summer. Though SORTA officials say their system is meant to serve a region, Portune does not believe it is effectively doing that. Read More...
September 17, 200717 yr 'Super-regional' transit plan BY JESSICA BROWN | [email protected] Sweeping changes are being proposed to the Greater Cincinnati public bus system. They might include shuttles to take people between Cincinnati arts attractions or businesses, bus routes anywhere in Southwest Ohio, Northern Kentucky or Southeast Indiana or even a high-speed train from Cincinnati to Dayton. A blueprint for a re-organized Southwest Ohio Regional Transportation Authority, which runs Greater Cincinnati’s public transportation system, is expected to be announced at Monday's Hamilton County Commission meeting at 9:30 a.m. Read More...
June 11, 200817 yr Officials from Butler NEED to realize, they wouldn't exist if not for Cincy and quit with their smarta$$ remarks. With all the corruption and scandals in Butler County within the past year, I don't know that I would feel comfortable with any of them having the least bit of control of something as intricate as this. Nevertheless, this is good to see talk of this kind of entity. Hopefully we start hearing Light Rail talk again soon. Plan to merge transit systems gets hearing in Butler County Business Courier of Cincinnati Cincinnati and Butler County officials are meeting Tuesday to discuss a plan for a regional transit system, the Hamilton Journal-News reported. The plan, which could include Warren and Clermont counties as well, would create a new entity called the Greater Cincinnati Transportation Authority, according to the story. The city of Cincinnati, which provides a large portion of the Metro bus system's budget, would appoint the majority of members to a new board. Other participating counties would appoint one member and then one more for each 10 percent of Metro's budget that they contribute, the story said. Read More...
June 11, 200817 yr 'Use school buses' County Commission President has plan to fight $4 gas THE ENQUIRER School and local authorities will meet next week to hear a proposal for using school buses to expand transit service during the summer. Hamilton County Commission President Todd Portune, a longtime public-transit advocate, proposed the idea and called the meeting for 9 a.m. Monday at the Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional Council of Governments, 720 E. Pete Rose Way, downtown. Portune said in a statement Tuesday that using idle school buses and bus drivers would make it possible to offer relief to workers struggling to pay $4 a gallon for gas. In addition, he said, it would get more cars off the road, reducing air pollution and helping the area meet federal clean-air standards. Read More...
July 1, 200816 yr Transportation summit sought By Josh Sweigart Staff Writer Friday, June 27, 2008 HAMILTON — As gasoline prices tip $4 a gallon and the city of Cincinnati and Hamilton County quibble over control of the county's bus system, area leaders say it's time to get together and think regionally. The proposal, first made by Hamilton County Commissioner Todd Portune, is for all the players in Butler, Clermont, Hamilton and Warren counties to meet at a "summit" and discuss regional transportation. "As a region, it's something it sounds like we need to talk about," said Christine Matacic, Liberty Twp. trustee and member of the Butler County Regional Transit Authority board. Read More...
July 1, 200816 yr "quibble over control of the county's bus system..." Did the writer even read the motion put forth by John Cranley that called for a regional system controlled by the entity that contributes the most financially? What a poorly written article that demonstrates a lack of understanding of the current situation.
July 1, 200816 yr For a better article read this: Shaking up SORTA http://www.urbancincy.com/2008/06/shaking-up-sorta.html
July 1, 200816 yr "quibble over control of the county's bus system..." Did the writer even read the motion put forth by John Cranley that called for a regional system controlled by the entity that contributes the most financially? What a poorly written article that demonstrates a lack of understanding of the current situation. Exactly. I feel like Cincinnati and Hamilton County should be partnering with those in Butler who are more closely tied to places like Hamilton or Oxford rather than West Chester or Fairfield, which I assume have a much stronger bias against the City of Cincinnati and public transit planning.
July 1, 200816 yr I know buses are an important part of any transit system, but I keep hoping to hear someone throw light rail out there again. Maybe when gas hits $5 a gallon...
July 1, 200816 yr We’re not framing the structure of regional transit in the right way. In fact, the way we’re going about it is counter to how regional transit is valued. Counties – at least in this part of Ohio – aren't the logical building blocks for public transportation. Transit is an urban amenity. Counties and townships are all about getting away for the city, from city-scale services and especially from taxes. It may be a long time before residents of northeast Warren County and eastern Clermont County feel the need to tax themselves for public transportation. A little known fact: several small cities, including Lincoln Heights, Wyoming, Mariemont and Woodlawn, voted for MetroMoves by greater percentages than Cincinnati did in 2002. A few others including Amberly Village, Blue Ash and Indian Hill were not far behind. My guess is that Montgomery and Springdale would like to see more transportation choices too. Were that same vote held today, you might see most of these cities voting in favor of it. And so here's what I’m thinking: that we ought to ally ourselves with some of our progressive neighboring cities in Hamilton County and perhaps beyond – Mason and Middletown come to mind – in a unique partnership for funding better regional transit. All of them can levy earnings taxes. Keep in mind that only one other jurisdiction is needed to establish a post-SORTA transportation authority that could receive Federal funds. Blue Ash would be the most logical partner. Failing that, maybe Wyoming or Mariemont. What would be in it for them? After all, most of these cities already have suburban to downtown service. Well, for starters, I’d ask them where else they would like to go. Blue Ash to U.C. – certainly. Mariemont to Blue Ash, probably. What about Wyoming to Norwood and Oakley? Some of these jurisdictions would want express service, others line-haul service. But, for sure, they are collectively more transit-friendly than Hamilton County as a whole or any of the surrounding counties. Transit could be run as a city-sponsored utility much like the Water Works. It could have an independent board like the Park Board and the Recreation Commission. I believe our city has a lot of competence in transportation projects and that Metro sans SORTA could find a happy home in the city. We today have an absolutely unique asset in Metro, and I think Cincinnati should deal from strength in extending Metro’s services to the region. A totally fresh approach is needed, some original thinking. To me, John Cranley’s idea is a non-starter because it relies on outlying counties to come up with a dedicated funding source. It's not going to happen anytime soon. Appreciate others' thoughts.
July 1, 200816 yr ^ Just curious, what makes Metro a unique asset? Lots of cities have bus service. Metro is the only public transportation on the ohio side of the river
July 1, 200816 yr Transit could be run as a city-sponsored utility much like the Water Works. I like that idea a lot. You might be on to something there. You don't hear much, if any dissent regarding the water works.
July 1, 200816 yr Most of my sources say Cincy Water Works is pretty self sufficient and profitable. I would love to see all transit at that point.
July 2, 200816 yr We're not framing the structure of regional transit in the right way. In fact, the way were going about it is counter to how regional transit is valued... A totally fresh approach is needed, some original thinking. To me, John Cranley's idea is a non-starter because it relies on outlying counties to come up with a dedicated funding source. It's not going to happen anytime soon. I think this is a great idea, focusing on the services people want and the communities who want it.
July 4, 200816 yr A problem I see with your idea John is the shear number of cities you would have to negotiate with. This has time and time again been a major issue with doing anything on a regional scale. There are a thousand municipalities and anytime you have that many people at the table it is virtually impossible to get an agreement on anything. I kind of like my chances better dealing with those who are willing to play ball. If you don't want to pay, then fine...you don't have a say. So if you want to be a part of a regional transit system then you're going to pay so that you have what you think is an appropriate level of representation. Additionally you would only be directly dealing with 5 entities (Cincy, HamCo, ButCo, WarCo, ClerCo) instead of trying to negotiate with 30 or 40. I know Butler, Warren, and Clermont Counties don't look like entities willing to play ball, but I think a place like Butler County might surprise you. I also think that others might be more willing to pony up if it means that is the only way they have a say in the service levels. When it all shakes out I think you'll see somewhat of what you're talking about. Other cities (i.e. Blue Ash), in HamCo, might want to start contributing if it means they might have a more impactful presence on the board. I think the same thing would happen in places like West Chester, Mason, Middletown, and possibly Hamilton. They could do this separately or lobby their respective counties to pay up so that they have a larger presence together in order to match up to Cincy's huge contribution...almost creating a bidding war. If they wanted to have their individual say (more than likely in the bigger cities) then they can do it that way. In either case (whether it is funded through a county or city level) the end result is the same - new dedicated funding for transit. And with Cranley's proposal it would immediately be pitched at a regional level...whereas the city to city approach would not.
July 4, 200816 yr Signs Pointing to Better Public Transit http://citybeat.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A145531
July 4, 200816 yr A problem I see with your idea John is the shear number of cities you would have to negotiate with. This has time and time again been a major issue with doing anything on a regional scale. There are a thousand municipalities and anytime you have that many people at the table it is virtually impossible to get an agreement on anything. I doubt you'd be dealing with a lot of cities to start - half a dozen maybe, the best targets of opportunity. Once the ball got rollling, I'd expect other cities to join in.
July 4, 200816 yr ^In that case you would be trying to piece together support after the fact. I'm not sure I'm sold on that idea yet, but I understand your train of thought.
July 4, 200816 yr ^ This time, it needs to be demand-driven. MetroMoves focused on the supply-side -- something for everyone.
July 6, 200816 yr This seems a good of place as any to post this so... http://www.contestedstreets.com/ I don't know if anyone has heard of this documentary, Contested Streets; Breaking New York City Girdlock, but I got a chance to watch it at work the other week and it is really an inspiring film. It is playing on the Sundance Channel sometime, but i don't know exactly when.
October 30, 200816 yr Cincinnati, Hamilton Co. propose new regional transit system Business Courier of Cincinnati - by Dan Monk Senior Staff Reporter Cincinnati and Hamilton County have reached agreement on a new regional transit agency to replace the parent of Cincinnati’s Metro bus system. The new entity is aimed at drawing board participation – and new funding commitments – from counties surrounding Cincinnati. “This is truly a transformational moment,” said Cincinnati Mayor Mark Mallory in announcing the Greater Cincinnati Regional Transit Authority, with a 13-member board that will include seven members appointed by the city of Cincinnati and six from Hamilton County. Hamilton County Commission President Todd Portune said three of the county’s six appointees will be selected with input from Warren, Butler and Clermont counties, each of which could gain the right to directly appoint board members if they formally join the new authority. Another key aspect of the organizational structure will be the right of any county to gain a majority of board seats if it contributes more than 50 percent of the new transit authority’s total budget. Read More...
October 30, 200816 yr I liked to mention the fact that UrbanCincy broke this news story at 10:44am this morning. The Business Courier's article went up an hour and a half later, with the Enquirer still not publishing anything. Here is our coverage... Regional SORTA agreement reached At at 10am meeting this morning City and County leaders announced an agreement over an expanded transit authority. Currently the Southwest Ohio Regional Transit Authority (SORTA), which operates Metro, is bounded by Hamilton County's boundaries. This agreement will for the first time extend their jurisdiction beyond Hamilton County and into Butler, Warren and Clermont Counties. This sets the course for expanded transit service into those surrounding areas underneath one unified authority. This reorganization, of SORTA, has long been an issue with City Council member John Cranley, County Commissioner Todd Portune and has been championed by Mayor Mark Mallory. These three along with SORTA Board president Melody Sawyer Richardson addressed the media at this morning session. Read More...
October 30, 200816 yr I liked to mention the fact that UrbanCincy broke this news story at 10:44am this morning. The Business Courier's article went up an hour and a half later, with the Enquirer still not publishing anything. Here is our coverage... *wriggles the air pump/noggin inflator from your cold dead hands*
October 31, 200816 yr This is a positive development, and long overdue. Indeed. We're finally laying the groundwork for real regional public transportation.
November 13, 200816 yr Transportation revamp approved Hamilton County commissioners Wednesday approved an agreement that restructures the area's regional transportation system. The agreement allows the system to include more areas and more types of transit. The restructuring agreement must still be voted on by Cincinnati City Council. Read More...
November 13, 200816 yr It's interesting how light rail snuck back into the picture, as you stated earlier in the week, Randy. But would you happen to be able to explain what makes the light rail inclusion here different from previous conditions? Does it have anything to do with how funding will be decided or whether it'll go to the voters? I must say that I'm not familiar with the process. So, is this still going to switch over in March?
November 13, 200816 yr well the funding didn't change and the county is no longer making its meager payments to sorta
November 13, 200816 yr Well, I'm wondering if the same percentage tax will be footed by city residents, or if that will change.
November 13, 200816 yr If it's a city operation, I wouldn't count out the possibility that a slight increase could pay for future transit service expansion into other modes.
November 13, 200816 yr I can't imagine light rail will ever be built in Cincinnati. Simple, there's not enough people who want to move from point A to point B, or the stops along the way. The population and places of employment, points of interest, etc. are too dispersed.
November 13, 200816 yr ^Feel free to research various cities who have successfully implemented light rail with smaller populations than that of Cincinnati. That's also to say that employment centers won't shift over the next decade, shifted by various socioeconomic factors. As far as points of interest, we already have them. As far as strengthening those points of interest, that's what TOD can achieve when done right.
November 13, 200816 yr I can't imagine light rail will ever be built in Cincinnati. Simple, there's not enough people who want to move from point A to point B, or the stops along the way. The population and places of employment, points of interest, etc. are too dispersed. I totally disagree. Light Rail could easily service Cincinnati effectively. It's getting construction funded that's the trick. What do you consider to be "points of interest"?
November 16, 200816 yr ^Feel free to research various cities who have successfully implemented light rail with smaller populations than that of Cincinnati. That's also to say that employment centers won't shift over the next decade, shifted by various socioeconomic factors. As far as points of interest, we already have them. As far as strengthening those points of interest, that's what TOD can achieve when done right. I have, but it's my opinion that Cincinnati has a unique set of circumstances that make light rail unfeasible in the immediate future. I should have elaborated a bit more. While a park and ride system would work on one end (the suburban) it would be difficult to find destinations that wouldn't require a car to move around. for instance, if light rail is built up the I-71 corridor, points of interest in Hyde Park, uptown/Clifton area, downtown and the Banks would require a localized transit system, meaning much improved bus routes. This is in addition, of course, to the difficulty of acquiring right-of-ways, and the funding for construction as well as operation. Heck, even the MTA in NYC is running in the red even after hiking their rates recently, and they fill the trains there like sardine cans.
November 16, 200816 yr ^ROW costs and not being able to provide access to every single location are hardly unique circumstances. Transit doesn't run in the black anywhere. That doesn't mean it isn't important. It provides mobility for those without cars, takes strain off of roads, and reduces emissions into the environment. It also encourages growth around stops, which can be used in areas of decline, or to create more livable communities in new growth areas.
November 16, 200816 yr I have, but it's my opinion that Cincinnati has a unique set of circumstances that make light rail unfeasible in the immediate future. I should have elaborated a bit more. While a park and ride system would work on one end (the suburban) it would be difficult to find destinations that wouldn't require a car to move around. for instance, if light rail is built up the I-71 corridor, points of interest in Hyde Park, uptown/Clifton area, downtown and the Banks would require a localized transit system, meaning much improved bus routes. This is in addition, of course, to the difficulty of acquiring right-of-ways, and the funding for construction as well as operation. Heck, even the MTA in NYC is running in the red even after hiking their rates recently, and they fill the trains there like sardine cans. A lot of what you are describing is due to the fact that Cincinnati has been allowed to grow without mass transit for so long. Established systems in cities like Chicago and New York "seem" to connect the dots better, but that's only because the dots popped up around the rail lines over a period of decades, not because the city magically had clustered points of interest that happened to be easily connectable via rail. If a light rail system could be completed tomorrow, it would still take many years for Cincinnati to reach the point where you wouldn't need to occasionally use a car (assuming that it could ever reach that point). The best you can do starting out with is to connect all of the universities, museums, zoos, etc with eachother and with downtown. Students will be your first priority. They'll be the ones using the system full time, because they live on campus and just need to get to a handful of entertainment destinations. Then run lines to some major population centers with park and rides. These users don't need a full time system anyway, and are just looking to avoid traffic. A system like that could serve Cincinnati well for 20 years or so, and at that point, things would have started to gravitate towards trainstops, just like fast food and gas stations around an expressway exit. Streetcars running short loops could make areas that are still a little too sprawled out more pedestrian friendly.
November 17, 200816 yr In my opinion it is important to grow your transit system the way the cities grew originally. For instants start downtown then to OTR then to Mt. Auburn, west end, Clifton, East Walnut hills, ect. ect. Make transit where people will use it. People who live in the suburbs are obviously people who don't care to use the transit and probably wouldn't. I think that by trying to implement a system that serves everyone will cause it to be spread to thinly. Have downtown be the hub and then the further and further you get away from the core the thiner the coverage becomes.
Create an account or sign in to comment