Acccording to the phone book and 411.com there is no Chris Gramke who lives Downtown, but there is one who lives in Covedale.

You can find it <a href="http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080428/EDIT01/804280313/1090">here</a> (I would cut and paste due to the Enq's outdated linking policy, but frankly, I didn't see fit to repost all of the detractors factually false commentary here)

 

;)

However, in other cases, where the market could provide, but does not provide, then I think there needs to be a justification for that spending, in real dollars and sense, ROI fashion.  Sometimes, what the private sector needs is a good kick in the pants to realize that there is indeed a market for something, and I think this can be justifiable government spending (where the return is plausible). 

 

From my perspective, modern rail systems, such as the proposed Cincinnati Streetcar, fall into this latter category.  The market could provide, but it does not yet see the value.  Show them the returns that such systems can yield, and its a whole new ball game. 

 

I pretty much agree with this.  The only problem with rail as a free market enterprise is that you need someone to own and maintain the rails, stations, and wires, and since you can't physically have multiple tracks in the same street, you'd almost have to designate a gov't sponsored monopoly if this thing wasn't run by the gov't itself.  I personally have no problem with that, but monopolies are another one of those things that make people freak out.  Given all of this, it's undertandable that the private sector hasn't provided this amenity, so I think it's reasonable to have the city government pick up the slack.

How is that any different than a power company?  both are inherent monopolies

^ It's not.  Same thing with the cable and phone companies, though recent technological advances have lessened their status somewhat.  But people tend to accept things like that because they've lived with it for their whole lives, whereas they would raise questions and lob accusations about inside deals and level playing fields if P&G, 5/3, or a new company wanted to own and operate streetcars exclusively and were awarded such a privilege.

I have never been more excited for this city! We have lived in various cities, like Denver, with concepts such as this one and they have done nothing but prosper because of it. We have always thought about getting a place downtown; this might just be the reason we decide to end up doing it.

 

Megan Day, West Chester

 

I couldn't believe what I was reading when I saw where this person lived.  Good for her.

 

By the way, why are all of the selected posts from streetcar detractors so nasty?  They were all mean spirited and full of baseless assertions, whereas nearly all of the selected pro-streetcar posts were the exact opposite.  Is it not possible to oppose something, citing genuine concerns and while maintaining some semblance of class?

Chris Bortz will be debating Chris Monzel tonight. Go if you can.

I so want to be snarky toward Chicago and their recent outbreak of violence that far surpasses anything that Cincinnati has to deal with.

 

I would think that the streetcar would eventually contribute to enough density that Cincinnati could support a Zip-car franchise. For those unaware, Zip-car or the variously named car-share groups operate a pretty cool business. You pay a monthly fee (usually less than a hundred bucks) to get access to a car when you need it. The cars are spread around town and you go online to figure out the nearest available car. One of the coolest parts is that they have pick-ups and other similar work vehicles in the fleet, so you don't have to worry about getting something home on your next trip to Ikea.

 

Actually, a carsharing feasibility study for Cincinnati is the concept of my thesis.  Other similarly sized and similarly dense cities have been successful doing it, however it often is dependant on the success of a reliable and efficient public transportation system.

Chris Bortz will be debating Chris Monzel tonight. Go if you can.

 

I've never heard of "Monty's".  It sounds like a bar.  Is it?

^ Yes. And tonight they will have their best night ever.

I pretty much agree with this.  The only problem with rail as a free market enterprise is that you need someone to own and maintain the rails, stations, and wires, and since you can't physically have multiple tracks in the same street, you'd almost have to designate a gov't sponsored monopoly if this thing wasn't run by the gov't itself.  I personally have no problem with that, but monopolies are another one of those things that make people freak out.  Given all of this, it's undertandable that the private sector hasn't provided this amenity, so I think it's reasonable to have the city government pick up the slack.

 

When private bus and trucking companies build private streets, roads and highways, come look for me. I'll be the one passed out on the floor from the shock.

 

There is no such thing as the free market in transportation. The whole transportation marketplace is so heavily distorted by governmental involvement at all levels that you couldn't extricate government from the picture without risking collapse of the entire transportation system.

Chris Bortz will be debating Chris Monzel tonight. Go if you can.

 

I've never heard of "Monty's". It sounds like a bar. Is it?

 

 

where is it?

4108 montgomery rd

 

 

When private bus and trucking companies build private streets, roads and highways, come look for me. I'll be the one passed out on the floor from the shock.

 

LOL!

 

There is no such thing as the free market in transportation. The whole transportation marketplace is so heavily distorted by governmental involvement at all levels that you couldn't extricate government from the picture without risking collapse of the entire transportation system.

 

Very true. 

What was I saying about the media tendency to inflame rather than inform???

 

WLWT Ch.5 just did a piece on the Streetcar and said the route begins and ends at the Freedom Center!  Nothing like pushing certain peoples' buttons :roll:  Please excuse the digression but this is the TV station that showed the same ****ing closeup of one burning garbage can over and over during the "riots", as if to imply that the entire OTR neighborhood was a blazing inferno.  Correct me if I'm wrong but total property damage in OTR then was something like $250,000. 

 

Just had to vent...

^About the riots, while it is true that fire wasn't much of an issue in OTR, but I read somewhere that there were many, many attempts to set fires that either didn't take because it rained for pretty much the whole time, or were stopped by the police before they could catch.

Please excuse the digression but this is the TV station that showed the same ****ing closeup of one burning garbage can over and over during the "riots", as if to imply that the entire OTR neighborhood was a blazing inferno.

 

Riots in quotes?  Unfortunately, that was the real deal.  Don't get me wrong, I love OTR, and Channel 5's coverage can be suspect, but I don't want to make light of an ugly moment in this city's history.

I'm not trying to make light of what happened, but what helped make it an international story was this kind of exaggeration.  Coverage often lacked perspective and proportion -- I was here when it happened and saw things with my own eyes. 

 

Fear-mongering is a proven ratings booster.  And framing a Streetcar story as though it's public transit to and from the Freedom Center is aimed to rile people, make no mistake. 

Did anyone go to the debate tonight?  A recap would be tremendous if anyone would be so kind.

Nothing posted about the substance of the debate on the cincinnati.com blog yet.  Maybe everyone's having a merry old time at Monty's!

On the upside, I really like the shot that channel 5 used for this story:

 

http://www.wlwt.com/news/16041875/detail.html

 

 

 

I also thought that this bit was interesting:

 

"City Councilman Chris Monzel said the streetcars would need 226 passengers per hour just to break even, and doubts remain that ridership would approach those levels."

 

I wonder if that's per car or for the system as a whole.  If it's for the whole system, 226 an hour seems attainable.  If it's per car, that's a high number, but hopefully an increase in population would increase ridership.  However, I don't think that it's necessary for the streetcar to be totally self sufficient, provided that it delivers on the revitalization front. 

 

>Did anyone go to the debate tonight?  A recap would be tremendous if anyone would be so kind.

 

I went, it didn't get too emotional, no real highlights other than cameos by numerous local news crews and the invidious Peter Bronson.  Many of the young republicans seemed more interested in gun laws than the debate.     

Also, Monzel's number of 226 is based off a different number of hours of operation, and a different number of days of operation.  His total hours of operation is off by about 33 percent (under) from what is proposed, so you can reduce that ridership number by that factor.  He did not clarify if it was per car or system wide, but the way he used that number he seemed to be talking about the system as a whole (at least during last nights debate).

 

 

So was it John or Chris that debated?  If it was Chris, why the switch?

Also, Monzel's number of 226 is based off a different number of hours of operation, and a different number of days of operation.  His total hours of operation is off by about 33 percent (under) from what is proposed, so you can reduce that ridership number by that factor.  He did not clarify if it was per car or system wide, but the way he used that number he seemed to be talking about the system as a whole (at least during last nights debate).

 

 

 

Am I just the eternal optimist or does that not really sound that impossible. 250 plus riders and hour seems doable. Is he talking per train or for the whole system?

^ Chris wanted to do it, and I've been coming down with the flu -- somewhat arrested by Tamiflu, which appears to work wonders.

Thought this was appropriate. (from building cincinnati)

 

Next American City: A global wake up call for Middle America

 

Change or die.

 

That's the advice given by Richard Longworth in Caught in the Middle: America's Heartland in the Age of Globalization, reviewed recently on Next American City.

 

The book chronicles the rapid change in the Midwest - of rural economies that are becoming increasingly automated and corporate, and of urban economies that have been undergoing a long period of deindustrialization.

 

According to Longworth, we Midwesterners are our own worst enemies. We cling to mediocrity, crave normalcy and stability, resent outsiders, and resist any challenge to our comfortable world view.

 

Longworth chooses Chicago as one city that has weathered this kind of thinking, still able to attract the young and the creative, even through periods of job loss.

 

The suggestion for the rest of us - be less provincial, work regionally, and compete globally.

 

Yeah, right. Here in Cincinnati, someone from Hyde Park can't even agree with (or relate to) someone from Price Hill.

 

By the way, where did you go to high school?

 

 

I went to the meeting and I can say that I was pleased with Monzel for at least handling issue with respect and what seemed to be an open mind.  The Blue Chip Republicans asked some decent questions and some that were simply off the wall.  All were answered and/or deflected so no real gain for detractors in my eyes.  I do think that the work by thomasbw, hohum, jmecklenborg, and myself did a lot of good in a room full of skeptics.

 

It all remained respectful, but it was clear who had the knowledge (streetcar advocates) and who didn't (opponents).  On another note, the president of the Blue Chip Republicans referred to the Freedom Center at one point as a "welfare case" which I found quite weighted and inappropriate.  I wonder if he would have said that if the audience were a different group.  In an informal conversation he then referred to NYC, Chicago, and DC as "fascist" cities because of their hand gun laws...and described San Francisco and Boston as "disgusting" places.  I found all this to be quite amusing...he also had little to no clue about anything in OTR.  He made a bad move and stepped into the lions den with thomasbw, hohum, jmecklenborg, and myself after the debate ended.  It didn't take long before he was overwhelmed with our knowledge and logic on the topic.

>It all remained respectful, but it was clear who had the knowledge (streetcar advocates) and who didn't (opponents).

 

That's the key.  Monzel was giving his people what they wanted to hear.  But the core problem was that the republican group didn't seem to have a true interest in the city and doesn't know a lot about rail transit.  I agree Randy, whoever that guy was with the dress shirt and the buzz haircut hadn't been exposed to any sophisticated pro-rail arguments. 

 

Also, as he was walking out the door I overheard Peter Bronson mutter "light rail mafia" in a sentence to a cohort.  Seems like he's swallowed whole O'Toole's gospel. 

There is no such thing as the free market in transportation. The whole transportation marketplace is so heavily distorted by governmental involvement at all levels that you couldn't extricate government from the picture without risking collapse of the entire transportation system.

 

I don't think 'distorted' is the right word.  I see transportation as being one of the main supports, like government police powers or standard weights and measures, that are necessary for the market.  When we conceptualize economic actors, we typically view them as individual human beings.  There's no market in the typical sense for transportation systems- for example, both P&G and Colgate make toothpaste, and you choose one to use to brush your teeth.  You can't really choose different pay-to-travel roads that would compete to take you from the same place to the same place.  If all roads were privately owned I would still have only at max, four choices to travel to Fountain Square.

 

I think we need to keep making the point that the streetcar system, like almost every passenger transportation system, is built not to turn a profit but to increase economic activity that will in turn bring a profit to society.  So tell those conservatives that the streetcar is supposed to do the same thing as the Bush tax cuts.

Streetcars get the OK from City Council

By Guest Columnist Brad Thomas

 

Fifty-six years, 11 months, and 25 days ago, the last streetcar of the Cincinnati Street Railway company rolled into the garage for the last time, ending streetcar service in the city. Over a half-century later, the streetcars are coming back.

 

On April 23, the Finance Committee of City Council voted unanimously to approve the construction of a modern streetcar system, although Councilman John Cranley objected to the specifics of the funding plan outlined by the administration. In a nearly two-hour long special meeting devoted solely to the topic of streetcars, City Manager Milton Dohoney outlined the details of the streetcar plan and laid out a vision of the future of the city. Cranley began by questioning Dohoney in, as described by Councilwoman Roxanne Qualls, "extensive and excruciating detail." Carney's [Cranley's] often speculative and seemingly redundant line of questioning drew chuckles from the audience.

 

Councilman Chris Bortz, who was praised by Mayor Mark Mallory for his leadership on this issue, called the streetcar an "exciting opportunity to make the city better, increase our treasury, grow the city's population and reclaim our former greatness." He added that we need to "be bold if we are going to pull the city out of its 50-year decline" a decline that began shortly after Cincinnati's extensive streetcar system was dismantled.

 

The rest of council spoke about the streetcar in positive terms. Qualls, who prior to her "yes" vote was considered by many to be an opponent of the streetcar, called the vote a "monumental decision." Councilman Cecil Thomas wanted to expand the system even further and called the streetcar "the first step towards light rail."

Jim Tarbell, the former vice mayor and official holder of the title "Mr. Cincinnati," spoke eloquently about the streetcar, tying it in to Cincinnati's past and future. In his new role as an elder statesman, Tarbell called this project "the single most important development opportunity of my entire career."

 

At the full council meeting that afternoon, the streetcar passed unanimously, with Cranley and Councilman Chris Monzel voting against the specifics of the funding. Mayor Mallory praised the council for their cooperation. The vote was a big win for the mayor who identified the streetcar as his No. 1 priority. Building the streetcar is the crowning achievement of the many steps the mayor has made to improve Cincinnati's image and change the perceptions of the city. Cincinnati no longer a city 10 years behind the times has become a city on the move, capable of undertaking and completing several large projects at a time.

 

Before tracks can be laid, there are still more steps for the city administration. With approval of the council, Dohoney must now engage the private sector for funding partnerships. In an economy where being successful requires that companies attract and retain the best talent, the streetcar is an important asset for Cincinnati. Young professionals are drawn to cities with vibrant, walkable urban cores and excellent public transportation. The Cincinnati Streetcar will help draw the best and brightest to the city and allow the many Fortune 500 companies headquartered here to be more competitive in the global marketplace.

 

When the streetcar was first proposed in February 2006, a barrel of oil cost $59.60. On the day the streetcar was approved just over two years later, oil had more than doubled to $119.50. In addition to being a powerful tool of economic development, the streetcar is an important first step toward a more comprehensive public transportation system.

 

Mayor Mallory, Vice Mayor Crowley and Councilman Bortz should all be praised for the capable leadership they showed in making the streetcar a reality, moving the city forward, and helping Cincinnati realize its fullest potential.

 

Brad Thomas is the founder of cincystreetcar.com

First of all, I think we need shirts made that say "light rail mafia." I would totally get one.

 

Second, I think transportation is a both/and situation when it comes to government involvement. The key is drawing a line in such a way that transportation investment benefits citizens and the economy rather than the politicians and their cronies (which it often has). When it becomes too directly connected to gov't and politics, the choices are dominated by politics rather than rational thought. However, if it gets too far from gov't then it tends to make choices that foreground profit to the detriment of service and safety. I'm not sure anyone has gotten the balance quite right, though I think England's experiment with Virgin Railway is probably amongst the best.

 

Within a city, LK is basically right that market choices are insufficient to produce a real profit making situation (though the whole question of whether a gov't agency versus a semi-private monopoly should be thought about further). Inter-city is more complicated and there are strong arguments to be made that having some competition in inter-city transit is a good idea.

 

I posted the following on another blog tonight. Something to keep in mind as you talk with people.

 

Benefit/Cost Ratio for the Cincinnati Streetcar downtown to OTR: 2.7 to 1.0

 

Benefit/Cost Ratio for adding one lane to I-75 in Hamilton County: 1.13 to 1.0

 

Both ratios were calculated by the same economists using OKI's Regional Travel Demand Model.

 

The reason is, the streetcar's benefits are sustainable. They grow over time as highway congestion and fuel prices increase and more development occurs along the streetcar route.

 

The situation with the highway is precisely opposite. Congestion increases, much of it caused by a doubling of trucks over the next twenty years, such that the highway becomes just as congested as it was before the improvement was made. And higher fuel prices add to the cost of personal travel. The highway calculation was made assuming the longterm cost of gasoline would be a little over $1.00. I suspect that now the widening of I-75 doesn't even cover its cost of capital. We'd be better off leaving the money in the bank.

 

The streetcar's return was also estimated using a price of fuel that is much less than it sells for today. Were the calculations rerun, the return on the streetcar investment would almost certainly be higher.

 

 

^----- I agree with everything you said above, but the fact is that highways have a dedicated source of funding and streetcars do not. Streetcar fans are at a disadvantage as long as this is the case.

 

      If we taxed gasoline and funded streetcars, the entire picture would change. Up to a point, efficiency, cost benefit ratios, and all of that doesn't even matter. It's all about the money.

^ Except that the current level of highway funding produced by gas taxes will, beginning in 2009, only be capable of covering maintenance and safety improvements in most states -- no major new projects. So who's gonna' campaign for higher gas taxes to add highway capacity? McCain and Clinton want to suspend them.

 

The near-term prospects for America's highways are really quite grim, and I suspect a lot of Americans will want to bail on the whole system, just change their lives so they don't have to drive for everything they need. I did a long time ago. Tastes great. Less fill-ups.

 

    I agree with you that highway funding is in trouble. I agree that prospects for American highways are grim. O.D.O.T. may be able to pull off one or two more major expansions, but overall, I think the highway construction era is just about over.

 

    I disagree that a lot of Americans will bail on the whole system and change their lifestyles so they don't have to drive. Granted, there are some that want to embrace the urban lifestyle, and quite a few of them are on this board, but I think they are a minority. I think most people will want to hold on to their cars  as long as possible as the system slowly falls apart around them.

 

    If gasoline taxes get suspended, according to McCain and Clinton's wishes, it will only hasten the demise of our highway infrastructure, which in the long term is doomed anyway. 

 

    I think Americans will change their lives - in fact, they are already changing - but it will be in a completely different way.

 

 

 

   

I wouldn't say highway expansion is over, but that it will shift to alternate funding sources -- such as private and public tolling ventures. That's how the InterCounty Connector (MD 200) is being funded and constructed as part of a northern belt around the Washington D.C. metro, which would have been delayed for many years at best if it was state and federally funded as an Interstate highway. A bypass has been proposed in that location since the 1960s.

 

Virginia has used toll roads to expedite construction and relieve the burden on taxpayers who may never drive the said toll roads. Kentucky used tolling to fund its parkway network, and all of the tolls were retired as of last year (the last being IIRC the Green River and Audubon).

 

Kentucky is proposing tolls for the Brent Spence and for the Ohio River Bridges Project (East End Bridge and Downtown Bridge), and West Virginia is proposing tolls to fund the U.S. 35 connector and for other highway projects.

^ Except that the current level of highway funding produced by gas taxes will, beginning in 2009, only be capable of covering maintenance and safety improvements in most states -- no major new projects. So who's gonna' campaign for higher gas taxes to add highway capacity? McCain and Clinton want to suspend them.

 

Another reason to vote Obama.  :-D

I think we need to keep making the point that the streetcar system, like almost every passenger transportation system, is built not to turn a profit but to increase economic activity that will in turn bring a profit to society.  So tell those conservatives that the streetcar is supposed to do the same thing as the Bush tax cuts.

 

I have had the priveledge and/or curse of growing up surrounded by conservatives...literally everyone in my life (aside from the vast majority of my friends) is ridiculously conservative.  That has taught me how to debate issues with them.  It's all about economics - lessening tax burdens, return on investment, cost/benefit ratio, etc.  These are all great topics to hit on, and all are topics where the streetcar fares very well.

^ Yeah, I think tolling will happen too, only by means of transponders in each car or truck that record and charge for highway use by distance, time of day, day of week and location. This will almost certainly tend to push the system in the direction of marginal cost pricing and away from the average cost pricing regime of the gas tax. It will focus most of the cost of highway expansions on those who use them at peak in the most congested communities. The effect will be that rush-hour travel will become a sort of luxury, like air travel is fast becoming.

I don't think it does much good to posit an either/or situation when it comes to cars/mass transit. People with children rarely live without cars (including in Europe - they just buy station wagons/estates instead of SUVs) and that won't change. However, those under 30 and I think increasingly those over 70 may in a place to go carless. As to the over 70 crowd, they will only use it if it is a 100% safe and clean environment (not like current buses, whatever their other benefits).

 

Roads will continue to need renovation to make them run smoother (lots of poorly designed expressways are coming to the end of their natural lives) however perpetually adding more lanes doesn't work (as the numbers above illustrate).

 

For instance, adding a couple more lanes to 75 is a waste, however, making it rational with safe entrances and exits and stable lanes through the city is a good idea.

 

The key is finding that balance. The investment in mass transit allows people to say, maybe I don't need a car for this trip.

^But in Europe people have shorter auto commutes or take public transit for commuting.  If you live and work in the Cincinnati city limits,  it's tough to put a lot of miles on your car.  The commutes to my two jobs are two miles and three miles from my place so it's tough to put the kind of miles on like when I had a 54 mile RT  in Nashville. 

 

   

C'mon now, not every conservative is against streetcars and light rail.

^and that's why breaking everything down into "liberal" or "conservative" is not constructive. 

Should the City be re-building this section of W. Clifton, when it is one of the possible routes for the streetcar?

 

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/AB/20080430/NEWS01/804300400/

 

UNIVERSITY HEIGHTS -- Work is expected to start in about a year on the $2.5 million reconstruction of West Clifton Avenue from Over-the-Rhine to the University of Cincinnati campus.

 

The work, being designed by the city's Department of Transportation and Engineering, will include restoration of the asphalt, 1,200 feet of new sidewalk where some is missing, a new traffic signal at Vine Street and a realignment of the sharp curve.

 

More than 130 trees also will be added to shade the route. Officials plan to put the project out for bid in September and award a contract in December. The money comes from the Ohio Public Works Commission, Ohio Municipal Road Funds and the Cincinnati Park Board.

 

Should the City be re-building this section of W. Clifton, when it is one of the possible routes for the streetcar?

 

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/AB/20080430/NEWS01/804300400/

 

UNIVERSITY HEIGHTS -- Work is expected to start in about a year on the $2.5 million reconstruction of West Clifton Avenue from Over-the-Rhine to the University of Cincinnati campus.

 

The work, being designed by the city's Department of Transportation and Engineering, will include restoration of the asphalt, 1,200 feet of new sidewalk where some is missing, a new traffic signal at Vine Street and a realignment of the sharp curve.

 

More than 130 trees also will be added to shade the route. Officials plan to put the project out for bid in September and award a contract in December. The money comes from the Ohio Public Works Commission, Ohio Municipal Road Funds and the Cincinnati Park Board.

 

 

I believe the streetcar is being taken into consideration

from Peter Bronson this morning ...

 

Streetcars don't boost neighborhoods

 

Empty all the soup kitchens and drug rehab centers, then round up all the homeless guys, panhandlers and drug dealers, and there still won't be enough riders in Over-the-Rhine to make a streetcar break even.

 

"At $1 fares, running six days a week and 14 hours a day, it would require 264 riders an hour," Councilman Chris Monzel said in a streetcar debate at a Norwood bar Monday evening.

 

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080501/COL05/805010316/-1/columnists

 

 

What was the age range of those in the crowd at the debate the other night? 

 

Are we hearing more negative responses to the streetcar from middle-aged people or is it college-aged and yp's? 

 

I would say that there is more support for this than one would think, particularly from yp's.  However, I think, in general, yp's are less informed and less outspoken so we don't hear from them as much. 

 

Peter Bronson can play with his toy car...I'll take the train set.

 

Oh, and Monzel's famous spreadsheet...is he assuming any population growth in his calculation?

Most of the people there were "younger."  I was probably the youngest person in the room (22 years old), with most of the other people being in their 30's.  The key here was the audience...this was the Blue Chip Republicans we're talking here.  They are more or less Libertarians in my mind and what the government to control absolutely nothing.  Their minds were made up before they walked in the room...the same can be said for Mr. Bronson.

 

Monzel's spreadsheet didn't factor in any kind of population numbers.  It simply took the hours of operation and factored in the fare cost and figured out how many riders would be need per hour to meet the projected revenues derived from fares.  264 riders/hour is in an area that has roughly 13,000 people living there and tens of thousands of people working.  Additionally there is going to be a huge influx of people who ride for special events like Reds/Bengals games, that will easily exceed the 264 riders/hour (side note: each streetcar has a 171 person capacity).

 

But this once again gets into the debate as to how we're going to make rail transit self-supporting.  This same logic is not applied to virtually any other government spending effort.  The government is not a private company and is not out to make a profit.

 

I also find it interesting that Bronson starts off by using the term streetcar, and then as soon as he turns negative he whips out terms like "trolley" "train set" and best of all "catnip."

Will the fare be fixed for the entire route?  One price for the entire loop, no matter when you get on or off?  I would think that would limit the use for someone only wanting to go 5-6 blocks.