^Many other systems have fare-free zones...typically in the CBD area.  This is something that has to be decided upon for the final financing and operation plans.

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.

 

Monzel needed a spreadsheet to do that???

Jake Mecklenborg of Corryville said, "Buildings that are empty shells in Over-the-Rhine would sell for $2 million in Boston and New York. You can see the future there, but it won't happen without a big investment."

 

That's not quite what I said.  I said "they sell for $2, 3, 5 million there but here they're treated like trash."

 

Also, can I ask where this whole "Kool-Aid" reference is coming from?  I got it from Scott Sloan and here it appears again courtesy Peter Bronson.  Obviously I don't watch enough movies or TV. 

Man I hate Bronson.  Could he be more derogatory or paint a more one sided picture?

 

Seriously, there were honest and good questions asked, and there were some takers there, even some takers from unexpected walks of life.

 

Further, if the man can't get a single number right, he may want to get out of the "facts"  game.

"Kool Aid" references the Jonestown Massacre. As in, don't drink the Kool-Aid, since it is in fact poison.

 

But as nobody was selling Kool Aid at Jonestown, the reference doesn't make any sense.

Or it refers to the Kool Aid of the infamous electric kool aid acid experiments... either way, doesn't make sense.

/EDIT: cramer beat me to this, but I'm leaving it anyway...

 

Also, can I ask where this whole "Kool-Aid" reference is coming from?  I got it from Scott Sloan and here it appears again courtesy Peter Bronson.  Obviously I don't watch enough movies or TV. 

 

There was a cult a while back that killed themselves on command by drinking poisoned Kool-Aid.  Whether or not they knew it was poisoned is debatable, I guess.  As cramer pointed out, it wasn't really Kool-Aid, it was Flavor-Aid.  But, just as I say "I need a Kleenex" when I know full well that I only buy Puffs, the power of marketing has labelled ALL colored, flavored, sugar water as "Kool-Aid" in the society's mind.   I wonder how Kool-Aid feels about the reference...

 

They were from California and they followed this nutjob Jim Jones out of the country to Guyana to build "Jonestown" after he ran into some trouble with the gov't here.  This was 30+ years ago.  Anyway, people use the phrase "drinking the kool-aid" now to refer to any kind of mindless, self-destructive activity, especially one where there is an organized effort to do something.  I hate to see the streetcar characterized in such a way.

Kool-aid stands INSIDE of the streetcars to attract passengers!  Everyone thank Monzel for helping figure out the financing puzzle.  Different flavors in each car?  Maybe a higher fare could be charged for grape?

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.

 

Monzel needed a spreadsheet to do that???

 

He also described himself as being a "numbers guy" and that's why he wanted to run the spreadsheet...a spreadsheet that he later said was created by his staffers.

I love that a numbers guy needed a spreadsheet to do what I did in my head based on his figures.  I further love that a "numbers" guy didn't account for any kinds of traffic patterns whatsoever (There will clearly be times when more than his average will ride, and less, as well as special events, etc)

 

*sigh*

 

On a different note, on the drive in to work today (I had to drive because some chump stole my bike seat), I heard some radio coverage of the Streetcar on VXU.  Basically, Hamilton county (namely Pepper) complaining about how the funding plan draws from the Banks TIF District, and how "that money was for the banks."  -- Was anyone following the reworking of the TIF districts after the court decisions?  I don't seem to recall anyone saying then that the Banks TIF was to be used only for the Banks project itself.  (Of course, all of this rumbling neglects that TIF money has to be used for projects in the district and ummm, guess what, the streetcar will be serving the banks *cough*)

^ Is the banks intended to be a TOD?  How many parking spots per housing unit do they intend to build? 

I still don't undertand why Monzel feels that 264 riders an hour is an unattainable goal.  That's less than 5 riders a minute for the whole line, which covers dozens of city blocks.  Someone should have asked him how many customers per minute board the metro buses running in the same area.  Too bad Cranley wasn't there, as I'm sure he would have brought that up.  :-D

Is the banks intended to be a TOD?  How many parking spots per housing unit do they intend to build? 

 

^ Too many.  Its actually hard to figure how many spots per unit because of the giant riverfront garage that is part of the plan.  If I had to venture a guess though, its not in that 1 - 1.5 spots per unit sweetspot as it was planned well before the TOD "boom"

 

But I bet UncleRando knows :)

 

I still don't undertand why Monzel feels that 264 riders an hour is an unattainable goal.  That's less than 5 riders a minute for the whole line, which covers dozens of city blocks.  Someone should have asked him how many customers per minute board the metro buses running in the same area.  Too bad Cranley wasn't there, as I'm sure he would have brought that up.   :-D

 

 

 

Monzel's ridership projections were based on 6 or 7 days of service at 14 hours, when

they should have been based on 18 hour days, putting the actual number of riders

per hour at 175 instead of the 226 he suggested for 7@14 or 264 for 6@14.  Each car can make about 1.75

full cycles in an hour, so with the average of three cars operating at a time, in one

hour there will five trips up and five trips back, a total of ten trips. If 17 people

ride per trip, you have your ridership.

 

^ Putting that in even more perspective, if you only fill each car to 10% of its capacity, you have your ridership (each car holding roughly 170 people)

^ Putting that in even more perspective, if you only fill each car to 10% of its capacity, you have your ridership (each car holding roughly 170 people)

 

we were drinking pitchers of olde style when we came up with these numbers, but I think they are pretty acurate.

 

And with the higher fare, I think the ridership drops to 168 per hour to meet projection

^ The end-to-end running time is about 16 minutes. Counting some layover time at each end of the line, I'd figure each streetcar makes round 1.5 trips per hour. There would be an average of three streetcars running (four at peak, two off-peak), and there are eighteen stations.

 

So an average of three streetcars each running 1.5 loops per hour equals 4.5 streetcar loops per hour. There are 18 stops on each loop. So an average of three streetcars each making 1.5 loops per hour through 18 stops means there will be 81 streetcar stops per hour. So to get to Monzel's number, you need an average of three people boarding per stop.

 

Portland's downtown is similar is size and employment to Cincinnati's. When I ride the streetcars there on typical days, between zero and as many as twenty people board at each stop. Throw in the huge number office workers parking on our riverfront wanting to get up into town, plus some special events, I think the estimate is reasonable. Let's see, how many Reds and Bengals fans might want to park way up in OTR for free nights and Sundays and take the streetcar to and from games? That's an imponderable, and it's great for OTR businesses. It may change the way game days work here, when a lot of parking and after-game business gets siphoned-off to Kentucky.

 

I do think fares will end up higher than what's been proposed, and so the ridership may fall. Just reading through some studies on the web, it appears that the price elasticity for electric rail transit is somewhere in the -0.20 to -0.40 range. So, if fares were to be $1.50 rather than $1.00 -- I think that's Monzel's assumption -- then a $0.50, or 50%, increase in the fare might yield, what, 26 to 50 fewer riders per hour.

 

We'll all be shocked by how few people ride the streetcar on its first day of operation, but it will catch on pretty quickly once people figure it out.

 

Just as an aside, has anyone noticed fewer people riding our buses since the fare increased by 50%?

 

Didn't think so.

I'm sure they'll have this, but it would be great to have some some of transit card.  Paying a flat monthly rate would be cool, but I'd be happy with a card I could keep in my wallet instead of worrying about having cash, something where it keeps track of how many trips I make and they send me a bill every month.  I think a lot of people wouldn't even think about spending the $1, if it isn't physically coming out of their wallets.

I'm sure they'll have this, but it would be great to have some some of transit card.  Paying a flat monthly rate would be cool, but I'd be happy with a card I could keep in my wallet instead of worrying about having cash, something where it keeps track of how many trips I make and they send me a bill every month.  I think a lot of people wouldn't even think about spending the $1, if it isn't physically coming out of their wallets.

 

In Portland, they do sell yearly passes.

 

On that note, if you sell 1000 passes (for argument's sake, but I think we can agree they'll sell more than that), that means that all those buyers would be guaranteeing at least 2 trips per day, or 2000 rides per day (though you'd have a discount for the yearly pass, so let's call it paying for 1.5 trips per day, equating to 1500 passengers). 

 

That means that Based on Monzel's fuzzy math, in which you'd need  3696 passengers per day, that puts slightly less than half of your daily ridership in yearly passes alone.  I'd like to think that you could get 2000 more people to ride per day (based on conservative estimates).

 

Feel free to correct my quick math

^ Keep in mind that Monzel's not looking for riders in the abstract, he's looking for paying passengers coming up with $900K per year.

 

The problem with Portland's annual passes is that they only cost, I think, $100. So If a thousand people have an annual pass and use it twice a day -- a weighted 300 days per year -- that's 1000 x 2 x 300 = 600,000 rides for $100,000 in total revenue (1,000 annual pass holders each paying $100 per year). Or about 16 cents per ride instead of the stated fare of $1.00 to $2.00. See the problem?

 

Add a little fare evasion -- who checks the passes? -- and the problem is compounded.

 

Of all the things City Council has to decide, none is more important than fare policy and they way fares are collected and checked. If they get it wrong, they will ruin the project.

^John, what is your preferred method for fare collection/checking?  I'd be in favor of random checks by undercover officers with stiff fines (say $50) for evaders.  There wouldn't need to be constant enforcement, either...just 1 officer a few days a week.  Signage/education would be a very important component of this. 

I am certain there will be a push by the national and local anti-rail foes to intentionally screw up the fare policy to either A. show the rail line won't work and prevent its construction, or B. if the streetcar is built, show that it is a failure and that expansion isn't justified.

^ I'm not smart enough to know what the best fare policy is. Nor does the industry, really. This is really fertile ground for innovation.

^ I'm not smart enough to know what the best fare policy is. Nor does the industry, really. This is really fertile ground for innovation.

 

Or see what works in other parts of the country or world.  :) 

The problem with Portland's annual passes is that they only cost, I think, $100. So If a thousand people have an annual pass and use it twice a day -- a weighted 300 days per year -- that's 1000 x 2 x 300 = 600,000 rides for $100,000 in total revenue (1,000 annual pass holders each paying $100 per year). Or about 16 cents per ride instead of the stated fare of $1.00 to $2.00. See the problem?

 

What about pre-paid fare cards then?  I'd gladly buy a $50 or $100 card, as long as it never expired.  I don't carry much cash, and when I do, it's usually 1 twenty dollar bill.  I can't count how many times I've been in Newport and decided to walk to downtown instead of taking the SouthBank Shuttle because I didn't happen to have $1.25 on me.  If you miss the bus while you get change somewhere, it would have been quicker just to walk in the first place, so even if there was no discount, pre-paid fares would be a good buy for me.  Also, the city would get the money upfront on these cards and would technically profit whenever someone lost or forgot to use one.  That's fares paid for that never got used.

 

 

I also wonder if the streetcar could benefit from good-will rides.  By this, I mean making the CBD fareless from 7AM to 9AM and from 4PM to 6PM.  This would allow people to board at parking garages and ride to their office a few blocks away.  These people would be unlikely to pay the fare for such a short trip anyway, so the loss would be minimal.  It would a welcome amenity on rainy days, when walking 2 or 3 blocks is less than ideal, and would encourage ridership at lunch hour and on weekends by familiarizing people with a transit system that they might otherwise avoid.  Perhaps a local company would like to sponsor these "fareless hours" by paying a small flat rate for the time.  "This lift has been brought to you by P&G."  Just a thought.

Agree.  I  often go out with no cash, and a fare system must include an easy way to pay with a credit card or pre-paid card.

 

Fees over $1 don't make sense if it is to be used as intended, which is for short trips to supplement walking.  However, something like $2 for the whole day might make sense.

Definitely agree with the previous two posters.  Although I'm not sure of the best way to price everything, having some kind of keycard would be necessary for me to use it regularly.  I don't carry cash/change and would hate to have to worry about having the right change on me at all times.

Another idea is maybe to start out with very low pricing to entice people to use the system and generate high riderships (or maybe even a sponsored event where everyone rides free for a day/week/etc), then after everyone realizes the benefits, raise prices gradually.  If prices start out too high, a lot of people may be swayed to avoid the streetcars altogether.

^ The idea of the streetcar maybe being free during the lunch hour to try to pry people out of their offices is interesting. I don't think you'd want free fares at peak. That's when the highest demand is. Theoretically those fares ought to be the highest because the system has to be running two additional cars and drivers. Plus, you're providing real value to people who would save by parking remotely.

 

I think the optimum solution is some sort of electronic voucher that signifies to a fare inspector and -- perhaps more importantly -- to fellow streetcar riders that a person has paid the correct fare. Once people see others evading fares, everyone will do it.

 

All interesting ideas that should get into the mix.

Maybe there should be a separate thread just on pricing/fares ideas?

 

On a different note, since this has been approved by council, if all funding is found in time, would that essentially solidify the streetcar, or would even more votes and other issues still exist?  Thanks!

From my understanding if the private money is found, and the financing plan meets the current proposal then it is essentially a done deal.  Council has generally accepted that they agree with the proposed plan, and that they would like the Administration to go forward and formally seek out those private dollars.

 

I don't see how anyone could go back on their votes if they do indeed raise the necessary private dollars as outlined in Dohoney's plan.

Here's an idea...any fare ticket is good for the entire day.  That way people don't have to buy a ticket before and after a game, before and after lunch, etc.  Because if the fare is $1.50 each way, suddenly a trip with a few kids becomes fairly expensive. 

that was my point about my initial question about fares.  I can see taking it as you hop around downtown, but if it is more than a round trip from a game to my parking, it could get expensive.  I might not take it on a nice day from my lawyers on 4th to the courthouse.

 

  Somewhere along this thread we already talked about fares, and it was mentioned that the act of collecting fares itself is a drawback to mass transit. On metro buses, if it takes an average of 20 seconds to collect fares for each of 50 people, that's an additional 16 minutes added to the trip!

 

  My first trip on a modern streetcar happened in Potsdam, Germany. They had an excellent system, and even had electronic displays at the stops telling when the next car would arrive. However, I couldn't figure out the payment system. I took the streetcar for free the first time, because I couldn't figure it out. I ended up paying double on the second trip. There were ticket vending machines at the stops. Once on board, you had your ticket stamped by another machine. Presumably, an agent would check to see if tickets were stamped. Sure, it's easy for a regular rider, but really hard for a newcomer, especially one that can't read the language. The first ride on a streetcar is intimidating.

 

    A had a conversation with an employee of Queen City Metro. He said that his biggest hassle is with people who want to make one stop, then continue the trip in the same direction. They have to pay twice, yet they don't want to, and they always argue that they have already paid. Metro does not accept transfers for a second ride in the same direction.

 

    If the purpose of the streetcar is really to redevelop Over-the-Rhine, maybe making it fareless should be considered. Hey, if it's going to compete with highways, it just about has to be.

 

    Queen City Metro makes about 17% of its operating costs in fares, and 4% in advertising. Unfortunately, most of the ads are targeted toward low-income people. If the streetcar attracts the young professionals like it's supposed to, maybe the advertising rates could be higher.

 

    Finally, be careful about using the streetcar as a shuttle to Bengals games. It could backfire, and we could end up with a bunch of surface parking lots in Over-the-Rhine. 

Finally, be careful about using the streetcar as a shuttle to Bengals games. It could backfire, and we could end up with a bunch of surface parking lots in Over-the-Rhine.

 

I don't think anyone intends for the streetcar to be used in that nature, but people pay top dollar to park a couple blocks from the stadium in the garages along 3rd.  I definitely see people parking on the largely unused on-street parking spaces on Central Parkway and then hopping on the streetcar and walking only 1-2 blocks to the game and paying substantially less.  I highly doubt that you'll see parking lots spring up there, because there would be little advantage over what currently exists nearby the stadium.

Anyone think it would be a good idea to have the first week or two of operation be free?  It may get people who normally wouldn't ride it to do so, warm up to the concept and get talking about it positively.

 

Or have a time of day when it is free to OTR and must pay on the way back.

^ Agreed.  Make it the first month.

 

 

A had a conversation with an employee of Queen City Metro. He said that his biggest hassle is with people who want to make one stop, then continue the trip in the same direction. They have to pay twice, yet they don't want to, and they always argue that they have already paid. Metro does not accept transfers for a second ride in the same direction.

 

That's why I like the idea of carrying a card with a magnetic strip.  It could charge the rider the first time, and then avoid charging them for a given time period, somewhere between 4 and 12 hours.  That way you could use this thing to really access the downtown area without it being cost prohibitive.

 

Another idea that could be tied in with these types of cards would be reduced rates for residents.  For example, as a Newport resident, when I swipe my card it would charge me $1.50.  But when an OTR resident swipes their card, it would charge them $0.75.  Having reduced rates for residents would act as a carrot to get people to move into OTR instead of driving in from somewhere else.  The pre-pay fare cards could be registered in a database that tracks residency by street or zip code.

 

    We a long way off from this point, but definitely make the first week free.

 

    On a few routes, Metro Buses actually act like parking shuttles. For example, the 74 stops at a park and ride lot on the very last stop before downtown. Typcally, 20 people get on at that one stop, and they get off at either 4th street or 6th street. They save on parking, and save on walking. The trip to downtown is a bonus.

 

    It would not surprise me at all if some buildings in Over-the-Rhine came down for cheap parking, instead of being repopulated.

Anyone think it would be a good idea to have the first week or two of operation be free?  It may get people who normally wouldn't ride it to do so, warm up to the concept and get talking about it positively.

 

That is what I was referring to in my earlier post.  Entice people by having it for free and showing them the advantages of the system and then they would be more willing to pay for it.

   Somewhere along this thread we already talked about fares, and it was mentioned that the act of collecting fares itself is a drawback to mass transit.

 

Another reason why it's a drawback is fare collections are a barrier to entry. People believe that using the streets and highways are free, or at least don't appreciate the cost of using it. Why? There's no point of purchase for each use. That was an intentional design of the Interstate highway system to encourage greater use of it. It worked. A similar, non-direct way of paying for mass transit ought to be considered.

 

    Early streetcars in Cincinnati had a driver and a conductor. The conductor collected fares while the streetcar was moving. This has the advantage of speed.

 

    Streetcars switched to one-man operation to save on labor cost, but at the expense of speed. 

I like the concept of buying a ticket at a stop and handing it to the guy when you board.  That only takes a second. 

 

Of course, having a conducter could be useful because he could also serve as an ambassador for the city, giving people directions to their destination before their stop arrives and recommending restaurants and the like to visitors.  The question is, would it be worth the expense?

 

 

Here's an idea...any fare ticket is good for the entire day.  That way people don't have to buy a ticket before and after a game, before and after lunch, etc.  Because if the fare is $1.50 each way, suddenly a trip with a few kids becomes fairly expensive. 

 

 

Bad idea, I think. You'd have a vibrant market in the resale of used tickets. Kind of like the one for bus tokens operating around the Courthhouse.

    "I like the concept of buying a ticket at a stop and handing it to the guy when you board.  That only takes a second."

 

    That still forces everyone to enter at the front door. You can only board so many people per minute. It takes more than a second.

 

    When I used to ride Metro, the trip consistently took 45 minutes, compared to 25 minutes driving. Most of that 20 minute difference was slowing down for a stop, boarding and paying, and accelerating again. A stop with a lot of people would take several minutes. Invariably there is at least one person who has to hold things up for one reason or another.

 

    Keep in mind that you are also paying the salary of the driver at stops, as well as the capital cost of the equipment. Saving a few minutes on each loop may be enough to maintain service with fewer vehicles!

 

 

 

   

What about using RFID from the get go either for daily passes or longer term passes?

 

The other key is that the transfer from the Metro to the streetcar should be relatively seemless.

The Conspiracy uncovered, at last:

 

http://www.cincinnatibeacon.com/index.php/contents/comments/connect_the_dots_the_enquirer_the_freedom_center_3cdcs_otr_and_the_streetca/

Hmmmm...a bit of a stretch if you ask me.  I guess he hasn't noticed that the majority of the Enquirer's coverage has not been overly flattering.

Cincinnatians, I live in Oxford and see the streetcars as nothing but good. What is the beef folks have w/them? Taxes? 

^Good question.

Hmmmm...a bit of a stretch if you ask me.

 

A bit?  Baha, understatement of the century right there!