If the Cincinnati Streetcar had a "freezone", what would you suggest the limits be to maximize a balance of ridership and revenue generation?

 

Everything in the basin.  Freedom Center to Findlay Market.  Then it's $2 to go up the hill.

Isn't the whole point of the streetcar to generate economic development, not generate revenue from ridership?  My understanding was the revenue from ridership was just to help offset operational costs.  I'm sure there have been studies on the ridership estimates at different price points but you would think free fares would substantially increase ridership therefore increase economic development.

 

I know DanB was just being his usual self with his last comment but I do think that was one of the reasons for having fares, so the homeless don't just use it as their house, however, I would think you could design laws to curb that.

I don't think there should be a free zone.  Seems like a bad idea.  The last thing we need are bums loitering on the street cars.  And that is exactly what will happen if there is a free zone.

I don't think there should be a free zone. Seems like a bad idea. The last thing we need are bums loitering on the street cars. And that is exactly what will happen if there is a free zone.

 

How about incentivizing free rides?  Allow free rides with purchases from Findlay Market, or any museum ticket, etc.

One thing I would like to see for the first year or two the streetcar is in operation is allowing people to ride for free with a same day event ticket to the Bengals, Reds, Aronoff, Music Hall, etc.

I don't think there should be a free zone. Seems like a bad idea. The last thing we need are bums loitering on the street cars. And that is exactly what will happen if there is a free zone.

 

Why can't they just make loitering illegal on the streetcar.  Doesn't seem like it'd be that hard to enforce.  And if they aren't allowed on the streetcar they will just be right by the doors waiting for people.

How about combining free rides with Metro passcards?  If you own a Metro monthly bus pass, you can swipe that on the streetcar to ride for free.

How about combining free rides with Metro passcards? If you own a Metro monthly bus pass, you can swipe that on the streetcar to ride for free.

 

Umm...that should be a given.  They're both going to be operated by Metro, they'd better be included in passes.  I think this conversation is more concerned with non-Metro commuters.  The people that wouldn't normally get on a bus, but may jump on a free streetcar for a special trip.  It's a way of promoting the mode.

How about combining free rides with Metro passcards?  If you own a Metro monthly bus pass, you can swipe that on the streetcar to ride for free.

 

Umm...that should be a given.  They're both going to be operated by Metro, they'd better be included in passes.  I think this conversation is more concerned with non-Metro commuters.  The people that wouldn't normally get on a bus, but may jump on a free streetcar for a special trip.  It's a way of promoting the mode.

 

Sadly, it's not a given.  Metro currently gives passholders zero discount for buying a monthly pass over just paying the fare each time.  Please see the "A Better Cincinnati Metro" thread for the full litany of everything Metro does wrong:

 

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,23997.0.html

I like the idea of giving institutions along the line being able to provide gratis rides (a variation on getting parking validated), but until we have a more complete system, I think it devalues the product to give it away for free. The basin is too much of the system to be worth it. If we had to have such a spot, I'd vote for one stop near Fountain Square.

If the Cincinnati Streetcar had a "freezone", what would you suggest the limits be to maximize a balance of ridership and revenue generation?

 

Everything in the basin.  Freedom Center to Findlay Market.  Then it's $2 to go up the hill.

 

Price signals will be important as we develop a network of rail transit. The statement above is absolutely correct in its approach but perfectly wrong in its conclusion.

 

Let me explain. Of the past 200 posts on UrbanOhio here, I'm guessing 50 of them have dealt with the difficulties and destinations of the Uptown service. Whether it happens on Vine or Clifton, the story is not about economic development. One corridor is fully developed; in the other, development is not possible. For Uptown to be successful, it's going to have a compelling destination. The Zoo? Pretty dead at night. The hospital campus? Easier said than done. Clifton/Ludlow? Farthest away, but more like downtown that downtown is with lots of developable sites along the way.

 

So. There ought to be variable pricing based on distance, but I suggest precisely the opposite should be adopted: $2.00 for Downtown/OTR and "Free" to go to Uptown. For now -- until the Uptown network provides as much service as the Downtown/OTR Loop does. Getting to a corner of Uptown doesn't really do that.

 

Here's my reasoning. The Downtown/OTR Loop -- can we just start calling this the Downtown Loop? ... thanks -- the Downtown Loop is totally together. It originates near a brand-new park, through the middle of the Banks, major league sports, large employers, housing in all price ranges, cultural institutions, a brand-new, one-of-a-kind public school, and Findlay Market. No problems except finessing downtown utilities and traffic. The Downtown alignment has never been the subject of serious debate. It's there. And it's very valuable. And, if anything, people should pay more to use it, not less.

 

The Uptown path, by contrast, is not so valuable, at least in terms of what we know about it now. It may hit the centroid of Uptown, or it may miss it altogether. Politics may soon take over. Little development is possible along the connecting route from Downtown to Uptown. Rotating around Findlay Market, the streetcar will be slower than the bus.  I think it's iffy. My sense is, we ought to not charge anyone who wants to ride from Downtown to Uptown.

 

Just kidding. I've presented an extreme example here. The point is, fare policy is an important economic driver that may make or break our project in terms of how the market responds to it. This is not unique. Few transit agencies do a really good job with this.

 

Most transportation investments are evaluated on the supply-side, usually by the suppliers, and so they are often over-supplied. I tend to judge them on the demand-side. Correct pricing would solve a lot of the problems in the built world today.

This is such a vitally important part of the Cincinnati Streetcar project, I almost want it to have its own designated thread but I understand why this topic (implementation) should stay here...

 

The point is, fare policy is an important economic driver that may make or break our project in terms of how the market responds to it. This is not unique. Few transit agencies do a really good job with this.

And that is the big question: Will the best solution be implemented by the transit agency that will run the streetcar. Hopefully SORTA and the City can work this issue out. FYI: Portland's streetcar is owned and operated by the City of Portland, (not by the TriMet?).

 

I don't think there should be a free zone.  Seems like a bad idea.  The last thing we need are bums loitering on the street cars.  And that is exactly what will happen if there is a free zone.

This is a valid concern, and not one that Portland would have to deal with to the extent that Cincinnati might.  The bum factor plays against the "free zone" only a little bit though because the entire purpose of the streetcar is to encourage economic development (without being a weight on the city budget) and using the "bum factor" logic will only shoot the streetcar project in the foot and further empower the "bums ruin everything downtown/in OTR" perception.

 

Being free doesn't it pad the numbers to show the Feds that the system is growing and deserves more federal dollars?

Exactly.  I can see the future Enquirer headlines and TV/radio news coverage already.  "STREETCAR A FLOP: RIDERSHIP LOWER THAN PROJECTED" and stupid man on the street interviews with answers from John Doe like "I never ride the streetcar, they moved all the bums from Washington Park onto it" and other nonsense like that. Or even worse, all the new streetcar systems across the country will be successful except Cincinnati's and then it will become our generation's subway.

 

If the Cincinnati Streetcar had a "freezone", what would you suggest the limits be to maximize a balance of ridership and revenue generation?

Only the "zone" would be free and perhaps certain times (ie late at night) could not be free so as to discourage the "bum factor" (if that's even real) and late night riders might be more likely to be residents/college students would be more used to the system.

 

 

 

The goal is to make the Cincinnati Streetcar an effortless and emblematic symbol of a reinvigorated core that can pull things off with class and panache, not a bureaucratic mess that wastefully serves very few (believe me, the naysayers will be looking for things to pick at).

 

Remember: it's all about the ridership.

 

    The City of Cincinnati doesn't charge for use of the streets, so why should they charge for the streetcar? The idea of the streetcar was to promote development. If the property owners want more traffic, then they should pay for the streetcar. This is no different than a suburban shopping mall giving away "free" parking in order to attract customers.

 

    So, there is nothing stopping the property owners from forming a corporation, raising capital, and operating a streetcar themselves, except that no single property owner can afford to do it, and there is also no way ensure that all of them will work together. This is what governments are for: to provide a mechanism for people to cooperate to acheive a common goal.

 

    Adding fares hurts two ways: it drives down ridership by increasing the cost of riding, and it also drives down ridership by increasing travel times.

 

    Now a long distance passenger rail, like the proposed 3-C, or a subway / metro system, where speeds are faster and stops are fewer, makes more sense to charge a fare; but a circulator can't really function if fares are going to be a hassle.

 

    A Queen City Metro planner told me that his single biggest hassle was how to deal with riders who wanted to stop and then continue in the same direction, particularly at Findlay Market, without paying double. Automobile drivers don't incur extra costs for making more than one stop between two points.

 

    All of this supposed property tax increase was supposed to pay for the streetcar anyway. Why should it pay for the capital cost and not the operation cost?

 

    "Rotating around Findlay Market, the streetcar will be slower than the bus."

 

    Then why build it at all? Rotating around Findlay Market is just dumb. To be successful, the streetcar absolutely has to minimize operation costs. Why add 10 blocks of track including all those problematic turns without adding any more developeable area?

 

   

 

 

^your post is non-sensical. 

 

-There are countless reason to for having a streetcar beyond benefitting the business in the vicinity.  So it is nothing like a shopping mall that offers free parking to its customers.  If it were, there would be no such thing as a parking meter.

 

-Automobile drivers in urban areas do incur extra costs when they stop, and then continue on to another destination.  You typically pay for parking in urban areas. 

 

-Charing fares helps pay for the damn thing.  It also discourages riff-raff.  Just about every other urban streetcar/subway/light rail etc. system in America charges a fare, so don't act like it would be such an outrage if Cincy's did the same.

civik deleted my post about the problem of prostitution and drugs traveling to the banks if the streetcar is free.  I don't think it was a worthless post as I see it as a potential for disaster.  People won't ride if there is an obvious problem, and there would be no legal reason to remove these travelers.

 

Sorry if I offended anyone.

^ From the day the streetcar opens -- no, from the day the first streetcar goes on the streets for six months of testing, we need to ensure there is no vandalism, no fare evasion, no panhandling of passengers, none of that happens. If unchallenged, they lead to the things Dan is talking about. Portland let things get out of hand on the Blue Line, and by 2007, there was random crime and violence that culminated in a 71-year old man between beaten with a baseball bat while waiting for a train. So Tri-Met cut down some shrubbery around the stops, increased lighting but, most of all, started having uniformed transit police board about every second or third train. They check almost everybody for a ticket. They checked Sheriff Leis when he was there. Seems to have worked.

 

We'll all be shocked at how few people will ride the streetcar at first, but it will pick up over time. Until you have a critical mass of passengers acting as eyes on the street, there will be a need for law enforcement to keep an eye on things, randomly boarding the vehicles, checking tickets, that sort of thing. Strikes me the bike cops would be ideal for this. They'd become more mobile than they already are.

civik deleted my post about the problem of prostitution and drugs traveling to the banks if the streetcar is free. I don't think it was a worthless post as I see it as a potential for disaster. People won't ride if there is an obvious problem, and there would be no legal reason to remove these travelers.

 

Sorry if I offended anyone.

 

If this is a potential problem for the Cincinnati Streetcar, it would make sense to confront it now and nip it in the bud instead of setting up a wonderful system only to have its reputation sullied by some sort of incident that reiterates certain stereotypes about the neighborhood to the wider community/country.

 

Moderators rightfully exercise their power at their discretion but if DanB wasn't being disruptive or untruthful, I don't see a problem with discussing a situation which may or may not present a problem to the streetcar's future.

civik deleted my post about the problem of prostitution and drugs traveling to the banks if the streetcar is free.  I don't think it was a worthless post as I see it as a potential for disaster.  People won't ride if there is an obvious problem, and there would be no legal reason to remove these travelers.

 

Sorry if I offended anyone.

 

Actually, I think that a free streetcar would prevent those problems, rather than encourage them.  If the streetcar is free, lots of passengers will board in order to go short distances rather than walking a few blocks.  More passengers means safer trains.  If you have a mostly empty streetcar, then you have a problem.  The only downside that I see is the problem of having the homeless ride for hours on exceptionally hot or cold days, but this could be easily avoided by having a no loitering policy (more than once around the loop?).  Remember, these streetcars will have drivers, and these drivers could easily report a "loiterer" to an inspector or transit cop who could then board and deal with the situation without completely halting the train.

 

Also, if your concern is really with "prostitution and drugs traveling to The Banks" specifically, couldn't those problems make down there via car, bus, or foot anyway?  I don't see a $2 fare being a big deterrent for drug dealers.

  "Charging fares helps pay for the thing..."

 

    But charging fares also adds complexity. For a subway, fare collection is natural, because there are a limited number of entrances, passengers pay at the station, not on the vehicle, and stations can be configured so that passengers can tranfer without leaving the system.

 

  On Queen City Metro, the act of paying fares occupies the driver's time, which increases travel times for everyone. (In the old days, Cincinnati Streetcars had a two man crew: one drove the vehicle and one collected fares.)

 

    Now I understand that there is technology available that Queen City Metro doesn't use: fare cards, vending machines on the sidewalk, and so on. Still, all of that stuff adds complexity. It is especially hard to attract new passengers that are intimidated by something unfamiliar. Making it free would simplify things enormously.

 

    It is said that no transit agency in the United States actually turns a profit. To justify charging fares, one would have to present a case that charging fares will prove its worth. That is, compare two systems that are exactly the same except one charges fares and one doesn't. The one that doesn't charge will clearly cost less to operate and attract more riders, in theory leading to more property tax revenue. Can you show that charging fares will bring in more revenue to the city than not charging?

 

    "You typically pay for parking in urban areas."

 

    Good sir, the city lost that battle to the suburbs a long time ago. MOST drivers don't pay for parking in urban areas, because MOST drivers don't even go to urban areas. They live in the suburbs, work in the suburbs, and shop in the suburbs. There is a generation that has never been on a city bus. The city has not been charging them for use of the motorways, and most business owners don't charge for parking, so charging for use of the streetcar will only put the streetcar at a competitive disadvantage with automobiles.

   

If a transit agency did turn a profit, it would be every bit as controversial as them being subsidized.  The instant they turned a profit, everyone would want either more buses/trains, fare reductions, or have those excess revenues diverted to some other area of government.  The last option is extremely unlikely, as people would demand the lowest fares possible. 

 

When the Cincinnati Street Railway/Cincinnati Transit was a real company will stock and all that, it pulled all kinds of nonsense like swapping assets between leasees to temporarily inflate or deflate its stock prices.  In other incidents, the officers of the company bought stock in the same companies that the transit company itself bought, then rigged their sell-offs with that of their company.  All these people who think privatization of public transportation is a good idea simply haven't studied what used to go on. 

 

 

 

 

 

    Tolling for bridges, tunnels, long distance passenger trains, subways, metro rail systems, ferries, airlines, and limited access highways is efficient because there are a limited number of access points and few alternatives.

 

    Tolling for normal streets and roads is not economically efficient because it costs more to collect the tolls than the tolls are worth. Governments allow a mechanism for property owners to pool resources and maintain roads for the common benefit.

 

    For streetcars and buses, tolling is only of marginal benefit, if at all. Just look at the difficulty that Queen City Metro has with fares.

 

    Assuming that Cincinnati is going to build the streetcar, there are two alternatives: to charge fares, or not to charge. If fares are charged, then a fare structure and collection system has to be set up.

 

    It is unquestionable that ridership will be higher without fares, which should, in theory, result in more development opportunities and higher property tax revenue. It is also unquestionable that costs will be lower without fares because it costs a lot of money to install and operate vending machines, an electronic fare card, fareboxes, or whatever system is chosen.

 

  So the question becomes, for which system will the City of Cincinnati be better off? One with higher property tax revenues, lower operation costs, but no fares, or one with lower tax revenues, higher operation costs, and some fare revenue?

 

    It depends on the actual numbers. I honestly don't know which is better, but I hope that a fareless streetcar is at least considered. What concerns me is that a fare will be imposed based on some completly arbitrary and possibly counter-productive reason, such as keeping the fare higher than what Queen City Metro charges in order to preserve revenues to Queen City Metro.

 

    I don't see a publicly operated streetcar any differently than a publicly owned street. The City of Cincinnati doesn't charge for normal use of the streets, even though it costs lots of money to maintain them, including not only pavement maintenance but also policing.

 

 

The way I envision it is that you go up to the ticket machine, swipe your credit card, pick length of time you want the pass for, and number of adults and children, and it spits out ticket(s).  For time you could choose, one hour, 4-hour or all day.  The cheapest could be 50 cents and the all day pass could be $4. If the minimum time is one hour, then you really don't need the validation machines inside the streetcar.

 

The fare should be time-based, not destination based.  Keep it simple.

 

Children on Metro buses are half price and infants are free, so I would say the same with streetcar, even though strollers take up more room on a bus than 2 adults.

 

  ^---- You need:

 

    1. A ticket machine for every stop. Say 25 of of them. These things need a power supply, need to be serviced, need have the cash collected (assuming they take cash,) and they need street space. All of these incurr some cost. If one gets vandalized or damaged, then that stop is out of service.

 

    2. Some method to process credit cards and reduce fraud. Again, not free.

 

    3. Some method to collect tickets. A conductor? Honor system? Driver?

 

    4. A fare policy. This is not as simple as it sounds. Queen City Metro has struggled with a fare policy ever since they have been in operation. What if a rider only wants to go two blocks? What if he is a rush-hour commuter that uses it at peak times? What if he is a tourist that wants to take a ride to the zoo and back a single time? Attempting to match fares with cost on a circulator system is not easy.

 

    5. A way to tell the difference between infants, children, and adults. Again, this isn't as simple as it sounds. Queen City Metro has mothers carrying 5-year old kids onto the bus trying to claim that they are "infants." After all, some day an infant is going to graduate to become a child, and on that day the mother is going to have to pay more. Naturally, the mother wants to put that day off as long as possible. If you don't belive this is an issue, ride the Metro until you see it happen. The difference between children and adults is even more problematic. Do you go by age? Height? 

 

  The Delta Train at the Airport is free, and it works beautifully. In fact, it's a step up on the proposed streetcar because it runs on a private right-of-way automatically without crews. Elevators in buildings are free. Escalators in the malls are free. In Cincinnati, use of streets and parks are free. City playgrounds are free. Why not make the proposed streetcar free?

 

   

I'd like to see hotels along the line be given streetcar passes to give to their guests, good for their length of stay at the hotel. What a great way to welcome people to the city and help make their stay smooth and simple.

 

If free fares are offered for a portion of the route, I think it would be a good idea to restrict this to certain hours. Only during the day, perhaps (beginning for the morning commute, ending after the evening commute), or even only have free fares at special times, like game days.

If free fares are offered for a portion of the route, I think it would be a good idea to restrict this to certain hours. Only during the day, perhaps (beginning for the morning commute, ending after the evening commute), or even only have free fares at special times, like game days.

More info from Portland:

 

Portland streetcar fares

Portland streetcar schedule

 

   ^---- You need:

 

    1. A ticket machine for every stop. Say 25 of of them. These things need a power supply, need to be serviced, need have the cash collected (assuming they take cash,) and they need street space. All of these incurr some cost. If one gets vandalized or damaged, then that stop is out of service.

 

    2. Some method to process credit cards and reduce fraud. Again, not free.

 

    3. Some method to collect tickets. A conductor? Honor system? Driver?

 

    4. A fare policy. This is not as simple as it sounds. Queen City Metro has struggled with a fare policy ever since they have been in operation. What if a rider only wants to go two blocks? What if he is a rush-hour commuter that uses it at peak times? What if he is a tourist that wants to take a ride to the zoo and back a single time? Attempting to match fares with cost on a circulator system is not easy.

 

     5. A way to tell the difference between infants, children, and adults. Again, this isn't as simple as it sounds. Queen City Metro has mothers carrying 5-year old kids onto the bus trying to claim that they are "infants." After all, some day an infant is going to graduate to become a child, and on that day the mother is going to have to pay more. Naturally, the mother wants to put that day off as long as possible. If you don't belive this is an issue, ride the Metro until you see it happen. The difference between children and adults is even more problematic. Do you go by age? Height? 

 

   The Delta Train at the Airport is free, and it works beautifully. In fact, it's a step up on the proposed streetcar because it runs on a private right-of-way automatically without crews. Elevators in buildings are free. Escalators in the malls are free. In Cincinnati, use of streets and parks are free. City playgrounds are free. Why not make the proposed streetcar free?

 

   

 

I get that there are challenges, but somehow cities across the world have managed to build and run streetcar systems for over a century. I'm pretty sure they can figure out a good way to get past these issues w/out giving up on requiring a fare to use the system.

 

    A fareless system should at least be considered. That's all I'm sayin'.  :-)

 

    The cost of collecting fares, including the slower travel times due to the fares alone, is probably more than people realize.

 

    Queen City Metro recovers about 20% of the operating cost in fares. Suppose the streetcar costs $120 million to build, and $2 million per year to operate, and they collect 20% of the operating cost in fares. That's just $400,000 per year - a very small percentage of the total cost. Why bother?

It is unquestionable that ridership will be higher without fares...

 

I would agree with you on this.

 

It is also unquestionable that costs will be lower without fares because it costs a lot of money to install and operate vending machines, an electronic fare card, fareboxes, or whatever system is chosen.

 

This however is NOT unquestionable.  What you fail to consider is that the (potentially very significant) increase in ridership will also require more vehicles, more drivers, more electricity, and will cause more wear and tear on the system.  The cost of just one extra vehicle, plus the recurring cost of employing more drivers to operate it may in fact be more than even a very elaborate fare collection system.  I do believe a fareless system is definitely worth considering, but it's not so clear cut as you may think either. 

-Charing fares helps pay for the damn thing.  It also discourages riff-raff.

 

It doesn't matter what they charge, I'm still going to ride it.

 

  "It's not so clear cut as you may think either."

 

  I will be the first to admit that this is a large, complicated project and I don't have a full understanding of all of it.

 

    "What you fail to consider is that the increase in ridership will also require more vehicles..."

 

    Good point.

 

 

It needs to be "right-priced." No doubt. But will SORTA do that? Or will they pick some arbitrary fare?

 

    Judging from SORTA's track record (he he  :-)) they will not pick the right price.

 

    The 17 from Ludlow & Clifton to downtown is sometimes so packed in the morning rush that they have to turn people away. Meanwhile, they charge extra for some of the suburban routes because they are outside of the City of Cincinnati, and they run nearly empty. There's something wrong with this picture.

I can see why they charge extra for the suburban routes, they're just trying to make their money's worth by extending their service out that far for so few riders.

 

What I do miss though is peak and off-peak pricing. I used to work in Walnut Hills and commute via the 31 every day. It was 50 cents off-peak and 85 cents during rush hours, which ended at 6. I had a monthly pass most of the time, but when I didn't, it encouraged me to wait the few extra mins til 6pm to avoid the peak-time. There are bound to be others like me who would time their commutes accordingly, and if so, this sort of pricing scheme could end up reducing congestion. You wouldn't have everyone trying to use the system at the same time.

 

    ^---- I had the opposite problem with peak and off-peak pricing. If I remember correctly, rush-hour pricing began at 3:00 p.m., or was it 3:15? Anyway, I used to take a bus that was scheduled to stop at 2:52. If it was late, I had to pay more. What made it frustrating is that I would have exact change in my hand and when I got on, the driver charged me more.

 

    Meanwhile, the next bus was at 7:15, a whole 4 hours later! The reason was because the rush-hour buses took a different route. I could still get home, but it took an additional transfer that typically added 25 minutes to the trip.

 

   

Not sure if it is streetcar related but the large surface lot at the corner of Walnut and Ninth is for sale.

What about them cutting down the trees on McMillan at the top of Clifton?  Where is The Dean? 

If the system is not designed and their is no bidders yet. How do they know it will cost 128 million???

 

  $128 million is a very rough estimate, based on a unit cost per mile as completed by other cities such as Portland. No one really knows what it will cost without a design, and even with a design it's tough to predict a bid price in this economy.

 

 

So since real estate costs less here in Cincinnati than Portland. The cost should be cheaper right?

The cost of construction has also declined significantly since the $128M estimate was penned, and that figure also includes a sizable contingency. I wouldn't be surprised if the project ultimately comes in under-budget.

 

  There is no budget yet. The $128 million figure is an estimate that came from a feasibility study, not a budget.

 

 

And your point is?

 

We won't know the final cost until the project is complete. That holds true whether you're planning a streetcar line, a kitchen renovation, or the building of Hoover Dam. But based on the expertise of the project team and their experience with similar projects in the past, I'm willing to bet the $128M estimate is very sound, if not conservative.

So what are they waiting on now? For the full 128 million before the start to design it?

 

I say that because wouldn't a company want to be as close to that 128 million as possible? Im sure they could build it for 90 million and pocket 38 million in profit.

 

"And your point is?"

 

  I've got no problem with the $128 million estimate. It could be high, or it could be low. I just don't know, and no one does, but the folks who put the estimate together know more than I do.

 

    I was trying to distinguish between an estimate and a budget. The estimate is what we think it is going to cost; the budget is a collection of funds to pay for it.

 

    We don't have a budget yet.

 

   

I'm not sure why folks (particularly streetcar opponents) seem to have a problem with cost estimates, economic impact studies, etc. regarding the streetcar, but do not have beef with these studies or reports with anything else?

 

Isn't this how we plan/build everything?

I'm not sure why folks (particularly streetcar opponents) seem to have a problem with cost estimates, economic impact studies, etc. regarding the streetcar, but do not have beef with these studies or reports with anything else?

 

Isn't this how we plan/build everything?

 

People use information to back up their own preconceived notions of how something will or will not work. If the information does not jive with what they already believe, they will dismiss it until presented with such irrefutable evidence that they can no longer continue with their previous beliefs (ie a working streetcar system that's beating riding estimates, and with new construction all around it).

 

At which point they'll stop caring about that and move on to something else.

People use information to back up their own preconceived notions of how something will or will not work. If the information does not jive with what they already believe, they will dismiss it until presented with such irrefutable evidence that they can no longer continue with their previous beliefs (ie a working streetcar system that's beating riding estimates, and with new construction all around it).

 

At which point they'll stop caring about that and move on to something else.

 

Don't forget there will also be people who will claim until the end of time that the success of this project (and other projects like the Fountain Square redevelopment) was either not worth the investment, or the benefits were not in any way sourced from the project.

Sounds like the Enquirer is stirring the pot again with another skeptical article to come out tomorrow.

Sounds like the Enquirer is stirring the pot again with another skeptical article to come out tomorrow.

Will it be an anonymous "editorial" again?

An article.