Never raise revenue. Only cut costs.

 

Business 101

Hilarious how PG Sittenfeld went from "menacing secret-conservative from Hyde Park" to Che Guevara. All because he made one rational decision to not waste $80 million on a hole in the ground.

Who assigns the board members to SORTA? If it is the mayor. Who was the last mayor to do it?

 

NVM I have my answer.

 

http://www.go-metro.com/about-metro/sorta

^Doesn't really say who in the city appoints the board members. I would imagine it is the City Manager, but it could be the Mayor, or one of the two with approval from City Council. Anyone know exactly who does it?

The Mayor makes the appointment which is confirmed by council.

Anyone suspicious that Cranley might try to un-fund SORTA, forcing the county to raise property taxes?  Somehow get funding for the streetcar caught in a legal quagmire?

Anyone appointed by Cranley will be a puppet.  And so we can essentially file any firing and reappointment by Cranley as one of his (surely many) actions to make streetcar success as tough as possible.  No?

Since everything in Cincinnati revolves around the streetcar, I'll post here although it could go in several places...

In an interview Sunday on Newsmakers, Cranky said he would definitely be making changes to the SORTA board due to their irresponsible actions concerning the streetcar.

 

Do you have a link?

 

Never mind, found it here: http://www.local12.com/entertainment/features/newsmakers/stories/newsmakers-january-5-2014-50.shtml

 

NOTE: question about changing of the SORTA board starts at 18:00 in the interview.

Anyone know if this current crazy cold weather is affecting the construction of the streetcar?  Surely they can't pour concrete when its this cold, can they? 

Concrete can be poured at quite cold temperatures as long as it's covered since the hydration process generates some heat.  Still, it'd probably be tough to keep properly covered in weather like this.  I figure they probably don't have to pour concrete to keep things moving, they can just move on with trenching, laying track, welding rebar, etc.

Here's how the cold weather is affecting streetcar construction: SLIDESHOW

 

“They’re not really doing any activities today because of the cold,” Eilerman said on Monday.

He said more concrete will be poured next week and the project’s completion won’t be pushed back as a result of the weather delay.

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2014/01/06/heres-how-the-cold-weather-is.html

Concrete can be poured at quite cold temperatures as long as it's covered since the hydration process generates some heat.  Still, it'd probably be tough to keep properly covered in weather like this.  I figure they probably don't have to pour concrete to keep things moving, they can just move on with trenching, laying track, welding rebar, etc.

I think the formulations are different for cold weather, too, but WTH, it's too cold to be working outside.

Since everything in Cincinnati revolves around the streetcar, I'll post here although it could go in several places...

In an interview Sunday on Newsmakers, Cranky said he would definitely be making changes to the SORTA board due to their irresponsible actions concerning the streetcar.

 

Do you have a link?

 

Never mind, found it here: http://www.local12.com/entertainment/features/newsmakers/stories/newsmakers-january-5-2014-50.shtml

 

NOTE: question about changing of the SORTA board starts at 18:00 in the interview.

 

The narrow and limited view of public transit that Cranley repeats over and over in his rhetoric, which is to infer that Metro's sole purpose is to get people to and from jobs, reminds me of an elderly family member (now deceased) who didn't want bus service to her suburban neighborhood because it would encourage and allow black people to go there. 

Cranley is not unique is his view that transit is a social program. This view enables transit opponents to marginalize it.

 

The Cincinnati Streetcar has challenged all of this in the most fundamental way, since rail is more likely to appeal to people across a wider spectrum. The opponents know this very well, know how rail is capturing new customers in other cities, and this is one reason they have opposed it so stridently. It's a game-changer, and frankly a lot of people like the way the game has been played for the last sixty or so years.

Cranley is not unique is his view that transit is a social program. This view enables transit opponents to marginalize it.

 

The Cincinnati Streetcar has challenged all of this in the most fundamental way, since rail is more likely to appeal to people across a wider spectrum. The opponents know this very well, know how rail is capturing new customers in other cities, and this is one reason they have opposed it so stridently. It's a game-changer, and frankly a lot of people like the way the game has been played for the last sixty or so years.

 

You statement straight off was the most maningful, transit is a social program. It should not be a social program, balancing the income ability across the country. Transit should strictly be a needs program, and one the users of which are willing and able to pay the upkeep for. Once you take from some to pay the transit needs for others, you are just playing the game of socialism.

Cranley is not unique is his view that transit is a social program. This view enables transit opponents to marginalize it.

 

The Cincinnati Streetcar has challenged all of this in the most fundamental way, since rail is more likely to appeal to people across a wider spectrum. The opponents know this very well, know how rail is capturing new customers in other cities, and this is one reason they have opposed it so stridently. It's a game-changer, and frankly a lot of people like the way the game has been played for the last sixty or so years.

 

You statement straight off was the most maningful, transit is a social program. It should not be a social program, balancing the income ability across the country. Transit should strictly be a needs program, and one the users of which are willing and able to pay the upkeep for. Once you take from some to pay the transit needs for others, you are just playing the game of socialism.

 

Air travel in the United States is also a social program. The only difference is that our aviation subsidies primarily benefit high-income business travelers, while transit is more likely to benefit a lower-income and more diverse group. When air travel and highways pay for themselves without requiring subsidies, I will listen to your criticisms of transit.

We have a new schedule for crossing Liberty Street: Thursday, Jan. 16 (at 9 a.m.) to Tuesday, Jan. 21, 2014 (at 7 a.m.).

 

http://us7.campaign-archive1.com/?u=91c66a5f3edf5f15778c567da&id=9c3cff2504&e=1f3422d9b4

Cranley is not unique is his view that transit is a social program. This view enables transit opponents to marginalize it.

 

The Cincinnati Streetcar has challenged all of this in the most fundamental way, since rail is more likely to appeal to people across a wider spectrum. The opponents know this very well, know how rail is capturing new customers in other cities, and this is one reason they have opposed it so stridently. It's a game-changer, and frankly a lot of people like the way the game has been played for the last sixty or so years.

 

You statement straight off was the most maningful, transit is a social program. It should not be a social program, balancing the income ability across the country. Transit should strictly be a needs program, and one the users of which are willing and able to pay the upkeep for. Once you take from some to pay the transit needs for others, you are just playing the game of socialism.

 

KJ, let's flip that argument: 9% of Ohio's households have no motor vehicle---that's a million people---and they depend on public transportation to access their jobs and other activities. Would you rather they have no access (limited as it is) and instead be on welfare? It's also a sure bet that they also subsidize roads they may not use. Finally, highway users pay about 46% of the costs associated with roads. All the rest comes from general non-user revenues. I could go on, but the picture is clear: All forms of transportation are subsidized, especially roads.

It's funny that many of the people that oppose the streetcar are the same people opposing tolls for the new Brent Spence.

 

They complain that the streetcar won't be entirely paid for by riders, but argue that riders should pay for Brent Spence replacement.

Cranley also said in his interview that supporters have said the streetcar is a "luxury".  I'm not aware of any one of us who has made such a claim.  He also said we don't view it as transportation, apparently because we've also also touted it as a means to spur downtown/OTR economic development.  His dishonesty is disgusting.  And as long as insists on turning a blind eye to the trend towards urbanization, and that people are choosing to drive less (among the many other things he's wrong about), he'll continue to be a leader in name only.

Cranley is not unique is his view that transit is a social program. This view enables transit opponents to marginalize it.

 

The Cincinnati Streetcar has challenged all of this in the most fundamental way, since rail is more likely to appeal to people across a wider spectrum. The opponents know this very well, know how rail is capturing new customers in other cities, and this is one reason they have opposed it so stridently. It's a game-changer, and frankly a lot of people like the way the game has been played for the last sixty or so years.

 

You statement straight off was the most maningful, transit is a social program. It should not be a social program, balancing the income ability across the country. Transit should strictly be a needs program, and one the users of which are willing and able to pay the upkeep for. Once you take from some to pay the transit needs for others, you are just playing the game of socialism.

 

KJ, let's flip that argument: 9% of Ohio's households have no motor vehicle---that's a million people---and they depend on public transportation to access their jobs and other activities. Would you rather they have no access (limited as it is) and instead be on welfare? It's also a sure bet that they also subsidize roads they may not use. Finally, highway users pay about 46% of the costs associated with roads. All the rest comes from general non-user revenues. I could go on, but the picture is clear: All forms of transportation are subsidized, especially roads.

 

Does that include local roads?

To be more clear, gas taxes pay for only about half of highway expenditures.  Gas tax revenues go to very few local roads and streets (it varies by state).  If I recall, I think the maximum amount of total gas tax revenue (state and federal) that goes to any part of the local street network is something like 20%, and those are usually only special one-time grants, or for US and state highways inside municipalities in states that have state-aid programs (of which Ohio is not one).  So not only are highways (interstates, and US and state routes in unincorporated areas) subsidized by all taxpayers, they're also subsidized by drivers who do most of their driving on local streets, which happens to be a higher proportion of city dwellers. 

Streetcar work to shut down busy OTR intersection

 

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20140108/NEWS01/301080090/Streetcar-work-shut-down-busy-OTR-intersection

Once you take from some to pay the transit needs for others, you are just playing the game of socialism.

 

Socialism refers to common ownership of the means of production.  Its practical application is large, state-owned industries.  These definitions are important, because that allows people to understand each other.  When you don't respect what a word means, you're clearly trying to manipulate people.

^kjbrill doesn't even know what socialism means. It's clear from his posts, be has no clear understanding at all of this issue. Otherwise, he would also be criticizing all roads and the airlines. All modes of transport are subsidized to some degree and none completely pays for itself. 

If capitalism did not redistribute wealth in some form, it would collapse under its own wealth concentration and this particular economic system would not work. This is an immutable fact.

 

If you are stupid, or manipulative, you can waste your time demonizing the concept of redistribution. For those of us back in reality, the conversation is about which re-distributive efforts are best; both for society in a moral sense AND for the economic system in a technical sense.

 

The end.

Cranley is not unique is his view that transit is a social program. This view enables transit opponents to marginalize it.

 

The Cincinnati Streetcar has challenged all of this in the most fundamental way, since rail is more likely to appeal to people across a wider spectrum. The opponents know this very well, know how rail is capturing new customers in other cities, and this is one reason they have opposed it so stridently. It's a game-changer, and frankly a lot of people like the way the game has been played for the last sixty or so years.

 

Well said. Sadly, there are transit advocates who believe that rail transit should be used only in reaction to something, such as traffic congestion or the pre-existing availability of population density, rather than to create land use patterns and other conditions favorable to rail transit. When public transit was owned and financed by the private sector (before we started expanding road budgets almost entirely with general taxes at the outset), rail transit lines were built into undeveloped areas to develop them by transit/real estate/electric utility conglomerates. The population density followed.

 

Unfortunately, some transit advocates will wait forever for the population density to somehow magically appear before agreeing to support development of rail transit. Design your transit system for the kind of city you want to result, then add the funding mechanisms to make it happen.

Cranley is not unique is his view that transit is a social program. This view enables transit opponents to marginalize it.

 

The Cincinnati Streetcar has challenged all of this in the most fundamental way, since rail is more likely to appeal to people across a wider spectrum. The opponents know this very well, know how rail is capturing new customers in other cities, and this is one reason they have opposed it so stridently. It's a game-changer, and frankly a lot of people like the way the game has been played for the last sixty or so years.

 

Well said. Sadly, there are transit advocates who believe that rail transit should be used only in reaction to something, such as traffic congestion or the pre-existing availability of population density, rather than to create land use patterns and other conditions favorable to rail transit. When public transit was owned and financed by the private sector (before we started expanding road budgets almost entirely with general taxes at the outset), rail transit lines were built into undeveloped areas to develop them by transit/real estate/electric utility conglomerates. The population density followed.

 

Unfortunately, some transit advocates will wait forever for the population density to somehow magically appear before agreeing to support development of rail transit. Design your transit system for the kind of city you want to result, then add the funding mechanisms to make it happen.

 

^ Truest words of the year, so far.

 

^ Truest words of the year, so far.

 

Thanks, but the year is young!

Cranley is not unique is his view that transit is a social program. This view enables transit opponents to marginalize it.

 

The Cincinnati Streetcar has challenged all of this in the most fundamental way, since rail is more likely to appeal to people across a wider spectrum. The opponents know this very well, know how rail is capturing new customers in other cities, and this is one reason they have opposed it so stridently. It's a game-changer, and frankly a lot of people like the way the game has been played for the last sixty or so years.

 

Well said. Sadly, there are transit advocates who believe that rail transit should be used only in reaction to something, such as traffic congestion or the pre-existing availability of population density, rather than to create land use patterns and other conditions favorable to rail transit. When public transit was owned and financed by the private sector (before we started expanding road budgets almost entirely with general taxes at the outset), rail transit lines were built into undeveloped areas to develop them by transit/real estate/electric utility conglomerates. The population density followed.

 

Unfortunately, some transit advocates will wait forever for the population density to somehow magically appear before agreeing to support development of rail transit. Design your transit system for the kind of city you want to result, then add the funding mechanisms to make it happen.

 

So many of America's failures in transportation policy can be explained by only recognizing one side of the feedback loop between transportation networks and land development patterns.

>rail transit lines were built into undeveloped areas to develop them by transit/real estate/electric utility conglomerates. The population

 

The problem with the private financing of transit in this fashion is that if one aspect of the business failed, then the whole syndicate might collapse.  In a few examples the rail systems were sold off for scrap and ROW's of minimal value for any use other than transit was sold off to pay creditors.  Probably the best example of this was the collapse of the Key System in San Francisco, where a nearly brand-new network of electric commuter rail lines was scrapped 15~ years after they were built because the developer went bankrupt.  The ROW's were largely sold off and within 10 years the bay area responded by forming BART and building the first postwar rapid transit system.   

 

The problem is that rail opponents use the scrapping of the Key System and similar incidents as ammo without explaining the context.  Further, localities were always hemmed in by state laws regarding taxation, so cities/counties often did not have the funds to buy these bankrupt systems even at fire sale prices. 

 

 

 

 

Cranley is not unique is his view that transit is a social program. This view enables transit opponents to marginalize it.

 

The Cincinnati Streetcar has challenged all of this in the most fundamental way, since rail is more likely to appeal to people across a wider spectrum. The opponents know this very well, know how rail is capturing new customers in other cities, and this is one reason they have opposed it so stridently. It's a game-changer, and frankly a lot of people like the way the game has been played for the last sixty or so years.

 

Well said. Sadly, there are transit advocates who believe that rail transit should be used only in reaction to something, such as traffic congestion or the pre-existing availability of population density, rather than to create land use patterns and other conditions favorable to rail transit. When public transit was owned and financed by the private sector (before we started expanding road budgets almost entirely with general taxes at the outset), rail transit lines were built into undeveloped areas to develop them by transit/real estate/electric utility conglomerates. The population density followed.

 

Unfortunately, some transit advocates will wait forever for the population density to somehow magically appear before agreeing to support development of rail transit. Design your transit system for the kind of city you want to result, then add the funding mechanisms to make it happen.

 

So many of America's failures in transportation policy can be explained by only recognizing one side of the feedback loop between transportation networks and land development patterns.

 

Or conversely, the desire by local governments to control land development patterns even when the people had other ideas.

 

The multiple causes behind postwar "sprawl" have been reviewed in that thread, yet some felt that it was strictly highway-driven and mass transit systems should not respond to it.  Indeed, a case can be made that the Cuyahoga County RTA consolidation and the subsequent elimination of non-radial routes made many suburban areas even less transit friendly.  I know this happened in Maple Heights, I'm not inclined to assume we were unique.

 

We've discussed in the Cleveland transit threads the very idea of whether or not public transportation is some sort of "civil right".  It makes a very major difference vis a vis policies whether the primary mission of a transit agency is to provide a transportation safety net to those without options, or to compete for the transportation dollars of those who do.  The approaches can be mutually exclusive.

It makes a very major difference vis a vis policies whether the primary mission of a transit agency is to provide a transportation safety net to those without options, or to compete for the transportation dollars of those who do.  The approaches can be mutually exclusive.

 

This is a good point.  The biggest problem, and the reason that we have a road-centric culture, is that local governments don't reallly have the means to fund transportation projects themselves, primarily because they are barred from enacting the types of funding mechanisms that would create a more transparent and direct cost burden- basically the state controls how local governments may tax real estate.  Because of this, they come up with ways to work around these rules- like with TIF districts and so forth.  So many programs are jerry-rigged to avoid offending certain interest groups, or to make sure enough interest groups have a piece of the pie, or because the programs have been added to organically over decades, that cities simply don't have the ability to do projects like the streetcar without help from the state or feds.

 

Like you said, minimum transportation access is oftentimes (particularly with the limited funds available) mutually exclusive from biggest impact routes.  The reason why cities all over the country are doing these types of streetcar systems is because the old way, where the cities pay for the buses to take their residents to suburban jobs, isn't sustainable, and it has resulted in swaths of underutilized urban real estate that ends up costing more because it is underused.

Cranley wants to appoint new SORTA board members because of their reckless support for the streetcar but most of the members who voted such were not city appointed members.

sheesh

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/blog/2014/01/will-cranley-sack-metros-board-over.html?ana=twt&page=all

^ha

We need to start putting Cranley's head on Christie's body

There's an article on the streetcar history by Mike Moroski in the Northside neighborhood paper, January edition. The S Word.

http://northsider.northside.net/

Not what I would have written, but nobody asked me.

They know better.....

I finally had a chance to look over the new Oasis commuter rail report:

http://easterncorridor.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Conceptual-Alternative-Solutions-Report-V12_FINAL_112013B-1.pdf

 

Comparing and contrasting the streetcar versus Oasis commuter rail, the most striking difference is the operations plan.

 

Streetcar:

-5 streetcars are bing built

-1 streetcar will be kept in reserve in the car barn each day, per FTA requirements

-4 streetcars will operate continuously from 6am-12pm (I'm guessing)

-Therefore approximately 72 hours of streetcar operation per day

 

 

Oasis Commuter Rail:

-5 DMU's will be ordered

-1 DMU will be kept in reserve in the car barn each day, per FTA requirements

-1 DMU will make two trips in the morning and two in the evening

-3 DMU's will only make one trip in the morning and one in the evening

 

 

So, according to the current plan, 1 DMU will be used about five hours per day, and 3DMU's will only be used for about two 1/2 hours per day.  Meanwhile, four streetcars will be buzzing around for 18 hours apiece each day. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I finally had a chance to look over the new Oasis commuter rail report:

http://easterncorridor.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Conceptual-Alternative-Solutions-Report-V12_FINAL_112013B-1.pdf

 

Comparing and contrasting the streetcar versus Oasis commuter rail, the most striking difference is the operations plan.

 

Streetcar:

-5 streetcars are bing built

-1 streetcar will be kept in reserve in the car barn each day, per FTA requirements

-4 streetcars will operate continuously from 6am-12pm (I'm guessing)

-Therefore approximately 72 hours of streetcar operation per day

 

 

Oasis Commuter Rail:

-5 DMU's will be ordered

-1 DMU will be kept in reserve in the car barn each day, per FTA requirements

-1 DMU will make two trips in the morning and two in the evening

-3 DMU's will only make one trip in the morning and one in the evening

 

 

So, according to the current plan, 1 DMU will be used about five hours per day, and 3DMU's will only be used for about two 1/2 hours per day.  Meanwhile, four streetcars will be buzzing around for 18 hours apiece each day. 

 

 

That's a pretty common equipment utilization for a suburb-to-CBD commuter rail service.

Sweet!!!

 

http://cincinnati.craigslist.org/off/4278297405.html

Nice.

Sweet!!!

 

http://cincinnati.craigslist.org/off/4278297405.html

 

This is the first of many more to come!

 

And welcome to the club in Ohio. When you do a search of Cleveland-area apartments and use "Rapid" as a search term, you get 156 results (on Jan. 13):

 

http://cleveland.craigslist.org/search/apa?zoomToPosting=&catAbb=apa&query=Rapid&minAsk=&maxAsk=&bedrooms=&housing_type=&excats=

 

Having rail access is a definite marketing plus!

 

Monday, January 13, 2014

STREETCARS ARE ABOUT TRANSIT

just in a different way from how most people are accustomed to thinking about it

Name: Richard Layman

 

This is in response to the Next City article "Why Streetcars Aren’t About Transit: The Economic Development Argument for Trams," written by the Housing Complex columnist of DC's own Washington City Paper.

 

Generally, the focus on the economic development aspects of such services, without properly planning to achieve such outcomes beyond the construction of a transit program, tends to be unsuccessful. 

 

Streetcars and other types of intra-city transit networks such as "circulators" and "people movers" are transit and should be developed as transit, recognizing their special significance in terms of simultaneously achieving economic development objectives in repositioning and rebranding cities and/or city districts as preferred places to choose to live, conduct business, or visit.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://urbanplacesandspaces.blogspot.com/2014/01/streetcars-are-about-transit-just-in.html

Conversation between two guys behind me as we were walking downtown:

 

Guy 1: "Can you believe the streetcar is still getting National press?"

Guy 2: "Really?  Even though it's getting built now?"

Guy 1: "Yup.  All sorts of good press too."

Guy 2: "I just hope it doesn't become a hammock for the homeless.  I guess we'll have to wait until 2015 to find out."

Guy 1: "2016 actually...I think."

Guy 2: "You know what would actually be a good idea is for them to build a big parking lot up in Over-the-Rhine so that people can park there for Bengals and Reds games instead of paying ridiculous prices on the river."

Guy 1: "I think they already did.  There's a big garage under Washington Park now, and a couple more in Vine St." 

Guy 2: "Really?  When did that happen?"

Guy 1: "Like last year? The Washington Park garage is really nice.  You should check it out."

Guy 2: "Huh... So maybe...we could park at Washington Park, grab some drinks before the game in OTR, then ride the streetcar to the game?"

Guy 1: "Yeah, that does sound like more fun than finding parking downtown."

 

 

Hallelujah! They GET it!

Hallelujah! They GET it!

 

Kinda, I guess... Maybe?

I guess will have to wait until 2015 to find out!

 

 

Er...2016.

Why build a transit center and not use it. Can someone explain why they didn't put the streetcar line through the transit center. Or is it even possible

^ Because filling the space with dirt as was originally planned would've cost nearly as much as building the transit center.  Yet now we have something that can be used in the future for transit purposes, while in the meantime is at least somewhat useful for tour buses and other ancillary uses.  It's not really good for the streetcar because it would require significant detours east and west to get to the entrances, and it also puts it out of sight out of mind.  It's really more useful for light rail or commuter rail that's already heading in an east-west direction as opposed to the streetcar's north-south, and which have longer trains and fewer stops.

^Plus, they received federal funding for it.

^Plus, they received federal funding for it.

 

Wasn't it instrumental in collecting clean air grants or something?