October 7, 201410 yr thebillshark, when I say 'hub-and-spoke' I am referring to a city's transit system as a whole. The hub is usually Downtown, and to get across town you have to make a transfer at the hub (e.g. many/most cross town trips in Cincinnati require a transfer at government square). Cincinnati has been drifting away from that, and your plan would further get away from that, simply by virtue of not being based at government square. So in my terminology, a hub-and-spoke system could be considered a nodal system with just one node. My contention is we should have many nodes, and I see your system adding one in addition to the existing one at Government Square. That's progress. Putting one at Xavier, where several light rail lines could branch, would also be smart. We should identify nodes around the city that can serve as major (and minor) transfer points where connections can be made easily, so we can blanket the city with fast and frequent transit with minimal transfers.
October 7, 201410 yr I really hope we can at least partially utilize University Plaza for transit is some form and that we don’t blow this opportunity to think big regarding development there. Could be a real plus for the owners as well as Kroger and Walgreens to take into account when considering renovation plans. Just providing a transit ROW from Vine to Short Vine makes it worthwhile. If we value connectivity, we should support this. It can also serve as a bus lane and (if it's made wide enough) a bike/ped route. We owe it to Uptown to activate Short Vine in this manner.
October 7, 201410 yr Bait and switch? http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics/elections/2014/10/07/charlie-winburn-open-to-cincinnati-streetcar-state-money/16851663/
October 7, 201410 yr Bait and switch? http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics/elections/2014/10/07/charlie-winburn-open-to-cincinnati-streetcar-state-money/16851663/ He'll say whatever he needs to say to get elected. "I just think it maybe shouldn't have been put in Over-the-Rhine..." Sure, it should've just gone through a magical portal to get from downtown to uptown. "...or it should have been thought out more practically, with a comprehensive transportation – a whole regional approach." Is this a serious comment? "Other elements could include money for the Brent Spence Bridge and for monorail, he said." Oh, great.
October 7, 201410 yr The guy clearly doesn't understand how transit works, but maybe, just maybe, if he votes in favor of a more comprehensive plan things will work out. He wouldn't be doing the design work and determining routes so it could still work out quite favorably if he actually does what he says and supports funding the uptown route and a more extensive network to tie into.
October 7, 201410 yr "I just think it maybe shouldn't have been put in Over-the-Rhine..." Sure, it should've just gone through a magical portal to get from downtown to uptown. This quote sounds like an ill informed 700 WLW listening relative at a family party. Glad he's on board though. www.cincinnatiideas.com
October 7, 201410 yr ^ When I read that quote, I think it is a recognition of the recent "me too" cries from the west side. It's meant for people to imagine Winburn wants to put stuff in their neighborhood. More "Downtown/OTR vs. Neighborhoods" rhetoric, but phrased cryptically so people can interpret it as they like/hear what they want to hear.
October 7, 201410 yr could the cost of the subway tunnels be leveraged for that federal matching grant still in its entirety to refurbish only the part north of liberty and grade the streetcar into the remaining portion of the tunnels to run to the cincy state area? that would be a sizeable extension. then branches could jut off, lessing the "it doesnt come to my neighborhood argument". could the county do the city a one up and do the same thing with some of the banks developments to justify extending it to the transit center at at-grade light rail speeds or are there already too many federal dollars involved? theres just so much existing infrastructure in our city i guess it blows my mind that rail is this much of an uphill battle. thoughts?
October 7, 201410 yr ^like creating a loop system i mean centered on the banks and running on the other side of town near (in!) union terminal
October 7, 201410 yr ^From what I understand, the tunnels would qualify for a federal match, and there was an article citing a valuation around $50M a few years back. But, I don't think the Riverfront Transit Center will ever see rail for a variety of reasons. Better to just have the trains run along the streets and tuck all of the charter buses into the RTC during big events.
October 8, 201410 yr Glad he's on board though. HE IS NOT ON BOARD. Last year he said he supported the streetcar too and people all cheered on this board. Winburn is the biggest political sleaze there ever was. He does not support the streetcar and will never bring a dollar to it. Just a couple days ago he said it was one of the worst projects ever.
October 8, 201410 yr could the cost of the subway tunnels be leveraged for that federal matching grant still in its entirety to refurbish only the part north of liberty and grade the streetcar into the remaining portion of the tunnels to run to the cincy state area? that would be a sizeable extension. then branches could jut off, lessing the "it doesnt come to my neighborhood argument". could the county do the city a one up and do the same thing with some of the banks developments to justify extending it to the transit center at at-grade light rail speeds or are there already too many federal dollars involved? theres just so much existing infrastructure in our city i guess it blows my mind that rail is this much of an uphill battle. thoughts? I think the issue is that getting to Uptown is a priority over getting to Northside. Also it's unclear what's going to happen with the I-74 ramps near Cincinnati State thanks to Cranley needlessly reopening that issue. Otherwise the tracks could be easily and inexpensively laid for almost two miles on the old rapid transit ROW from the subway portals to the Ludlow Viaduct. Getting the tracks into Northside on the existing viaduct would probably require tearing up the deck in more dramatic fashion than what you're seeing currently over FWW. If the I-74 to Central Parkway ramp is not rebuilt there might be a way to thread a streetcar-only viaduct from that point down to Spring Grove Ave. and enter Northside on a straighter alignment.
October 9, 201410 yr I also wanted to pose a thought experiment. What if Elon Musk and Tesla could design a battery powered electric shuttle/bus incorporating the following positive attributes of a streetcar: 1. Smooth and quiet ride 2. Off board fare collection at well-designed stops 3. Low Floor with platform level side boarding that would have the same ease of use for wheelchairs and bikes as a streetcar. Perhaps an automated system could take over from the driver when approaching a stop to line things up properly. 4. Environmental friendliness: perhaps batteries could be quickly swapped out of vehicles during the service day and charged at a solar powered charging station 5. Smartphone technology integration" Yup, what you are describing does exist...and the good news is that you don't need to travel very far. www.daytontrolleys.net Sorry, couldn't get my editorial commentary out of the "quote" display.
October 9, 201410 yr HE IS NOT ON BOARD. Winburn is the biggest political sleaze there ever was. +1 it's unclear what's going to happen with the I-74 ramps near Cincinnati State thanks to Cranley needlessly reopening that issue. Otherwise the tracks could be easily and inexpensively laid for almost two miles on the old rapid transit ROW from the subway portals to the Ludlow Viaduct. +1
October 9, 201410 yr ANALYSIS: How often does the streetcar have to run? For now, we'll have to read between the lines Oct 9, 2014, 2:49pm EDT Chris Wetterich Staff reporter- Cincinnati Business Courier It’s a stick Mayor John Cranley has wielded in recent weeks as he has sought to gain support for a plan to charge Over-the-Rhine residents $300 a year to park on the street in order to help pay for the streetcar’s operations. If the city does not find the money needed to operate the streetcar outside its budget – an estimated $3.8 million to $4.2 million in the first year – the hours of operations could be reduced. http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/blog/2014/10/analysis-how-often-does-the-streetcar-have-to-run.html
October 9, 201410 yr ^ Interesting article. “We expect Cincinnati to provide the nature and quality of service that it proposed in both the TIGER and Urban Circulator grant applications, which were a consideration in the selection of the applications for the award of grant funding,” the agency said in a statement." ... "For example, while the city said in one of the grant applications that it will operate the streetcar 365 days a year, if it wanted to not have service on Christmas Day, when there are likely to be very few riders and operations costs will be higher because of employee overtime, the feds aren’t going to descend upon City Hall and order the city manager to fire it up. That would still fall within the “nature and quality of service” the city promised. But it’s not like the city can decide to operate the streetcar eight hours a day or only 180 days a year if it only finds half of the money it needs to fund operations. The quality of service in that scenario would be significantly less than what was proposed in the grant agreement."
October 9, 201410 yr Since so far there is over $2.0 Million a month surplus in money coming into the city that was budgeted, I wonder what they will do with that money? Surely none of that is from development along the streetcar route? I couldn't believe any of it would be.... If there is a $30.0 million surplus over the budget from July 2014 - July 2015, would using less than 10% of that surplus to fund operating expenses cut basic services?? I swear I am so confused
October 9, 201410 yr ^ Exactly. There is no reason that the streetcar's operating costs shouldn't come right out of the general fund and/or out of SORTA's budget. New development along the route benefits both the city and SORTA financially. There is no reason that OTR residents should pay to operate the streetcar but allow the benefits to be spread out to all city residents.
October 9, 201410 yr ^Using that logic of paying for the whole streetcar, why then wouldn't downtown and OTR just pay for everything in downtown and OTR, including the streetcar. But the catch is that, downtown and OTR get all tax revenues, etc. from downtown and OTR. They can just secede from the rest of the city. I wonder how the rest of the city will fair, then? That is basically Cranley's argument. Makes no sense. Creating a false controversy, diverting funds that were already marked, hiring more cops, then saying there is no money. It is all trash. Just think, if the main face of the city got behind this project, how much more it could accomplish? Cincinnati will never be able to get past the "small town" mentality with this type of junk leadership.
October 9, 201410 yr It's pretty obvious what would happen. Most neighborhoods would fall apart. Uptown would be fine because of UC and the medical complex (though if it was by itself also I think it would do quite well) but beyond that most neighborhoods would fall apart almost immediately. It would be really interesting to see a comparison of tax revenue generated to taxes spent on a neighborhood by neighborhood basis. Maybe quiet the people from the ones that produce the least and need to be "subsidized" (I hate that word the way it's used in this city so often) the most.
October 10, 201410 yr I also wanted to pose a thought experiment. What if Elon Musk and Tesla could design a battery powered electric shuttle/bus incorporating the following positive attributes of a streetcar: 1. Smooth and quiet ride 2. Off board fare collection at well-designed stops 3. Low Floor with platform level side boarding that would have the same ease of use for wheelchairs and bikes as a streetcar. Perhaps an automated system could take over from the driver when approaching a stop to line things up properly. 4. Environmental friendliness: perhaps batteries could be quickly swapped out of vehicles during the service day and charged at a solar powered charging station 5. Smartphone technology integration" Yup, what you are describing does exist...and the good news is that you don't need to travel very far. www.daytontrolleys.net Sorry, couldn't get my editorial commentary out of the "quote" display. I've seen those (but never ridden one,) but I don’t think that's quite what I was thinking… I was thinking something exactly like our Urbos 3 streetcars only not running on track. Something with low floors, huge side doors, and no steps inside the vehicle so you can take your bike or wheelchair right on. It may require some automation mode that takes over from the driver to be able to line up precisely with a stop, not having the benefit of the track. Something with a lithium ion battery to eliminate the overhead wires and make them as quiet as a Prius or golf cart. The batteries could be swapped out to keep vehicles in service. And also fare machines located off board at the stops. I would submit that a system like this would be effective in spurring development, if a significant investment was made into vehicles, substantial stops (like our streetcar stops) and off board fare machines, and the vehicles were run at high frequency. (I also acknowledge I am arguing for a theoretical here.) The reason I pose this question at all is that it is my opinion that University Plaza is a natural stopping place for the Downtown streetcar route. • At University Plaza, you have a decision point where you have to choose which neighborhoods and institutions to serve. ○ A branch in the line there, with half the streetcars coming from downtown and going in one direction and half going in another, would halve the frequency with which you are serving those Uptown destinations. ○ For this reason I argue a connection to new lines with dedicated streetcars is best. • University Plaza provides a natural endpoint to the Downtown loop, where streetcars can pause between loops (recovery time) in order to maintain schedule. • Ending the Downtown route at University Plaza would protect against problems spreading to affect the whole streetcar system. If Downtown and Uptown were one really long route, this increases the possibility of there being a problem in some portion of the route that delays or bunches up the streetcars, throwing off your frequency and reliability. However, I recognize the reality that to completely build out my "Uptown Five" system ( https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/70250228/The%20Uptown%20Five%2009302014.pdf ) would take many years and many dollars. That's why would be in favor of with the downtown streetcar feeding into some kind of high tech neighborhood circulator shuttle system with the same fare mechanism as the streetcar to get started serving Uptown. You could convert your highest capacity Uptown routes to streetcar as funds became available, and easily move the extra shuttles to serve Price Hill or Westwood or something. The Downtown trunk line would be still be the heart of the system with the highest capacity vehicles worthy of downtown, and light rail connections could be still be made into that system. www.cincinnatiideas.com
October 10, 201410 yr Author I also wanted to pose a thought experiment. What if Elon Musk and Tesla could design a battery powered electric shuttle/bus incorporating the following positive attributes of a streetcar: 1. Smooth and quiet ride 2. Off board fare collection at well-designed stops 3. Low Floor with platform level side boarding that would have the same ease of use for wheelchairs and bikes as a streetcar. Perhaps an automated system could take over from the driver when approaching a stop to line things up properly. 4. Environmental friendliness: perhaps batteries could be quickly swapped out of vehicles during the service day and charged at a solar powered charging station 5. Smartphone technology integration" Yup, what you are describing does exist...and the good news is that you don't need to travel very far. www.daytontrolleys.net Sorry, couldn't get my editorial commentary out of the "quote" display. I've ridden trackless trolleys in San Francisco and Dayton. They're fine, but if you didn't know you were riding one, you probably wouldn't know the difference between it and a standard bus. When we were in San Fran, we rode one of them and after we got off I asked the person I was with if they noticed anything different about the bus. Despite the fact we were standing under the double overhead wire and the bus was still in sight, the answer was 'no.'
October 10, 201410 yr I've personally just never found any rubber-tire based transit to be as comfortable as a rail based form of transit. Buses aren't graceful in any incarnation, whether that's diesel, hybrid, trackless trolley, etc. They sway a lot, the ride isn't as nice due to it being dependent upon road conditions (which are mostly shit frankly) and just don't feel like something one wants to ride. Most trains, but not all, offer a far superior ride quality and the simple fact that they're obviously different does a lot to cue people into realizing it's a nicer form of transportation.
October 10, 201410 yr Author Substations are going to be in the news soon. PDX did a tremendous job of hiding them. Here's a map. I could only find one on Google Streetview (outside the maintenance yard where they didn't try) http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/circulars/ec058/14_01_Collins.pdf
October 10, 201410 yr ^^Granted, the ride is not as comfortable. In some respects, trolley buses are just "streetcars without rails." The thing I like about the rubber-tired electric buses that run from fixed overhead wires is a city can "ease into" streetcar or light rail with electric buses as a low cost starter system. Best example...Guadalajara Mexico's extensive light rail system started with used trolleybuses purchased from the closed Chicago system...Guadalajara had them running through underground tunnels, on private rights of way and also city streets...then they converted to light rail once the demand was proven. The electrical distribution system...already in place of course. No expensive rail construction until the ridership was there and they were ready to go rail. (And no underground utility issues until the transit system is fully ready to jump into light rail.) I have also heard Quito Ecuador is looking at converting their huge (and very modern) trolleybus system to light rail. Secondly, trolley buses are often used to "feed" larger rail systems--like they do in San Francisco and Seattle where they operate feeder routes into the light rail and streetcar systems. The overhead power requirements are normally similar so they can share the same distribution networks. In Boston and Philadelphia electric trolley buses (they call them trackless trolleys) interface directly as feeder routes into heavy rail systems...in Boston they even have a complex system of tunnels where trackless trolleys feed the subway underground.
October 10, 201410 yr Seattle and San Francisco have electric trolleybuses because they can climbs hills more easily than diesel buses and because they get their electricity in those areas primarily from hydroelectric dams. It's truly green power. Boston has two electric trolleybus lines because they travel underground into the Harvard bus tunnel and the Silver Line BRT tunnel. Electric avoided having to install ventilation in the tunnels. Dayton is a total anomaly.
October 10, 201410 yr I also wanted to pose a thought experiment. What if Elon Musk and Tesla could design a battery powered electric shuttle/bus incorporating the following positive attributes of a streetcar: 1. Smooth and quiet ride 2. Off board fare collection at well-designed stops 3. Low Floor with platform level side boarding that would have the same ease of use for wheelchairs and bikes as a streetcar. Perhaps an automated system could take over from the driver when approaching a stop to line things up properly. 4. Environmental friendliness: perhaps batteries could be quickly swapped out of vehicles during the service day and charged at a solar powered charging station 5. Smartphone technology integration" Yup, what you are describing does exist...and the good news is that you don't need to travel very far. www.daytontrolleys.net Sorry, couldn't get my editorial commentary out of the "quote" display. I've seen those (but never ridden one,) but I don’t think that's quite what I was thinking… I was thinking something exactly like our Urbos 3 streetcars only not running on track. Something with low floors, huge side doors, and no steps inside the vehicle so you can take your bike or wheelchair right on. It may require some automation mode that takes over from the driver to be able to line up precisely with a stop, not having the benefit of the track. Something with a lithium ion battery to eliminate the overhead wires and make them as quiet as a Prius or golf cart. The batteries could be swapped out to keep vehicles in service. And also fare machines located off board at the stops. I would submit that a system like this would be effective in spurring development, if a significant investment was made into vehicles, substantial stops (like our streetcar stops) and off board fare machines, and the vehicles were run at high frequency. (I also acknowledge I am arguing for a theoretical here.) The reason I pose this question at all is that it is my opinion that University Plaza is a natural stopping place for the Downtown streetcar route. • At University Plaza, you have a decision point where you have to choose which neighborhoods and institutions to serve. ○ A branch in the line there, with half the streetcars coming from downtown and going in one direction and half going in another, would halve the frequency with which you are serving those Uptown destinations. ○ For this reason I argue a connection to new lines with dedicated streetcars is best. • University Plaza provides a natural endpoint to the Downtown loop, where streetcars can pause between loops (recovery time) in order to maintain schedule. • Ending the Downtown route at University Plaza would protect against problems spreading to affect the whole streetcar system. If Downtown and Uptown were one really long route, this increases the possibility of there being a problem in some portion of the route that delays or bunches up the streetcars, throwing off your frequency and reliability. However, I recognize the reality that to completely build out my "Uptown Five" system ( https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/70250228/The%20Uptown%20Five%2009302014.pdf ) would take many years and many dollars. That's why would be in favor of with the downtown streetcar feeding into some kind of high tech neighborhood circulator shuttle system with the same fare mechanism as the streetcar to get started serving Uptown. You could convert your highest capacity Uptown routes to streetcar as funds became available, and easily move the extra shuttles to serve Price Hill or Westwood or something. The Downtown trunk line would be still be the heart of the system with the highest capacity vehicles worthy of downtown, and light rail connections could be still be made into that system. The problem is, if you go through the trouble of building a bus-based system that is as good as a streetcar system, you're going to be building a lot of same infrastructure, such as stations to allow level boarding and provide real-time arrival information and pre-boarding fare payment. You are probably going to have to build the overhead wire (and power substations) because battery technology just isn't there yet, and is not advancing very quickly. If you are going to all that trouble, why not just run streetcars (a proven technology) instead of creating a new technology (essentially electric, low-floor, super-long articulated buses) that will inevitably have some sort of flaw in the first generation. It's the same issue I have with BRT. If you build a true BRT system (not a "bus-plus" system) that is nearly as good as light rail, you spend almost as much money as you would have spent on light rail. And wouldn't the riders rather have light rail than BRT?
October 10, 201410 yr ^Um, I think BRT is WAY cheaper than light rail. I don't think it's accurate at all to say "you spend almost as much money as you would have spent on light rail". Also, BRT can be converted to rail fairly easily, as the ROW has already been claimed, stations have been built, etc. If you build a rail line and it fails to meet expectations, it's pretty hard to change the route- BRT provides more flexibility when examining new transit corridors. I obviously am more of a fan of rail transit for many of the same reasons that people here have outlined, but I think BRT still has it's own merits, and there is room for both when developing a transit system.
October 10, 201410 yr ^Um, I think BRT is WAY cheaper than light rail. I don't think it's accurate at all to say "you spend almost as much money as you would have spent on light rail". Also, BRT can be converted to rail fairly easily, as the ROW has already been claimed, stations have been built, etc. If you build a rail line and it fails to meet expectations, it's pretty hard to change the route- BRT provides more flexibility when examining new transit corridors. I obviously am more of a fan of rail transit for many of the same reasons that people here have outlined, but I think BRT still has it's own merits, and there is room for both when developing a transit system. The capital costs do come close, as basically all the costs are the same, minus track installation. Maintenance and labor are more for BRT due to more wear & tear on road surfaces vs. rails, buses having a shorter life, and buses having less capacity per operator.
October 13, 201410 yr I don't know why I haven't looked at these Streetcar Stakeholder powerpoints before. They're REALLY helpful. http://cincinnati-oh.gov/streetcar/documents-references/october-8-2014-monthly-stakeholder-presentation/
October 13, 201410 yr Oh Enquirer... you'll even print negative streetcar nonsense in a Sports headline/story?!? Simon's worth and Streetcar's effect on Reds From BoondoggleTimes: The streetcar has destroyed the morale of the Reds and Bengals and the City of Cincinnati. #Socialism. A: I'd say roughly 89 percent of the Reds and Bengals would have no idea that a streetcar is coming to Cincinnati. But watch out for the black helicopters. "It's just fate, as usual, keeping its bargain and screwing us in the fine print..." - John Crichton
October 13, 201410 yr How was that negative? The answer to the ridiculous statement from BoondoggleTimes was basically the author making fun of them.
October 14, 201410 yr Nice to see Mann not indiscriminately rolling over for Cranley. Cincinnati vice mayor open to using some city funds for streetcar operations Oct 14, 2014, 3:00pm EDT Chris Wetterich Staff reporter- Cincinnati Business Courier Cincinnati Vice Mayor David Mann said Tuesday that he is open to using money from the city’s general fund to cover a gap in funding needed to operate the city’s streetcar. “I agree it’s not desirable,” Mann said at a meeting of the City Council’s transportation committee. “On the other hand, it would be less desirable to cut operating hours and do things that don’t allow us to realize fully the investment that we’re making.” http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2014/10/14/cincinnati-vice-mayor-open-to-using-some-city.html
October 15, 201410 yr Surprise the city has a $18 million surplus. Hmm where will the spend it? And and the casino revenue came in under than expected. No surprise there. Some of that for sure is due to the development around the streetcar route.
October 15, 201410 yr I was just looking at the general budget and wanted to compare with NYC's general budget, since NYC is considered more or less the mecca for city and public transportation. From what I can tell and if I was reading right, NYC spends 3.4% of their general budget on transportation and 22.7% of their general budget on public safety. In Cincinnati, the city spends 0.9% of their general budget on transportation and 61% of their general budget on public safety.
October 15, 201410 yr It might be a good idea to do some comparisons like that and submit them to council (and to the media the next time police/fire funding comes up). It would be great to see how the budget breaks down for each of the top 30-50 markets. NYC might not be a great indicator of what our funding should look like, but together with enough other cities, it would make it obvious if we're comparatively overspending on public safety versus public transit.
October 15, 201410 yr NYC budget would for certain include the subway and Staten Island Ferry (remember, NYC is forever required to provide free ferry service to Staten Island in return for the island's decision to be annexed in the 1890s) but probably does not include LIRR, Metro North, NJ Transit, and other features of NYC's commuter network. Also this surplus *includes* $4 million in inheritance tax income that we will not get in the future until Ohio re-establishes an inheritance tax. Kasich's elimination of the tax was absolutely devastating for cities large and small across the state.
October 15, 201410 yr To be candid, I don't know if I am reading the budget correctly. On Cincinnati it is under "Transporation and Engineering" on the general budget. It lists, $3,350,000.00. (that doesn't seem correct) That is actually an adjustment from what was budgeted before of $3,850,000.00 approximately. The total general budget is $358,191,230. This doesn't include the longer term liabilities just the one year liabilities, i.e. it doesn't include benefits, retirement, pension etc. for city workers. In NYC, the Transportation on the general budget is listed as $2,536,846,000.00. The total general budget is around $75.5 Billion
October 15, 201410 yr Since 2010 we have seen more revenue than the previous year. You can't attribute this to the streetcar. Let's not discredit actual streetcar related benefits by claiming all positive developments are because of the streetcar.
October 15, 201410 yr To be candid, I don't know if I am reading the budget correctly. On Cincinnati it is under "Transporation and Engineering" on the general budget. It lists, $3,350,000.00. (that doesn't seem correct) That is actually an adjustment from what was budgeted before of $3,850,000.00 approximately. The total general budget is $358,191,230. This doesn't include the longer term liabilities just the one year liabilities, i.e. it doesn't include benefits, retirement, pension etc. for city workers. In NYC, the Transportation on the general budget is listed as $2,536,846,000.00. The total general budget is around $75.5 Billion Actually after looking through this, it seems like it is a lot more complicated and that the city actually takes the SORTA spending off their books. SORTA is funded by 0.3% city earnings tax (is that income tax)? It looks like that .3% isn't on the books in revenue and the .3% that funds SORTA isn't on the books so it seems nil. It wouldn't change the percentage at all because what is added would be taken away. So I think it still stands on about .9% of the general budget is spent on transportation. What I don't understand is, if earnings taxes are increasing, seems like it wouldn't be much trouble to add the streetcar on without cutting additional services. But maybe if they spent a little bit more on transit overall, say .4% of earnings tax, it would make a huge difference. As can be seen below from SORTA website, Local city earnings tax is 47.2 million, which is .3% of the earnings tax. You divide by 47.2 by .3 to get $157.3 million total city's earnings tax. Increase to .4% of that tax and you have a total of approximately $63 million. That is $16 million extra for streetcar and other bus service expansions. I wonder what the other .7% of the earnings tax is spent on? Source: http://www.go-metro.com/about-metro " Revenue Federal $ 10.2 million State $ 1.8 million Local, City earnings tax* $ 47.2 million Fares** $ 22.4 million Other local (contract service) $ 10.0 million Non-transportation revenue*** $ 1.3 million TOTAL REVENUES $ 92.9 million * Local tax funding is provided by 3/10th of 1% of the earnings tax collected by the City of Cincinnati. The earnings tax is paid by everyone who works or lives in the city. ** Includes Metro and Access fares *** Includes primarily advertising revenue and investment income "
October 15, 201410 yr The SORTA tax is .03% of gross earned income for those who reside and/or work within the Cincinnati city limits. So if you gross $50,000 you pay $150/yr to SORTA. If you live and work in Hamilton County outside the city limits you pay no tax toward SORTA.
October 15, 201410 yr Since 2010 we have seen more revenue than the previous year. You can't attribute this to the streetcar. Let's not discredit actual streetcar related benefits by claiming all positive developments are because of the streetcar. For over five years, there have been business opening near the route and residents moving to OTR citing the streetcar as a factor in their decision. It doesn't mean that it was the only factor, but it was somewhere between a small bonus (meaning they would have still located here, even without the streetcar) to a huge selling point (meaning that they would not currently be in the city if it had been cancelled). Without the streetcar, GE may have located at The Banks or Oakley, but may have chosen an exurban location. Without a doubt, the streetcar had already made an economic impact and will continue to do so, but pinning down exact numbers will be really hard. Hardcore opponents will say it had no effect; hardcore supporters will likely say that 100% of every economic development near the route should be attributed to the streetcar.
October 15, 201410 yr It wouldn't change the percentage at all because what is added would be taken away. It would change the percentage. Say you earn a dollar and pay 50 cents to transit. 50% of your earnings go to transit. Say there's another 50 cents that's off the books that you also pay to transit. Account for that 50 cents and you bring in $1.50, $1 of which goes to transit. So you pay 66.667% to transit.
October 15, 201410 yr Since 2010 we have seen more revenue than the previous year. You can't attribute this to the streetcar. Let's not discredit actual streetcar related benefits by claiming all positive developments are because of the streetcar. For over five years, there have been business opening near the route and residents moving to OTR citing the streetcar as a factor in their decision. It doesn't mean that it was the only factor, but it was somewhere between a small bonus (meaning they would have still located here, even without the streetcar) to a huge selling point (meaning that they would not currently be in the city if it had been cancelled). Without the streetcar, GE may have located at The Banks or Oakley, but may have chosen an exurban location. Without a doubt, the streetcar had already made an economic impact and will continue to do so, but pinning down exact numbers will be really hard. Hardcore opponents will say it had no effect; hardcore supporters will likely say that 100% of every economic development near the route should be attributed to the streetcar. "hardcore supporters will likely say that 100% of every economic development near the route should be attributed to the streetcar." I agree 100% If the case ends up being that new development on or around the route is taxed to pay for the streetcar with zero money coming from the general budget, then theoretically you should be able to count that development as attributed to the streetcar, even if it is only like you say a little bonus. Then if a taxing district pays for the whole streetcar and comes from no where else, we can tally all development along its route and say it is because / part of the streetcar. What then would the opponents have to argue about? That is the whole thing I think that frustrates people. No matter what happens, the opponents and Cranley have made it a no-win situation. All the strategic investments in the core attribute to the redevelopment and a $133 million investment in infrastructure is certainly one of those investments that can be attributed to redevelopment.
October 15, 201410 yr It wouldn't change the percentage at all because what is added would be taken away. It would change the percentage. Say you earn a dollar and pay 50 cents to transit. 50% of your earnings go to transit. Say there's another 50 cents that's off the books that you also pay to transit. Account for that 50 cents and you bring in $1.50, $1 of which goes to transit. So you pay 66.667% to transit. LOL I got ahead of myself looking at the numbers and knew this after. After looking at the budget more, the SORTA tax is included in the Restrictive Budget. The Restricted Budget plus the General Budget have a total of $998,000,000.00 per year. SORTA is around $50,000,000.00 per year, or 5%. Cranley says, blah blah can't go on General Fund because of this or that like he has been. Then we say, well what about the restricted budget? Income increases and the .003% of every dollar earned in the city goes to SORTA, you should be able to add on to this the Streetcar. But then the argument would go to, "this will cut bus service". That's why SORTA having COAST members on it doesn't bode well, I think. The opponents create a no win situation. Think about it though, if you add $3,000,000.00 in operating expenses to a total general and restricted budget of $998,000,000.00, that is 0.3% addition to the budget. I am certain they could find room in a budget of $998,000,000.00 to fund $3,000,000.00.
October 15, 201410 yr Since 2010 we have seen more revenue than the previous year. You can't attribute this to the streetcar. Let's not discredit actual streetcar related benefits by claiming all positive developments are because of the streetcar. For over five years, there have been business opening near the route and residents moving to OTR citing the streetcar as a factor in their decision. It doesn't mean that it was the only factor, but it was somewhere between a small bonus (meaning they would have still located here, even without the streetcar) to a huge selling point (meaning that they would not currently be in the city if it had been cancelled). Without the streetcar, GE may have located at The Banks or Oakley, but may have chosen an exurban location. Without a doubt, the streetcar had already made an economic impact and will continue to do so, but pinning down exact numbers will be really hard. Hardcore opponents will say it had no effect; hardcore supporters will likely say that 100% of every economic development near the route should be attributed to the streetcar. "hardcore supporters will likely say that 100% of every economic development near the route should be attributed to the streetcar." I agree 100% If the case ends up being that new development on or around the route is taxed to pay for the streetcar with zero money coming from the general budget, then theoretically you should be able to count that development as attributed to the streetcar, even if it is only like you say a little bonus. Then if a taxing district pays for the whole streetcar and comes from no where else, we can tally all development along its route and say it is because / part of the streetcar. What then would the opponents have to argue about? That is the whole thing I think that frustrates people. No matter what happens, the opponents and Cranley have made it a no-win situation. All the strategic investments in the core attribute to the redevelopment and a $133 million investment in infrastructure is certainly one of those investments that can be attributed to redevelopment. Well, I certainly agree with your logic. If OTR/CBD are expected to pay for 100% of the streetcar's operating costs, then we should be able to claim that 100% of the development along the route is because of the route and those additional tax dollars should go to our neighborhoods.
October 16, 201410 yr Since 2010 we have seen more revenue than the previous year. You can't attribute this to the streetcar. Let's not discredit actual streetcar related benefits by claiming all positive developments are because of the streetcar. For over five years, there have been business opening near the route and residents moving to OTR citing the streetcar as a factor in their decision. It doesn't mean that it was the only factor, but it was somewhere between a small bonus (meaning they would have still located here, even without the streetcar) to a huge selling point (meaning that they would not currently be in the city if it had been cancelled). Without the streetcar, GE may have located at The Banks or Oakley, but may have chosen an exurban location. Without a doubt, the streetcar had already made an economic impact and will continue to do so, but pinning down exact numbers will be really hard. Hardcore opponents will say it had no effect; hardcore supporters will likely say that 100% of every economic development near the route should be attributed to the streetcar. "hardcore supporters will likely say that 100% of every economic development near the route should be attributed to the streetcar." I agree 100% If the case ends up being that new development on or around the route is taxed to pay for the streetcar with zero money coming from the general budget, then theoretically you should be able to count that development as attributed to the streetcar, even if it is only like you say a little bonus. Then if a taxing district pays for the whole streetcar and comes from no where else, we can tally all development along its route and say it is because / part of the streetcar. What then would the opponents have to argue about? That is the whole thing I think that frustrates people. No matter what happens, the opponents and Cranley have made it a no-win situation. All the strategic investments in the core attribute to the redevelopment and a $133 million investment in infrastructure is certainly one of those investments that can be attributed to redevelopment. Well, I certainly agree with your logic. If OTR/CBD are expected to pay for 100% of the streetcar's operating costs, then we should be able to claim that 100% of the development along the route is because of the route and those additional tax dollars should go to our neighborhoods. I like it, taestell!
Create an account or sign in to comment