The initial line operates in an area that, according to current estimates, has around 15,000 people/square mile. The areas surrounding UC house 10s of thousands of people ranging from 8,000 people/sq. mile to almost 16,000 people/sq. mile and is the second largest job center in the region after Downtown. The orange line shown in my map would operate in an area that ranges in density from 7,000 people/sq. mile to over 13,000 people/square mile. The red line, in my mind, would be a line that was built with the intention of redensifying a corridor that was once much denser. Northside has some decent density of over 5,000 people/square mile but Camp Washington maxes out at only 1,000 people/square mile (but a lot of the land in Camp Washington is purely industrial so that makes sense). The green line would connect to Xavier and go through the up-and-coming Walnut Hills and travel through areas that have neighborhood business districts and decent population density ranging from 3,600 people/square mile to over 9,000 people/square mile.

 

I purposefully tried to integrate the most densely populated areas in the region with the largest job centers and institutions to maximize potential and at the same time open up underutilized neighborhoods for repopulation.

The initial fare for the first phase will be $1 for 2 hours or $2 for a day pass. Upon opening it's expected that around 4,600 will ride daily on weekdays growing to over 6,000 daily after a couple years. Though that's based on conservative numbers from the 2007 study which is already looking exceptionally dated based on their estimate of development numbers, units that will be built along the line, etc.

Am I the only one that's shocked and somewhat discouraged that the streetcar fare will be less than bus fare?

Why discouraged?  It's a circulator that goes a fraction of the distance that most bus routes do. 

They also found that increasing fare directly correlated to a decrease in ridership. Doubling fare basically cut ridership in half in their prediction models. Ridership numbers are far more important than the fare is, especially when revenue wouldn't actually change with an increase in fare to match the buses.

The initial fare for the first phase will be $1 for 2 hours or $2 for a day pass. Upon opening it's expected that around 4,600 will ride daily on weekdays growing to over 6,000 daily after a couple years. Though that's based on conservative numbers from the 2007 study which is already looking exceptionally dated based on their estimate of development numbers, units that will be built along the line, etc.

Am I the only one that's shocked and somewhat discouraged that the streetcar fare will be less than bus fare?

 

I'm shocked! I'm shocked that the fare structure seems absolutely perfect.

The initial fare for the first phase will be $1 for 2 hours or $2 for a day pass. Upon opening it's expected that around 4,600 will ride daily on weekdays growing to over 6,000 daily after a couple years. Though that's based on conservative numbers from the 2007 study which is already looking exceptionally dated based on their estimate of development numbers, units that will be built along the line, etc.

 

So the Streetcar itself is not expected to make $$  but is deemed to be a catalyst for spin-off development and increased property values on, and adjacent to, its route.

The initial fare for the first phase will be $1 for 2 hours or $2 for a day pass. Upon opening it's expected that around 4,600 will ride daily on weekdays growing to over 6,000 daily after a couple years. Though that's based on conservative numbers from the 2007 study which is already looking exceptionally dated based on their estimate of development numbers, units that will be built along the line, etc.

 

So the Streetcar itself is not expected to make $$  but is deemed to be a catalyst for spin-off development and increased property values on, and adjacent to, its route.

No system makes money except in NYC,  some lines in Boston Chicago and maybe LA. Do you really think Metro makes profit?

The initial fare for the first phase will be $1 for 2 hours or $2 for a day pass. Upon opening it's expected that around 4,600 will ride daily on weekdays growing to over 6,000 daily after a couple years. Though that's based on conservative numbers from the 2007 study which is already looking exceptionally dated based on their estimate of development numbers, units that will be built along the line, etc.

 

So the Streetcar itself is not expected to make $$  but is deemed to be a catalyst for spin-off development and increased property values on, and adjacent to, its route.

No system makes money except in NYC,  some lines in Boston Chicago and maybe LA. Do you really think Metro makes profit?

 

I know transit systems don't make a profit but a new rail line should be expected to generate more than $4,600 or so per day; however, the Streetcar is a development catalyst.  The fare of $1.00 to $2.00 certainly speaks for itself as the Streetcar is not going to be generating much cash at all from the farebox. 

 

The intent of the Streetcar then is for the taxpayers to subsidize its operation etc. while the line generates other forms of income and revenue (ie. property values, business and population increases).

 

I believe sections of Porland's downtown streetcar are free.  I've used it a few times and recall this feature; same thing may apply for the downtown lightrail.  The lightrail lines are zoned and radiate across the Portland area.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The initial fare for the first phase will be $1 for 2 hours or $2 for a day pass. Upon opening it's expected that around 4,600 will ride daily on weekdays growing to over 6,000 daily after a couple years. Though that's based on conservative numbers from the 2007 study which is already looking exceptionally dated based on their estimate of development numbers, units that will be built along the line, etc.

 

So the Streetcar itself is not expected to make $$  but is deemed to be a catalyst for spin-off development and increased property values on, and adjacent to, its route.

No system makes money except in NYC,  some lines in Boston Chicago and maybe LA. Do you really think Metro makes profit?

 

Transit systems are subsidized and I certainly know Metro doesn't make a profit let alone bring a lot of money with its low ridership numbers.

I must blindly drive by the fare box on I-75 every time I get on. Excuse me while I go dig up the income statements for 275.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The initial fare for the first phase will be $1 for 2 hours or $2 for a day pass. Upon opening it's expected that around 4,600 will ride daily on weekdays growing to over 6,000 daily after a couple years. Though that's based on conservative numbers from the 2007 study which is already looking exceptionally dated based on their estimate of development numbers, units that will be built along the line, etc.

 

So the Streetcar itself is not expected to make $$  but is deemed to be a catalyst for spin-off development and increased property values on, and adjacent to, its route.

No system makes money except in NYC,  some lines in Boston Chicago and maybe LA. Do you really think Metro makes profit?

 

Not sure where you got your information but there are zero money-making systems in the United States. Some lose more than others, but none end the year with a profit.

I believe sections of Porland's downtown streetcar are free.  I've used it a few times and recall this feature; same thing may apply for the downtown lightrail.  The lightrail lines are zoned and radiate across the Portland area.

 

The downtown free zone ended several years ago. Also, at first, MAX (Portland's transit agency) was not very supportive of the streetcar and refused to provide any funding for it -- the city had to provide it all. As time went on and they began to see how the streetcar played a big part in the city's transportation system, MAX began to see that they should provide some funding for it. Give it 10 years and the same thing will happen in Cincinnati.

NYC has a farebox recovery ratio of 51.2% - there are a couple other systems in the US that come closer to breaking even (San Francisco, DC, Philly) but they still operate at a loss.

 

There are only a handful of systems (mostly all in Asia) that turn a profit and if you've ever been on any it's quickly obvious why - they move an incredible number of people relatively short distances. Plus their infrastructure and labor costs are a lot cheaper compared to the US.

Also, don't some Asian transit agencies actually own and develop the land around stations to subsidize the operations of the transit itself?

Just to provide a bit more context, you have to keep in mind that almost no form of transportation makes a profit anywhere in the world. Transportation is always built as a "loss leader" so that money can be made on something else. Cincinnati's original streetcar lines were built by real estate developers so that people could easily get from downtown to other part of the city where they could build houses and sell them for a profit. Many of rail lines that are profitable in other countries are actually profitable for the same reason -- because the transit agency owns land along the route which they can sell off at a high profit.

Also, don't some Asian transit agencies actually own and develop the land around stations to subsidize the operations of the transit itself?

 

Yeah, in Taipei for instance, most of the busier/larger stations are in giant malls, and the malls are owned and operated by the transit system.

Am I the only one that's shocked and somewhat discouraged that the streetcar fare will be less than bus fare?

 

Why discouraged?  It's a circulator that goes a fraction of the distance that most bus routes do. 

 

I had an idea to make the Streetcar, Route 1 (the One for Fun) and Southbanks Shuttle all "Zone 0" and be $1 Two hours/$2 All day on all three circulator routes. Maybe in the future we can do that.

Am I the only one that's shocked and somewhat discouraged that the streetcar fare will be less than bus fare?

 

Why discouraged?  It's a circulator that goes a fraction of the distance that most bus routes do. 

 

I had an idea to make the Streetcar, Route 1 (the One for Fun) and Southbanks Shuttle all "Zone 0" and be $1 Two hours/$2 All day on all three circulator routes. Maybe in the future we can do that.

 

Still makes me think what we can call this line instead of "the Streetcar". TBX-OTR Loop?

Am I the only one that's shocked and somewhat discouraged that the streetcar fare will be less than bus fare?

 

Why discouraged?  It's a circulator that goes a fraction of the distance that most bus routes do. 

 

I had an idea to make the Streetcar, Route 1 (the One for Fun) and Southbanks Shuttle all "Zone 0" and be $1 Two hours/$2 All day on all three circulator routes. Maybe in the future we can do that.

 

Still makes me think what we can call this line instead of "the Streetcar". TBX-OTR Loop?

 

It would be great if Greg Hardman or the Lambrinides family bought the naming rights.

Christian Moer-line / Little Kings Loop

Cintas Circulator

Kroger Checkout Line

Luxottica Loop / Lenscrafters Loop

Medpace Mover

Scripps Circulator

SunnyD Circulator

Totes Trolley / Totes Tram

"I'm totes going to take the Totes Tram down the riverfront."

 

*Said in Valley Girl accent*

Also, don't some Asian transit agencies actually own and develop the land around stations to subsidize the operations of the transit itself?

 

Yes.  Pretty sure Hong Kong does this.

I believe sections of Porland's downtown streetcar are free.  I've used it a few times and recall this feature; same thing may apply for the downtown lightrail.  The lightrail lines are zoned and radiate across the Portland area.

 

The downtown free zone ended several years ago. Also, at first, MAX (Portland's transit agency) was not very supportive of the streetcar and refused to provide any funding for it -- the city had to provide it all. As time went on and they began to see how the streetcar played a big part in the city's transportation system, MAX began to see that they should provide some funding for it. Give it 10 years and the same thing will happen in Cincinnati.

 

Portland's streetcar, like CIN's, has a limited route but unlike CIN, Portland's streetcar is connected to a light-rail network bringing in lots of riders.  However, even Portland's transit system has financial strains and overall transit use has actually been stagnant.  The metro area is growing so not all the new residents use transit. 

 

Streetcars can be slow; the reason Portland has recently closed several stops to speed things up.  Residents have opted to walk in lieu of riding the streetcar to downtown locations.

 

Obviously CIN's $1.00 fare is not designed to bring in cash but spur use and collateral development.  Time will tell.

When Portland built their streetcar system (the first modern streetcar to be built in the US) they had to guess what the ideal spacing between stops would be. They guessed a little too short and are now removing some of the stops. We have learned a lot from Portland and the other modern streetcar systems that have been built in the US over the past 15 years. Cincinnati's streetcar stops are about 1.5x farther apart than Portland's.

 

Portland also had a similar issue with their light rail system. The stops are a little bit too close together, because when they built it, they weren't sure how far people would be willing to walk to the nearest light rail stop. If they were building it today, the stops would probably be 1.5x or 2x farther apart in the urban core. That's the price you pay for being one of the first US cities to build both light rail and streetcars.

When Portland built their streetcar system (the first modern streetcar to be built in the US) they had to guess what the ideal spacing between stops would be. They guessed a little too short and are now removing some of the stops. We have learned a lot from Portland and the other modern streetcar systems that have been built in the US over the past 15 years. Cincinnati's streetcar stops are about 1.5x farther apart than Portland's.

 

Portland also had a similar issue with their light rail system. The stops are a little bit too close together, because when they built it, they weren't sure how far people would be willing to walk to the nearest light rail stop. If they were building it today, the stops would probably be 1.5x or 2x farther apart in the urban core. That's the price you pay for being one of the first US cities to build both light rail and streetcars.

 

True, but Portland just closed the streetcar stops last month.  Bottom line on all rail systems: they are very expensive to build, operate and maintain.  Look at DC.  DC also just joined the ranks of streetcar cities in March.

Christian Moer-line / Little Kings Loop

Cintas Circulator

Kroger Checkout Line

Luxottica Loop / Lenscrafters Loop

Medpace Mover

Scripps Circulator

SunnyD Circulator

Totes Trolley / Totes Tram

 

Can we just name it the, "These colors aren't freaking Steelers colors, stop saying they are. It's a train, it has nothing to do with a stupid petty sports rivalry so please shut the hell up" line?

Sure they are expensive to build.  I think everyone can agree DC's system was a massive mess with the way they went about the project.

 

Take a look at the management of the Cincinnati Streetcar.  On time and on budget and may even open early.  They got it done clean and really there was only nit-picking from certain members of council who want to get re-elected on that platform.

 

The streetcar is driving an incredible amount of public investment that simply was not there before they started putting the rails in the ground and defeated Cranley's cancellation attempt.  Areas that were more or less no man's land in upper OTR in terms of any type of redevelopment happening are now starting to cook.  That would have never happened without the streetcar, I can guarantee.  Developer after developer cite the streetcar as a big reason they are investing.  It's incredible.  I am sure some people are saving the articles, but I read one almost everyday. 

 

There are some massive new apartment conversions in lower downtown (I say as in Southern downtown close to the river), that include not only new build, but re-purposed.  I read on Downtown Corporation's annual report that there are currently 8,500 units in Downtown, OTR and Pendelton, but currently there are 1,000 more units under construction!  I would say we can expect 1,500 new units at least to be open in downtown and OTR alone in the next two years, that is almost a +20% increase in units in two years over the current.  If each unit is worth $300k, which i think may be even underestimating, you are talking about $450,000,000.00, that is $450 million dollars, in new residential development in a 2 year span.

 

That doesn't even take into account the three or more times weekly you hear of businesses from the suburbs or other locals re-locating downtown, bringing in their earnings taxes and discretionary spending spin off.  What you are seeing in Cincinnati is a true renaissance of the urban core and I don't see it slowing down anytime soon, especially as more and more people become comfortable downtown and OTR and then, they will decide to make the move too.  The streetcar will make it much more comfortable for many, many more people, I can guarantee it.

When Portland built their streetcar system (the first modern streetcar to be built in the US) they had to guess what the ideal spacing between stops would be. They guessed a little too short and are now removing some of the stops. We have learned a lot from Portland and the other modern streetcar systems that have been built in the US over the past 15 years. Cincinnati's streetcar stops are about 1.5x farther apart than Portland's.

 

Portland also had a similar issue with their light rail system. The stops are a little bit too close together, because when they built it, they weren't sure how far people would be willing to walk to the nearest light rail stop. If they were building it today, the stops would probably be 1.5x or 2x farther apart in the urban core. That's the price you pay for being one of the first US cities to build both light rail and streetcars.

 

True, but Portland just closed the streetcar stops last month.  Bottom line on all rail systems: they are very expensive to build, operate and maintain.  Look at DC.  DC also just joined the ranks of streetcar cities in March.

 

and?

 

What's your point? There's only two potential ways you can go. Either they are worth it or they aren't? Please simply state your opinion on the matter so we can move on. Based on what you've already stated, I can guess where you're going...

 

And you've already rehashed all the same arguments opponents have been making.

1. They're too slow

2. They're too expensive

3. Cincy is DIFFERENT/Not dense enough

4. Ridership will be too low

5. The streetcar won't pay for itself/make enough money from fares (a true classic)

You've made all these statements without providing any bases for them. It's so frustrating to see this crap brought up every few pages again and again.

 

 

When Portland built their streetcar system (the first modern streetcar to be built in the US) they had to guess what the ideal spacing between stops would be. They guessed a little too short and are now removing some of the stops. We have learned a lot from Portland and the other modern streetcar systems that have been built in the US over the past 15 years. Cincinnati's streetcar stops are about 1.5x farther apart than Portland's.

 

Portland also had a similar issue with their light rail system. The stops are a little bit too close together, because when they built it, they weren't sure how far people would be willing to walk to the nearest light rail stop. If they were building it today, the stops would probably be 1.5x or 2x farther apart in the urban core. That's the price you pay for being one of the first US cities to build both light rail and streetcars.

 

True, but Portland just closed the streetcar stops last month.  Bottom line on all rail systems: they are very expensive to build, operate and maintain.  Look at DC.  DC also just joined the ranks of streetcar cities in March.

 

I was there last month and DC's streetcar route is interesting. It starts on a highway overpass and ends at a golf course. I've attached a map of what the a similar route would look like in Cincinnati.

 

Cincy

DC

When Portland built their streetcar system (the first modern streetcar to be built in the US) they had to guess what the ideal spacing between stops would be. They guessed a little too short and are now removing some of the stops. We have learned a lot from Portland and the other modern streetcar systems that have been built in the US over the past 15 years. Cincinnati's streetcar stops are about 1.5x farther apart than Portland's.

 

Portland also had a similar issue with their light rail system. The stops are a little bit too close together, because when they built it, they weren't sure how far people would be willing to walk to the nearest light rail stop. If they were building it today, the stops would probably be 1.5x or 2x farther apart in the urban core. That's the price you pay for being one of the first US cities to build both light rail and streetcars.

 

True, but Portland just closed the streetcar stops last month.  Bottom line on all rail systems: they are very expensive to build, operate and maintain.  Look at DC.  DC also just joined the ranks of streetcar cities in March.

 

and?

 

What's your point? There's only two potential ways you can go. Either they are worth it or they aren't? Please simply state your opinion on the matter so we can move on. Based on what you've already stated, I can guess where you're going...

 

And you've already rehashed all the same arguments opponents have been making.

1. They're too slow

2. They're too expensive

3. Cincy is DIFFERENT/Not dense enough

4. Ridership will be too low

5. The streetcar won't pay for itself/make enough money from fares (a true classic)

You've made all these statements without providing any bases for them. It's so frustrating to see this crap brought up every few pages again and again.

 

Point being it took 15 years to close the Portland streetcar stations; response to post that brought this up.  Otherwise, streetcars are slow, expensive, CIN is not densely populated and has low transit use as it is today, the streetcar will not cover even a decent portion of its expenses.  The reason these points keep coming up it because they are true.  However, the CIN streetcar is designed for collateral benefits which may in fact happen.  Time will tell.

I'm sorry, how is it not densely populated enough? I gave you answers upthread and you never responded to them, but the core of Cincinnati is plenty dense enough for rail. 15,000 people/square mile is nothing to squawk at within the catchment area of the streetcar.

 

You also are not looking at the current transit numbers with an objective viewpoint if you make that blanket statement. Our system is incredibly underfunded and services other cities within the county that don't have to pay a dime to have service connected to them. The city itself is on the hook for the entire county and obviously Ohio greatly underfunds transit as it is. It's amazing we have as good of a system as we do under the circumstances.

 

I regularly walk from my place at 15th and Race to the rivefront. That walk takes me half an hour. The streetcar doing that same route would take half that. I will absolutely utilize it to get to the riverfront to then walk over the bridge to my friends' places in Newport. It's not slow, it's just as fast as driving is which but then removes that annoyance of parking on either end.

 

ALL transit systems, roads included, are meant to cover expenses through the economic advantages they open up. I'm not sure why you're making that statement as if this is somehow unique to Cincy.

 

The city also utilizes a small portion of property taxes from new development along the line to pay for the operating expenses. In one week last month we received enough development news to cover over $400,000 annually for streetcar expenses. At the rate we're going all expenses will be paid for in a few years and then any other property taxes will go directly towards other funding needs the city has.

 

And that doesn't include any of the spinoff taxes created like income taxes from new residents, sales taxes, etc.

Also, don't some Asian transit agencies actually own and develop the land around stations to subsidize the operations of the transit itself?

I lived in Japan for 3 months and my employer subsidize the operation/helped finance the construction of the rail line that connected to the HQ. They also had a policy in place that if you did live within 8 miles of the office you had to take public transport due to the lack of parking. They also built corporate residences along the line. Totally different than what's done here in the USA. I actually got to work with the Japan Transit Authority while I was there, to me their approach was a end to end resident to job infrastructure.

When Portland built their streetcar system (the first modern streetcar to be built in the US) they had to guess what the ideal spacing between stops would be. They guessed a little too short and are now removing some of the stops. We have learned a lot from Portland and the other modern streetcar systems that have been built in the US over the past 15 years. Cincinnati's streetcar stops are about 1.5x farther apart than Portland's.

 

Portland also had a similar issue with their light rail system. The stops are a little bit too close together, because when they built it, they weren't sure how far people would be willing to walk to the nearest light rail stop. If they were building it today, the stops would probably be 1.5x or 2x farther apart in the urban core. That's the price you pay for being one of the first US cities to build both light rail and streetcars.

 

True, but Portland just closed the streetcar stops last month.  Bottom line on all rail systems: they are very expensive to build, operate and maintain.  Look at DC.  DC also just joined the ranks of streetcar cities in March.

 

and?

 

What's your point? There's only two potential ways you can go. Either they are worth it or they aren't? Please simply state your opinion on the matter so we can move on. Based on what you've already stated, I can guess where you're going...

 

And you've already rehashed all the same arguments opponents have been making.

1. They're too slow

2. They're too expensive

3. Cincy is DIFFERENT/Not dense enough

4. Ridership will be too low

5. The streetcar won't pay for itself/make enough money from fares (a true classic)

You've made all these statements without providing any bases for them. It's so frustrating to see this crap brought up every few pages again and again.

 

the streetcar will not cover even a decent portion of its expenses.

 

^That's all I see when I read your posts and it just really makes anything else you type hard to consume. I'm still waiting to see how the Cincinnati State ramp will pay for itself as well as the final budget numbers for MLK since it's like, half finished. Maybe you could help with those instead of the completed streetcar loop.

I'm not sure where people around here have come up with this idea that public services are supposed to make money. It's not a business model to fill the city's coffers. It's a public service that will help transport people around the downtown and eventually farther. How much money does filling potholes make? Or garbage collection? Or cleaning poop out of our water? These are all projects that are paid for by citizens to better our lives, not make money. Public transportation is such a service.

When Portland built their streetcar system (the first modern streetcar to be built in the US) they had to guess what the ideal spacing between stops would be. They guessed a little too short and are now removing some of the stops. We have learned a lot from Portland and the other modern streetcar systems that have been built in the US over the past 15 years. Cincinnati's streetcar stops are about 1.5x farther apart than Portland's.

 

Portland also had a similar issue with their light rail system. The stops are a little bit too close together, because when they built it, they weren't sure how far people would be willing to walk to the nearest light rail stop. If they were building it today, the stops would probably be 1.5x or 2x farther apart in the urban core. That's the price you pay for being one of the first US cities to build both light rail and streetcars.

 

True, but Portland just closed the streetcar stops last month.  Bottom line on all rail systems: they are very expensive to build, operate and maintain.  Look at DC.  DC also just joined the ranks of streetcar cities in March.

 

and?

 

What's your point? There's only two potential ways you can go. Either they are worth it or they aren't? Please simply state your opinion on the matter so we can move on. Based on what you've already stated, I can guess where you're going...

 

And you've already rehashed all the same arguments opponents have been making.

1. They're too slow

2. They're too expensive

3. Cincy is DIFFERENT/Not dense enough

4. Ridership will be too low

5. The streetcar won't pay for itself/make enough money from fares (a true classic)

You've made all these statements without providing any bases for them. It's so frustrating to see this crap brought up every few pages again and again.

 

Point being it took 15 years to close the Portland streetcar stations; response to post that brought this up.  Otherwise, streetcars are slow, expensive, CIN is not densely populated and has low transit use as it is today, the streetcar will not cover even a decent portion of its expenses.  The reason these points keep coming up it because they are true.  However, the CIN streetcar is designed for collateral benefits which may in fact happen.  Time will tell.

 

Streetcars are slow - when compared to what?

Streetcars are expense - when compared to what?

Cincinnati is not densely populated and has low transit usage - Again, what are we being compared against?

The streetcar will not cover even a decent portion of its expenses - when compared to what?

 

When I said you weren't provided a basis for your statements THIS (^) was what I meant. All of your statements are COMPARATIVE statements. In order for the rest of us to understand where you are coming from, we need to understand your baseline.

I'm not sure where people around here have come up with this idea that public services are supposed to make money. It's not a business model to fill the city's coffers. It's a public service that will help transport people around the downtown and eventually farther. How much money does filling potholes make? Or garbage collection? Or cleaning poop out of our water? These are all projects that are paid for by citizens to better our lives, not make money. Public transportation is such a service.

 

I think the reason people expect transit to cover its own operations are twofold.

 

1. Charging a fare (if it were free, like parks, no one would expect them to cover their own expenses

2. Transit used to be owned by private companies

The streetcar could really pay off if it encourages us to take off the training wheels of parking minimums for new development because then we could really pack a lot more economic activity in our finite downtown area. Transit is not optional for big cities with strong economies. Kind of like higher forms of life have evolved circulatory systems. If we want the same kind of opportunities here as exist in other places we need stronger transit.

But even when they were owned by private companies they were using crazy cheap labor (something that no longer exists) to run them and owned many of the real estate endeavors that made them necessary.

 

My personal favorite example are the old trolley parks. Amusement Parks like Coney Island, Kennywood, Whalom Lake Park (gone now, but I grew up down the street from it) were all at the end of trolley lines and operated by the trolley companies to 1) get people to pay the maximum fare to get all the way out to the park and 2) make money off people utilizing their service.

Christian Moer-line / Little Kings Loop

Cintas Circulator

Kroger Checkout Line

Luxottica Loop / Lenscrafters Loop

Medpace Mover

Scripps Circulator

SunnyD Circulator

Totes Trolley / Totes Tram

 

Can we just name it the, "These colors aren't freaking Steelers colors, stop saying they are. It's a train, it has nothing to do with a stupid petty sports rivalry so please shut the hell up" line?

 

Whoa, I must've missed this discussion!  People have been comparing the orange of the streetcar to Steelers colors?

I'm sorry, how is it not densely populated enough? I gave you answers upthread and you never responded to them, but the core of Cincinnati is plenty dense enough for rail. 15,000 people/square mile is nothing to squawk at within the catchment area of the streetcar.

 

You also are not looking at the current transit numbers with an objective viewpoint if you make that blanket statement. Our system is incredibly underfunded and services other cities within the county that don't have to pay a dime to have service connected to them. The city itself is on the hook for the entire county and obviously Ohio greatly underfunds transit as it is. It's amazing we have as good of a system as we do under the circumstances.

 

I regularly walk from my place at 15th and Race to the rivefront. That walk takes me half an hour. The streetcar doing that same route would take half that. I will absolutely utilize it to get to the riverfront to then walk over the bridge to my friends' places in Newport. It's not slow, it's just as fast as driving is which but then removes that annoyance of parking on either end.

 

ALL transit systems, roads included, are meant to cover expenses through the economic advantages they open up. I'm not sure why you're making that statement as if this is somehow unique to Cincy.

 

The city also utilizes a small portion of property taxes from new development along the line to pay for the operating expenses. In one week last month we received enough development news to cover over $400,000 annually for streetcar expenses. At the rate we're going all expenses will be paid for in a few years and then any other property taxes will go directly towards other funding needs the city has.

 

And that doesn't include any of the spinoff taxes created like income taxes from new residents, sales taxes, etc.

 

All cities have had budget cuts; now CIN is on the hook for the Streetcar.  The dense areas you name also have to core riders.  Regardless, the streetcar is being implemented as development catalyst.  Seriously, I hope it works in spurring development.  Like many new transit lines: is it spurring development or would the development have happened regardless.  In other words, is ORT happening because of the streetcar or even more so?

 

Cincinnati thus being the 1st city that has the transit expense issues etc. resolved before the line even opens.  CIN should be used as a national model for transit.

 

Also, claiming the CIN streetcar is not slow somewhat undermines your other claims given that the streetcar is still being built.

When Portland built their streetcar system (the first modern streetcar to be built in the US) they had to guess what the ideal spacing between stops would be. They guessed a little too short and are now removing some of the stops. We have learned a lot from Portland and the other modern streetcar systems that have been built in the US over the past 15 years. Cincinnati's streetcar stops are about 1.5x farther apart than Portland's.

 

Portland also had a similar issue with their light rail system. The stops are a little bit too close together, because when they built it, they weren't sure how far people would be willing to walk to the nearest light rail stop. If they were building it today, the stops would probably be 1.5x or 2x farther apart in the urban core. That's the price you pay for being one of the first US cities to build both light rail and streetcars.

 

True, but Portland just closed the streetcar stops last month.  Bottom line on all rail systems: they are very expensive to build, operate and maintain.  Look at DC.  DC also just joined the ranks of streetcar cities in March.

 

and?

 

What's your point? There's only two potential ways you can go. Either they are worth it or they aren't? Please simply state your opinion on the matter so we can move on. Based on what you've already stated, I can guess where you're going...

 

And you've already rehashed all the same arguments opponents have been making.

1. They're too slow

2. They're too expensive

3. Cincy is DIFFERENT/Not dense enough

4. Ridership will be too low

5. The streetcar won't pay for itself/make enough money from fares (a true classic)

You've made all these statements without providing any bases for them. It's so frustrating to see this crap brought up every few pages again and again.

 

Point being it took 15 years to close the Portland streetcar stations; response to post that brought this up.  Otherwise, streetcars are slow, expensive, CIN is not densely populated and has low transit use as it is today, the streetcar will not cover even a decent portion of its expenses.  The reason these points keep coming up it because they are true.  However, the CIN streetcar is designed for collateral benefits which may in fact happen.  Time will tell.

 

Streetcars are slow - when compared to what?

Streetcars are expense - when compared to what?

Cincinnati is not densely populated and has low transit usage - Again, what are we being compared against?

The streetcar will not cover even a decent portion of its expenses - when compared to what?

 

When I said you weren't provided a basis for your statements THIS (^) was what I meant. All of your statements are COMPARATIVE statements. In order for the rest of us to understand where you are coming from, we need to understand your baseline.

 

Baseline: other U.S. transit system, especially those with rail/streetcars.

The streetcar could really pay off if it encourages us to take off the training wheels of parking minimums for new development because then we could really pack a lot more economic activity in our finite downtown area. Transit is not optional for big cities with strong economies. Kind of like higher forms of life have evolved circulatory systems. If we want the same kind of opportunities here as exist in other places we need stronger transit.

 

CIN needs to get extension lines on the boards sooner than later.  The $1.00 fare is incredible but the system needs to build core riders other than the occasional users.

 

What is the timeline on the UC extension?

When Portland built their streetcar system (the first modern streetcar to be built in the US) they had to guess what the ideal spacing between stops would be. They guessed a little too short and are now removing some of the stops. We have learned a lot from Portland and the other modern streetcar systems that have been built in the US over the past 15 years. Cincinnati's streetcar stops are about 1.5x farther apart than Portland's.

 

Portland also had a similar issue with their light rail system. The stops are a little bit too close together, because when they built it, they weren't sure how far people would be willing to walk to the nearest light rail stop. If they were building it today, the stops would probably be 1.5x or 2x farther apart in the urban core. That's the price you pay for being one of the first US cities to build both light rail and streetcars.

 

True, but Portland just closed the streetcar stops last month.  Bottom line on all rail systems: they are very expensive to build, operate and maintain.  Look at DC.  DC also just joined the ranks of streetcar cities in March.

 

I was there last month and DC's streetcar route is interesting. It starts on a highway overpass and ends at a golf course. I've attached a map of what the a similar route would look like in Cincinnati.

 

Cincy

DC

 

I was in DC as well when its streetcar opened; it's free for 6 months to build ridership but initial non-paying riders were saying it is too slow and walking remained an option (this in cold weather). 

A couple times I've tried to catch the streetcar while walking and would not have been able to unless I broke into a run. It goes faster than people think. In cold weather, rain, snow, hot days, and carrying groceries back from market will all be times I will be thrilled to have the streetcar (even if I could have walked it).

 

Also, claiming the CIN streetcar is not slow somewhat undermines your other claims given that the streetcar is still being built.

 

You do know it's regularly testing, right? As in, we can see exactly how long it takes to get from one place to another in different conditions.

 

It goes as fast as traffic. Go walk around Downtown and attempt to keep up with traffic along the route and get back to me about thinking it's too early to claim that it's not slow.

I'm sorry, how is it not densely populated enough? I gave you answers upthread and you never responded to them, but the core of Cincinnati is plenty dense enough for rail. 15,000 people/square mile is nothing to squawk at within the catchment area of the streetcar.

 

You also are not looking at the current transit numbers with an objective viewpoint if you make that blanket statement. Our system is incredibly underfunded and services other cities within the county that don't have to pay a dime to have service connected to them. The city itself is on the hook for the entire county and obviously Ohio greatly underfunds transit as it is. It's amazing we have as good of a system as we do under the circumstances.

 

I regularly walk from my place at 15th and Race to the rivefront. That walk takes me half an hour. The streetcar doing that same route would take half that. I will absolutely utilize it to get to the riverfront to then walk over the bridge to my friends' places in Newport. It's not slow, it's just as fast as driving is which but then removes that annoyance of parking on either end.

 

ALL transit systems, roads included, are meant to cover expenses through the economic advantages they open up. I'm not sure why you're making that statement as if this is somehow unique to Cincy.

 

The city also utilizes a small portion of property taxes from new development along the line to pay for the operating expenses. In one week last month we received enough development news to cover over $400,000 annually for streetcar expenses. At the rate we're going all expenses will be paid for in a few years and then any other property taxes will go directly towards other funding needs the city has.

 

And that doesn't include any of the spinoff taxes created like income taxes from new residents, sales taxes, etc.

 

All cities have had budget cuts; now CIN is on the hook for the Streetcar.  The dense areas you name also have to core riders.  Regardless, the streetcar is being implemented as development catalyst. Seriously, I hope it works in spurring development.  Like many new transit lines: is it spurring development or would the development have happened regardless.  In other words, is ORT happening because of the streetcar or even more so?

 

In the bold you mentioned, just wondering if you live in Cincinnati or if you follow the news.

 

I made a post about it but I think you must not have seen it.  You see weekly announcements of new business and new residential conversions and new construction specifically stating the streetcar as a catalyst.  You see developers say "People want to live within walking distance to a streetcar stop", you see people say "This is a perfect spot for 120 condos because the streetcar stop is right outside or within a block".  The whole area of Northern OTR was a dead zone with nothing but crumbling buildings and crime, besides a very small area around Findlay Market.  No with the streetcar connecting it to the rest of downtown and the Banks, etc., money is starting to pour in like crazy, because then you can take the streetcar from your residence around Findlay Market to the riverfront park, to restaurants on Vine, to Bars on Fountain Square, etc. without owning a car.  That is why it is blowing up with investment in that area.  It would not have happened regardless, I can guarantee you that.

 

 

In the bold you mentioned, just wondering if you live in Cincinnati or if you follow the news.

 

Actually a bunch of us are wondering if he took his meds this morning. 

Whoa, I must've missed this discussion!  People have been comparing the orange of the streetcar to Steelers colors?

 

You're lucky. You missed the chorus of idiots (not people on this forum) who were screaming "ZOMG why is our streetcar Steelers yellow!" when they started arriving.

 

 

In the bold you mentioned, just wondering if you live in Cincinnati or if you follow the news.

 

Actually a bunch of us are wondering if he took his meds this morning.

 

Gee, thanks for the insult.  I'm seriously interested in transit in cities, esp like CIN.  Thanks for the conversation.  Some folks can discuss things; others get defensive and throw out insults.