Soon Cincy will not be the second largest metro without rail.

I think they're looking at reworking and using Findlay as the crossover in order to reduce the distance riders have to reverse direction. i.e. not going as far south as Elder or Green. It's a tough puzzle.

 

Not trying to criticize anyone on this forum or involved in the project, but it seems pretty fricking clear that Findlay Street is the best way to connect the route between Vine, Race and Elm.  I understand having a spur go up to Henry if you want to build a car barn on the site of the Old Moerlein Brewery that's now occupied by that one story building, but other than that Findlay Street is clearly the best place to connect.

^If you single track Findlay between Race and Vine you can accomplish that with less than 470 ft. of additional track.

^God I respect you.

Soon Cincy will not be the second largest metro without rail.

 

Glad that title will be gone.  Anyone know who will take our place?

 

And we could be the first.. depending on ifyou count Detroit's People Mover...

^ San Antonio

Will they  now make a change to have a line to Union Terminal sooner?

Will they now make a change to have a line to Union Terminal sooner?

 

Not that I'm opposed to this, but what are you referring to that would speed up the schedule?

Will they now make a change to have a line to Union Terminal sooner?

 

I think we need to come together to kill any prospect of a Union Terminal streetcar spur for the time being.  I can't think of many other spurs that would be less cost effective, carry fewer people through a relatively desolate area and that couldn't be just as easily served with either the present bus system or even simply a dedicated bus between UT and Central Parkway or UT and Fort Washington Way.

^It does seem like a line from UT to the Broadway Commons casino would make sense, assuming that UT gets used as the last stop of the 3C line.  I'd tend to agree about the area though around UT, though.

^It does seem like a line from UT to the Broadway Commons casino would make sense, assuming that UT gets used as the last stop of the 3C line. I'd tend to agree about the area though around UT, though.

 

The streetcar is for locals to use in order to densify and re-populate certain areas.  Not for tourists to take from the train station to a all-inclusive hotel/casino.

^It does seem like a line from UT to the Broadway Commons casino would make sense, assuming that UT gets used as the last stop of the 3C line. I'd tend to agree about the area though around UT, though.

 

The streetcar is for locals to use in order to densify and re-populate certain areas. Not for tourists to take from the train station to a all-inclusive hotel/casino.

 

Um, says who?  That's just as bad as saying the streetcar is for white yuppies, not transit dependent black people.  That doesn't mean that a route from CUT to the casino would be a good investment, but it makes sense to consider it.  The people going specifically between those two destinations would probably be small, but you get a good connection point where it crosses the current loop, and it's a way to get people from CUT and/or the casino into the heart of downtown or UC. 

 

I'm sick of this notion that streetcars are only good for short highly-urban circulator systems.  There's nothing about the technology that says it must be that way, only that a bunch of planners decided to make it so.  Streetcars can and should be faster and more useful for actually getting people around.  Instead, by being pigeon-holed into this circulator notion, they end up with convoluted and inefficient routes that make them bad for actually getting people around quickly and efficiently.  No matter what you want from the streetcar, you have to admit that it IS a form of mass transit, and if it doesn't perform that duty well, its value as a development tool is weakened too.

Um, says who?  That's just as bad as saying the streetcar is for white yuppies, not transit dependent black people.  That doesn't mean that a route from CUT to the casino would be a good investment, but it makes sense to consider it.  The people going specifically between those two destinations would probably be small, but you get a good connection point where it crosses the current loop, and it's a way to get people from CUT and/or the casino into the heart of downtown or UC. 

 

I'm sick of this notion that streetcars are only good for short highly-urban circulator systems.  There's nothing about the technology that says it must be that way, only that a bunch of planners decided to make it so.  Streetcars can and should be faster and more useful for actually getting people around.  Instead, by being pigeon-holed into this circulator notion, they end up with convoluted and inefficient routes that make them bad for actually getting people around quickly and efficiently.  No matter what you want from the streetcar, you have to admit that it IS a form of mass transit, and if it doesn't perform that duty well, its value as a development tool is weakened too.

 

The point I was making is that it is primary interest of the City of Cincinnati to redensify its urban core, and investment, particularly transit investment should be focused toward that end.  Just because one says that this is the purpose of something doesn't mean that it is its only use.

 

If you're sick of the idea that streetcars can only be used for short urban circulators, than you've got more reason than anyone to want to make sure that additional lines don't go to dead ends like Union Terminal but rather neighborhoods like Walnut Hills, Hyde Park, Oakley, etc. that build off of the present plan.

Who said anything about tourists?  Such a route could reach some areas that Phase I does not (like the bars on Main) in a relatively straight line.  It would give locals better access to the casino and UT, which is currently pretty isolated.  Making it easy for casino-going tourists would be a plus.  For the record, my hope is that the next phase of the streetcar goes through Newport and/or Covington, since they have large populations on the doorstep of downtown.

 

//Edit:  I was writing this as you both responded.  jjakucyk said it better than I.

I think that you could have a large impact with a short amount of track by building a Casino to Newport line by adding two spurs to the existing main/walnut trunk.  The casino spur would likely be under a half mile of track and a spur to Newport going up york to 5th and looping around back to the levee and then to cincinnati would be 2.1 miles. 

 

You connect the casino and downtown's major employment center with the Banks, GABP, US Bank Arena, Aquarium and the Levee with large developable sites at the Peace Bell and Ovation and redevelopment in Newport and Pendelton. Your total cost might be around $ 70 million (hopefully the casino and or Corporex could pick up some of the tab) including rolling stock.

^It does seem like a line from UT to the Broadway Commons casino would make sense, assuming that UT gets used as the last stop of the 3C line. I'd tend to agree about the area though around UT, though.

 

The streetcar is for locals to use in order to densify and re-populate certain areas. Not for tourists to take from the train station to a all-inclusive hotel/casino.

 

Um, says who? That's just as bad as saying the streetcar is for white yuppies, not transit dependent black people. That doesn't mean that a route from CUT to the casino would be a good investment, but it makes sense to consider it. The people going specifically between those two destinations would probably be small, but you get a good connection point where it crosses the current loop, and it's a way to get people from CUT and/or the casino into the heart of downtown or UC.

 

I'm sick of this notion that streetcars are only good for short highly-urban circulator systems. There's nothing about the technology that says it must be that way, only that a bunch of planners decided to make it so. Streetcars can and should be faster and more useful for actually getting people around. Instead, by being pigeon-holed into this circulator notion, they end up with convoluted and inefficient routes that make them bad for actually getting people around quickly and efficiently. No matter what you want from the streetcar, you have to admit that it IS a form of mass transit, and if it doesn't perform that duty well, its value as a development tool is weakened too.

 

I tend to agree with LincolnKennedy. If I may make a few points:

 

1) Streetcars are circulators. It's LRT's little sister, and exists on a spectrum of transit solutions where bigger machines and stations and less frequent service scales with larger station service areas. You could put a streetcar into the role of LRT - "faster" being less constrained by traffic and with less frequent stops, but then wouldn't it be LRT? It is not a universal solution - and I know you aren't saying it is - but you're flirting with the notion. You gotta keep in mind that this thing runs in mixed traffic.

 

2) I have a feeling people keep bringing up the UT line because it's simply in our field of view when we think about OTR. I would urge forumers to brainstorm other routes right now, like the post above this one. UT has a lot of drawbacks as a near-term streetcar route. You've even kind of admitted this in your own argument for considering it...so why consider it? Put the brainpower to use where it is needed elsewhere.

 

    I worry that the casino will bring more cars and turn the Broadway Commons area into a suburban mall with gambling.

 

  I agree with Jjakucyk that the streetcar should be as fast as possible, within reason. The zig-zag route bothers me.

 

  "You gotta keep in mind that this thing runs in mixed traffic."

 

    It shouldn't. Short of a subway or elevated line, the route should be chosen to minimize traffic conflicts. Fortunately, Walnut and Main downtown carry less traffic than other downtown streets and there is not much than can be done, but the zig-zag Over-the-Rhine section leaves a lot of room for improvement.

 

   

There's mixed traffic and then there's mixed traffic.  Buses and streetcars (and light rail too) can benefit greatly from having their own lane even when it's not separated by a curb barrier, in a median, or anything like that.  Such a thing might be advantageous south of Central Parkway (say a bus/streetcar only lane) but probably isn't really necessary in OTR at least at the present.  It might not even be necessary downtown either with proper traffic signal preemption and station locations, since the road should be mostly clear ahead of the streetcar.

 

Nonetheless, dedicating a traffic lane only to the streetcar and/or buses is a good step between the typical streetcar/city bus setup and light rail/bus rapid transit.  This is one situation where having the route on one-way streets is advantageous. 

 

  What's important is to minimize conflict points. Plot the locations of accidents from police reports from any city and you will find that there are invariably more accidents at intersections. Turns are vulnerable to accidents. A few weeks after the Hueston light rail line opened, it was critisized for too many accidents, and the most common accident was from vehicles turning right across the rails and getting hit by a LRT vehicle from behind.

 

  Again, my favorite route is the Walnut and Main couplet all the way to McMicken, without all that unnecessary zig zagging. While there isn't much than can be done downtown, all of the traffic control on the Over-the-Rhine portion could be reconfigured to favor the north-south traffic, discourage cross traffic, and minimize conflicts.

 

   

I'm primarily concerned with the streetcar as a political decision, both as a decision the City government has taken as a representative government and as a decision the City has taken to invest in itself as an improvement.

 

It's important that this happen and happen successfully.  For that reason, it has to at least increase City revenue above cost and do it in such a way that the City can capture it, it has to substantially lead to the increase in the amount of City residents and businesses, and it has to increase personal mobility.

 

It can do all these things, but maybe not all of the as well as possible at the same time.  The current split route is less than ideal for speed, for example, but perhaps better for mobility in hitting more strong Cincinnati institutions, and perhaps better (or maybe equal) at attracting residents and businesses than a straight shot up Main/Walnut to McMicken and then Vine.  Nevertheless, the routing on Race/Elm is worth something, and something that is basically equal.

 

Taking it a block south of 2nd Street per current diagram is of questionable value, though, in my opinion.

 

While the streetcar certainly can be used as a circulator, it seems equally plausible that someone would use it as commuting vehicle as well.  There's no reason not to consider it as a series of linked circulators: Downtown Circulator to OTR Circulator to Clifton Heights Circulator to Zoo/Hospital Circulator and onward.  There are plenty of streets that connect Uptown with residential neighborhoods to the East that either resemble OTR and Clifton Heights in many respects (e.g. Walnut Hills, Avondale, Evanston) or are currently destination neighborhoods with many residents working both Downtown and Uptown (e.g. Hyde Park, Oakley).

 

The argument that all the anti-streetcar folks always toss out is "Why don't you just use a bus?"  Because it doesn't do the same things as a bus, is what we answer.  But, if we really believe that, then we have to accept that a bus does somethings better than the streetcar.  When the first two phases are finished, I don't think anyone outside of the directors of the Museum Center will say that we will get the most possible advantage out of new track that runs to Union Terminal.

I'd love to see the route head up MLK and take Madison into Oakley and to also diverge up Montgomery Rd. Lots of population to serve there, and the Montgomery route would serve Xavier students then too

 

As of now, there is only one bus route that I'm familiar with that goes from UC to Oakley and it take 45-60 to get there because it goes through Avondale/Norwood.... it's a horrendous ride

  "I'm primarily concerned with the streetcar as a political decision..."

 

    I'm concerned about it, too. Democracy is a terrible way to run a railroad.

 

    "Railroads are not built for the benefit of the public but for investors to turn a profit on their money."  - Cornelious Vanderbilt

 

    If we think of the city as the investor, then the city should turn a profit on it's money by effectively serving the customers.

 

    If we think of the city as a democracy, well, then you get Queen City Metro with long routes into the suburbs that attract few riders, historic routes that refuse to die that attract few riders, and circuitous routes to every corner of the city that attract few riders. 

If Metro was operated as a business -- as it should be, then we'd have a few very profitable routes, concentrated development and a greater population that would be more pleased with the service -- and taxpayers that would be more happy with more money in their pocketbooks.

If UT becomes a 3C stop, the hotels & casino will likely find it worthwhile to run a shuttle bus out to UT.

 

  ^---- Argosy ran a free bus service to pick you up nearly anywhere. (Do they still do that?)

    If we think of the city as a democracy, well, then you get Queen City Metro with long routes into the suburbs that attract few riders, historic routes that refuse to die that attract few riders, and circuitous routes to every corner of the city that attract few riders. 

 

Amen.  And I'd also add, you get dumb and inconvenient fare structures; a monthly pass is $70 which... you guessed it... turns out to be exactly equivalent to 5 round trips/week.  With the added restriction of starting on the first of each month.  You expected to be rewarded for being a daily work commuter?  Nope, we'd rather have empty busses. As one comparison, the Metra trains to south Chicago offer the following monthly, 10-ride, and single zone fares: $58.05, $18.30, $2.25.  As expected, you are enticed to, not repelled from, purchasing volume tickets.

 

This seeming lack of insight is an example of what makes me nervous about Metro running the streetcar.

 

 

If Metro was operated as a business -- as it should be, then we'd have a few very profitable routes, concentrated development and a greater population that would be more pleased with the service -- and taxpayers that would be more happy with more money in their pocketbooks.

 

This thread concerning routes and Metro makes me think that a very interesting and special part about the streetcar is the public exposure and scrutiny that the route configuration receives.  What a completely different picture compared to the bus routes we have, and a refreshing difference, even if people with strong opinions disagree about the final configuration.  I guess this is another reason why the "fixed route" of the rail lines makes a difference in comparison to the mutable routes of busses; in this case during its planning.

 

Wouldn't a line from the casino to Union Terminal increase investment in City West?  It is my understanding that they are having issues attracting businesses and even creating a high demand for the residential component.

^ I was thinking the same thing.  A route to UT would also reach City West and the Betts-Longworth area.

Doing a route down Ezzard Charles looks like it has a lot of development potential, but almost all that land is controlled by public or non-profit agencies that would require development agreements that would be unpredictable. This gets into the question of which is the more realistic aim of rail transit in the city in this political climate: promoting development or providing a service. "It's both!" Yeah, everyone knows that, but that's not necessarily how you can promote it.

If Metro was operated as a business -- as it should be, then we'd have a few very profitable routes, concentrated development and a greater population that would be more pleased with the service -- and taxpayers that would be more happy with more money in their pocketbooks.

 

But it's not a business. Transit is a public service that was once run by private enterprise. So were U.S. roads during the Laissez Faire era. But their lack of availability in rural areas and the abuse of trusts (conglomerates) prompted a public takeover of each starting 100 years ago.

If Metro was operated as a business -- as it should be, then we'd have a few very profitable routes, concentrated development and a greater population that would be more pleased with the service -- and taxpayers that would be more happy with more money in their pocketbooks.

 

But it's not a business. Transit is a public service that was once run by private enterprise. So were U.S. roads during the Laissez Faire era. But their lack of availability in rural areas and the abuse of trusts (conglomerates) prompted a public takeover of each starting 100 years ago.

 

And the government has done a pretty good job with roads, and an absolutely terrible job with transit.. I think the point is that if there were a bit more accountability associated with providing a vital service such as transit, most cities wouldn't be in the situation they are today.  I liken it to how most cities regulate cab companies.  There is extreme oversight and regulation, but they're still a business that provides a service but must also be run successfully.

If Metro was operated as a business -- as it should be, then we'd have a few very profitable routes, concentrated development and a greater population that would be more pleased with the service -- and taxpayers that would be more happy with more money in their pocketbooks.

 

But it's not a business. Transit is a public service that was once run by private enterprise. So were U.S. roads during the Laissez Faire era. But their lack of availability in rural areas and the abuse of trusts (conglomerates) prompted a public takeover of each starting 100 years ago.

 

Are you ready to defend the comprehensive route planning process conducted by Metro and their consultants?  I'd be interested if you were, cause I'd then have more faith in their efforts.  What I've seen in the past, admittedly through attending presentations, and not from the "inside", gives the strong impression that they don't have a good handle on why people use or don't use their product, and how the demand for *potential* routes is structured.  Also, for a public service agency, they seem to do a terrible job of interacting with their public in useful ways.

I don't agree that the public sector's ownership and oversight of roads is very good as our politicians prefer quantity over quality and aren't even willing to pay for quantity anymore. Mark my words: within 10-20 years Ohio may see the first limited-access highway closed because we can no longer afford to maintain it. But that's a subject for another thread.

 

I'm not familiar enough with Metro to offer an opinion on the effectiveness of their route planning. Sorry.

 

But if you folks in Cincinnati want to follow a European precedent for managing the streetcar, have Metro contract out its operation to a private outfit. Many European transit services are funded by a public-sector transit authority, but they contract out the operations to private bidders. Ironically, subsidy often went up after privatization because the private firms provided more service than the public-sector agencies did, and there was now a stronger private sector influence on politicians who pushed for more subsidy for the private operators.

If we think of the city as a democracy, well, then you get Queen City Metro with long routes into the suburbs that attract few riders, historic routes that refuse to die that attract few riders, and circuitous routes to every corner of the city that attract few riders.

 

But people who pay their taxes to pay for streets but can't afford cars deserve benefit as well.

 

This is the point of the benefit of buses and cars complimenting various forms of rail- they each have a job they perform better.

 

If Metro was operated as a business -- as it should be, then we'd have a few very profitable routes, concentrated development and a greater population that would be more pleased with the service -- and taxpayers that would be more happy with more money in their pocketbooks.

 

Except you wouldn't have concentrated development because the current property tax regime where the land is valued at 20% and the improvements (buildings) are valued at 80% would continue to stifle the very concentration that rail brings and sustains.  Not to mention any number of codes that encourage the current suburbanized development we are all familiar with.  It's not just 'build it and they will come', there are any number of other supports that need to be implemented for things like rail (and even buses, for that matter) to perform optimally.

 

Wouldn't a line from the casino to Union Terminal increase investment in City West?  It is my understanding that they are having issues attracting businesses and even creating a high demand for the residential component.

 

Maybe before they built City West so that basically every townhouse there has a two car garage.  The point is that however many miles of track you lay down between the casino and Union Terminal will provide a better return going East from Uptown through Avondale or Walnut Hills to Evanston and Hyde Park, or west to Northside, or even extending the line up Main/Walnut from Central Parkway to Vine and McMicken and making the straight shot between Uptown and the Banks, than it would going to Union Terminal, particularly when shuttle buses could do the same thing.

So, again, what is the funding source for the operating subsidy?  Or is the projection to fund 100% from the farebox?

 

 

The operating funds will come from fares and advertising

^ There will be other sources of funds.

...like? Just curious. This should have been decided upon prior to the acceptance of the federal monies. Fares and advertising can't cover it all. I am assuming TIF, and general tax revenue.

Est. Annual Operating Expense: $3.5 million

 

At $1.75 Fare:

First-Year Est. Annual Fare Revenue: $1,657,884

Fifth-Year Est. Annual Fare Revenue: $2,256,712

The HDR Feasibility Study recognized advertising, charter serves, and special events as other revenue sources but did not analyze the actual dollar amount. Minus fares, the city only needs to make up for $1,842,116 in the first year, and $1,243,288 after the fifth year.

 

**I did these calculations using the numbers listed on the HDR feasibility site and included the rider data for 5 home bengals games and 81 home Reds games.

 

First Year

Fare Avg Daily Riders Special Event Rides Annual Riders Revenue

$0.00 5550 48550 2074300 $0.00

$0.25 5088 48550 1905488 $476,371.88

$0.50 4600 48550 1727550 $863,775.00

$0.75 4163 48550 1567863 $1,175,896.88

$1.00 3700 48550 1399050 $1,399,050.00

$1.25 3288 48550 1248488 $1,560,609.38

$1.50 2850 48550   1088800 $1,633,200.00

$1.75 2463 48550 947363 $1,657,884.38

$2.00 2050 48550 796800 $1,593,600.00

 

Fifth Year

$0.00 7900 48550 2932050 $0.00

$0.25 7100 48550 2640050 $660,012.50

$0.50 6350 48550 2366300 $1,183,150.00

$0.75 5650 48550 2110800 $1,583,100.00

$1.00 5000 48550 1873550 $1,873,550.00

$1.25 4450 48550 1672800 $2,091,000.00

$1.50 3850 48550 1453800 $2,180,700.00

$1.75 3400 48550 1289550 $2,256,712.50

$2.00 2900 48550 1107050 $2,214,100.00

like? Just curious. This should have been decided upon prior to the acceptance of the federal monies. Fares and advertising can't cover it all. I am assuming TIF, and general tax revenue.

 

Probably not TIF.  TIF will most likely be used to retire the revenue bonds used to finance the intitial capital investment (this is how it's done elsewhere).

Thanks, Neville.  The operating subsidy will be relatively minor if projections hold.

Minus fares, the city only needs to make up for $1,842,116 in the first year, and $1,243,288 after the fifth year.

 

I love the word ONLY!!!

DanB your BOLD exclamation is overly dramatic and unnecessary.

 

What my calculations do not show is the amount of money made from ADVERTISEMENTS on the cars and stations. From preliminary research on Lamar's website (who handles outdoor advertising for Metro), Metro probably makes around $800-$1000 per week per bus and shelter. 6 streetcars and 18 stops (using $800) = 998,400.

 

Leaving a gap of only $843,716 in the first year and $244,888 by the fifth year. And that's assuming that ad revenues won't increase in five years. That gap is hardly anything and will easily be made up for by way of increased property tax revenues throughout OTR.

^ And, property tax revenues are TINY compared to the benefits of a fully revitalized OTR, downtown, and uptown.  Benefits that include jobs and associated income taxes, sales taxes, lower crime rates, and lower greenhouse emissions.  The streetcar doesn't alone account for those of course, but folks like DanB just steadily refuse to admit that they even exist.  If they are right, the streetcar would be bad policy, but fortunately they'll be proven wrong.

 

By the way, I've always been curious in the context of these kinds of questions, just how are we supposed to regard the $30M+ annual Metro city subsidy?  If a $1.5M operating shortfall is bad, I guess Metro should have been scrapped long ago.

 

They would agree with that.

DanB your BOLD exclamation is overly dramatic and unnecessary.

 

Why so judgemental?

 

Where in my post did you read that I want it to fail?

 

Your use of only is "only" meaningful if your guesses are correct.

How was that judgmental? Apparently you have nothing to refute the statistical data I have provided, so now you are deflecting.

 

And I'd like to not get off topic here.

Portland, with more than 12,000 riders a day, gets about $5,000 per year for advertising on its shelters. So Cincinnati's 18 stops mighty yield, at most, $90,000. I think Portland also gets about $25,000 per year for sponsors to put their names on the streetcars. We'll have seven streetcars. So doing the math, maybe $300K from advertising, tops. Probably less.

 

Fares, I dunno. When you factor in monthly and yearly discounted passes and fare evasion, I doubt it adds up to a million dollars a year. So fares and advertising maybe pay half the bill.

 

There will be other sources of funds. More than half the operating budget, I'm guessing.

 

 

It was judgemental because you told me I was overdramatic and my comment was unnecessary. 

 

Don't confuse not believing made up numbers with wanting failure.  Not believing in your numbers doesn't equate failure.

 

John, thanks for your clarification.