Not surprising that OKI was the only metropolitan planning organization in Ohio to vote against having their association, the Ohio Association of Regional Councils (OARC), join the Midwest Interstate Passenger Rail Commission and provide three years worth of membership dues (I think it's $15,000 per year). MIPRC is the compact of Midwest states and other stakeholders to promote collaboration on passenger rail development and planning. ODOT privately urged the legislature to drop its membership in MIPRC when its 2-year budget was passed in 2013. Seems OKI is more in line with ODOT's stance of denying Ohioans transportation choices.

 

Can you give me more background on this please.  If it's considered off topic in a message would be great.  I think I could get a story written on the subject

Send me a PM

BTW, the director of NOACA got OARC to join MIPRC (I luv acronyms!). This is what she said recently and which OKI needs to grasp:

 

Mobility is the essence of our freedom. To the extent that mobility is limited...we are less free.

http://www.gcbl.org/blog/2014/09/neos-top-transportation-official-declares-transportation-choice-equals-freedom

 

It is, in large part, the championing of mobility which leads to the "road funding uber alles" mindset. It leads to the notion that quickly getting to more places on the map is inherently desirable, rather than locating destinations on parts of the map we can quickly get to. "Freedom," in this sense, is accessing destinations quickly, not moving about quickly to arbitrary points in space.

 

Edit: I meant "freedom" in the alternative sense (alternative to "mobility is the essence of our freedom"). My point is that mobility is not the essence of our freedom, but rather access to the destinations we need/want to go is (at least closer to) the essence of our freedom.

It is, in large part, the championing of mobility which leads to the "road funding uber alles" mindset. It leads to the notion that quickly getting to more places on the map is inherently desirable, rather than locating destinations on parts of the map we can quickly get to. "Freedom," in this sense, is accessing destinations quickly, not moving about quickly to arbitrary points in space.

 

Assuming there is no price attached, which of course there is, or that everyone can afford it, which of course they cannot.

It is, in large part, the championing of mobility which leads to the "road funding uber alles" mindset. It leads to the notion that quickly getting to more places on the map is inherently desirable, rather than locating destinations on parts of the map we can quickly get to. "Freedom," in this sense, is accessing destinations quickly, not moving about quickly to arbitrary points in space.

 

Assuming there is no price attached, which of course there is, or that everyone can afford it, which of course they cannot.

 

Sorry, I am not really following.

 

BTW I edited my post.

Can everyone afford the mobility that is being offered (ie: able to own/lease/maintain/use cars)? If not, then they have no mobility and thus no freedom.

It's important to understand the difference between mobility, access, roads, and streets.  Mobility is about getting from point A to point B quickly and unencumbered.  This is achieved on roads, highways, and railroads.  Mobility is connecting BETWEEN places.  Access is about, well, access!  Streets, streetcars, sidewalks, plazas, these all directly serve places that people go to.  They are the platform or framework upon which buildings and places are constructed, they're the network WITHIN places. 

 

You don't directly access buildings from a highway.  There's an interchange, a connector road, a driveway, or something else to transition from high-speed mobility to low-speed access.  The same is true for railroads.  There's sidings, spurs, and stations at destinations, but little to no interface in between.  This keeps speeds up.  Conversely, you don't go 55 mph on a city street with buildings right up to the sidewalk, street parking, pedestrians, etc. without stopping or slowing. 

 

When the distinction between access/streets and mobility/roads gets confused you get things like stroads, the arterial strips of suburban hell.  These street/road hybrids are engineered for fast speeds, but they're encumbered with driveway accesses, cross streets, lots of traffic signals, and sometimes wary pedestrians.  They try to provide both access and mobility, but achieve neither.  Because of all the lights and driveways, they're too slow to provide quick transit between places, and they're too fast and dangerous to provide good access to adjacent property, which retreats from the harsh environment behind berms, parking lots, fences, and gates. 

 

That's what the focus on mobility has gotten us.  Awful suburban environments that are neither rural nor urban places, highways through cities to try to increase mobility while limiting access, and difficulty implementing transit solutions because of the misunderstanding of access and mobility.  It is also a self-fulfilling situation.  Mobility begets mobility.  It's not enough that you CAN go from point A to point B quickly, but you're now REQUIRED to go from point A to point B, which get further and further apart as time goes on. 

Thanks, jjakucyk. That's far more clear than my hasty, muddled post.

 

KJP, I am just saying we shouldn't equate mobility to freedom, not that we shouldn't make sure everyone can afford to get places. In fact, it's largely the emphasis on mobility that has landed us in a situation where it's too expensive for many people to get where they need to go (as jjakucyk eloquently outlined).

I'll never forget a TV news story from Akron from almost 25 years ago. A TV news crew followed a newly arrived immigrant family from the former Soviet Union. The camera documented their facial reactions when walking into an American grocery store for the first time (they stood inside the entrance for a few seconds with their mouths agape). And their neighborhood had several grocery stores. They were also amazed at how many banks there were. Or how many choices of restaurants. Or how many choices of doctors. Or choices of damn near everything..... Except in how to get around.

 

So the news crew asked the father of the immigrant family: "So what do you think of America?"

 

"Amazing," he said. "Except there is no freedom in America without a car."

 

I will never forget that response.

Cranley seems to have his own plan for funding operations.  http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2014/09/17/haile-foundation-s-streetcar-funding-plan-seen-as.html?page=all  From the article:

 

"“I think there will be a package that council can support that can support the initial frequency,” Cranley said. “Now, I can’t guarantee that council’s going to vote for it.”

 

The mayor said he believes he can achieve a consensus for his plan “that will include most of the leaders of the streetcar movement” and that they “will believe is a reasonable path.”

 

Cranley said he would not be revealing the details of his plan at Thursday’s state of the city address.

 

“You can write about it in a month,” he said."

 

Please forgive me if this is my initial reaction:

 

Cranley is so full of it ... He's probably going to propose something that appears to be attractive, but that requires the run-time to be cut down to minimal operation.

 

When I saw this video of CNN of a Ukrainian politician being thrown in the dumpster over his leniency towards Russian rebels ... I daydreamed of a day that we the people do this to Cranley when he exits city hall one day ...

 

I reserve judgement until I see Cranley's plan. If it's some combination of using parking revenue, a SID, advertising revenues, and fares, it might be a good plan. As Brad Thomas previously suggested, you could pass a city-wide property tax increase and then waive that increase for all properties more than 1/2 mile from the streetcar route. That way would you could essentially implement a SID without having to gather the signatures. If he tries to cut hours or jack up the fare, it's a no-go. Of course, he could also do something similar to what he tried to do for bike programs, and agree to fund the streetcar as long as we institute a ban on studying future phases.

^ Yeah, I'd wait and see what he proposes. I sense there is an eagerness to get this behind us.

^ I think you will be proven wrong.  Cranley wants this to be an ugly mess to use in his Strong Mayor initiative next year and for the Council special election.  He has in no way over the last year shown a willingness to "move forward" on the streetcar.  Heck, two weeks ago he advocated for $400 permit parking in OTR.  Why would he suddenly change?

^ I think you will be proven wrong.  Cranley wants this to be an ugly mess to use in his Strong Mayor initiative next year and for the Council special election.  He has in no way over the last year shown a willingness to "move forward" on the streetcar.  Heck, two weeks ago he advocated for $400 permit parking in OTR.  Why would he suddenly change?

 

Bingo.  You hit the nail on the head. In my opinion, Its not good politically for cranley or smitherman if the streetcar succeeds in doing exactly what its been proven to do all over the country.    Its not good for their strong mayor initiative(since it will be a focal point), its not good for cranley's future political runs, & its not good for smitherman's eventual run for mayor (and president of the US as he said his goal is).  They need this to be dragged out & a self created mess just to say 'See, I told you'

 

Also, in development news along the streetcar line that you won't read in the Enquirer:

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2014/09/18/exclusive3cdc-adding-dozens-of-condos-townhomes-in.html?ana=e_cinci_bn_exclusive&u=YhY%2FQfXAMCgNyFrEjw9v+w0e0d9800&t=1411055346&page=all

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2014/09/17/exclusive-big-cincinnati-accounting-firm-moving.html?ana=twt

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2014/09/17/exclusive-over-the-rhine-s-hanke-building-now-full.html?ana=e_du_pub&s=article_du&ed=2014-09-17&u=YhY/QfXAMCgNyFrEjw9v+w0e0d9800&t=1410982082

 

https://www.facebook.com/cincystreetcar/posts/10152700794831675

 

 

^Agreed.

 

Alternative theory: Cranley now sees that the streetcar is inevitable and knows that it will be successful and popular.  If he gets his plan adopted, his story changes to "I tried to stop their dumb idea, but when council prevented me, I was the only one who could find a way for it to make sense, and now it's a huge success."

^Agreed.

 

Alternative theory: Cranley now sees that the streetcar is inevitable and knows that it will be a huge success. If he gets his plan adopted, his story changes to "I tried to stop their dumb idea, but when council prevented me, I was the only one who could find a way for it to make sense, and now it's a huge success."

 

  ^ A more plausible, less paranoid theory as to where we are now.

^Agreed.

 

Alternative theory: Cranley now sees that the streetcar is inevitable and knows that it will be a huge success. If he gets his plan adopted, his story changes to "I tried to stop their dumb idea, but when council prevented me, I was the only one who could find a way for it to make sense, and now it's a huge success."

 

  ^ A more plausible, less paranoid theory as to where we are now.

 

More than likely, he'll just use the first part of that without the second. He'll say "I wanted to stop it but council overruled me" without actually admitting that it's a success.

^Agreed.

 

Alternative theory: Cranley now sees that the streetcar is inevitable and knows that it will be a huge success. If he gets his plan adopted, his story changes to "I tried to stop their dumb idea, but when council prevented me, I was the only one who could find a way for it to make sense, and now it's a huge success."

 

  ^ A more plausible, less paranoid theory as to where we are now.

 

More than likely, he'll just use the first part of that without the second. He'll say "I wanted to stop it but council overruled me" without actually admitting that it's a success.

 

I hope you're right...The solution you mentioned would be a perfect 'out' for him politically.  But then again, He's had continuous chances to get on the right side of the issue politically and still refused to budge.  The first Haile negotiation, The independent audit...Just to name two off the top of my head.  And he still tried to kill the project at all costs. 

 

I guess we'll see.  Forgive me if I'm not entirely trusting of John Cranley or Chris Smitherman's intentions as it relates to the success of the project. 

 

Also, Cranley used the phrase 'initial frequency' regarding his plan.  He still fully intends to cut hours should ridership not meet his expectations

Here's the deal.  I usually get bored with all the Cranley kvetching, wailing and grinding of teeth on this thread.  I understand where it comes from, that it's born out of three attempts to kill this project, and that it's important to keep an eye on the opposition.  I'd rather hear about stuff like DC voltages, steel rails, and thermite welds, and also passengers, routes and development dollars.  But I think the apprehension is appropriate in this case.  I don't think Cranley is going to propose an operating funding solution that doesn't contain a poison pill in some form.  He is not interested in this project except for the political theater it provides.  He had almost a year now to extend an olive branch or engage this project in some constructive way, shape, or form, but has not done it once.  Instead he continues to propose ridiculous scenarios (i.e., run it just on the weekends) and mock this project and its supporters at every opportunity. He really does believe that the economic growth in OTR and downtown, all of it, is merely a result of demographic trends alone and that this project is a frivolous waste.

 

The trap I think is coming, that some of us have already stepped into, is the $300 OTR street parking permit for streetcar operations.  People have to realize that the 18% from Downtown/OTR of the 11,000 signatures gathered in December were not all from hardcore new urbanists.  They've never heard of Donald Shoupe.  Most were casual fans of the streetcar project, people who saw rails going in the ground and thought it was cool and then got frustrated at the prospect that it might not be completed.  Now I'm also talking about people in the middle, with not enough money to park in the offstreet garages but who also would not get the proposed free parking pass from being below the poverty line either.  I think they would think its unfair that the streetcar is costing them $300 a year and would start to really resent the streetcar. And they'd be right cause they'd be taking a huge hit, that their neighbors including property owners that park in the garages may not be sharing, for something the whole city benefits from. Cranley's signature move has always been divide and conquer. 

 

Does it matter to the streetcar if it lost this kind of casual supporter?  Maybe not at first, but when it comes to extending the streetcar,  another neighborhood would say "No way! I'm not paying $300 to park my car because of that."

 

If you do a street parking fee, which may make sense as a concept, at least be a little politically savvy about it and start it at $100 or less.  You could always increase it over time if the demand and the willingness is there.

^ Really? You wouldn't pay $300 per year, $25 per month,  to park your car in a dense urban area? I live downtown and pay six times that to park my car in an open, poorly paved lot. I'd happily park on my street in front of my house for $300 per year.

 

Maybe some OTR residents will do what residents in other cities with modern streetcars do: sell their cars, incorporate the streetcar part and parcel in their daily lives, and save way more than $300 per year, probably $300 per month. At least.

The $300 fee is unprecedented. I don't think it's a move Cincinnati should make.

 

I think more meters in OTR, limiting residential spaces, would be a better move. It would force people into garages and lots, some of which the city currently profits off of. It would also generate additional revenue for the city via the meters. I also think the hours should be extended to midnight, as the area is a dining and nightlife district. Any potential residential fee should be nominal, and limited based on street frontage.

^ Really? You wouldn't pay $300 per year, $25 per month,  to park your car in a dense urban area? I live downtown and pay six times that to park my car in an open, poorly paved lot. I'd happily park on my street in front of my house for $300 per year.

 

Maybe some OTR residents will do what residents in other cities with modern streetcars do: sell their cars, incorporate the streetcar part and parcel in their daily lives, and save way more than $300 per year, probably $300 per month. At least.

 

I agree 100%, but I've found saying so will catch you a lot of flack. I think the argument that "it's the most expensive of all American cities, therefore it's too much" is borne of the fallacy that Cincinnati can't be at the forefront of anything.

^ Really? You wouldn't pay $300 per year, $25 per month,  to park your car in a dense urban area? I live downtown and pay six times that to park my car in an open, poorly paved lot. I'd happily park on my street in front of my house for $300 per year.

 

Maybe some OTR residents will do what residents in other cities with modern streetcars do: sell their cars, incorporate the streetcar part and parcel in their daily lives, and save way more than $300 per year, probably $300 per month. At least.

 

I agree 100%, but I've found saying so will catch you a lot of flack. I think the argument that "it's the most expensive of all American cities, therefore it's too much" is borne of the fallacy that Cincinnati can't be at the forefront of anything.

 

Leadership is, in part, the ability to change minds. People will come to see the bigger picture here. Anyway, who knows if Cranley's plan will even include residential parking permits. Personally, I'd rather deal with it by modernizing the meters and repricing them. That way, visitors will pay more.

Does a plan forged now to cover operating expenses have to be a long-term one?  What if ridership exceeds expectations?  What if the rate of economic development in the CBD and OTR near the streetcar alignment increases even more?  Should opponents then be able to continue to insist that operations get absolutely no funding from the city's general budget?

 

 

I would pay $300 a year in an instant, if it meant that it was executed in an orderly fashion and a spot within a block or so of my house was reserved by virtue of limiting the permits and adequate enforcement. To me it would be about the predictability of storing and accessing my car, otherwise I'd just feel like the city was screwing me. Who wants to pay $25 a month for a sticker that might get you to your front door or might get you on the other side of the neighborhood, or nowhere at all.

When I lived in Cambridge, MA each apartment unit had one resident parking pass and one visitor pass.  So if you lived in a typical 6-unit building, there were 6 permanent passes and 6 visitor passes even if there were four bedrooms per unit.  So you might only have a resident parking permit for one out of 4 residents of a building.  The way it worked was every single day meter maids chalked every single car in the city.  If you didn't move your car, you got a pretty significant ticket, like $35.  So everybody had to move their car every single day.  The city was divided into zones and you had to park within your zone or else you got a ticket.  Each street had street cleaning one night per month which forced you into a neighboring zone, meaning you inevitably got one ticket per month.

 

It worked kind of like a university parking pass where they typically sell 10% more passes than spots, since they assume a certain number of people won't come to class each day.  So the city sort of assumed that a certain number of people would be out-of-town on any particular day or night.  Except sometimes everybody was there and there literally were not enough parking spots and people would be forced to circle the blocks for an hour until somebody left.  The whole thing was designed to make owning a car a total pain, which it did, which is why I promptly got rid of my car after moving there. 

 

 

 

The city of West Hollywood operates similarly.  I believe it's 2 passes per unit, plus one visitor pass, and many/most of the apartment buildings there do have at least some sort of built in parking.  It made visiting friends there a real pain in the ass because there were very few metered spaces, but my friends said it was generally fairly easy to find parking with the pass. 

 

I think some sort of parking permit system would be smart for OTR in the longterm.  The streetcar helps to connect the core, but I don't think it really takes away the need for access to a car for a lot of people.  $300 is high for on street parking, especially when it will be the only neighborhood in the city with a parking fee. 

Something's gotta give here. Just using the example above, is it reasonable that we're spending $133 million dollars to build a modern streetcar in the publidc right-of-way and still sweatng-out the problem of providing 2+ parking spaces per unit in the same right-of-way? I mean, much of the logic for building the streetcar was is that it will be a substitute for private auto ownership. It's car-competitive.

 

Seems to me that with Uber, Lyft, the Red Bikes and the fact that our CBD and OTR are really compact to enable a lot of walking, we're trying to continue to apply the suburban model to an area where substantial investment in transportation choices is being made.

 

Can't have it both ways.

 

Cars will naturally be discouraged in OTR as the neighborhood gets denser, on-street parking becomes too unreliable to find with ease, and off street parking gets too expensive. That's already the case downtown, where few people attempt to rely upon on-street parking. There's no reason to add huge fees to force out cars when it's inevitable anyways. Once OTR has 15,000+ residents, only a percentage of those will be willing to deal with the headache of finding a parking spot every day.

Yeah.  What is the population now of OTR, I wonder?  I think you have to remember the neighborhood was originally built for walkability and transit.  It seems the streetcar is bringing it back to it's former glory.  I mean where I am at, there is a lot of vacant buildings around and already there is no room for parking, at all.  The only way more people can move in that have cars is to build another big parking garage.  Or, once the streetcar is finished, people will be comfortable without a car and just use transit. 

 

In my opinion, the streetcar really gets the full potential out of OTR, or at least more of the potential out of it than no streetcar at all.  Without it, it couldn't be nearly as dense. 

Something's gotta give here. Just using the example above, is it reasonable that we're spending $133 million dollars to build a modern streetcar in the publidc right-of-way and still sweatng-out the problem of providing 2+ parking spaces per unit in the same right-of-way? I mean, much of the logic for building the streetcar was is that it will be a substitute for private auto ownership. It's car-competitive.

 

Seems to me that with Uber, Lyft, the Red Bikes and the fact that our CBD and OTR are really compact to enable a lot of walking, we're trying to continue to apply the suburban model to an area where substantial investment in transportation choices is being made.

 

Can't have it both ways.

 

 

Will it really be car competitive until it goes to uptown? Or are these conversations assuming that uptown is imminent, and we are measuring performance based on that? I get antsy hearing about densification and car-competitiveness and then never getting it past Findlay Market. I might not have been in transit planning in 5 years, but I would feel uncomfortable in that capacity calling the OTR loop car-competitive.

Something's gotta give here. Just using the example above, is it reasonable that we're spending $133 million dollars to build a modern streetcar in the publidc right-of-way and still sweatng-out the problem of providing 2+ parking spaces per unit in the same right-of-way? I mean, much of the logic for building the streetcar was is that it will be a substitute for private auto ownership. It's car-competitive.

 

Seems to me that with Uber, Lyft, the Red Bikes and the fact that our CBD and OTR are really compact to enable a lot of walking, we're trying to continue to apply the suburban model to an area where substantial investment in transportation choices is being made.

 

Can't have it both ways.

 

 

Will it really be car competitive until it goes to uptown? Or are these conversations assuming that uptown is imminent, and we are measuring performance based on that? I get antsy hearing about densification and car-competitiveness and then never getting it past Findlay Market. I might not have been in transit planning in 5 years, but I would feel uncomfortable in that capacity calling the OTR loop car-competitive.

 

That really just depends on your personal circumstances.  Obviously a P&G-er wouldn't need it to go uptown, but a zookeeper would like it to. 

 

Also the streetcar doesn't have to be car-competitive on its own or used for the work commute for people to give up their cars, it works with all the options John mentioned and you can't forget the bus system either. 

 

I would love to see the streetcar go Uptown, but I think the Downtown/OTR loop stands on its own. 

The city of West Hollywood operates similarly.  I believe it's 2 passes per unit, plus one visitor pass, and many/most of the apartment buildings there do have at least some sort of built in parking.  It made visiting friends there a real pain in the ass because there were very few metered spaces, but my friends said it was generally fairly easy to find parking with the pass. 

 

I think some sort of parking permit system would be smart for OTR in the longterm.  The streetcar helps to connect the core, but I don't think it really takes away the need for access to a car for a lot of people.  $300 is high for on street parking, especially when it will be the only neighborhood in the city with a parking fee. 

 

Supply and demand here. IN this case there is a demand for parking, $300 or $25 per month is reasonable. If you don't like it you still have choices. 1) park your car somewhere else and take the streetcar to it, 2) Get rid of your car because you now have other options.

 

Bottom line is that one way or another you will be paying this. If they say it cost $300 per space per year, they could simply jack the property taxes on the buildings to cover this additional cost, or come up with some other mechanism that property owners will pass along to their tenants.

The city of West Hollywood operates similarly.  I believe it's 2 passes per unit, plus one visitor pass, and many/most of the apartment buildings there do have at least some sort of built in parking.  It made visiting friends there a real pain in the ass because there were very few metered spaces, but my friends said it was generally fairly easy to find parking with the pass. 

 

I think some sort of parking permit system would be smart for OTR in the longterm.  The streetcar helps to connect the core, but I don't think it really takes away the need for access to a car for a lot of people.  $300 is high for on street parking, especially when it will be the only neighborhood in the city with a parking fee. 

 

Supply and demand here. IN this case there is a demand for parking, $300 or $25 per month is reasonable. If you don't like it you still have choices. 1) park your car somewhere else and take the streetcar to it, 2) Get rid of your car because you now have other options.

 

Bottom line is that one way or another you will be paying this. If they say it cost $300 per space per year, they could simply jack the property taxes on the buildings to cover this additional cost, or come up with some other mechanism that property owners will pass along to their tenants.

 

Yeah - I hunted and hunted and hunted for an off-street spot when I lived in OTR and the cheapest I found was one for $40/month at the old SCPA building lot, which I think is now or soon will be gone. $25/month for a spot on the street is a steal.

^ You're comparing the prices of apples and oranges. On street parking is not equivalent to off street parking in a private lot. Some would even say that existing property taxes are high enough that they come with a reasonable expectation of at least some on street parking based on the frontage of each property. The actual cost of maintaining an on-street parking spot is minimal. On street parking fees everywhere in the country are done to benefit residents, not selectively punish them as this proposal is doing.

I've personally had very little trouble finding a parking spot for the past 3 years I've lived in OTR with the notable exception of weekend nights (9pm and later). I live on Main Street, and typically find a spot within 1 block on my first pass. This proposal isn't out of necessity and it's a little strange that everyone is so quick to jump on board. I get the idealistic view of prioritizing transit over personal vehicles, but we aren't there yet. $300/year on parking is $300/year I won't spend elsewhere in the community.

This $300 a month fee does not punish, it benefits residents.

Remember you have the option to ride the street car which is a benefit.

Second, you will not have to worry about visitors parking in your residential areas because they will be subject to being towed which is a benefit to the residents of the area.

Third it will allow for more conversions in the area and attract more investment because it will make the cost of development cheaper if you do not need to build in parking spaces.

 

John Schneider is right, you cant have it both ways.

Many people living in OTR don't work Downtown or in OTR and not everyone's job is easily suited for public transit available at the moment. Nor is the business climate in this city supportive of billing extra time to clients for use of public transit over personal automobiles which makes it difficult for many people, myself included, to even entertain the idea of going without a car. As such I bought a tiny car that takes up very little room to reduce my demand for street parking as much as possible. This city is making good steps towards making going car-free easier, but it's definitely not there yet for much of the population.

This $300 a month fee does not punish, it benefits residents.

Remember you have the option to ride the street car which is a benefit.

Second, you will not have to worry about visitors parking in your residential areas because they will be subject to being towed which is a benefit to the residents of the area.

Third it will allow for more conversions in the area and attract more investment because it will make the cost of development cheaper if you do not need to build in parking spaces.

 

John Schneider is right, you cant have it both ways.

 

 

The fact that this proposal has OTR at 3X as expensive as the most expensive City in America for public parking, San Francisco, which is also the most expensive City in america, is foolish.

 

You fail to realize this will not create the urbanist dream we all would love.  It will mean more garages being built, more demolitions for garages and fewer vacant lots being developed unless there is a garage. I live in OTR and pay $250 a year for secure gated guaranteed parking.  The idea that parking on the street in a non guaranteed, unsecured spot for more than what I currently pay for a gated lot wouldn't work in San Francisco, but would work in OTR where we have almost no transit options is foolish.  If you live in OTR & work in Blue Ash you are going to need a car. That is unfortunately true. Not all of us can walk to work (as I thankfully can)

There is no actual $300 pass or nothing proposal in existence right now. This is all part of a negotiation and discussion to find the right funding mechanism for the streetcar. Is $300 per year with no other changes a good idea? Probably not. If you could be guaranteed a spot within a block of your apartment? More attractive. What if we added meters but residents with passes could park at all or certain metered spaces without paying?

 

If the residential permit is an amenity then I support it, if it is just a fee that doesn't make it any easier to find on street parking then I don't.

 

Most property owners in OTR (including myself) that I have talked to would gladly pay a bit more in taxes as part of a SID to help fund the streetcar and even better if we can add amenities like the downtown ambassador program. The fact is that the streetcar is adding value to my property so in the long run that should mean that my property taxes go up anyway. But that could take years plus many of us have abatements.

 

I think to the point of people who live in OTR but can't walk to work or take transit conveniently, there's a bit of "well, maybe you need to consider living closer to where you work."

 

If you live in OTR and work in Blue Ash, Mason, Norwood, or Hyde Park or something, you're no better than those who live in those areas and commute in to downtown. Granted, I understand your desire to live in OTR and be surrounded by its awesome-ness, but really, I think the real goal is to make it a neighborhood for people to live AND work AND play. Meaning you live there and work in or nearby (DT, West End, Queensgate, Uptown, OTR, Mt Adams).

 

IDK - just a thought...

This $300 a month fee does not punish, it benefits residents.

 

Let's break this down.

 

Remember you have the option to ride the street car which is a benefit.

 

That's great. It will make my travel across the basin more convenient. I am all for it. I will be able to take the Streetcar to Findlay Market, Rhinegeist, GABP, and Fountain Square. I currently walk to all of those places so that will be a huge benefit.

 

Second, you will not have to worry about visitors parking in your residential areas because they will be subject to being towed which is a benefit to the residents of the area.

 

As mentioned above, I don't worry about visitor's parking on the street. I have very little trouble finding spots. Also, I would be in favor of a parking pass if it was a nominal fee. Perhaps $30/year for residents to cover the administrative costs of setting up the parking district. Allow residents to purchase a visitor's pass for $100/year in addition if they desire. Require a lease, electric bill, or voter registration card to purchase a pass/visitor pass. Allow low-income residents to receive the first pass for free and the second one for a significant discount. Now people aren't parking on the streets when visiting and I didn't have to pay an absurd amount of money for almost no benefit.

 

Third it will allow for more conversions in the area and attract more investment because it will make the cost of development cheaper if you do not need to build in parking spaces.

 

Development along the streetcar route already has eliminated parking requirements for smaller developments. Really large developments require the parking and office uses require parking. I think that is already satisfied.

 

Again, I don't mind a parking permit if the cost is reasonable. I don't mind increasing enforcement hours of meters. I don't mind increasing the cost of meters (assuming they improve to accept credit card payment at the minimum). $300/year is punitive, not beneficial and it is ultimately going to hurt the redevelopment efforts in OTR. I cannot stand behind it.

The actual cost of maintaining an on-street parking spot is minimal.

 

Do you have anything to back that up?  The cost of that land not being available to be built on is a significant opportunity cost to the city.  Plus the wider streets require more drainage, more plowing, more asphalt/concrete, crack sealing, line striping, etc.  A simple milling and resurfacing with asphalt costs at least $700 per parking spot ($40 per foot per lane).  That doesn't sound like a whole lot but wow does it add up fast, especially if more extensive rehabilitation is necessary. 

 

I tend to agree that Cranley's objective here is merely punitive.  While the proposed cost is not out of line with reality, nowhere else does it reflect reality either, and we don't want to be the ones to have the most expensive permit parking in the country for no good reason.  Either way, it IS fair to charge something for street parking, because those people who don't own a car aren't getting a break from their property and city income taxes that go to pay for that parking space.  This isn't some public good that everyone needs to pay for because we all benefit whether we use it or not, like education, fire/police protection, or sanitation. 

"If you live in OTR and work in Blue Ash, Mason, Norwood, or Hyde Park or something, you're no better than those who live in those areas and commute in to downtown."

 

Honestly I think that's a silly argument. I work in Hyde Park and my job takes me to Indian Hill a lot. I'm not made of money. Nor do I ever have any desire to live in either of those places. Saying "you're no better" is an obnoxious argument that shouldn't even be entertained.

 

Not everyone has a career in a place they would want to live. making that sweeping statement ignores the fact that it's 2014, not 1870. All jobs aren't concentrated around Downtown and many career paths aren't suited for a Downtown location yet the people working those jobs personal lives do. I'm in that boat. Many of my friends are in that boat. It's a reality of 21st Century life.

The phrase "the government should be run like a business" was popular in politics a few years ago (although I will admit that I haven't heard it much recently). And yet people reject the idea of the government charging market-based rates for on-street parking.

Streetcar stop at Elm and Liberty (September 7, 2014):

 

 

Oh hell, it's Friday, why not throw a little more gasoline on this fire.

 

Question: why should residents have preferential rights to park on the street paying the city much, much less than what shopkeepers, office workers and restaurant workers are willing to pay?. Don't say it's because residents pay taxes to the city because the people in all those other examples do too.

 

I think this is another example of the inner-suburb/ outer-suburb mentally being grafted onto a city that needs to change. Sure you can park on the street in College Hill for free. Downtown and close-in neighborhood business districts are different. They offer jobs and services that you don't have to drive to. A different culture exists.

Streetcar stop at Elm and Liberty (September 7, 2014):

 

The juxtaposition of the sleek streetcar stop and the broken sign behind it is fascinating.

The phrase "the government should be run like a business" was popular in politics a few years ago (although I will admit that I haven't heard it much recently). And yet people reject the idea of the government charging market-based rates for on-street parking.

 

And heaven forbid that government might turn a profit on something, anything, that can be used to help fund other things.  A lot of people actually believe that the only things government should do are the things that are money losers, but if that's the case then you end up with bankruptcy.  The whole point of government, and this includes projects like the streetcar, is to take on endeavors that have an INDIRECT return on investment.  If something is directly profitable then it makes sense for a business to operate it.  But things like police, which do cost a lot of money, still cost less than not having any police, because a crime-riddled city has lower land values, fewer, businesses, and fewer residents, thus less economic activity and lower taxes. 

 

That's the part people forget.  The cost of the police, AS A WHOLE, is less than the cost of not having the police.  Where you get into trouble is by cross-subsidizing and not doing proper accounting, especially long-term.  This is how our suburban development pattern is bankrupting cities, because the TAXABLE wealth generated by such low-density development is less than the long-term costs of maintaining the infrastructure and services used in those developments. 

 

Most road/highway projects will outline something like a $30 million cost and $400 million in benefits.  Sounds like a no-brainer.  However, when 90% of that supposed $400 million in benefits is just "time savings" then how much tax is collected on that?  Zero.  Even if the benefits were an actual $400 million in improved property values, a 2% property tax rate only yields $8 million, so that project is a dud.  Private benefit, public risk.  The streetcar's 2.5 to 1 benefit to cost ratio (or whatever the actual number is) DOES factor in the actual rate of return to the government, unlike all these other highway analyses.  To pay back the construction and operating costs requires billions of dollars in improved property values, as well as the increased sales taxes and income taxes from new jobs.  Even with all that, the project still comes out ahead.