Am I missing something about the streetcar?

[Orange 'n Black]

So, everyone's had plenty of earfuls about this weird ass streetcar debate. Full disclosure, I didn't vote in the mayoral election and I don't have a particular position on it. It just seems... really fucking weird.

 

I have several Facebook friends who do nothing but post about it 24/7, so I see it all the time and that prompted me to read up some on it. It seems like it has a lot of economic potential and it also seems like it has a lot of costs, so I can see both sides of it. However, every time someone writes about it, it's literally nothing but angry rhetoric. One side thinks the streetcar is going to bankrupt the city and put us all in the poorhouse, the other side thinks Cincinnati is going to backslide into the Dark Ages and turn into Detroit 2.0 if we don't get this goddamn streetcar.

 

Can anybody give me some OBJECTIVE information on this thing? Have some kind of discussion about it that's not just pissed off ranting? 

 

I really only have two opinions on it right now... 1, I think it'll get built anyway because it'll be too expensive to kill (seems like Cranley has said he's only opposed to it on a practical basis, so he wouldn't kill it if that was the case); 2, I do think it's kind of ironic that we get pissed off at federal officials who go back on their word, but here in Cincinnati we elected a mayor who is doing exactly what he said he would, and people hate him for it.

[gatorclaws]

I don't have specific numbers so I may be off on some of this, but this is my understanding.

 

The original proposal was for a longer path, but Kasich pulled funding so it was shortened. As it currently is planned, I think it's $130 million + $2-3 million a year operationg costs for a 3 mile track.

 

Roughly $30 has already been spent. $45 million is being contributed by the feds. Track is aready being laid. $15 million in costs possibly going to be added, depending on litigation against Duke for costs in moving power lines.

 

If its cancelled, the $30+ million spent is wasted. Potential lawsuits could cost even more. We must give back the money to the feds.

 

If it proceeds, it will cost an additional $55 million or so to finish ($130 total - $30 spent - $45 feds).

 

Cranley's platform was to kill the streetcar, so I fully expect that to happen even if it doesn't make practical sense.

 

A common complaint is that it's an expensive ride to nowhere, being only 3 miles. Some see it as a "phase 1" operation with additional track being built once people see the success.

 

My opinion... I was against it from the start as I don't believe it will create enough development to offset the cost. Those projections are often built off best case scenarios (such as the stadium deal that came up very short). However, with so much of the cost already having been spent, I think they need to just finish the thing. I'd rather spend $85 of city money for something than $30 million for nothing. I don't live downtown so I've never had a strong opinion either way but I've tried to follow it.

 

As I stated, these numbers are likely off but I think they're in the right ballpark. I don't think there's been a objective report on actual costs for proceeding vs stopping.

[Orange 'n Black]

Thanks for the input. I think at this point the $30 mil sunk cost is moot. It's really about whether or not the thing will drive enough development to justify the immediate and future cost. I read one study that was wildly rosy, and another that supporters reference was done before the cost increased again. 

[CincyInDC]

The main benefit is not to move people from point a to point b.  Yes, it does that, but what Mallory et at. were really after was

 

1. economic investment in properties along the line and

2. stopping the brain drain out of UC and other area universities, thereby

3. populating OTR with working, well-paid yuppies, hipsters, or whatever you want to call them to

4. fill city coffers with tax money that

5. doesn't get spent disproportionately on said yuppsters as it would for families or the unemployed to be

6. re-invested in the city

 

The pro-streetcar side has had to overcome a LOT. -- two referenda and a defacto council/mayoral election when Mallory was last reelected. They are understandably ... intense ... at this point.

 

my 2¢

[Go Skins]

I know y'all are talking about Cincy, but in DC, they are building a street car as well that will eventually go across the city.

 

http://www.dcstreetcar.com/construction/

[|Elflocko|]

The main benefit is not to move people from point a to point b.  Yes, it does that, but what Mallory et at. were really after was

 

1. economic investment in properties along the line and

2. stopping the brain drain out of UC and other area universities, thereby

3. populating OTR with working, well-paid yuppies, hipsters, or whatever you want to call them to

4. fill city coffers with tax money that

5. doesn't get spent disproportionately on said yuppsters as it would for families or the unemployed to be

6. re-invested in the city

 

The pro-streetcar side has had to overcome a LOT. -- two referenda and a defacto council/mayoral election when Mallory was last reelected. They are understandably ... intense ... at this point.

 

my 2¢

 

Cram it, Hippie!

 

 

:ninja:

[|Bunghole|]

I think the main point of the anti people is that if it's true that the streetcar will go the way of the Freedom Center and not produce the revenue to justify the cost of building and maintaining it, that it better to eat the sunk costs now and be done with it rather than continue to invest in something that will only become exponentially more expensive and never live up to it's revenue model.

 

At least, that's how I understand the anti side. I thought it was a pretty silly idea from it's inception, but I haven't researched it much and I will never live there, nor do I live in Hamilton County, so it's impact on me is nil.

[CincyInDC]

The streetcar is not intended to directly produce revenue -- almost no public transit system is self-sufficient.  What it does is it makes a place more desirable to live in, especially for those recent college grads I mentioned above, and it allows population density to be much higher because parking requirements are lower.  Businesses thrive with all that foot traffic in the neighborhood.  Repopulating OTR with single college grads has been one of the goals all along, and while this is happening already, it is being accelerated by the streetcar. 

 

Fly into Washington National Airport from the west and look out the left-side window.  You'll see a relatively flat landscape with islands of mid-rise buildings radiating out from downtown DC.  Those islands are where Metro stations are located, and while the streetcar won't encourage development on that scale, the streetcar is a lot cheaper to build, run, and maintain than Metro. 

[-GoBengals-]

being an outsider now, and living in a city(Denver) that has almost the exact same thing, here is my take..

 

seems there was the same debate here over the train, as some people act all bitter about it. 

 

in cincinnati everyone has a car and drives to work and deals with the "traffic"

 

no one lives downtown, all of that tax money, properly tax, etc, goes to warren, butler, ky, etc..

 

i think the 3 mile track not only opens some options for new housing near downtown, but people would be willing to walk 1-2 miles to the track on either end. so really the track would service a 4x7 mile oval of users/workers/new places to live to be built, new places to eat, etc.

 

and it can be expanded in the future for fractions of the cost of its inception per mile.

 

Denver started with a semi short one, like 10 miles, now they are planning to run it from ft collins to colo springs or even pueblo(still a single straight line, but 100-200 miles long and connecting two military towns.

 

there are nothing but townhomes and condos lining the highway now at the stops of the railway. its very obvious that the youth on the city strive on living in these areas, and bars, restraunts, etc all pop up around them as well, i have lunch hat a bar/grille thats at the railway stop, great food from breakfast to hand made burgers to late night bar scene.

 

so attached to a parking garage at the south most point is 4 huge apartment and condo complexes, a free parking garage for those living south of there and commuting to the railway to get downtown avoiding traffic, and its got a strip of 8-10 shops and food places there, which is super amazing and convenient.. and they would 100% NOT be there otherwise.. the big mall is 3 miles away, but that 3 miles is 25 minutes at lunch hour...

 

within 5 years of the street car you should see new rejuvenated living options and once those pop up, new food options, and entertainment options..and if those have any succes it will be a tornado of growth for that area... which is clearly the endgame... if i still lived there, i would never use the street car in my life, but think of the new parking lots for sports game that can be 3 miles away, 2 miles away, 1 mile away... in addition to the other things mentioned..

 

clearly the street car is a money loss as almost every public transportation system in the country is a money pit... but if it allows for a 4 x 7 mile bubble of growth, housing, and businss... its worth every penny... no one will know how well its going to go for at least 3-5 years after its built..

 

then imagine if it can expand from northern UC campus to a few miles into northern kentucky.... 

 

the stroit comparison is a good one actually... i was just there and went with a friend from there with family there... downtown is basically closed and the burbs that were normal are filled with huge pockets of trendy places to live and work and appear to be like 8-10 downtowns 15 miles outside of downtown..

 

if cincinnati cant grow in respect to the amount of people living in hamilton county, they are fucked, people will live across the river and places like mason, liberty twnship etc will grow to 10x their size just like they have been for 10 years..

 

 

thats my take anyway..

[T-Dub]

If you look at who owns property along the route you will get a much clearer (not to mention honest) view of who on the council etc is supporting it & why.  It's not really meant to be effective public transportation, and won't be without an extension to Clifton.  It's more a gesture by the city to spur investment in those same neighborhoods and increase those same people's property values by showing a long-term commitment to the area.

 

IDK if it's good for the city or not, time will tell.  It's funny someone mentioned Detroit though, as they have their "People Mover" that has a route very similar to the streetcar. It costs them $12m annually and about 10 times as much as your typical subway system per passenger mile.  It was completed in 1987 with the same goal of "saving the downtown" or some such.  Obviously it didn't. Now, though, they are trying to connect it to a larger light/commuter rail system,  at which point it might actually function as public transportation and not simply a tourist attraction - which is what I think we're getting with this streetcar.

[Orange 'n Black]

The streetcar is not intended to directly produce revenue -- almost no public transit system is self-sufficient.  What it does is it makes a place more desirable to live in, especially for those recent college grads I mentioned above, and it allows population density to be much higher because parking requirements are lower.  Businesses thrive with all that foot traffic in the neighborhood.  Repopulating OTR with single college grads has been one of the goals all along, and while this is happening already, it is being accelerated by the streetcar. 

 

Fly into Washington National Airport from the west and look out the left-side window.  You'll see a relatively flat landscape with islands of mid-rise buildings radiating out from downtown DC.  Those islands are where Metro stations are located, and while the streetcar won't encourage development on that scale, the streetcar is a lot cheaper to build, run, and maintain than Metro. 

 

Right, I knew from the get-go that it was never intended to make money or even break even, it's an investment incentive. I'm just not clear on what level of investment and growth this thing is actually projected to create. There has to be some kind of recent, objective report that outlines the expected ROI from it, right? And I mean specifically FOR CINCINNATI, I've seen a few reports about what other cities have seen with systems like this, but none for the specific scenario we have going on here. The last study I know of was the 09 study, and the price of the system has increased significantly since then.

 

I really like the idea of light rail and I think it's an important development for not just the city but the whole region. But this is a massive chunk of change for a local government to be dropping and it needs to be sustainable. If growth spurred by the system underwhelms even conservative projects, Phase II probably doesn't even happen.

[Orange 'n Black]

If you look at who owns property along the route you will get a much clearer (not to mention honest) view of who on the council etc is supporting it & why.  It's not really meant to be effective public transportation, and won't be without an extension to Clifton.  It's more a gesture by the city to spur investment in those same neighborhoods and increase those same people's property values by showing a long-term commitment to the area.

 

IDK if it's good for the city or not, time will tell.  It's funny someone mentioned Detroit though, as they have their "People Mover" that has a route very similar to the streetcar. It costs them $12m annually and about 10 times as much as your typical subway system per passenger mile.  It was completed in 1987 with the same goal of "saving the downtown" or some such.  Obviously it didn't. Now, though, they are trying to connect it to a larger light/commuter rail system,  at which point it might actually function as public transportation and not simply a tourist attraction - which is what I think we're getting with this streetcar.

 

Good point. The most ardent crusader for this thing on my Facebook feed is Mike Moroski, a former teacher of mine who ran for city council and lost. Mike is a really great guy and one of the best teachers I ever had, and he's normally a very level headed person. His posts about this have gotten really vitriolic recently, which surprised me and spurred me to find out a little more about what's going on with this streetcar.

[MichaelWeston]

The main benefit is not to move people from point a to point b.  Yes, it does that, but what Mallory et at. were really after was

 

1. economic investment in properties along the line and

2. stopping the brain drain out of UC and other area universities, thereby

3. populating OTR with working, well-paid yuppies, hipsters, or whatever you want to call them to

4. fill city coffers with tax money that

5. doesn't get spent disproportionately on said yuppsters as it would for families or the unemployed to be

6. re-invested in the city

 

The pro-streetcar side has had to overcome a LOT. -- two referenda and a defacto council/mayoral election when Mallory was last reelected. They are understandably ... intense ... at this point.

 

my 2¢

 

Cbus was going to do it but decided it was a waste of money and went in a different direction. These are interesting takes on the streetcar and I think compelling ones. However Columbus was going to put it just on high street I think, which already has 4-5 thriving neighborhoods that people go to anyway.

[big_dish]

Good opinions from all... Its very much an issue that if built, the impact may not be known for 10-20 years. I've lived in two cities that had light rail (Charlotte and San Diego) and visited a ton more. I personally love light rail- but there were pro/con sides vehemently in each of the cities I lived in, and 5+ years in, the jury is VERY much out in Charlotte still.. its a money sucker right now because it only runs in one direction (North/South), straight line to only one suburban center and downtown with many stops.

 

I think it would be an amazing thing for Cincy to have if it was true light rail- Going to the East, West, North and NKY suburbs. Thats when you take steps towards being a major league city- not a glorified trolley in a thumbnail sized footprint.

 

As is, a 3 mile loop in a very small urban core seems a little silly. Go big and practical or go home IMO. Even if they just started with one line on the side of 71 or 75 going to Mason etc and stopping by Norwood/Hyde Park etc along the way. The longer routes will get a ton riders as long as there arent a million stops.

 

I'm pretty sure the thing doesnt even go to UC anymore, is that correct?

 

I just think its TOO small scale of thinking- but its a step in the right direction. Just wish if it was to be built, it was build to reign in the most amount of riders possible (Downtown workers, Bengals/Reds fans, college students etc) rather than just people shuttling around downtown/OTR.

[Orange 'n Black]

Today the city gave a presentation on the costs to cancel the project, which made the kind of misleading statements that makes me hate this whole thing. Here's a slide they showed:

 

 

Looks bad, right? But consider that they added in money already spent and money that is earmarked by the feds as "costs." Totally untrue. The 29.6-47.2 million line item is the city's cost to cancel the project. The city will pay $69 million (or $54 million depending on if the money in escrow for the Duke litigation is not needed for construction costs) to finish the project. So, as of today, cancellation would represent a minimum of $7 million and a maximum of $39.7 million in immediate savings. I can very much see the fiscal drive behind this thing.

[Orange 'n Black]

Good opinions from all... Its very much an issue that if built, the impact may not be known for 10-20 years. I've lived in two cities that had light rail (Charlotte and San Diego) and visited a ton more. I personally love light rail- but there were pro/con sides vehemently in each of the cities I lived in, and 5+ years in, the jury is VERY much out in Charlotte still.. its a money sucker right now because it only runs in one direction (North/South), straight line to only one suburban center and downtown with many stops.

 

I think it would be an amazing thing for Cincy to have if it was true light rail- Going to the East, West, North and NKY suburbs. Thats when you take steps towards being a major league city- not a glorified trolley in a thumbnail sized footprint.

 

As is, a 3 mile loop in a very small urban core seems a little silly. Go big and practical or go home IMO. Even if they just started with one line on the side of 71 or 75 going to Mason etc and stopping by Norwood/Hyde Park etc along the way. The longer routes will get a ton riders as long as there arent a million stops.

 

I'm pretty sure the thing doesnt even go to UC anymore, is that correct?

 

I just think its TOO small scale of thinking- but its a step in the right direction. Just wish if it was to be built, it was build to reign in the most amount of riders possible (Downtown workers, Bengals/Reds fans, college students etc) rather than just people shuttling around downtown/OTR.

 

I think light rail connecting outer areas to downtown would be AWESOME. I'd freaking love to hop on a train in the west side and get downtown. 

[T-Dub]

Correct in that it is not connecting to Clifton.  I can tell you, however, that when they repaved lower Clifton Ave that runs down to Vine (the most practical rail route into Clifton) they seemed to be widening it and creating a more-easily removed center section all the way up the hill.  I can also tell you that they pulled out an enormous rail interchange at the intersection of Clifton & McMillan dating from the original streetcar system.  One of the workers told me they'd destroyed 3 different pavement saws just repaving a one-block section of McMillan by cutting into buried, unmarked rail. 

 

There's also been a lot of talk about Kentucky extending a line to the airport.  I'm not sure how compatible that kind of system would be with the streetcar.  It'd basically be its own rail line with a connector station downtown.  No idea where Kentucky stands on that project, but given their current state government I'm surprised they still have public schools and paved roads.  In other words a public transportation project beyond shuttle buses for drunken Derby-goers seems unlikely.

 

So basically, for this thing to be at all practical from a transportation standpoint would require more referendums and funding and probably another decade or two of debate.  That lower-Vine/Race St part of OTR around Washington Park is very trendy right now.  Slums and vacants are being renovated and called "lofts" & so on.. (Hey let's live in a drafty apartment with concrete floors in an old textile mill. Did they clean up all the asbestos? Who cares! We're so edgy!) My guess is that the gentrification of that area will come to a screeching halt if the streetcar is cancelled and all that trendy shit will wither up and blow away within about 5 years..  Letting the area rejoin the impacted ghetto that is greater OTR.  Frankly, I think that's what a majority of Cincinnati and definitely the current administration want.  Most Cincinnatians don't live in OTR, never go there, & don't care if there are vegan chili parlors in the neighborhood. Even if they work downtown they don't give much of a shit about any of it so long as the shuttle buses from West Chester & other bedroom communities keep running.

 

Personally I think not having an impacted ghetto as the nearest downtown neighborhood would benefit everyone, and this streetcar for all its flaws and many layers of bullshit has been an effective catalyst for changing all that.  Considering people voted for the thing, I'm not sure how Cranley gets elected on a platform of cancelling it. On a broader scale it makes the city look like a bastion of backwards fuck-ups who can't decide whether to scratch their watch or wind their ass.  How the fuck are you going to take a federal grant to fund a project and then decide to cancel it months later?  Regardless of how you feel about the streetcar project, and I certainly have my doubts myself, cancelling it now is the sort of idiot move that will set the city back 20 years & justify its reputation as some sort of rust-belt hillbilly backwater.

[scharm]

Street car bad idea.    On the basis that this is an idea to spark community improvement instead of feeding a demand.

 

The city should handle this real easy if it was good idea.   Offer to front the capital and franchise the right to operate to private companies.

 

Put it out to bid and see what companies would be willing to pay to operate service and then see if the city could make that revenue work for them.

 

Then you would get a true read on maintenance, ridership, operation costs, and revenue sources.    That's exactly how the rail system in the UK works.   Then you agree to put it out to bid every 10 years and if it's winner you'll have revenue increase for the city.

 

That's how they should have handled the stadium deal but unfortunately put it off so long that other communities were willing to steal the team.

 

 

Right now the way this thing is designed is doomed to go the way of the downtown sky walk.  Which spend a bunch trying to develop it and lure people down there when in reality there was a falling demand to go downtown.  

 

If investors had to put their money up to operate.   They'd be slicing and dicing the population and demand.  

[T-Dub]

Problem being that they already took a federal grant to build it and are doing so right now..  For any practical purposes the debate ended when they passed two votes, took a grant and started building. But "practical" is not in the vocabulary of city politics.

 

Also, this comedy:

 

http://www.citybeat.com/cincinnati/blog-5297-city_canceling_streetcar_could_nearly_reach_cost_of_completion.html

 

I particularly like the part where the budget numbers sound bad so Cranley is going to bring in "new, objective leadership" that will know who's signing their paychecks and give him exactly the sort of impartial, objective report he tells them to...

[scharm]

Another thing to consider most middle/small market cities report fraudulant ridership numbers for their bus systems. They typical boast numbers like TANK transports X amount of people per year.

 

What they don't account for  or make known is repeat users of the service and if people took a hard look at it they'd find they are really only transport a much smaller percentage of the population and committing X amounts of dollars of that budget to do it. 

 

It's just another way to funnel tax dollars into union employment and if you are taking federal money your employee base has to have the right to organize.   Where does union dues go and what party came up with idea of the street car? 

 

That's why it's a heated debate and that's why there was probably never a real attempt to franchise out to private industry.  

[T-Dub]

You're really hung up on unions, dude!

[Orange 'n Black]

Council had its first meeting and apparently it was contentious. Sittenfeld completely owns John Cranley in this video... it's pretty funny. I like this Sittenfeld dude.

 

http://citybeat.com/cincinnati/blog-5326-watch_pg_sittenfeld_pwn_john_cranley.html

[T-Dub]

It's more of a Shelbyville idea...

 

 

[Homer_Rice]

If investors had to put their money up to operate.   They'd be slicing and dicing the population and demand.  

It is true that there has been an intent to slice and dice the population since 1980. The perversity of current economic doctrine is best understood by it's anti-human qualities. Thank you, crazy economists!

 

Another thing to consider most middle/small market cities report fraudulant ridership numbers for their bus systems. They typical boast numbers like TANK transports X amount of people per year.

 

What they don't account for  or make known is repeat users of the service and if people took a hard look at it they'd find they are really only transport a much smaller percentage of the population and committing X amounts of dollars of that budget to do it. 

 

It's just another way to funnel tax dollars into union employment and if you are taking federal money your employee base has to have the right to organize.   Where does union dues go and what party came up with idea of the street car? 

 

That's why it's a heated debate and that's why there was probably never a real attempt to franchise out to private industry.  

If I were making an argument for a PPI scheme, I certainly wouldn't do it this way. But then again, I don't have a degree in economics from Jon Lovitz' "Yeah, That's The Ticket University."

[|Numbers|]

It's more of a Shelbyville idea...

 

 

 

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDuMp2kDxos[/media]