Hot News!
• Freestore Foodbank Battle of the Blogs!
• Cincinnati NAACP President shares update on Cincinnati Retirement Plan
Contact Us
v mail, fax: (214) 481-6464
e mail: click here
On today's date in The Beacon archives, we published:
•Fans find reality not reported by Enquirer (2007)•Open Letter to John Pepper about Disney Characters (2006)
•More Lack of Coverage from The Cincinnati Enquirer (2006)
Events
 |
|
|
Saturday, September 06, 2008
U.C. Study Approves Streetcar Boondoggle
Posted by Michael Earl Patton
Photo courtesy of here.
The recent Uniersity of Cincinnati assessment backing the sugar-plum claims for the proposed streetcar may have brought in a few dollars to the university, but it also shows the standards that enable one to pay for pre-determined results. It accepted ridiculous claims at face value, ignored outrageous assumptions, and cavalierly dismissed focused criticisms of the proposed streetcar in the July 2007 feasability study by HDR Engineering.
Such criticisms also focused on the parallel economic report by HDR Engineering. These reports and supplemental information may be found at the City of Cincinnati website, http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov, and then click on streetcars.
After presumably studying all of this, U.C. agreed that the city can expect at least at least a 160% return on its investment ... after a mere 35 years.
Traffic Congestion
And even that is a dream. To get that return U.C. accepts that the streetcar will be worth $17 million in reduced traffic congestion over 35 years. This is an amazing claim since unlike busses, the streetcars will stop in the middle of the streets to pick up and unload passengers, blocking a lane of traffic every time. How blocking traffic will reduce congestion is sadly unexplained. Too bad—I would have loved to have seen the attempt.
It is Designed for Low-Income People—Really!
Another breath-taking claim is that the streetcar will provide $35 million over 35 years in benefits to low-income people compared to the current bus system. Since the study also envisions large-scale redevelopment of Over-the-Rhine which would result in massive displacement of its current low-income residents, one has to wonder what the basis for this number actually is. Perhaps it is the benefit of forcing low-income families from their homes and maybe even out of the city limits.
It’s the Cost, Not the Upkeep
The study also low-balls operating costs when calculating the return. The U.C. assessment estimates $2.3 million per year, and maybe half of that would be covered by fares. Over 35 years that’s about $40 million. That appears to be the figure used in the calculations although it was not explicity stated.
Naturally, the amount of ridership is dependant upon the fares charged, which the HDR Engineering studies recognized. The highest ridership numbers come from free fares. Even at $1 per ride, which was the highest amount considered, the fares would cover only about half of the operating costs. If one does not charge any fare, then the operating costs would be about double, or $80 million.
This prompts a question: Are the benefits based on no fares being charged and the expenses based on the maximum fare evaluated? The study doesn’t say. The question is important because much of Portland’s ballyhooed system operates in a no-fare zone, and even many riders who should be paying board the streetcar in this zone to avoid paying.
See also Cheryl Crowell’s analysis that was published earlier in The Cincinnati Beacon,“Streetcar Math: Funny Numbers from the Boondoggle.” She questions why the total operating costs for Cincinnati are estimated to be about half of Portland’s system if Cincinnati’s would be only a little smaller.
Operating Costs Beyond the Pale
“Beyond the pale” is an old expression referring to poles planted in the ground that marked the end of England’s authority. English laws only applied up to the pale and then one was subject to another, foreign set of laws.
The July 2007 study, which the U.C. assessment approved, is estimating operating costs at about $2.3 million per year, even after 30 years or more of operation. It is not stated how they estimated for such a long period since the Portland streetcar system, upon which they rely for most of the comparisons, has been in operation only since 2001. So, at best, there are just 7 years of actual experience and yet the costs are projected for a period that is over 4 times as long.
Everyday experience, from houses to cars to refrigerators, shows that one cannot use the operating and maintenance costs of the first few years as the standard for costs decades later. The estimated period is far beyond what is justified—it is beyond the pale.
I’ll Pay You Decades From Now for a Streetcar Today
There is such a thing as the time value of money. The study considers that building a short streetcar system for $100 million is a wise use of that money because of the (dubious) return over 35 years. It does not consider other uses of the money which may generate a higher and more secure return. Even an investment at 4% interest would have a far higher return over 35 years than the claimed streetcar numbers.
Democracy and Other Trivial Stuff
Finally we need to take a brief look at the Cato Institute study that the U.C. “study” so cavalierly dismisses. The title tells us what to expect: Debunking Portland: The City that Doesn’t Work, and the Cato study doesn’t disappoint. It is a scathing indictment of how democratic principals were subverted, how a select few greatly profited, how social services were cut, and how facts are being twisted—all to justify and pay for a short streetcar system.
The U.C. paper says that most of this doesn’t matter in its analysis. Leaving aside the implicit statement that democracy doesn’t matter when it comes to deciding on whether to build a streetcar, it then goes on to ignore the twisting of data saying that that was a minor part of the Cato Institute study.
What the Cato Institute pointed out was that urban growth boundaries greatly restricted where people could build. Then Portland allowed high density zoning next to the streetcar line. In other words, the vaunted effect of development next to a streetcar line can be fully explained by the zoning code imposed by the government, NOT by popular will. Some of this was also analyzed in my earlier article, A Streetcar Named Boondoggle.
As for the popular will, the people actually voted AGAINST the streetcar line expansion. Other dangers to democracy were when Portland threatened opponents with arrest for possessing literature opposing the streetcar at public meetings and awarding contracts to insiders. When the streetcar alone didn’t encourage development, the city gave tens of millions in tax breaks and other incentives. To finance the tax breaks, social services were cut.
Given that Cincinnati City Council has repeatedly threatened to reduce social services already, cuts would be almost guaranteed if the streetcar system were built. Given the favortism towards a few developers, we can expect more of the same. Given how council awarded a no-bid contract to 3CDC to redo Fountain Square, no-bid contracts for at least part of the streetcar are highly possible.
Alternatives
Were not discussed. This is unfortunate because bus service has already been cut twice recently and further cuts are envisioned.
Conclusion
The streetcar boondoggle is alive and well. Even U.C. has decided to throw academic standards to the wind and, for a small price, become a mere sycophant instead of an independent analyst.
The studies hyping the streetcar rely on false comparisons, ignore the effects of Portland’s zoning codes and urban growth boundaries, call blocked traffic a benefit to congestion, appear to deliberately under-estimate operating costs, fail to consider alternatives, and stretch the payback period to 35 years—by which time all the politicians who promoted this scheme would be long gone.
I believe a robust mass transit system is necessary. I do not think that a massive expenditure on an over-priced system that is almost guaranteed to fail is the best way to that goal.
Michael Earl Patton received his Master’s Degree in Aeronautical Engineering from the University of Cincinnati.
• Share This Article!
Listen to this article
|  |
Register
Anonymous comments are allowed, but you can create an account above to stamp your name and to avoid typing the anti-spam code.
If you are not familiar with our rules for leaving comments, click here! The Cincinnati Beacon is not responsible for the contents of any comments. Comments do not represent the views of the moderators of The Cincinnati Beacon.
06 Sep 2008 at 02:30 pm | #
.
Great work, Michael !
The greatest feasability study: Say these words three times quick:
Rubber-tire trolley tram !
http://www.specialtyvehicles.com/inventory/trolleys/
.
.
06 Sep 2008 at 03:55 pm | #
JFD VINDICATED! BEACON ARGUES WITH SELF!
A while back, the Greater Cincinnati Foundation commissioned a “study” by UC that concluded something like 97% of Cincinnatians were in favor of helping the poor. They wanted to use this to get the City to reinstate some social service programs that had been cut. I raised some pertinant questions about how the study was done; and the intellectual response I got from Jason, was for him to ask me why I was always such a dick. Now when the same sort of methods seem to be used to support an issue the Beacon opposes, they can’t wait to jump all over them. Let us know how the arguement goes.
06 Sep 2008 at 04:40 pm | #
JFD, I don’t believe the Dean ever asked you ‘why are you always such a dick’.
I think it’s fair to ask questions about both studies. As for public support for funding health and human services there were many public meetings where hundreds of citizens showed up to express their support for funding as well. I didn’t see anyone coming out and opposing them, though obviously some do.
06 Sep 2008 at 04:47 pm | #
Justin go back into the archive and read it for yourself. I believe it’s the one where vidieo was shot of a press conference on the front steps of City Hall.
06 Sep 2008 at 06:45 pm | #
Justin!
Are you being fair and honest with those words?
What else would you expect other than hundreds of citizens, who are wanting to be the recipients of unearned government money? If you were to guarantee an offer just $100. to anyone who would just show up at city hall to receive it, just how many thousands would be inline to receive it?
If you didn’t see anyone opposing the funding , it is because they feel it is useless because the government is going to give it away one way or another. And these individuals will only be paying a relatively small sum as the giveaways are paid for by all of the citizens. Finally, you can bet that those supporter are organized and had good notice of the hearing while the average citizen knew nothing about the meeting and the average citizen had a job that pays the taxes that allows politician to gain favor at the expense of the taxpayer.
You statement just shows arrogance and you could fit in well with the politicians that we have come to despise.
06 Sep 2008 at 06:57 pm | #
Mr. Patton!
Again you have shown an understanding of the issue. I wish we could have, say , six like you with experience and education in practical areas such as finance, engineering, marketing, economics, marketing, etc. so that we could assemble a city council that could make a difference. It seems that all that we ever get are people, whose only skill is politics.
My idea would be to recruit retired experts who would feel a civic responsibility to give up a few years of their retirement to serve for only one or two terms with the authority to clean up the mess we have downtown.
It is only a dream, I am afraid.
06 Sep 2008 at 06:59 pm | #
A study which measures what percentage of an active population supports something is very different than projections for unpredictable futures. False analogy, Bill. That’s a phrase from logic. Have you heard of “logic” before?
Yes, he is. And not everyone who showed up were recipients. Stop being unfair and dishonest with your words. You remind me of Mary Kuhl, who suggested everyone supporting the SILO at a City Hall meeting were being paid. Michael Earl Patton and I made sure we specified that we were NOT being paid to make our comments.
Dieter, your comments are the epitome of arrogance. You get on comments half-cocked all the time and barely make sense. I’d wager that most people really have no idea what you are talking about most of the time.
How much you want to bet? We can have Charles Foster Kane hold our money in escrow until the winner is determined.
06 Sep 2008 at 07:01 pm | #
With PR, a person like Patton could stand a chance of winning. He still can’t do it under Berding’s plan for huge gerrymandered districts. Yet you continue to yammer against PR at every chance you get, never raising a single valid point based on actuality.
06 Sep 2008 at 07:57 pm | #
JFD, I’ll bet money he didn’t call you “a dick”, but as I said I think it’s fair to ask questions about how studies are done. As the Dean said though, I think you’re comparing apples and oranges here. We have more than just a study to back up our position.
dieterschmied, I absolutely think I’m being fair and honest with those words. Why are you pretending that anyone got paid $100 or more to attend those meetings? That’s nonsense and I think you know this.
How would you even know either way when you didn’t bother to go? Do you have a list of the hundreds of people or just one shred of proof for your wild accusation? They are your tax dollars too and if you were so opposed you could’ve gone and you might have even learned a thing or two from the handicapped people, the battered women or the children this money has helped out.
I attended the meetings and know many of the people that were there and I know they didn’t make a penny to attend. And furthermore, the Mayor had the first meeting around rush hour in a place where it was very hard to park, it was pouring rain and many handicapped people (you know, the people that this money actually helps) must have had a very hard time getting there.
The people who get paid to go to these public meetings (City Council) didn’t bother to show (except Crowley and Thomas were there for a little while). People waited for many hours to get their two minutes to speak and they were the type of citizens that pay attention and care about other people. Most of the people left early because there was too many people to get through to speak and besides the response was obviously overwhelmingly in support of funding.
Where have you been? All the politicians have supported slashing the small percentage that goes to health and human services to one degree or another since 2005 and certainly those freeloading welfare Queens that finance our corrupt campaign finance system (you know, the ones that matter to the politicians) support cutting the funding as well. They don’t want any competition for giveaways.
How does my statement show arrogance? I said obviously some do oppose financing these services. As the Dean pointed out, people (like Mary Kuhl for instance) pay attention and do come out against this type of funding sometimes. I bet JFD knew it was going on.
Based on the public meetings and the independent study, I think a majority of Cincinnatian’s support this funding. (Let’s not pretend that UC doesn’t have an interest in a street car running by the campus either.) Unlike council, I was for fully funding the 1.5%. (BTW, Mr. Patton supported funding the 1.5% as well silly goose.)
06 Sep 2008 at 09:05 pm | #
Yes, with PR Patton COULD win but, without PR , Patton COULD win also.
And cows COULD fly if.
And just when did Berding call for gerrymandered districts?
And if Patton were to win either way, he would only be one out of nine. That, sir,would be actuality. PR would have made no difference. IT WILL TAKE MORE THAN PR TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE !
06 Sep 2008 at 09:16 pm | #
I was not pretending anything. I offered a hypothetical based on my experience and common sense to indicate the motivation of the typical people that would typically be attending this type of meeting.
If you weren’t being arrogant, you would have been naive; take your pick.
I would have no reason to suggest that anyone got paid to go to the meeting. I am suggesting that the supporters and their causes would hope to benefit from their attendance. Is that so hard to see?
06 Sep 2008 at 10:26 pm | #
It never ceases to amaze me how people like the author of this blog are capable of completely ignoring FACTS and sticking to their guns about things they simply don’t understand.
Your post sucks and you are simply showing everyone what an ignorant conservative you are.
What are you so afraid of?
This must be what’s going through your head:
”Oh no! Cincinnati is going to have a streetcar system that might actually help the city grow and attract new businesses and residents, yikes! Its going to cost us hardly anything in comparison to the hundreds of millions of dollars wasted each year filling in pot-holes and putting up new street signs, but I’m still so against it. Its actually a smart idea that many other cities have already done and shown great success, but I’m still so against it just because I don’t have anything better to do but be against things for no good reason.”
06 Sep 2008 at 10:26 pm | #
MEP
Jason
The point is not, the subject matter. The point is paying for predetermined results; which is what the GCF was doing at the time, and you supported them in their efforts. Jason, sometimes you sound more like Deiter than Deiter.
06 Sep 2008 at 10:48 pm | #
The anti-Portland Cato study by Randall O’Toole has been debunked several places see here:
Debunking Cato
And if you would see them in action and how they work, it would be clear that they do not block traffic. Their stops are at traffic signals, and the on-off is very fast. I saw a bus today using the lift for a person in a wheelchair, and it sat there through two full traffic sequences.
07 Sep 2008 at 07:18 am | #
JJ #9:
Justin, I want back to double check and your right, it wasn’t a dick he called me, it was douchebag; and he never did get around to anwering those questions I asked.
07 Sep 2008 at 08:17 am | #
Billy,
If a corporation unveiled a new product—let’s say it is a very Earth friendly product that pays a living wage to those who make it—I might be inclined to say that is a very good product. If that same corporation, a few years later, unveiled a new product that was toxic and based on child labor, I might be inclined to say it is a very bad product.
The two products exist separately from one another.
I have not made commentary on UC. But here is the study to which you refer. It was funded by the Greater Cincinnati Foundation.
The study took a random sampling of residents and asked questions, determining the degree to which that sample supported human service funding. The survey was conducted by the UC Institute for Policy Research.
The streetcar study comes from a totally different department, and is created with a totally different focus.
Now, if Patton ended his article by saying it produced paid-for results, you may have a point. But he goes into great detail to substantiate his claim, with cross-referenced studies—like the HDR report even referenced by the UC study but seemingly ignored, as Patton has demonstrated.
So, Billy, if you would like to offer even a fraction of such work for analyzing the weakness of the UC survey, I wholeheartedly invite you right now to do it. In fact, no more repetitive comments from you unless you can do what Patton did—namely, defend a position with arguments based on details and facts.
The UC streetcar report, as mentioned by Patton, references the HDR study but it picks and chooses what to reference.
07 Sep 2008 at 08:23 am | #
Billy, sorry for never answering your questions. I’ll do it now, regarding the UC human services study:
1) How many calls were made in order to get 564 respondents?
I don’t know.
2) Are people who don’t respond to phone surveys, less likely to support expenditures for human services?
I have no idea. Neither do you. If you have a study which shows otherwise, please provide a link.
3) What were all of the other questions that were asked?
The study indicates everything that was asked.
4) In what order were the questions asked?
The study presents them in their order.
5) Did the Greater Cincinnati Foundation pay for the whole study, or did they cherry pick the answers they wanted, and pay for them?
The study indicates the methodology used for creating the questions.
6) What is the difference between somewhat important and not very important?
This, coming from the guy who doesn’t know what “as” means.
Here is a definition for “somewhat.”
Here is one for “not.”
And finally, here is one for “very.”
07 Sep 2008 at 09:34 am | #
Shorter MEP: “Any study that has results I don’t like is fixed!”
Well, get used to the idea Mighty Mouse, because the street car is coming, and all of yor huffing and puffing isn’t going to stop it.
07 Sep 2008 at 10:51 am | #
JFD!
It is gratifying that you feel that I am having an influence on Jason, but the spelling is Dieter not Deiter. The proper pronunciation of German names and words are determined by the final vowel when two vowels are consecutive. In this case, Dieter is pronounced : d eeee ter. Danke Schoen!
07 Sep 2008 at 11:25 am | #
What in the hell are you talking about? Who or what is “...them in action ..” .
I read the CATO report and the link that you presented, which I am sure that few others have done. I feel that the truth lies somewhere in between but the CATO report and the debunk link that you provided. CATO did raise questions that were never raised in the typical references to Portland that we are inundated with by the trolley and light-rail zealots. I go to Portland more frequently than most and I often wondered about the zealot’s claims as I would try alternative routes through the traffic in Portland. I could relate personally to many of the points brought up by CATO, but I am too much a skeptic to place blind faith in any report. While I like Portland, it is not Utopia.
07 Sep 2008 at 05:17 pm | #
The study to which citykin links does challenge parts of the Cato study, but does not debunk it. It repeats the old canard that tax increment financing (TIF) is some kind of free lunch. It is not. TIFs cause property taxes to go up to compensate for the taxes that are diverted. New development means more demand for government services. Since those who live in the new development aren’t paying for those services—or are paying a reduce rate—then the rest of us have our taxes raised to pay for their share.
And there was no response to Cato’s charge of property tax abatements, which mean that they weren’t even paying the TIFs. Nor was there a response to the charge that Portland’s urban growth boundaries and selective zoning has much to do with development by the streetcar line.
The “Debunking Cato” study basically ignores the controversies specific to the streetcar, which is why I linked to the Cato study in the first place.
And the “Debunking Cato” study also glosses over the abuses of democracy that the Cato study cited, saying they might be true but that doesn’t matter.
The on/off may be relatively fast, but if they come to the streetcar stop when the traffic light is green, they are going to stop anyways if there are passengers to load/unload. What do you want them to do—blow past the streetcar stop because the light is green?
Yes, but the busses pull over to the curb lane to load/unload and so do not block traffic nearly as much.
07 Sep 2008 at 08:48 pm | #
MEP #21:
I can’t remember the last time I had a bus n front of me pull all of the way into a bustop, and not block traffic during their stop; so what’s the difference?
07 Sep 2008 at 08:59 pm | #
Gosh Billy, you are SO right. Adding streetcars to this problem will absolutely improve the flow of traffic. What were we thinking?
07 Sep 2008 at 09:01 pm | #
This reminds me back in the mid 90’s when the stadium tax was on the ballot. My economics professor at the time was asked to conduct a study to see the economic impact of the stadiums (and tax, I assume), but just so long as he said that it made good economic sense.
07 Sep 2008 at 09:42 pm | #
Today didn’t go according to plan so I had time to waste. My immediate reaction to the streetcar thing was that no one would take is seriously. I would have taken it more seriously if it were a plan to improve public transportation, but I don’t consider a trolley as serious public transportation. In any case, I reread your initial comments and then went to the city hall link that I never saw before and I was surprised to see the website because it looks like the city manager is for it along with the list of the usual bureaucrats. I thought to myself: “What are they thinking?”. So I tried to see how this trolley and its costs could be justified and I could only come up with one scenario.
Cincinnati will be experiencing what has happened in big cities throughout the world. As the population increases, a segment of society will want to live where it is convenient and demand for the core area increases. There is an affluent market segment that will populate the core if it can have amenities and be isolated from the poorer people and their problems.
The city-concept is more efficient than suburban sprawl. The idea of having a lawn to take care of and driving hours to work and to suburban social activities gets old. When the children have grown and left home there is even less of a reason to flee to the suburbs. If they want the fresh outdoors, this affluent segment has enough to buy a summer or second home as a retreat. The city government wants to attract these people because they use less services, cause less problems, have more disposable income and in general don’t complain so long as they have their amenities and a isolated from the poorer people and their problems.
The city is consistent in its goal of going after the affluent. They have a stealth gentrification program like 3CDC to make housing that can not be afforded by the poorer and that attracts DINKs and those who no longer have the expense of children and mortgages, they are making a disproportionate effort to raze buildings which could provide low cost housing under the pretense that the buildings are unsafe. They have eliminated the infill programs that would assist the rehabilitation of owner-occupied housing except for large projects which can control the exposure of an area to the poorer through isolation, like has been done in Portland and Eastern Avenue. The are taking money and plowing it into the core area, while the neighborhoods get hind tit. They are driving the poor to the neighborhoods that are marginal and can least afford any more costs especially the cost of the poorer people that are being driven there. In other words the costs of the poorer people are being borne by those that are one degree higher than those that can least afford it while the city’s resources are being used for amenities that are more appreciated by the more affluent, who are amused with cute little things. The trolley is one of these amenities.
The sad irony is that many of the affluent made their wealth on the backs of the poorer and laborers. And now the poorer are being saddles with the problems of the more poorer while the affluent are destined to get to hear the clang of a cute little trolley to nowhere.
I can see no need for the trolley. It is something that one might consider if one had everything, was an egotist and had too much money to burn. This doesn’t even meet the criteria for an ill-advised investment. When Cincinnati Transit decided to eliminate the streetcar, I expressed dismay to my friend on the planning board and he told me why rubber tires were replacing steel wheels and the reasons are still pertinent today. The company that prepared the report for the city ought to be charged with fraud except for the fact that they probably reported what they were paid to report to take the city leaders off the hook for a few years. It looks like the city leaders read the CATO report and learned from Portland on how to dupe the public.
07 Sep 2008 at 10:14 pm | #
So what is the Beacons issue with the street car? Do they not want to see economic development in OTR? Should OTR stay the way it is? Lets just what for all those great buildings rot down to their foundations and put in big box stores. I want this gem in the rough to become the residential center of the downtown again. Yes that means the demographics of the area will change, but there are so many empty buidlings that the area could easily hold 4 to 6 times as many residents as it does now.
08 Sep 2008 at 07:08 am | #
I don’t know where JFD drives, or what JFD drives, but it has certainly been my experience in Oakley, Walnut Hills, Madisonville, Hyde Park, Evanston, Mt. Auburn, Clifton, and downtown that the busses pull over to the side and I can pass. I drive a Corsica; I can see where a Hummer might have a problem.
There is a bus stop in front of my house. The only traffic that the busses sometimes block are those that are in the curb lane to make the right-hand turn.
It just occurred to me that if, as citykin (#14) states, the streetcar stops will be at traffic lights, and since the platform takes up the curb lane, then this has the potential of also elminating several curb lanes that are use for motorists who want to turn. This, of course, will further hurt traffic congestion.
Downtown, where multiple bus routes will often use the same stops, I do sometimes see one bus at the proper bus stop and another stopped in the traffic lane. With streetcars this won’t improve. In fact, it may get worse. If the streetcar stops only at the designated stops, where will the busses stop? My guess is that the busses may use the same stops. In that case the streetcar will make the busses, which now generally pull over to the side, stop in the traffic lane, too.
08 Sep 2008 at 08:27 am | #
Chris!
Most would like to see economic development, but the method is in question. For instance, who is to be included in the economic development? Who is paying for the economic development? What is the price of economic development? Will the economic development make economic sense?
Perhaps you could tell us what you mean by economic development. Can you tell us why those buildings in the area are vacant and remain vacant?
Perhaps the emphasis should be on the economic development of the people who have to live in the area currently. Maybe the change in demographics should be from within rather than through replacement.
There are actually enough people with interest in the OvertheRhine today that could make the change take place if not for the government and greed. The area has enough potential to maintain interest and commitment if not for the government and greed. Those that can make the difference need leadership and commitment from a government that will make a commitment that is not filled with contradictions, favoritism, onerous regulations, vacillations and hidden agendas.
08 Sep 2008 at 08:33 am | #
Jason #23:
Atually it will. as the trolly drivers won’t have the option of blocking more than one lane, when they stop for passengers. unlike the rubber tire system you support.
08 Sep 2008 at 08:48 am | #
While we are on the subject of Cincinnati boondoggles, another thread should be started for the Kaufmann Building at 1725 Vine Street, where the city is or has given $450,000. to restore the building. I took a walk behind the building the other day and could not believe what they were doing in an effort of historic preservation while they tear down other buildings that are far more viable but whose owners don’t play the city hall games.
Then a few blocks south on the other side of the street there is another building just south of Liberty that the city typically allowed to deteriorate by roof failure that they now want to save. This building shows the typical commitment of the city and its inefficiency and shallow effort they sometimes claim is a commitment. This building is across the street from where the infamous movie theater once stood and which the city placed all the blame for its demise on a naive but well-intentioned citizen to divert attention from its own errors.
Over the Rhine falls while incompetents, who continue to get paychecks and pensions, reign in City Hall.
08 Sep 2008 at 01:17 pm | #
Jason & Justin hate Cincinnati and oppose any initiative that would bring growth & development to the City.
This has been another edition of Simple Answers To Simple Questions.
08 Sep 2008 at 02:21 pm | #
MEP said:New development means more demand for government services. Since those who live in the new development aren’t paying for those services—or are paying a reduce rate—then the rest of us have our taxes raised to pay for their share.
If a vacant building on an existing street, with existing infrastructure is rehabbed and occupied with tax-paying citizens, where is the increased demand for services? This is a serious question. And even if you are including things like schools, does that outweigh the increase in income tax and the reduced services required of the city to monitor, maintain, police and put fires out in vacant buildings? Only you MEP could see rehabbing vacant buildings as a detriment to the city because it will increase desired services.
08 Sep 2008 at 09:14 pm | #
Please don’t make things up. I was talking about a select few having their taxes go to their own projects and not supporting the services that the rest of us pay for. I am not against rehabbing vacant buildings.
And if property taxes are NOT going for needed services, then why are we paying them?
City income taxes are an important source of revenue, but they do not go to the schools, zoo, senior services, indigent care, metal health levy, children’s services, museum center, and so on. City income taxes go directly to the City of Cincinnati with 0.3% set aside for a bus system. It is no surprise that the city has decided to short the services that, for the most part, aren’t the city’s responsibility. But they will continue collecting the city income tax which does not go to those services anyways.
Put another way, should we pay to rehab a few vacant buildings and cut funding for schools, mental health, indigent care, senior and children services, museum center, and the zoo? Would that be a fair trade-off? Or are people more important than old bricks?
Even if it WERE a fair trade-off, is it fair that only a select few get the benefits of TIFs? There are thousands of vacant buildings over many city neighborhoods, not just OTR.
08 Sep 2008 at 10:48 pm | #
But isn’t this TIF, (the one helping to finance part of the streetcar) in downtown and OTR? Why bring up possible TIF districts and vacant buildings in other parts of the city? I’m definitely no TIF expert, but the financing is based on the improvement to the property. If the improvement doesn’t happen, then the property tax stagnates and buildings stay vacant. If the improvements happen, property tax still stagnates (for a designated amount of time), but income taxes increase, services to vacant buildings decrease etc… I’m trying to understand your position. Are you against TIFs all the time?
09 Sep 2008 at 07:15 am | #
#34 citykin:
There is also an available TIF District in Clifton Heights, which is another reason to bring the line up West Clifton.
09 Sep 2008 at 08:21 am | #
No. The original intent of TIFs was to provide a mechanism to allow the government to borrow against the expected increase in property values in order to have money to provide the extensions of infrastructure into an undeveloped area. For example, suppose there were a few acres of empty land, without roads or sewers, and a developer wants to build on it once the needed roads and sewers are in place. The problem is that the government may not have the money for the needed infrastructure. One could demand the developer make the internal roads, of course, and maybe pay for some sewer lines, too. But maybe there needs to be upgrades in capacity outside the site, too.
One could supplement the developer’s funds with a project-based TIF, where the government borrows against the expected increase in property values of that site to aid in the development of the infrastructure needed [i[for that site. I don’t have a problem with that.
What we have instead is distortion beyond all recognition of that original purpose. TIF money goes not just to infrastructure but to the projects themselves. The TIF areas go far beyond the site being developed but include developed land many times the size of the site.
It has become a sort of candy store for the favored few. Once the candy store (TIF tax money) is cleared out for the few, there is none left for the many. The store is not replenished by some kind of magic. As I stated in my earlier response (#33), income taxes and property taxes are generally used for two different sets of purposes. Once the TIF money is gone, it’s gone.
I have personal experience with this. As I have stated on previous occassions, I have two small investment properties which are in TIF areas. Why should I pay to finance competitors? The city forces me to do this. Well, as I have also said, I am not going to play their fixed game anymore. I know that many others feel the same way and are getting out.
When you were a kid, did you play board games if you knew that the kid who owned the game would cheat to make sure that he or one of his close friends would win? And that you were invited to play only because they needed someone to lose?
Probably not. One of the worst things the city can do if they want people to invest here is to make it obvious that the game is rigged.
09 Sep 2008 at 08:47 am | #
This has been another edition of stupid comments from stupid people.
09 Sep 2008 at 01:28 pm | #
MEP,
1) you’re wrong about “Beyond the Pale”
2) you’re wrong about the buses not causing congestion in Oakley, Hyde Park, Norwood, Pleasant Ridge and other places on the east side. There may be some places that have specific cut outs for them to drive into, but that’s not the case in most of the places i drive.
09 Sep 2008 at 08:27 pm | #
09 Sep 2008 at 08:59 pm | #
By the way, here’s a link to the Dayton electric trolley bus system. The people who run it look like geniuses now that the cost of diesel has surged. Electric trolley busses don’t belch forth diesel fumes and are quieter than streetcars because there is no metal wheel-on-metal rail noise. The systems are cheaper to build and operate than streetcars, which is why Dayton converted its streetcar lines in the first place. There are no grooves in the roads to grab bicycle and scooter tires. And, they pull over to the curb lane to load/unload.
Further, there is plenty of local experience close by. So if we want to improve on the bus system, why don’t we look at Dayton’s experience? As the study stated, alternatives were not considered.
10 Sep 2008 at 08:08 am | #
MEP,
You’re not wrong about the meaning of “beyond the pale.” Originally the “pale” was Dublin which was settled by the vikings, not the English. When the English came, they took control of that area. The original pale was the Viking one, not English, although it certainly took on that meaning later.
So, buses pull over to the curb lane. The curb lane that is frequently a traffic lane? a traffic lane that backs up traffic? or are you one of those jerks that immediately pulls out into the other lane without regard for other traffic so that you can get around a bus? Yeah, i’ve had to slam on my brakes for idiots like you that are in such a hurry to get on with your mundane life that you can’t wait for 2-3 minutes.
10 Sep 2008 at 01:50 pm | #
Must of touched a sore spot here.
Yes, the curb lane is sometimes a traffic lane. I stated as such. As such it is generally used by drivers who want to turn. Most traffic goes straight at the average intersection as drivers try to optimize routes, not spend time weaving around block after block.
Although East Sider never had to slam on the brakes as I go around a bus, the comment is illustrative as to what will happen once streetcars block traffic lanes EACH AND EVERY TIME. There is no “sometimes” or “often” here. It will happen all the time. East Sider is very angry now. Just wait until the streetcars come.
I am trying to avoid this situation. For this East Sider calls me an “idiot.”
10 Sep 2008 at 02:40 pm | #
It is absolutely true that modern streetcars block traffic less than buses do—and by a long shot when a bus boards a passenger in a motorized scooter or a parent with a stroller. They have three door openings on each side, and two of those are extremely wide double-doors that are level with the curb. I’ve seen disabled passengers board a streetcar in seconds, and they don’t have to be tied-down like they do on a bus. That process can easily take five or more minutes on a bus.
The streetcar’s dwell time is less than a bus. While it’s true that some cars will be in the lane behind the streetcar, the stops generally occur at traffic lights, so often the delay is effectively zero.
The streetcar runs in one lane of a four-lane, one-way street. So during rush-hour periods, the adjacent traffic lane will be wide-open and at least one parking lane will be available for moving traffic.
It’s not a problem. Our city’s traffic engineers and transportation planners, plus the engineers and planners working on the project, have been to Portland, shot videos, timed intersection clears, and they see no problems. Michael Earl Patton should go there and see for himself rather than speculating about it.
By the way, Cincinnati’s streets are for everyone, not just your average car with 1.2 people in it. So what if a couple of cars were held up for a few seconds? How does that compare to the rights of the 130 passengers on the streetcar to travel freely? Cities make choices like this all the time.
Many of the postings in this thread are uninformed. Citykin is right on the money with his.
10 Sep 2008 at 09:58 pm | #
Excuse me, but when I asked about this at the streetcar presentation in City Hall last year I was told that the answer was that people won’t mind waiting behind streetcars. That’s not good enough for me.
I have ridden busses many times. It takes a “few seconds” just to move from the seat to the door. That cannot possibly be the total time to load/unload. It is obviously made-up data like this that has me worried. And that just goes along with other twisted data that are contained in the study.
It’s basic. John Schneider says that the streets on which the streetcars will travel have 4 lanes. I certainly question that, too, but even if that is true a streetcar would block one of those lanes all the time due to the loading platform and another lane during loading/unloading. So we go from 4 lanes to 2. And that is supposed to be a 15 million dollar benefit due to reduced congestion. That was and is my point. I do not believe that blocking lanes will reduce traffic congestion. You can’t get around that fact that no matter how fast the streetcar loads and unloads, one of those four lanes will be blocked ALL THE TIME.
As for the “130 passengers,” there are only a few stops. So this means that there would be 20 passengers or more loading/unloading at a stop. In just a few seconds? In wheelchairs, with canes, with kids, and with shopping carts? Don’t throw such ridiculous assertions around. Or does Mr. Schneider mean to imply that these people will be riding around and around and around, never boarding or leaving, like some episode from The Twilight Zone?
Streetcars are 19th century technology designed to overcome the problem of bad 19th century city streets. They still have a use in situations where they can run for long distances on their own right of way—out of traffic. That is NOT where Cincinnati intends to put them.
As I also stated in my article, I do believe that we need a robust mass transportation system. It should serve the majority of the population. We should not be spending so much money on one or two neighborhoods that we have to cut back service on the other 50.
John Schneider says that there are streetcar loading / unloading studies out there. Where are they? As I stated in my article, I was disappointed that there was no attempt made in the study to show how blocking lanes of traffic improves traffic congestion.
So please stop telling me that blocking a lane of traffic helps traffic congestion and that intermittently blocking another lane helps even more. Unless, of course, you can produce a study that proves it. Don’t dodge by saying that if I spend thousands of my own money to study in it Portland I would see otherwise. If those studies have been done, produce them. I am analyzing the studies that have been produced.
10 Sep 2008 at 10:03 pm | #
I have also proposed an alternative—electric trolley busses. I was told at the City Hall presentation last year that these will NOT be looked at. No way, no how. The decision had already been made for streetcars.
And the reason was that they were much less expensive than streetcars and the line could easily be put elsewhere if it didn’t work. That is not a typo. That was the explanation. As in Portland, once the streetcar line is built, the city was forced to give increasing money to the developers until the area had more people living in it. And that is the plan here. No matter how badly the streetcar system fails in its first few years, City Hall will just pour more and more money into OTR—and cut more and more services everywhere else—until the developers are happy.
11 Sep 2008 at 08:01 am | #
MEP,
Isn’t the plan to develop OTR?
If the streetcar pulls people off the road, won’t it matter less if there is a lane that is blocked (just as frequently if not less so, than by a bus)?
11 Sep 2008 at 10:07 pm | #
Great article MEP !!
A little odd that inspite of the obvious, people are justifying it as a way to make less traffic. I really have been looking at the streets during my trips downtown, and imagining the streets with the Portland trolley on it. It is very tight as it is, forget about a trolley.
1. The majority of the traffic downtown consists of cars from somewhere else. The people in these cars will not have the option to take the trolley to work from West Chester, or Hyde Park for that matter. So, the trolley won’t lessen traffic. It will be worse as you said.
2. # 46 Regardless of where it pulls over, you will still have cars, the buses, AND the Trolley, so it would be an easy stretch to say it will be worse. The real issue is the cost . This trolley will cost WAY more than buses,and less people will ride it. I wonder if it gets so bad that Downtown Corporations have trouble getting Employee’s ? If so, then the rumbles of moving will come up again, and the city will have to give more incentives to get the business’s to stay. Adding to the cost. That is a cycle that could spin badly out of control.
3. As MEP pointed out, Portland did indeed have to give alot more away to get the developement along the route, which again adds to the cost. Are the taxpayers willing to pay 200 million, plus easily another 200 million for a streetcar ?
Maybe people wont move downtown because of the traffic? It is real easy to say, “wow this is a cool idea”, until one really looks at the numbers, and other costs. I don’t think the cities study, nor the UC study has taken an honest look at the whole issue. For about the same money this will cost total, they could really look at something good and explore the light rail again. If the goal is really to get people downtown while maintaining a quality of life, that might be a better answer
IMHO
11 Sep 2008 at 10:12 pm | #
Apparently it’s more of a plan to develop OTR than a plan for mass transit. But, as I pointed out, there are a lot more costs than just the streetcar.
OTR was developed before streetcars. People walked to their jobs. It’s not that they settled in OTR because they had much of a choice. When streetcars allowed the middle class to move to the suburbs such as Oakley where there was more space, move they did.
OTR, even if it were gentrified, would still be crowded and lacking in green space. Kids would have almost no place to play.
It will pull some people off the road, but the estimated number is small as the HDR Engineering study admits. Also, as I have stated, there would be one lane PERMANENTLY blocked with the streetcar loading platforms. These would be large bump-outs from the sidewalk. These bump-outs do not exist now. In a few cases they may merely take up parking spaces but it appears to me that they will more commonly take up a traffic lane. If, as claimed in some of the comments, the streetcar stops would be at traffic lights, then this lane would generally be used as a turn lane. These loading platforms alone would cut a 4-lane street down to 3.
Then, when the streetcar stops, the 3 remaining lanes would be cut down to 2. Another of my concerns is that regular busses may also stop at the loading platforms and load/unload passengers there. This has not been discussed in any documentation that I have seen so maybe the plan is to continue the bus stops at the curb. But if it isn’t, then interference with traffic would be that much greater.
11 Sep 2008 at 10:15 pm | #
Today, on Madison Road in East Walnut Hills, I saw a case which looked like a car had partially blocked the bus stop so the bus was angled out into traffic, blocking a traffic lane. It made me wonder: what would happen if a car broke down partially blocking the streetcar route? Or if there was a traffic accident? Because the streetcar is wedded to the rails, it seems to me that all streetcar traffic would stop until the vehicles are cleared. That may mean an hour delay or so.
In contrast, an electric trolley bus has some room to maneuver and may well be able to go around. A streetcar has zero room to maneuver.