Monday, February 25, 2008

Streetcar Math:  Funny numbers from the boondoggle

Posted by The Dean of Cincinnati

Photo courtesy of here.

Updated information as of Tuesday, 2/26

New numbers show the sustainability of the Cincinnati Streetcar Proposal do not make any sense.  Analyst Cheryl Crowell, who spoke before Tuesday’s Finance Committee Meeting at City Hall, wonders how Cincinnati’s system, at the same size as Portland’s, is going to cost about half the amount as Portland’s to operate yearly—especially since Portland’s “Free on the Square” covers a .8 square mile area, roughly the size of our downtown.  They just raised the other zones fare to $2.05 and this still only covers 20 - 25% of the operations cost.  How far can a .50 fare in Cincinnati go?

Crowell has released an easy-to-read chart that details significant numbers.

Download the full-sized PDF here.

“Cincinnati does not have the same dynamics, nor do we have the same initiatives in place that Portland had ten years before their streetcar, which makes a huge difference in the final results,” said Crowell.  “A streetcar is a people transporter that can have the economic component if the challenges outlined above have been faced.”

Socializer!

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.

John Schneider says:
25 Feb 2008  at  09:09 pm | #

Porltand has over 10,000 riders per weekday. And almost as many on Saturdays.

See here: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=pORTLAND+sTREETCAR+2007+RIDERSHIP&btnG=Google+Search

Cheryl Crowell is not credible on this issue. She is an idealogue.

says:
26 Feb 2008  at  07:01 am | #

The article has already been updated.

says:
26 Feb 2008  at  07:11 am | #

BTW, would an “idealogue” correct information and send updates like this?

John Schneider says:
26 Feb 2008  at  08:23 am | #

^ I dunno. If I meet another one, I’ll ask. But since you’re continuing to perfect Cheryl’s study, such as it is, please note that most of Portland’s Streetcar has free fares, and that they are $1.00, not $2.05, in the zones where fares are charged. These data are available to even the most casual investigator.

The are errors all through Cheryl’s chart posted above.

Why is this important? Because she distributed this work to City Council members and asked them to make their decisions based on it.

Just the facts.

says:
26 Feb 2008  at  12:48 pm | #

As far as fares check out:

http://www.trimet.org/fares/index.htm

I guess the system that runs the streetcar ought to update their information if it is as unreliable as stated.  Funny, you’d think a direct source would be reliable and valid, as opposed to a Google search.

While you are at it also check out:

http://www.portlandstreetcar.org/pdf/daily_ridership_graph.pdf

Note that ridership did not reach 10,000 until this past summer a good five years after the system opened, in a city with a dowtown three times the size of Cincinnati, at twice the densuity, and with a light rail system attached.

I inadvertently divided instead of multiplying to turn a Fall figure into a monthly figure, which I corrected as soon as I found out my error.

I also did not ask the Council to base their decision only on my research, I asked them to have a closer look at entire scope of the project because a few things didn’t seem to be adding up, such as a system the size of Portland’s operating at half the cost?  I also am currently researching economic growth attributable only to a streetcar as well as looking at other factors.  If one is going to give examples in a study, they ought to be comparable.

I have not seen anyone else put the time and effort into finding the same information I have and I would not have presented it to the council if I did not stand behind it.

Anne says:
26 Feb 2008  at  01:56 pm | #

Population of Portland, OR: 529121
Population of Cincinnati: 331285

(so says Area Connect)

Similarly-situated? Sorta, but not if you’re interested in the nickels & dimes for streetcars.

Also, what is this talk about “connecting” up- and downtown? Is there some type of chasm about which I am unaware?

To my knowledge, they are connected by streets (which I take frequently), sidewalks (which I see people using), and the bus (which I suppose people are just too good for, but I took it quite a bit in my younger days).

This nonsense about the “permanence” of streetcar rails vs. the impermanence of a Metro route—think about it. It’s good to be able to change with the tides. (Oh no, the “c” word!) Build a bus route and nobody uses it? Change it to something people want. Build a train track that nobody wants? Uh-oh.

I know, I know, Metro is just too pedestrian (ha) or something. But what if we hired marketers, strategists, etc., to revamp Metro, rather than re-do streetcars?

Either way, let this be a lesson to our town: stop getting rid of whatever it is that makes this town unique and lovable. Then in 50 years our grandchildren won’t have to have a similar debate about the streetcar of the aught-aughts (whatever that may be).

says:
27 Feb 2008  at  11:55 am | #

Anne - your numbers are what are referred to as MSA (Metro Statistical Area) by the United States Census Bureau.  These are also the numbers that were utilized in the Streetcar Feasibility Study I believe.  The numbers utilized for my comparison chart came from Census Tracts of the downtown areas.

Chris S says:
27 Feb 2008  at  01:18 pm | #

Hmmm, it seems to me that if you look at the two areas the proposed streetcar will serve (CBD and OTR), then you look at the census 2000 figures (available here - http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/cdap/downloads/cdap_pdf3574.pdf), the total number of residents for those two areas is 10,827.  The number in that document above is the number of residents of just downtown (3189).  There are also 7,638 residents of OTR to consider.  That changes the analysis somewhat, no?  That would put the density of the area where the route will run (both CBD and OTR) at nearly the same density as the Portland area, much more in line with the relative densities of the two cities as a whole.

says:
27 Feb 2008  at  04:25 pm | #

Just what are the numbers supposed to mean. Is there some thinking that there is firm criteria that if it is met, that a transit system will work?

I suggest that there are no scheme of numbers available that will justify the transit programs that have been presented lately. The plan of the Findlay Market/Downtown is just crazy. Would any of the supporter invest significantly in this plan? I don’t think so. It is almost as if the supporters of such a plan have never lived in Cincinnati.

Of all the things that this city needs, I would think such a plan would not even make the list.

I would like to invest in the recent transit plan but in a different manner. I would like to take bets that the plan will not work. I am sure that we can get some underwriters to construct a long term ( five to ten years) scheme where we can determine the benchmark criteria for the success of such a plan. I would be willing to commit to cover a sizable amount of bets against the downtown proposal. I know it be easier to drive a camel through the eye of a needle than to get any of these pro-transit to put up their money to bet against me.

says:
28 Feb 2008  at  08:52 am | #

dieterschmied:  My bet would be that if there is only enough money found to do either the Findlay Market Link (Phase 1) or Uptown Link, (Phase 1a), the streetcar will go straight up Vine to UC/Calhoun Street bypassing Findlay for perhaps another time. The numbers never counted anyway - regardless of how accurate they are, it isn’t a matter of IF, only a matter of WHERE if your pro-transit’s don’t pony up for the Private/Public money of $20 million.  Then again 3CDC isn’t utilizing their TIF funding from what was said at the Public Hearing last Monday, which seems rather convenient since the highly publicized GATEWAY DISTRICT (no longer OTR you should note) with it’s luxury condos sitting at 12th and Vine. So in agreement with Chris S, we can now add the 17,500 people living in the CUF neighborhoods that might come down and buy those $500,000+ luxury condos on the market.  It would be nice if the worse case scenario would be that the streetcar actually works like the magic it’s being credited with.

JFD says:
28 Feb 2008  at  02:46 pm | #

Deiter #9: “ I would be willing to commit to cover a sizable amount of bets against the downtown proposal.”

If your covering bets against the proposal then you are in fact betting it will be a success.  Good for you, it’s about time you came down on the right side of this issue.  And to think at the beginning of your statement you seemed to be against it.  Thanks for putting your money where your mouth is.

Deiter #9: “I know it be easier to drive a camel through the eye of a needle than to get any of these pro-transit to put up their money to bet against me.”

Why would other pro-transit people bet against one of their own?

says:
28 Feb 2008  at  03:10 pm | #

the highly publicized GATEWAY DISTRICT (no longer OTR you should note) with it’s luxury condos sitting at 12th and Vine

No longer OTR?  500,000+ luxury condos?  What?  The Gateway Quarter is in OTR, not replacing it.  The condos start at 89,000 and Pleasant street phase is getting ready to role out some starting at 79,000 with a max value at the Duveneck being 369,000 and that accounts for only a couple out of 108 condos.

With statements like this it is very hard to believe any other statements or figures that you put out there about the streetcar.

says:
28 Feb 2008  at  03:38 pm | #

For someone who likes to accuse others of funny math, I would like for you to tell me that I am wrong.  Show me 1 “500,000+” condo, just 1 in Gateway.  It seems to be you who use baseless rhetoric to advance your anti-streetcar, and I would say anti-urban renewal.

You have no credibility when you put out “Gateway Dist. (no longer OTR you should note)” This highlights the fact that you really do not understand anything down here.  The Main Street Entertainment Dist. is OTR, The Brewery Dist. is OTR, The Findlay Mrkt Dist. is OTR, and the Gateway Quarter is OTR.  If you do not even understand the basics like this, then what of the more complex?  Get your facts straight first, rebuild your credibility, only then can have an intelligent conversation with you.

Chris S says:
28 Feb 2008  at  03:52 pm | #

Cheryl, my comment was more to the comparison in your data between the populations of the city centers.  Firstly, by city center of Portland I can only assume you mean the area the streetcar serves there.  Otherwise, the number of 12902 doesn’t make sense because the 2000 census data for the Downtown district of Portland shows a population of 9965… The only way I can get close to that 12902 figure is by combining the census data for the areas that the Portland streetcar actually serves, Downtown District, Pearl District, and a portion of the Northwest district.  (These are the districts served by the original line, the comparisons in the streetcar report are to the original loop, not to the loop + the extension) If you look at the areas that the Portland streetcar line serves, and you sum their populations you do come near that 12902 figure (Downtown - 9965, Pearl - 1113, 25% of Northwest - ~2800 (2000 census shows the fairly large northwest district at 13941))

To me it seems that your argument is primarily that Cincinnati doesn’t have the density to support such a transit system, but the numbers you show aren’t representative of the relative densities of the areas served by Portland’s streetcar line and the proposed loop through OTR and CBD.  If your argument is density based, then the numbers, well they kinda matter.

Dieter, so you want me to commit a crime by involving myself in illegal gambling on a public forum, and further possibly opening up the Dean to legal liability?  Not gonna do it.  I’ll put my money where my mouth is when the line gets built by snapping up some dirt cheap property within the radius of the line.  To me, betting on that success is a better bet then wagging around some dollar bills in this forum.

says:
28 Feb 2008  at  09:55 pm | #

Whoa, slow down.......

I did not say that there were $500,000+ condos in the Gateway.  I do see how it can read that way. I will choose my words more carefully and probably should not write after I have been up all night working.  Many developers are sitting on numerous luxury condo units that are not selling, and the new Pete Rose Way Condos are priced up to $1,000,000 so there are plenty of them on the market. 

From the conversations I have been apart of the talk is about Gateway Quarter, Gateway District, and redevelopment at Gateway on Central Parkway, or on Vine and 12th, OTR has not been mentioned in conjunction with it, and I do find that interesting. I also did not say it was no longer considered OTR, just being ommited in conversation. When the Art Academy moved to OTR, the distinction was not made that they were moving to 14th Street.  The Pearl District in Portland was known as the Northwest Industrial Triangle before redevelopment began in the mid to late eighties, which is why I found it interesting, change the name and you get a different perception, that’s called marketing I think.

And lastly Chris, you are entitled to utilize any numbers you wish to justify a streetcar, I am not arguing that. When I was doing the research to make the chart as comparable as possible for all of the systems mentioned, I decided to only use the downtown census tracts of all the cities because of the huge differences in population and the configurations of the tracts, which was my perogative.  The Feasibilty Study I believe, but could be mistaken without it in front of me, used the MSA’s, although I think I recall Bortz telling me at one time that they did not. 

For my research, Little Rock had a larger downtown area and was simlar to Newport/Covington/Downtown Cincinnati, no connected lightrail and they chose to run a less expensive system to connect the two parts across a river, which could make some sense for Cincinnati, especially if the Banks really does get off the ground.

Tampa has the same downtown population as Cincinnati, no connected lightrail, and has used their system to transport people between two activity centers and two parking garages making it also similar to Cincinnat dynamics with our massive commute to downtown offices daily and parking situation.

I have family that live in Portland.  I am certainly by no means an expert on streetcars. From my perspective Portland and Cincinnati are not the same, nor have they ever been. To think that a streetcar is a saving grace for economic development based on Portland’s success is a stretch.

There is not a great deal of people movement already between downtown, Findlay Market and Uptown to justify spending money on a streetcar.  There is however a great deal of automobile traffic everyday from the suburbs to downtown jobs and then back in the evening and I wonder how many of those people will utilize a streetcar outside of their normal routines. 

The Cincinnati Streetcar Feasibility Study is just that, a look at city dynamics compared to another.  Portland’s streetcar was not built as a single tool for economic development, it was built as part of their commitment to transportation initiatives that move huge amounts of people from place to place, curb their urban sprawl, reduce traffic and as a result reduce their carbon footprint.  It worked for them in conjunction with many other things.

While I appreciate the moniker of analyst, I am not one. I also make mistakes just as everyone else on the planet does.  As a resident of Cincinnati I sat in a Streetcar Presentation about a year ago and saw some things that I did not agree with based on my knowledge of Portland and its economic development.  The more questions I asked the more things just did not add up.  I am a researcher, so that’s what I did in my spare time. I have no qualms with being wrong, I would hope that we could have as accurate and as current a picture as possible before making a huge investment. 

What happens if we don’t get a 4600 daily ridership just because Portland’s happened to be slightly over 8,000 when they opened theirs? What happens if we get the thing built and it does take $4.9 million instead of the $2.3 million proposed to run it? What if, with all the hills and slopes in Cincinnati we get more cost over runs than expected? I realize that in development there is a great deal of risk, to me it makes sense to do everything possible to minimize that risk by asking questions first.

Portland is experiencing enough of a crime increase on their system that they have considered curtailing hours and taking away the Free on the Square aspects as well as installing numerous cameras, you can google that if you want, I think a press release from the head of TriMet comes up.  Cincinnati does not have the same perception of safety and walkability that Portland has.  So if Portland is freaked out by this, what will Cincinnati do with it?

I very simply have an issue with a city council telling me what a good job they are doing for me and then not being able to answer questions about numbers that do not add up to what they are saying.

John Schneider says:
28 Feb 2008  at  10:50 pm | #

There has been no crime on the Portland Streetcar.

There has been some crime on Tri-Met’s Max light rail trains, mostly in Gresham, Oregon—about fifteen miles east of the nearest Portland Streetcar line.

Yesterday, eight people were shot at a bus stop in Los Angeles in the mid-afternoon.

Maybe we shouldn’t have any buses in Cincinnati.

Come to think of it, more than 40,000 people are killed in vehicle accidents each year in the United States. So we probably shouldn’t have any cars or trucks either.

says:
29 Feb 2008  at  01:00 am | #

"I am certainly by no means an expert on streetcars.” -Cheryl Crowell

“New numbers show the sustainability of the Cincinnati Streetcar Proposal do not make any sense.  Analyst Cheryl Crowell, who spoke before Tuesday’s Finance Committee Meeting at City Hall, wonders how Cincinnati’s system, at the same size as Portland’s, is going to cost about half the amount as Portland’s to operate yearly—especially since Portland’s “Free on the Square” covers a .8 square mile area, roughly the size of our downtown.  They just raised the other zones fare to $2.05 and this still only covers 20 - 25% of the operations cost.  How far can a .50 fare in Cincinnati go?

Crowell has released an easy-to-read chart that details significant numbers.” -the dean of cincinnati

and the reason you are giving coverage to someone who admits they are not an expert is?

If a lay person is giving opinion, that is fine and they are welcome to do so, but don’t treat it like it is any more than a letter to the editor.

says:
29 Feb 2008  at  09:57 am | #

I have a masters education in planning and economic development and am about to enter the doctoral program, plus 20+ years of direct community experience. You can debate my character, my choice of of numbers and words, or whether or not I am qualified to make statements as a layperson or analyst for however long you want to. 

I am still asking the following questions, which are the same ones I asked in front of the council last Monday:

“What happens if we don’t get a 4600 daily ridership just because Portland’s happened to be slightly over 8,000 when they opened theirs? What happens if we get the thing built and it does take $4.9 million instead of the $2.3 million proposed to run it? What if, with all the hills and slopes in Cincinnati we get more cost over runs than expected? I realize that in development there is a great deal of risk, to me it makes sense to do everything possible to minimize that risk by asking questions first.”

Jason Brown says:
29 Feb 2008  at  05:42 pm | #

I think that my largest concern is the viability of the entire project. It would be nice to have an efficient transportation system on the side on “environmentality” however why would a system focus only on downtown. An easy revenue booster would be to shuttle people from the urban areas such as West Chester, Hyde Park and Anderson. Eastgate and Milford should be looked at. My only point is that if Cincy ever wants to make the Banks viable than we need to fund a proper transit system. My only thought would be that if a certain football team with a long loosing streak did not get a brand new stadium, then we would have the funds to build such a system.

says:
01 Mar 2008  at  10:10 am | #

Jason - I agree with you.  As an asset-based community revitalization EXPERT and RESEARCHER, I can tell you that Cincinnati has had enough forward progress in the past five years that re-vamping the Light Rail System with more emphasis on educating the public in how it will directly benefit them would have a very different outcome the second time around.  It came right on the heels of the Paul Brown Stadium ordeal (for lack of a better word at this time) when confidence in our county/city leadership was not at an all time high. From my perspective, people were afraid of it, afraid of downtown, confused about the objectives of the concept and not so keen about the money side of it with what they had just experienced.

Cincinnati still has to resolve a core issue with the safety and walkability perception between Downtown, OTR, and Uptown which will be a challenge to the streetcar system being successful. If people are uncomfortable walking it, riding it in easy-on easy-off streetcars will not change that. 

With the announcement of (finally) the secured funding for the Banks yesterday, parking issues will elevate challenges we have with it now.  There was also an announcement this week about development of Incline Square(name?) in East Price Hill.  With all this going on, light-rail from the suburbs to downtown WITH a streetcar connector makes much more sense.....and one can then look at Portland’s dynamics with MSA population figures compared to Cincinnati.

I do not believe that if a streetcar goes in first without lightrail that it will be a successful project, and we are just throwing money down the drain to transport less people than expected from their parking spots to work and back, downtown residents to Findlay Market on Saturday/Sunday mornings when they go there anyway, sports fans to their games from parking, and UC students to downtown on Friday/Saturday nights.  If this is the case a less expensive system could be utilized as indicated in the comparison chart for both Tampa and Little Rock - they work well, they were built to serve a direct purpose and the economy of both cities has been boosted because of this.  If a streetcar in Cincinnati is not seen as a huge success, there will be no chance of light-rail happening in this city, therefore I believe we may be winning a battle and not the war, so to speak. 

Economic redevelopment might happen slightly with a streetcar, but with the housing market in the slump it is and the nation riding the wave of recession/or not, I really cannot see how a streetcar is going to single-handedly rebuild Cincinnati’s economy without some other initiatives going, and a complete gentrification, which seems to be happening, will leave Cincinnati with other issues to resolve by pushing challenges off on some other local community.

It would be interesting to poll North College Hill these days on what they think of their rise in crime lately as indicated by the increasing amount of stories about them on the local news channels. First suburbs in Cincinnati are, for the most part, all struggling with revitalization issues and giving them these types of challenges to deal with does not help them. 

As a commercial real estate business owner I understand fully investments/risk.  Utilizing TIF funds and Obligation Bonds to help is one thing, at some time in the future money is going to have to be paid back and if the expectations have not been met and most negatives fully anticipated ahead of time, then what do we do?  Pack up our suitcases, move on, and let other people take care of it?

This is just my two cents for what it’s worth, or not, depending on one’s view of the previous blogs. I am indeed a ideologue, meaning theorist, visionary, an adherent of economic ideology (The Oxford Dictionary. 1997. 385) If those of us out here did not possess this asset, there would be no need for research of any kind.

John Schneider says:
01 Mar 2008  at  10:51 am | #

Cheryl Crowell: Portland didn’t have 8,000 riders when they opened the streetcar in 2001. More like 5,000. You could look it up:

http://www.portlandstreetcar.org/pdf/daily_ridership_graph.pdf

Ridership has doubled in less than seven years. And Saturday ridership is almost as high as weekday ridership.

Sometimes you just have to go and see something for yourself to understand it.

says:
01 Mar 2008  at  02:41 pm | #

Cincinnati still has to resolve a core issue with the safety and walkability perception between Downtown, OTR, and Uptown which will be a challenge to the streetcar system being successful.

A channel 5 story will be airing on Monday that states Dist one has the lowest part 1 crimes of all 5 dist.  The safety issue is being addressed, streetcar or no.  I am the captain of the Mulberrry/McMicken/Main Street Safety Sector and see the numbers on a regular basis.  If safety is an issue, it is primarily as a residual of the past, not the realities of the present.

says:
01 Mar 2008  at  02:53 pm | #

Economic redevelopment might happen slightly with a streetcar, but with the housing market in the slump it is and the nation riding the wave of recession/or not, I really cannot see how a streetcar is going to single-handedly rebuild Cincinnati’s economy without some other initiatives going, and a complete gentrification, which seems to be happening, will leave Cincinnati with other issues to resolve by pushing challenges off on some other local community.

The housing ‘slump’ that you speak of has not hit the area that is covered by the streetcar, including Gateway, and does not, as you allude to, push out residents as these are primarily empty buildings.  It may help to dislocate crime, but is that wrong for anyone, any community to want to do.  Should be say that no community should do anything to help limit criminal activity because it will just go somewhere else? 

There is growing demand in and around downtown and the streetcar will bolster that yes, but the density that we will have regardless will also require solutions that are provided by the streetcar. 

John can speak to the details that you would like answered, and I think it is helpful to know.  But at the same time, I know the details of the development in downtown from the CBD, OTR and Uptown.  I would consider myself an ‘expert’ and the streetcar is a needed component to help support the tremendous redevelopments and new developments that are both underway and planned.

I personally have spoke to John, I personally heard your questions at City Council and I think that we all can come together on this and get our city moving forward for the first time in a long time.

says:
01 Mar 2008  at  03:34 pm | #

John Schnieder

I have family that live in Portland, and even some that work for Metro and other government agencies there. I have knowledge of some facts that are not out there to be googled.  I also have been there on many occasions since I was fourteen years of age, and lived there for a short period of time.  I do understand it, which is why I do not believe it will work here without some other initiatives to help it out.

I am still asking the same question, how does Cincinnati think it can come up with 4600 daily riders between Downtown, OTR, and Uptown. The issue isn’t the number of riders Portland had whether it was 5,000 8,000 or 20,000, then or now. I am glad I have good folks out there keeping me straight, which is what I hope would happen.

Portland adopted a 2040 Growth Plan in 1995 as part of their Framework Plan which includes Regional Urban Growth Goals and Objectives, Regional Transportation and Greenspaces.  Portland also had a major growth in population (+32%) between 1982-1997 which raised their density by 49%.  They had a capture rate of households (68%) Population (67%) and Employment (74%) between 1980 and 2000. Meaning they had a heck of a lot of people moving around and some major growing issues with automobiles and transportation BEFORE the streetcar went in.  They did not build it for economic development growth. 

I have not been able to uncover these types of figures on Cincinnati yet, therefore I cannot compare them although Cincinnati would be hard pressed to have matched that kind of growth in the last twenty years.

John Schneider says:
01 Mar 2008  at  04:44 pm | #

The city of Cincinnati, with about 3,900 people per square mile, is as dense as Portland—without Portland’s Urban Growth Boundary.

And sure Portland’s hsd light rail in many city neighborhoods for twenty-two years. In fact, Portland had thirty-three miles of LRT on the ground before the streetcar opened in 2001.

So Portlanders wanting to live transit-oriented lives without cars, or with fewer cars, have had that option in Portland for a long, long time. The streetcar, really just a one-car train, was nothing new to Portlanders. They will tell you that.

And that’s why Cincinnati’s initial two-mile project will have, at the margin, a significant impact. Think about it.

And no one is saying the results from the Cincinnati Streetcar will equal Portland’s, no one but you, anyway. It’s your straw man argument—something you dreamed up and passed around—not the proponents here. If you look at the economists’ analysis, you’ll see that they estimated that that annualized real estate development attributable to Cincinnati’s streecar investment is about 20% of what Portland has achieved. In effect, they have discounted for all the great things you enumerate about Portland.

says:
01 Mar 2008  at  06:09 pm | #

Unfortunately we are going to have to wait several years to find out aren’t we. For the record, I did not dream up the idea of a streetcar for Cincinnati and then misrepresent, to the public at large, economic growth in Portland as solely attributable to its streetcar system.

says:
02 Mar 2008  at  01:49 am | #

As I read through all the crap in this thread, I am convinced that Cheryl0047 has been the only one that is being objective and the one that knows more of the subject than any of the others offering their opinion.I also feel confident that she has done more research than any of us.

There is one point that seems to escape everyone else either because they are too dense or that they can’t get over their convictions. It is CRITICAL MASS. There is not enough critical mass in Cincinnati and there is no evidence that there will ever be enough in Cincinnati to justify the streetcacr.

We had streetcars at a time when we had more critical mass in this city and the powers that be decided against them and went to tired buses. And at that time they were a part of a transit system. So now some want one-streetcar line to be successful. When we had the streetcar, it was at a time when a two-car household was rarer. Since that time everyone except the poorest have given in to the automobile. And as one who has had three cars stolen in a year period can tell you that the poorest would like to be able to give into the automobile.

I have rode public transit in many countries and I prefer it because I can see more when I am high and someone else is driving. It is common for me to ride bus routes from one end to the other to learn a city. I usually never relax when I travel and surface public transit allows me a period of rest. And I also us it in the US as well when I travel. I have property in Oregon and often plan my trips using public transportation which is made easier with the information about schedules from TRimet on the internet. Even though I like public transit and know how to use it, I only used it once the first time that I went to Oregon and while I never rented a car except once, I always seem to have had Oregonians that would not have me use public transportation and they would be there to give me a ride. So not everyone in Oregon is overwhelmed with public transportation in Portland. Can you imagine what they would feel about Cincinnati’s Metro system, which can’t even provide bus schedules at stops? Besides critical mass, Portland has a system that meets the needs of enough people and with a level of service that makes riding the buses a comparable pleasure. In Cincinnati, Metro provides buses for poor people that don’t have a choice and it shows. Poor people can read and they can tell time, so why do they have to wait forever at bus stops? With this Cincinnati attitude prevailing, there ain’t no way that we are going to experience Portland’s level of success.

says:
02 Mar 2008  at  02:14 am | #

Michael Redmond says:
01 Mar 2008 at 02:53 pm |
But at the same time, I know the details of the development in downtown from the CBD, OTR and Uptown.  I would consider myself an ‘expert’ and the streetcar is a needed component ...

Please explain how you are an expert.

Redmond brags: A channel 5 story will be airing on Monday that states Dist one has the lowest part 1 crimes of all 5 dist.  The safety issue is being addressed, streetcar or no.  I am the captain of the Mulberrry/McMicken/Main Street Safety Sector and see the numbers on a regular basis.  If safety is an issue, it is primarily as a residual of the past, not the realities of the present.

I would like him to comment on how white forces like 3CDC have literally removed blacks from OTR by buying and boarding up their houses. I heard someone say that if you want to get rid of crime, clear the area of people. As captain of your safety sector, does your uniform consist of jack boots?

Finally REdmond claims: The housing ‘slump’ that you speak of has not hit the area that is covered by the streetcar, including Gateway, and does not, as you allude to, push out residents as these are primarily empty buildings.  It may help to dislocate crime, but is that wrong for anyone, any community to want to do.  Should be say that no community should do anything to help limit criminal activity because it will just go somewhere else?

He needs to study economics because the housing slump affects all housing directly or indirectly. For instance, there was no demand fore OTR housing before and when many of the poorer people who once lived there got a chance to move out they did. When the price of housing went down so did rents and people could move and they did.

And does he think that relocating criminal activity will be accepted by areas to which it is located? Does he think the people will just accept it or will they try to relocate it to where it came from? Redmond’s way seems easier to him than dealing with the underlying cause of crime.Perhaps he can’t think that far ahead.

says:
02 Mar 2008  at  02:15 am | #

Question:Is John Schneider the son of Bob Schneider?

says:
02 Mar 2008  at  10:00 am | #

I can also say that I have lived downtown, and worked in OTR the past four years, all while enrolled at DAAP. I walk the streets on an almost daily basis for one matter or another.  I have a great number of contacts that live in the suburbs as well as downtown.  Unless one is downtown on a regular basis the PERCEPTION of Cincinnati as a somewhat dangerous place is still there.  Unfortunately a good number of people drive in to work/play, maybe stay for dinner, and then drive back to the burbs.  To them OTR and even Uptown somewhat (with all the recent publicized crime there) are scary places and I would be willing to make one of those earlier bets that the suburbanites are not going to get on a streetcar to go anywhere outside the Fountain Square/Central Business District once they get there.

I was told specifically on more than one occasion that the streetcar is not being built as a tourist attraction so those numbers were not being utilized for the ridership count (which is the reason why I never used the Saturday/Sunday ridership numbers), maybe it isn’t being built for the suburbanites either. 

I do not have the time to count all the empty condos on the market to show that the proportion of high-end homes currently far outweigh the market-rate and affordable ones(gov’t subsidized), that the areas indicated above are indeed in the national slump, and to explain the difference between a “SOLD” unit and an actual “CLOSING” on a unit. I do not believe I have argued anywhere that people are cautiously trickling in, just not in the numbers that are being “marketed”.

To repeat what I said earlier, the crime rate indeed went down in OTR and it is going up in North College Hill and at UC.  In my profession it’s called a Zero Sum Game when one communities gain equals anothers loss.  Crime is a core issue that should be resolved so everyone gains.

Thank you Deiterschmied, I appreciate your voice of support.

I actually wish someone would wade in and do the work with valid and reliable sources to prove me wrong, the pay is pretty bad though and it involves long hours. It’s a long and drawn out process to find verification because different city/transportation records have different numbers depending on who they were reporting to (have to get these things built under schedule and under budget), then to decide what criteria best works for a comparison with cities that are not really that comparable put all together, and for goodness sake make sure the math is right (Duh!) and that you can verify every last detail.  At the very least maybe someone could resolve the three issues I keep asking about instead of knit-picking everything I say in an effort to discredit.

Interestingly enough, I was never opposed to a streetcar at all as long as it fit an established need, until I asked some educated clarifying questions and was repeatedly told how wrong I was, instead of addressing the quetions. In the business that pays my bills this raises a very big red flag. If it were $102 million directly from my pocket, I’d back off until some significant adjustments were made.

John Schneider says:
02 Mar 2008  at  10:07 am | #

^ No, but the next time I see Bob Schneider, I’ll tell him you asked. He’ll be amused by the question, as I was.

says:
02 Mar 2008  at  10:59 am | #

Please explain how you are an expert.

Both I and my wife’s profession involves dealing with developers and bringing their developments online.  My wife is on the Gateway Project that is in OTR, which is affected by the streetcar.  I am working on a large project in Mt. Auburn that backs up to the streetcar line.  We have both active and passive involvement on many of the developments that occur in the CBD, OTR, and MT. Auburn.  So I stand by my statement.


I would like him to comment on how white forces like 3CDC have literally removed blacks from OTR by buying and boarding up their houses

I would be happy to.  Most of those buildings were already empty and abandoned, even city owned.  The buildings that still have people living in them are not being kicked out.  New leases are not being signed but old leases are being honored.  This is an easy escape argument for those who stand at the sidelines and make assumptions, and do not look deeper into the actual policies of not just 3CDC but any redevelopment effort here.  So I am glad you asked so I can help clear up your misconception. 

He needs to study economics because the housing slump affects all housing

Oddly enough I did.  I also have access to things like the MLS and have FIRST HAND information about sales in and around downtown.  Do you?

And does he think that relocating criminal activity will be accepted by areas to which it is located?

No, criminal activity should be accepted no where and every community needs to do its best to make itself as safe and viable as possible.  When we put pressure on crime here in OTR, vacuums are created in other communities and the criminal follows the path of least resistance.  I could have told you 5 years ago where crime would go next.  How could I know that?  It is because certain communities fits the criteria that has historically been attributed to OTR and attracts crime.  Will I appologize for wanting to decrease crime in my community, never.  Will I ever argue against anyone trying to limit crime in their community, any community? Never.

Redmond’s way seems easier to him than dealing with the underlying cause of crime.Perhaps he can’t think that far ahead.

Sorry you feel that way, but I am the one that is here everyday, even right this minute advocating for my community.  Is my way your way? doesn’t sound like it but I know that OTR is now becoming a community that people are moving to because they want to, not because they have to and I would like to think I have helped get it here right along with many others who say OTR deserves more than being the forgotten, crime ridden neighborhood that it has historically been.

Any more questions?

says:
02 Mar 2008  at  11:07 am | #

I do not believe I have argued anywhere that people are cautiously trickling in, just not in the numbers that are being “marketed”.

Can you show me that the “marketed” numbers differ from the “actual” numbers.  I know what they are here, I know what is out in the media, and I can tell you that even in the most recent sales information that was reported in the Enquire did not account for a single one of the 12 pendings that they had at the time.  My wife is the one who is called by the media about these numbers, please tell me where she lied.

says:
02 Mar 2008  at  11:22 am | #

I would like him to comment on how white forces like 3CDC have literally removed blacks from OTR by buying and boarding up their houses

Here is from an OTR study in 2002.  This was happening long before 3CDC did anything.  This was a process of people leaving OTR because many did not want to live in buildings that were falling down around them.  They wanted to live in a place that their children had a chance.  White or black, anyone would want to give hope to their family.  So you need to re-examine the cause.  If people like me were as sinister as I believe you think we are, then I certainly would not give you the time of day of even responding to you.

“This exodus of both population and economic investment
from the neighborhood has left almost 500 buildings standing empty and hundreds of vacant lots where buildings occupied with homes and businesses once stood. The loss of people, dollars, and jobs has meant a spiral of disinvestment that has left this neighborhood with very few opportunities, and in some cases, deep hopelessness.”

says:
02 Mar 2008  at  11:50 am | #

Here is the historical trends of OTR.  So you are saying “white forces like 3CDC” are responsible for this?  You need to get your hatred and racism under control here and actually look at the facts, not the racist rhetoric.

Households
Over-the-Rhine 1980 1990 2000 Change % Change
Total Households 5,628 4,280 3,594 -2,034 -36%
Total Families 2,398 1,675 1,355 -1,043 -43%

Over-the-Rhine 1980 1990 2000 Change % Change
Total Households 5,628 4,280 3,594 -2,034 -36%
Family Households 2,398 1,675 1,355 -1,043 -43%
Married w/Children 429 186 71 -358 -83%
Married w/out Children 549 212 154 -395 -72%
Female HH w/Children 932 990 823 -109 -12%
Female HH w/out Children 297 154 149 -148 -50%
Non-Family Households 3,230 2,605 2,239 -991 -31%
Single Person 2,265 2,363 1,973 -292 -13%

says:
02 Mar 2008  at  01:13 pm | #

"You need to get your hatred and racism”.......
“not the racist rhetoric.”

Might be more possible to actually talk about initiatives if these concepts were eliminated from the conversation.
Facts mean nothing when people are backed into a corner and have to defend who they are, black, white, purple or green.

Like it or not, gentrification is generally the upper-class “white forces” moving the lower income “renters” and “undesirables” out of a district, regardless of color. I do not remember running across many examples in all my case study work or travel where upper-class African Americans/Other Races go in and change a neighborhoods demographics completely to obtain a more affluent social environment other than perhaps a single neighborhood in Philadelphia that was already predominately black, and a couple of neighborhoods in Harlem. I am not well-versed enough on these few neighborhoods to comment on them.

When a city has a predominatley poor concentrated population, such as OTR, one gets precisely the demographics that have been shown by M. Redmond unless something is done to curtail it -and it has nothing to do with race.  I can cite plenty of case studies where a poor neighborhood has been predominately lower income whites and had the same demographics.  OTR has had the same cyclical results with the German population in the early 1900’s, the Appalachian population that followed in the mid-1900’s, and now the African-American population.

Current OTR organizations have attempted to change things for the better thru grassroots efforts and have become overwhelmed with extinuating circumstances.  It all comes back to being able to fix core issues (education, employment, housing, crime) and not band-aid them, or move them somewhere else, hoping they will eventually go away.

says:
02 Mar 2008  at  04:19 pm | #

Like it or not, gentrification is generally the upper-class “white forces” moving the lower income “renters” and “undesirables” out of a district, regardless of color.

Indeed that is the definition, however that is generally not the case in OTR.  As I sited from 2002 case study on OTR…
“This exodus of both population and economic investment
from the neighborhood has left almost 500 buildings standing empty and hundreds of vacant lots where buildings occupied with homes and businesses once stood. The loss of people, dollars, and jobs has meant a spiral of disinvestment that has left this neighborhood with very few opportunities, and in some cases, deep hopelessness.”
Rehabbing a vacant building does not gentrification make.  I enjoy the argument, but you just keep missing that one basic fact about the overwhelming majority of buildings that are under construction today.  But if you still disagree, lets start talking specifics, building by building.

says:
02 Mar 2008  at  04:27 pm | #

Responding to item #32 above:

Michael Redmond says:
02 Mar 2008 at 10:59 am | #

Please explain how you are an expert.

“Both I and my wife’s profession involves dealing with developers and bringing their developments online.  My wife is on the Gateway Project that is in OTR, which is affected by the streetcar.  I am working on a large project in Mt. Auburn that backs up to the streetcar line.  We have both active and passive involvement on many of the developments that occur in the CBD, OTR, and MT. Auburn.  So I stand by my statement.

I am assuming that Redmond is either a city employee or one of those that are on the public tit through employment or grants, directly or indirectly. In either case, he probably has a interest in the government coffers and expenditures for future dipping. That he is “working on” a project indicates heis not investing his money in any significant amount. That his wife is working on the Gateway Project tells me he has a double vested interest.

One of the problems with this involvement is that it is a common approach of the City of Cincinnati. Those involved with public projects are a small number of paid city hall groupies who have very little, if any, personal assets at risk. In fact, it is a common scenario in this city. These people make decisions as if they are spending the money of others and the goal seems to be to keep the projects going no matter the facts that they are not economically feasible or the best for the public.
In the current case, it can be said that the streetcar has positive attributes and that it will, to some degree, however slight, have an effect on the Gateway Project. But the streetcar is not going to have any significant effect on the Gateway Project or any other project. Those close to the Gateway Project are all for the insignificance of the streetcar so long as other pay for it.

Until Redmond can show a financial analysis where the streetcar’s existence will increase the property values of the area to a significant level and/or that the area will increase is tax-paying population to a level where there will be a significant increase in tax revenues to give a return on investment that will justify the expenditure, then I might concede Redmond has expertise. Of course, if he could do that, he could approach property owners/investors to pay for the streetcar or pass a bond issue (that has to be paid back) to pay for the streetcar instead of asking the rest of us to pay for his folly.

I am sorry but I have heard too many sales spiels where the salesman had never and would never spend his own money on the product he is selling.

By the way, here is a website on the Gateway Project which has a lot of real facts to give justification to the rosy forecasts of those that a far from objective. Look at the referenced sources.


http://americancity.org/article.php?id_article=108

says:
02 Mar 2008  at  04:44 pm | #

I finally had a minute to read this:

http://www.cincinnatibeacon.com/index.php/content/comments/stuff_white_people_like

Interesting perspective of gentrification which I whole-heartedly agree with where Cincinnati is concerned.

Along those lines, in asset mapping there is usually a power structure behind change of any kind........ever notice who in Cincinnati sits at the top of three major Economic forces and who in Cincinnati seems to have the greatest interests in downtown development?

Just some food for thought.......but hey, I have been told that I’m just someone who dreams things up!

says:
02 Mar 2008  at  04:50 pm | #

In reference to 35 and 35 above:

I am not sure what Redmond is trying to tell us with the statistics. This city has lost population every year from 1960; that should be common knowledge.

For years, property owners (investors) have been blamed for deteriorating buildings by government and those who can’t seem to blame their government for anything. There was no conspiracy between the thousands of property owners as is implied. These owners reached the decisions to curtail investment individually based on economic principles of the economic system that the majority prefer in this country. If there is any one entity that should feel guilt it is city hall which reflects the priorities of the collective. Until we deal with the wealth disparity, Cincinnati will continue to have the problems that our society wants to ignore. I am not blaming 3CDC for the problems but their intended solutions are mere band-aids and another attempt to ignore or cover-up the problems.

John Schneider says:
02 Mar 2008  at  05:21 pm | #

At this pont, Michael, I suspect you’re beginning to understand that arguing with Cheryl and Dieter on this subject is like wrestling a pig. While you just get tired and dirty in the process, you start to realize the pig actually enjoys it.

says:
02 Mar 2008  at  05:27 pm | #

I am assuming that Redmond is either a city employee or one of those that are on the public tit through employment or grants, directly or indirectly.

I do not work for the city or on the public tit.  I work for Comey and Shepherd City Office and advice developers on everything from location, pricing and phasing.  So I would say that I have nothing but a personal interest as I both do this for a living and I live in the same area that I work.


I am sorry but I have heard too many sales spiels where the salesman had never and would never spend his own money on the product he is selling.

I live on Mulberry Street in OTR.  I work on Liberty and Main.  How about you?  Like I said, I do not make a dime off the city, I make a money off of successful developments.  What do you do?


By the way, here is a website on the Gateway Project which has a lot of real facts to give justification to the rosy forecasts of those that a far from objective. Look at the referenced sources.

Does anyone take you seriously?  You site the opinions of another blogger who simply says they drew their opinionated conclusions from these legitimate sources.

says:
02 Mar 2008  at  05:31 pm | #

You are correct John.  It is idiocy to be arguing with an idiot.

says:
02 Mar 2008  at  05:38 pm | #

Gee John, how do you know what wrestling pigs is like? And how do you know if they are enjoying it or not?

I really haven’t been following this debate, but comparing people who disagree with you to pigs seems a little dirty to me.

Michael, isn’t it true that it was after 2002 that 3CDC took the place of the planning department, started receiving money from the city and buying up some 200 buildings in OTR? In some cases they tell the owners that they want to buy their building but only if they are vacated.

I don’t think anybody has a problem with people buying and fixing up abandoned buildings. It’s just when they push out current residents as opposed to concentrating on taking care of abandoned buildings first that people complain, especially when they are being subsidized by our tax dollars to do that.

says:
02 Mar 2008  at  05:40 pm | #

Dieter


I would like him to comment on how white forces like 3CDC have literally removed blacks from OTR by buying and boarding up their houses

vs.

Dieter


This city has lost population every year from 1960; that should be common knowledge.

Do you have a split personality or do you just forget the stuff you write?  Do you honestly not get my reasoning for giving you, not my words, but studies done on declining populations that you blame 3CDC for?

says:
02 Mar 2008  at  05:45 pm | #

Michael and John, you guys need to read our rules. It is fine to disagree with people and we encourage lively debate here, but please refrain from calling people pigs or idiots. It is obviously very disrepectful and it makes you guys look really bad, not the people you are arguing with.

says:
02 Mar 2008  at  05:51 pm | #

In some cases they tell the owners that they want to buy their building but only if they are vacated.

And in many cases those buildings were not bought.  There was an instance on 14th and Race that a building that was owned by the Over the Rhine Foundation that was declared the largest drug hotspot in OTR by dist 1 would not be purchased with this same problem in place. 

Justin, do they push people out of the buildings that they have now in the Gateway Quarter who still have active section 8 leases?  Justin, has there been a single building that has been rehabbed by 3CDC that was not an abandoned, vacant building?  Is 13th and Republic being rehabbed right now for low income?  Has Mary Burke and Karen Blatt both coming under 3CDC to do multiple low income houses in Gateway?  Is there special financing for people who are below the medium income levels on current condos in Gateway?

It’s just when they push out current residents as opposed to concentrating on taking care of abandoned buildings first that people complain

What building that is under phase I and II was an occupied building?  Bremen? Duveneck? Duncanson? Centennial? the Gateway building?  Were they occupied Justin?  Did they kick anyone out?  I will go by Dieters standards and say if you can tell me some specifics, some names then I will concede that you are correct.  But I am curious to hear your answers.

says:
02 Mar 2008  at  05:56 pm | #

Justin, you have got to be joking.  I will tell you what, I will stop even putting my opinion in here and let you guys city bash amongst yourselves.  If you just want to believe any conspiracy theory that is floating out there, then more power to you.

says:
02 Mar 2008  at  07:00 pm | #

Well Michael, the business that pays my bills is a commercial real estate development/investment business with almost thirty years of experience behind it.  First rule of thumb for me is to know what one is investing in.

We have gone from legitimate research (with one major number faux-pas that was corrected expediantly), that I do on a daily basis, to arguing over whether or not OTR is being gentrified and numerous other topics in-between.

I told you that I was not opposed to a streetcar if it meets a need.  I am still looking for that legitimate need and questioning costs. 

If you want to go space by space and lot by lot in OTR, I can do that as well.  I am wondering what the specific point would be though?  As an investor talking with I assume, a broker(?) I am not impressed so far.

says:
02 Mar 2008  at  11:06 pm | #

Cheryl,

We have gone from legitimate research (with one major number faux-pas that was corrected expediantly), that I do on a daily basis, to arguing over whether or not OTR is being gentrified and numerous other topics in-between.

Are these your words?

“Like it or not, gentrification is generally the upper-class “white forces” moving the lower income “renters” and “undesirables” out of a district, regardless of color.”

If you want to go space by space and lot by lot in OTR, I can do that as well.  I am wondering what the specific point would be though?

Did you forget your own post that said....

Like it or not, gentrification is generally the upper-class “white forces” moving the lower income “renters” and “undesirables” out of a district, regardless of color.

And


Interesting perspective of gentrification which I whole-heartedly agree with where Cincinnati is concerned.

and I responded to you about the realities of what has happened down here.  So that was the point. 

I told you that I was not opposed to a streetcar if it meets a need.  I am still looking for that legitimate need and questioning costs.

And I have had to jump in here to correct you about the residential developments that are happening now that you have repeatedly misrepresented. 

All your words, so do some research on just the above posts.

“the highly publicized GATEWAY DISTRICT (no longer OTR you should note) with it’s luxury condos sitting at 12th and Vine”

”500,000+ luxury condos”

“I do not believe I have argued anywhere that people are cautiously trickling in, just not in the numbers that are being “marketed””.

I disagreed with each of these statements by you and have told you why.  Should I not have done that?  Should I just let you say whatever you want, true or not?  And keep in mind Cheryl, there are others on here I am responding to outside of you.  People who have said


your uniform consist of jack boots?

“when they push out current residents”

“white forces like 3CDC have literally removed blacks from OTR”

I am not trying to impress you and I assure you that you do not impress me either, I have seen the work that you have done.  If someone has questions, that is ok and should be answered, but the above are not statements, but more accusations.  If you accuse a group of doing one thing and I believe you are mistaken, I should be corrected and I would think that you as a “researcher” would want that.  But somehow that doesn’t fit into your plan does it Cheryl.

says:
03 Mar 2008  at  12:36 am | #