Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
-1-cent permanent county sales tax raising $120 million annually -- permits simultaneous construction of several lines.
-continuation of Metro's .3% city earnings tax.
-Metro will be city-run, light rail will be county-run. This divides the staff into two separate unions, eliminating the threat of a complete work stoppage.
-establishment of special property tax assessment for properties within 1,500 feet of all underground stations or other stations that must be staffed. This millage would be adjusted annually to pay for the staffing and operation of these stations (ticket taker, security guard, escalator/elevator, janitorial, etc.).
The lines:
1. in-street streetcar/light rail lines on major arterials that permit the elimination of Metro's highest-frequency bus lines, especially #17, #43, #48. Construction of these lines coordinated with large-scale reconstruction of arterial streets like Reading, Hamilton, etc.
2. Downtown>UC>Hospitals>Xavier>Norwood subway.
3. Downtown>Peebles Corner>DeSales Corner>Evanston>Norwood subway
4. Utilization of old subway, with surface running between Straight St. and Northside.
I give you credit for this - you have a plan. I think it is an overly aggressive plan, but at least a plan.
Relying on sales tax to fund it is dangerous. A sales tax was also going to fund the stadiums but has come up short, requiring the property tax reduction to be revoked. Of course that just took a vote of the commissioners, good thing the voters were not involved.
Why a subway? A lot more expensive to build, particularly through the rock hills surrounding Cincinnati? The original subway tunnels were really a ditch with a roof on it. Why the compelling need to utilize the over a half century old Cincinnati subway tunnels? By the time the tunnels are brought up to current standards of ventilation, etc. the savings if any will be marginal. To me it is just an attempt to convince the public they will get something for nothing.
Just how far will the initial lines go - all the way to the boundaries of the county? If the Eastern suburbs such as Blue Ash, Montgomery, Madeira, Milford, Anderson Township, and Mt Washington who work in downtown do not see an immediate benefit to them good luck in getting that sales tax passed. Same for the north/central such as Reading & Sharonville. Then we get to the west side, just as tough a nut to crack.
But I do understand the ploy has to be we start somewhere, get a core system, and then expand to your area. Of course by that time cost overruns and other escalated costs will mean we don't have enough money to construct a drainage ditch in your area. Besides the public now understands we are totally incapable of actually estimating the cost of a project anywhere close to actual cost. So when we run short we will just go back to the well for another sales tax increase or better yet a property tax since it does not fluctuate as much.
I especially like your proposal for a special property tax assessment for a property within 1500 ft of a station requiring staffing to pay for the staffing. Is this alluding to the fact that someone within 1500 ft will definitely be using the services and therefore should be paying for them?
As I stated, you have a plan, all that is required now is to sell it to those who have to vote for it. Good Luck!
Americans simply enjoyed their best standard of living after WW-II.
One percent tax here, one percent there and before you know it, funding every project that comes along in this manner results in a very large tax bite even from average and below average wage earners.
Instead of Light Rail I do believe it would be wise to do a study to see if the subway tunnels could be refurbished and outfitted with a rail system. This would alleviate a lot of costly purchasing and demolition of properties above ground and avoid the hassle of Eminent Domain being used against private property owners. Only a handful of stops above ground would need to be created leaving little impact on the street scape.
This is a good idea. Few stations located strategically. Few stations reduces the overall costs and will speed up service. I think someone suggested earlier building the stations at existing park & ride lots. If this is feesable, I think that's a great idea. People drive and park now to take a bus, so they will do the same thing for rail.
Quote:
Originally Posted by natininja
This isn't to say it shouldn't be done, but I don't think it's the most obvious place to start, because I don't think it has the highest potential ROI when all the expenses are factored in. I think the highest ROI would come from the Wasson line through the east side. There's already a decent density of residents, and plenty of areas where investors would not hesitate to build transit-oriented development. Additionally, depending on the specific alignment, it would serve some inner-ring downtrodden neighborhoods, which would become much more desirable and see investment. This would be an effective way to spread the momentum of Downtown investment and east side desirability into the places between the two.
Great paragraph! Start going East (and possible north) as I too think it has the potential for the highest ROI. As you mentioned, it might be a great launching point to expand the change happening downtown to some of those eastern neighborhoods.
1. Low platform light rail technology has advanced so profoundly as to render high platform heavy rail virtually obsolete. Low platform light rail with overhead wire vs. electric third rail is the way to go. The light rail lines are cheaper to build and cheaper to expand. Cities with small heavy rail systems like Atlanta and Baltimore can't afford to expand their lines because the mode is so much more expensive and now provides virtually zero advantages.
2. Counter-intuitively, slow light rail lines that function much light streetcars are getting much higher ridership and ROI than are faster light rail lines built on old abandoned freight ROW's or alongside freeways. The prime comparison is Houston vs. Dallas -- Houston is getting much more in return for its in-street line than Dallas is from its various fast grade separated lines.
Why?
Two reasons: in-street running always has station locations in the heart of existing neighborhood business districts AND they were able to largely eliminate redundant bus service.
3. In every city where light rail has recently been introduced, more neighborhoods want it and that motivation has motivated passage of temporary taxes that enable the transit companies to build their systems faster. For example Salt Lake City and LA County passed extra taxes that are allowing 30-year build-outs in 5-10 years.
Thank you for the information. I have done some reading lately, and it does appear that light rail is not really "light" anymore.
Your points two and three seem to support what was said earlier by ubancharlotte in that possible the streetcar will introduce Cincy to rail transportation and people might then be more open to fund it.
This is a good idea. Few stations located strategically. Few stations reduces the overall costs and will speed up service. I think someone suggested earlier building the stations at existing park & ride lots. If this is feesable, I think that's a great idea. People drive and park now to take a bus, so they will do the same thing for rail.
Great paragraph! Start going East (and possible north) as I too think it has the potential for the highest ROI. As you mentioned, it might be a great launching point to expand the change happening downtown to some of those eastern neighborhoods.
Doing the LEAST amount of damage to existing buildings and roads and infrastructure has to be considered along with the cost involved to build a system such as this. I just can't see how it would cost more to ready an existing tunnel for rail vs. destroying what is likely to amount to thousands of existing structures above ground, disruption of traffic flows along major arteries and the need for expensive utility lines to be installed as well. Would be easier to install utility lines in the subway tunnels than above ground.
Expansion after the rail system above ground after the subway tunnels have been used is certainly a possibility if it is found to be more cost effective. That may prove to be the case if it means digging new tunnels but there is little doubt in my mind using the existing tunnels will cost much less than creating a new system above ground to start.
Park and Ride lots are used by the rail system out of NYC. I seem to recall seeing them at subway stops in upstate NY and in Fairfield County Connecticut.
I especially like your proposal for a special property tax assessment for a property within 1500 ft of a station requiring staffing to pay for the staffing. Is this alluding to the fact that someone within 1500 ft will definitely be using the services and therefore should be paying for them?
Probably has more to do with seeing increased property values. As stations become a focal point of development, property values increase nearby. Keep in mind, those stipulations (underground and/or attended station) would in practice only include stations most likely to have significant transit-oriented development nearby. A surface station in a low-density area would not be attended and would have just a couple ticket machines.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WILWRadio
One percent tax here, one percent there and before you know it, funding every project that comes along in this manner results in a very large tax bite even from average and below average wage earners.
That notorious liberal bastion of SLC voted to do it.
-1-cent permanent county sales tax raising $120 million annually -- permits simultaneous construction of several lines.
-continuation of Metro's .3% city earnings tax.
-Metro will be city-run, light rail will be county-run. This divides the staff into two separate unions, eliminating the threat of a complete work stoppage.
-establishment of special property tax assessment for properties within 1,500 feet of all underground stations or other stations that must be staffed. This millage would be adjusted annually to pay for the staffing and operation of these stations (ticket taker, security guard, escalator/elevator, janitorial, etc.).
The lines:
1. in-street streetcar/light rail lines on major arterials that permit the elimination of Metro's highest-frequency bus lines, especially #17, #43, #48. Construction of these lines coordinated with large-scale reconstruction of arterial streets like Reading, Hamilton, etc.
2. Downtown>UC>Hospitals>Xavier>Norwood subway.
3. Downtown>Peebles Corner>DeSales Corner>Evanston>Norwood subway
4. Utilization of old subway, with surface running between Straight St. and Northside.
While it's not a new idea, funding through taxes is at least an idea. I might support a county-wide sales tax hike if it was written in such a way that the funds under NO circumstances could be diverted, and if the law contained clauses to the effect that it would be reduced or eliminated when or if the revenue was no longer needed to support the rail system. It would have to be rock solid.
Reducing the costs of other forms of current transportation might be a good pitch line (one of many) for the building of rail transit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kjbrill
When I hear about the toll propoals I cringe. One of the few major Interstates crossing a river in the US with a toll bridge? How many toll bridges are across the Mississippi at St Louis?
While I'm not a fan of tolls, if it does come to be, it might be another supporting argument for KY rail. If commuters are going to pay to go over the bridge in tons of traffic or pay to sit on a train while they play games or answer email, they might think harder about approving rail projects.
>Relying on sales tax to fund it is dangerous. A sales tax was also going to fund the stadiums but has come up short, requiring the property tax reduction to be revoked. Of course that just took a vote of the commissioners, good thing the voters were not involved.
The stadium sales tax was designed to fail by the all-Republican county commission that devised it and signed the circa-1994 agreement with Mike Brown to get the football stadium finished in time for opening day 2000. The commission did not go to the voters but rather levied the tax (which they have the power to do), this triggered the anti-tax ballot drive led by attorney Tim Mara. They had 30 days to get something like 40,000 signatures and they got them. But the tax passed anyway at the polls, meaning a 5-6 month delay was caused by the citizen objection. This meant Paul Brown Stadium had to be built with tons of overtime labor, and that's where most of the overruns came from. So in short, the grass-roots effort to stop the stadium tax ended up costing the county an additional $30-50 million in construction costs. Meanwhile, as a carrot to voters, the commission promised the ridiculous property tax rollback, which is a grand total of something like $30 per $100,000 assessed value. Since 1996 they have acted as if this rollback was a "solemn promise to voters" when in fact it was a trick. The stadium fund crisis is a fake crisis that the Republicans continue to exploit. The actual hard numbers of the crisis will evaporate once we experience a year or two of 5-6% inflation.
Construction of a rail system with a sales tax is a completely different animal. Rail systems are built incrementally, and there is a borrowing limit based on the projected income of the account. There is no fixed amount out there that must be spent. If there are insufficient funds to build an entire phase of a line, there is always the choice to not build that phase. With the stadiums, there was no choice to only build half of a stadium.
The operations of the system is also paid out of this same sales tax. That's why a legal arrangement is entered into that separates the tax into operations and capital. That way a labor union can't raid funds that have been allocated for construction. That's how cities and counties themselves are set up -- with operations and capital budgets -- and that's why money being spent on the streetcar can't be spent on the police or the pension fund, no matter how much COAST and John Cranley want the public to think it can.
^^ So why suddenly does there have to be a subway from downtown to UC and Xavier to Norwood? The uptown loop was not proposed as a subway. Until Ohio pulled their money it would be part of the current project. Does this mean it was impractical to begin with?
Mass transit people need to decide what is actually required. They just want to project utopia. Why the duplication of rail systems within the City? If the streetcar is a viable means of transportation downtown, why not all of downtown? On the the fringes of streetcar service is where light rail should stop/originate. Otherwise the duplication is an intolerable expense.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
