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.
im pro rail..would have preferred a commuter rail instead of a tourist loop..for rail to be successful it has to have the demand from people getting to and from work..thats why the santa fe /alb train is so successful..its based on a huge demand for people who work in santa fe but cant afford to live there...this streetcar is probably going to have to be fully subsidized as fares will probably never contribute more than a smal percentage of funds
You also have to consider that this line was supposed to be over 5 miles long and connect to the U of C campus which those students and visitors could have used. Kasich pulled out around as much funding as the feds were threatening to take back, so that's why it's shorter. Cincinnatians simply lucked out with their anti-mass transit mayor, but didn't with their anti-mass transit governor. Anyway, I'm sure they'll create a zone around the streetcar which will have to pay extra taxes to fund operating costs since they'll be benefiting directly. That and there seems to be a bit of a better understanding among residents that it's just the start of a larger system: hopefully a light rail that will connect to the airport (of course, that would require the approval of KY in addition to OH, but I could only imagine they'd be more for it with stops in Covington and Newport). And the upside of a tourist loop is that it's way more tourist friendly and that could mean more tourists (hopefully a by a good margin).
You also have to consider that this line was supposed to be over 5 miles long and connect to the U of C campus which those students and visitors could have used. Kasich pulled out around as much funding as the feds were threatening to take back, so that's why it's shorter. Cincinnatians simply lucked out with their anti-mass transit mayor, but didn't with their anti-mass transit governor. Anyway, I'm sure they'll create a zone around the streetcar which will have to pay extra taxes to fund operating costs since they'll be benefiting directly. That and there seems to be a bit of a better understanding among residents that it's just the start of a larger system: hopefully a light rail that will connect to the airport (of course, that would require the approval of KY in addition to OH, but I could only imagine they'd be more for it with stops in Covington and Newport). And the upside of a tourist loop is that it's way more tourist friendly and that could mean more tourists (hopefully a by a good margin).
Your optimistic views are a little more than optimistic, they are just plain outlandish.
The Cincinnati streetcar will be lucky to ever see the uptown loop constructed. This is a vital portion, as it makes it an actual people mover, rather than just a tourist loop. But with all the problems to date. I won't bet on when. You can destruct whatever you wish about Cincinnati. Maybe I should do a much more indepth study about your city. But frankly I have much better things to do, why don't you?
I will concede I have not followed all the vacillations of this project although I have casually followed it in the media by way of 700wlw's broadcast reaching up here in Columbus and reading The Enquirer from time to time. As a native Cincinnatian now transplanted 100 miles northwest I have an interest in what happens "back home." I continue to be amazed at how UC's campus has been transformed since me and my wife graduated nearly a decade ago each year that we visit for a football game and we are proud to financially contribute to our alma mater annually. About once a year we make it to a Reds game and the riverfront does look amazing these days. I also hear stories that Over the Rhine is now the hipster place for night life and yuppie living. This is all great news that I'm happy to hear and it appears the city has its swagger back.
It is this momentum that had me supporting the concept of a street car over the last year. However, my biggest concern as someone whose employment involves municipal finances (and has first hand witnessed the causes of Stockton, Detroit, Harrisburg, San Bernardino County, etc.) is the long-run operating sustainability of the project. Getting any project built is only a fraction of the story. In theory, the 3C rail system was a great idea so long as it remained high speed. But in reality it simply was not financially self-sustaining and would be a drain on the state's budget in much the way Amtrak is subsidized by Uncle Sam. I'm curious if any of you can succinctly outline how the streetcar project will finance its operating expenses. Will it charge fees? Will it draw its funding from property taxes via a tax increment finance district drawn around those benefitting properties? Perhaps street parking revenues or some other revenue stream outside of the general fund will cover the operating expenses? Maybe Hamilton County is sharing in the annual operating cost of the streetcar system?
My concern is that this project is being built on the assumption that there will be economic revitalization in the downtown area and that this is causing proponents to forecast rosy income tax projections for the general fund. All too often such projections fall short or operating costs end up being higher than initial projections and the general fund of the City is left holding the bag.
Also, can anyone confirm if SORTA will be running the streetcar? If so, are SORTA employees part of the City of Cincinnati pension or are they part of OPERS? These are the types of long-run costs I tend to focus on as someone who is intimately aware of the problems facing many municipalities across the country both past and present.
From what I gather it sounds like the streetcar will not generate sufficient revenue to sustain itself and therefore will be paid for out of an already stressed general fund. Then, I must ask, why are most of you in favor of it? Simply because they already spent some money to lay a few bars of rail? Is throwing good money after bad really the best approach for the long-run? To reiterate, getting any project constructed is only part of the story. Operating and maintenance costs must be considered in any budget decision.
And can anyone definitively say whether SORTA employees are part of the City of Cincinnati pension system or if they are part of Ohio Public Employees Retirement System?
From what I gather it sounds like the streetcar will not generate sufficient revenue to sustain itself and therefore will be paid for out of an already stressed general fund. Then, I must ask, why are most of you in favor of it? Simply because they already spent some money to lay a few bars of rail? Is throwing good money after bad really the best approach for the long-run? To reiterate, getting any project constructed is only part of the story. Operating and maintenance costs must be considered in any budget decision.
And can anyone definitively say whether SORTA employees are part of the City of Cincinnati pension system or if they are part of Ohio Public Employees Retirement System?
What makes this project "bad," when all other forms of transportation infrastructure don't generate sufficient revenue to sustain themselves, either?
Basically, as someone who lives in the opposite corner of the state, I'm in favor of this project because I'm tired of seeing roads and highways take priority over any alternative forms of transportation. As someone who doesn't have the choice of driving, it's nice to see a few other transportation options under construction now and then.
[quote=Zen_master;32704132]From what I gather it sounds like the streetcar will not generate sufficient revenue to sustain itself and therefore will be paid for out of an already stressed general fund. Then, I must ask, why are most of you in favor of it? Simply because they already spent some money to lay a few bars of rail? Is throwing good money after bad really the best approach for the long-run? To reiterate, getting any project constructed is only part of the story. Operating and maintenance costs must be considered in any budget decision.
And can anyone definitively say whether SORTA employees are part of the City of Cincinnati pension system or if they are part of Ohio Public Employees Retirement System?[/quote]
What makes this project "bad," when all other forms of transportation infrastructure don't generate sufficient revenue to sustain themselves, either?
Basically, as someone who lives in the opposite corner of the state, I'm in favor of this project because I'm tired of seeing roads and highways take priority over any alternative forms of transportation. As someone who doesn't have the choice of driving, it's nice to see a few other transportation options under construction now and then.
Didn't say this project was bad and didn't intend to imply that. "Good money after bad" is a figure of speech which applies to many of the posts I've read thus far. There are a few that are absolutely pro rail no matter the cost, but the bulk of the posts I've read arguing for continuing the rail project revolve around the fact X-number of dollars have already been spent and the City should just proceed. That's not the most sound argument in my opinion. In corporate finance companies abandon projects all the time when the ROI does not equate to the payback the bean counters said it would.
It's worth noting that many infrastructure projects do sustain themselves. There are countless turnpikes, tunnels, and bridges across the country which charge tolls. And don't forget that fuel taxes are applied by both states and the federal government to fill highway trust fund. But your point is received in that there are many more projects which do not sustain themselves.
My question really boils down to how has this project been sold to the public? Is it being sold as something that will 'sustain' itself via increased sales, income, and property tax flowing to the general fund of the City and County due to economic development or is it a project that will operate on its own viability through user fees or another dedicated source of revenue (parking revenue, TIF, etc.)?
From what I gather it sounds like the streetcar will not generate sufficient revenue to sustain itself and therefore will be paid for out of an already stressed general fund. Then, I must ask, why are most of you in favor of it? Simply because they already spent some money to lay a few bars of rail? Is throwing good money after bad really the best approach for the long-run? To reiterate, getting any project constructed is only part of the story. Operating and maintenance costs must be considered in any budget decision.
And can anyone definitively say whether SORTA employees are part of the City of Cincinnati pension system or if they are part of Ohio Public Employees Retirement System?[/quote]
It seems a lot of the questions posed could be answered if you looked up any of the numerous media articles about the streetcar.
There are numerous with most of them being quite superficial in their discussion of the actual operating plan of the streetcar. Many others are imbued with discussion of the politics of the matter -- this side versus that side -- and ignoring the unbiased facts I'm seeking.
My goal is simply, as someone late to the discussion, to get up to speed in understanding the long-run financial plan of the project. One would think with so many fervent supporters of the streetcar project posting on these boards it wouldn't be too much of a chore to get a brief summary of how it would be funded.
This begs the question - is the support for or against based in fact or preconceived biases? After all, how can one make an objective, unbiased judgment without all of the facts?
There are numerous with most of them being quite superficial in their discussion of the actual operating plan of the streetcar. Many others are imbued with discussion of the politics of the matter -- this side versus that side -- and ignoring the unbiased facts I'm seeking.
My goal is simply, as someone late to the discussion, to get up to speed in understanding the long-run financial plan of the project. One would think with so many fervent supporters of the streetcar project posting on these boards it wouldn't be too much of a chore to get a brief summary of how it would be funded.
This begs the question - is the support for or against based in fact or preconceived biases? After all, how can one make an objective, unbiased judgment without all of the facts?
I've had the same concerns all along. I also have been mystified why the City itself has not made the financial specifics available to the public IN DETAIL at every step in the process. It has made me even more distrustful of city government than I would be otherwise.
I say this with the caveat that some time ago, I stopped trying to find out any facts and pretty much lost interest in the whole situation. I figure if it gets bad enough in Cincinnati I can always vote with my feet and move to Ft. Mitchell or somewhere. I don't understand the viability of what amounts to buying myself a brand new Mercedes when I know my income will only support the purchase of a used Honda Fit. Even though I know the Mercedes would look really good on me when I'm driving around in it.
But I'm clearly not the one making the decision.
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.
