Past Efforts To Create Rail Transit
Until the recent passage of the streetcar project, Cincinnati was the largest metropolitan area in the US without rail transit of any kind. Pasts attempts to fund regional rail transit have been repeatedly defeated by Hamilton County voters in votes in 1971, 1979, 1980, and 2002 (Mecklenborg, 2011).
First Attempt (1970-1980)
![Picture](/uploads/2/6/0/6/26062495/6471393.jpg?495)
Image Source: OKI.org
The availability of new federal funds geared towards public transit projects prompted the newly-founded OKI planning organization to develop a regional rail system plan in 1971.
The new federal Urban Mass Transit Act of 1970 (UMTA) provided $10 billion in funding for expansion and upkeep of existing rapid transit systems, while also creating the opportunity to cover up to 80% of the costs of new rapid transit systems. "In anticipation of a UMTA application in 1971, OKI developed a 57-mile regional rapid transit plan that would have included at least 10 miles of subway construction in Cincinnati, a tunnel under the Ohio River, and more subway construction in Covington and Newport. Under UMTA guidelines, Cincinnati-area residents would only pay $100 million of its estimated $500 million capital cost" (Mecklenborg, 2011).
However, UMTA awards were only available to cities with publicly operated bus companies. In 1971, Greater Cincinnati's bus services in both Ohio and Kentucky had not yet been transferred to a public transit authority (this happened in 1972 in Northern Kentucky and the following year in Cincinnati), so the area could not take advantage of the funds for implementation.
Even after the 1973 OPEC oil crisis and the successful establishment of two public transit authorities (TANK and SORTA), Hamilton County residents voted down the earnings tax increases in 1979 and again in 1980 (Mecklenborg, 2011). A local funding source was, and still is, required for soliciting funds from the federal government for public transit projects.
By the 1980s, federal funds had dried up for all but the least expensive light rail plans being proposed, which typically called for only minor tunnel construction. However, accessing many key areas in the region via rail would require the deep tunnels called for in OKI’s 1971 Regional Rapid Transit Plan; therefore, the possibility for the proposed regional rail plan passed the Cincinnati metropolitan area by, for the time being (Mecklenborg, 2011).
The new federal Urban Mass Transit Act of 1970 (UMTA) provided $10 billion in funding for expansion and upkeep of existing rapid transit systems, while also creating the opportunity to cover up to 80% of the costs of new rapid transit systems. "In anticipation of a UMTA application in 1971, OKI developed a 57-mile regional rapid transit plan that would have included at least 10 miles of subway construction in Cincinnati, a tunnel under the Ohio River, and more subway construction in Covington and Newport. Under UMTA guidelines, Cincinnati-area residents would only pay $100 million of its estimated $500 million capital cost" (Mecklenborg, 2011).
However, UMTA awards were only available to cities with publicly operated bus companies. In 1971, Greater Cincinnati's bus services in both Ohio and Kentucky had not yet been transferred to a public transit authority (this happened in 1972 in Northern Kentucky and the following year in Cincinnati), so the area could not take advantage of the funds for implementation.
Even after the 1973 OPEC oil crisis and the successful establishment of two public transit authorities (TANK and SORTA), Hamilton County residents voted down the earnings tax increases in 1979 and again in 1980 (Mecklenborg, 2011). A local funding source was, and still is, required for soliciting funds from the federal government for public transit projects.
By the 1980s, federal funds had dried up for all but the least expensive light rail plans being proposed, which typically called for only minor tunnel construction. However, accessing many key areas in the region via rail would require the deep tunnels called for in OKI’s 1971 Regional Rapid Transit Plan; therefore, the possibility for the proposed regional rail plan passed the Cincinnati metropolitan area by, for the time being (Mecklenborg, 2011).
Rail Revisited In the 1990s
In 1993, OKI initiated a light rail feasibility study for the 19-mile corridor along Interstate 71 (see study drawings here, PDF), producing a plan for a rail line from Blue Ash to Covington, as well as a line along the Eastern Corridor from downtown to Milford. While this plan was not brought to the polls, "the OKI board of trustees adopted this recommendation as a Locally Preferred Strategy in 1998," which set the stage for what would be called the MetroMoves campaign four years later (OKI, 2001).
MetroMoves 2002
The most comprehensive and substantial transit movement occurred with the MetroMoves campaign of 2002. The campaign started as a solution to expand and improve SORTA's bus service, but was eventually expanded to include rail based on the 1998 adopted strategy mentioned above.
"Sensing little county-wide support for the long-planned single northeast corridor line, an extensive multi-line plan was instead placed on the ballot." (Pilcher, 2002). Many considered the proposal somewhat rushed by SORTA because Congress was about to potentially re-appropriate the funds, so if they missed this chance, Cincinnati would have to wait another five years to re-propose a rail system plan (Pilcher, 2002).
"One of these lines was to have used the two mile Central Parkway subway, and put into use at least two of the existing stations. This marked the best hope in nearly 80 years for activation of the old tunnel" (Pilcher, 2002). The $2.7 billion system proposed by SORTA would have been funded by a combination of sources: a half cent tax increase would be paid directly by tax payers, estimated at $39.50 per year per resident, which would cover one quarter of the cost. This local funding source was, and is, required to get access to state and federal government matching funds to cover the remaining costs (Pilcher, 2002). The first Blue Ash - Covington line was to be completed by 2008, with the remaining lines to be completed in phases over the next 30 years. However, when the MetroMoves plan came up for vote in 2002, it was defeated two to one in a county-wide (Hamilton) vote. Because the FTA requires local funding commitment before allocating federal funds, the project was dead (Pilcher, 2002). Unfortunately the three Northern Kentucky counties did not participate in this vote. The idea was that unless Hamilton County voted to fund the system, a larger metro area vote would be pointless. |
|
Among those opposed to MetroMoves was Cincinnati Mayor Charlie Luken, Congressman Chabot and the ALERT (Alternatives to Light Rail Transit) group. Areas with the most negative votes came in Indian Hill, Wyoming and Madeira.
After the hotly debated vote, the Ohio Elections Commission found ALERT guilty of using a false statement in TV ads during a campaign claiming the FTA rated plan as one of the worst in the country,when in fact the FTA does not rate any programs. Interestingly, the leader of the ALERT group was chosen as a member of the SORTA board of trustees that same year. (Pilcher, 2002)
After the hotly debated vote, the Ohio Elections Commission found ALERT guilty of using a false statement in TV ads during a campaign claiming the FTA rated plan as one of the worst in the country,when in fact the FTA does not rate any programs. Interestingly, the leader of the ALERT group was chosen as a member of the SORTA board of trustees that same year. (Pilcher, 2002)
Rail on 'Back Burner'
Since the 2002 MetroMoves defeat, regional rail line concepts are periodically brought up in planning conversations, but as local funding has not been secured, no firm planning has taken place.
Developed between 2003 and 2005, the Eastern Corridor Project ($1.4 billion) includes the Oasis light rail transit line, which runs from Milford to the Riverfront Transit Center. The planning for the Oasis Line in particular is moving forward. Some of the funding to cover it, and other rail transit options, could come from parking garages at the Banks, but Hamilton County doesn’t want to give up this source of funding, as it is helping to pay debts related to the stadiums.
OKI's 2004 long-term 2030 Regional Transportation Plan mentions rail as a possible future transportation option, but the document notes that a large light rail network is only a recommendation, as local matching funds are not available. The new thirty year plan only includes two parts of the original plan, and neither specifies for light rail transit; these include: the Eastern Corridor multi-modal component and a streetcar loop between downtown, Covington and Newport, which is a concept that has proven its worth via TANK's popular Southbank Shuttle service.
Developed between 2003 and 2005, the Eastern Corridor Project ($1.4 billion) includes the Oasis light rail transit line, which runs from Milford to the Riverfront Transit Center. The planning for the Oasis Line in particular is moving forward. Some of the funding to cover it, and other rail transit options, could come from parking garages at the Banks, but Hamilton County doesn’t want to give up this source of funding, as it is helping to pay debts related to the stadiums.
OKI's 2004 long-term 2030 Regional Transportation Plan mentions rail as a possible future transportation option, but the document notes that a large light rail network is only a recommendation, as local matching funds are not available. The new thirty year plan only includes two parts of the original plan, and neither specifies for light rail transit; these include: the Eastern Corridor multi-modal component and a streetcar loop between downtown, Covington and Newport, which is a concept that has proven its worth via TANK's popular Southbank Shuttle service.
HAMILTON RESIDENTS STILL SMARTING FROM STADIUM DEBACLE
In 2011, Hamilton County announced that the promised property tax rollbacks from stadium project were not going to be implemented because of budget issues. This broken promise will continue to effect debates regarding the funding of rail transit and other infrastructure investments.
Since 2008, signs are emerging that the tide may be turning towards a future that is more public transit friendly. SORTA reported a 4% increase in Metro bus ridership in one year; the actual range was 4-24% per line (Mecklenborg, 2012). Gas prices have tripled and rail systems in other cities are proving to be, on the whole, viable for transportation purposes and as an economic development catalyst (Mecklenborg, 2012). The City of Cincinnati decided not to wait for a larger regional system, and, despite continuous political battles before and during construction, will have their first street car route since the 1950s (Mecklenborg, 2012).
"Furthermore, since the election of President Barack Obama (D) in 2008, the Tea Party has fomented an irrational suspicion of local government, and local anti-tax groups have authored intentionally misleading ballot issues. Meanwhile our local media, especially talk radio, continues to harass public transportation at every opportunity. The way forward for the Cincinnati area has, since 2007, been the City of Cincinnati by itself. Despite the efforts of politicians, anti-tax groups, and utility companies to stop Cincinnati’s streetcar project, it broke ground in early 2012 and track installation will begin next year. Along with ongoing demographic shifts within Hamilton County, the success of Cincinnati’s initial streetcar might persuade the county’s electorate to approve county funding of public transportation for the first time." (Mecklenborg, 2012).
"Furthermore, since the election of President Barack Obama (D) in 2008, the Tea Party has fomented an irrational suspicion of local government, and local anti-tax groups have authored intentionally misleading ballot issues. Meanwhile our local media, especially talk radio, continues to harass public transportation at every opportunity. The way forward for the Cincinnati area has, since 2007, been the City of Cincinnati by itself. Despite the efforts of politicians, anti-tax groups, and utility companies to stop Cincinnati’s streetcar project, it broke ground in early 2012 and track installation will begin next year. Along with ongoing demographic shifts within Hamilton County, the success of Cincinnati’s initial streetcar might persuade the county’s electorate to approve county funding of public transportation for the first time." (Mecklenborg, 2012).