chance.mcgee

Actually, why not use a dark green like the "I <3 OTR" stickers. Its very eye-catching, jives with the pro-environment aspect of the streetcar and ties it in with a like-minded effort.

Sign me up for two, one for each car.

If memory serves, I think the spike actually goes back to mid-2003, when oil prices spiked from the reduction in crude from Iraq. Additionally, the federal government began to buy mass quantities of construction materials to rebuild and modernize Iraq. This lead to rampant shortages domestically and run-away inflation.

Is he for real? You're talking about a guy that used to wear capes around town. Literally, and not just on Halloween. He's basically a short notch above the wacky hat guy.

Yeah, this is right. It may just be that I'm biased, but from my perspective uptown is more crucial than downtown. Until recently I lived in Clifton and the majority of my life has been connected to the uptown area. Its entirely possible if I had more connections to downtown and OTR, I would hold the opposite view. Not saying anyone is biased but we all tend to get how our own little piece of land works, and be blind to elsewhere. That being said, I really don't get downtown/OTR w/o uptown. Anyway, I gotta meet some friends out in the sticks. I might be around tomorrow.

Right, streetcars do both transit and economic development. But the economic development portion relies on the transit being a success. I think without uptown, the downtown will be a marginal system and will be an argument against expanding the system. I get that it spurs economic development, but I think the spur it gives to economic development is fairly overstated. Especially since OTR will be fully developed with or without a streetcar. The only change that a streetcar effectuates is the timeframe. Instead of taking 25-30 years to fully develop, it may take 15-20 years. Meanwhile all that new development in OTR is tax abated and TIF'd all to hell, so the net increase in the tax base isn't realized for 50 years. The only positive benefit from the tax base is going to be from the earnings tax, and I doubt that is much off of bartenders and sales associates. So there goes the economic development argument, except the potential to lure talent here. But if we develop fully anyway, there goes that argument. So ultimately we're left with transit. Anyway, I'm rambling but my belief is that uptown is where the real need exists for the streetcar, and the real benefits. Also, to forestall the inevitable OTR wasn't built for an automobile age. Consider, the cost of development is going require rents exceeding $1/sq. Are you telling me that YPs who can afford that and want to live in OTR are not going to have a car? At all? And the only people that are going to check out these new venues are going to be located in OTR are going to be patronized only by OTR residents? If not, where will these folks park? Loads of new parking is going to have to be constructed with or without the streetcar. The way I see it, the benefit of the streetcar is it will allow uptown students to check out OTR w/o a car and then get them invested in the city. So, in short, as a non-OTR resident I don't see the intrinsic value of a downtown circulator w/o a connection and circulator in Uptown. It would be like the Portland streetcar shorn of its light rail system.

To continue the moon analogy: We went to the moon, then stopped and let manned travel beyond the exosphere languish for 30+ years. Now we want to go to Mars. Unfortunately, since we let the technology lapse, we basically have to reinvent the wheel with space exploration beyond near earth orbit. So ultimately, our failure to commit to going to Mars and going only to the moon was a colossal waste of time, money, and effort. In similar fashion, if we only have a firm commitment to the downtown/OTR circulator with an understanding that we will go to uptown, well, we may just get stuck with a system that doesn't do much. That's why it makes more sense to have a highly detailed plan upfront that secures a firm commitment to uptown. I really believe uptown and its population is key to the streetcar's success. Honestly, I believe that is where the initial segment should be built. It can be great in OTR, and OTR needs it, but I don't think it will show much return on its investment being limited to OTR. But given the reality on the ground, we need to commit to doing uptown in phase 1.

No one travels between Earth and Mars, therefore no wants to go Mars. Therefore, we shouldn't explore options to improve transit between Earth and Mars. Obviously, such an argument is flawed, because people do want to go to Mars. Such travel just isn't easy, safe, or efficient. More directly, you are contending that the data shows people don't travel between these two regions, therefore people don't want to travel between those regions. Thus, you maintain, we should not consider the connector urgent because there is little demand. My argument is that your interpretation the data is flawed, because where people travel is contingent upon the opportunity cost of traveling between two regions. Right now that opportunity cost is relatively high, and that is what the data reflects. Building a streetcar would lower the opportunity cost of such trips between these regions. Jimmy_James: I think that is exactly correct John Schneider: I wish I got paid to debate massive public policy proposals.

Absence of proof is not proof of absence. Additionally, if you imposed the same criterion to the Downtown/OTR circulator you would see light travel amongst the various attractions. Ironically, this is one of the points that Cranley raised in his series of questions regarding the downtown circulator. The flaw in your/Cranley's logic being that if you don't provide easy, safe, and efficient transport between 2 regions then people won't travel between those regions. Metro's bus service hardly provides efficient transport throughout uptown and certainly not between downtown and uptown. To the extent that it does provide such service, it requires a definite level of sophistication about the lines that is not readily acquired by the average citizen.

I think most of us do want construction to begin "ASAP," but that ASAP includes the phrase "possible." To my mind, its only possible once the real hardcore engineering studies have been completed. What I want to see from funding is phased funding, of the CBD/OTR loop. Phased funding buys us two things, firstly it gets us the funds to do the real engineering studies, to uncover any lurking unknown costs. Secondly, it gets us the leverage to approach the interested private parties to obtain MOU's for their contribution (we can't do this until there is at least some consensus from the city that if the private funds can be obtained, the project will move forward). Yes, we do need more studies to determine what the actual cost will be, but we need a framework in place to move forward (up to a certain estimated dollar amount) I am not opposed to any of the means of funding you suggest. They come with their own political obstacles, but none should be ruled out, out of hand. I don't really think that the fundamental objection to Qualls motion is that it requires further study. I think the fundamental objection is that it is too tightly integrated with the phase 1B/phase 2 (whatever the heck you want to call it) Uptown portion of the line. We already know that wherever the downtown line is placed, we will be able (technically) to make it up the hill to Uptown. What most of us are upset about is that Qualls' motion requires the funding to be in place for BOTH uptown and downtown before downtown can move forward. This to our minds is too tight of a tie in between what are in essence two disparate systems, with completely different funding options etc. The secondary objection is based upon that tie in. We want to make sure that whatever project we move forward on, it is a manageable size and dollar amount. Its more than just throwing 80 additional million onto the cost, its the scale of the proposed "one go" system buildout. Its larger than anyone else has built, and the evidence from other cities suggests that it would be prudent to keep the scale manageable (see Atlanta) I see your point about the costs being stable even if the route is changed. The question is whether the city will be able to secure financing under such a scenario. Investors like certainty and variability in the build-out is not certainty. Regardless, I think the gist of your argument is that we require a financing plan to reach out to private entities and get them to chip in. That seems backward. Consider: when a private developer wants city money for a project he/she/they have to prove they have $X in hand to spend and the project costs $(X+Y), therefore the city should contribute $Y. It seems to me the streetcar is a photographic negative of that situation. How have we arrived at our value for Y in the streetcar scenario? Moreover, what are the tradeoffs required to generate X? As to Qualls' motion requiring financing for both portions prior to any construction: it is necessary for the project to succeed, politically and functionally. Commitment (real commitment, not just words) to going to Uptown is a hedge against the possibility of failure downtown and in OTR. Uptown is an exciting, developed place and has a "captive audience" of UC students that will ride the streetcar. It also is the hub for the city, it shows the streetcar can be a city-wide system. I know the argument that everywhere the streetcars have been done economic development has followed. A few rejoinders: 1. Correlation does not prove causation. There may be other independent variables at work. 2. Small sample-size. 3. Cincinnati's composition is radically different from these liberal, racially homogenous, well-planned, formalized street-grid Northwest towns that so love the streetcar. (Tampa and Little Rock being aberrations since they are primarily tourist attractions). So at any rate, I think giving these issues it is best to have a contingency in place. This isn't Sim City, we have to do this right the first time. To JMecklenborg: You assume the majority of Cincinnatians want a "big-time urban character". You additionally assume that the only way to reap a "big-time urban character" is a streetcar. Think it a cowardly fall-back if you wish, but the fact of the matter is there will be trade-offs. Rather than dodge this reality, why not engage it and try to justify the streetcar? Dodging it just makes it seem more compelling to the opposition and undecided.

OK, I think I may have misunderstood your position. I guess my concern is twofold. First, it seems to me that streetcar advocates want construction to begin ASAP, i.e. end of the year. Implicit within that position, or it seems to me, is the idea that all necessary and sufficient study has been completed. I think that is false for the reasons enumerated in my earlier post. Second, to the extent more study is required I believe Qualls' motion better moves us toward that goal. I feel that the most vociferous advocates for streetcars paint this as obstructionist. In my opinion, her motion is the most prudent course of action. That to the side, I think you ducked the main thrust of my post. My point was questioning whether sufficient planning had taken place to determine an ultimate alignment and thus move forward with financing for said alignment. To that argument I would add that the appendices to the feasibility study state a final alignment needs to be chosen in future phases of study and must undergo rigorous public scrutiny. See Appendix B, p.1. At any rate, your response was more studies need to be done but we need to jam on financing. Well if we don't know what we're building, then we necessarily don't know the cost, ergo how can we finance it? Also, it would be nice to know more than just what pots of money are going to be used. Empirical observation dictates that it is highly improbable that there will be no trade-offs when we commit to a project of this scale. Your argument that in the long-term the city will realize more net revenue to spend on neighborhoods and social agencies is compelling. But how short is the short-term and how significant will the pain be during that period? These are highly relevant questions that must be answered if the other 50 neighborhoods are being asked to spend for the immediate benefit of 2 neighborhoods. Additionally, what do you think about surcharges on concerts, sporting events, and downtown parking? Why not impose the cost of a transportation system on those that most likely benefit from it?

Because I'm sure there has been no change in the landscape in the intervening 27 years. Also, although there may be a strong correlation between the length of time expended studying an issue and the depth and breadth of the study, it is not necessarily so. The executive summary of the Atlanta streetcar study is 22 pages. The executive summary! Our entire study is 29 pages. The shortest study I have seen (other than ours of course) is from Spokane, and it weighs in at 82 pages. Clearly, our city has discharged its duty of due diligence in studying streetcars. Moreover, its not as if our study packed a ton of insight into a little package. I mean read the thing, its chock full of the words "preliminary", "initial", "assumes", "rough estimate", and "sketch-level analysis". Our study doesn't even map out an entire system, which every other study has done. Heck, none of these studies arbitrarily limited its scope to the downtown area. Here are the links, take a gander. http://www.tampabayintermodal.com/feasibilityreport.htm http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/public-works/trans-plan/TPProjects.asp http://www.cherriots.org/Misc.%20Info%20pages/Streetcar_Study.htm http://www.miamigov.com/MiamiStreetcar/pages/Study.asp http://www.atlantastreetcar.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=faq.feasibility I understand where y'all are coming from, but seriously this issue has not been subjected to the rigorous scrutiny that its cost should dictate. Heck, even our study agrees with me. By your logic, you would buy a house based on the premises that A. Owning a house is good, B. I've done cursory study that shows owning a house is good, and C. I think I can get a loan to pay for it. Except with the streetcar you are risking public dollars whose opportunity cost is irreplaceable.

I'm not surprised, Columbus has been studying this issue longer than Cincinnati. Additionally, they had elected official buy-in from the start. Interesting to note that even given the headstart Columbus has over Cincinnati that they won't begin construction until 2010 and won't open until 2012. I guess they are mored concerned with doing it right rather than doing it fast. I also like their financing scheme: impose the costs of the system on those who benefit from the system. This notion seems radically different from our plan which robs the rest of the city for the benefit of downtown and OTR. I like how they actually conducted a detailed analysis showing how this will provide the necessary funds to amortize the cost of the project over 25 years.

How do you distinguish from someone who is honestly interested from someone who has an ideological agenda? Also, honest research could lead one to O'Toole or CATO. Many do not know the bona fides of CATO are libertarian. Additionally, honest minds can disagree, but if you never engage them you stand little chance of changing their mind. Not to stir the pot, but perhaps those you view as zealots view you as zealots. Maybe that is why they act the way they do. Also, I should note that many of the posts here, which you assume no one else is aware of, are quick to nitpick Joe's argument, a classic sign of groupthink. Another sign of groupthink, ascribing ulterior motives to any who disagree. Additionally, lets take your statement at face value. Roxanne knows exactly what she needs to do to get to higher office. That means supporting either popular interests or policies that are for the good even if unpopular at the moment. You say she doesn't support the streetcar. Therefore, the streetcar must be neither popular nor good policy. QED.

The city has spent $130K, the CBC has spent $40K. This does not include staff salaries.