Chris Bortz

Hi All, Brief update from where I sit: The failure of the State to include the Cincinnati Streetcar in the State Capital Budget is dissappointing, but not a knock out punch. There will be more opportunities for the State to play a role. As the Columbus plan moves further along, there will be more ears willing to listen that may help overwhelm our own delegation. In addition, as The Banks project gets moving and funding issues are resolved we may be more successful in arguing that the Downtown/Riverfront TIF District will not be needed to fully realize The Banks. I was actually more dissappointed that the NAACP voted in opposition. As many posters here know well, the Cincinnati Streetcar is designed to advance the City and its people by making us a more competetive destination for talented professionals thereby increasing the likelihood that local businesses will remain competetive and expand. That business expansion and concentration of talent will likely lead to more business starts and spin-offs (how many businesses were started by P&G people or were attracted here because of P&G?) That means more jobs. More jobs means more opportunity for Cincinnatians. More jobs means more income taxes collected, and that means more resources available to enhance city services and invest in all city neighborhoods. Seems like a great fit for the NAACP. It was mentioned during the meeting that it is really a question of priorities. To that I ask, is there some other capital project that comes anywhere close to producing the kind of long-term, sustainable economic development as a streetcar system? I have not heard one single example of a project that would cost the taxpayers $35M and be so transformative. What could be more important than developing an infrastructure that boosts our competetive advantage to attract and retain JOBS? (Disclaimer: Schools are more important, but that is the responsibility of CPS. Safety is more important, but we are spending millions on very effective policing strategies (about 20 murders this year compared to twice that last year at this time - most other cities our size have seen an increase this year in violent crime and murder) So the real question, is there a more important economic development opportunity? I'm still waiting to hear a better idea.) On the home front, the city is busy developing talking points, economic impact analysis, funding sources and strategies, and the like. The Streetcar forum being hosted by UC and other sponsors will be a great opportunity to find answers to difficult questions. From the invitation: "The Forum will be an opportunity for attendees to explore the benefits as well as the obstacles of creating a streetcar system. The Mayor and City Manager invited representatives from other cities (Charlotte, Little Rock, Portland, and Seattle) to share their strategies in developing a successful streetcar system that have fueled economic development, promoted transportation, and improved quality of life." Those in oppositon have mostly said there are better places to spend the money. Really? On what, exactly? Or they say it will fail, or simply will not produce any economic activity. One guy even told me that Streetcar advocates sound like those who pushed for the stadiums and the Freedom Center. After I picked my jaw up off the floor, I realized most of the negativity has more to do with low community self-esteem than anything else. It is time for us to try new things, be bold, take risks. If we fail to do that, then how can we possibly expect anything to change? Cincinnati is a very special place. We just need to make some strategic investments to reach our brilliant potential. It is just within our reach. I really hope we can avoid shooting ourselves in the foot. Again. I guess this was more of a rant than a "brief update." From time to time, I let the frustration get the better of me. I beg your forgiveness. We are in the middle of the single most important debate in fifty years in our city. Can you imagine a more exciting time to live in Cincinnati? And, yes, I am a uncompromising optimist. -Chris Bortz

I agree. I dont understand why they can't start phase 1 and research the line into uptown at the same time...maybe i'm missing something. i'd rather do both at the same time then wait an undefined amount of time completely halting the process and therefore increasing the probabilities of anything going wrong (price tag, more time and resources for the opposing view to persuade others, etc). The timing of this qualls motion from left field has had me as well as others perplexed for some time. I realize the importance of a good study and getting things right, however the momentum for this project to get done is great right now. who knows what will happen in a year. 2 years. 3 years. The Uptown study runs concurrent with the Downtown/OTR planning and design. Council has yet to offer additional direction on Downtown/OTR. We are still working on that. My hope is that we take the next step (start looking for private money) in Downtown/OTR without backing ourselves into a corner on the Uptown loop and connector. In my opinion, two things kill this: 1) delay and 2) biting off more than we can chew. If we agree not to start on any component of a streetcar system until we have every penny for Downtown/OTR, Uptown loop, and Uptown connector, we may find ourselves with nothing. I draw that conclusion for a couple reasons. First, we are much more likely to get federal funds if we have already built (or are in the process of building) a streetcar. Though the city has resources to build the Uptown pieces without federal funds, the sources of those city dollars may be politically difficult to allocate. Second, people, businesses, institutions, etc. are more likley to support financially a project they can touch. It is hard for people to have confidence in something if it is just on paper (see The Banks). I want to see a streetcar looping around downtown and OTR, connecting Uptown, and looping around Uptown. It may be that the only way we get it all is to take a risk and start with a little.

The result of yesterday's Finance Committee meeting is a major step forward in making a streetcar in Cincinnati a reality. It has been anticipated from the first presentation to Council on streetcars that the Uptown circulator and connector to Downtown/OTR, critical components of a successful streetcar development strategy, would be funded in part with federal grant dollars. In order to qualify for those grants, the city is required to follow federal procedures which include conducting Alternatives Analysis and Environmental Clearance studies. It will take some time to complete the studies. The sooner they are done, the sooner we can apply for federal support, and the sooner we can build the Uptown circulator and Uptown to Downtown/OTR connector. It is imperative that we keep the ball moving. We are still at least a year away from breaking ground. There will be ample opportunity to ask question and get answers. Our mission should be to work towards building what we can as soon as we can and expand the system as resources permit. In my opinion, the referendum issue is a non-starter.

I'd like to thank you all for the kind welcome to this forum. I have found that it is not always a pleasant thing to blog. I can not speak to anyone's motivation as it relates to the streetcar, or any other issue for that matter. I can only deal directly with what they tell me. Some folks have displayed concern that a streetcar plan that does not guarantee the connection to Uptown is tantamount to failure. To that I can only reply that the plan has always been to get to Uptown. The challenge is related to time and money. As for time, in my opinion, the sooner the better. As for money, the TIF sources in Uptown can't sustain the same ask as those downtown. The remaining proceeds from the Blue Ash airport sale are committed elsewhere. And the City Capital Budget can not sustain another $25M hit. That leaves State and Federal sources to cover what would amount to a gap of about $50M (based on the very early assessment that the Uptown loop would cost $83M and that the sources listed above are covering about 60% of the Downtown/OTR loop). I believe that Federal funds will be available when we need them. Not everyone agrees. To that I have suggested that we figure out a Plan B funding scenario that looks to the city's parking fund for support (similar to the financing of Fountain Square). The revenue from the Fountain Square garage supported over $40M in debt. Some are concerned that the streetcar will dry up resources that are needed to continue to advance the redevelopment of OTR. To that I have suggested that we do not use either of the two TIF districts that run through OTR (the East and West Downtown TIF districts) but rather focus only on using the Riverfront TIF (which is not being used to support The Banks). In short, I am just trying to deal with each argument in turn. If I thought the concerns that have been raised were without merit, I would not be spending time trying to find solutions. There are some out there that just think streetcars are a gigantic waste of money. I leave the convincing of those folks to people like Mr. Schneider. He is a better salesman than I. There are also those who are simply trying to delay the process perhaps in hopes that it will die on the vine. All we can do there is just try to keep the ball rolling and keep communication lines open. It seems to me that there are a lot of people out there that think streetcars are a good idea. I don't think that is the result of mass hysteria. I think momentum will continue to build thanks to those who are working hard to move it forward. I will check this forum from time to time both as a resource and to offer my own thoughts where appropriate. Please don't hesitate to throw your thoughts and questions to me directly if you like. My email address is [email protected] I do get a lot of emails, but I promise to get back to you within a week.

Hopefully this works out better than your idea of having Duke energy front some of the cost. Remember that, when they came out the next day and said that was ridiculous and they hadn't been consulted? What happens if the gamble doesn't suceed, what then? What if we don't get the federal money and the economic development doesn't arise? Does the city declare bankruptcy? Why don't we just do what the Feasibility Study suggests and study the issue some more before we do something incredibily stupid. Here's a quote from page 1 of appendix B of the feasbility study: "Although Alternative B was selected for the study alternative, it, and all other options, will be reviewed in more detail in future phases of the study, and must undergo rigorous public scrutiny before a final alignment for construction is selected.” In other words the feasibility study didn't set the alignment in stone and it wasn't the end all be all. It calls, like qualls motion, for further study of the issue. First, I didn't come out with the idea that Duke would be a funding partner. I was asked to explain what was meant by public/private partnership vs. private contribution and I offered Duke as an example of the former. Duke will calculate the expected power usage (about $250,000/year for Downtown/OTR) and they will determine what they would be willing to pay to buy that new revenue stream (other gas and electric customers will also be added to the area as vacant buildings are occupied over time in part because of the streetcar). Power companies are generally interested in adding customers, and they invest in infrastructure to do so. The Public gets the benefit of upfront capital support and the Private Partner gets the benefit of a fixed revenue stream. I can't control the way the story is written. Second, no funding alternatives under consideration are dependent upon economic development to repay the city's contribution to build the system. For TIF, for example, the City projects a 0% appreciation rate on the property being TIF'd. That ensures that there are sufficient funds to meet the debt service obligations on the TIF bonds, since property almost always appreciates in value. City capital, backed by general obligation, depends on a number of revenue streams that are generated citywide, including property taxes and right-of-way agreements. The Blue Ash Airport proceeds are dependent upon Blue Ash meeting their obligations under the purchase contract. So, no funding sources rely on the streetcar to produce the expected economic benefit. That said, given the projected benefit, the 14:1 benefit to cost ratio indicates that the investment is sound. Third, it has never been suggested by the Administration, the Mayor or members of Council that we would give a full "green light" to allocate dollars and start construction during Monday's hearing in Finance Committee. Rather, it is expected that the Council will give the green light to the Administration to take the next steps in the process. Those steps include an Alternatives Analysis (required by the Federal Government if we are to qualify for Federal funds) which digs more deeply into the alignment options. No one has suggested that the Feasibility Study Alignment is set in stone. Rather, as you pointed out, the study makes it clear the the route was selected only for the purpose of completing the Economic Impact/Feasibility Study. There are a series of additional studies that must be completed before construction can begin, including design, engineering, environmental impact, public input on alignment, and etc. And there are a series of green lights that Council will need to grant before construction can actually begin. I'm not sure where it was first concluded that we were going to start the process of construction on Monday. But clearly, that is a concern many share.

I think the real issue here is related to available sources of funds to build the Uptown loop. It is currently expected that Federal sources will be available (CMAQ, STP, Small Starts). The challenge is that there is no guarantee that we will be awarded those funds. Most of the Federal sources are allocated out through 2012. Meaning that if we wait until we are assured of Federal support, we can't do more than study the question for four years. On the other hand, we could take what I would call a calculated risk. It is expected that the Downtown/OTR loop would be used as our local match to secure those Federal funds. Though not part of the Federal rules, standard practice at both the State and Federal levels seems to be that projects with real investment on the ground are given priority over those projects that are only on paper. So, do we wait until every single dollar is secured (a minimum of four years, but could be much longer if we have to get the end of a long line for federal dollars, and with no chance to leap frog the line since no tracks are in the ground), or do we take a risk and get started? I am for taking the risk. We can minimize that risk by calling out a Plan B financing plan that could utilize other sources to fill the gap if Federal sources aren't realized. That might help assuage the fears of those who want to see real commitment and capacity to get to Uptown in the near term. The other major lingering question seems to be about operating dollars. It is expected that the Downtown/OTR loop would be operated with a combination of Special Assessments and advertising revenue (or similar public/private arrangements). The question is what happens if we don't raise enough money? Will the City have to put General Fund resources on the table to close the gap? Will money be taken out of the Transit Fund, thereby shorting Metro? I think the answer is that we need a solid operating finance plan that protects the City's General Fund and holds Metro harmless. Though, I suppose everything is negotiable.

John Schneider directed me this evening to this forum, and after reviewing the 2,600+ posts I'm disappointed it took me so long to find it. Many of you appear to be passionate and thoughtful supporters of streetcars in Cincinnati, and it seems like a fun forum. I would like to join the conversation. Some quick observations. I believe strongly that a majority of City Council (including and especially Councilmember Qualls) suppports building a streetcar. I know the Mayor believes it is a major Cincinnati priority. I also believe that 3CDC and Mr. Pichler in particular agree that a streetcar through OTR and connecting to Uptown would be a welcome complement to their work in downtown and OTR. I also think there are very real, and reasonable concerns about: 1. How we pay for the construction 2. How we pay for operations 3. Where it goes 4. How much we bite off at a time 5. Whether it will help or hinder the broad, regional effort to advance light rail 6. Whether the streetcar effort can add energy to expanding bus service 7. Whether federal, state and private sources will be available for construction and operations 8. Whether sufficient analysis has been completed, or is being planned, to ensure we position the plan for success I think we can, and must, deal directly with these concerns. I think the city administration has been and will be working hard to provide answers. I also think we need to move forward quickly. The risks of delay are significant, and the current momentum is an undeniable, though potentially fleeting, asset. Something this big and expensive will likely always have its detractors, but most I have encountered along the way are working hard, and in good faith, to ensure that this project will happen and will be successful.