OHSnap

^If true, I'm going to have a beer. At work. At 10a.

^ Breach of several contracts, actually. Messer-Prus-Delta, CAF, the various utilities, etc.

^ Interesting. That's six council members.

^ Cunningham isn't a reporter. He's an entertainer. His job isn't to report facts, it's to appeal to WLW's listeners, all of whom made up their minds long ago.

Don't fall into the simplistic trap of McConnell logic: i.e. a win for a political opponent is a loss for us. Getting the streetcar project to happen is a win for Cincinnati and a positive thing, period. Two things: (1) Keep pushing for the SID and other legal changes that promote the urbanism and sustainable living the streetcar is meant to foster. (2) Don't forget this guy's record of incompetence: an inability to preside over meetings, constantly misrepresenting his record, a pathological antagonism toward working colleageally, contempt for his nominal allies. This guy has hurt his reputation immensely because he's never before had the prominence that caused people to pay attention to him. His above mentioned qualities are known to all now. Govern yourselves accordingly. Yeah, like I said, it's good because the streetcar gets built. It's bad because the average voter will see this as Cranley getting a (seemingly, at this point) "better" deal than the previous council achieved, and it will get built during his term. He's going to look great in the eyes of the suburban conservatives. He'll have a feather in his hat that - to the average voter - will obscure many of the things you mention. And when Wenstrup's up for re-election, Cranley can point to a high-profile project that got done on his watch. I won't be at all surprised to see a quiet push to get this done before the All-Star game. Cranley will get to toot his horn on the national stage. And mixing baseball and politics? West-siders will wet themselves.

^ If this underwriting guarantee is all true and comes to fruition, this is good because the streetcar gets built, but bad because this hands Cranley a huge win. He will basically get a streetcar (and all the development) for the price of bond interest. He not only gets to say that the streetcar got built on his watch, but that he stood up for the neighborhoods and didn't let the fire/police/etc get funding cut. It's shrewd. Man, this guy.

I used to be in consulting, though not accountancy. We'd occasionally get crunch-time assignments that the junior staff could start working on before the final terms were hammered out on the contract. I can't imagine the city could name KPMG as the contractor last week without some basic framework in place. All it takes is the city calling KPMG's office here in town and say "Can you help? Here's some email addresses of people you can get documents from." The delay is probably in getting the lawyers to work up the contracts - that takes more time than simply handing over the relevant information and getting a few junior accountants into a conference room to start running numbers.

I'm very pleased to see KPMG as the independent auditor. If true, that's the first bit of transparency we've seen from the administration yet. The deck is not entirely stacked. We might yet have a streetcar.

The news report couches the decision in terms of this supposed ethics violation, but Cranley's 5 would have confirmed him anyway. Given that Carden is widely respected for the job he's done as Parks Director, my guess is he wasn't toeing Cranley's line on the streetcar. Cranley didn't want to fight his own pick for City Manager, and didn't want the embarrassment of pulling the nomination because Carden wouldn't support cancellation. So they made it about "family issues" and moved on to the next candidate.

Yeah, wouldn't Phase II be eligible for federal funding again? So you couldn't possibly hinge the cancel/move forward decision for Phase 1 on the entire accounting of both phases, with no knowledge of the city's actual portion. That's assuming anyone has any idea of the future costs of Phase II. Though I wouldn't put it past Cranley to attempt to stack the deck like that.

I've lived in Cincinnati my entire 36-year life. My wife and I have traveled enough of the country, to places like Minneapolis, Portland, Seattle, Chicago, ABQ, DC, etc., to have seen what can happen when a city values progress. Is any city perfect? No. But I fear if the streetcar is cancelled and the city has to pay $100m for nothing but a half mile of useless rail, that we will have had our only chance to taste real progress, and an actual forward-thinking attitude among our citizenry, for the better part of my remaining lifetime. My wife has often talked about moving away once we take care of some obligations here in Cincinnati over the next few years. I used to balk at the idea. If the streetcar gets yanked, I think I'll have less of a reason to defend Cincinnati, and more of a reason to appreciate the progress made by other cities. Someone said upthread that Cincinnati is worth fighting for. Is it? I'm not so sure anymore.

Full presentation materials: http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/streetcar/news/

It's Coney Island: http://www.shorpy.com/node/11594

Doesn't have to be food (though that would be cool). Chicago has numerous places along the lake shore and LSD where they're reestablishing native prairie ecosystems. Similar things could be done here with native plantings. I am in the camp of hoping for parks/greenspace on the caps. I see the attraction of buildings on the caps - especially if it's attraction-type stuff that makes the whole river front a crowd-magnet. But I again look to Chicago as a model, with Millennium and Grant parks (over a rail trench) as the city's welcome mat, and then closer to the lake shore a string of parks and quieter open space.

Kind of hope they leave the streetcat tracks. You won't see them anyway since it'll be under the cobblestones.

I know I'm feeding the beast here, but kjbrill, see my earlier reply to your concerns about commercial service at Lunken: The short version is this: Lunken and the city, as recipients of federal funding, cannot legally bar an air carrier from using the airport unless a legitimate safety or environmental issue exists. "P&G might not like it" is not a legitimate reason.

^ Oh, you mean Beechmont. Anderson Towne Center isn't defunct. It's anchored by Macy's, Kmart, and a giant Kroger. The rest of the stores are pretty lacking compared to other lifestyle centers, though. http://www.atcstores.com/merchants.html

I think you missed Anderson Towne Center in Cincinnati (traditional mall converted to open-air about seven years ago). I'd put it in the OK column. I think it's fairly full but most of it isn't high-dollar stuff. It's been awhile since I was in it, though.

The official new name of the Kennedy Connector: Mill Ridge. http://www.wlwt.com/news/local-news/hamilton-county/kennedy-connector-projects-name-the-street-contest-winner-announced/-/13550662/21927684/-/htknbd/-/index.html?absolute=true Just about the most watered-down name a person could think of. Sounds like the name of a Warren County subdivision.

The noise contours for Lunken, generated under an FAA-approved procedure, are much smaller now than in past decades. The specific noise contour that would trigger abatement is entirely on airport property. That is, while there is no doubt some noise over Mt. Lookout, jets are quieter now than the 70s/80s and much quieter than turboprops that used to make up more of Lunken's fleet mix. So yes, when the fleet mix at Lunken is quieter now than 20 years ago, and nearby residents still complain, I have to point to the fact that they knew an airport was there when they bought. This is all abstract anyway; with any of these vacation operators, we're looking at no more than one arrival/departure a day, in daylight hours.

Yeah, kjbrill, you make it sound like this would be the first-ever general aviation airport that gained commercial service and had to build facilities to serve it. That is not the case. CVG was a tiny general aviation/ex-military airport before it gained airline service, and they built out the terminal just fine as demand dictated. The aviation consulting industry was born right here in Cincinnati because Kenton and Boone counties didn't have the expertise to develop CVG, and there is now a nationwide body of knowledge, as well as FAA guidance, on the very issues you mention. It won't be without challenges, of course, but it's not impossible by any means. As a recipient of federal aviation grant funding, Lunken (and the city) are bound to certain assurances, one of which is that it must accommodate any aviation user that can safely operate at the airport. Obviously a 747 can't operate at the field because the runway is too short, and the airport can make certain restrictions on operating hours by certain classes of aircraft to appease neighbors, but it can't put a blanket prohibition on commercial activity. See the saga of Dallas-Love Field for an example of the pitfalls of a city attempting to prevent commercial service at an airport. And as for "what is the advantage" of limited commercial service being added to a GA airport, ask a traveler at Akron-Canton, Islip, White Plains, Orlando-Sanford, or any other number cities that successfully developed a small amount of service at reliever airports outside of big cities. OCtoCincy mentioned a few with lower costs and a shorter transit time through the airport, but I'd add these airports are often closer to the homes of the very suburban families for whom low-cost/vacation carriers are particularly appealing. It's one thing for a solo business traveler to fly on an expensive Delta flight somewhere, it's entirely another for a family with kids to do so. Give a family of five the option to fly from a smaller, less crowded airport for a lower price than Delta at CVG, and you've got your answer as to the advantages.

I don't have a press clipping for it, but a new Mexican street food restaurant called Mazunte opened last week on Madison at Red Bank, in a strip right next to Rainbow Car Wash. I've eaten there twice in their first six days. Not another burrito chain. Excellent quality, leaning toward Oaxacan cuisine. Highly recommended. Prices are $7-10. http://www.mazuntetacos.com/contact/

Well, it depends on what you mean by "facilities." Airside facilities are in pretty good shape for an RJ, many of which are similar in size to the corporate jets that already use the airport. In fact, a Boeing Business Jet (737-based) has little trouble on 6200 feet, except maybe on a really hot day with a full load. The real issue is the landside. The terminal is not equipped for TSA, nor does it have anything in the way of baggage handling/screening areas or passenger hold areas, check-in desks, office space. An RJ has somewhere between 31 and 90 seats, most commonly the 50 or 70 seat variants. Lunken would basically need a larger, more modern terminal to handle what you're thinking about. But none of this gets to the real problem - RJs are being phased out by many airlines. The economics aren't what they used to be when fuel was cheaper. Even Allegiant here wants to come in with 160-seat aircraft. Edit: another thing I thought of is that this is a big political hot potato. In order to upgrade or replace the terminal for this RJ service, the city would probably have to apply for an FAA grant, which entails changes to the master plan, an environmental review, and a public comment period. Mt. Lookout, and to a lesser extent Mt. Washington and Madeira, have always been vocal in its opposition to increased activity at Lunken (nevermind that an RJ is much quieter than propeller planes of old - the 70 DNL noise contour for an RJ is entirely on the airport). Getting that service off the ground would be a nightmare. It's probably not something the city wants to get into.

...And then when they're presented with the binders full of information they claim doesn't exist, they scream "that's too much to read and it's all written in a way that makes my head hurt!" The only binders Horstman and his buddies like are full of women.

I wrote this back in July: Having worked in the airport business for a number of years, I have just one question: don't you think that CVG management has done exactly this? For years CVG was beholden to Delta's whims because Delta (and to a lesser extent, DHL) paid the bills. It was not in CVG's interest to pursue other carriers because of the Delta honey pot that was already there. It's like owning a shopping center where your major tenant (and 90% of your rent) is Home Depot. Do you risk pissing off Home Depot by making pitches to Lowe's? So then the low-fare carriers go to airports all around Cincinnati to pick off some of CVG's customers. Perfectly legitimate form of competition, and now those carriers do a good business at those airports and would only be diluting existing demand if they add CVG now. They would have never been able to compete with DL directly at CVG, so they went around it. But the airline business being what it is, an extremely solid business case must be made for any airline to add a any city. Scores of cities have tried grants, loans, fare guarantees, covering operating expenses, providing ground staff, even wet-leasing aircraft for the airline to use, almost all with terrible results. It's easy to say "CVG management go make a pitch to Southwest and Airtran and Jet Blue," and in fact there are whole annual conventions set up where airport managers from all over the country can sit down with the airlines to pitch their cities. The reality is that it's extremely difficult to get an airline to take a gamble on starting service to a new city. Keep in mind too that DL with 70 daily frequencies is still nothing to trifle with. Southwest might even love to give us Chicago, but DL already serves it (as does AA and UA) and would just match the price and let SkyMiles do the rest. ... Take a moment to think about the reality of this business. Airline margins under deregulation have always been razor-thin, and more often non-existent. One extra full seat often means the difference between a profitable flight versus a loss. We can demand all we want but if conditions aren't exactly right, an airline simply won't supply it, incentives or not. In short, CVG management has always acted rationally here. It hurts as a consumer - and I fly out of DAY far more than I fly out of CVG because of fares - but you can't tell me that CVG should have risked its relationship with Delta by supporting a low-cost carrier when the airport was a goldmine for 20 years. Not to mention that you can't just wiggle your nose and get a LCC to serve a fortress hub if there isn't a business case.