shawk

So I was just watching this meeting and at the very end, Kreg Keesee deliberately says something along the lines of "this is one-time money, we still need every dollar from our traditional funding sources." Couldn't be more obvious that Cranley texted him.

I was in Brazil in 2014 immediately prior to the WC and there was a lot of associated in-country tourism even weeks ahead of the actual matches. I went to Italy's tune-up friendly against Fluminense, so that's another potential thing that could happen depending on what MLS does to modify its schedule. I think similar friendlies would be more likely than tune-ups against actual future competition. A quick google-assisted recollection shows that the friendly was in Volta Redonda and we took a charter bus from Rio, but the 21k seat stadium appeared sold out. Interestingly, that city doesn't look to have had a match OR a team training there (Italy was ~1.5 hour drive away), though, so who knows, lot of speculation and potential factors.

I've been wondering about this recently. What all does SORTA own - is OASIS all that's left along with parts of "Blue Ash" corridor (not sure what it's called)?

You can read the ordinance here: https://city-egov2.cincinnati-oh.gov/Webtop/ws/council/public/child/ResultSet?w=doc_no%3D'202000851'&rpp=-10 It's both 25% of current balances and future. But yes the other 75% can still be used for other purposes. My guess is that, logstics-wise, it will look similar to how part of TIF funds are reserved for bond obligations and the rest is available to spend. The ordinance requests that there be a report created by Sept 8 for implementation guidance including how long the units must be affordable. I'm guessing what they'll do is create a formula/scorecard where you get a certain set of points per affordable unit (and % AMI) and it will be a credit from the TIF balance based on the developer's specs for the project. They may use something like a formula similar to the Balanced Development Report (https://city-egov2.cincinnati-oh.gov/Webtop/ws/council/public/child/ResultSet?w=doc_no%3D'201901733'&rpp=-10) funding gap figures (p.26) as a general guideline. Big thing to watch will be how long the units must remain affordable. AFAIK, affordable housing is not yet mandatory in any way but its inclusion will continue to play a role in the "but for" scoring of Community Reinvestment Area (CRA) projects (4+ units) until that program changes. Which doesn't mean much. IMO they should look into changing the "points" in that system away from LEED and toward a project's inclusion of affordable units.

To be fair, it says "locations will be posted in coming weeks" and describes them as the most pedestrian-heavy areas, so it's possible downtown will get this as well. Hopefully they do, because I agree with you. Re: the intersection you posted, I'd been wondering what they are doing there and that's a great idea. I'd also been shocked that those signs are allowed in the middle of that sidewalk - it's such an awkward place to walk. And @Dev, yeah, I am hoping that the "No Turn on Red" intersections in PRidge don't get retroactively changed to this nonsense. I'm sure there are others, but I know they fought to eliminate those turn on red for a long time.

The City Manager's office released a memo about Vision Zero yesterday: https://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/noncms/cmgr/memo/index.cfm?action=public.viewpdf&name=41321.pdf Few things stood out to me: - Raised crosswalks being implemented near schools/recreation centers is a good start - Leading Pedestrian Intervals in NBDs is overdue but also a positive step - LightPath crosswalk system seems interesting, but doesn't fundamentally change the real issue (speeding in front of schools) - Spending money on "Blankout No Turn on Red" signage seems like wasting limited funds on a more technical 'beg button' - all things being equal, I'd rather see more of the temporary bumpouts (like at Martin Dr.) or closing off slip lanes.

As I commented above, I wanted to look into the VTICA portion of the streetcar budget. This is probably pure preaching to choir but there's really not a lot of reason to be concerned after the Haile money goes away as long as planned projects are completed. As long as DCED's publicly projected numbers end up being at least somewhat accurate, just 10 projects that I think are already completed are ~320k in VTICA/year for at least the next 10 years. Add the > ~$10m projects that are planned and it becomes easily over $1.5m/yr operating costs. Add smaller projects between $1m and $10m and it is close to $2m/yr. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1-hW78FadxNTZzN3ATETt39Yi_qfXFntTdodmhi_uV9o/edit#gid=1370669176

Sorry - some maybe dumb questions coming. Does anyone have insight as to how you can see the breakdown of TransDev's operating costs? The reason I ask is I'm assuming that if they cut service and the contract by 50%, there will be layoffs, though they're not city of Cincinnati employees. Budget proposal assumes no fare revenue and no money from advertising naming rights, which even assuming reduced service would be.... 500k? So city has to close ~1.5m gap to have riders? I am also wondering if anyone has insight as to the timeline of when the VTICA payments actually occur as compared to when the CRA is approved? Trying to approach this rationally and make informed statements, and trying to figure out how VTICA goes from 130k (FY19) to 324k (FY20) to 505k (FY21) and project that out going forward to a limited extent. The only source I have is the Economic Incentives page on CincyInsights, but I have to be missing something or it is incomplete. For 2019, the page says there were 37 CRA projects approved by council for a value of only 420,000...which feels incomplete given that the prior two years were ~$10m. There is nothing for 2020. Thanks! Got a working document with what I've found so far, but any insight is great.

I drove through Madisonville last weekend and was amazed with how much has already changed from Medpace through Whetsel. I personally understand the community's opposition to the pool, honestly. It's a central location that's what - three blocks from an existing public pool, unlike most apartment developments which can hide the pool. Did anything actually change with the developer as a result of them coming to talk to Council? Link to story, I remember it because I was annoyed by all the parking complaints. Hard not to feel like Madisonville did everything right and got screwed by DOTE. Which is ironic because every plan or reference for the area talks about the devastation caused by being a "drive-through" community and wanting to change that. The Vision Zero website at one point said a draft plan winter 2019. Then it was "early 2020." Now there's no date and hasn't been for months. May as well push it to 2021.

I also found it interesting that a streetcar extension isn't mentioned anywhere except a Newport extension (2045). There's also a Hamilton BRT for 2035 paired with Montgomery. Overall, it's not exactly an overly inspiring list of non-SOV projects for the next 30 years.

Yeah I think mobile homes are a tougher political sell. Above from 5+ years ago, you had it at positive return in 5 years if you keep costs below 20k but I know that's unlikely. I could see the value moreso in COVID quarantine scenarios, recessions/recent college grads, or truly as a MIL/granny flat rather than in full-time renting out. Most importantly, like you said... Why not allow it? Thanks.

There was some discussion of Accessory Dwelling Units on the Walnut Hills/ East Walnut Hills forum and I found this as well. Does anyone have addresses or images of existing (grandfathered-in) carriage houses/granny flats in Cincinnati? Wanted to compile some images. I see that @jmecklenborg posted a Craigslist ad but it's expired. Thanks! There has been a little bit of movement in recommendations toward allowing them from several sources though no formal discussion. DCED supported it in their report on balanced development. LISC just recently did a council presentation that included ADUs as a potential reform. And it was an item in the Property Tax Working Group's list of recommendations though that seems to have stalled due to COVID. Given that Smitherman is sponsoring the working group and the democrats on council have an interest in affordable housing, it seems like a possible political win without getting into the form-based code fight again.

^ Correct, the Neighborhood Business Association maintained ownership of the western half because that will remain 87 spaces for parking.

^ I think you answered your own question there. Hils wants to rile up his own union base (which apparently in our local agencies includes voting retired members...) with back-to-back posts on tax increases and dog whistles for black on black crime statistics. Reform and any level of defunding will be a slog, I'm not optimistic. I think it's been fairly apparent that Cranley said "do this" and SORTA leadership caved immediately. Speaking of taxpayer funds, the COASTies will be all over this because the decision does not appear to have come from either the CEO or from the board as a whole. I would find it hard to believe that the buses are owned in any way by the city because IIRC almost all capital funding is used from state and federal sources. I'm not sure about real estate. The Northside Transit Center, for example, was ~80% federal funds, and SORTA already paid market for Hogan Alley. I could see this being a bigger issue as they try to acquire more land within the city for other transit centers.

Disagree strongly and frankly I hope SORTA does refuse to let them use buses at all in the future. It's a terrible look for those who have a negative perception of police as it is, which can impact ridership and trust in the system. It would be just as much of a misuse of taxpayer resources to put buses and operators at risk both as they transport prisoners and in future normal circumstances if it leads to decreased ridership or increases vandalism or incidents with operators. The marginal cost savings are not worth that to taxpayers or riders. With that being said, I get that SORTA had to make a quick call and the use of non-union supervisors may have made sense for one night. I believe the progression went from supervisors (Sunday night) to police drivers (Monday night) and I don't believe there's been a need since, so I guess it's possible that today they straight up said no more buses whatsoever to the union. I didn't independently verify, so for those who were around - were buses used in '01? I heard secondhand that operators were attacked and there's now some well-deserved apprehension about driving during times/areas while civil unrest is going on. On Monday, I noticed an Express bus downtown that looked to be parked in a way such as to be blocking traffic from protestors near the courthouse, so maybe that's a way they're trying to regain goodwill.

I don't really know where this would most appropriately go but I didn't see it anywhere else. OKI wants feedback on their draft Metropolitan Transportation Plan: https://2050.oki.org/

Chris Seelbach was on "That's So Cincinnati" the other day sans Jason Williams. He revealed that the streetcar was supposed to be free starting July 1st, but Cranley wanted to wait until after the bus levy was completed - which makes sense as the read between the lines conclusion when it was slated for public comment and disappeared without a trace. He was noncommittal as to when it would reopen pending budget deficit but compared it to parks, and mentioned signal priority as a priority going forward. Curious what the plan would have been to close the deficit in response to the detailed suggestions/options above by @thomasbw. On a related note, I personally think using the downtown ambassadors would be a better option than CPD going forward, especially if it cuts costs. If the streetcar isn't fare free right away, enforcement by ambassadors/citizens rather than police could serve as a useful pilot for a future BRT system. I don't have the source on hand but I know Higashide advocated for that move in Better Buses Better Cities as more likely to improve equity and ridership but retain the speed benefits of payment prior to boarding. Also reduces risk of unconstitutional biases in enforcement.

^ That's fair, and I apologize yet recognize that I don't know the history. For those of us who haven't been able to be involved for 10-20+ years, its hard to really understand the massive undertakings that were MetroMoves and the streetcar.

Thanks for your responses, @taestelland @JYP. Feel free to move this or whatever but I'm just discouraged because I didn't live in Cincinnati from 2010-2017, the opposite of those "flushed out." If you don't try to help give a new guard a chance to care or ways to advocate and be involved, that base will never come back, and it's especially overwhelming when you're new to it. A great example is @jmecklenborg above talking about BBC being "fooled." I can say with confidence that no one at the BBC thinks it was their idea. But I can also say with confidence that relative to numbers, BBC punches beyond it's weight. So showing up matters and I'm happy to show up and pay attention. Looking foward to a new election, a new era at Metro with a new funding source, and a better future for Cincinnati.

Yeah I apologize - I was referring to the board appointees rather than employees. But I definitely hope you're right and I personally am excited about it.

In the world we have, there aren't going to be a lot of transit experts, which includes our politicians who may be calling it BRT-lite, or people like me who are only recently getting interested in transit. Regular people like my dad are going to tune out or have their eyes roll back into their head if they hear the acronym BRT, but he'll sure as hell complain about if it's not effective. We know that DOTE, SORTA, and our city politicians are not exactly progressive. So I think it'd be helpful if there are more people in the room advocating for or explaining the details everyone here seems to agree are crucial. I'm personally not an urban planner, Metro employee, or transit expert, so it'd be nice to know what to focus on or to know what to look for if it can help advocacy. No offense meant to those who are frustrated or skeptical, but I guess I'd rather see if there can be a renewed focus on what can be done in the short term now that this has passed that can make the long-term more possible. The defeatism makes lurkers like me want to tune out rather than engage or learn more. Maybe this isn't enough, but now it's done, and we have every member of council on record (other than Sundermann) as supporting improvements to the bus system and 70%+ of city voters agreeing. Realistically, what can be done on the city end to make Metro more effective ASAP (let's say 1-2 years)? Does a south-bound transit-only lane on Walnut still make sense? I know the city is still waiting on the (overdue) DOTE report on the Reading bus-only corridor.

^ thanks for that update, I was actually just looking into the ORT last weekend and wondered what the status was since the site for the Salem to Sutton connection you described said construction would begin fall 2019. I also saw public comment going around from ODOT for the Lunken to LMST bridge which is expected to begin construction next spring and be complete 2022. Has the section from Lunken to downtown been funded or have a timeline?

@Ucgrad2015 she basically said that it's not permanent but they have a tough layout for social distancing, so they'll be more cautious than many. She said they were going to use the time to make repairs and give other businesses more opportunities who are better suited to carryout.

I can't just click 'thank' or whatever but I really appreciate that history, thanks for sharing. My high school bus went through that development (it seemed out of place even to me) which is pretty much my only context. More scams and schemes content, preferably with sources, would be welcomed anytime.

CAM staff presented at the Mt. Adams community meeting earlier this year, I can't find the PPT but remember the meeting fairly well. The idea they referenced was to open up the CAM to Walnut Hills because it's literally been a walled off ledge for decades. A few vocal residents got off-task talking about which 'neighborhood' Eden Park and the Art Museum are in - with CAM staff trying to remain neutral and claim all neighborhoods, including WH and EWH, as welcome and open participants as it is a city-wide asset. Massive waste of time, but was an indicator to me of the perception they're trying to change over time and may be why they chose this area to start with rather than Elsinore. Essentially it's virtue signaling, but IIRC from the overview it will all be better-connected eventually in the master plan and more ADA accessible overall. When I reached out to Dave Linnenberg from the video to ask about any plans for traffic calming near the site (e.g. bike lane, road diet), he was somewhat receptive to the idea but noncommittal. He did specifically mention removing the "no crosswalk" sign here and said they've started conversations about removing/modifying the islands at the intersection and retiming the lights, but nothing about bike lanes or general street calming. I was somewhat discouraged because he specifically referenced part of it being difficult due to a 'hard turn' for trucks, but at least he answered and wasn't dismissive. It's not a pedestrian- or bike-friendly area for novices like me and I tried to brainstorm ways to best fix it in my response, but my guess is that it'll end up being expensive and therefore on hold. It's also somewhat of a no-man's land so I'm not sure what neighborhood would advocate for it, other than residents of the Baldwin. Which I guess is part of the problem.