Eigth and State

Here's another source of data that indicates population decline: the Cincinnati Public Schools facilities plan. http://www.cps-k12.org/general/facilities/FinalPlan/0520ExecSum.pdf "More than 70,000 school-age students live in Cincinnati Public School's attendance area. In the 2000-01 school year, Cincinnati Public Schools served about 42,600 students. Public charter schools served 4,200 students. Historically, enrollment has declined more than 7,000 students in the last decade. Over the past 10 years, there was an approximate 10% decline in the number of children born to parents living in the Cincinnati Public School District. Other issues impacting enrollment include no significant housing starts for thepast 10 years and a large number of school-age children within the district whose parents have chosen schools elsewhere." Per the census, Cincinnati had 57,282 kids 5 to 19 in 2000, and 51,375 in 2004, a loss of 5,907 or 10% in four years. Per Cincinnati Public Schools, the school district (a slightly larger area) had 70,000 students in 2001 and served 42,600 of them. Student population has declined 7,000 students or 10% in 10 years. (note the rounded numbers.) The numbers are somewhat comparable although the census shows a faster decline in the last 4 years.

This is just a guess about population loss in Cincinnati. Anyone have data? Cincinnati lost the largest percentage of occupied housing, despite having a net gain in houses. Cincinnati had 8000 more houses vacant in 2004 than in 2000. The English Woods, Laurel Homes, and Huntington Meadows public housing developments were each large developments that were essentially abandoned all at once. How many units did these contain? How many people? I don't know. Huntington Meadows was eventually leveled and re-developed into single family houses, but what was the status in 2004? Laurel Homes became City West, but again, what was the status in 2004? I don't know about English Woods. I'm guessing that these three developments could account for 3000 units. I would not be surprised if the household size in these areas was particularly high. Were there any such items in the other cities?

Riverviewer said "Well, dilution of people-per-household can help account for the population drop, though such attrition isn't going to cause a 10% drop in just four years; and 10K new vacancies in Cincinnati has nothing to do with that dilution, and is a surprising number." I decided to investigate this further. (Warning: lots of math.) First, I picked some data from the U.S. Census site, linked by C-Dawg at the beginning of this thread. I am looking at the City of Cincinnati. For now I am not disputing the Census data. 2000 numbers are from the decennial census. 2004 numbers are estimates. Here are the six numbers I am using. 2000 2004 population 331,285 289,628 total housing units 165,945 167,231 occupied housing units 147,991 139,851 I calculated change and percent change. 2000 2004 Change % Change population 331,285 289,628 loss 41,657 -12% total housing units 165,945 167,231 gain 1,286 +0.8% occupied housing units 147,991 139,851 loss 8,140 -5.5% Discussion: The City of Cincinnati lost 41,657 residents in 4 years, a 12% change. Wow! Housing units increased slightly. New construction must have exceeded demolitions. 8,140 occupied houses were lost. Some became unoccupied, and some were demolished. Would a 5.5% loss in occupied houses be noticeable? The number of demolitions would be interesting but I have no data on them. Assuming there were at least some demolitions, the actually number of new houses would be greater than 1,286. I did some more math. Total housing - occupied housing = unoccupied housing. Population / occupied housing = people per occupied house. 2000 2004 change %change unoccupied housing units 17,954 27,380 gain 9,426 +52% people per occupied house 2.23 2.07 loss 0.16 -7.2% Discussion: The number of unoccupied houses has changed dramatically. Some vacancy would be expected normally, but a 52% change in 4 years is big. There must be something going on here. The vacant public housing projects of Huntington Meadows, Laurel Homes, and English Woods come to mind. The people per occupied house is dropping due to fewer children per family, etc, as mentioned in a previous post. This is a long term trend. Of these effects, which is greatest? I did some more math. change due to smaller family 147,991 x -0.16 = loss 23,678 -7.1% change due to occupied house -8,140 x 2.23 = loss 18,152 -5.5% total change loss 41,830 Discussion: The numbers do not add up to exactly 41,657 due to the effect of working with averages and roundoff errors, but they are close. (I am trying to keep it simple.) We can see that in Cincinnati the effect of smaller household size is the greater of the two. Here are the numbers for other Ohio cities. Columbus 2000 2004 Change % Change population 711,470 700,874 loss 10,596 -1.5% total housing units 327,429 358,169 gain 30,740 +9.3% occupied housing units 301,788 297,497 loss 4,291 -1.4% unoccupied housing units 25,641 60,672 gain 35,031 +137% people per occupied house 2.35 2.35 0 0% change due to smaller family 301,788 x 0 = 0 0% change due to fewer occupied houses -4,291 x 2.35 = -10,083 -1.4% total change -10,083 Cleveland 2000 2004 Change % Change population 478,403 417,872 loss 60,531 -13% total housing units 215,844 214,118 loss 1,726 -0.8% occupied housing units 190,633 181,985 loss 8,648 -4.5% unoccupied housing units 25,211 32,133 gain 6,922 +27% people per occupied house 2.51 2.29 loss 0.22 -8.8% change due to smaller family 190,633 x -0.22 = -41,939 -8.8% change due to occupied house -8,648 x 2.51 = -21,706 -4.5% total change -63,645 Toledo 2000 2004 Change % Change population 313,619 305,652 loss 7967 -2.5% total housing units 139,880 140,690 gain 810 +0.6% occupied housing units 128,915 126,068 loss 2847 -2.2% unoccupied housing units 10,965 14,622 gain 3,657 +33% people per occupied house 2.43 2.42 loss .01 -0.4% change due to smaller family 128,915 x -0.01 = -1,289 -0.4% change due to occupied house -2,847 x 2.43 = -6,918 -2.2% total change -8,207 Comparison of 4 Ohio cities: Cincinnati Columbus Cleveland Toledo Houses %Change total +0.8% +9.3% -0.8% +0.6% % Change occupied -5.5% -1.4% -4.5% -2.2% % Change unoccupied +52% +137% +27% +33% Population %Change due to household size -7.1% 0.0% -8.8% -0.4% %Change due to number occupied houses -5.5% -1.4% -4.5% -2.2% %Change total -12% -1.5% -13% -2.5% Conclusion: Between 2000 and 2004, Columbus gained a lot of houses overall, but also gained a lot of vacant houses. Cincinnati gained a few houses, and Cleveland and Toledo lost a few. All four had a net loss of occupied houses, with Cincinnati and Cleveland having the larger percent change. All 4 had a dramatic increase in the number of vacant houses compared to the number of vacant houses 4 years ago. Cincinnati and Cleveland lost a significant number of people per house; in fact, loss of household size was the larger factor in population loss. Columbus and Toledo remained stable in household size.

1.2 Trillon barrels is an almost incomprehendible number. That's one estimate of how much recoverable petroleum there is in the ground. But 80 million barrels PER DAY, today's global consumption of oil, is also an almost incomprehendible number. A simple division, based on unchanging current rates, give you 1.2 Trillion barrels/ 80 million barrels per day = 15,000 days, or only 41 years! :-o "A child born in 1970 will see 80% of the world's petroleum consumed in his lifetime." - M. King Hubbert

I think this will help explain some things. I've mentioned these stats before. The average woman in 1955 had 3.5 kids. The average woman in 2000 had 2.1. In addition, people are getting married later in life. In 1970 the average age for first marriages was 23 for women and 24 for men. Now it's 26 and 27. While I don't have a number, I'm pretty sure that the number of single parents, due to divorce, is up. Also, while I don't have a number, I'm sure there are more empty-nesters, more widows, and more widowers, living by themselves. Every one of these stats leads in the same direction: fewer people per house. So, if you had 100 houses in a neighborhood in 1955 and still have 100 houses in the same neighborhood in 2000, you are likely declining in population, even though all of those houses are still occupied. From two parents and 3.5 kids to one parent and 2.1 kids is a whopping 63% decline! The Census numbers don't surprise me at all. The only areas that are gaining population are areas where new housing units are being built and occupied: the outer suburbs, and to a smaller extent, some downtown areas. If you don't have new construction, your population is shrinking. Whatever mistakes the Census makes, for example not counting the homeless, probably happened in the last census also. The absolute number is not as telling as the percentage change. There are four components to population change: immigrants, emigrants, births, and deaths. In Ohio, immigration and emigration are both small and about equal, and thus don't make much of a change. Right now we have more births than deaths, and thus we are growing (barely). However, the death rate is rising and the birth rate is dropping. Sometime in the future, we will have more deaths than births, if current trends continue. At that point, the population of Ohio will peak and then begin to decline. The U.S. Census says that this will happen in 2018.

Start with Sallie Hilvers at SORTA, www.SORTA.com. She is the spokeswoman there and might give you and idea of who to talk to. Actually, she will probably say, "You want to do WHAT?" Maybe ask for the person who does property management for the railroad right of ways. My guess is that no one there knows about this structure or whether or not they own it, so be prepared for an explanation. If you are still serious about it, keep in mind that digging around retaining walls is potentially hazardous. I would just like to see the site and poke around it.

Get permission from the property owner and I will help you dig it out! According to the Hamilton County Auditor's website, the property may be owned by SORTA, which makes sense because they bought some railroad property in anticipation of mass transit. I couldn't tell exactly which parcel it is located on, though, so I may be wrong.

:cry: Probably not going to make this one. Sorry!

Rumor has it that a site in Indiana near I-74 is a strong contender for this plant.

I'm busy in the morning but should be able to make it in the afternoon. Can someone PM me a cell phone number so I can find you guys? Thank You.

Something that wasn't mentioned is that Elmwood Place was a railroad and streetcar suburb while those modes of transportation were still operating. The pocket park on McGregor Avenue used to be the Railroad Depot. The Mill Creek Valley Lines used to travel up and down Vine street. The railroad no longer stops in Elmwood Place. In fact, the heavy freight line is a detriment rather than an asset. Like many other streetcar business districts, the Vine Street business district has lots of traffic - 10,000 cars a day, according to the article - but can't take advantage of it due to lack of parking. Again, the traffic is a detriment instead of an asset! They say they can't compete with the big guys - does no one understand that Walmart is competitive with parking in addition to prices? Yes, with peak oil coming on, the rules may change. For now, Elmwood place is a victim of changing transportation modes. Landscaping is nice, but will it change anything? --------- Elmwood Place and St. Bernard already share a school district. --------- I like Elmwood Place. I did some work there.

Kunstler and others are calling for the end of suburbia; While I can't say how the oil economy is going to play out, I'm not convinced that it's going to end that way. "Considering peak oil, we can still drive SUV's, but we won't be able to drive as many of them." Here's a peak-oil related article that is NOT all gloom and doom. http://articles.sfgate.com/2006-05-14/opinion/17295280_1_gasoline-prices-energy-costs-higher-energy SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE Suburbia will survive a gas crunch It thrived in the 1970s, will adapt to latest spike Joel Kotkin Sunday, May 14, 2006 Predictions of the demise of suburbia, choked to death by high gasoline prices, may be greatly exaggerated. Conventional wisdom suggests that high prices at the pump mean less driving and, hence, the withering of far-flung suburbs, whose residents must drive to jobs, shopping and recreation. For today's warriors in the fight against sprawl, there's a silver lining in this: The soaring price of gas evokes images of a nation retreating back to its urban past, with chastened suburbanites abandoning their SUVs and shopping malls for the comfort of dense cities and mass transit.

"huh? gas prices have gone up? i hadn't noticed. (yes thats a joke)." I never really paid much attention to gasoline prices until I found out about peak oil. In fact, in a demented sort of way, it's enjoyable to watch people squirm, whine, and get aggravated over gasoline prices. I found it kind of exciting to see gasoline break the $2.00 a gallon mark; it felt like a historical milestone. About a year ago, I heard a woman say, "Gas prices are ridiculous," and this was at $2.15 a gallon. "You ain't seen nothin' yet," I thought to myself without saying anything. There's something special about the price of gasoline: 1. It is displayed on big signs. 2. It is often quoted to the mill (0.1 cents.) 3. The quoted prices includes taxes. 4. The retail prices changes daily, and sometimes even more frequently. Can you think of any other retail product with such an interesting price? Bread? Milk? Lumber? Flour? Clothes?

Here's how I'm feeling it: First, gas stations are making you pre pay before filling. If you are one to use credit cards or if you always buy an even dollar amount of gasoline, it may not affect you that much. I typically top off the tank, so I have to park, walk in and pay, fill up, then walk in again to get change. I have to stand in line twice! I have a 15 gallon tank. At about $3.00 a gallon, that's about $45. To add insult to injury, the gas station won't take $50 bills! Arrrgh! Gasoline is still cheap. If you think gasoline is too expensive, then don't buy any!

Fascinating. Thanks for all the hard work.

Early to Bed Early to Rise Makes a Man Healthy, Wealthy, and Tired. :-D I wonder if the reason for this shift in hours is to minimize time lost in traffic.

I used the optical scan for the first time. We previously had punch cards. I used to think the punch cards were kind of fun, and I only saw them on election day, so it was a unique experience. My dad has a funny joke about elections: Your vote never counts unless your guy happens to win by one vote. As far as I know, my vote has never counted.

The American Dream is not to own a new house and a new car, as it is often defined. I prefer the definition of the American Dream as living better than one's parents. For most people, this equates to owning a new house and a new car, but it doesn't have to be that way. In terms of energy use, the current generation will probably be the first to use less industrial energy per capita than their parents. In terms of industrial energy, the American Dream is over. Happiness is not directly related to energy use, so maybe Americans will be able to be as happy as their parents. There is so much gloom and doom associated with peak oil, and automobiles especially, that it's hard to imagine any other way. I have noticed that people tend to spend their leisure time in pedestrian-oriented environments, whether it be shopping malls, Disneyland, hiking trails, beaches, or trips to Europe. Maybe a benefit of the end of the automobile era will be the ability to walk around in neighborhoods again without fear of being killed by an automobile. The automobile didn't appear in quantity until about 1913, and people still managed to enjoy life without cars. One of my older relatives tells me that life was pretty good in those days. The basic problem with high gasoline prices is that Americans have made major life decisions such as where to live, where to work, and what car to drive based on a different price. When the price of gasoline rose, all of the assumptions turned out to be invalid.

"Peak oil theorists have ignored the impact of these technological advances when they have predicted for years that world oil production was nearing its peak. And that is the reason they keep getting it wrong..." I disagree. Peak oil includes the effect of technological advances.

I was surprised to discover a light rail plan for Cincinnati from about the same era. It recommended a shared right-of-way with the C&O railroad to Cheviot and also the old CL&N to Norwood. In 1976, those railroads were still in operation, although lightly used. Combining freight with passenger vehicles on the same track would have been an operational challenge. Alas, when I discovered the 280 page plan in a garbage can, the lines had already been abandoned, track removed, and buildings placed on the former right-of-way!

In the Wagner and Wright series of booklets on the streetcars of Cincinnati there are some photos of trackwork under construction, and it was extensive. Steel ties were also used at some point. Rob is right - generally the ties would not be visible under the street pavement. You can't see the ties under a modern railroad grade crossing, either. In some places the streetcars ran on private rights of way, not in a street, and the ties were visible just like any other railway. This was called "open track". I like the Barq's sign in photo 5.

"I wonder if Ohio will ever reach a point where growth in other business sectors will be able to offset loss in manufacturing jobs..." A steady stream of news like this, along with demographic and economic data, leads me to believe that growth in other business sectors will NOT be able to offset loss in manufacturing jobs. The Industrial Age is probably coming to an end. The only questions are how fast will it decline, and will it be replaced with something else. The Seagrams plant is HUGE. I wonder what will happen to it.

"If Columbus and Cincinnati are creating so many more jobs than they're losing then why such a big decline in population?" Say in 1955 a family had a mother, father, and 3 kids, and dad was the only one with a job. In 2005 a family has a mother, father, and 2 kids, and both parents work. If the number of families is constant, and the average family followed this trend, then from 1955 to 2005, population dropped by 20% and employment increased by 100%. Of course it's a simplification, but does this make sense?

^---- I assume they are forecasting more tows or larger tows, which compete for space with recreational traffic.

I think Cheapside had something to do with the Miami and Erie Canal. There was an East Cheapside and a West Cheapside, on either side of a short branch of the canal. The big strip of land contained the canal itself and a street on either side. Rob, I checked the book "Cincinnati Fire Stations" by Bilkaskey and Gargiulo and did not find that building listed in the roster.