Eigth and State

Immigration laws are set by federal policy. Did you know that before about 1905, immigration was wide open? At that time, there was opposition to bringing Chinese to this country, because they supposedly increased the supply of labor and forced wages down. So, we wound up with immigration quotas. So no, states cannot hire Chinese to build infrastructure unless they do it within the confines of the federal law. But we CAN import manufactured goods from China. Can you imagine what American cities might look like if instead of manufacturing things in China and shipping goods to the U.S.A., the Chinese would have instead just moved here and worked in factories here? You just can't ship infrastructure like you can ship manufactured goods, but just look at the potential!

Nice! Thanks for posting.

I think the biggest factor is cost of driving. I can't tell you how many times I hear that people are refraining from travelling because of cost. "My daugher used to visit me once a month, but she can't afford it anymore because it costs her $35 in gas." - one of my neighbors If those charts are for the whole United States, I think the situation in California is bringing the average miles per person down. The cost of driving is higher in California, first because it is in a different petroleum market, farther from the Gulf Coast, and second because California law specifies a blend of gasoline that is supposed to reduce emiisions, but is more expensive, and third because the insurance rates are higher there. So, fewer people are driving in California, particularly young people.

Not just hillsides, but all land was nearly cleared of trees. The pioneers found an unspoiled wilderness. By about 1915 practically everything had been cleared, if not for farms and building sites then for forest products. Keep in mind that before the widespread use of electic ranges, natural gas furnaces, etc., lots of folks heated and cooked with wood. Coal and petroleum are not the principal sources of industrial energy, but as late as 1915 locomotives and riverboats were still manufactured as wood burners. A lot of land was used as pasture through about 1940. Aerial photos show that by the 1940's, the forests started to recover. We now have more forest cover in Hamilton County than we have since about 1915.

A lot of money was expended on upgrading the historic streetcar systems in the 1920's, then by 1955 just about all of the streetcar systems in Ohio were out of service. Cincinnati built a big, beautiful railroad passenger stadium at a time when passenger rail was already in decline. Cincinnati also built a 3rd runway that opened just about the time that airline traffic declined for the first time. They say that generals are always prepared for the previous war. It doesn't surprise me at all that ODOT is apparently making the same mistake.

I met a businessman that had just flown to Cincinnati for the first time. He was from California. The first thing he mentioned was that he was suprised that the airliine announced "Welcome to Kentucky."

Life's not fair. The State of Washington has a growing population and economy. The state of Ohio has a stagnant population and economy. You may be correct, but are the numbers adjusted for inflation? If revenues increase but expenses increase more, then purchasing power declines. Local governments are hurting pretty much across the board.

I didn't make a judgement on which project was more affordable or equitable. I just said that neither project is really affordable. It's kind of like asking which is better, a Porshe or a Ferrari? You could argue about which gives you the better value for the price, but it doesn't matter one bit if I can't afford either one. It isn't 1955 anymore. The reality is that unless the federal government stops funding a war, or the federal goverments puts an end to Social Security, or maybe Hamilton County closes the Sheriff's Office, or the City of Cincinnati lays off most city employess and discontinues funding the pension system, then maybe a source of funds could be diverted to the $Billion project of your choice, whether it be highways, rail, stadiums, parks, sewers, or whatever suits your fancy. As it stands, governments at all levels are collecting declining revenues, to support existing programs and services. They can't raise taxes anymore, becasue the people just don't have the money. There is simply no funding available for really expensive projects, unless something else is cut. I will agree that one option might be to stop funding ODOT's highway program and build rail instead, but I don't expect that to be politically viable. ODOT can't afford to maintain the highways AND build rail. For that matter, ODOT can't even afford to maintain the highways, and they are gradually deteriorating.

It depends on who you are. Some people will likely be better off, and some will not. Collectively, my guess is that we won't be better off. But, we don't live in a collective. You know, I'm coming to the conclusion that economic arguments for or against a project matter little. Decisions are made based on emotion, or based on some other reason.

I don't think we need to worry about it. I don't think ODOT will really build it, because it is unaffordable. There has been talk of the Brent Spence Bridge replacement for about 20 years. No one wants to admit that it is unaffordable, but instead the highway machine keeps spending a million dollars on planning and design every once in a while. By the same argument, a massive light rail system such as Metro Moves or what have you is also unaffordable.

Sheet piling?

Nice! Thanks for sharing.

^All of this talk of development of the Blue Ash Airport has really changed in tone compared to 10 years ago, when the real estate market was hot. Not much is going on in the real estate market these days. There are developable lots in new subdivisions in Hamilton County that have been vacant for 5 years. It's interesting to compare the 90 or so acres at Blue Ash with the same area of potentially redevelopable land near the proposed streetcar line.

Sometimes a local government will make land into a parik in order to PREVENT some other kind of development that is perceived to detrimental. For example (and this is just an example that I made up,) suppose that the City of Cincinnati wanted to open a new landfill on the Blue Ash airport to replace the Elda Landfill. Blue Ash obviously doesn't want a landfill, but there is little they can do about it since the land does not belong to them and has been a commercial use for decades. Blue Ash could prevent opening up a landfill by purchasing the property and making a park of it.

Gotta love the Gremlin. :-)

Anyone know if i can get a paper copy?

^People choose between the options available to them. Most people in Cincinnati drive because it is their only option. No one is going to use rail that doesn't exist. I know lots of folks who drive who say that they would take transit if it was available.

According to Dohoney as quoted by Horstman, City Hall's inability to reach an agreement with Duke threatens to pose significant cost risk and could delay construction. That's from Dohoney, not me. My interpretation of that statement is that Dohoney is publically admitting that there is a problem with the Duke utilities that could result in either a higher cost than expected or could result in the streetcar not opening on schedule. I think that the cost estimate as published in the feasibility study in 2007 was not enough to complete this project, and if I had the chance, I might have proposed another rail project that I think was more realistic. The 2007 study set the tone for this project, but it was flawed, and we are living with the consequences. That's my opinion. That is all. Please don't hate me because of something that COAST or WLW said or did.

This is directly from the Horstman ariticle: City Manager Milton Dohoney Jr. Tuesday acknowledged that City Hall’s inability to reach an agreement with Duke “threatens to pose significant cost risk” and also could delay construction of the Downtown riverfront-to-Over-the-Rhine line. I didn't read the memo myself. I am taking Horstman's word for it. This is a serious issue. I will acknowledge that there is some work going on with the water main, but that is no guarantee that the streetcar as it is currently proposed will ever be finished and operational. There is a very serious risk that the streetcar will not be completed. In my opinion, the Duke issue is more important than either one of the ballot issues, or anything that COAST has done. My whole point about the Clifton line is that there are, in fact, alternatives to the Over-the-Rhine loop. I mentioned the Clifton line only because I was specifically asked to provide an alternative. There are millions of alternatives; the feasibility study of 2007, which resulted in the promotion of the Over-the-Rhine loop, only looked a a few alternatives, all of them within Over-the-Rhine. There is no rule that says that any new streetcar in Cincinnati has to be in Over-the-Rhine, neither is there any rule that says it has to be a "modern" streetcar, as opposed to a historic one, or even a streetcar, as opposed to light rail or buses. The Cincinnati Streetcar as is is proposed today is the one that was chosen, and we have to live with that decision, good or bad. At this point there is a lot invested in the Cincinnati Streetcar as proposed today. All of that is a sunk cost. Our best option may very well be to abandon that project and consider a different project. I don't expect that to happen, because that's usually not the way it works out. That's enough for now. You guys wear me out sometimes. :-)

I came up with that on my own, not from WLW.

You build these things for a purpose, and in this case the purpose is to 1. Show that it can be done and that people will ride it. 2. Get experience constructing rail in Cincinnati, and make the utilities comfortable with it. 3. Get drivers, bicyclists, etc. comfortable with it. 4. Clear up a bottleneck in the bus system. 5. Get experience operating the system. 6. Increase mobility. 7. Promote development. 8. Get some good photo-ops. This Clifton route is a good route. It is a much better route than the proposed OASIS commuter line. It's a better route than the Kingsport Corridor, and a dozen other routes proposed by paid professionals. It has a better chance of getting built than the Over-the-Rhine and Downtown loop. I would use it. I know lots of folks would. Why so much hatred? I don't want to start a war of "my route is better than your route." I just want to say, again, that the Over-the-Rhine and Downtown Loop will not fulfill any of the purported advantages that it is supposed to if it doesn't actually get built, unless you consider all of the attention as an advantage. (Indeed, the streetcar project has brought some new interest to Over-the-Rhine already.)I do believe that the Clifton route will be much less expensive to build, and therefore has a much better chance of actually being built, and it is a worthy project in it's own right. If I had my wish, I would build the Clifton route AND one in Over-the-Rhine and Downtown, but considering limited resources, I would build the Clifton route first, because it's easier.

Gee, I feel like I am repeating everything. I already did this, but here it is again. the 2007 feasibility study, if I remember correctly, called for $110 million or so for the whole system, including $15 million for utility relocation. MSD wanted some $15 million for sewer work. The city told them to take $3 million and live with it. Water Works wanted something like $20 million. Again, the city pressured them to deal with less. Duke wanted $20 to $30 million, depending on which source you use. I don't think Duke is going to be a pushover, and in the event that a court says that they have to pay to move the Duke utilities, I think Duke is going to do everything they can to raise rates to cover it. So, the feasibility study said $15 million, but Duke, MSD, and Water Works say up to $65 million. That's $50 million more than what the feasibility study said. I took the $110 million and added $50 million. Now we are up to $160 million. I don't really have a reason to get up to $250 million, other than a feeling that the intiail estimate was way too low. It is common for projects such as this, which I consider a pet project, to get out of hand, simply because the initial estimate was too optimistic. The stadium project was initially supposed to be $250 million for two stadiums; it ended up more than double that just for the football stadium. I didn't get into any of the other utilities, such as Level 3. Of course, if Duke ends up raising their rates to cover it, what do you think the other utilities are going to do? This is my own opinion, and not based on any official record from the City or anyone else. Most of my data came from this board, or from sources cited on this board, and I am going by memory. Take it for what it's worth. And, thanks for waiting.

New rail in Clifton Avenue will be less expensive than new rail Downtown, on a per-mile basis, because there is less existing stuff in the street to move, and more room to work. If you don't believe me, go to Duke, Water Works, Cincinnati Bell, MSD, etc. and ask to see the records. Besides that, the route that I have proposed is shorter overall, and less complicated, especially if it is bi-directional with no turns and powered by diesel. It will unquestionably be less expensive to build. On the Downtown question, I DO want to go Downtown - eventually. I don't necessarily want to go downtown FIRST. Basicly, I want a route that is constructable NOW, within the current funding situation and political atmosphere.

Seconded. List your route. Put up or..... I've gone through this already, but since you insist... How about a streetcar on Clifton from Ludlow to McMillan? The street is wide, there are not as many utilities to deal with, and it will have instant ridership. Many extensions and connections are possible. It will take some traffic away from the buses that already use that corridor, on the heaviest-used part of the line, freeing them up for service elsewhere. Or, instead of a streetcar, build bi-directional light-rail on an exclusive right-of-way, taking away one lane of traffic on Clifton. It could even be diesel to save the cost of overhead wires, with the possibllity of electrifying it in the future. The distantce from Ludlow to McMillan is a little over 1 mile. Destinations include: Ludlow business district Good Sam hospital Deacones hospital University of Cincinnati west campus Hughes Corner and McMillan business district Bus connectiions include the 17, 19, 38X, 51, 31, and 36. Four of those lines presently use Clifton Avenue and could be diverted elsewhere to increase coverage or decrease travel time. I like the idea of diverting the 17 to Jefferson and Vine to pick up University Hospital and at the same time decrease travel time between Downtown and Northside. There are many more examples of alternate routes. Downtown and Over-the-Rhine are certainly worthy desitinations, but there is no rule that says they have to be served first. If fact, it may be prudent to start small on something easy and work up to a rail project that reaches downtown.

The primary construction issue with the current streetcar proposal is utility relocation issues. In this way, construction of a streetcar is similar to construction of any other utility, such as a sewer, water main, gas main, etc. The basic rule of thumb is that the more stuff that needs to be moved out of the way, the more it's going to cost. Utilities always look at underground records when considering alternative alignments for new utilities, and adjust alignments accordingly. Of course, a water main is more flexible than a streetcar line, becaues the water main doesn't have to be coordinated with traffic. Anyone who works in the industry at Duke, Water Works, MSD, Cincinnati Bell, etc., could have said right off the bat that the proposed Downtown and Over-the-Rhine loop was going to be extraordinarily expensive. In fact, right after the 2007 feasibility study was published, I talked to someone in the industry, and he said that they didn't budget enough to relocate the utilities - not even close. The Over-the-Rhine loop can still be done, IF there is enough money in the budget to do it. I contend that the City just doesn't have the money; it is going to cost way more than ~$110 million, more like $250 million. That's the heart of the problem. Another possiblity might be to use a smaller rail vehicle that doesn't require such heavy tracks, more like a historic streetcar than a modern one, or shorten the route, or pick a different route, or even "gasp" use rubber-tired buses instead of rail. In any case, I don't think the City can afford to build the streetcar as it's currently planned with the budget they have, and Dohoney in his memo hinted so himself.