Eigth and State

^Granted, he may be exaggerating, and he doesn't say if he is talking about the proposed uptown extention or not. Still, two can play at that game. I think that there are folks on this board that are reporting cost estimates that are exaggerated in the other direction.

Very nice. Thanks for posting.

^At least give him credit for including the operating cost, though he didn't say "$400 million including operating costs for 30 years." Often we think of infrastructure costs in terms of initial construction, but the real cost has to include operating costs, which over 30 years can equal the construction cost.

1. The Soilders and Sailors Monument in Hamilton! Ohio <br> 2. <br> 3 <br> 4. <br> 5. <br> 6. About 20 of these figures in uniforms from various periods. I think the first guy lost his shoes. The British and French fought a series of foreign wars over the American fur trade, all to control those 3-corner hats. <br> 7. <br> 8. The whole interior, which is larger than expected, is engraved with the names of Civil War soilders and sailors. <br> 9. Of course, women contributed to the war effort, too. <br> 10. And so did the cat. Just kidding. <br> 11. <br> 12. <br> 13. View from second floor window. This part of the Great Miaimi River was channelized after the 1913 flood. <br>

^It took on a life of its own a long time ago. The debate really isn't about the streetcar at all. In my humble opionion, it's really about: Frustration over the City of Cincinnati cutting jobs due to budget problems. Adversarial relationships between various political figures. Anti-government and anti-tax sentiments in general. WLW and the Enquirer trying to drum up something to talk about on slow news days.[ I saw about 20 kids carrying Smitherman signs today.

^There's not much of a reason to drive if you've lost your job! The unemployed, underemployed, and retired are the ones that are bringing the average miles per person down. Plus, just think of how many people drive as part of their job, whether its in personal vehicles or in commercial company vehicles. Lose those jobs, and you lose all those miles.

Some of that $100 billion included oil. For example, if a driver pays more for gasoline instead of purchasing a donut, then it cuts into the donut business, and the donut man drives fewer miles delivering donuts. Just about everything that Americans spend money on has petroleum as one of the components. I guess what they are saying is that American drivers will cut other things before they cut driving.

On another note, Queen City Metro is opening a new special route using buses decorated to look like trollies. From go-metro.com: Add some sparkle to your holidays downtown when you ride the Holly Jolly Trolley, sponsored by The Banks and DCI. Operating Friday, Nov. 25 and Saturdays Nov. 26, Dec. 3, 10 and 17 from noon to 5 p.m. New route: along Walnut and Vine Streets from Freedom Way to Central Parkway, with service to The Banks, Fountain Square, the Main Public Library and much more.

Too bad I already had other plans. Still waiting for that Hamilton meet, too. Jeffrey, please let us know how the canal thing turns out. I've known about that group for years. They have some excellent tour guide booklets.

What's the story with the blue bridge? Is it new, or is it the old one with a new look?

I'll take your word for it. Cincinnati is losing population, and so is Hamilton County, so the net 12,000 new residents must be going somewhere else. I can only assume that they are ending up somewhere else other than OTR for a reason. I overheard a West Chester resident say that he chose West Chester because all the buildings are new. One of my buddies moved to Miami Township specifically for the schools. Another one picked Sharonville for the schools, and one picked Sycamore Township for schools. So, schools seems to be a pretty big factor to me. One friend moved in from out of state and seriously looked at Over-the-Rhine and had lots of good things to say about it but specifically rejected it because of the perception of crime - actually, it was his wife that rejected it. Despite all of this, I am hoping for the best.

I'm not suggesting it as a real alternative - I was using it as a way to explain how borrowing works, to emphasize that the stadium project is not paid off yet, and that finding the money to pay for the stadium is a problem that has still not been solved, even though the stadium is built and operating. You talk about the government deliberately misleading people, and I think the stadium tax is one where the people were misled about the actual cost, and that's how the tax passed. I disagree with you there. The Hamilton County treasurer has to pay real money to service the debt - and that's money that could have been spent on something else. It's the same effect as a typical homeowner that make mortgage payments. If the need to make a payment wasn't there, then the homeowner could spend, say, $500 a month on new clothes instead of mortgage bills. I agree with you there, and most people never understand the interest formulas, either. But inflation isn't the only reason why home prices have gone up. In some parts of town, home prices have gone down.

I agree with all of that, except that a pessimistic attitude is what led me to a correct answer on the Census projection. What led to a correct answer was the assumption that the rate of change from 1990 to 2000 would be about the same as from 2000 to 2010. I don't think of myself as a pessimist, but a realist. A rational projection is neither optimistic nor pessimistic, though those terms have become associated with growth and decline. Glad to hear it. I wish the best for Cincinnati. The metro area is barely growing. Just wanted to make that clear. Another way to direct some of that development to the urban core is to stop subsiziding suburban sprawl. This is something that the City of Cincinnati has control over, since CWW and MSD are controlled by the city. Yet, hardly anyone talks about sewer and water. Out of sight, out of mind, I guess. Whenever I visit newly developing regions such as Union Center Boulevard, which just exploded in the last decade or two, I wonder what the urban core might be like if some of that development was directed to the core instead. Urbanites complain of the lousy built environment in sprawl areas, but if you really look at it the architecture is not that bad. The problem with sprawl development is not the buildings, but the spaces between the buildings, and specifically the design of everything around the automobile. True story whick I am not making up: I went to a city council meeting where a proposal to extend water service on Harrison Avenue to Blue Jay was on the agenda. One of the council members mentioned something about the water main extension promoting urban sprawl, but the motion was passed anyway. After they decided to build the water main, one of the councilmen asked, "Oh, by the way, where is Blue Jay?" So, urbanites are clueless about some things, too. You can't blame everything on suburbanites. In this case, council voted for a water main extension that effectlvely encourages more people to move out of the city. Can you really blame the suburbanites for taking them up on it? Suburban Sprawl and urban blight are part of the same problem. It is the result of population shifts from one place to another. What do to about it, I am not sure.

I know. The typical suburbanite has never even ridden a Metro bus in his entire life, is afraid of Over-the-Rhine, has never been to Findlay Market, and thinks of the entire urban core from the river to Norwood Lateral as "downtown." I'm not defending suburbanites. There are quite a few of them that at least come to Riverfest, Taste of Cincinnati, Bengals games and Reds games, and some of them work downtown, so it's not a total loss. You may laugh at my streetcar on the OASIS line idea, but at least it would expose some of those suburbanites to a real streetcar, and get them used to the idea. There's nothing like first-hand experience. Overheard in Cleveland: "When I found out that the waterfront line goes right to the stadium, I started riding it."

The plan for the stadiums was that bonds would be sold to raise capital to build the stadiums, and the bonds would be repaid over many years with interest. This is just a fancy way to say that the County borrowed money to build the stadiums, the alternative being to raise a one-time tax that was very high and pay for the stadiums outright. Borrowing money makes a good business better, because the business has access to more capital to make investments to make more money. On the flip side, borrowing money makes a bad business worse, because borrowing money results in a debt that prevents the business from making needed investments, and requiring the business to spend operating funds on financing the debt. The question is whether the stadium was a good investment. The idea was that it would draw more people to Hamilton County, who in turn would spend more money and result in more tax revenue, and result in a net benefit to the county. What actually happened is that the stadium got built, and it filled up for most of the games, but the sales tax revenue didn't increase. Actually, it increased for about 3 years, then decreased. Now, we have a stadium, but we also have a debt of some $14 million every year that needs to be paid back. This wasn't part of the plan - we were supposed to have a surplus. So, something must have gone wrong, and now we are stuck with it, and we need to either raise taxes or cut something else to pay back the loan. That's real money, and the untold story is that Hamilton County could be spending $14 million a year on something else - like streetcars. Which do you think was the better use of those funds, the stadium or the streetcar, or one of a hundred other things? I will admit that having the Bengals gets us national attention, because anytime someone says "Cincinnati Bengals" on television, Cincinnati gets a mention, which is worth something. But is it worth it? Lexington, Kentucky has an economy that is growing faster than ours, and they don't have an NFL team, or the debt that goes along with it. Numerous studies have suggested that sports stadiums are bad investments.

Excellent post. I disagree with you here. If Cincinnatians (people who live within the municipal boundaries and vote on the streetcar issue) want to build the streetcar without interference from the suburbs, then they need to stop asking the state for money, stop asking the county to pay for the required sewer work, and stop submitting articles to WLW and the Enquirer whose the market is mostly suburban. "Mind your own business" works both ways. Hamilton County taxpayers are deeply concerned about their "homeland," and they support it financially, just as the United States supports Isreal to the tune of $5 billion per year. Hamilton County taxpayers support the stadiums, the Museum Center, and the Zoo, plus myriad county services that benefit the city such as children's services, MSD, and the sheriff, plus quasi-governemtn ones like county parks and libraries. Where would Cincinnati be today if the unincorporated suburbs and other municipalities just disappeared? Yes, the politics of the situation is messed up. John, I'm with you there. Believe me, I drive way too much, and I'm tired of it. I would LOVE to commute to work by streetcar! The trouble is, I don't work downtown. 86% of the jobs in Hamilton County are not downtown. I know you have to start somewhere, but in Cincinnati the car is king, and it's a tough market to crack. I don't have the answer. I did! And I even published it on this site. It goes on Main and Walnut instead of Elm and Race, and passes by all the same major destinations except Music Hall and Findlay Market. It is 12 blocks shorter with fewer bends, which is a signficant cost savings for both construction and operation, and improves travel times between downtown and U.C. But then again, I'm just some guy on the internet who no one takes seriously. :wink: Just sayin'.

^Thanks John for that history, and for all you have done for Cincinnati. And thanks natninja for the kind words. Not to turn this into a stadium thread, but back in 1996 I favored keeping giving Riverfront Stadium to the Bengals and building a new ballpark at Broadway Commons. This idea was presented among others by Mark Purdy of the Enquirer, the same guy that took a long, continuous walk through Cincinnati neighborhoods, staying at hotels along the way, and wrote a daily piece for over 20 days. Unfortunately, Hamilton County cannot afford two new stadiums without cutting something else, as evidenced by the debt problems we are having now. All of that interest on the stadium debt could have been used for other economic development projects, either public or private, and the untold story is what hasn't happened as a result of that debt. A distinct advantage of the Broadway Commons site for urban fans would be the opportunities for street vendors. I have always enjoyed the urban environment around ballparks as much as the game itself. One of the problems with the riverfront is that the vending is highly controlled, being written into the lease agreement. Nevertheless, the ballpark turned out better than I expected, mostly because it showed some quality urban design. The new Fort Washington Way way is a smashing success, the only drawback being that it wasn't built that way the first time. The transit center showed courage and foresight but so far has not lived up to its potential due to lack of use. The Banks is encouraging, but being vacant for most of the last ten years, I would have to say that it hasn't quite lived up to its potential. Paul Brown Stadium (which I do NOT think is a good example of quality urban design) is great for just 8 days a year; if you like tailgate parties, then I'm happy for you, but that's just not my thing. The Freedom Center - well, I visited it on the day it opened and haven't been there since. It has nice curved walls of Italian stone. Natninja, I'm glad that you mentioned the Census. In another thread, I correctly projected that Cincinnati would come in under 300,000 in the 2010 census. This was not a wild guess at all, but a careful mathamatical projection. I took the rate of change from 1990 to 2000 and applied that rate to the 2000 numbers. No big surprise there. I suppose the thing to mention is that it was a very unpopular guess, but it was based on a rational assumption that trends would be similar to what they were in the past. What is somewhat disconcerting to me is that so many on this board were predicting big increases in population not because they made their own rational projection but based on emotions of what they thought or felt was happening, or on an interpretation of an intermediate estimate that was just plain wrong. I've been sort of a contrarian on this board, which attracts attention, but my goal is not to attract attention to myself, put someone down or rain on their parade, but to make Cincinnati the best it can be by sharing information. I have learned a lot from this board, and I hope that someone has learned something from my posts. And yes, this discussion does in fact bring us back to streetcars. In 1920, Cincinnati's population was growing. For that reason, the leaders at that time had some grand plans for expansion - the subway, new parks and parkways, new bridges (or replacement of old ones,) Cincinnati Union Terminal, new skyscrapers, and a general upgrade of all infrastructure everywhere. Also at that time, they were able to pay for much of it with new tax revenues. Today, things are different. Cincinnati is SHRINKING in population, jobs, and tax revenue. This is not necessarily bad, as the general health and well being of everyone seems to be going up, but the raw population is dropping, and is likely to do so for the forseeable future. The bottom line is that Cincinnati has a low birth rate and a low immigration rate. The population cannot grow without bringing in new people. I think everyone agrees that if the streetcar opened today, it would be underutilized. The whole point was to facilitate development and bring in new people. My main question - and I think a lot of folks outside of this forum agree with me - is, "where are these new residents going to come from?" Of all places, why decide to build a streetcar in Over-the-Rhine? Portland does it with foreign immigration, plain and simple. I have shown already in this thread that 20% of new Portland residents reside in the area near the streetcar. The key is NEW residents. Cincinnati doesn't have any NEW residents to speak of; we are LOSING population. 20% of zero is zero. Marketing to a declining demographic is not usually a great business decision for long-term growth. Declining population spells trouble for future mass transit in Cincinnati, because mass transit by definition is for moving a lot of people. Sorry if I have rambled on too much about utilities, but the basic issue with the utilities is that the proposed streetcar project is going to cost much more than intially expected because of issues with existing utilities. This is not an excuse not to build it, but a real concern that the project is never going to really get started, because there are no provisions to do the required utility work. So, in my humble opinion, the streetcar project has a poor chance of success for two reasons. Since 2007 when the feasibility study was published, 1) the probable ridership has gone down along with population, while 2) the probable cost has gone up with more information about utilities. Both moves are in the wrong direction. Add to this the negative attention from WLW and the Enquirer, warranted or not, and some increased cost due to inflation over the intervening years, and the chances do not look good. Does this mean I am a backward naysayer? I hope not, and it isn't meant to come across that way. I am not opposed to the streetcar, but am highly skeptical that it will actually get built, and even if it does, skeptical that it will be successful. (My definition of "success" includes a healthy ridership and proper budget for construction and operation, not one with unexpected debt left over like Paul Brown Stadium.) Hope and optimism from enthusiasts are no replacement for actual riders and cash on hand. Voting for council candidates that support the streetcar does little if they don't actually do anything about it, but I guess it's still better than voting for council candidates that outright oppose it. Selling buttons and T-shirts is good fun and probably gains some attention but it is no comparison to what Mike Brown did for his stadium project: he spent a couple million dollars of his own money on a political campaign and got a sales tax passed to fund his project. I know everyone is occupied by the election and COAST shenanigans at present, but what I feel this project really needs is a healthy source of funds: $250 million for starters, not the $110 million or whatever the current budget is supposed to be, because it isn't enough. Just relocating the Duke Energy utilities alone is going to be $30 million. And that $250 million that we need is real money, not hope that we might get it from the state or any other source. Lacking $250 million, we need to take a realistic look at what to do with this project. Scale it back? Or - dare I say - cancel it and starting discussing another project? Or find a good, solid $250 million to get it done as originally proposed? A couple of posters have asked for alternatives. No one here seems to like mine. But since some of you keep asking, I'll bite. All of these are viable alternatives. Please don't hate me. 1. Build a LIGHTER streetcar, with lighter cars and lighter track. I don't know where to find a manufacturer of a lighther streetcar, but this is not unreasolvable. Too bad no one makes PCC cars, Curved-siders, or Brill Trolleys anymore, and they wouldn't be ADA accessible anyway. The advantage of light track - and this is key - is that it may not involve relocating so many utilities, and so it would reduce construction costs. Lighter streetcars would be historically accurate, if that matters to anyone. The drawback is that they wouldn't look like the ones in Portland, and won't have as high capacity. (The need for more vehicles may not really reduce operation costs much if more drivers have to be hired.) By the way, this wasn't my idea. I got it from a post by JJacucyk. 2. Pick a different route. No, there are basicly no streets without utility issues, but one street may have fewer utilities than another. You have to map the utilities to know for sure. I'm not going to suggest one now, but suffice it to say that there are millions of possible routes, all with their own advantages and disadvantages. One might even think outside of the current proposal and propose a streetcar in a different neighborhood. The streetcar doesn't necessarily need to go to Findlay Market, Fountain Square, The Banks, the hospitals, and the zoo to be successful. It could go to any combintion of possible destinations. (I still don't understand the need to go to Findlay Market, as opposed to, say, the proposed casino or any other destination.) 3. Swallow pride and switch to rubber-tire coaches. ("The Winburn Plan.") I know, I know, never send a bus to do a train's job. A train is better than a bus, but a bus is better than nothing at all, which is what we have now. Leave the option open for streetcars in the future. Louisville has a "trolley" route that is actually a dressed-up bus route; it came with stops to match and it is reasonably successful, judging by the number of people using it. I would like to know more about it. 4. Switch to trackless trolleys. Clean, quiet, no-emission trackless trolleys running on overhead electric, like Dayton has, are almost as good as streetcars, at a fraction of the cost. Share purchasing and maintenance resources with Dayton, or perhaps purchase some of Dayton's used ones. Cincinnati would then be one of five cities in the United States with trackless trolleys, for a better "cool factor" than cities with common buses. Trackless trolleys would yield big cost savings in trackwork - and avoids most if not all of the underground utility issues, though overhead utilites would still be affected. The need to work under the wire might still be a source of complaints from MSD and CWW, but they wouldn't have much leverage to do anything about it if their pipelines are not affected, and they wouldn't be asked to help fund the project. Leave the option open for streetcars in the future. 5. Cancel the streetcar plan altogether, and focus on a different aspect of redevelopment, such as a marketing campaign to bring in more foreign immigrants, better access for pedestrians, better access for automobiles (the biggest complaint by suburbanites is parking and traffic), or a hundred other things that can be done to improve Over-the-Rhine. When it redevelops, then build the streetcar. 6. Build light rail on the former CL&N instead, between Downtown and Norwood. There are hardly any utilities, so trackwork shouldn't be much more than $1 million per mile. Need new right-of-way in the area of the Baldwin Building. Divert some of the ridership from the existing Montgomery Road and Reading Road bus routes to the light rail by altering bus routes to establish connections. Instant ridership, and might actually result in a net decrease in operation cost for Queen City Metro while at the same time improving travel speed for downtown commuters. Win Win! 7. Build horse cars on Fourth street. Just for fun. Be the only city in the United States with horse cars! Photo op! Historically accurate. A quality modern horse car costs just $250,000. I actually took the time to get that price quote from a manufacturer. Made in USA! Still need to work out the ADA requirement. Trackwork would be very light. No overhead wire required. Might be able to do it for $1 million or less, just 1% of the cost of the proposed streetcar, but it will carry more than 1% of the traffic, so its at least as cost effective. Manhole in the way? build the tracks right over it, leaving the manhole between the rails. MSD won't mind. They deal with a lot of poop anyway. For that matter, add a special pooper scooper to the horse car to collect the horse poop and deposit it into the manhole. Win win situation! Allow corporate sponsors to adopt a horse and give them funny names like Duke, Chiquita, Delta, and Great American. Start a marketing campaign to attract domestic Amish immigrants - they will have no objection to horse cars, and they are one of the few if not the only demographic group in Ohio with a birth rate above replacement level: 6 children per woman! (I looked it up on the 'net: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2011/01/the-inevitable-rise-of-amish-machines/ I'm not making this stuff up.) Anyway, horse cars are going to win the technology contest in the end, because they are sustainable, unlike all the other rail technologies that run on fossil fuels. Once traffic is established, and we have a local Amish population, build another horse car line on another street, not necessarily connected, and attract more Amish. Fill all of Over-the-Rhine with Amish. Their population doubles every 20 years! Plus, they don't drive cars, so there is no need for all that parking, and Over-the-Rhine can become a proper city neighborhood, like it used to be in 1890, by filling all those empty buildings and building infill in the vacant lots. In fact, this is the ONLY way to bring Over-the-Rhine back to its old population, because any other ethnic group or demographic segment other than the Amish, such as the so-called young professionals, is going to bring their cars with them, defeating the whole purpose of the streetcar, and requiring all those vacant lots for parking instead of infill development. And even if the buildings were all filled up, the population density would still be low, becauses in today's world more people live alone, or in households with 2 or 3 people, instead of big families like they used to. A neat side benefit is that the Amish actually go to church, so there is some hope for all of those neat old church buildings in Over-the-Rhine that no one cares about anymore. And they will bring the skills necessary to keep all the old buildings in good repair, since no one else seems to know how to do simple brickwork or timber work anymore. Except the Amish don't believe in architectural ornamentation, so we will have to work on that. And if you think Findlay Market is something now, just wait until the Amish farmers start using it. Ever been to an Amish farmer's market? We'll have to build 5 more markets! Pearl Street would be a good place for one - that football stadium is useless 357 days out of the year, and it wasn't designed to last more than 30 years anyway. And Amish are good fiddlers, so Music Hall will be put to good use again, and the Emery is conductive to live plays, rather than, say, movies. And the Amish would fill up all those empty storefronts with shops and manufactories, that make real products like rope, candles, wooden furniture and wholesome food and then the Amish would actually shop at those stores, instead of driving to the suburban big box to buy useless gadgets made in China. Hey, I think I'm on to something here. To repopulate Over-the-Rhine, we need to forget the YP's and go after the Amish. Thanks for reading another long rambling post. :| And yes, item 7 above is ridiculous, and I hope someone got a laugh out of it. :-D But I started this post at 11:00 at night and now it's almost 6:00 in the morning. :-o This might be the longest post on this whole forum. Why do I do this? :wtf: You guys are driving me to ruin. :drunk: Or at least to lack of sleep. :cry: If there's anything I can do to help on the streetcar project, please let me know.

^Paul Brown Stadium was moved one block east (not west) to avoid some major utility work in Central Avenue. The architect's first shot at location was straddling Central Avenue, until they found out about the utility. This was after it was established that the football stadium would go on the western riverfront. Some earlier concepts had the football stadium on the eastern riverfront and the ballpark on the western riverfront. You may not have heard of the sewers under Broadway Commons, but they have caused a bit of cost to the casino project. There is a great big combined sewer about 40 feet deep which is the result of Deer Creek being enclosed. Basicly, they have decided to build over the sewer, designing the new structure in such a way to minimize damage should the old sewer collapse. Also, they have decided to rehabilitate an old hydraulic raceway from the casino site to the river for use as a stormwater outlet. Sadly, some old limestone hydraulic control structures that were still in place from the Miami and Erie Canal have finally been demolished to make way for the casino - I would have liked to have seen those. At the time of the Broadway Commons ballpark vote, part of the problem was that the exact location of the sewers were unknown. Of course, some folks who didn't want the ballpark at Broadway Commons exaggerated the problem and said the sewers would prevent the whole project. Marge Schott had at one time said that if the ballpark were built at Broadway Commons, people would not be able to find it, which is totally ridiculous. I think that the real reason why they wanted baseball on the riverfront was to be able to control the concessions, charge for parking, etc., plus set up a postcard view. Baseball at Broadway Commons would have resulted in lots of economic development for the surrounding area, which conversly might have resulted in less money for the owner, because people would spend their money in the neighborhood instead of at the ballpark. (For the record, I favored baseball at Broadway Commons.) The casino folks didn't make excuses or try to get the city or county to pay for the sewer work. The casino folks quietly spent the money to investigate and came up with a solution to deal with it, and the media was never interested in the story. The Broadway commons site is a difficult one, being an old landfill in a filled valley, and crossed by several very large and deep sewers, and probably containing hazardous material left over from its days as a railroad terminal. and that's probably the reason why it has been undeveloped for so long. The baseball folks as well as the city and county were probably reluctant to deal with it, but the casino folks were more willing to take a chance. After all, they're gamblers. :-D

I have a lot of respect for John. He has been a streetcar and light rail proponent for as long as I can remember. I met him at a public meeting a long time ago, but he probably doesn't remember me. I wouldn't mind meeting him again sometime, or going on one of his Portland trips.

Sorry, I should have said the consultant who prepared the feasibility study, along with anyone who has been using the estimated cost numbers in the feasibility study to develop the streetcar project. My language skills are far from perfect, I admit, and I have been using the words "streetcar supporter" a little bit too loosely. (I assume that the consultants were supporters as well as consultants.) Locating new infrastructure where there are few existing utilities or other infrastructure is normal. I provided the example of Paul Brown Stadium, which was placed where it is now located instead of one block west because of an existing utility in Central Avenue that would have cost tens of milliions of dollars to relocate. If the proposed bridge comes in over budget, then there will be a choice to either cancel the project or increase the budget, neither of which are happy outcomes, and yes, whoever authorized the project is to blame. A better choice would be to make sure that there are enough funds in the budget to complete the project in the first place. As for ridiculous posts, sorry if I ramble too much. I am trying to do better.

Just about every street in downtown Cincinnati and Over-the-Rhine is congested with utilities, as compared to say, one in Forest Park. The streetcar proponents picked just about the worst part of the metro area to build the streetcar as far as utilities are concerned. That doesn't mean that the project is hopeless; it just means that enough money needs to be budgeted to deal with it, or maybe a different route would be more advantageous. Early in this thread I suggested light rail on the former CL&N. Jake pointed out that it does not go through the heart of downtown, and neither does it go to UC., which are both facts. But the advantage of that route is that it is mostly free of utiliites. Open trackwork on a graded right-of-way costs about $1 million per mile, which is much, much less than a streetcar track in Elm or Race will cost. The football stadium was built one block east of where it was originally intended because of a conflict with a utility. So, these things really do matter. The streetcar proponents should have paid more attention to utilities. That's all I'm saying.

^No, I didn't say that. It is my opinion that the streetcar supporters made a major error with regard to utilities. The feasibility study (from 2007, I think) studied a couple of alternative routes, and picked a preferred alternative, without any real idea what utilities were in the street. Then, they came up with a cost estimate that included an amount for utility relocation that was way too low. Next, there was pressure to reduce the utility budget to save on total project costs, and finally, lacking funds to do the proper utility work, the project managers suggested that all of the utility companies - Duke, Cincinnati Water Works, MSD, Cincinnati Bell, Sprint, etc., -foot the bill with their own funds. Two of those utilities, CWW and MSD, happen to be publicly owned, but that doesn't change the fact that there wasn't enough money in the proposed budget to relocate the utilities. CWW and MSD didn't budget for the streetcar. In short, the streetcar supporters didn't allow for proper utility work. This doesn't mean that since it's difficult, it should not happen. What it means is that to improve the chances of success, the proponents should allow for the utility work, which means they need to get a good idea of what it will cost, and budget accordingly. If they can't come up with the money, then they should find more money, or scale back the project, or even cancel it and propose a different project that is more affordable.

Just about everyone will pay at least something. If a water main breaks below the streetcar tracks, the track foundations will probably be damaged. Even if CWW foots the bill for repairs, the streetcar operators and riders will pay in the form of track inspections and safety checks, reduced service, cost of shutting down and restarting, etc. In an ideal world, the best design is to not build the tracks over a water main. With all due respect to the advantages of streetcars, working around utility problems, fires or other emergencies, or any other event that could affect the route is not simple or easy. By contrast, buses simply detour around the block until the event is over.

^ Many "bridges" of that era are actually two bridges side-by-side. Dual bridges allow for closure of one at a time for repairs. Also, when the width gets more than about 4 lanes, dual bridges become less expensive than one wide one. The Brent Spence is the odd one, being double-deck instead of dual. Maybe they didn't have room for dual bridges, or maybe the double-deck design was picked to accomodate the ramps on the Ohio side.

Huh? :| I think you are mistaken. There is no federal mandate to upgrade the sewers in downtown or Over-the-Rhine before 2018. (If you think there is, please show me.)