Eigth and State

Wow NY Mom, that must be one of the longest posts on this board. Thanks for sharing, and welcome to the forum.

"If we immediately put $15 to $20 worth of tax on every gallon of gas,..." Ok, KJP, I've heard your argument many times. Drivers do not pay the full cost of the highway system, including parking lots, storm sewers, etc. May I ask, then, who is it that is paying for these items? In the United States there are ~300 million people and ~150 million cars. So, on average, there is one car for every two people. Are you inferring that the non-drivers are subsidizing the drivers? I agree that they are, but using the simple ratio of 2:1 then it should cost ~$1.00 per mile to drive instead of ~$0.50. That is STILL incredibly cheap. To demonstrate just how cheap that is, suppose that you commute 1 mile to work and you make $6.00 an hour. You could walk that distance in about 15 minutes, or drive in 2 minutes. If you drive, you save 13 minutes. If you spend that 13 minutes working, you make $1.30. So, you are actually making money by driving instead of walking, EVEN if the costs of driving are doubled! Considering that most people make significantly more than $6.00 an hour, it is evident that the car is very hard to beat. Taking transit is not much better for most conditions, though in certain situations taking transit will do better than driving, especially if there is a cost for parking. I had the chance to visit a second-world country where the cost of driving is about the same, but the average person only made the equivalent of $1.00 per hour. As to be expected, automobile ownership was much lower. By my own estimate, only one of 10 people owned a car. This ratio is manageable, and the urban areas were not surrendered to the automobile as American cities are.

In general, the more densly populated an area is, the more laws there are. One might get a nuisance citation for letting a dog run loose or operating a barbecue grill in the city, while the guy in the country can shoot a dog or build a bonfire without an issue. So, New York City would be expected to be more oppressive than any Ohio city. The flip side is that cities also have better city services such as utilities, garbage collection, fire protection, etc., that are not even available in the country. The article, though, didn't address cities; it addressed states.

One of the local township governments in Cincinnati approved a zone change for a new shopping center on the condition that buses be prohibited, with the intention clearly being to keep the riff-raff out. After some disabled residents complained of discrimination, the language was changed to prohibit buses with a capacity of more than 10 passengers or something like that, meaning to allow Metro Access buses which have wheelchair lifts but not still prohibiting regular Metro buses. So, this stuff really happens, and quite blatently.

Some people view streetcars as an optional amenity such as a large park or aquarium, not a necessity like police or fire protection. They view funding streetcars as disposable spending, not investment. In short, they don't take streetcars seriously as a viable transportation asset.

<img src="http://images.t-nation.com/forum_images/c/f/cf355_ORIG-Fonzie.jpg"> Sorry, couldn't resist. :-D

UnCollege. I like it.

They mentioned the smoking ban but eliminating the smoking ban did not make the list of the top 3 recommendations. Ohio has taxes significantly higher than the average. This may not seem like a big deal to the average person looking for a job in Ohio, but it IS a big deal to employers looking to locate in Ohio. Businesses in global markets are uncompetitive if subject to higher than average taxes. There is a movement underway to reform Ohio's eminent domain laws, which are a mess. Eminent domain laws affect the ability to redevelop cities. The recommendation specifically mentioned Indiana's licensing laws and utility regulations as a model to use.

No.

I ride it infrequently now, but I rode Metro full time for many years. As Jake said, it is most useful when your house and job are on the same line. If you live in an inner-ring suburb on one of the main lines and work downtown, then riding Metro is the best way to go. If you live in an outer-ring suburb or work anywhere other than downtown, it is less useful. Pros of riding Metro: Less expensive, especially if it lets you eliminate a car along with all associated maintenance, fueling, and ownership costs. No need for parking. Allows you to meet people in your community. Can use the travel time to read. Arrive at your destination relaxed and not stressed from driving. Cons of riding Metro: Mobility is limited by routes and schedules. You will find yourself arranging your schedule around the bus schedule. You will spend a lot of time waiting for the bus. Add 5 to 15 minutes to total travel time for waiting. Many of the bus stops are in undesireable locations. Pandhandlers make easy targets of waiting bus riders. Sometimes buses are crowded. You may encounter bums, rowdy school kids, crying babies, rude people, etc. You may not eat, drink, smoke, or listen to the radio while riding. In bad weather the bus schedules may get messed up and leave you stranded. I haven't ridden in a while, so this may be out of date: They take dollar bills. To transfer, ask the driver for a transfer when you get on the first leg. He gives you a slip of paper. On the second leg, you pay for the fare with the slip of paper. I find the system to be realitively easy and convenient, but I had to learn a few things the hard way. I find the route maps confusing, since many routes have daily variations. Buses were generally on time, or at least consistent, but then there was that one time when the bus was an hour late in good weather... If the trip takes 50 minutes more with the transfer, I probably wouldn't ride. My route used to take 25 minutes by car plus parking and walking versus 35 minutes and no walking by bus, so it wasn't too bad - except at rush hour, where I had to transfer and a typical ride took about an hour.

I don't have to tell myself that. My friends are telling me that. As an example, one of my buddies just bought a new house. In fact, it was a new house, custom built. I asked him why he chose to live in that particular place. He wanted a big house on a cul-de-sac in the suburbs. He specifically chose the location based on the reputation of the school district. His house is reasonably close to his parents' house and his wife's parents's house, and is a 30 minute drive to his job in the suburbs. The house is a two-story mcmansion with a basement and two-car garage on 3/4 acres of land in a new subdivision. He intentionally built near the Harrison/Rybolt area because of the shopping opportunities. (Why he did this is a mystery to me. I can't stand that area.) He tells me that this is the house he always dreamed of. He is raising two children. He makes good money. His family has two cars, and one of them is a minivan. These are the kinds of people who could potentially revitalize our cities. But he didn't move to the city. He chose the suburbs. So did many, many others like him. Sorry for drifting off topic, but I am pretty sure the lack of a streetcar is NOT what kept him from choosing Over-the-Rhine. He had very specific reasons for choosing the suburbs. In any case, this man is a very sociable person, and is NOT afraid of high density areas because he want's to get away from people. He used to have Cincinnati Bengals season tickets. If anyone wants to get away from people, an NFL game is NOT the place to be! I keep hearing on this board that young people are choosing to live in cities because of the diversity, transit options, and all that. Certainly there are some that do, but I personally see a lot more of the opposite, and it seems to be coorelated with wealth. Maybe I just have the wrong friends, aye?

^-Apparently the benefit of mobility is still so high that it outweighs the risk. I have a book from the 1930's that addresses the risk of autombile travel, and it says that a person who nearly dies in a car crash will not hesitate to get in another car and continue driving.

Naw, the people who don't like being around other people live in Idaho. Many people want to live in a large, newer house with private parking, some privacy, access to shopping, and especially, quality schools. They also want utilities and access to jobs. For many of these people, the answer is a single family house in the suburbs.

Condo fees didn't have anything to do with it for the most part. Those package plants were already publicly owned.

Yes, which is very unusual. The Taylor Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant was built around 1990 with no sewers whatsoever leading to it. Of course, plans for sewers were on the books, and during the next ten years some major trunk sewers leading to the plant were built. This allowed for elimination of many smaller package plants that each served up to a few hundred houses, and elimination of pump stations that pumped sewage to gravity sewers in adjacent watersheds. The new sewers and treatment plant were also supposed to eliminate hundreds of home treatment systems, but only a few were eliminated because it was no benefit to the owner to connect. Western Hamilton County is plagued by developments with small suburban lots served by home treatment systems that are not well maintained. The Harrison / Rybolt area had highway access but no sewers. As soon as the sewers came online, pent-up demand for commercial development caused the area to explode into a sprawly mess.

First, realize that the current system is unsustainable. We as a nation cannot afford to maintain the roads and highways that we have, much less any new ones. I would be very selective about new highway projects. A turn lane here or there, or signal timing improvements, may alleviate some trouble spots, but the end of massive new highway construction and widening projects is over. Then, I would focus on selectively maintaining what we have, and try to get the longest life out of current infrastructure. I doubt that the current funding situation will change significantly regarding the gas tax.

The State highway Patrol relieved the Cincinnati police during the riots in 2001.

^ The gasolline tax as it exists today places the burden of collection on fuel distribution companies, with some regulation by the government. Basicly, if you refuse to pay the tax, the fuel distribution company will refuse to sell you the gasoline, so enforcement costs are minimal. A mileage tax would presumably be collected by the state in which the vehicle is registered, at infrequent intervals. Suppose you owe some large sum - say $500 - all at once. The incentive to cheat the system is high. Besides the obvious odometer tampering problems, one would expect to incur more problems with unregistered vehicles on the road. Another difficulty would be dealing with the shift in political power. The gasoline tax tends to be collected in states where it is consumed. If you drive mostly in your own state, you will purchase most of your gasoline in your home state. If you take a cross-country trip, you will purchase gasoline in states that you pass through. The mileage tax will tend to shift political power to states with a lot of vehicles registered. For example, New Jersey may carry a lot of traffic from vehicles registered in New York or Pennsylvania, but comparatively few from New Jersey. "If you want to make enemies, try to change something." - Woodrow Wilson. Finally, do you really think that a vehicle mileage tax will actually replace the per gallon tax, or just supplement it? It is rare to repeal taxes, because the beneficiaries of the tax revenue will fight to preserve their revenue stream.

Thanks for posting.

I don't work for Parson's Brinkerhoff, so I don't know the answer for sure, but I suspect that it was assumed that moving the CWW water mains and MSD sewers was NOT included in the streetcar budget.

Quite simply, the streetcar has more pages of forum threads because it also has more mainstream media attention. There are no threads about those projects because ODOT does not publicize those projects the same way that the streetcar project has been publicized. We DO have Brent Spence threads and I-75 widening threads because there are also feasibility studies about those projects and lots of mainstream media coverage. For all of the criticism of the Enquirer, when the Enquirer publishes a story about the streetcar, it usually results in a few pages of forum posts. I guess UO forumers really DO read the Enquirer.

Although Parsons Brinkerhoff was on the project team, the feasibility study was produced by HDR. The project cost, as listed in that study in 2007, is as follows: "Capital Cost Estimate Baseline estimate totals $88 million in $2007. 3.9 miles of track 18 stops 6 modern streetcars maintenance facility 15% to 25% contingency Escalated to year 2010 totals $102 million ' http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/city/downloads/city_pdf16341.pdf The feasibility study does not give any further detail. But what the feasibility study did was establish the $102 million dollar number in people's minds. Beyond that, my guess is that there is political pressure for any cost estimate not to exceed $102 million significantly. Of course, we know now that the primary politician promoting the stadium project got booted out of office in the next election, due to the final stadium cost being more than double the original published estimate. Cincinnati still suffers from stadium syndrome.

Basicly, the streetcar proponents have not allowed enough money for relocation of utilities. As I understand it, the feasibility study called for some $15 million to relocate all utilities, and Duke is claiming that it will cost more than that just for the Duke utilities alone. If the streetcar proponents had allowed $100 million for relocation of utilities, it wouldn't be an issue.

Here is the annual financial report from MSD. http://www.msdgc.org/downloads/financial_statements/msd_financial_statements_2009_2008.pdf MSD is not owned by the City of Cincinnati. MSD is owned by Hamilton County. The City of Cincinnati operates the sewer system as a contractor for Hamilton County. All capital improvement funding must be approved by the Hamilton County Commissioners. Rights and obligations of utilities are stated in the Ohio Revised Code. Sometimes utilities have to pay for relocation, and sometimes not, depending on the situation, whether the street is located in a municipality, and other factors. Even if the City of Cincinnati does not have to pay to relocate utilities, someone has to pay. Suppose that it costs $100 million to build the tracks, purchase property, build maintenance facilities, and purchase vehicles, and suppose it costs an addition $25 million to relocate utilities. (I made up these numbers.) Then, the total project cost is $125 million. If you claim that the project cost is only $100 million because the other costs are being paid by someone else, then you are asking for trouble when those other parties do not willingly volunteer to pony up their own money to help you build your project, even if those other parties are obligated by law to do the work themselves.

I'm just passing along the information. Are the local utilities misinformed or overly cautious because they have no experince with streetcar wires? Maybe. But the fact is that they are asking for 10' horizontal clearances from the centerline of track.