Keep your eye on the ball: the insistence that the streetcar go to uptown in the first build is simply a way of deflecting energy from an achievable plan without seeming to oppose the idea of a streetcar in principle.

 

Agreed.  But it's weird that this is coming from Qualls.  I've never been a huge fan of hers, but I always thought she was a rail proponent.  She must realize that she's jeopardizing the whole project with this.

 

 

Also, what does it mean that several council members have signed her proposal?  Does that imply that they now oppose the original plan?  Or simply that they would support either plan?

"endorses a line from Downtown to Uptown, rather than a loop through Over-the-Rhine."

"Qualls said Wednesday it’s exciting that a majority of council was willing to support a line between Downtown and Uptown, two high-employment areas, and that council members recognized the economic development opportunities of connecting the job centers of Downtown and the area around the University of Cincinnati and the hospitals."

 

followed by

 

"a letter to city officials stating the she understands the importance of completing the downtown loop first with local funds before undertaking the uptown loop."

 

This is a just a case of communication breakdown?  I said they have been talking, now it seems they should be talking.

 

 

Not so sure what's so mysterious about getting from downtown to the UC area.  Obviously the simplest routing of all would be to tranform all of Vine St. to two-way, kick the buses off of it south of McMicken (busses are so gosh-darn flexible, remember?), and run both streetcar tracks straight up from the river to UC.  Any routing which ignores UC such as Highland Ave. or Auburn Ave. is beyond foolish.  Not quite sure why people don't think there's a lot of steady traffic between uptown and downtown throughout the day.  A cursory survey of downtown garages and lots on workdays shows that many spots free up after lunch and are replaced by those with sundry business in the afternoon.  Something like only 50% of Americans work normal business hours.       

 

Being anti-streetcar is a way for Cranley and apparently now Qualls to attract the affections of talk radio.  Obviously both have political aspirations beyond city council and that's all they care about.   

Qualls position is clear...she wants to have the streetcar connect Downtown and Uptown.  The details inbetween (i.e. OTR) seem to be less clear by her standing.  I think she just wants to force the connection to Uptown with some sort of guarantee (which fundamentally isn't a bad thing).  Her approach is debatable, but the bottom line is that the hearing on the 25th is still on.

 

This hearing is still going to be the vote we have been discussing, and still appears to have a solid chance at passing.  There seems to be a few members that are still on the fence...and it is VERY important that EVERYONE SHOW UP TO THE HEARING TO SHOW YOUR SUPPORT OF THE STREETCAR PLAN.

 

A strong showing could very well sway 1 or 2 of these individuals one way or another...lets improve our odds and tilt things in our favor.  WE NEED AS MANY PEOPLE AS HUMANLY POSSIBLE TO SHOW UP TO THE HEARING ON THE 25TH.

A note from Chris Bortz on the Cincinnati Streetcar:

 

"Today there were productive conversations with members

of Council, the Mayor and key members of the

administration regarding streetcars in Cincinnati.

 

Everyone is looking forward to the presentation in

Finance Committee on Monday to hear the

administration's financing recommendations,

suggestions for how we might take the next steps in

the process, and collect citizen input.

 

We will not take legislative action on Monday. After

Council has had an opportunity to digest the

information presented, the Mayor and members of

Council will work together to draft a motion that

defines expectations about the scope of the plan,

financing strategies, issues related to integration of

transportation networks, and other critical path tasks

that must be accomplished to continue moving forward

with a comprehensive streetcar system connecting

Uptown and Downtown through Over-the-Rhine within a

time frame that is both compressed and achievable.   

 

There is firm commitment that Council and the Mayor

will work quickly to keep the ball moving on this

exciting project." 

 

Chris Bortz

 

with some sort of guarantee (which fundamentally isn't a bad thing).

And there lies your answer.  As I said before, this is primarily a red hearing and she is trying to get something (for someone).  This is probably the something and Uptown Consortium is probably the someone. 

 

Answer, it is a red herring.  But negotiations are now open and she will give, and so will you.  The only question is what is she looking for?  It isn't in the proposal, it is in the negotiated settlement.  And I would be willing to bet she has thought it through to this point already.  She knows what she is doing.

 

"[glow=red,2,300]VERY important that EVERYONE SHOW UP TO THE HEARING TO SHOW YOUR SUPPORT OF THE STREETCAR PLAN[/glow]."

and now even more so.  These are politicians and they pay attention to levels of support.  Everyone needs to be at the hearing on the 25th. 

Words can't describe the importance of showing up on Monday. I want to be there; however, a job interview keeps me from being there, and it really, really pains me.

 

This project is probably the most important project that Cincinnati has considered in a very long time, even more important than the Banks. Oh how I wish, I want to be there on Monday. I may not be able to be there Monday, but I'll defend this project to death. Words can not describe how important I think this project is for the city and region.

Thursday, February 21, 2008

 

"Mallory: Miscommunication on Streetcars"

 

Mayor Mark Mallory, in an interview Thursday with Margaret McGurk, said he thinks a more detailed streetcar plan and financing program to be announced at Monday's finance committee meeting will allay any council concerns about streetcars.

 

Re Roxanne Qualls' resolution that seeks more research about streetcars: "I think there has been some miscommunication, perhaps some misunderstanding among some council members." He reiterated the point that expansion to Uptown has always been integral to the plan. Her motion drew six signatures, a majority of the nine council members.

 

As for competition for TIF financing between streetcars and 3CDC, he said: "We prioritize what 3CDC is doing." The city can build the streetcars and support 3CDC at the same time. "We can't separate these things out anyway." (Meaning the streetcars need development, development needs the streetcars.) "Transportation development done right is an economic development driver."

 

"Big things can be done. This city has a history of doing big things."

 

posted by Jane Prendergast at 2/21/2008 07:24:00 PM   0 comments links to this post

 

http://frontier.cincinnati.com/blogs/gov/

 

Also:

 

http://blogs.citybeat.com/porkopolis/2008/02/council-tweaks.html

 

http://cincinnati.blogspot.com/

Ah, and while we're at it giving historic quotes, as I've told John before, my favorite when discussing the streetcar:

 

"Those who govern, having much business on their hands, do not generally

like to take the trouble of considering and carrying into execution new

projects. The best public measures are therefore seldom adopted from

previous wisdom, but forced by the occasion."

-Benjamin Franklin

 

Great quote, and still so true today!

From CityBeat: "Later Wednesday, however, some supporters reconsidered after discussions about the motion’s impact. A few members began expressing doubts, stating the funding restrictions could delay or kill the project."

 

Nothing like signing a document before reading it!  In the private sector, that gets you fired.  If you're a councilmember, that makes you prudent?

Sorry for multiple posts, but I'm getting steamed:

 

1)  This whole "link Uptown and Downtown thing":  Why is that such an immediate need with the first phase?  This is not commuter rail.  If a Clifton resident wants to commute Downtown, this is not their mode.  It will probably take at least 3 times longer to get there by streetcar than to hop on 71 or 75.  Can you imagine taking that thing all the way down the hill to Government Square?  Better wake up at 4 to get in the office on time!

 

2)  I've heard that an estimated 40 cities are now in some sort of investigation of streetcar implementation.  If they're all on more accelerated paths than Cincinnati (my guess is, they are), by the time we install track we will be catching up to the rest of the country rather than getting an edge.

 

3)  Qualls is smart, she knows exactly what she is doing.  This is obvious stall, you can't dispute that.  But have we considered that maybe she's still behind this and that she didn't want to put it to vote for other reasons?  Obviously, we don't know the whole story.  Perhaps she needed some more time to gather support (or convince Cranley?).  Doubtful, but no one else has thrown it out there.

 

4)  Either way, this isn't fair to the residents of this fair city and of these neighborhoods to keep delaying these projects.  By holding up these things in council, we get a day older.  These are projects that people want, and politics is getting in the way of improving peoples' lives.  And that's just plain unfair to the people who decided they should be making decisions for them.

 

Sorry for ranting, I should save this for the blog.

>If a Clifton resident wants to commute Downtown, this is not their mode.  It will probably take at least 3 times longer to get there by streetcar than to hop on 71 or 75.

 

Unless you drive against traffic down the s71 exit ramp at Taft and do a U-turn, there's no way on 71 south between downtown and Dana Ave.  Local streets beat I-75 any time of day or night.

 

 

>Can you imagine taking that thing all the way down the hill to Government Square? 

 

Yes.

 

 

>Better wake up at 4 to get in the office on time!

 

Out in the suburbs or calling in to Scott Sloan you'd get away with comments like this but not on this site.  It takes 30-35 minutes to walk from the center of UC's campus to Fountain Square.  I've done it several times.  But you'd be about right for those who clock in at 4:30am. 

 

 

John Schneider directed me this evening to this forum, and after reviewing the 2,600+ posts I'm disappointed it took me so long to find it.  Many of you appear to be passionate and thoughtful supporters of streetcars in Cincinnati, and it seems like a fun forum.  I would like to join the conversation.

 

Some quick observations.  I believe strongly that a majority of City Council (including and especially Councilmember Qualls) suppports building a streetcar.  I know the Mayor believes it is a major Cincinnati priority.  I also believe that 3CDC and Mr. Pichler in particular agree that a streetcar through OTR and connecting to Uptown would be a welcome complement to their work in downtown and OTR.  I also think there are very real, and reasonable concerns about:

1. How we pay for the construction

2. How we pay for operations

3. Where it goes

4. How much we bite off at a time

5. Whether it will help or hinder the broad, regional effort to advance light rail

6. Whether the streetcar effort can add energy to expanding bus service

7. Whether federal, state and private sources will be available for construction and operations

8. Whether sufficient analysis has been completed, or is being planned, to ensure we position the plan for success

 

I think we can, and must, deal directly with these concerns.   I think the city administration has been and will be working hard to provide answers. 

 

I also think we need to move forward quickly.  The risks of delay are significant, and the current momentum is an undeniable, though potentially fleeting, asset. 

 

Something this big and expensive will likely always have its detractors, but most I have encountered along the way are working hard, and in good faith, to ensure that this project will happen and will be successful. 

 

Welcome!

Indeed, welcome!  You will definitely be a much appreciated voice on these matters when you are able to chime in.

 

After a good night's rest, I am of the opinion that the most important thing we can do is to show up at Monday's meeting.  Doing so certainly involves some personal sacrifice for me (missing some work and the associated pay, and missing a class and the associated portion of the class participation grade), but showing up on Monday is my top priority right now. 

 

Edit - I think we all know that there is a lot of real work to be done to make this a reality, but when we read Qualls motion, we were are all disappointed with the tactic to say the least.

 

I think the best thing we can do is bring a massive showing of political will to the table and illustrate that the residents of this fine city want to see progress, and progress NOW!  This is more important than it was a week ago and is more pressing the more news and FUD that is spread.

 

COME TO MONDAY'S MEETING!!!!

3)  Qualls is smart, she knows exactly what she is doing.  This is obvious stall, you can't dispute that.  But have we considered that maybe she's still behind this and that she didn't want to put it to vote for other reasons?  Obviously, we don't know the whole story.  Perhaps she needed some more time to gather support (or convince Cranley?).  Doubtful, but no one else has thrown it out there.

 

I don't think Qualls is as smart as she thinks she is.  My suspicions are that she sees an opportunity to be the reigning council member, and to prove herself as such she needs to thumb her nose at Mallory.  I don't think it will be successful.  Berding tried to do this earlier in his first term during the city manager hearings and he got burned.  An immediate connection to Clifton is a red herring, but it won't be powerful enough to derail the project.

 

Also, let's realize that the thing hasn't been killed yet.  I suspect that Mallory and the streetcar supporters on council will keep this going in the direction we expect.

3)  Qualls is smart, she knows exactly what she is doing.  This is obvious stall, you can't dispute that.  But have we considered that maybe she's still behind this and that she didn't want to put it to vote for other reasons?  Obviously, we don't know the whole story.  Perhaps she needed some more time to gather support (or convince Cranley?).  Doubtful, but no one else has thrown it out there.

 

I don't think Qualls is as smart as she thinks she is.  My suspicions are that she sees an opportunity to be the reigning council member, and to prove herself as such she needs to thumb her nose at Mallory.  I don't think it will be successful.  Berding tried to do this earlier in his first term during the city manager hearings and he got burned.  An immediate connection to Clifton is a red herring, but it won't be powerful enough to derail the project.

 

Also, let's realize that the thing hasn't been killed yet.  I suspect that Mallory and the streetcar supporters on council will keep this going in the direction we expect.

 

I agree. It seems with everything she voices her opinion on ... that council, the mayor, or the city manager just came up with the idea in a dream or something. I understand her previous role in Cincy politics (I just read her achievements and inclusion with Cincy politics the other day), but she has just come on board. This is a new council and mayor.

 

She must question everything (which isn't bad), but it seems like it's more of a way to superficially grab the reigns and pull control. I could be wrong, but I don't see that.

 

I think she is more of a negative addition to council (the city) rather than a positive. There are one or two other people that I can think of that I'd rather see in her seat.

An immediate connection to Clifton is a red herring, but it won't be powerful enough to derail the project.

But does it ultimately give a guarantee to Uptown?  If she gets a guarantee then does that hurt the streetcar? No.  Does it help Qualls? Yes.  It could be a win win.

Maybe all these problems go away if it gets called a TROLLEY!!!!

^ Please refer to the comments of Milton Dohoney, Cincinnati City Manager.  :-D

>If a Clifton resident wants to commute Downtown, this is not their mode.  It will probably take at least 3 times longer to get there by streetcar than to hop on 71 or 75.

 

Unless you drive against traffic down the s71 exit ramp at Taft and do a U-turn, there's no way on 71 south between downtown and Dana Ave.  Local streets beat I-75 any time of day or night.

 

 

>Can you imagine taking that thing all the way down the hill to Government Square? 

 

Yes.

 

 

>Better wake up at 4 to get in the office on time!

 

Out in the suburbs or calling in to Scott Sloan you'd get away with comments like this but not on this site.  It takes 30-35 minutes to walk from the center of UC's campus to Fountain Square.  I've done it several times.  But you'd be about right for those who clock in at 4:30am. 

 

 

 

jmeck:  I've never made the walk myself, so I'll have to take your word for it.  I just can't imagine a streetcar being the best commuter mode there.  Given the slow speed to get down the hill and the frequent stops, it doesn't make sense to me.

 

Councilman Bortz:  Welcome, and thanks for the insight!

An immediate connection to Clifton is a red herring, but it won't be powerful enough to derail the project.

But does it ultimately give a guarantee to Uptown?  If she gets a guarantee then does that hurt the streetcar? No.  Does it help Qualls? Yes.  It could be a win win.

 

I don't understand where you are getting at.  I don't believe the city can afford to build the streetcar from the Banks to the Zoo, or to Short Vine Kroger, or even just up to the Mad Frog.  Mallory intends to see that the streetcar make it up there, in the second Phase.  Qualls isn't going to get a "guarantee" to get the streetcar uptown, it's already planned to do so.

 

I think we're all looking for a win-win-win resolution to this conflict.

I don't believe the city can afford to build the streetcar from the Banks to the Zoo, or to Short Vine Kroger, or even just up to the Mad Frog.  Mallory intends to see that the streetcar make it up there, in the second Phase.  Qualls isn't going to get a "guarantee" to get the streetcar uptown, it's already planned to do so.

Then what is she after then?  It is one of two things, a concession or a kill.  I am looking at possible concessions that would benefit one of the benefactors named in the story, Uptown. 

 

Otherwise you have to take this at face value, "endorses a line from Downtown to Uptown, rather than a loop through Over-the-Rhine."  I am looking for meaning and motive because the answer is somewhere in the middle. To say that there is already a plan in place that does X when Y was just proposed, I am not sure where you find comfort in anything that has been "planned".

I think we're all looking for a win-win-win resolution to this conflict.

Yet we have been going under the assumption that there is the possibility that Qualls is not.  I am more inclined to think she is.

She's after prominence.  She's consideration by the public that she is the most qualified and responsible politician in the City.  She's after the mayorship in 2013.

If you think it is that simple then, ok.

consideration by the public that she is the most qualified and responsible politician in the City.

So if she is truly after a kill, then what?

I didn't say it was going to work.

So you think this is just blind political motivation that drove her to do this?  We shall see.  I prefer not to underestimate someone like Quall's.  In my mind, if she really was taking into consideration her political future, she would manufacture something that could give something to a very powerful, and influential group, and satisfy the masses as well in an agreement of some kind.  This is a win/win for the parties involved, and a win/win for her as well. 

I thought it wiser to look deeper than just say, blind ambition, but perhaps there is no need.

I don't underestimate her.  I estimate her.

That is what I am trying to do as well along with an estimation of the other parties named here.  Call it 'thinking out loud', I admit I could be wrong.

 

Can anyone answer me this, If phase I is built, is there a possibility that phase II never happens.  Is there a scenario that puts that connection in jeopardy?  I would think there would be a multitude of things that could either stop, or severely delay the connection to Uptown.  Does Uptown have any reason to believe that any of these scenarios are a real possibility?

 

"I think there has been some miscommunication, perhaps some misunderstanding among some council members." He reiterated the point that expansion to Uptown has always been integral to the plan Malory

 

To me it sounds like this was the misunderstanding and Qualls was the one who misunderstood.  So what does she do?  She "endorses a line from Downtown to Uptown, rather than a loop through Over-the-Rhine." And "Her motion drew six signatures, a majority of the nine council members".  Even though "Mallory intends to see that the streetcar make it up there, in the second Phase" so she settles for something that will be a "guarantee".

 

Uptown says we will take the guarantee, and in return issues a "written a letter to city officials stating the she understands the importance of completing the downtown loop first with local funds before undertaking the uptown loop." Which as John says will be put out on Monday.

 

That is what I am getting at Lincoln Kennedy.  But I could be wrong.  My belief all along has been "negotiations are now open and she will give, and so will you.  The only question is what is she looking for?  It isn't in the proposal, it is in the negotiated settlement."

 

Chris, am I close?

>If a Clifton resident wants to commute Downtown, this is not their mode.  It will probably take at least 3 times longer to get there by streetcar than to hop on 71 or 75.

 

jmeck:  I've never made the walk myself, so I'll have to take your word for it.  I just can't imagine a streetcar being the best commuter mode there.  Given the slow speed to get down the hill and the frequent stops, it doesn't make sense to me.

 

 

It cant' possibly be any slower than the 17/18/19 bus and it carries lots of commuters from Uptown/Clifton to downtown everyday.

Can anyone answer me this, If phase I is built, is there a possibility that phase II never happens.  Is there a scenario that puts that connection in jeopardy?   I would think there would be a multitude of things that could either stop, or severely delay the connection to Uptown.  Does Uptown have any reason to believe that any of these scenarios are a real possibility?

 

Anything's possible, but it seems to me that the real danger is not breaking ground at all.  If Phase 1 gets built, then Phase 1B (Uptown) is a strong possibility.  Given that it is designated as "1B", I'd guess that they plan, ideally, to begin construction of it as soon as Phase 1 is finished. 

 

Maybe someone is concerned that another phase (NKY) could take priority and delay the Uptown route, and they are simply asserting that they must be next in line, but that is purely speculation.

If construction does start with the street car, is the funding going to be secure and available for it's completion, or will we have another Cincinnati Subway in our hands?  Yes I know why the subway was never complete.  Sorry if I am re-introducing spent questions, but it just popped into my head. 

it seems to me that the real danger is not breaking ground at all.

If she holds out sure, but I think there is something in between here that is acceptable to all parties.

 

If construction does start with the street car, is the funding going to be secure and available for it's completion,

or the next phase?

Phase 2 would be a plus, but I could really care less.  The streetcar is needed in the Basin for it's residents and for economic stimulation in an area that in some places is depressed but has so much potential.

For those in the know, what is the most expensive part of building the system?

 

I imagine it is the electricity rather than the rail. Could the rail for the entire system be built and then expand the electricity and streetcars as funding becomes available. I'm thinking of this in particular when it comes to connecting the Museum Center and the road work that is due in Uptown along Taft/Calhoun and McMillan. Or would we be truly setting ourselves up for Subway Part Deux.

 

Edited to add: I'll be honest the selfishness of the basin folks drives me nuts.

Chris, am I close?

 

I think the real issue here is related to available sources of funds to build the Uptown loop.  It is currently expected that Federal sources will be available (CMAQ, STP, Small Starts).  The challenge is that there is no guarantee that we will be awarded those funds. 

 

Most of the Federal sources are allocated out through 2012.  Meaning that if we wait until we are assured of Federal support, we can't do more than study the question for four years. 

 

On the other hand, we could take what I would call a calculated risk.  It is expected that the Downtown/OTR loop would be used as our local match to secure those Federal funds.  Though not part of the Federal rules, standard practice at both the State and Federal levels seems to be that projects with real investment on the ground are given priority over those projects that are only on paper. 

 

So, do we wait until every single dollar is secured (a minimum of four years, but could be much longer if we have to get the end of a long line for federal dollars, and with no chance to leap frog the line since no tracks are in the ground), or do we take a risk and get started?

 

I am for taking the risk.  We can minimize that risk by calling out a Plan B financing plan that could utilize other sources to fill the gap if Federal sources aren't realized.  That might help assuage the fears of those who want to see real commitment and capacity to get to Uptown in the near term. 

 

The other major lingering question seems to be about operating dollars.  It is expected that the Downtown/OTR loop would be operated with a combination of Special Assessments and advertising revenue (or similar public/private arrangements).  The question is what happens if we don't raise enough money?  Will the City have to put General Fund resources on the table to close the gap?  Will money be taken out of the Transit Fund, thereby shorting Metro?

 

I think the answer is that we need a solid operating finance plan that protects the City's General Fund and holds Metro harmless.  Though, I suppose everything is negotiable. 

That might help assuage the fears of those who want to see real commitment and capacity to get to Uptown in the near term.

Would you say this is what is behind Roxanne's proposal or is it something different entirely?

 

 

On the other hand, we could take what I would call a calculated risk.  It is expected that the Downtown/OTR loop would be used as our local match to secure those Federal funds.  Though not part of the Federal rules, standard practice at both the State and Federal levels seems to be that projects with real investment on the ground are given priority over those projects that are only on paper. 

 

So, do we wait until every single dollar is secured (a minimum of four years, but could be much longer if we have to get the end of a long line for federal dollars, and with no chance to leap frog the line since no tracks are in the ground), or do we take a risk and get started?

 

I am for taking the risk.  We can minimize that risk by calling out a Plan B financing plan that could utilize other sources to fill the gap if Federal sources aren't realized.  That might help assuage the fears of those who want to see real commitment and capacity to get to Uptown in the near term. 

Hopefully this works out better than your idea of having Duke energy front some of the cost.  Remember that, when they came out the next day and said that was ridiculous and they hadn't been consulted? What happens if the gamble doesn't suceed, what then? What if we don't get the federal money and the economic development doesn't arise? Does the city declare bankruptcy?

 

Why don't we just do what the Feasibility Study suggests and study the issue some more before we do something incredibily stupid. Here's a quote from page 1 of appendix B of the feasbility study:

 

"Although Alternative B was selected for the study alternative, it, and all other options, will be reviewed in more detail in future phases of the study, and must undergo rigorous public scrutiny before a final alignment for construction is selected.”

 

In other words the feasibility study didn't set the alignment in stone and it wasn't the end all be all. It calls, like qualls motion, for further study of the issue.

Hopefully this works out better than your idea of having Duke energy front some of the cost.  Remember that, when they came out the next day and said that was ridiculous and they hadn't been consulted? What happens if the gamble doesn't suceed, what then? What if we don't get the federal money and the economic development doesn't arise? Does the city declare bankruptcy?

 

Why don't we just do what the Feasibility Study suggests and study the issue some more before we do something incredibily stupid.

 

Hey chance.mcgee, why don't you take it easy on the councilman, who has been nice enough to join our discussion and give us his honest opinion on the issue.  If you don't agree with him, fine, but can we at least lose the attitude and avoid throwing barbs?  I'd never post in an open forum such as this if I were in his shoes, precisely for this reason.

 

Also, I understand that you're concerned about what happens "if the gamble doesn't pay off", but I hardly think that the city declaring bankruptcy due to building a streetcar is a realistic consequence.  And to be honest, I think that the real gamble is in NOT pursuing the streetcar.  Can the city sustain the growth and revitalization it has enjoyed for the last few years, and add more fuel to that fire without a more comprehensive mass transit system?  Personally, I'm not so sure.  I want to see Downtown and OTR continue to become more vibrant, and ultimately, I'd like to see them linked with Clifton and NKY via rail.

I think the what if question is certainly a legitimate one but I tend to agree with Chris that this is a risk worth taking.  How much more expensive will this project be to do in 4 years?

^Agreed.  I didn't mean to imply that his question wasn't legitimate.  Just that I think the scenario of the "city declaring bankruptcy" is extreme, inflammatory, and unrealistic.  We definitely need to have answers for that sort of question, as failure isn't outside the realm of possibility.

We do have a history of not completing projects.  All kidding aside, Cincinnati needs to get rid of that image.

^ I couldn't agree more, DanB.

We do have a history of not completing projects.  All kidding aside, Cincinnati needs to get rid of that image.

Or even getting them started let alone completing.  When we are agressive, it seems to pay off.  It is when we get timid, afraid to do something because we might fail is when we get in trouble.  I think that the people of Cincinnati would be more forgiving of taking a chance vs cowering away.

Hopefully this works out better than your idea of having Duke energy front some of the cost.  Remember that, when they came out the next day and said that was ridiculous and they hadn't been consulted? What happens if the gamble doesn't suceed, what then? What if we don't get the federal money and the economic development doesn't arise? Does the city declare bankruptcy?

 

Why don't we just do what the Feasibility Study suggests and study the issue some more before we do something incredibily stupid.

 

Hey chance.mcgee, why don't you take it easy on the councilman, who has been nice enough to join our discussion and give us his honest opinion on the issue.  If you don't agree with him, fine, but can we at least lose the attitude and avoid throwing barbs?  I'd never post in an open forum such as this if I were in his shoes, precisely for this reason.

 

Also, I understand that you're concerned about what happens "if the gamble doesn't pay off", but I hardly think that the city declaring bankruptcy due to building a streetcar is a realistic consequence.  And to be honest, I think that the real gamble is in NOT pursuing the streetcar.  Can the city sustain the growth and revitalization it has enjoyed for the last few years, and add more fuel to that fire without a more comprehensive mass transit system?  Personally, I'm not so sure.  I want to see Downtown and OTR continue to become more vibrant, and ultimately, I'd like to see them linked with Clifton and NKY via rail.

 

My apologies to you, Councilman Bortz, and the board. I just think this project has not been adequately thought out. Once it is, it will be a great boon for our city. But I feel that the councilman has been pushing this project at an unreasonable rate.

Chance,

 

How would you respond to this line by Chris?  Money is a risk and so is time.  Which risk would you be most willing to take?

So, do we wait until every single dollar is secured (a minimum of four years, but could be much longer if we have to get the end of a long line for federal dollars, and with no chance to leap frog the line since no tracks are in the ground), or do we take a risk and get started?

 

 

On the other hand, we could take what I would call a calculated risk.  It is expected that the Downtown/OTR loop would be used as our local match to secure those Federal funds.  Though not part of the Federal rules, standard practice at both the State and Federal levels seems to be that projects with real investment on the ground are given priority over those projects that are only on paper. 

 

So, do we wait until every single dollar is secured (a minimum of four years, but could be much longer if we have to get the end of a long line for federal dollars, and with no chance to leap frog the line since no tracks are in the ground), or do we take a risk and get started?

 

I am for taking the risk.  We can minimize that risk by calling out a Plan B financing plan that could utilize other sources to fill the gap if Federal sources aren't realized.  That might help assuage the fears of those who want to see real commitment and capacity to get to Uptown in the near term. 

Hopefully this works out better than your idea of having Duke energy front some of the cost.  Remember that, when they came out the next day and said that was ridiculous and they hadn't been consulted? What happens if the gamble doesn't suceed, what then? What if we don't get the federal money and the economic development doesn't arise? Does the city declare bankruptcy?

 

Why don't we just do what the Feasibility Study suggests and study the issue some more before we do something incredibily stupid. Here's a quote from page 1 of appendix B of the feasbility study:

 

"Although Alternative B was selected for the study alternative, it, and all other options, will be reviewed in more detail in future phases of the study, and must undergo rigorous public scrutiny before a final alignment for construction is selected.”

 

In other words the feasibility study didn't set the alignment in stone and it wasn't the end all be all. It calls, like qualls motion, for further study of the issue.

 

First, I didn't come out with the idea that Duke would be a funding partner.  I was asked to explain what was meant by public/private partnership vs. private contribution and I offered Duke as an example of the former.  Duke will calculate the expected power usage (about $250,000/year for Downtown/OTR) and they will determine what they would be willing to pay to buy that new revenue stream (other gas and electric customers will also be added to the area as vacant buildings are occupied over time in part because of the streetcar).  Power companies are generally interested in adding customers, and they invest in infrastructure to do so.  The Public gets the benefit of upfront capital support and the Private Partner gets the benefit of a fixed revenue stream.  I can't control the way the story is written. 

 

Second, no funding alternatives under consideration are dependent upon economic development to repay the city's contribution to build the system.  For TIF, for example, the City projects a 0% appreciation rate on the property being TIF'd.  That ensures that there are sufficient funds to meet the debt service obligations on the TIF bonds, since property almost always appreciates in value.  City capital, backed by general obligation, depends on a number of revenue streams that are generated citywide, including property taxes and right-of-way agreements.  The Blue Ash Airport proceeds are dependent upon Blue Ash meeting their obligations under the purchase contract.  So, no funding sources rely on the streetcar to produce the expected economic benefit.  That said, given the projected benefit, the 14:1 benefit to cost ratio indicates that the investment is sound.

 

Third, it has never been suggested by the Administration, the Mayor or members of Council that we would give a full "green light" to allocate dollars and start construction during Monday's hearing in Finance Committee.  Rather, it is expected that the Council will give the green light to the Administration to take the next steps in the process.  Those steps include an Alternatives Analysis (required by the Federal Government if we are to qualify for Federal funds) which digs more deeply into the alignment options.  No one has suggested that the Feasibility Study Alignment is set in stone.  Rather, as you pointed out, the study makes it clear the the route was selected only for the purpose of completing the Economic Impact/Feasibility Study.

 

There are a series of additional studies that must be completed before construction can begin, including design, engineering, environmental impact, public input on alignment, and etc.  And there are a series of green lights that Council will need to grant before construction can actually begin. 

 

I'm not sure where it was first concluded that we were going to start the process of construction on Monday.  But clearly, that is a concern many share. 

Thanks, Councilman.  Nice having you here.