Heh, selling Cincinnati's sewer system... the gem of turn of the century engineering ;)  Don't think we'd have many takers!

 

Parking surcharges and event ticket price surcharges seem like a good option.  This thing is going to the stadiums, is it not?

GetBackCincy.... Don't get frusrtated.  Use the progress by Columbus as a way to prod local leaders forward.  You guys are doing a great job of advocating in Cincy and you are making significant strides.  Trust me: your progress is just as interesting to the powers-that-be up here in C-bus.  Keep up the good work!!

it frustrates me that Columbus will probably get this done more quickly.

 

There really is no substance to warrant this kind of thinking.  Columbus is further behind in their efforts, and will likely get their own system at some point...but not before Cincinnati.

It has been mentioned on here before, but this really seems like something the state of Ohio should coordinate and make sure the cities have compatible systems. We've talked about the lack of capacity to produce rail in the US, if the Ohio said we want to see streetcars in every major city in the next generation or so and that the second generation of cars must be built in Ohio then maybe we help our cities and jumpstart a new manufacturing industry. It would also allow for the state to build a single major repair shop in addition to the shop that does everyday servicing in each city. It would also contribute to building a core of skilled workers around the state who knew how to operate and work on these things. I could see this as the beginning of a new inter-urban system which could be useful in northern and western Ohio.

^  hey, I know what...let's study that to death.  ;)

 

Seriously, that would be a good idea. 

Heh, selling Cincinnati's sewer system... the gem of turn of the century engineering.  Don't think we'd have many takers!

Purely a function of money in vs money out.

Heh, selling Cincinnati's sewer system... the gem of turn of the century engineering.  Don't think we'd have many takers!

Purely a function of money in vs money out.

 

Thats not what I thought went in and out of sewer systems... Sorry, couldn't resist :)

I bit my tongue on all of my sewer jokes and there you go....so disappointed.  :wink:

it frustrates me that Columbus will probably get this done more quickly.

 

There really is no substance to warrant this kind of thinking.  Columbus is further behind in their efforts, and will likely get their own system at some point...but not before Cincinnati.

 

 

Does it even matter who would get one first? 

 

I think they could both help each others cause by pushing for a rail revolution throughout the state.  We know Strickland's on board.

^Technically speaking no, but in Cincinnati we are constantly fighting an image problem within our own metro.  To be able to do new/big things, and do them quickly without major delays (see The Banks) is a key element of this.  It is about time this city starts showing that it is capable of doing multiple big things at a time.  The ground breaking for The Banks is April 2, QCSII will be starting soon as well, and OTR is continuing a major push towards a revival.  Can Cincinnati also manage to iron out a streetcar system while working on those other things?  I would tend to say yes, but we'll have to see.  If Cbus completes their system prior to Cincy then it is another bullet that the pessimists can use...I don't want that to happen.

^ Civic pride and civic competition aren't necessarily a bad thing.  Except for fan fights during Bengals/Browns games. 

It has been mentioned on here before, but this really seems like something the state of Ohio should coordinate and make sure the cities have compatible systems. We've talked about the lack of capacity to produce rail in the US, if the Ohio said we want to see streetcars in every major city in the next generation or so and that the second generation of cars must be built in Ohio then maybe we help our cities and jumpstart a new manufacturing industry. It would also allow for the state to build a single major repair shop in addition to the shop that does everyday servicing in each city. It would also contribute to building a core of skilled workers around the state who knew how to operate and work on these things. I could see this as the beginning of a new inter-urban system which could be useful in northern and western Ohio.

 

That's a great idea.  Getting both the gov't to get behind it and the private sector to invest in it would be the major battle, but the payoff would be huge if it could be done.

 

 

Parking surcharges and event ticket price surcharges seem like a good option.  This thing is going to the stadiums, is it not?

 

I thought the same thing when I first read it.  But so far the supporters of this plan have worked very hard to make sure that none of the funding could be construed as a new tax or increased expense on anyone that is currently coming downtown for work or events.  While this is a great idea and could make the system more affordable, I'm afraid that you'd see a ton of articles about "increased parking fares so that thugs can get from OTR to the stadiums" and this project doesn't need the bad press.  Also, with as obstinate as the Bengals have been in regard to The Banks, you don't want to threaten a tax increase on their tickets, as they surely do whatever they can to halt the project rather than risk any games not selling out.

 

 

I thought the same thing when I first read it.  But so far the supporters of this plan have worked very hard to make sure that none of the funding could be construed as a new tax or increased expense on anyone that is currently coming downtown for work or events.  While this is a great idea and could make the system more affordable, I'm afraid that you'd see a ton of articles about "increased parking fares so that thugs can get from OTR to the stadiums" and this project doesn't need the bad press.  Also, with as obstinate as the Bengals have been in regard to The Banks, you don't want to threaten a tax increase on their tickets, as they surely do whatever they can to halt the project rather than risk any games not selling out.

 

Well, then, perhaps it could be proposed after the system is operational to help defray operating costs...  I know its a tough sell, but you know what Bengals, time to give back damnit.  If you won't do it on the field, how about LIGHTENING the taxpayer load... I see your points, I just wonder if the financing plan would have moved through faster if it didn't require the dip into city capital.

 

Added - somehow I don't think they can really make the case that say a 4% ticket tax would keep them from selling out.  I mean, they currently suck wind, yet still sell out.  If sucking it up on the field isn't enough to keep them from selling out (at a super premium price i might add), well how is 4% gonna keep them from selling out....

>It has been mentioned on here before, but this really seems like something the state of Ohio should coordinate and make sure the cities have compatible systems. We've talked about the lack of capacity to produce rail in the US, if the Ohio said we want to see streetcars in every major city in the next generation or so and that the second generation of cars must be built in Ohio then maybe we help our cities and jumpstart a new manufacturing industry.

 

 

Dave it's not just the initial capital expenses where money can be saved...I'd imagine money can be saved continuously in the training of drivers, mechanics, in the swapping of spare parts, etc. 

^No creativity.  We could keep the streetcar free and finish the entire line if we follow Akron's lead.

 

Akron mayor wants to sell sewers, use cash to give free tuition

Posted by Patrick O'Donnell February 07, 2008 22:35PM

Categories: Breaking News, Education, Impact

 

Akron -- Mayor Don Plusquellic wants to sell the city's sewer system and use the money to send residents to the University of Akron for free.

 

Plusquellic said Thursday that his plan is to create a scholarship fund by selling the sewer system, which the city values at $100 million to $400 million. That would give the city enough money to cover tuition and fees for the university or a trade school in the city.

 

I know this has nothing to do with this thread, but selling public works is a terrible idea that makes no economic sense, particularly for something that doesn't continue to produce revenue or guarantee that the investment remains in the city's geographical area, as this one would.

Create another thread and I will discuss how it does work and has other applications way beyond just a sewer system.

^^ I agree with that, LK.  Sewage/sanitation is one of the few things that I think actually belongs under the governments' umbrella, along with physical and legal infrastructures, and defense (military, police, firemen).  I get a little nervous about private companies running that sort of thing.

 

 

 

Well, then, perhaps it could be proposed after the system is operational to help defray operating costs...  I know its a tough sell, but you know what Bengals, time to give back damnit.  If you won't do it on the field, how about LIGHTENING the taxpayer load... I see your points, I just wonder if the financing plan would have moved through faster if it didn't require the dip into city capital.

 

Added - somehow I don't think they can really make the case that say a 4% ticket tax would keep them from selling out.  I mean, they currently suck wind, yet still sell out.  If sucking it up on the field isn't enough to keep them from selling out (at a super premium price i might add), well how is 4% gonna keep them from selling out....

 

I'm with you on that.  I just don't want to risk jeopardizing the project at this point, that's all.  As for the Bengals, I don't think that they could make a logical argument that a 4% increase could cause an attendence drop, but they don't have to.  If they merely suspect it, they can get their PR and legal machines fired up, and all of a sudden we have an obstacle with a lot of influence standing in the way of the streetcar.  All they'd have to do is incur a major delay to kill this project, whether their fears are founded in reality or not.

If Cbus completes their system prior to Cincy then it is another bullet that the pessimists can use...I don't want that to happen.

 

I just see this as helping drill down the fact that rail IS the future in Ohio.   

 

What if C-bus announced next week (Hypothetically speaking) they were going to start construction next month on a line downtown?

 

I wouldn't see a downside to that.  Maybe Qualls and Cranley might take a hint and quit stalling.

I just see this as helping drill down the fact that rail IS the future in Ohio.   

 

What if C-bus announced next week (Hypothetically speaking) they were going to start construction next month on a line downtown?

 

I wouldn't see a downside to that.  Maybe Qualls and Cranley might take a hint and quit stalling.

 

That is true, but it will further illustrate Cincinnati's inability to be able to do things on their own and in a quick/efficient manner.  Eventually we are going to have to shed that image, and become a leader.

I'm not surprised, Columbus has been studying this issue longer than Cincinnati.  Additionally, they had elected official buy-in from the start. 

 

Interesting to note that even given the headstart Columbus has over Cincinnati that they won't begin construction until 2010 and won't open until 2012.  I guess they are mored concerned with doing it right rather than doing it fast.

 

I also like their financing scheme: impose the costs of the system on those who benefit from the system.  This notion seems radically different from our plan which robs the rest of the city for the benefit of downtown and OTR.  I like how they actually conducted a detailed analysis showing how this will provide the necessary funds to amortize the cost of the project over 25 years.

Hmmm, I was holding a plan in my hands from 1981 just the other day that had streetcars as part of the plan for Cincinnati.  Well before MetroMoves and the like.  Seems like this idea has been studied in Cincinnati for quite some time...

Does anyone foresee UC contributing to the uptown phase in a way comparable to OSU's contribution to the C-bus streetcar?  Maybe if there is a commitment from UC then there would be more of a guarentee for the uptown phase and a better chance we can move forward sooner.

I wouldn't be suprised if UC did contribute substantially, but there will be no offers of contribution forthcoming from any private parties until the city stands up and says we will finance this.  Private backers aren't going to commit dime one until they know the city is behind the plan.

Hmmm, I was holding a plan in my hands from 1981 just the other day that had streetcars as part of the plan for Cincinnati.  Well before MetroMoves and the like.  Seems like this idea has been studied in Cincinnati for quite some time...

Because I'm sure there has been no change in the landscape in the intervening 27 years.  Also, although there may be a strong correlation between the length of time expended studying an issue and the depth and breadth of the study, it is not necessarily so.  The executive summary of the Atlanta streetcar study is 22 pages.  The executive summary!  Our entire study is 29 pages.  The shortest study I have seen (other than ours of course) is from Spokane, and it weighs in at 82 pages.  Clearly, our city has discharged its duty of due diligence in studying streetcars.

 

Moreover, its not as if our study packed a ton of insight into a little package. I mean read the thing, its chock full of the words "preliminary", "initial", "assumes", "rough estimate", and "sketch-level analysis".  Our study doesn't even map out an entire system, which every other study has done.  Heck, none of these studies arbitrarily limited its scope to the downtown area.  Here are the links, take a gander.

 

http://www.tampabayintermodal.com/feasibilityreport.htm

http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/public-works/trans-plan/TPProjects.asp

http://www.cherriots.org/Misc.%20Info%20pages/Streetcar_Study.htm

http://www.miamigov.com/MiamiStreetcar/pages/Study.asp

http://www.atlantastreetcar.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=faq.feasibility

 

I understand where y'all are coming from, but seriously this issue has not been subjected to the rigorous scrutiny that its cost should dictate.  Heck, even our study agrees with me. By your logic, you would buy a house based on the premises that A. Owning a house is good, B. I've done cursory study that shows owning a house is good, and C. I think I can get a loan to pay for it. Except with the streetcar you are risking public dollars whose opportunity cost is irreplaceable.

No, not at all.

 

Your point - Columbus has been studying this longer

My point - Cincy has been looking at this as part of a rail system package for a long time -- including serious studies of various routes, for decades.  Of course things have changed on the ground.  Regardless, its been looked at for a long time.

 

From a technical standpoint, we already had studied that streetcars were feasible.  The latest study tried to put some meat on the questions of economic impact to justify the line.

 

Your next point - more studies need to be done

Umm, absolutely conceded.  Have I ever said there was no more technical work that needed to be done?  There is a TON of engineering analysis, env impact, streetplanning, etc that needs to be done.  BUT, we need a funding plan in place to do so.  The big money doesn't get spent UNTIL we do more research/planning/approach private parties for funding, etc. 

 

We know that streetcars are broadly feasible.  We have some understanding of the economic impact that is likely.  Our study is basically an executive summary, an overview of what the plan could do, and what is feasible.  Noone claims the study that has been done is the last study/plan on the issue. 

 

What we have is a compelling case to move forward and plan what needs to be planned.

 

Hmm, the only one of those I hadn't seen was tampa....  Cool docs to have links to though, thanks.

 

Actually, if I were to use a housebuying analogy I would say that it goes something more like

1) I've been watching and looking at information for long enough to know that a house is probably a good thing

2) I've got a basic study that shows that the neighborhood where I might like to buy is a pretty good investment

3) I've done a little research into how I could afford such a house

4) I've picked out a couple that I think may be a good fit for what I think I can afford

5) I've talked to the neighbors, and they all think it would be cool to have me as a neighbor

 

Still to do:

1) Go to the bank to see if I can get the loan

2) Have the home inspections done on each of the properties

3) Talk to my family to see if I can get some help with the downpayment

4) Come up with some alternative ways to cover maintenance on the house if something should go wrong

5) Move in

 

 

I also like their financing scheme: impose the costs of the system on those who benefit from the system.  This notion seems radically different from our plan which robs the rest of the city for the benefit of downtown and OTR.

 

Can we quit this notion that we're taking money from other neighborhoods?  The majority of the funds are TIF funds which BY LAW have to be spent in the neighborhood from which they come.  The private financing is not money from other neighborhoods.  The state money is not guaranteed for the area's use if the streetcar doesn't use it.  And the remaining city capital funds are based on additional bonds, and do not take any money from other city projects.

 

That doesn't mean there won't be some costs, ie operating costs, that will be born by the city, but it's a tiny fraction of the whole.  And increased development, population, and tax base helps the city as a whole.

Can we quit this notion that we're taking money from other neighborhoods?  The majority of the funds are TIF funds which BY LAW have to be spent in the neighborhood from which they come.  The private financing is not money from other neighborhoods.  The state money is not guaranteed for the area's use if the streetcar doesn't use it.  And the remaining city capital funds are based on additional bonds, and do not take any money from other city projects.

 

That doesn't mean there won't be some costs, ie operating costs, that will be born by the city, but it's a tiny fraction of the whole.  And increased development, population, and tax base helps the city as a whole.

 

I fully agree, but just to play the devil's advocate for a moment...

 

While TIF funds can only be spent in the neighborhood from which they come, they are STILL taking what would be future tax revenues out of the pool of available funds, thereby shifting the burder to other neighborhoods.  Again, I still think that is a weak argument, but its not entirely false to say that it takes funds from other neighborhoods (albeit very indirectly)

 

I actually only bring this up because I hope someone has the easy argument to refute it...

OK, I think I may have misunderstood your position.  I guess my concern is twofold.  First, it seems  to me that streetcar advocates want construction to begin ASAP, i.e. end of the year.  Implicit within that position, or it seems to me, is the idea that all necessary and sufficient study has been completed.  I think that is false for the reasons enumerated in my earlier post.  Second, to the extent more study is required I believe Qualls' motion better moves us toward that goal.  I feel that the most vociferous advocates for streetcars paint this as obstructionist.  In my opinion, her motion is the most prudent course of action.

 

That to the side, I think you ducked the main thrust of my post.  My point was questioning whether sufficient planning had taken place to determine an ultimate alignment and thus move forward with financing for said alignment.  To that argument I would add that the appendices to the feasibility study state a final alignment needs to be chosen in future phases of study and must undergo rigorous public scrutiny.  See Appendix B, p.1.  At any rate, your response was more studies need to be done but we need to jam on financing.  Well if we don't know what we're building, then we necessarily don't know the cost, ergo how can we finance it? Also, it would be nice to know more than just what pots of money are going to be used.  Empirical observation dictates that it is highly improbable that there will be no trade-offs when we commit to a project of this scale.  Your argument that in the long-term the city will realize more net revenue to spend on neighborhoods and social agencies is compelling.  But how short is the short-term and how significant will the pain be during that period?  These are highly relevant questions that must be answered if the other 50 neighborhoods are being asked to spend for the immediate benefit of 2 neighborhoods.

 

Additionally, what do you think about surcharges on concerts, sporting events, and downtown parking? Why not impose the cost of a transportation system on those that most likely benefit from it?

Can we quit this notion that we're taking money from other neighborhoods?  The majority of the funds are TIF funds which BY LAW have to be spent in the neighborhood from which they come.  The private financing is not money from other neighborhoods.  The state money is not guaranteed for the area's use if the streetcar doesn't use it.  And the remaining city capital funds are based on additional bonds, and do not take any money from other city projects.

 

That doesn't mean there won't be some costs, ie operating costs, that will be born by the city, but it's a tiny fraction of the whole.  And increased development, population, and tax base helps the city as a whole.

 

I fully agree, but just to play the devil's advocate for a moment...

 

While TIF funds can only be spent in the neighborhood from which they come, they are STILL taking what would be future tax revenues out of the pool of available funds, thereby shifting the burder to other neighborhoods.  Again, I still think that is a weak argument, but its not entirely false to say that it takes funds from other neighborhoods (albeit very indirectly)

 

I actually only bring this up because I hope someone has the easy argument to refute it...

 

TIF funding comes from taxes generated after the TIF districts are in place, over and above the existing amount.  When the district is established, a base tax amount is set and guaranteed to the city, county, and schools.  The new development creates a higher amount of taxes generated, and that is the pool of money used.  TIF projects use the difference from the new higher tax amounts, which wouldn't have been generated without the TIF funding, so money is never taken away.

 

 

TIF funding comes from taxes generated after the TIF districts are in place, over and above the existing amount.  When the district is established, a base tax amount is set and guaranteed to the city, county, and schools.  The new development creates a higher amount of taxes generated, and that is the pool of money used.  TIF projects use the difference from the new higher tax amounts, which wouldn't have been generated without the TIF funding, so money is never taken away.

 

 

Cool, that is as good an explanation as I could hope for!

 

 

^ Does the F in TIF stand for Funding? 

 

 

^financing

That to the side, I think you ducked the main thrust of my post.  My point was questioning whether sufficient planning had taken place to determine an ultimate alignment and thus move forward with financing for said alignment.  To that argument I would add that the appendices to the feasibility study state a final alignment needs to be chosen in future phases of study and must undergo rigorous public scrutiny.  See Appendix B, p.1.  At any rate, your response was more studies need to be done but we need to jam on financing.  Well if we don't know what we're building, then we necessarily don't know the cost, ergo how can we finance it? Also, it would be nice to know more than just what pots of money are going to be used.  Empirical observation dictates that it is highly improbable that there will be no trade-offs when we commit to a project of this scale.  Your argument that in the long-term the city will realize more net revenue to spend on neighborhoods and social agencies is compelling.  But how short is the short-term and how significant will the pain be during that period?  These are highly relevant questions that must be answered if the other 50 neighborhoods are being asked to spend for the immediate benefit of 2 neighborhoods.

 

At least for the first phase, the alignment will not significantly change construction costs (assuming a connector up the hill is not included).  Shifting the line a block or two in any direction will only add a few hundred feet of track at the most, so I think it is a reasonable course of action to pursue funding sources (not approve it).  As has been stated many times, if the private financing isn't forthcoming, then we'll have to go back to the drawing board for funding.  But you have to see if it's there first.

 

As for studies, you can't study a proposal to death, which my opinion is what is being proposed.  There has to be due diligence, but the studies being proposed by Cranley and Qualls seem to me to be designed to hold everything up.

 

There is always an element of risk involved with moving forward with a project of this size, but there is just as much risk in waiting as well.  If the city doesn't grow, it will die.  We have to look at the costs of delaying or doing nothing as well, and I don't see the opponents recognizing this fact.

>But how short is the short-term and how significant will the pain be during that period?  These are highly relevant questions that must be answered if the other 50 neighborhoods are being asked to spend for the immediate benefit of 2 neighborhoods.

 

The whole "neighborhoods" argument is a cowardly fall-back for opponents.  Suburban Chicago, suburban New York, suburban Boston neighborhoods all benefit from the strong city images of their respective downtowns.  A big-time urban character is impossible without rail mass transit.  This streetcar plan probably has a better cost/benefit with regards to helping improve downtown, OTR, UC than the previous light rail plan.  Why was a streetcar system not proposed instead of light rail in the late 90's?  Well actually it was as part of the light rail plan, but it wasn't until Portland built its system that there was proof in an American city of what modern European-style streetcars/trams can do.  Surviving traditional streetcar systems in San Francisco, Boston, and Philadelphia are all technically light rail, have tunnels, and obviously they aren't new so they've sustained traditional neighborhoods instead of creating new ones.     

 

Can the "true" phase 1 survive a 10-year stand-alone period until construction of Qualls' "Uptown Connector".  I think all anecdotal evidence points in that direction, with steady residential redevelopment of downtown Cincinnati over the past 10 years, new riverfront construction, and big-time redevelopment having arrived in Over-the-Rhine.  I was in a random west-side bar last night and heard people talking about The Brewery District and how they can't wait for production of the Cincinnati beers to come back and someone to open an all-Cincinnati beer bar down there, had someone earlier in the week and totally unprovoked say "Give OTR 5 years and it'll be fantastic" in another conversation.  Yes, city-haters outnumber these people but the city-hating will be a distant memory in 10 years if all these big plans come to fruition. 

^financing

 

Thank goodness.  People who say ATM Machine make me want to strangle them. 

OK, I think I may have misunderstood your position.  I guess my concern is twofold.  First, it seems  to me that streetcar advocates want construction to begin ASAP, i.e. end of the year.  Implicit within that position, or it seems to me, is the idea that all necessary and sufficient study has been completed.  I think that is false for the reasons enumerated in my earlier post.  Second, to the extent more study is required I believe Qualls' motion better moves us toward that goal.  I feel that the most vociferous advocates for streetcars paint this as obstructionist.  In my opinion, her motion is the most prudent course of action.

 

That to the side, I think you ducked the main thrust of my post.  My point was questioning whether sufficient planning had taken place to determine an ultimate alignment and thus move forward with financing for said alignment.  To that argument I would add that the appendices to the feasibility study state a final alignment needs to be chosen in future phases of study and must undergo rigorous public scrutiny.  See Appendix B, p.1.  At any rate, your response was more studies need to be done but we need to jam on financing.  Well if we don't know what we're building, then we necessarily don't know the cost, ergo how can we finance it? Also, it would be nice to know more than just what pots of money are going to be used.  Empirical observation dictates that it is highly improbable that there will be no trade-offs when we commit to a project of this scale.  Your argument that in the long-term the city will realize more net revenue to spend on neighborhoods and social agencies is compelling.  But how short is the short-term and how significant will the pain be during that period?  These are highly relevant questions that must be answered if the other 50 neighborhoods are being asked to spend for the immediate benefit of 2 neighborhoods.

 

Additionally, what do you think about surcharges on concerts, sporting events, and downtown parking? Why not impose the cost of a transportation system on those that most likely benefit from it?

 

I think most of us do want construction to begin "ASAP," but that ASAP includes the phrase "possible."  To my mind, its only possible once the real hardcore engineering studies have been completed.  What I want to see from funding is phased funding, of the CBD/OTR loop.  Phased funding buys us two things, firstly it gets us the funds to do the real engineering studies, to uncover any lurking unknown costs.  Secondly, it gets us the leverage to approach the interested private parties to obtain MOU's for their contribution (we can't do this until there is at least some consensus from the city that if the private funds can be obtained, the project will move forward).  Yes, we do need more studies to determine what the actual cost will be, but we need a framework in place to move forward (up to a certain estimated dollar amount)

 

I am not opposed to any of the means of funding you suggest.  They come with their own political obstacles, but none should be ruled out, out of hand. 

 

I don't really think that the fundamental objection to Qualls motion is that it requires further study.  I think the fundamental objection is that it is too tightly integrated with the phase 1B/phase 2 (whatever the heck you want to call it) Uptown portion of the line.  We already know that wherever the downtown line is placed, we will be able (technically) to make it up the hill to Uptown.  What most of us are upset about is that Qualls' motion requires the funding to be in place for BOTH uptown and downtown before downtown can move forward.  This to our minds is too tight of a tie in between what are in essence two disparate systems, with completely different funding options etc. 

 

The secondary objection is based upon that tie in.  We want to make sure that whatever project we move forward on, it is a manageable size and dollar amount.  Its more than just throwing 80 additional million onto the cost, its the scale of the proposed "one go" system buildout.  Its larger than anyone else has built, and the evidence from other cities suggests that it would be prudent to keep the scale manageable (see Atlanta)

^ Shifting the northbound alignment in OTR to Vine Street from Elm Street will increase the cost because Vine Street and its signalization will have to be converted back to one-way from two-way operation.

 

I'm not sure how you handle two directions of streetcar travel between, say, Findlay and Clifton, even if Vine Street were to become one-way. No way could that segment remain two-way and host both directions of streetcar service plus all the vehicle turning movements.

 

I wonder how many of the merchants moving in aroung the Gateway Quarter want to go back to one-way Vine. Just asking.

 

 

 

^ Great point John

 

I didn't read the shifting of the OTR portion of OTR/CBD alignment into Qualls' motion... I did see the "requirement" that just the use of either Vine/Sycamore/Clifton as the location of the connector "finger" (seeing how many times I can use "finger") would be studied.

 

^ Shifting the northbound alignment in OTR to Vine Street from Elm Street will increase the cost because Vine Street and its signalization will have to be converted back to one-way from two-way operation.

 

Forgot about that.  But in the scheme of things that's not a huge number like the connector to Uptown.

^ There will be a move to change the alignment to Vine/Race from Elm/Race after the basic concept plan is approved.

 

But it will fail. There's too much interest in Elm and the Brewery District, and Vine Street is well on its way already, perhaps, in part, because it is a two-way operation, and that's almost unique in the basin.

 

But there's still this problem: if Vine Street is deemed to be the preferred route to Uptown, there's a serious chokepoint between Findlay and Clifton. I don't see how you get around that.

 

Then there's the Vine Street Hill ...

Hello Everyone. Longtime listener, first time caller. I'm very interested in Streetcars in Cincinnati and have been sort of obsessively following this thread lately. I've been interning in New York, but will return to Cincinnati on Sunday and will hopefully make it to the next finance committee meeting.

 

Quick question: What is the difference between a circulator and a connector? Does a circulator run along two adjacent and parallel one-way streets? and a connector runs two-ways on a two way street? If both phases are eventually built, will you not be able to take a single streetcar from UC to the stadium? Will you have to transfer?

 

Also, just out of curiousity: How many of you would be happy if only the downtown and OTR portion were ever built? (I tend to be on everyone's side in thinking that it is important to just start and that people would be much more likely to support rail if they actually experienced it first hand.) But I also feel that going uptown exponentially increases the usefullness of the system as a mode of transportation (if not a development tool)

 

In other words, it would be a lot easier for me if Qualls were strictly against the project. In my experience she has been pro-rail. In one of my architecture classes at UC she independently brought up the subject of rail in Cincinnati and seemed to be a strong advocate. (and there were about 9 people in the class so I don't think it can be written off as political posturing.)

 

haha, ok, here's for street cars in cincy! and hello to all.

OK, I think I may have misunderstood your position.  I guess my concern is twofold.  First, it seems  to me that streetcar advocates want construction to begin ASAP, i.e. end of the year.  Implicit within that position, or it seems to me, is the idea that all necessary and sufficient study has been completed.  I think that is false for the reasons enumerated in my earlier post.  Second, to the extent more study is required I believe Qualls' motion better moves us toward that goal.  I feel that the most vociferous advocates for streetcars paint this as obstructionist.  In my opinion, her motion is the most prudent course of action.

 

That to the side, I think you ducked the main thrust of my post.  My point was questioning whether sufficient planning had taken place to determine an ultimate alignment and thus move forward with financing for said alignment.  To that argument I would add that the appendices to the feasibility study state a final alignment needs to be chosen in future phases of study and must undergo rigorous public scrutiny.  See Appendix B, p.1.  At any rate, your response was more studies need to be done but we need to jam on financing.  Well if we don't know what we're building, then we necessarily don't know the cost, ergo how can we finance it? Also, it would be nice to know more than just what pots of money are going to be used.  Empirical observation dictates that it is highly improbable that there will be no trade-offs when we commit to a project of this scale.  Your argument that in the long-term the city will realize more net revenue to spend on neighborhoods and social agencies is compelling.  But how short is the short-term and how significant will the pain be during that period?  These are highly relevant questions that must be answered if the other 50 neighborhoods are being asked to spend for the immediate benefit of 2 neighborhoods.

 

Additionally, what do you think about surcharges on concerts, sporting events, and downtown parking? Why not impose the cost of a transportation system on those that most likely benefit from it?

 

I think most of us do want construction to begin "ASAP," but that ASAP includes the phrase "possible."  To my mind, its only possible once the real hardcore engineering studies have been completed.  What I want to see from funding is phased funding, of the CBD/OTR loop.  Phased funding buys us two things, firstly it gets us the funds to do the real engineering studies, to uncover any lurking unknown costs.  Secondly, it gets us the leverage to approach the interested private parties to obtain MOU's for their contribution (we can't do this until there is at least some consensus from the city that if the private funds can be obtained, the project will move forward).  Yes, we do need more studies to determine what the actual cost will be, but we need a framework in place to move forward (up to a certain estimated dollar amount)

 

I am not opposed to any of the means of funding you suggest.  They come with their own political obstacles, but none should be ruled out, out of hand. 

 

I don't really think that the fundamental objection to Qualls motion is that it requires further study.  I think the fundamental objection is that it is too tightly integrated with the phase 1B/phase 2 (whatever the heck you want to call it) Uptown portion of the line.  We already know that wherever the downtown line is placed, we will be able (technically) to make it up the hill to Uptown.  What most of us are upset about is that Qualls' motion requires the funding to be in place for BOTH uptown and downtown before downtown can move forward.  This to our minds is too tight of a tie in between what are in essence two disparate systems, with completely different funding options etc. 

 

The secondary objection is based upon that tie in.  We want to make sure that whatever project we move forward on, it is a manageable size and dollar amount.  Its more than just throwing 80 additional million onto the cost, its the scale of the proposed "one go" system buildout.  Its larger than anyone else has built, and the evidence from other cities suggests that it would be prudent to keep the scale manageable (see Atlanta)

 

I see your point about the costs being stable even if the route is changed.  The question is whether the city will be able to secure financing under such a scenario.  Investors like certainty and variability in the build-out is not certainty.  Regardless, I think the gist of your argument is that we require a financing plan to reach out to private entities and get them to chip in.  That seems backward.  Consider: when a private developer wants city money for a project he/she/they have to prove they have $X in hand to spend and the project costs $(X+Y), therefore the city should contribute $Y.  It seems to me the streetcar is a photographic negative of that situation.  How have we arrived at our value for Y in the streetcar scenario?  Moreover, what are the tradeoffs required to generate X?

 

As to Qualls' motion requiring financing for both portions prior to any construction: it is necessary for the project to succeed, politically and functionally.  Commitment (real commitment, not just words) to going to Uptown is a hedge against the possibility of failure downtown and in OTR.  Uptown is an exciting, developed place and has a "captive audience" of UC students that will ride the streetcar.  It also is the hub for the city, it shows the streetcar can be a city-wide system.

 

I know the argument that everywhere the streetcars have been done economic development has followed.  A few rejoinders: 1. Correlation does not prove causation.  There may be other independent variables at work.  2. Small sample-size.  3. Cincinnati's composition is radically different from these liberal, racially homogenous, well-planned, formalized street-grid Northwest towns that so love the streetcar.  (Tampa and Little Rock being aberrations since they are primarily tourist attractions).  So at any rate, I think giving these issues it is best to have a contingency in place.  This isn't Sim City, we have to do this right the first time.

 

 

 

To JMecklenborg:

 

You assume the majority of Cincinnatians want a "big-time urban character".  You additionally assume that the only way to reap a "big-time urban character" is a streetcar.  Think it a cowardly fall-back if you wish, but the fact of the matter is there will be trade-offs.  Rather than dodge this reality, why not engage it and try to justify the streetcar?  Dodging it just makes it seem more compelling to the opposition and undecided.

 

Quick question: What is the difference between a circulator and a connector? Does a circulator run along two adjacent and parallel one-way streets? and a connector runs two-ways on a two way street? If both phases are eventually built, will you not be able to take a single streetcar from UC to the stadium? Will you have to transfer?

 

 

This is a great question and most relevant to everything that's being discussed about the Cincinnati Streetcar.

 

I think of a connector as corridor-level transportation, often the shortest land distance between two points. I-71 is a connector. Vine Street is a connector. Your driveway is a connector to your street. Light rail and bus routes are connectors.

 

Streetcars are circulators. Columbus aside, they often follow roundabout routes that link together the most destinations possible and do not necessarily present the fastest travel time from end-point to end-point. On a modern streetcar, the ride quality is so good -- "car competitive", if you will -- that travel time is not the paramount consideration.

 

The downtown plan for the Cincinnati Streetcar is clearly a circulator. Almost everywhere you'd want to go is within a few blocks of the route. The uptown "plan", such as it is, is a connector. It has little circulation value.

thanks john. It sounds like not much will be physically different about the circulator vs. the connector ... just the amount of stops perhaps?

 

But, I'm still a little unclear as to whether you would have to transfer as the connector hits the two loops.

thanks john. It sounds like not much will be physically different about the circulator vs. the connector ... just the amount of stops perhaps?

 

But, I'm still a little unclear as to whether you would have to transfer as the connector hits the two loops.

 

They really are functionally very different and will attract different riderships.

 

I don't know if you'd have to transfer from the uptown "connector", if that's what it's being called now. Part of the beauty of a circulator is its ability to offer a one-seat ride. What you lose in terms of straight-line travel-time, you gain in convenience. It's a trade-off. At night and in bad weather, it's probably essential.

 

"The new development creates a higher amount of taxes generated..."

 

We hope so. If we knew for sure, the streetcar would be a no-brainer.

 

Borrowing money makes a good business better, but it makes a bad business worse. It's all about the money.

Consider: when a private developer wants city money for a project he/she/they have to prove they have $X in hand to spend and the project costs $(X+Y), therefore the city should contribute $Y.  It seems to me the streetcar is a photographic negative of that situation.  How have we arrived at our value for Y in the streetcar scenario?  Moreover, what are the tradeoffs required to generate X?

 

In this case we have the same scenario, but the parties are reversed.  The city has a reasonable idea of what the project costs, $(X+Y) (at least for the OTR/CBD circulator).  The city has a financing plan that provides $X (some proceeds from the sale of blue ash, issuing some bonds, and tapping into a TIF district).  The city does the same math as the private developer, and figures that they need to ask private entities for $Y.  But, this is why we need some approval of the financing plan for $X (its the equivalent of the private developer having to prove they have $X in the bank).  This approval can be contingent on getting $Y from those private entities, just like the private development may also not proceed unless the $Y dollars materialize.  In either case, then its time to reconsider the financing.

 

The tradeoffs to generate $X have been debated to some degree through a few iterations of the financing plan.  It has been fairly well balanced to allay the concerns of competing interests.  Further, there are other financing options (such as parking surcharges, or event ticket surcharges) that could be investigated should the $Y dollars not materialize.

 

As to Qualls' motion requiring financing for both portions prior to any construction: it is necessary for the project to succeed, politically and functionally.  Commitment (real commitment, not just words) to going to Uptown is a hedge against the possibility of failure downtown and in OTR.  Uptown is an exciting, developed place and has a "captive audience" of UC students that will ride the streetcar.  It also is the hub for the city, it shows the streetcar can be a city-wide system.

 

Would you agree that there it is technically feasible to bring a streetcar from OTR to the University?  It seems to me that technically, from all the evidence of the car capabilities and the actual grade of the hills, there are a few possible routes within the capabilities of modern streetcars. 

 

Should we delay the financing approval and the ability to seek private entity funds from CBD/OTR until all those routes have been studied, and then financing for them have been studied, etc.?  The financing options for those routes are tied to where that route goes. 

 

If you agree that "getting up the hill" is technically feasible, then, from my perspective, at this juncture, it seems wiser to:

1) authorize the funds to study those routes up the hill

2) authorize the funds to do the detailed engineering and planning required for the CBD/OTR circulator

3) authorize the city manager to approach private entities for private funding

4) authorize a financing plan for the city's contribution (TIF, blue ash, state funds, bonds, etc) that is contingent upon the success of getting private dollars

 

Then, we get several benefits - the studies on the uptown lines can begin, the manager can start feeling out sources of private funds, the serious engineering design for the CBD/OTR circulator can begin.

 

There are a few failure points with those specific authorizations

1) The private dollars don't materialize

If this happens, its OK, the financing plan is contingent upon these dollars, it goes back to finance for consideration of other options.  Even in this case, the serious engineering work is underway, so that we have better information moving forward.  Further the uptown studies have also begun.  A setback, but not a showstopper - and there is progress towards what will need to be done in any case.

2) The funding doesn't materialize for uptown

If this happens, we will still be working on CBD/OTR, and hopefully it will be generating returns for the city.  The studies for further work uptown will be done, and when we can get funding, we can move forward.

 

Correlation does not prove causation

Yes, this is true.  But further study, and longer delays to "guarantee" that uptown and downtown are connected via the line don't allay this concern.  Frankly, if the fear is that it will be a complete failure standing alone in CBD/OTR, does anyone think it can succeed because of the connection to uptown?  I don't think that uptown alone can make this a success if it is a failure (which I don't think it will be) downtown.

 

doh

Additionally, what do you think about surcharges on concerts, sporting events, and downtown parking? Why not impose the cost of a transportation system on those that most likely benefit from it?

 

I won't go through the whole post again, but I mentioned early this morning that I'm afraid this concept would give streetcar opponents ammunition to attack the proposal, because so far the proponents of this plan have been very careful to make sure that nothing in the funding plan could be construed as a tax increase.  Also, I'm not entirely sold on why this type of funding would be fair.  For example, the streetcar isn't expected to give the Reds a boost in attendance, so why would their tickets be taxed?  As for parking, if someone from the suburbs parks under Fountain Square, goes to Tower Place, and then drives home, why would their parking be taxed?  The streetcar didn't attract them and they didn't ride on it.  Findley Market is supposed to benefit from the streetcar, so would there be a $1 cover charge to get in to the market itself?  This type of funding would certainly generate a lot of money and I'm not totally against the idea, but I'd prefer to explore other options first. 

 

 

 

I see your point about the costs being stable even if the route is changed.  The question is whether the city will be able to secure financing under such a scenario.  Investors like certainty and variability in the build-out is not certainty.  Regardless, I think the gist of your argument is that we require a financing plan to reach out to private entities and get them to chip in.  That seems backward.  Consider: when a private developer wants city money for a project he/she/they have to prove they have $X in hand to spend and the project costs $(X+Y), therefore the city should contribute $Y.  It seems to me the streetcar is a photographic negative of that situation.  How have we arrived at our value for Y in the streetcar scenario?  Moreover, what are the tradeoffs required to generate X?

 

Whether it seems backward or not, my understanding is that the city cannot approach private entities officially until funding has been approved.  That doesn't mean that 100% of the funding has to be determined yet or that the streetcar will even be built, just that if the funding can be arranged, the city is committed to move forward with the project.  If someone here has a different/better understanding of this, please correct me.

 

 

As to Qualls' motion requiring financing for both portions prior to any construction: it is necessary for the project to succeed, politically and functionally.  Commitment (real commitment, not just words) to going to Uptown is a hedge against the possibility of failure downtown and in OTR.  Uptown is an exciting, developed place and has a "captive audience" of UC students that will ride the streetcar.  It also is the hub for the city, it shows the streetcar can be a city-wide system.

 

While downtown and OTR certainly have room to improve (hence, the development we all hope will accompany the streetcar), I think many people would argue that it is downtown, not uptown, that is "the hub for the city".  I guess it depends on what you mean by "hub", but when I think of "Cincinnati", I think of downtown, not Clifton.  /EDIT: My response here is mildly off topic and isn't meant to be pointed, but I think that this may be evidence of the sticking point we're currently encountering.  To some people, uptown is more important than downtown.  To others, the situation is reversed.   We probably just need to agree to play nice on this and understand that the two areas aren't really that far apart.

 

 

 

I know the argument that everywhere the streetcars have been done economic development has followed.  A few rejoinders: 1. Correlation does not prove causation.  There may be other independent variables at work.  2. Small sample-size.  3. Cincinnati's composition is radically different from these liberal, racially homogenous, well-planned, formalized street-grid Northwest towns that so love the streetcar.  (Tampa and Little Rock being aberrations since they are primarily tourist attractions).  So at any rate, I think giving these issues it is best to have a contingency in place.  This isn't Sim City, we have to do this right the first time.

 

Agreed, for the most part.  But as for your third point, I don't view transportation and revitalization as racial or liberal/conservative issues.  Effective transportation and economic development are basic responsibilities of any city government, regardless of the political affiliation or racial composite of its citizens.

 

 

You assume the majority of Cincinnatians want a "big-time urban character".  You additionally assume that the only way to reap a "big-time urban character" is a streetcar.  Think it a cowardly fall-back if you wish, but the fact of the matter is there will be trade-offs.  Rather than dodge this reality, why not engage it and try to justify the streetcar?  Dodging it just makes it seem more compelling to the opposition and undecided.

 

I think it's safe to assume that "big time urban character" is a desirable trait in an urban setting.  Downtown Cincinnati isn't Rabbit Hash, KY; it's the home of skyscrapers, Fortune 500 companies, MLB and NFL teams, etc.  If the goal of this type of an area isn't to attain/improve its "big time urban character", I'm not sure what its development plan should be.  As to the question of whether or not rail provides that, I can only point out that every major city in the developed world from Chicago to New York to London has rail transit.  Cincinnati has certainly proven that cities of medium size and importance don't *need* rail transit, but if we ever hope to be more than what we are currently, rail is certainly at the top of the list of our glaring omissions.

 

While downtown and OTR certainly have room to improve (hence, the development we all hope will accompany the streetcar), I think many people would argue that it is downtown, not uptown, that is "the hub for the city".  I guess it depends on what you mean by "hub", but when I think of "Cincinnati", I think of downtown, not Clifton.

 

Agreed.