April 8, 200817 yr The people I'm so frustrated with are those that constantly talk vocally about our how terrible Cincinnati is and when any proposal for change is made they complain then too. IKWYM. There's chicken pox, measles and in Cincinnati we're exposed to the grumps as well as the mumps. It's a pervasive infection. Symptoms can include fear of change, a no-can-do attitude, malcontentedness, complacency, and over-consumption of talk radio. Treatment includes broadening one's horizons and traveling somewhere other than the west coast of Florida via automobile.
April 8, 200817 yr >So I was at Ursuline's and X's prom with a date but without a date. Shake it off Dave. >However, I'm hoping someone could answer my question about why the streetcar proposal is so EXPENSIVE? I was having this conversation with someone a week or so ago...given the complexities of measuring inflation it's impossible to say how much less they cost 100 years ago, we can just be sure that they did cost less. Would New York's Second Ave. Subway have cost the equivalent of $16 billion when it was proposed in the 1920's? As my friend put it, how can we succeed as a nation when these projects cost such ridiculous sums, but are simultaneously dwarfed in price by non-physical social programs (food stamps, etc.). All those social programs keep getting rubber stamped with unclear quantifiable benefits while rail, city parks, you name it are put under microscopes. Obviously the labor costs have increased exponentially since the government now builds all transit projects and only a small number of companies are able to bid with the average grunt making $30+hr, more than a lot of college grads. When the interurbans and subways were built by private companies, they were able to hire immigrants right off the boat. This is still more or less going on in China and many other places with fast-growing rail infrastructure, although major projects are still being carried out by European countries.
April 8, 200817 yr However, I'm hoping someone could answer my question about why the streetcar proposal is so EXPENSIVE? My understanding was that streetcars cost about $25 million per mile. Although the Cincinnati proposal is wisely marketed as a 4 mile project, it's actually just a 2 mile doubletracked streetcar, whose parallel tracks happen to be one block apart. Shouldn't the streetcar cost about $50 million plus the extra cost of redundant electrical wiring? Why is the estimate $100 million? You only need two miles worth of parallel track, and a two mile system worth of cars. Aren't the cars and the tracks two of the three biggest costs? The only major extra costs should be the 4 miles of electrical wiring, right? What am I missing here? $88 million in 2007 dollars covers: 3.9 miles of track 18 stops 6 modern streetcars Maintenance facility 15 - 25% contingency Year 2010 totals $102 million
April 8, 200817 yr >So I was at Ursuline's and X's prom with a date but without a date. Shake it off Dave. >However, I'm hoping someone could answer my question about why the streetcar proposal is so EXPENSIVE? I was having this conversation with someone a week or so ago...given the complexities of measuring inflation it's impossible to say how much less they cost 100 years ago, we can just be sure that they did cost less. Would New York's Second Ave. Subway have cost the equivalent of $16 billion when it was proposed in the 1920's? As my friend put it, how can we succeed as a nation when these projects cost such ridiculous sums, but are simultaneously dwarfed in price by non-physical social programs (food stamps, etc.). All those social programs keep getting rubber stamped with unclear quantifiable benefits while rail, city parks, you name it are put under microscopes. Obviously the labor costs have increased exponentially since the government now builds all transit projects and only a small number of companies are able to bid with the average grunt making $30+hr, more than a lot of college grads. When the interurbans and subways were built by private companies, they were able to hire immigrants right off the boat. This is still more or less going on in China and many other places with fast-growing rail infrastructure, although major projects are still being carried out by European countries. How about the Brent Spence Bridge? 1963 original - about $50 million, I think -- Jake, correct me if I'm wrong 2008 replacement - $3 billion But then, that's a highway, so that's OK
April 8, 200817 yr Thanks everyone. My confusion centers around the fact that Portland built a bidirectional 2.4 mile streetcar line (i.e. 4.8 lane/miles) with about $57 million in 2004 dollars. Even factoring inflation, this means that Cincinnati's proposal is massively more expensive in terms of lane/miles. About $13 million per lane/mile in Portland 2004 dollars ... about $25 million per lane/mile in Cincinnati in 2010 dollars. It just seems like Cincinnati could benefit from a little value engineering. That's all. Like I said, I want to see this thing built. I'm just very surprised by the numbers.
April 8, 200817 yr Author from transportation1.org "In the period from 1993 to 2004, highway construction costs increased at approximately the rate of the consumer price index—around 2.5 percent annually. But from 2004 through 2006, there was a spike in the prices of petroleum, steel, concrete, asphalt, and construction equipment which increased construction costs, overall, by close to 30 percent. At the Commission hearing in Memphis, on November 16, 2006, Scott Bennett of the Arkansas DOT gave an example of what this has meant to the highway program in his state. “In 1977, with a $100 million widening program, the Department could have funded 143 miles of major widening improvements. In 2006, for the same $100 million, the Department could construct only 17 miles.”
April 8, 200817 yr As my friend put it, how can we succeed as a nation when these projects cost such ridiculous sums, but are simultaneously dwarfed in price by non-physical social programs (food stamps, etc.). All those social programs keep getting rubber stamped with unclear quantifiable benefits while rail, city parks, you name it are put under microscopes. I like the way your friend thinks. The gov't spends way too much money doing things it was never designed to do, and not nearly enough on building/maintaining the infrastructure that is part of its charge.
April 8, 200817 yr from transportation1.org "In the period from 1993 to 2004, highway construction costs increased at approximately the rate of the consumer price index—around 2.5 percent annually. But from 2004 through 2006, there was a spike in the prices of petroleum, steel, concrete, asphalt, and construction equipment which increased construction costs, overall, by close to 30 percent. At the Commission hearing in Memphis, on November 16, 2006, Scott Bennett of the Arkansas DOT gave an example of what this has meant to the highway program in his state. “In 1977, with a $100 million widening program, the Department could have funded 143 miles of major widening improvements. In 2006, for the same $100 million, the Department could construct only 17 miles.” If memory serves, I think the spike actually goes back to mid-2003, when oil prices spiked from the reduction in crude from Iraq. Additionally, the federal government began to buy mass quantities of construction materials to rebuild and modernize Iraq. This lead to rampant shortages domestically and run-away inflation.
April 8, 200817 yr ^ Thanks again guys. A 30% materials increase + yearly inflation + a 15% overrun factored into the budget mostly accounts for the massive price difference. So my question has certainly been answered. That being said, there's clearly still potential for value engineering, and I hope that the costs eventually come in under budget!
April 8, 200817 yr Author also the cars are being purchased from Europe, so the recent run up in euro has a lot to do with the price of the cars. We will probably spend about 19.6 million on 6 cars (about 3.3 million each, but they last for 30 years or so). If we had the exchange rate in 2004 of $1.18 to 1 Euro instead of $1.57 to 1 Euro the cars would cost 5.1 million dollars (about 26%) less
April 8, 200817 yr ^ Does anyone know for sure where we are getting the cars from? I know that Portland's original cars were from Europe, but I thought that a company in Oregon was now constructing cars based on the same design here in the states. If that's the case, wouldn't we be buying them from Oregon?
April 8, 200817 yr The situation is that Skoda is partnered with that company in Oregon (I think that company actually makes Skoda cars under license). I think, but I could be wrong, that the plan called for Skoda cars, so who knows if they will come from that facility in Oregon.
April 9, 200817 yr Author A letter to the editor of the Pulse Streetcar to Nowhere I am one of the voices that gets ignored in this process of whether a streetcar gets implemented or not because I do not agree with the glorified statistics about how this will automatically turn the economic base of Cincinnati around. With a master's education in planning and economic development, I have studied this endeavor intensely, compared the statistics of all the other systems mentioned in the current feasibility study, and come to the conclusion that the proposed system simply will not give Cincinnati the greatest returns on investment because we do not have the dynamics necessary to support it as it is currently being planned. There very simply is not enough mass of people moving between the destination points (including Uptown) to spend this enormous amount of money. The other systems very definitely had significant numbers of people already moving between their destination points to warrant an additional form of transportation to lessen automobile traffic. My living has been made on real estate speculation for well over 25 years. While the Skoda-Inekon streetcars in Portland and Tacoma serve them well enough to warrant the significant yearly budget deficit, they also have a light rail system bringing scores of people into their cities. It seems more feasible for Cincinnati to look at less expensive options such as those in Tampa and Little Rock, if we are to do this. There is still a question about how Cincinnati can build a system almost the exact size of and type as Portland and have a proposed budget of half the yearly expense of Portland to run it. Cincinnati does not have a solid enough plan to start building this system tomorrow, and building it in hopes that people will come is a very big gamble considering what we already have at stake. Can we afford to gamble with $102 million that will indeed have to be paid back at some time in the future when all those in office now will no longer be around to be accountable? Slow and steady planning is a much better method of building win-win components. Even if it costs more to build it a couple years down the line instead of tomorrow, it is a much wiser choice to know what we are getting ourselves into if the worst case scenario happens. Cheryl Crowell, MCP Planning/Econ Development
April 9, 200817 yr Ugh, its always useful to say you have studied something when not a single number you rely on is actually correct.
April 9, 200817 yr It must be horrifying for those like Cheryl who are heavily-invested in beltway-type real estate to see the rise in fuel prices, ponder the consequences and imagine what the future holds. And equally horrifying to see the urban core becoming more and more attractive to suburbanites and other middle-class people. OTR is an untapped mine on the verge. Location, location, location.
April 9, 200817 yr Or when you don't offer any numbers at all to support your claim. anyone can say those things, it takes someone who really has researched the topic to be able to provide statistical support for their claims.
April 9, 200817 yr What does she plan??? Weddings maybe, Nobody who is a REAL urban planner would go against implementing a new form of transit, especially in the 21st Century.
April 9, 200817 yr ^ How many more times do you think we will have to tell Cheryl Crowell -- who has "studied this endeavor system intensely [and] compared the statistics of all the other systems mentioned in the current feasibility study " -- that Portland's system is twice as long as Cincinnati's, and that's why it costs twice as much to operate?
April 9, 200817 yr Question - how much traffic on Portland's streetcar comes from people who are riding light rail in and then the streetcar? Firstly, I have never seen that number, so I doubt Cheryl has either. Secondly, what exactly is the relevance of that number? It has some relevance, but surely the weight she puts on that factor in her letter isn't likely justified by facts. Secondly, again she is falling back to the density argument which has been so thoroughly and completely shot down (by myself and others), that its quite laughable (if it weren't for the fact that she constantly stands up and spouts this garbage from a "position of authority"). This one of those letters that really gets under my skin, and if I have the time I will likely try to write a response. We shall see... PS - John, how many times will any of us have to refute Cheryl's baseless claims in general (only to be called "vicious attackers") *sigh*
April 9, 200817 yr Cincinnati does not have a solid enough plan to start building this system tomorrow Which is exactly why no one is proposing that we start building this system tomorrow. We're trying get permission to investigate funding sources to see if building this is even feasible, because there's no point in spending more money planning if the funding won't be there when we're ready.
April 9, 200817 yr >I like the way your friend thinks. The gov't spends way too much money doing things it was never designed to do, and not nearly enough on building/maintaining the infrastructure that is part of its Actually he is a planner in Columbus and is adamantly anti-streetcar. I think people need to recognize that different planners understand different aspects of planning differently. I know that he's never lived in a city with rail transit and so I don't think really understands what rail does. He also drives humorously short distances. He's still a good guy though and unlike Ms. Crowell doesn't feel the need to announce his master's degree at every opportunity. >Nobody who is a REAL urban planner would go against implementing a new form of transit, especially in the 21st Century. Again, I wouldn't be so sure. I've definitely run across people in various professions who don't seem to have a good idea of what they're doing so I don't expect planning to be any different. I think a lot of the backlash against rail and streetcar supporters is that transit supporters tend to have much better knowledge of specific neighborhoods, specific streets, and urban history as a whole. This streetcar proposal is about a very specific area, one which relatively few people have a lot of familiarity with. Nobody likes to be made to feel stupid, including anti-city people, and when you start talking shop with anti-city people they're going to shut down. I had somebody tell me this week that Carl Linder owns the subway, he bought it in the 90's, and the simulated cave in Union Terminal descends down into the subway tunnel. Then she went on a rant about how stupid and boring Cincinnati people are. These people are really out there. My theory as to why so many suburban whites hate Over-the-Rhine has expanded from mere city ignorance and old-fashioned racism to the fact that many of them in their youth came down to OTR and the West End to buy drugs and/or visit prostitutes. They're ashamed of that time in their life and would like nothing more than to see the place bulldozed so that the memories can die. Imagine in 10 years a 50 year-old bringing his family down to a family restaurant in OTR, glancing up at a building, and remembering "Oh, that's where I used to drive down from Miami to buy cocaine back in the 80's".
April 9, 200817 yr Excellent post "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
April 9, 200817 yr My theory as to why so many suburban whites hate Over-the-Rhine has expanded from mere city ignorance and old-fashioned racism to the fact that many of them in their youth came down to OTR and the West End to buy drugs and/or visit prostitutes. They're ashamed of that time in their life and would like nothing more than to see the place bulldozed so that the memories can die. Imagine in 10 years a 50 year-old bringing his family down to a family restaurant in OTR, glancing up at a building, and remembering "Oh, that's where I used to drive down from Miami to buy cocaine back in the 80's". I suppose this is possible. But it's my understanding that OTR was originally a predominently white, working-class neighborhood until the West End was razed for I-75 which created an influx of poor black families. There are people living in the suburbs and exurbs of Greater Cincinnati who have roots in OTR and can't help but look at it as the past instead of the future. Maybe they've worked hard to overcome their working-class backgrounds and are proud of it. But let's face it, there are and always will be people who just don't like being close to people very much. They have no desire to live in dense, urban areas, or live in old, multi-family buildings, or use public transit. Fine. To each his own. I just wish they'd butt out and stop trying to insinuate themselves into the Streetcar debate. We're not telling them how to live, and I resent what is essentially modern carpetbagging.
April 9, 200817 yr Can we afford to gamble with $102 million that will indeed have to be paid back at some time in the future Cheryl Crowell, MCP Planning/Econ Development Maybe we can't afford not to gamble with this $102 million.
April 9, 200817 yr >I like the way your friend thinks. The gov't spends way too much money doing things it was never designed to do, and not nearly enough on building/maintaining the infrastructure that is part of its Actually he is a planner in Columbus and is adamantly anti-streetcar. I think people need to recognize that different planners understand different aspects of planning differently. I know that he's never lived in a city with rail transit and so I don't think really understands what rail does. I would have agreed with him until recently. I always liked Chicago's "L", but had no rail experience outside of that. I thought streetcars were the dumbest thing in the world until I spent 6 months in Portland and actually got some first hand experience with them. What drives me nuts is that most of my friends who aren't yet sold on the streetcar are in the same place I was 2 years ago. It's tough to really "get" what having a streetcar system is all about. You almost have to live with it and then live without it to understand fully the impact that it has.
April 9, 200817 yr Two things. One, All the grumps need to quit worrying about how we're going to pay for the streetcar. It is brought up so many times and it does absolutely NO good to continue to complain about it. Cincy leaders, although they do take eons to do anything, aren't stupid. Anyone that opposes streetcar is just ignorant. Go to NYC for a day and experience REAL mass transit. People that think we Cincy people are stupid are just arrogant outoftowners that think they know more. Secondly, Regardless of race, OTR is filled with people on wellfare that hangout all day on the street corners. Yea it looks bad and suspicious and thats why everyone is scared to go down there. If something was done about the retarded amount of loitering then even more people would be going down there.
April 9, 200817 yr >I would have agreed with him until recently. I always liked Chicago's "L", but had no rail experience outside of that. I thought streetcars were the dumbest thing in the world until I spent 6 months in Portland and actually got some first hand experience with them. Although he's 99% anti-streetcar, I do agree with him that the Columbus streetcar proposal, a seemingly simple straight line up High St., actually presents a lot more problems than the current Cincinnati proposal. It conflicts with much more vehicular traffic, is completely redundant to several bus lines, will have gridlock during major events, etc. Those issues won't exist here to the same extent. Here's another point I've been thinking about...around the country county-wide and multi-county transit systems like MARTA and Washington Metro are oriented in hub layouts which ignore major in-town areas for the sake of reaching suburban counties which pay into the system. We faced a very similar problem with the Metro Moves light rail campaign. The streetcar by contrast can be built by the city for the city without interference from Hamilton County, other counties, Kentucky, and other Hamilton County municipalities. In this way Cincinnati can capitalize on its central location even moreso than will happen with escalating fuel costs. Simply put 10,000 new middle-class and wealthy residents in Cincinnati city limits and OTR by 2020 has a much more profound effect on the image and function of the region than 30,000 new middle-class residents in Warren and Butler counties. Why spend a billion dollars for those people to ride trains from Warren County when they can be within the city limits? I think the Metro Moves radial lines were much better conceived than MARTA's impotent cardinal directions but I think while provision can be made for crossing into Kentucky, when planning resumes it shouldn't be part of phase 1. It simply inserts way too much political complication into the matter for not a lot in return.
April 9, 200817 yr >I like the way your friend thinks. The gov't spends way too much money doing things it was never designed to do, and not nearly enough on building/maintaining the infrastructure that is part of its Actually he is a planner in Columbus and is adamantly anti-streetcar. I think people need to recognize that different planners understand different aspects of planning differently. I know that he's never lived in a city with rail transit and so I don't think really understands what rail does. I would have agreed with him until recently. I always liked Chicago's "L", but had no rail experience outside of that. I thought streetcars were the dumbest thing in the world until I spent 6 months in Portland and actually got some first hand experience with them. What drives me nuts is that most of my friends who aren't yet sold on the streetcar are in the same place I was 2 years ago. It's tough to really "get" what having a streetcar system is all about. You almost have to live with it and then live without it to understand fully the impact that it has. This is absolutely true. It's why I've taken 326 people out to Portland to see the rail systems there. Many of those visitors were doubters before they went; now a lot of them regularly show up in Council Chambers in support of the streetcar. This is my problem with Cheryl Crowell's postings. She has some stray data-points gleaned from the web, but little understanding of what they mean. And so, she lacks wisdom.
April 9, 200817 yr First of all, why does Cheryl get published so damn much. Secondly, I was at a meeting today with just about all the movers/shakers in OTR and the streetcar quickly became the focal point of discussion. It seemed as though every single organization there was in favor of the streetcar plan, and how it relates to OTR...but some did have questions about the funding and feel that those details need to be better explained to the public. Needless to say, the Brewery District people and the Findlay Market people are some of the biggest advocates for the streetcar system being proposed.
April 9, 200817 yr ^I think it's very telling that she constantly touts her degree but not her professional experience in Eastgate property management when she expresses her opinions. Gee, I wonder why? :roll: Academic credentials are one thing. Professional experience is another. Methinks the woman's looking for a job.
April 9, 200817 yr I think it's very telling that she constantly touts her degree but not her professional experience in Eastgate property management She sure was quick to discount my professional experience in Downtown and OTR.
April 9, 200817 yr ^ I believe that she once said she owns property near Findlay Market, on Elm I think.
April 9, 200817 yr A quick search, on the auditor's website, turns up a property in the Walnut Hills area for a Cheryl Crowell (listed under Gregory Crowell).
April 10, 200817 yr I support the streetcar as much as anyone else, but I have to agree with the people that said they are met by vicious attackers when they express disagreement with the streetcar. Cheryl is a prime example of this. She writes a letter to the Pulse (what the fuck even is the Pulse???), and she gets met here with people looking up her properties, looking down at her job and where she chooses to work, and accused of looking for a new job??? Give me a break people...it's the fucking Pulse... Question, why does it matter what ONE PERSON thinks about the streetcar? If the Streetcar is such a great investment and a great thing for the city (which I also think it is), then who cares what this one person says? Getting defensive does nothing but make the supporters seem insecure about the streetcar.
April 10, 200817 yr Cheryl has posted on this board before, and she wasn't the nicest. I remember her dishing out some personal attacks. However, people were taking the time to answer her questions, and I don't recall any of the forum members being rude to her. I've never met her in real life, so I can't speak for how she is as a person.
April 10, 200817 yr ^ What makes it matter is that Cheryl Crowell has been unquestionably corrected on her "facts" many times on these pages and elsewhere, and yet she continues to write things that clearly aren't true. After a while, people justifiably begin to wonder what motivates her. She holds herself out as an expert on the subject of urban systems in general and rail transit in particular here and in the wider community, without evidence. Question: who, other than a physician or a professor, would feel compelled to sign a letter to the editor and include their academic degree designation? She appended her credentials to the letter, so it's professional, not personal. I doubt anyone intends any ill will toward her. I certainly don't.
April 10, 200817 yr She is getting all this attention because she has been repeatedly published not only in the Pulse (aka the Downtowner), but also the Enquirer...and used to be quite outspoken on this very forum. Her profession is brought up, because she makes sure to publicize this as if to lend a sense of credibility to her stance. While at the same time, there are a ton of Urban Planners out there that are in favor of this. In all reality though, no one profession is solidly on board with anything...there is always room for debate. The issue about where she works and what kind of work she does is a simple case of the same suburban interests that are opposed to virtually anything going on in the center city. I looked up her property to try to verify what was being debated. I'm sorry, but this is public information and if you don't want people looking you up and looking into your background then you probably shouldn't expose yourself to the world like that. When my guest editorial got published I received numerous emails from people who either loved me or hated me for what I said. My blog generates similar interest both good and bad. For better or worse, it comes with the territory.
April 10, 200817 yr I have to take exception to the characterization that Ms. Crowell has been viciously attacked. I've read this kind of thing over and over again on the forum. It's true that proponents of the Streetcar don't wait very long to refute misinformation, misrepresentation, mischaracterization, or out-and-out lies. I've also read a lot of civil back and forth between people who don't agree about every aspect of the plan. Ms. Crowell complains that her voice is ignored but that's obviously not true. That her voice is unheeded so far says a lot, though. Maybe one reason why is that she calls the data of experienced consultants hired to analyze the plan "glorified" and implies hers are superior. This, coming from a person who according to a University of Cincinnati DAAP site, is in the Class of 2008. The term jejune comes to mind (been wanting to use that word forever). edale, I hear what you're saying though about getting lathered up over one person's article in The Pulse. Perspective's always important.
April 10, 200817 yr ^I had to look it up: jejune Pronunciation: \ji-ˈjün\ Function: adjective Etymology: Latin jejunus empty of food, hungry, meager Date: 1646 1 : lacking nutritive value <jejune diets> 2 : devoid of significance or interest : dull <jejune lectures> 3 : juvenile, puerile <jejune reflections on life and art> synonyms: see insipid Here's another point I've been thinking about...around the country county-wide and multi-county transit systems like MARTA and Washington Metro are oriented in hub layouts which ignore major in-town areas for the sake of reaching suburban counties which pay into the system. We faced a very similar problem with the Metro Moves light rail campaign. The streetcar by contrast can be built by the city for the city without interference from Hamilton County, other counties, Kentucky, and other Hamilton County municipalities. In this way Cincinnati can capitalize on its central location even moreso than will happen with escalating fuel costs. Simply put 10,000 new middle-class and wealthy residents in Cincinnati city limits and OTR by 2020 has a much more profound effect on the image and function of the region than 30,000 new middle-class residents in Warren and Butler counties. Why spend a billion dollars for those people to ride trains from Warren County when they can be within the city limits? Exactly. The fact that the City pretty much controls the entire process without really having to worry about other governments getting on board makes this a much better project than the MetroMoves plan. And once again we see that the soul of this project is the potential it has to revitalize Over-the-Rhine, the most poorly and underutilized resource in the City. Can you imagine how many more dateless St. X boys than Cranley and dmerkow would be hating on this project if it involved outlying municipalities? All kidding aside, I've come around to the idea that 'guaranteeing' a Clifton connection as Phase 2 or 1b or whatever of the streetcar project is actually a positive thing that could be manipulated to our advantage. Making sure that as direct a connection to Clifton as possible be the next priority could encourage the City politicians to tackle an expensive and difficult problem that some might be willing to avoid for easier but less important expansions to the West End or up Gilbert Avenue to Walnut Hills.
April 10, 200817 yr ^Or, if you subscribe to the thinking that these streetcar lines are better built in under-performing neighborhoods, then Corryville and Walnut Hills would be the priorities. Clifton Ave. I think is a solid step that would attract decent ridership, look good, and helps UC as a recruiting tool but doesn't spur as much new private investment. Therefore the city is not necessary getting maximum return on its captial investment and ongoing operations. But Corryville and Walnut Hills are both low rent areas with many vacant lots.
April 10, 200817 yr ^ Yup, for sure. LincolnKennedy - I don't mind "guarantees" either but the form of the guarantee does matter. Uptown would be an obvious extension/connection, but the guarantee should not be don't build anything until there is money and buy in for everything. A motion in council could make these guarantees by placing much less restrictive conditions on what gets done. I entirely disagree with the notion that Cheryl has been viciously attacked. I have, and many other people, have engaged her in more than civilized debate. But she persists even when it is more than apparent that her "facts" are nothing more than fiction. If you put your name on a publication, you can expect people to look you up in whatever public data sources there are available. I expect it, and its one of the reasons I hold my house via an unincorporated entity rather than in my own name. I don't see how taking advantage of <b>public</b> information sources to understand your adversary is an attack. As far as where the piece was published, the pulse gets a broader readership than you might expect, and RIGHT in the heart of what should be the core constituency of the current streetcar proposal. This is why its important, if not nearly as weighty as a publication with wider distribution. Personally, I make it a point to try to counteract falsehoods about this proposal wherever they may be published (if at all possible - The Enquirer seems not to care much about such trivialities as publishing the truth)
April 10, 200817 yr I believe she revised the numbers she submitted to council I know she "revised" her numbers (at least very minorly as they were published on the beacon), but she didn't correct all the problems (especially the population issues or the cost of operation by mile problems). Did she actually submit revised numbers to council? I certainly haven't seen that.
April 10, 200817 yr Author edale, I hear what you're saying though about getting lathered up over one person's article in The Pulse. Perspective's always important. the weekly circulation of the pulse is about 12,000.
Create an account or sign in to comment