April 23, 200817 yr Ever wonder why electric buses use double wires? With rail streetcars, power is fed through a single overhead wire, and it's grounded through the wheels to the rails. Because buses have rubber tires, the circuit needs to be completed through a second overhead wire. Cincinnati's was one of two American cities that required the ground be conducted through overhead wires rather than through the rails. Cincinnati planners feared that stray currents would corrode water pipes and underground metal structures, so they didn't risk it and kept all the return current overhead. That's one reason why photos of old Cincinnati streetcars look like they're caught in a spiderweb of overhead wires. Stray currents can be a problem, but modern engineering pretty much prevents it. Getting back to electric buses, I don't know of any American city that's going this way if they don't already have them. Besides Dayton, San Francisco is the only other city I can think of. Basically, the electric catenary takes a lot of abuse when the bus is jarred running over rough city streets, and the maintenance for electric buses can be quite high.
April 23, 200817 yr ^ I just read somewhere...maybe off The Overhead Wire...certainly somewhere on City Transit Advocates, that there are only 4 US cities with "real" (ala Dayton) trolleybuses.
April 23, 200817 yr Author yep. they use the old double power lines. getting off topic, but that's what they still run in Salzburg. the only reason I mentioned that was to differentiate the single power line of the modern streetcar Cincinnati will be using
April 23, 200817 yr I know Cambridge, MA has electric buses (but they transition from electric to normal diesel when they leave the area with wires)
April 23, 200817 yr That's one reason why photos of old Cincinnati streetcars look like they're caught in a spiderweb of overhead wires. That was one of the main reasons that I originally was opposed to streetcars; those wires were very unsightly. Then I saw a modern one and realized that I usually don't even notice the wire, and when I do, I'm using it to find my way back to the line. What about solar streetcars? I can't imagine you could get enough power with current solar technology to run streetcars without an overhead wire.
April 23, 200817 yr Live from room 300, things are underway here after a delayed start. Even though this looks like a fait accompli, Cranley wants to take the opportunity to take each paragraph of the motion in turn and question the Manager and Mr Moore. Cranley hopes to emphasize the remaining funding concerns especially, and cautions that this motion puts the city on the hook for $61 mil. He's now moved on to questioning the private sources and public-private partnerships.
April 23, 200817 yr I'm totally spoiled by cramer's live updates. Wish I could be there today. Hopefully, this thing will finally get voted on this morning.
April 23, 200817 yr Cranley keeps hitting the potential Duke contribution pretty hard. Asking about hypothetical negotiation scenarios, esp guaranteed payments for electric use. Dohoney refuses to be drawn in to give away the strategy before the negotiation begins. Still, Cranley is doing a decent job poking holes -- it is, after all, his speciality.
April 23, 200817 yr While Cranley continues to dictate terms of negotiation in a public meeting, let's have a look at the other members. Bortz has his hand to his forehead, and a smirk that tells me he saw this coming. Dohoney has had enough of Cranley's silliness. Crankey is making up things, and Dohoney called him on it.
April 23, 200817 yr Cranley has moved through capital budget and is now on to TIF funding. He's concerned that we are maxing out the riverfront TIF. And now asking about the Banks and riverfront park. There's grumbling in the pews from city staff that he already has this info.
April 23, 200817 yr Qualls is up. Wants clarification on next steps. How does the admin work plan change because of the uptown connection? In other words, how have I made this more difficult? Dohoney: a tall order just got taller. Had envisioned using downtown circulator to use as match. Old plan gave uptown partners more time to get ready to be partners, and complicates getting federal participation.
April 23, 200817 yr Uptown connector adds about $35 mil. Qualls just said Cranley's questions were excruciating. The audience thought that was funnier than Cranley did. Dohoney states that they will try to cover 35 m without city funds.
April 23, 200817 yr My phone wants to spell Qualls as Qualms and Cranley as Crankey. So that's why they call em smart phones. (I'll be here all week; try the veal.)
April 23, 200817 yr Question about alternatives downtown, and whether they could have better remediated utility relocation. Short answer: no. Long answer, longer. Meetings with companies would be done within the year. Bortz up now. Asks an open ended question about the intent of the motion in the opinion of Dohoney. Dohoney reads as an authorization to go forward to implement, but does not have the entire project charted. Bortz clarifies: we don't have all the money right now, this allows the manager to go get it. "Now is a chance to be bold."
April 23, 200817 yr I think Bortz just compared the Banks to the effects of pigeon wings on NYC weather as part of a little summation. Despite this, he gets applause. Qualms said interpretating. Qualls cautioning that this motion sets the project in motion, for realsies. Dohoney says that unless they can't get the money, it is on.
April 23, 200817 yr Bortz up now. Asks an open ended question about the intent of the motion in the opinion of Dohoney. Dohoney reads as an authorization to go forward to implement, but does not have the entire project charted. Bortz clarifies: we don't have all the money right now, this allows the manager to go get it. "Now is a chance to be bold." Very smart. Define the motion for the masses. Make it clear that while Cranley is loudly voicing financial concerns, he is also denying the City Manager the ability to address those concerns if he keeps stalling on this.
April 23, 200817 yr Thanks for the updates Cramer. Unfortunately I have to leave to go to the SAH conference downtown (which includes a tour of OTR and Green Hills). I'll surely be checking back in whence I return. Keep up the good fight!
April 23, 200817 yr Thomas gives props to administration and council. He's a uniter. Ghiz has questions. Is it true that there's no turning back? No. Will the project definitely happen? No. If we get more private money, does the city put in less? Dunno. No more questions for admin. Some guy named Tarbell is up. Looks like a nutter. Bet he goes over time. Claims in 1880s, city was most dense city in W Hemisphere besides Lima, Peru. Who said nutter? By the way, they just turned off the time beeper thing. Lots of claps.
April 23, 200817 yr Bortz introduces the motion, giving props to admin and mayor for getting us here. Crowley thanks Bortz for speaking loudly. Fact: Crowley has Werthers in his right jacket pocket.
April 23, 200817 yr Crowley states that motion is better than previous. Much more work to be done. This is bit an ordinance, just a motion. Just giving a direction, and commits council to following that direction. Today's vote keeps us moving. To paraphrase a contemporary of Crowley: this is the end of the beginning.
April 23, 200817 yr Qualls talking again. Praised Crowley for being an extreme voice of reason, which is a difficult trick. Qualls says she is operating under a presumption that there is no going back. Crankey says we are putting the Banks in jeopardy by using the riverfront TIF. This guy wants an ESPN Zone in the worst way. Also against using captial funding from taxpayers in Mt Washington, Roselawn etc to benefit a few downtown. Yeah, that's not how the budget works. Bortz contests every point. Specifically, the riverfront TIF has never been earmarked for Banks.
April 23, 200817 yr Bortz is doing a great job of clarifying Cranley's rhetoric Cranley looks antsy Bortz for mayor
April 23, 200817 yr :clap: :clap: :clap: can we have a halleluyah for cramer and his updates??? :clap: :clap: :clap: Minor point: Crowley may take umbrage at the notion of Winston Churchill being his contemporary
April 23, 200817 yr Bortz makes the salient point that uptown and downtown support the rest of the city. Qualls is smiling throughout his comments. Crankey rebuts Bortz's rebuttal. Cranley talking about all the bug, bold things. Believes people would rather see Banks and riverfront.
April 23, 200817 yr Cranley is very transparent on his personal issues...it is very apparent he is more concerned about his career than the city of Cincinnati. Gotta love that old "Cincinnati politics"
April 23, 200817 yr Cranley is very transparent on his personal issues...it is very apparent he is more concerned about his career than the city of Cincinnati. Gotta love that old "Cincinnati politics" Not sure about that position, I think Cranley is looking to be done with politics after this term... Cranley is generally a progressive (in terms of political stance, not necessarily actions), which is why I find his position on this issue so bizarre...
April 23, 200817 yr ^I think and hope so. He is placing all his eggs in one basket called City Lights... which I will wish the best of luck to him. He looks to be done with politics.
April 23, 200817 yr Believes people would rather see Banks and riverfront. Never could quite figure out why Cranley thinks we can't have both. They're not using the same financing and both are long overdue.
April 23, 200817 yr He has said before that he thinks the Banks project will need to tap the riverfront TIF (even though that has not been included as part of the financing for the Banks as of yet)
April 23, 200817 yr I think John Schneider's insight earlier in this thread was pretty great--that Cranley is a Johnson Great Society Democrat. Which makes him progressive...for a Republican.
April 23, 200817 yr So is there no looking back at this point? Does this actually give the powers that be (Dohoney) the go-ahead to persue the hows and whens of the project?
April 23, 200817 yr I had to leave the meeting early, Qualls proposed breaking up the motion into several smaller pieces. My feeling is that she wants to be able to say she voted for the streetcar in some capacity, as her supporters are putting some pressure on her to get in line.
April 23, 200817 yr EMail from John -- passed finance unanimously. :clap: :clap: :clap: It will be before general council this afternoon (2PM). Celebrations pending! Response from thomasbw - it was "Kinda" unanimous... not sure what that means yet.
April 23, 200817 yr Can someone update us on the final disposition of the Finance Committee meeting? Was there a vote or will there be more deliberation? ETA: Great news! How so a unanimous vote? Surprising. Just thinking out loud and wondering if Cranley (and maybe even Qualls) is anticipating future opportunities to impede or meddle.
April 23, 200817 yr I'm surprised by a unanimous vote as well. I suppose they saw the writing on the wall. But it makes no sense for Cranley to hammer the financing plan, only to turn around and vote for it. Ahh, politics.
April 23, 200817 yr ^ This may have something to do with the Mayor's motion (which I believe includes provisions for a council advisory committee to work through the details - and Cranley will almost surely be part of that) OR - possibly to vote it down at general council? Completely in the dark and guessing here.
April 23, 200817 yr If there's a party I'm not free until after 9pm. I'm pretty sure that folks will be partying well into tomorrow, depending on how general council votes ;)
Create an account or sign in to comment