Office supplies are a miniscule proportion of the city budget. My take on the city manager's memo is that he wants to give the impression that city employees are cutting back on expenses just like everyone else. My point is that the city's finances are in trouble. When the city or any business starts going after office supplies, you know that there's a problem.

 

    Of course I want Over-the-Rhine to be redeveloped. But what I want to happen and what I think will happen are two different things.

^I know what you're saying, but it's important to make the distinction that most (all?) of the money that is earmarked for the Streetcar could not be used for office supplies, a new jail, or anything else on the city's wishlist.

 

Suppose you want to buy something at Sears for $10, and that you have a $5 bill and a $5 Skyline Chili gift card.  Sure, you may technically have $10 worth of buying power, but that $5 gift card isn't going to do you any good at Sears.  So would there be any benefit to hanging on to the gift card and skipping lunch?  Probably not.

Incidentally, SKODA is possibly the biggest sponsor of this year's Tour de France.  Their logo is all over the chase cars, on team uniforms, and painted on the roadway at the stage finish lines.

 

  The city could build the streetcar today if they could cut funding for other programs. The city spends a billion dollars a year, and very little of that is for infrastructure. The city budget is a monster.

Office supplies are a miniscule proportion of the city budget. My take on the city manager's memo is that he wants to give the impression that city employees are cutting back on expenses just like everyone else. My point is that the city's finances are in trouble. When the city or any business starts going after office supplies, you know that there's a problem.

 

Actually office supplies are probably one of the easiest things to cut and are therefore done right away...especially when you're talking about a company, government or organization as large as the City of Cincinnati.  Heck my company is cutting back on office supplies as they can, and they just landed some $55 billion contract to expand London's subway (we're also working on the widening of the Panama Canal, the London 2012 Summer Olympics, and Masdar City in the UAE).

 

With all of these seemingly trivial cuts the City might have been able to save a couple jobs in the process.  That results in a couple more people possibly keeping their homes, sending their kids to college and/or keeping healthcare benefits for their family...that is no small measure.  Anything that can be done to preserve jobs should be done - whether it's printing double-sided, using staples instead of paperclips or whatever.

No matter which part of the budget the funds come from, it all originates from the pockets of tax paying citizens (I know this is COAST's point all the time, but it is valid).

 

The assumption with this argument is that if the money were to not be spent that somehow taxpayers would benefit.  The reality is that at the end of the year the City doesn't go back and cut a refund check to the taxpayers for this savings...the money is instead allocated somewhere else.  It's a false offering of hope.

 

The assumption with this argument is that if the money were to not be spent that somehow taxpayers would benefit. The reality is that at the end of the year the City doesn't go back and cut a refund check to the taxpayers for this savings...the money is instead allocated somewhere else. It's a false offering of hope.

 

Again, you miss the point.  The average taxpayer doesn't expect a refund check as a measure of a benefit.  The average taxpayer expects their money to be spent wisely.  When the city is talking about cutting jobs and protection, but continues to talk about spending $100 million for a streetcar to nowhere, the average taxpayer is offended.

 

The assumption with this argument is that if the money were to not be spent that somehow taxpayers would benefit. The reality is that at the end of the year the City doesn't go back and cut a refund check to the taxpayers for this savings...the money is instead allocated somewhere else. It's a false offering of hope.

 

Again, you miss the point. The average taxpayer doesn't expect a refund check as a measure of a benefit. The average taxpayer expects their money to be spent wisely. When the city is talking about cutting jobs and protection, but continues to talk about spending $100 million for a streetcar to nowhere, the average taxpayer is offended.

 

Then perhaps the "average taxpayer" also doesn't understand that we are talking about two separate budgets which can't be reallocated.

Seicer and I just came from Park+Vine and Findlay Market. Streetcar shirts are selling like crazy!

Funds from the capital budget *cannot* be spent on operations; also the city budget has expanded in recent years much faster than inflation.  This was possible because the city saw much higher revenues due to high employment (earnings tax) and economic growth, but much of that was spent in the *operations* part of the budget, not the capital budget.  For example, the city hired 80 additional police officers in the past 5 years (an almost 10% increase), expanded police "visibility" (voluntary overtime), etc.  This means imminent cuts will most likely be made to those expenses which were added in recent years. 

 

By glancing through city budgets you can see, for example, the annual allocations for the Kennedy Connector, a $20 million project which directly benefits specific fat cats, is miles and miles from the city center (dwarfs city allocations to street improvements in downtown/OTR), but is an issue that COAST has been silent about.   

 

All this stuff is online, DanB.  There's also something called the library, if you're feeling adventurous.   

 

http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/mayor/downloads/mayor_pdf17759.pdf

 

 

 

Put streetcar project on hold

Editorials

 

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20090719/EDIT01/907190365/Put+streetcar+project+on+hold

 

thanks enquirer, for taking another shit on your city

That editorial makes a lot of sense.  I guess that is why you didn't like it.

The assumption with this argument is that if the money were to not be spent that somehow taxpayers would benefit.  The reality is that at the end of the year the City doesn't go back and cut a refund check to the taxpayers for this savings...the money is instead allocated somewhere else.  It's a false offering of hope.

 

Again, you miss the point.  The average taxpayer doesn't expect a refund check as a measure of a benefit.  The average taxpayer expects their money to be spent wisely.  When the city is talking about cutting jobs and protection, but continues to talk about spending $100 million for a streetcar to nowhere, the average taxpayer is offended.

 

The point being made is that the money shouldn't be spent at this time given our current economic state.  It's not that it's a bad project, it's that we shouldn't be spending this money at this point.  These aren't my words, but the words of those who claim to not be against rail transit, but against this particular issue (see Enquirer editorial posted above).

 

So if you think it's a "streetcar to nowhere" that's one thing, but if you think that we shouldn't be spending money on new forms of transportation right now due to the economy that's another.  It's pretty simple, you either like this plan or you don't, but I'm getting tired of people who are opposed to rail transit in general using the financials as the scapegoat for their opposition, because quite frankly it's BS.

Seicer and I walked the entire "figure 8" loop today from his apartment and all the way around. For anyone that thinks OTR is truly the most dangerous neighborhood in America or that this streetcar would go "nowhere," you're an idiot.

 

Photos and write up soon.

The syndrome of "The grass is greener on the other side" isn't just an Ohio thing. I hope this commentary shows that others have it, too. But the people who can make a difference are able to filter out those who succumb to negativism. The difference-makers press ahead with what they believe is right.

 

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/dannywestneat/2009496798_danny19.html

 

Originally published Sunday, July 19, 2009 at 12:00 AM

 

Light rail shows Seattle is 'growing up'

Seattle finally has something most big cities had decades ago: a rapid mass-transit line.

 

Danny Westneat

Seattle Times staff columnist

 

Seattle, the little engine that doubted it could, finally got its train.

 

Today we're a bit more like Chicago or New York than we were yesterday.

 

"We now join the cities of the world," Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels said, as the inaugural light-rail train jostled down Rainier Valley toward Tukwila on Saturday morning. "We are growing up."

 

The mayor was beaming like a kid on board Thomas the Tank Engine.

Even now, Seattle's message boards are dominated by DanB's. 

 

Seattle voters voted over 50% for a 4-line subway in 1968, but at the time it required a 60% supermajority.  How many cars have gone through their life cycles that would not have even been manufactured if that system had been built?  How many residents and jobs has Seattle lost to surrounding jurisdictions?  How many families have had their finances burdened by having to own two cars? 

 

^

Something that got lost in the Enquirer's reasoning: the economic worthiness is the Cincinnati Streetcar is huge, almost 3:1. I suspect there are some City of Cincinnati programs the Enquirer likes which actually have a disbenefit, i.e. less than 1.1. We'd be better off it they never happened at all.

 

Wait until the American news media starts to digest how successful the most recently built light rail systems are becoming. Houston, Minneapolis, Phoenix and (probably) Seattle are establishing ridership figures no one thought possible outside the nation's largest cities. My take-away from this is that the planning and engineering is getting so good on these that we'll probably never see a loser light rail system ever built again.

Even now, Seattle's message boards are dominated by DanB's.

 

How many families have had their finances burdened by having to own two cars?

 

 

That's funny!  People like owning cars!

"That's funny!  People like owning cars!"

 

The best thing my wife and I did was move downtown and get rid of one of our clunkers.  We are now saving a lot of money on gas, insurance and car wear/tear.  We are also helping the environment through less pollution and helping reduce America's dependence on oil (something the three car families in the suburbs seem to gloss over while they put yellow magnetic ribbons on their SUVs).

 

The main problem we are experiencing now is that a few times a week we have to drive places due to the lack of convenient public transit options.  Metro routes have terrible timing outside of rush hour and businesses are spread out all over creation since there is no permanent rail routes to set up shop along.

 

Why are my tax dollars being spent on roads to cover the deficit in the gas tax while very little to nothing is being spent on transit my wife and I would actually use?  How are the "road hogs" getting away with being so selfish with OUR tax dollars?

Even now, Seattle's message boards are dominated by DanB's.

 

How many families have had their finances burdened by having to own two cars?

 

 

That's funny! People like owning cars!

 

Actually, there are all kinds of data coming out now that people in developed nations are less interested in cars. Case in point -- 10 million auto and truck sales in America this year compared to around 16 million in recent years.

 

In Japan, France, and Italy, teenagers are neglecting to get driver's licenses in large numbers. Spokesmen from Ford and Toyota have, in the last year, discussed this trend and have said, more or less, that the bloom is off the rose in developed nations and they are going to have to look for sales in China, India and Asia in general.

 

Driving in America peaked in 2004 and has been declining since.

 

I think it's also interesting to see what shows up in the car commercials. You never see the sporty car cruising alone along the dampened highways through the rolling hills of Big Sur, the driver with not a care in the world. What you see now are urban scenes, often with small cars filled with young people.

 

I do think most Americans -- probably not many in this group -- would say that their car is the one thing they could not do without, but the "love affair" is over for a lot of them.

Good points. And owning a car and enjoying it doesn't preclude one from using and supporting improved mass transit. It's not an either/or situation. The whole point of mass transit is to increase the number of transportation options, not limit them.

Actually, there are all kinds of data coming out now that people in developed nations are less interested in cars. Case in point -- 10 million auto and truck sales in America this year compared to around 16 million in recent years.

 

In Japan, France, and Italy, teenagers are neglecting to get driver's licenses in large numbers. [...]

 

Driving in America peaked in 2004 and has been declining since.

 

I think it's also interesting to see what shows up in the car commercials. You never see the sporty car cruising alone along the dampened highways through the rolling hills of Big Sur, the driver with not a care in the world. What you see now are urban scenes, often with small cars filled with young people.

 

Interesting point, John. In one sense, you can say people are less interested in cars because in some urbanized locales, there are more readily available transportation options so that they can ditch that second or third car they had and stick to one primary automobile for the trips out of the range of transit. But the spike in fuel prices and the deepening recession only gave people the incentive to spend less on discretionary purchases -- such as automobiles.

 

In urbanized locations, and in some mass-transit-heavy countries, many have done without a drivers license or are preparing to go car-less. My cousin, for instance, lives in Palisades Park, NJ yet does not have a license (she has a permit now) -- and shes 24. She has the option of taking a bus to NYC and then take a subway to her office, or taking a bus to PATH to a subway to her office -- all far cheaper options than owning a car and using it across the expensive tolled tunnels and bridges. If you give people options and a price point that is lower than that of owning an automobile, people will readily use it.

 

Automobile commercials have also changed. Many of the new, "hip" vehicles are ones that the older generation would have never bought in the past -- the Kia Soul, Nissan Cube and the now-accepted Scion xB. They are portrayed in the urbanized scenes moreso than any other vehicle, because they either are rough-around-the-edges while doing long drives on a highway or can't go off-road. Their demographics are also targeting the youth and young professionals, who are more likely to live in an urbanized environment than the older generation.

 

You won't see many commercials of a Jeep Commander or Grand Cherokee or CJ-7 traveling the urban streets of NYC.

Good Lord, what is 700's problem with the city????

 

Constantly ripping on any and every project the city presents.  Deters just went off on the "trolleys".  What is their agenda against the city???

 

The comments under the stories on cincinnati.com are unbelievable.  It seems like everyone in the area is reactive instead of proactive in regards to the city (which they probably don't live in anyways)...

Even now, Seattle's message boards are dominated by DanB's.

 

How many families have had their finances burdened by having to own two cars?

 

 

That's funny! People like owning cars!

 

I think a lot of people own cars out of necessity, and there aren't very many options otherwise. 

I was in Vancouver, BC a couple of weekends ago but just before their skytrain line from the airport to the city center opened.  Ended up taking the 40 or so minute bus ride and all of the buses were packed to and from the airport.  That line is going to be incredibly popular when it opens soon. 

 

I just so happened to be in Seattle for the opening of their light rail line.  I only rode it for a stop or two just to check it out but there were a lot of people riding.  It was also fareless for the weekend with fares beginning today.  Plenty of people were out there for the MLS Seattle Sounders FC playing English Premier League Chelsea.  Pretty sure they set an attendance record for an MLS game as they sold out Qwest Field. 

 

The Bite of Seattle (like the Taste of Cincinnati) was also going on at Seattle Center where the Space Needle is.  Had a good view of the terrible auto traffic trying to get in town for the event.  I'm sure all of those people wished the northern extension of the line was finished too.  They also have an old-timey monorail from the city center to the space needle which many were riding for a couple dollars.  Couple miles in length with no stops. 

 

Cincinnati could certainly benefit!

John, with all these new light rail systems opening, there will be a lot more firm data than 10 years ago.  I remember reading an O'Toole piece around 1999, just months after Portland's west side MAX opened.  It used older east side MAX data to destroy the economics of the new west side light rail, which I think hadn't even fully opened. Thing is, O'Toole is still using pre-1998 Portland data to make his arguments because he has to.

 

 

Even now, Seattle's message boards are dominated by DanB's.

 

How many families have had their finances burdened by having to own two cars?

 

 

That's funny! People like owning cars!

 

I think a lot of people own cars out of necessity, and there aren't very many options otherwise.

 

Shhhh Melanie...  you're ruining his broad generalization!

Personally, I like owning a car because it gives you the freedom to go wherever you want, whenever you want.  That said, I would gladly take transit to set locations (work, big events, etc.) if I knew I would just be going from one place to another.  Running errands on transit can be a real hassle (I lived car fee in DC for 2 yrs, so I know this to be true). 

There have been numerous studies, presentations, and reports on the Cincinnati Streetcar that explain why streetcars are good investment for the City of Cincinnati.  Here are the links to these documents:

http://cincystreetcar.wordpress.com/2009/07/20/studies-and-reports-on-the-cincinnati-streetcar/

>Running errands on transit can be a real hassle (I lived car fee in DC for 2 yrs, so I know this to be true).

 

I bought one of the then-new "bubble" Imac's in 2001 and took all 60lbs of it on the Boston subway, then carried it 8 blocks from the station to my apartment.  I remember a mild groan from riders when I walked in the train at Harvard Square with that giant box, but then I sat on it in the middle of the car. I've seen people take bigger stuff on subway trains, like the time I saw someone bring on an antique suit of armor.       

 

>Personally, I like owning a car because it gives you the freedom to go wherever you want, whenever you want.

 

Can't drive a car home from the bar unless you want to destroy your professional career, and the costs of car ownership are massive.  I had to buy a car when I moved back to Cincinnati almost entirely so that I could visit and take care of elderly relatives who defiantly live beyond the reach of buses.  Spent $2900 in repairs in 2008 (new transmission, new brakes, new windshield), $1550 so far in 2009 (bent valves, new battery, water pump), plus payments, plus insurance.  I've also been hit while parked 3 times in the past two years, causing damage to the front bumper, rear bumper, and driver's door that I haven't repaired, and the car was broken into in 2008, costing $150 for new window, loss of prescription sunglasses, and a pack of AA batteries.     

You won't see many commercials of a Jeep Commander or Grand Cherokee or CJ-7 traveling the urban streets of NYC.

 

As a side note, my giant Dodge Ram travels the streets of Manhattan on a weekly basis, and is parked on one now  :-)

 

>Running errands on transit can be a real hassle (I lived car fee in DC for 2 yrs, so I know this to be true).

>Personally, I like owning a car because it gives you the freedom to go wherever you want, whenever you want.

...

Can't drive a car home from the bar, and the costs of car ownership are massive.  I had to buy a car when I moved back to Cincinnati almost entirely so that I could visit and take care of elderly relatives who defiantly live beyond the reach of buses.  Spent $2900 in repairs in 2008 (new transmission, new brakes, new windshield), $1550 so far in 2009 (bent valves, new battery, water pump), plus payments, plus insurance.  I've also been hit while parked 3 times in the past two years, causing damage to the front bumper, rear bumper, and driver's door that I haven't repaired, and the car was broken into in 2008, costing $150 for new window, loss of prescription sunglasses, and a pack of AA batteries.     

 

Options are fine, but don't make it seem like you have to pick one or the other.  No one is going to buy into the concept if it seems like they have to get rid of their cars.  Most people that would ride the streetcar on a weekly basis would keep their cars. 

^No, they're actually that stupid.  Like a month ago when Scott Sloan suggested building a canal through Over-the-Rhine so that Si Leis's new boat could patrol, completely oblivious that the neighborhood is named after a canal. 

John, with all these new light rail systems opening, there will be a lot more firm data than 10 years ago. I remember reading an O'Toole piece around 1999, just months after Portland's west side MAX opened. It used older east side MAX data to destroy the economics of the new west side light rail, which I think hadn't even fully opened. Thing is, O'Toole is still using pre-1998 Portland data to make his arguments because he has to.

 

 

 

During the light rail campaign in 2002, opponents used data from 1990. And so it goes ...

These comments about how you can't run errands by transit certainly explain how NYC got to be the largest city in the U.S.

 

These comments about how you can't run errands without transit certainly explain how NYC got to be the largest city in the U.S.

 

Well, to be fair most people take taxi's when they have bulk items, but I get the point; there are multiple options, and the taxi is there for the times you need a car.

 

But the comparison to NYC isn't fair in my opinion, as the MTA is in a perpetually terrible financial state, because the fares are much too low.  Transit is the only option because of the way taxes and funds have been taken and distributed for decades.

 

The selling point, as least to me, is that Cincinnati can be a city that is walkable and drivable, everyone's happy.

Seattle's light rail opened today.  The Seattle Times is shockingly Enquire-esque, taking all kinds of cheap shots at the project, like saying Sound Transit's chief was hit by a swinging bicycle during the ceremonial run over the weekend.  They have a negative article on their website based on 7:00am observations:

 

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2009503977_websoundtransit20m.html

 

Seattle really messed up because they have termed their system "light rail", which it technically is, but it is mostly grade separated, including a 4-station downtown subway, an additional 1-mile tunnel with a deep station, and miles of elevated viaducts. Seattle's topography is very difficult, and so the engineering has been much more expensive than anything we'd have happen here. 

 

Also they lied to the voters and could not build what was promised with the tax approved in 1996.  They chose only to build the low-density south leg first to the airport.  The extension due to be completed in 2016 will be a three mile northward extension, all in subway, which will attract 60,000 daily boardings with just two stations. 

 

 

 

Great video of Seattle's at-grade light rail through the suburbs:

I was in minneapolis this week.  Not suprisingly, their one LRT line is displayed prominently on all of the visitor information and another line, connecting the two twin cities, is breaking ground.

Seattle's light rail opened today. The Seattle Times is shockingly Enquire-esque, taking all kinds of cheap shots at the project, like saying Sound Transit's chief was hit by a swinging bicycle during the ceremonial run over the weekend. They have a negative article on their website based on 7:00am observations:

 

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2009503977_websoundtransit20m.html

 

Seattle really messed up because they have termed their system "light rail", which it technically is, but it is mostly grade separated, including a 4-station downtown subway, an additional 1-mile tunnel with a deep station, and miles of elevated viaducts. Seattle's topography is very difficult, and so the engineering has been much more expensive than anything we'd have happen here.  

 

Also they lied to the voters and could not build what was promised with the tax approved in 1996. They chose only to build the low-density south leg first to the airport. The extension due to be completed in 2016 will be a three mile northward extension, all in subway, which will attract 60,000 daily boardings with just two stations.

 

Its not at all surprising that Seattle media is negative about light rail as their monorail has been a huge flop.  Its basically a big joke among locals.

"That's funny!  People like owning cars!"

 

The best thing my wife and I did was move downtown and get rid of one of our clunkers.  We are now saving a lot of money on gas, insurance and car wear/tear.  We are also helping the environment through less pollution and helping reduce America's dependence on oil (something the three car families in the suburbs seem to gloss over while they put yellow magnetic ribbons on their SUVs).

 

The main problem we are experiencing now is that a few times a week we have to drive places due to the lack of convenient public transit options.  Metro routes have terrible timing outside of rush hour and businesses are spread out all over creation since there is no permanent rail routes to set up shop along.

 

Why are my tax dollars being spent on roads to cover the deficit in the gas tax while very little to nothing is being spent on transit my wife and I would actually use?  How are the "road hogs" getting away with being so selfish with OUR tax dollars?

 

to be fair, if you don't own a car, you are not paying Gas Tax, which is the major source of road construction funds. Also, in Ham Co, there is a $5 plate reg fee that goes to road repairs

Damn right I'm not paying gas tax, except for the one or two times per year I rent a car.

 

I'd gladly pay a tax for transit funding though.

The gas tax is heavily embedded in everything that moves in this country. Everyone pays it directly or indirectly.

Not the existing monorail, but the huge multi-line monorail plan that actually collected taxes before being dissolved in 2005.  So Seattle was paying sales tax for a long-delayed light rail plan AND a monorail plan at the same time -- so paying two transit taxes with nothing to show for either of them.   

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle_Monorail_Project

If we as a society are so in love with our cars....why aren't we "feelin' the love" in return?

 

I'd rather be riding a fast train / light rail / streetcar.... take your pick.

The gas tax is heavily embedded in everything that moves in this country. Everyone pays it directly or indirectly.

 

Very true. You also pay the gas tax if you mow your lawn, ride an ATV or snowmobile, run your Weedwhacker, use a snowblower, power your generator, etc. All of that money (about $44 million just in state fuel taxes per year and more than $1 billion in federal fuel taxes) goes to pay for highways. Source is the USDOT Bureau of Transportation Statistics.

If we as a society are so in love with our cars....why aren't we "feelin' the love" in return?

 

I'd rather be riding a fast train / light rail / streetcar.... take your pick.

 

Depends. If I'm sitting on an interstate or side road stuck in traffic on my commute, I'd rather be taking transit.

 

If I'm wanting to explore the back roads, go backpack, etc., I'll drive. I love to have the windows down, the Grateful Dead blaring, coasting along the winding and storied highways accessing places that transit will never venture to.

 

My point is, there are plenty of people who love to drive, but the love depends on the application and scenario.

They should estimate a percentage of that gas tax that does NOT go toward operating an automobile, and apply that toward transit.

The gas tax is passe -- they are clearly going to have to move to tolls or more likely GPS-based mileage taxing as cars and trucks become more fuel efficient.  Electric cars will destroy the trust fund, that's why the government has not encouraged their development.   

http://sharonu.com/blog/2009/07/60-million-streetcar-to-nowhere.html

 

No matter the cost, the opponents will claim it is too expensive

No matter the route, the opponents will claim it doesn't go anywhere

No matter the experiences in other cities, the opponents will claim it won't spur development

 

 

 

And no matter how many times transit opponents in other cities are proven wrong, opponents in Cincinnati will continue to trot out the same stale arguments that have already been discredited dozens of times elsewhere.