Doc Thompson claimed this morning that Portland's "trolley car" is responsible for the state of Oregon's $16 billion deficit.  That's right, $16 billion, despite less than $300 million of local and state money having been spent on Portland's extensive streetcar system.   

 

A state DOT programs work for 5-10 years in advance, meaning an anti-tax monster like Thompson can simply continue a downward trend in revenue while maintaining the rate of programming increase and get whatever deficit they want.  What a clown.

^ I doubt Oregon has a $16 billion deficit.

Doc Thompson claimed this morning that Portland's "trolley car" is responsible for the state of Oregon's $16 billion deficit.  That's right, $16 billion, despite less than $300 million of local and state money having been spent on Portland's extensive streetcar system.   

 

A state DOT programs work for 5-10 years in advance, meaning an anti-tax monster like Thompson can simply continue a downward trend in revenue while maintaining the rate of programming increase and get whatever deficit they want.  What a clown.

 

Send him an email. Hes usually pretty responsive

^ I doubt Oregon has a $16 billion deficit.

 

For FY 2012, its debt will equal 25% of its FY 2011 budget, and Oregon is projected to have the 6th worst relative budget deficit of any state. For FY 2012, it is projected to be $1.8 billion. Accounting for Oregon's biennial budgeting, this balloons to $3.5 billion for 2011-2013.

I'm at work, so I can't look it up, but no doubt Oregon has suffered huge revenue losses from the stalling of the logging industry. 

 

Okay, I did look it up, and I was correct:

http://www.oregon.gov/ODF/newsroom/newsreleases/2010/NR1042.shtml

 

So aside from tax revenue from the logging companies and wages of their employees, the DOT no doubt has lost significant fuel tax income from the machinery and many trucks associated with the industry.

 

Of course Doc Thompson, etc., want you to think the problem is "government waste", when it's a revenue problem caused by forces beyond the state's control. 

Has a ground breaking date been announced ?

^ Soon

Glad to see Cincy on the map. The list of rail transit and BRT projects in this article is pretty impressive.....

 

http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2012/01/02/opening-and-construction-starts-planned-for-2012/

 

^Yonah writes an excellent blog and makes a mean map.

If Metro Moves had passed, we'd have LRT and streetcar stars on that map, and perhaps commuter rail.  OTR revitaliztion would be way beyond where it is now. 

^Not neccesarily. I'm thinking that growth has to do more with the local economy than with the transportation network. The economy influences HOW MUCH growth there is, and the transportation network influences WHERE the development is.

 

Metro Moves itself would have cost $2billion, removing that money from other potential projects including redevelopment of OTR.

Off topic, but is there an "ignore" feature on this message board?

No, it would have "removed" $60 million annually (so roughly $600 million by this point) through a half cent sales tax to retire construction bonds and pay new bus and train drivers and mechanics.  So most of that $600 million would have been returned directly to the local economy in the form of wages.  The only money truly "lost" to other areas would have been the manufacturers of the buses, trains, rail infrastructure, and out-of-town design firms. 

 

What's more, Cincinnati would have GAINED federal funds -- hundreds of millions of dollars -- from the entire country.  Seattle just got an $800 million grant for its University Link Light Rail tunnel, and Pittsburgh got $400 million from the stimuls for their tunnel, to give just two examples.  So other cities are getting huge grants and we got a grand total of $35 million of federal funding for the streetcar. 

 

additionally any funds spent on petroleum products which are largely removed from the local economy would have remained.

You're sounding an awful like T. Boone Pickens. 

That man makes a mean steak.

That's T. Boone, not T-bone.

 

(dont' feel bad, at first I thought you wrote "mean streak")

I know who T. Boone Pickens is and he still makes a mean steak (wind-powered, of course).

Do they make wind-powered George Foreman Grills for cooking T-Bone steaks? :-P

 

How about a wind-powered streetcar?

http://www.calgarytransit.com/environment/ride_the_wind.html

No, it would have "removed" $60 million annually (so roughly $600 million by this point) through a half cent sales tax to retire construction bonds and pay new bus and train drivers and mechanics.  So most of that $600 million would have been returned directly to the local economy in the form of wages.  The only money truly "lost" to other areas would have been the manufacturers of the buses, trains, rail infrastructure, and out-of-town design firms. 

 

What's more, Cincinnati would have GAINED federal funds -- hundreds of millions of dollars -- from the entire country.  Seattle just got an $800 million grant for its University Link Light Rail tunnel, and Pittsburgh got $400 million from the stimuls for their tunnel, to give just two examples.  So other cities are getting huge grants and we got a grand total of $35 million of federal funding for the streetcar. 

 

 

The details of the financing arrangements matter little. The important thing is that every dollar spent on Metro Moves represents one dollar that could have been spent on something else. At the time of Metro Moves, a round number of $2 billion cost was advertised, so that's what I used.

 

The more important question is whether or not Metro Moves would have been the *best* use of that dollar. Everyone has a pet project or an idea, but no one ever agrees on the *best* use. Also, the results of an election do not determine the *best* use, but just the most popular choice on the ballot.

 

I will give you that federal grants completely distort the situation. If Cincinnati gets a matching grant on rail but not on, say, schools, then it skews the decision on the *best* use of that dollar toward rail and not toward schools.

 

Now, back to the question on whether Over-the-Rhine would be more redeveloped now, I admit that I just don't know. You can't perform an experiment and then turn back the clock like on SimCity and try something else. Maybe it would be better, and maybe not. All I'm saying is that cities and their economies are extremely complicated and they are impossible to model, so your guess is as good as mine. Addition of a light rail line is no guarantee of a positive net benefit in a specific place, because the overall economy may be a more important factor in development than location of a specific line or station, and while construction of a light rail line hopefully will improve access (a positive benefit) if it is accompanied by a big tax, than that tax must be considered as a disbenefit.

 

One of my former wmployeers specifically located in a suburban area of Butler County instead of downtown Cincinnati or any incorporated area of Hamilton County to avoid city payroll taxes.

Speaking of net benefits, there were serious Benefit/Cost Studies undertaken for the I-71 and I-75 light rail lines. Both of them resulted benefits exceeding costs by a substantial ratio. Like 2:1. The PV of the total net benefit of constructing light rail in our busiest two corridors was in excess of $1 billion.

 

So, even if SORTA would have built light rail in I-71 and I-75 within Hamilton County, there would have been a $1 billion "profit" to the community. This "profit" would accrue to Hamilton County even if its residents were paying for this all by themselves. But since the Feds and State would be financing part of the project, the return on the local funds invested in the project would have been very high. No financial analysis was ever performed to arrive at a local net benefit, but it could have been done fairly easily.

 

Federal light rail funds can't be used for anything else -- not on schools, not on Over-the-Rhine, not on anything else except more light rail in cities that already have it.

The details of the financing arrangements matter little. The important thing is that every dollar spent on Metro Moves represents one dollar that could have been spent on something else. At the time of Metro Moves, a round number of $2 billion cost was advertised, so that's what I used.

 

I see what you are saying, but you are wrong.  Hamilton County would have sold bonds to pay for MetroMoves which would have been repaid through a sales tax.  Since MetroMoves failed, those bonds were not sold and that money does not exist.  We can not use non-existant money on "something else".

 

Additionally, every federal transportation grant dollar we lost (when MetroMoves failed) ended up being spent in another city to build another light rail system.  So instead of Cincinnati getting some tax money from Seattle, Salt Lake City, and Houston, those cities took Cincinnati's tax money to build their own light rail systems.

 

 

The details of the financing arrangements matter little. The important thing is that every dollar spent on Metro Moves represents one dollar that could have been spent on something else.

 

There it is. This line reveals your (and many others') mindset regarding the scarcity of money as if it when it is spent, it is "spent" as in "used up" like a bottle of Windex. It's a symptom of someone who does not understand money. Each dollar "spent" has a different geographic multiplier associated with it depending on where it goes after it is transferred to another party. Money spent on transit sees most the multiplier stay in the community. Let's say you spend a dollar on gasoline from a Marathon gas station. A few cents of it goes to the gas station. The rest goes anywhere from 20 miles away (the fuel distributor) to 120 miles away (Marathon headquarters in Findlay) to the oil refinery (lord knows where, it's different every time) to the oil well owner (maybe in the U.S., maybe in South America, maybe Saudi Arabia, maybe Iran). A little bit of it may reach U.S. shareholders all over the country, but one little news story about a fish kill somewhere unrelated to Marathon at all could erase the benefit immediately by depressing oil company stocks for a few minutes. Anybody who advocates policy that directs money away from their own area to areas far away is looking to make money off of the transaction themselves, is doing the bidding of those individuals or is feeling altruistic toward them.

>The details of the financing arrangements matter little.

 

Good grief. 

 

 

>The important thing is that every dollar spent on Metro Moves represents one dollar that could have been spent on something else.

 

No, it doesn't.  As I mentioned, and as John Schneider reiterated, FTA grants for transit systems can only be spent on transit systems.  We can't get them because we don't have a local match. 

 

 

>I will give you that federal grants completely distort the situation. If Cincinnati gets a matching grant on rail but not on, say, schools, then it skews the decision on the *best* use of that dollar toward rail and not toward schools.

 

So are you suggesting that Cincinnati Public Schools embark on yet another capital campaign?  They have done a billion dollars worth of construction in the last 10 years.  Every last building has been renovated or replaced, and it will have zero effect on school performance.  What's more, the same billion spent on public transportation would have encouraged repopulation of the city and increased revenue to the schools under previous tax levels. 

 

>Now, back to the question on whether Over-the-Rhine would be more redeveloped now, I admit that I just don't know. You can't perform an experiment and then turn back the clock like on SimCity and try something else.

 

You're right, OTR would be worse than it was 1995-2005.   

 

>One of my former wmployeers specifically located in a suburban area of Butler County instead of downtown Cincinnati or any incorporated area of Hamilton County to avoid city payroll taxes.

 

Well if they added 20 miles to their daily commute to avoid $1,000 worth of taxes annually, then they're a fool.  They just added 5,000 miles to their car's odometer every year, meaning they're spending at least $500 more per year on gasoline and they'll have to replace their car a year or two earlier than otherwise.  Oh, I forgot, in Butler County they get "more house". 

 

8th & State is as great a faux economist & urban planner as he is a faux attorney.  :yap:

^ I understand multipliers.

 

Every dollar spent on Metro Moves includes some multiplier. But every dollar NOT spent on Metro Moves is one dollar spent on something else, which also includes a multipler. The question is still the *best* use of that dollar, including consideration of the muliplier effect.

 

I also understand your argument about keeping money local. I don't advocate taxing Ohioans for the purpose of constructing light rail in Seattle. How did that policy ever come to exist, anyway? It wasn't my idea.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The same people that voted MetroMoves down in 2002 have been crying about the relative small scale of Phase I since 2008.  What city could display a shorter memory and lower IQ in the same gesture?

If Metro Moves had passed, we'd have LRT and streetcar stars on that map, and perhaps commuter rail.  OTR revitaliztion would be way beyond where it is now. 

 

For what it's worth, here are the opening years from the project phasing and implementaion schedule of the Metro Moves plan, 2002 Final Report:

 

2003 MetroMoves Bus

2005 Central Area Streetcar (Cincinnati-Newport-Covington)

2005 Downtown-Uptown Streetcar

2013 I-71 Corridor LRT

2018 I-75 Corridor LRT

2024 Western (I-74) Corridor LRT

2029 Eastern Corridor LRT

2030 Southeast Corridor LRT

2031 Crosstown Connection LRT

2032 River Road Commuter Rail

 

Local revenues required for rail were $1.7 billion in 2002 dollars, which worked out to $58.7 million per year on average, using a 30-year funding period; the total funding requirement including federal, state, and farebox revenues were more than double that, $4.4 billion. Ridership numbers were based on connections with the improved bus routes, which would have cost an additional $776 million total, $507 million local, over 30 years.

 

So, if things had gone according to plan, today in 2012 we would have improved bus routes, and both the central and uptown streetcar. We wouldn't have any light rail opened yet, though the I-71 line would be nearing completion and ready for opening next year. We would have spent a total of $58.7 million per year over ten years, or $587 million in 2002 dollars to date, of local revenues on rail only.

 

Paging through the route maps, it looks like Metro Moves included a surprising amount of suburban bus lines, with bus routes from downtown to Northgate Mall, West Chester, Fields-Ertel, and Beechmont/Anderson, but also ones between suburbs such as Anderson/Beechmont and Tri-County via I-275.

 

The I-71 light rail included stops at :

 

Airport

Mineola

Florence

Donaldson

Buttermilk

Kyles

Covington

Government Square

Courthouse

Walnut Hills

MLK

Xavier/Evanston

Norwood

Ridge Road

Silverton

Kenwood/Galbraith

Cooper

Blue Ash/Pfieffer

Reed Hartman

Cornell Park

Fields Ertel

Mason

Western Row

Kings Mills

 

Wouldn't it be nice to be in the 6th/7th year of operation of the streetcar?

Those build-outs don't really mean anything, since they were contingent on federal grants.  Those grants could be awarded slower or much faster than the rate at which they were being awarded circa 2002.  For example, the stimulus bills just awarded many one-time grants, such as the Tiger 3 the streetcar just got, or the $400 million grant Pittsburgh got to build the tunnel to the north shore.  KJP has noted several times that the 3C's grant was especially foolish to give away, since it required zero state match, unlike grants during ordinary times.  Of course, if Federal funding returns equivalent to the 1970 UMTA, then suddenly several lines could be placed under construction simultaneously. 

 

I also understand your argument about keeping money local. I don't advocate taxing Ohioans for the purpose of constructing light rail in Seattle. How did that policy ever come to exist, anyway? It wasn't my idea.

 

 

Federal income taxes in the U.S. were initiated to fund wars, while state and local income taxes were initiated to pay for roads and highways.

If Metro Moves had passed, we'd have LRT and streetcar stars on that map, and perhaps commuter rail.  OTR revitaliztion would be way beyond where it is now. 

 

For what it's worth, here are the opening years from the project phasing and implementaion schedule of the Metro Moves plan, 2002 Final Report:

 

8&ST, is this report available online somewhere, would love to check it out!

^I'll email you it

^Thanks buddy. Thinking it may make a good QC/D article when my site rises from the dead.

>I don't advocate taxing Ohioans for the purpose of constructing light rail in Seattle. How did that policy ever come to exist, anyway?

 

Federal awards for local transit projects began during the New Deal, paused for a decade or so, then resumed in 1962. 

 

 

 

>Federal income taxes in the U.S. were initiated to fund wars

 

Also a handy way to reign in organized crime.

 

^Federal awards for highways started in earnest about 1920. There are some earlier ones.

 

The federal income tax was made possible by the 16th amendment to the constitution, ratified in 1913. It's hard to imagine life before the income tax. Some economists say that the real evil of taxes is not that they just take your money, but that they influence economic decisions. For example, we could build a highway or we could build rail, but we have this big grant for a highway, so we might as well use it to build a highway.

Actually, the federal funding of highways began in 1811:

 

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

 

 

>we could build a highway or we could build rail

 

The states and federal government helped build many railroads in the 19th century.  Cincinnati is the only municipality to build a major railroad.  Railroads attracted vast speculative capital from 1849 (the California Gold Rush funded many railroads) until 1917, when the federal government took over their operation at the onset of WWI.  But the bigger issue was the Hepburn Act of 1906, which unknowingly sealed the fate of railroads, and set the stage for the fledgling car, oil, and tire companies to remake the United States to their advantage. 

I think I already brought up the California Gold Rush several years ago on this thread, as it greatly influenced Cincinnati's character.  There was a delay of a year or two from the onset of the rush to when enough of the gold was transferred into specie, then purchased stock in various Cincinnati railroads.  Then when the gold was gone, the Panic of 1857 put an end to various local projects including the famous suspension bridge and the lesser-known, but much more important Deer Creek Tunnel.  In my book I argue that that tunnel was the single greatest thing to never happen in Cincinnati history, short of the attempt to move the national capitol to Cincinnati after the War of 1812.

 

http://www.whha.org/whha_history/whitehouse_tour-overview.html

 

^You mean the Cincinnati Streetcar isn't the greatest thing to never happen (yet) in Cincinnati?  :-D

 

 

 

Eighth and State still believes the Streetcar wont actually happen. We're getting to the point where it reminds of the  suburbanites who go to bengals games and STILL say, oh ya, the Banks are never gonna happen.

Can critics kill Cincinnati’s streetcar?

Premium content from Business Courier by Dan Monk and Lucy May, Senior Staff Reporters

 

A relentless anti-tax activist is convinced that a looming taxpayer lawsuit could be Cincinnati streetcar opponents’ best chance to derail the project.

 

But supporters of the $99.5 million rail line say the lawsuit is simply the latest attack from critics who have fought the streetcar from the start.

 

At issue is whether the city of Cincinnati’s plan to build the new rail system over county-owned sewer lines violates the property rights of Hamilton County and amounts to an abuse of the city’s corporate powers. That’s the argument from leaders of the anti-tax Coalition Opposed to Additional Spending and Taxes, or COAST.

 

Cincinnati City Solicitor John Curp said it’s “very difficult to see” how such an argument would prevail. But streetcar supporter and former Cincinnati Councilman Chris Bortz said COAST might have a case.

 

Cont (Premium content)

 

Can critics kill Cincinnati’s streetcar?

Premium content from Business Courier by Dan Monk and Lucy May, Senior Staff Reporters

 

A relentless anti-tax activist is convinced that a looming taxpayer lawsuit could be Cincinnati streetcar opponents’ best chance to derail the project.

 

But supporters of the $99.5 million rail line say the lawsuit is simply the latest attack from critics who have fought the streetcar from the start.

 

At issue is whether the city of Cincinnati’s plan to build the new rail system over county-owned sewer lines violates the property rights of Hamilton County and amounts to an abuse of the city’s corporate powers. That’s the argument from leaders of the anti-tax Coalition Opposed to Additional Spending and Taxes, or COAST.

 

Cincinnati City Solicitor John Curp said it’s “very difficult to see” how such an argument would prevail. But streetcar supporter and former Cincinnati Councilman Chris Bortz said COAST might have a case.

 

Cont (Premium content)

 

COAST has now 2 outlets to for their newsletters that they can go to any time unchecked.  Business Courier and 700wlw.  Even the Enquirer, who would put anything on their website with 'streetcar' in it for hits, has stopped covering most of COAST's antics. 

 

This junk is not going to stop even after construction starts.  Whats amazing to me is that there is still a possibility that after 2 referendums, 2 city council elections, and 1 mayor vote, this thing could still be stopped by a tiny fringe group based outside city limits

 

But it really is time to move some dirt.  Even if its just a rock moved, start doing something.  Construction just has been delayed and delayed and delayed for years now playing right into COAST's gameplan.  The more construction waits, the greater the chances of costs going up, opponents coming up with something else (another ballot initiative), and so on. 

 

If COAST ultimately prevails over the results of two ballot initiatives, two city council elections, and a mayoral re-election, then any semblance of democracy in this city is a complete sham.

If COAST ultimately prevails over the results of two ballot initiatives, two city council elections, and a mayoral re-election, then any semblance of democracy in this city is a complete sham.

 

AMEN

COAST has now 2 outlets to for their newsletters that they can go to any time unchecked.

 

I wouldn't necessarily say unchecked - I haven't seen the full article as I don't have the BC's Premium subscription (gonna go check for it in the office lobby in a minute), but from what I can see he's just reporting the story. I think the frustration should be more aimed at COAST for their annoying and useless tactics. From everything I've seen, the BC does A LOT better job at reporting than most Enquirer articles I've read. I would hope their articles don't have 10 COAST quotes and 1 supporter quote like Harry Borstman.

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/blog/2012/01/streetcar-groundbreaking-waiting-on.html

With all due respect to Secretary LaHood, we can't afford to wait around for him to show up.  If that's the only hold up at this point, City Council should just proceed without him being present for the photo-op.

With all due respect to Secretary LaHood, we can't afford to wait around for him to show up.  If that's the only hold up at this point, City Council should just proceed without him being present for the photo-op.

 

If somebody gave me $35.9 million I'd probably be cool with doing things on his schedule.

With all due respect to Secretary LaHood, we can't afford to wait around for him to show up.  If that's the only hold up at this point, City Council should just proceed without him being present for the photo-op.

 

If contracts are signed and funds are allocated, the timing of a photo-op doesn't seem like it will change anything.  It's not going to change Finney's opportunities to get an injunction, the only thing that matters is the equity judge and the merits of his argument.

 

That's why this article was kind of crappy.  With all due respect to Tim Burke, couldn't the Business Courier have gotten a lawyer with some familiarity with municipal law to respond in the article?

If this lawsuit is given any validity at all, then open the floodgates.  If it's illegal for the city to run a streetcar over sewer lines, then why is it legal to build roads over them? Roads, as much as a streetcar, commit “an impermissible interference upon the rights of the county commissioners, for the rights attendant to their ownership of the sewer lines to operate, access, maintain, repair and repair those sewer lines to keep them operational,” do they not?  The only additional interference the streetcar would cause is that MSD would have to do maintenance at night, when the streetcar isn't running.  I don't know about MSD, but I know Duke Energy does most of their maintenance work downtown at night, already, because it just makes sense to do that in a congested urban area.