One cost of vehicle ownership people never include is the cost of buying a home with a garage.

 

It doesn't have to be a garage, but a private parking space, or at the very minimum a parking space within a reasonable distance of home that is available most of the time.

 

Either you have a car or you don't. If you have a car, you're probably not going to buy or rent a place without parking.

The boards from the most recent public meeting said Oasis Line is projected to have 2,800 daily riders in 2016 and 3,100 riders in 2035.

 

The Wasson Line alignment was projected to have 20,000 riders a day as part of the metro moves plan.

 

The Oasis line was studied in the Metro moves plan as well. Interestingly, the other 10 rail lines studied in the plan had ridership estimates, the Oasis Line was the only line that did not. No clue why.

what are the chances the streetcar could be complete by july 2015? is it even possible?

http://www.local12.com/News/Local/story/Duke-Energy-Requests-Big-Rate-Hikes/NZe7ynRHOkKmrNrJED51Pg.cspx#.UQAaYlzLSkM.twitter

Chris Seelbach ‏@ChrisSeelbach

Streetcar supporters, my patience beginning to run thin. Either City admin gets going or they don't.How many times will date be pushed back?

 

D Monet ‏@derekbauman

The nation went to the moon in 8 yrs. @CityOfCincy lets get @CincyStreetcar from @TheBanksCincy to @Findlay_Market in 30 mos before #2015ASG

from Cincinnati, OH

19m Chris Seelbach ‏@ChrisSeelbach

@derekbauman we should demand it. My patience is beginning to run thin. Either admin gets going or a new council & mayor will stop forever.

Expand

15m D Monet ‏@derekbauman

@ChrisSeelbach Agreed. It's been in neutral. I feel the all star game is a catalyst and a hard target deadline that's been needed

from Cincinnati, OH

13m Chris Seelbach ‏@ChrisSeelbach

@derekbauman completely agree. And we should consider making that a deadline. The lack of progress is beginning to get unreasonable.

 

 

http://www.citybeat.com/cincinnati/article-26971-back_on_the_ballot.html

 

The public spotlight is nothing new for Cincinnati’s $125 million streetcar project, but it’s a factor supporters are getting increasingly tired of dealing with. Facing new delays and political controversy, the streetcar is once again in the news — and, for better or worse, this year’s mayoral campaign will keep it there for much of the coming year.

 

Despite the streetcar’s momentum — which proponents admit was literally slowed by recent news of the project’s delay until 2016 — the project will serve as one of the main talking points for former council member John Cranley in his attempt to beat out current vice mayor and council member Roxanne Qualls, a streetcar supporter, for the mayor’s seat in November. 

 

But should it? At this point, most of the funding for the first phase of the streetcar is set, and voters have approved the project twice through the 2009 and 2011 referendums.

 

Mayor Mark Mallory and Democrats on City Council have celebrated the public-private partnerships that have helped revive Over-the-Rhine, and they continue touting the additional economic benefits the streetcar could bring, such as helping to connect the revitalization of OTR and the development of the downtown riverfront in a way local businesses can rely on.

 

But the mayor’s race is putting the streetcar back on the ballot. Qualls is generally receptive of Mallory’s agenda, and she plans to expand the streetcar to make lines run uptown after the first phase is complete. Cranley, perhaps in an attempt to draw a strong contrast to a fellow Democrat, wants to stop as much of the project as possible, and he definitely doesn’t want a second phase. He would rather see the funding go to other programs, even though about $40 million in federal funding is tied to the streetcar’s status as a transit project.

......

Regarding the current phase of the streetcar project, Cranley says, “It all depends on where we are.”

 

For Cranley, it’s a matter of balancing how far along the project is when he takes office. If the streetcar is too far along, there will be no sense in stopping the inevitable. But if he sees an opening to shut the project down — something he argues is possible if the streetcar project isn’t to be completed until 2016 — he will likely take it.

 

Even if the current phase is completed, Cranley will do everything in his power to stop further phases of the streetcar project. As he sees it, the city has already wasted enough money that could go to other projects, and he doesn’t want to waste any more.

 

Cranley says the streetcar isn’t the only point on his platform, but his vocal opposition is the main reason the project will dominate another election cycle. Because of Cranley’s opposition, voters in November might be deciding the streetcar’s fate for the third time — this time through the 2013 mayoral election.

http://www.local12.com/News/Local/story/Duke-Energy-Requests-Big-Rate-Hikes/NZe7ynRHOkKmrNrJED51Pg.cspx#.UQAaYlzLSkM.twitter

 

Why isn't the city agreeing to pay for this cost? Seems like these utility relocation costs will be paid by Duke customers that live outside the city also?

I thought the PUCO had already denied Duke's request for a rate hike for cost-recovery for streetcar-related costs.

 

Who raises prices 24% besides insurance companies?

They are asking for so much in the hopes PUCO gives them less. They should get nothing simply for being turds. Anyway, this is probably why they have ceased returning calls. They will wait till a decision is made & then come up with some other issue.

http://www.local12.com/News/Local/story/Duke-Energy-Requests-Big-Rate-Hikes/NZe7ynRHOkKmrNrJED51Pg.cspx#.UQAaYlzLSkM.twitter

 

Why isn't the city agreeing to pay for this cost? Seems like these utility relocation costs will be paid by Duke customers that live outside the city also?

 

Seems like metro residents that live outside the city benefit from progress the city makes in revitalization also?

http://www.local12.com/News/Local/story/Duke-Energy-Requests-Big-Rate-Hikes/NZe7ynRHOkKmrNrJED51Pg.cspx#.UQAaYlzLSkM.twitter

 

Why isn't the city agreeing to pay for this cost? Seems like these utility relocation costs will be paid by Duke customers that live outside the city also?

 

Seems like metro residents that live outside the city benefit from progress the city makes in revitalization also?

 

It is a city project. The city should agree to pay the utility relocation costs.

http://www.local12.com/News/Local/story/Duke-Energy-Requests-Big-Rate-Hikes/NZe7ynRHOkKmrNrJED51Pg.cspx#.UQAaYlzLSkM.twitter

 

Why isn't the city agreeing to pay for this cost? Seems like these utility relocation costs will be paid by Duke customers that live outside the city also?

 

Seems like metro residents that live outside the city benefit from progress the city makes in revitalization also?

 

It is a city project. The city should agree to pay the utility relocation costs.

 

This was discussed numerous pages before. But the City believes that Duke has a legal obligation to cover those costs themselves. The city offered to pay some of them, and Duke balked. Someone else can probably explain it better... or you could go back a few pages...

http://www.local12.com/News/Local/story/Duke-Energy-Requests-Big-Rate-Hikes/NZe7ynRHOkKmrNrJED51Pg.cspx#.UQAaYlzLSkM.twitter

 

Why isn't the city agreeing to pay for this cost? Seems like these utility relocation costs will be paid by Duke customers that live outside the city also?

 

Seems like metro residents that live outside the city benefit from progress the city makes in revitalization also?

 

It is a city project. The city should agree to pay the utility relocation costs.

 

This was discussed numerous pages before. But the City believes that Duke has a legal obligation to cover those costs themselves. The city offered to pay some of them, and Duke balked. Someone else can probably explain it better... or you could go back a few pages...

 

OK thanks for the info.

A follow-up comment from the person who attended the meeting in Mariemont tonight:

 

"Portune's languge really shocked me.  Any comment one one way or the

other about the streetcar was completely irrelevant to what people in the

audience asked him.  They did not come to this meeting to talk about the

streetcar, but it was Portune who decided (I suppose) to try and score

some cheap approval from suburbanites by trashing the streetcar."

 

 

 

The meeting was supposed to be about the plans intended path through Mariemont and more specifically through Mariemont's South 80 which is 80 acres of land that is used as community gardens, a bike/hiking/nature trails, and now recently discovered artifacts....Mariemont is strongly opposed to any plan that runs through this area (or through Mariemont in general).

It is a city project. The city should agree to pay the utility relocation costs.

There was a PUCO staff report released recently which addressed the issue of Duke charging Cincinnati residents a different amount than other customers to pay for utility relocation. The staff said this should not fly, in part because of the network-structure of transportation projects. You improve the network in one place, you effectively improve it in all places. Keep in mind this is the Kasich administration making this argument.

 

They also pointed to the fact that, if a system is expanded beyond the original boundaries, suddenly you have unfairly shifted the burden. Say a light rail line or network is built within HamCo and Duke charges HamCo residents for relocation expenses. Then a small spur is built into Butler. Even if Butler residents pay for utility work on this spur, suddenly Butler's Duke customers have received a huge subsidy from HamCo's Duke customers. While political boundaries are not perfect for decision making vs. cost distribution, PUCO has considered and ruled against what you are advocating, and they are not exactly known for being urban advocates.

 

You might also want to consider the great extent to which Cincinnati residents subsidize suburban utility expansion.

Kyle,

Duke is a public utility company that operates within the city's right of way. As such, Duke is obliged to pay for costs associated with relocating its equipment when civic projects demand they be moved.

 

The 24% increase has nothing to do with the streetcar, it's over and above what Duke wants to charge City residents for moving its lines. The 24% increase would apply to all Duke customers in the state of Ohio.

It is a city project. The city should agree to pay the utility relocation costs.

 

Then ODOT should pay to relocate utilities from the Brent Spence Bridge project, but it won't. Duke is paying.

And the cost to relocate Duke's utilities for the streetcar will be pocket change compared to the cost to relocate that huge substation for the new bridge.

It is a city project. The city should agree to pay the utility relocation costs.

 

Then ODOT should pay to relocate utilities from the Brent Spence Bridge project, but it won't. Duke is paying.

 

Exactly. If Duke's request is granted then Duke and every other public utility in Ohio will have the power to bill local governments, including the State of Ohio, for all work done in relation to civic projects throughout the State. I would bet that the Kasich administration is working against Duke's proposal behind the scenes.

It is a city project. The city should agree to pay the utility relocation costs.

There was a PUCO staff report released recently which addressed the issue of Duke charging Cincinnati residents a different amount than other customers to pay for utility relocation. The staff said this should not fly, in part because of the network-structure of transportation projects. You improve the network in one place, you effectively improve it in all places. Keep in mind this is the Kasich administration making this argument.

 

They also pointed to the fact that, if a system is expanded beyond the original boundaries, suddenly you have unfairly shifted the burden. Say a light rail line or network is built within HamCo and Duke charges HamCo residents for relocation expenses. Then a small spur is built into Butler. Even if Butler residents pay for utility work on this spur, suddenly Butler's Duke customers have received a huge subsidy from HamCo's Duke customers. While political boundaries are not perfect for decision making vs. cost distribution, PUCO has considered and ruled against what you are advocating, and they are not exactly known for being urban advocates.

 

You might also want to consider the great extent to which Cincinnati residents subsidize suburban utility expansion.

 

 

^ Best post of the year, so far.

Thanks.

Local media is having a field day about duke rate increases. 700 WLW posted a story but after about 10 minutes of me noticing it they edited and deleted this part. I screensaved it  "The possible rate increase is in response to the Cincinnati streetcar project that required Duke Energy to relocate utility lines" 

 

http://www.700wlw.com/cc-common/news/sections/newsarticle.html?feed=119585&article=10722761&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeedWe

^ So far it's a request, not an increase.

 

It is a city project. The city should agree to pay the utility relocation costs.

There was a PUCO staff report released recently which addressed the issue of Duke charging Cincinnati residents a different amount than other customers to pay for utility relocation. The staff said this should not fly, in part because of the network-structure of transportation projects. You improve the network in one place, you effectively improve it in all places. Keep in mind this is the Kasich administration making this argument.

 

They also pointed to the fact that, if a system is expanded beyond the original boundaries, suddenly you have unfairly shifted the burden. Say a light rail line or network is built within HamCo and Duke charges HamCo residents for relocation expenses. Then a small spur is built into Butler. Even if Butler residents pay for utility work on this spur, suddenly Butler's Duke customers have received a huge subsidy from HamCo's Duke customers. While political boundaries are not perfect for decision making vs. cost distribution, PUCO has considered and ruled against what you are advocating, and they are not exactly known for being urban advocates.

 

You might also want to consider the great extent to which Cincinnati residents subsidize suburban utility expansion.

 

Not to mention the fact that Duke already has aging infrastructure downtown that's reaching the end of it's usuable life.  Duke needs to replace these utilities by law anyway.  The city simply offered Duke some extra money to speed up the process.  Duke used it as a scapegoat to make up for the fact that they did not properly plan for the energy aggregation law that passed in 2011.

 

Duke will pay for this.  The unfortunate thing is that Duke handled this entire situation terribly and will end up paying FAR more than was originally necessary.  The money DUKE wasted has to come from somewhere and they're sure trying hard to get it from the taxpayers. 

^Both parties handled the situation terribly, not just Duke.

 

 

Duke's 24% increase has nothing to do with the streetcar. Period. This is a separate rate increase request from Duke's request to charge its Cincinnati customers for utility relocation costs associated with the streetcar (which has not been ruled on yet by the full PUCO board). The 24% increase would be *in addition to* the costs that Duke would charge its Cincinnati customers for streetcar related costs,  and effects all of Duke's Ohio customers. We are talking about a great deal more money than the several million dollars involved in the downtown utility relocation costs.

^In the grand scheme of things, the cost of relocating the Duke utilities for the proposed streetcar is just a miniscule percentage of Duke's budget.

 

 

^In the grand scheme of things, the cost of relocating the Duke utilities for the proposed streetcar is just a miniscule percentage of Duke's annual *profits* too.

^In the grand scheme of things, the cost of relocating the Duke utilities for the proposed streetcar is just a miniscule percentage of Duke's budget.

 

I will take that as recognition of the fact that all this rate increase coverage has been a propaganda bonanza in the media.

From PUCO regarding Duke's statewide rate increase request:

 

"Duke is seeking to increase electric distribution revenues by $86,581,974, or approximately 24.02 over current revenues. Duke is also seeking to increase natural gas distribution revenues by $44,607,929, or approximately 18.09 percent over current revenues."

 

This is a $130,000,000+ rate increase, which dwarfs the costs of the streetcar utility relocation costs Downtown.

Im not sure how they come up with this stuff. People are already spending more for electricity and natural gas compared to last winter. If you average bill was $400 it will be $500 if this is approved. Does PUCO only oversee Ohio or it is multi-state?  Did they ask for a rate increase in North Carolina as well?

 

Edit. Nope it's not just Ohio. They want an 18% increase in North Carolina as well.

http://www.mountainx.com/article/48016/CWNC-to-host-rally-opposing-Duke-Energy-rate-increase

This is what I'm talking about with the streetcar PR.

 

When stories like this come out with misinformation, respond immediately.

 

Now all these 'outraged suburbanites' are going to read and hear everywhere that Duke is increasing costs solely 'because of the streetcar'. 

I'm busy engaging in a campaign on a UC athletics message board against the misinformation and faux outrage about this latest Duke proposal.  The most recent response called streetcars "bourgeois liberal fantasy of central planning."  Aside from that, most everyone was grumbling that the supposed idiots in Cincinnati are building a streetcar that no one wants and now everyone else is going to have to shoulder this huge utility rate hike to pay for it.  We are truly at the mercy of media outlets that are, at best, irresponsible.  I won't say what they are at worst.

 

This is an uphill battle.

What is the cost of the utility relocations for the streetcar vs for the Brent Spence Bridge? Get that comparison of numbers out there. ASAP.

 

The opponents are looking for the equivalent of the 39 mph 3C train lie that's easy to remember. Don't let them have it.

^I bet if a journalist try to touch that story they will be fired.

^I bet if a journalist try to touch that story they will be fired.

 

Then every editor in Cincinnati should be fired and their buildings demolished.

I'm busy engaging in a campaign on a UC athletics message board against the misinformation and faux outrage about this latest Duke proposal.  The most recent response called streetcars "bourgeois liberal fantasy of central planning."  Aside from that, most everyone was grumbling that the supposed idiots in Cincinnati are building a streetcar that no one wants and now everyone else is going to have to shoulder this huge utility rate hike to pay for it.  We are truly at the mercy of media outlets that are, at best, irresponsible.  I won't say what they are at worst.

 

This is an uphill battle.

 

You are also arguing with a board synonymous with group think.  Of those members, I'm willing to bet less than 1% live within the city....of course you are also arguing the the owner of the board so you are fighting an impossible battle.

So how much are the Duke utility relocations for the streetcar projected to cost? And is there a range? How much is the Duke relocations for Brent Spence projected to cost?

 

The city needs to get the facts out there or they are going to get crushed by a lie.

So how much are the Duke utility relocations for the streetcar projected to cost? And is there a range? How much is the Duke relocations for Brent Spence projected to cost?

 

The city needs to get the facts out there or they are going to get crushed by a lie.

 

BINGO. 

So how much are the Duke utility relocations for the streetcar projected to cost? And is there a range? How much is the Duke relocations for Brent Spence projected to cost?

 

The city needs to get the facts out there or they are going to get crushed by a lie.

 

$12-15 Million for Streetcar utility relocation costs. God only knows what those costs are going to be for the BSB replacement boondoggle.

>The city needs to get the facts out there or they are going to get crushed by a lie.

 

Last time time the city did send out a correction, but the media didn't notice. 

 

Meanwhile, the guy who wrote today's CityBeat article did a decent job in his piece's opening, but then got in Cranley's clutches and Cranley more or less wrote the article's midsection and closing.  How do writers not understand that these obstructionists are masters at creating canards that can overwhelm stories?  Although CityBeat has never been nice to the streetcar project, I think out of suspicion of Chris Bortz. 

For comparisons sake, in 2008 Duke estimated that relocation for its utilities for the BSB project would cost around $87 Million:

 

https://www.cincymagazine.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid=2CE771F28E0D4281817E2E034A9C57C6&nm=Archive&type=Publishing&mod=Publications%3A%3AArticle&mid=61465020993F438B9FCD60C66CC58CDC&tier=4&id=17CCA0182B484BA984691053965B3297

 

 

>The city needs to get the facts out there or they are going to get crushed by a lie.

 

Last time time the city did send out a correction, but the media didn't notice. 

 

 

Then you appeal to statewide or national media located outside the city. But if you don't defend yourself, why should you expect anyone else to?

 

Thanks for the data. Do you have a link to the streetcar utility relocation costs?

^Sorry, I should've given a link for those too:

 

http://www.urbancincy.com/2012/09/cincinnati-announces-plan-to-allow-streetcar-construction-to-advance/

 

Remember that Duke was at first quoting $18Million+ for relocation, based on an outrageous 6 foot move, where other cities have only moved 3 feet.

Thanks. I'll do what I can.

 

EDIT: posted at http://allaboardohio.org/

Has this article ever been posted here?

 

http://reason.com/archives/2012/09/27/the-streetcar-swindle

Has this article ever been posted here?

 

http://reason.com/archives/2012/09/27/the-streetcar-swindle

 

Are you trolling us Kyle or are you being purposefully obtuse?

Has this article ever been posted here?

 

http://reason.com/archives/2012/09/27/the-streetcar-swindle

 

Are you trolling us Kyle or are you being purposefully obtuse?

 

549 pages on this topic, not going to go through all of them. Which is why I asked a question related to the article. Who is "US".

^there's a search function

^there's a search function

 

 

Due to high stress on the server, the search function has been automatically and temporarily disabled. Please try again in a short while.

 

Read more: http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php?action=search2#ixzz2Iub32Md2

 

Yeah Kyle it's called a hit piece written by somebody paid by a think tank or other lobbying organization.  Which means it's intentionally deceptive.  There's a formula to writing those types of articles and a formula in disseminating them.