I think we're scaring the daylights out of Cranley. He knows his 16% coalition is weak. My bet is the talk of recall has helped tremendously.

Enquirer ‏@Enquirer 6m

Editorial: A possible path for the streetcar: http://cin.ci/1cEc54r

Cranley among new mayors meeting with Obama Friday

 

...

 

His chief of staff, Jay Kincaid, said that while Cranley is in Washington, he will also be meeting with the Cincinnati-area congressional delegation, including Sens. Rob Portman, R, and Sherrod Brown, D. And he’ll be meeting with several Obama administration officials, including the Deputy Secretary of Transportation and the Federal Transit Administrator. Topic A will of course be the streetcar.

 

“The main goal here is to meet with folks on the streetcar,” Kincaid said.

ANALYSIS: Even with Cranley's streetcar shift, many questions remain

Chris Wetterich Staff reporter- Cincinnati Business Courier

 

Mayor John Cranley’s deft pivot on Thursday opened up the possibility of a compromise that would complete the Cincinnati streetcar, reaffirmed his relevancy in the debate and also moved the goal line for streetcar supporters back.

 

Streetcar supporters had written off Cranley as an obstacle to the project, one they’d have to simply get around. He’d not indicated he was open to any idea that would salvage the $133 million to $150 million project. When streetcar supporters complained that last week’s city council vote to pause the project meant its cancellation (those of us who believed that were wrong), Cranley’s response was that was fine with him.

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/blog/2013/12/analysis-even-with-cranleys.html

I think their (Cranley/Flynn/Mann) position is going to be that fares & ridership must be high enough (and frequency low enough) for private backers to be happy with that as ROI. Which is cuckoo-nuts-crazy. The business sense in this thing comes from increased tax revenue.

I heard Mann on 700 am around 3:30pm. He sound very sure that Hale had the money on their books. But stll get signatures and keep fighting

700am kept saying the operation cost will be 5.5 million a year. I don't believe that

Me neither. I'd guess about 3.5-4 million per year...

In the same segment on 700wlw today, Smitherman claimed operations would be $6 million, $10 million, and $12.5 million. No one on wlw fact checks anything. Don't think too much into it.

 

Just a word of caution: "Operation Cost" could mean total operation cost, operation cost minus the fare recovery ("subsidy"), or operation cost minus the fare recovery and any other source of revenue such as advertisement (again, "subsidy"). It's important to know what is included any time a figure is quoted.

 

Its not that any of this matters anyway.  :roll:

KUDOS to Chris Wetterich of the Cincinnati Business Courier, who's doing the kind of reporting on this issue the likes of which we've never seen before in this city.  His latest article (that was cited here earlier) spells out the NET operating costs in detail.  What a tremendous relief to have a journalist actually bother to report pertinent data that are informative and insightful, as opposed to Barry Horstman's (R.I.P.) usual fare that mainly focused on political posturing and banter, seemingly with the purpose of roiling public opinion.  Who knows -- if Horstman would've done the same caliber of work that Wetterich's been doing, maybe a lot of the misperception and dissension about the streetcar could've been avoided.

 

Just a word of caution: "Operation Cost" could mean total operation cost, operation cost minus the fare recovery ("subsidy"), or operation cost minus the fare recovery and any other source of revenue such as advertisement (again, "subsidy"). It's important to know what is included any time a figure is quoted.

 

Its not that any of this matters anyway.  :roll:

 

It's right there in the Business Courier article...

Operating costs of $1 million per mile of track is a good ballpark figure for a starter streetcar system, and the costs per mile will probably decline as the system is expanded. I think Portland is spending about $8-9 million to operate its current 15 miles.

Deirdre Shesgreen ‏@dshesgreen 2m

After mtg with fed transpo officials, Mayor Cranley says Cincy will not not get an extension of deadline to decide fate of streetcar.

Retweeted by Chris Wetterich

 

EDIT: Shesgreen is Washington Correspondent for Gannett's Ohio and Missouri newspapers

^no doubt he lobbied hard :roll:

A new low: saw a Pete Witte tweet inferring private streetcar funds will hurt little children by jeopardizing Pre School Promise:

 

https://twitter.com/petewitte

 

This reminds me of the scene near the end of The Dead Zone when Martin Sheen holds up the baby to shield himself.

Will be interesting to see what Haile and friends can pull together in a week.

Shorter Feds to Cranley statement:

 

"Build the streetcar.  You have TWO YEARS to figure out operating costs"

 

By the way Business Courier said operating costs will be approx $2mil/year with grants, fares, and ads

Cranley, using back-of-the-napkin math, believes the net present value of operating costs will be $80 million over 30 years. TRA’s estimate is between $60.2 million and $78.9 million over 35 years.

For example, in the first year of operation, the total estimated costs to operate range from $3.5 million to $4 million. Fare revenue chops off between $709,000 and $809,000. Sponsorships, advertising and donations subtracts another $150,000 to $250,000. A potential federal grant to operate the system reduces the costs by another $1 million.

That leaves a gap of $1.6 million to $2 million in the first year, or $1.4 million to $1.8 million in today’s dollars.

In future years, those costs jump up, mainly because the TRA believes federal operating money will go away after year three, but costs in today’s dollars remain less than $3 million a year.

In today’s dollars, year 10 costs between $1.8 million and $2.4 million, year 20 costs between $1.8 million and $2.3 million, and year 30 costs between $1.9 million and $2.4 million.

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/blog/2013/12/analysis-even-with-cranleys.html?ana=twt&page=all

Next week will really be interesting.... I'm guessing the signature drive will drop a petition off at city hall over the weekend, further backing Cranley et al into the corner...

'unabashed support for the Cincinnati streetcar'

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2013/12/13/opinion-unabashed-support-for.html?ana=twt

'unabashed support for the Cincinnati streetcar'

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2013/12/13/opinion-unabashed-support-for.html?ana=twt

Dunno if he develops downtown but his work in Mariemont & Hyde Park dispels the myth that the only supporters are those invested along the route.

And it dispels the "zero-sum" axiom that property values inevitably decrease elsewhere as they grow in the city center. I can't believe people make that argument, but they do. I see it as a symptom of living most of your life in a slow-growth/stagnant metro. Staying stagnant is far from fate, but you must move to get out of the cycle. Like finishing a damn half-built streetcar.

And it dispels the "zero-sum" axiom that property values inevitably decrease elsewhere as they grow in the city center. I can't believe people make that argument, but they do. I see it as a symptom of living most of your life in a slow-growth/stagnant metro. Staying stagnant is far from fate, but you must move to get out of the cycle. Like finishing a damn half-built streetcar.

 

Exactly, you get the feeling that most of the people who are against the streetcar have never lived anywhere but Cincinnati.  They have a very strong opinion on something that they are completely unqualified to judge. 

That's how WLW gets away with so much BS. Someone knows nothing about streetcars/light rail. Hears talk of it. Goes to WLW for info. Gets crummy info and negative opinions. Now hates rail.

I hope one or more local corporations or nonprofits step up and agree to fund it quickly. Although they'd legally be on the hook for paying the "operating subsidy", they could immediately begin looking for ways to reduce that subsidy to zero. There are all kinds of ideas being proposed, in addition to fares, advertising, and SIDs. Brad Thomas suggested on Twitter that the city could pass a property tax increase and a corresponding abatement of the same amount for properties >1500ft. from the route. Greg Harris suggested that "transit bonds" could be sold, allowing people to effectively buy a share of the system.

Was corporate sponsorships and tax increment districts explored early on?

Was corporate sponsorships and tax increment districts explored early on?

 

Not to the tune of 2-3 million/year. Stop sponsoring and car sponsoring were explored and counted on. Districts were explored but seen as unnecessary I believe because of the expected ROI

It's astonishing how Cranley has created a hostage situation. "Hey, philanthropists, pay up or I'll throw a bunch of taxpayer money into the furnace. Clock is ticking, b*tches."

Why are we letting them get away with moving the goal posts in the middle of the game, during a $250,000 expenditure to study costs to cancel vs continue?

 

Mann and Flynn have repeatedly said that if the costs to cancel are close to the cost to continue then they would continue. That is without having any agreement on operating costs (though I know Flynn has always been concerned).

 

If the audit shows Deatrick's numbers are true, they shouldn't have a choice but to continue and we're giving them that choice by saying, "Welp, no agreement in place to operate it so too bad."

 

I understand the sentiment behind cooperation but John Cranley is refusing to allow for time to compromise:

 

But, in a press release, Cranley said the city would be obligated to run the streetcar system for at least 25 years. Because of that requirement, “others will have no incentive to contribute to the operating cost.”

 

“Thus, a legally binding agreement to cover the system’s operating costs with private funding must be in place before construction can continue,’’ Cranley said in his press release.

 

They are setting the terms of the debate and it's somehow no longer what this audit we're paying for is supposed to determine.

 

Having said all that, I've collected a full petition of signatures and I'm hopeful a solution to operating costs can be reached in a week or we're successful lobbying the Feds to extend the deadline.

Greg Harris suggested that "transit bonds" could be sold, allowing people to effectively buy a share of the system.

 

I'd buy one of those and frame it.  Like owning a share of the Green Bay Packers.

Deirdre Shesgreen ‏@dshesgreen 2m

After mtg with fed transpo officials, Mayor Cranley says Cincy will not not get an extension of deadline to decide fate of streetcar.

Retweeted by Chris Wetterich

 

EDIT: Shesgreen is Washington Correspondent for Gannett's Ohio and Missouri newspapers

 

I would have liked to have been a fly on the wall during that discussion...

By what means is the expected ROI captured to offset future operating costs?  Such as an assessment on property taxes commiserate with the proximity of the parcel to the route. I wonder if there is a way to allow private financing to be rolled back once a certain tip-over amount is reached on  these sources. I'm sure this has been discussed before an in progress with the SID talks...

^ If no SID were set up, the answer to the question would be that increased economic activity, combined with increased property values, would result in increased tax revenue (e.g. payroll & property), which would go into the general fund. The general fund is where operating costs come from.

 

However, I think you have an assumption which you aren't making explicit which would lead to that "not working" in your eyes.

From the Enquirer article on the Mayor's meeting with the FTA:

 

I take them at their word that the deadline is Thursday.

 

Oh so NOW he believes them!

 

If supporters can secure the financial commitments by then to cover the operating costs, “great,” Cranley said. “And if not, we’re going to have to move on.”

 

Asked if he thought the financing could be finalized before Dec. 19, he said, “I don’t know . . . It’s obviously a very short window.”

^ If no SID were set up, the answer to the question would be that increased economic activity, combined with increased property values, would result in increased tax revenue (e.g. payroll & property), which would go into the general fund. The general fund is where operating costs come from.

 

However, I think you have an assumption which you aren't making explicit which would lead to that "not working" in your eyes.

 

I think it will work, how on earth did you read THAT in what I wrote??

 

I am saying, provide some incentive to the private investment. If the ROI meets goals (metrics will need to be determined), then the required level of private investment required should drop. Risk/Reward

 

^ If no SID were set up, the answer to the question would be that increased economic activity, combined with increased property values, would result in increased tax revenue (e.g. payroll & property), which would go into the general fund. The general fund is where operating costs come from.

 

However, I think you have an assumption which you aren't making explicit which would lead to that "not working" in your eyes.

 

I think it will work, how on earth did you read THAT in what I wrote??

 

I am saying, provide some incentive to the private investment. If the ROI meets goals (metrics will need to be determined), then the required level of private investment required should drop. Risk/Reward

 

I like this line of thinking. 

^ If no SID were set up, the answer to the question would be that increased economic activity, combined with increased property values, would result in increased tax revenue (e.g. payroll & property), which would go into the general fund. The general fund is where operating costs come from.

 

However, I think you have an assumption which you aren't making explicit which would lead to that "not working" in your eyes.

 

I think it will work, how on earth did you read THAT in what I wrote??

 

I am saying, provide some incentive to the private investment. If the ROI meets goals (metrics will need to be determined), then the required level of private investment required should drop. Risk/Reward

 

Okay. Sorry, I thought you were saying a SID was necessary in order to make the streetcar "pay for itself."

 

I agree, there needs to be a mechanism to measure ROI, so that private backing is not an outright donation. But Cranley says he is opposed to using any city funds to pay for operations, which, strictly speaking, would even rule out SID tax revenue. He probably isn't intending that strict an interpretation, but who knows. He might just be using this "compromise" as a way of dampening the dictatorial aesthetics of cranceling, by making an unworkable offer.

 

Theoretically, the ROI measure could be used without an SID, but the SID would be a reasonable concession to make the situation more palatable to council, and perhaps to private backers as well.

 

^ If no SID were set up, the answer to the question would be that increased economic activity, combined with increased property values, would result in increased tax revenue (e.g. payroll & property), which would go into the general fund. The general fund is where operating costs come from.

 

However, I think you have an assumption which you aren't making explicit which would lead to that "not working" in your eyes.

 

I think it will work, how on earth did you read THAT in what I wrote??

 

I am saying, provide some incentive to the private investment. If the ROI meets goals (metrics will need to be determined), then the required level of private investment required should drop. Risk/Reward

 

I like this line of thinking. 

 

It sounds like that's been the idea from the beginning. Remember, they are talking about an underwriting of the operations costs, which is different from asking for a commitment to fund the operations. Underwriting is providing insurance against a loss, in a very specific manner. I assume that the way this would be structured is, in part, to define clearly how to calculate new funds available to the city from streetcar development, and to allocate those first to the streetcar operations, in addition to the money from fares and advertising. The underwriting would agree to insure the city against the risk that the total is less than what it takes to operate the streetcar.

 

At least that's what I think they (should be) doing.

 

Flynn said basically the same thing, when he mentioned that the outside funding would possibly not even be needed, provided that the benefits of the streetcar turn out to be what the proponents "hope for" (well, he should have said "have calculated" -- but whatever).

 

So, I believe that the calculation for the private funding sources should not be like the present worth of 25 years of streetcar operations. It should cause them to think about the risk that the streetcar benefits are not achieved, and from that their expected operations payments (given that risk). And I believe that those expected operations payments are much lower than $2-3M/year.

 

When did all this bolding start?

When did all this bolding start?

 

Oh, at about 06:29:08 PM.

Other users have been doing it as well in this thread lately. Emotions are running high, I know.

Hilarious!

 

Jeez - OK Guilty. I know some very smart people who skim things so fast that they only pause for bold typeface. I have been influenced.

 

But seriously. I have to say - the difference between underwriting and funding needs to be emphasized, based on what I see in most of the press stories. It's a distinction that's important to make.

I've been keeping a close watch on all the proceedings surrounding the Cincinnati Streetcar project, some of which appear on their surface to be promising, such as the business

community's expressing an interest to step in and to at least some extent guarantee the money to pay down the line's net operating expenses after income, whatever that net 

expense turns out to be, thereby freeing the city from any financial obligation.

 

However, we mustn't forget that there is only one thing about Mayor Cranley that we can put our trust in - his complete untrustworthiness.  Everything Cranley and his two "on-the-fence" councilors have

been feeding us about how they MAY back down from cancelling the streetcar if a sufficient amount of private money is raised by next Wednesday, December 18 - is just that: not to be believed.

 

We must face reality: Cranley wants that streetcar dead, gone and buried SO bad - he can taste it!  He has no use for, sees no value in, this project. He could not care less how strongly the substantial number of Cincinnatians who support it feel about losing it. Same goes for the soon-to-be-taken-back Federal dollars and the severe hit to Cincinnati's reputation that will result from cancelling (unless you're a Tea Partier).

 

The city will gladly pay the shutdown costs and lawsuits - I'm sure your mayor feels it's a small price to pay for his Pyrrhic victory*. Everything Cranley has said these past two days is calculated as a sop to us supporters - and we're not believing a word of it.

 

It's virtually guaranteed Council will vote to cancel on Wednesday, regardless of the results of the audit due out shortly - said audit was just another bone tossed to those naïve enough to believe it was going to make any difference. 

 

A vote to cancel is a foregone conclusion, and we'd better be prepared for it.

 

The bright shining star in this dismal saga is, of course, the enormously positive and creative energy streetcar supporters are putting into gathering signatures for the Charter Amendment ballot. Good leadership and strategic thinking!

 

*  From Wikipedia: A Pyrrhic victory is a victory with such a devastating cost that it is tantamount to defeat. Someone who wins a Pyrrhic victory has been victorious in some way; however, the heavy toll negates any sense of achievement or profit.

From Ryan Messer:

 

 

As was shared in the press earlier today - I received a call this afternoon from the FTA Administrator Peter Rogoff. No question - he also BELIEVES IN CINCINNATI! We can find a solution. And will.

 

 

Angenette Levy ‏@Angenette5 4m

FTA speaks by phone w/ @RyanMesser et al. Feds aren't budging on deadline but will provide council, mayor w/ info on funding streetcar ops.

Great letter from Rick Greiwe, I was fortunate enough to work with him for several years setting up the Special Improvement District  for DCI back in the 90s.

 

Opinion: 'Unabashed support' for Cincinnati's streetcar

Rick Greiwe

 

 

As a Cincinnati real estate developer and longtime Downtown booster, I’ve been called out. In response to Friday’s Business Courier editorial to business leaders claiming, “On the streetcar, your silence has been deafening,” and in response to Mayor (John) Cranley’s shift in position, I am speaking out in unabashed support of it.

 

The streetcar is a proven game-changing opportunity. It will elevate Cincinnati’s profile and transform our city center into an economic powerhouse by creating interconnectedness never before seen in our region. I don’t say this lightly. I have spent my career studying cities and improving our city. Here are the reasons why we should complete Phase I of the streetcar project as well as aggressively pursue the funding for Phase II to Uptown:

 

MORE:

 

http://m.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2013/12/13/opinion-unabashed-support-for.html?ana=twt&r=full

 

MODERATOR NOTE: Edited to comply with copyright laws.

 

I like this term Pyrrhic Victory! It fits perfectly.

 

When did all this bolding start?

Right? I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT

From the Enquirer article on the Mayor's meeting with the FTA:

 

I take them at their word that the deadline is Thursday.

 

Oh so NOW he believes them!

 

If supporters can secure the financial commitments by then to cover the operating costs, “great,” Cranley said. “And if not, we’re going to have to move on.”

 

Asked if he thought the financing could be finalized before Dec. 19, he said, “I don’t know . . . It’s obviously a very short window.”

 

By saying we're going to move on if supporters can't secure financial commitments, Cranley is essentially saying the independent analysis is worthless and he's not even considering it. Why waste money on it?

From the Enquirer article on the Mayor's meeting with the FTA:

 

I take them at their word that the deadline is Thursday.

 

Oh so NOW he believes them!

 

If supporters can secure the financial commitments by then to cover the operating costs, “great,” Cranley said. “And if not, we’re going to have to move on.”

 

Asked if he thought the financing could be finalized before Dec. 19, he said, “I don’t know . . . It’s obviously a very short window.”

 

By saying we're going to move on if supporters can't secure financial commitments, Cranley is essentially saying the independent analysis is worthless and he's not even considering it. Why waste money on it?

 

That's what the media has forgotten in all of this

From Flying Dutchman « on: Today at 08:52:04 AM »

By saying we're going to move on if supporters can't secure financial commitments, Cranley is essentially saying the independent analysis is worthless and he's not even considering it. Why waste money on it?

 

Flying Dutchman, you've said it!  Cranley has made his position and attitude toward the Streetcar abundantly clear - he can hem and haw all he wants about how willing he is to reconsider his stance if the audit shows it'll cost as much or more to cancel the streetcar than to complete it. 

 

NO WAY!  It seems he's not smart enough to realize that when he made that statement about "moving on," he showed his full deck of cards (a pretty thin one at that) and that he actually intends to "deep six" the streetcar come hell or high water, no matter what the audit says or how powerful the arguments are against taking such a rash and destructive action.

 

As I said before, Cranley is not a man we can trust to keep his word. If he conducted himself in a transparent, honest, respectful and above-board manner befitting his position as mayor, people might at least respect him. Unfortunately, the more we're seeing of him, the more we're feeling the need to recall him.

 

The one thing we can be sure of about Cranley is that he's making a complete fool of himself and the city he was elected to serve!