This is a great conversation!

 

I don't think it is necessary for transit to turn a profit but just to cover its own expenses. Technically the streetcar will indirectly turn a profit for the city by bringing in more property and sales taxes. I just want to make sure that these increases will cover the costs of the reason for their existence. I also agree with John's statement about parking cost adjustments and TIF are good ideas.

 

  One could argue that a publically funded streetcar system will pay for itself in increased property value. In fact, this argument has been made on this board many times.

 

    The problem is that public funding issues are not always made based on a business case. They are often made based on political idealology. For example, there is a perception that the streetcar is for yuppies who are going to gentrify Over-the-Rhine at the expense of the current residents of Over-the-Rhine. Alternatively, there is a perception that too much money is being spent in the core instead of the first-ring suburbs within the city.

 

    Whether the studies show a positive cost/benefit ratio or not, or whether one believes the studies or not, are irrelevant. If the electorate is not in favor of a streetcar based on a perceived reason other than cost/benefit ratio, the politicians will tend not to fund the streetcar because it will hurt them politically. Politicians do not necessarily do what is best for the city; they do what's best for their chances of re-election. That doesn't mean that they are incompetent or dishonest; they are simply playing by the rules of the system.

 

    If 3CDC and some of the other major property owners believe that there is sufficient benefit, they can form a corporation and finance and build the streetcar themselves. There is no requirement that the City of Cincinnati participate in funding.

 

    "I can't think of a popular form of transportation in American today that is funded by private investment."

 

    Incidentlally, I can think of two local examples where private companies have invested in transportation infrastructure other than the freight railroads:

    1. The CVG airport train - a state of the art modern cable car!

    2. The elevated transit line in Indianapolis that connects some hospitals, and also includes small package transit

 

    Besides Megabus and Greyhound, another private bus company is operated by Argosy Casino.

 

    Farther away, we have the Las Vegas elevated transit which was funded by the businesses it serves.

 

   

 

   

 

 

FED OFFICIAL PRESSES CITY ON STREETCAR $

 

BY BARRY M. HORSTMAN • [email protected] • MAY 5, 2010

 

Cincinnati's bid for tens of millions of federal dollars needed to build a proposed streetcar system could be "substantially improved" if the city unconditionally approves $64 million in local bonds, a top U.S. transportation official said Wednesday.

 

Some council members and others, noting that the bonds would not guarantee the streetcar project's completion, have suggested that City Hall protect itself by making the bonds contingent upon the city's receipt of perhaps $50 million-plus in federal funds necessary for the line's $128 million first phase....

 

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20100505/NEWS0108/5060341/Fed+official+presses+city+on+streetcar++

We will need to do this to show them we are serious. This will also help when funding for the light rail comes around again. The Federal Gov will think we are serious then. I do wonder how much Boise is putting into their system.

 

    One way to play the state and federal grant game is to come up with the money for design, and actually design the project before applying for grants. That way, there is a clear understanding of what the project is, and a much better cost estimate. I've seen this trick done for street improvement projects.

 

    Design is typically 5 to 10% of project costs, so the streetcar should take somewhere around $20 million to design. If for some reason the project is designed but never built, the city would be out $20 million.

 

 

If the federal grants do not come through, the mayor added, the city would not proceed with the bonds - or the streetcar project itself.

 

This quote from the article is scary if you're a streetcar proponent.

Without the federal funding, there is no way that this project can realistically happen. It would need another major push to obtain that funding to get the project restarted.

Without the federal funding, there is no way that this project can realistically happen. It would need another major push to obtain that funding to get the project restarted.

 

We could get phase 1 up and running with a large 2011 TRAC award.  It doesn't have to be federal funding, but we do need external funding.

http://cincystreetcar.wordpress.com/2010/05/06/more-residents-along-the-cincinnati-streetcar-line-than-any-other-streetcar-line-on-first-day-of-operation/

 

On its first day of operation, the Cincinnati Streetcar will serve more residents along the line than any other modern streetcar in the United States did on its opening day.

 

Here is a listing of the opening day population of the neighborhoods along the streetcar line for each system:

 

    * Cincinnati- 20,038

    * Seattle- 19,977

    * Portland- 15,849

    * Tacoma- 2,924

 

http://wtop.com/?nid=30&sid=1950931

 

"WASHINGTON -- It's hard to pass up something that's free, right? Well, that may be part of the thinking behind the D.C. Department of Transportation's new streetcar system."

 

 

Looks like DC is looking at a "fareless zone" similar to Portland.  I had no idea DC's streetcar plan was so huge.  8 lines, 37 miles.

I wish I could tell what the message from the feds actually is. All things being equal, it escapes me why they would prioritize a smaller city over Cincinnati, which is perhaps the biggest untapped opportunity in the country.

 

I also don't understand why the feds would posture about our money having a contingency. We wouldn't ask for theirs if we didn't need it, and needing it kind of indicated that we can't build the system without it. So...what's the deal.

 

I further don't understand why this would be political, if it so happens to be. Southwest Ohio may be an enemy of the current administration, but Cincinnati certainly is not.

It's political because it receives local, state and federal funding. Whenever money from taxpayers is used, those same taxpayers will question and posture on the idea of the project. In this case, there are a lot who believe in the streetcar, and an equal force that plays it down, citizens and politicians alike.

I wish I could tell what the message from the feds actually is. All things being equal, it escapes me why they would prioritize a smaller city over Cincinnati, which is perhaps the biggest untapped opportunity in the country.

 

I also don't understand why the feds would posture about our money having a contingency. We wouldn't ask for theirs if we didn't need it, and needing it kind of indicated that we can't build the system without it. So...what's the deal.

 

I further don't understand why this would be political, if it so happens to be. Southwest Ohio may be an enemy of the current administration, but Cincinnati certainly is not.

 

I don't get it either.  I thought "investing in infrastructure" was the key to the country's recovery according to the current administration.  We may never know why Cincy got the shaft, but if we ever do I'm sure it will be a very interesting read.  Maybe those in power figure it would be better to let Cincinnati struggle since it's not in a hotbed of political allegiance?  Someone somewhere decided to let Cincinnati go without TIGER funds a few months ago.

It's a sad state of affairs that we send the bulk of our taxes to Washington and then have to beg to get it back.  I understand that the Feds want to see a commitment to a project before awarding funds, but at the same time no place can commit to a project if they don't have the funds to build it.  It's a catch 22. 

It's a sad state of affairs that we send the bulk of our taxes to Washington and then have to beg to get it back. I understand that the Feds want to see a commitment to a project before awarding funds, but at the same time no place can commit to a project if they don't have the funds to build it. It's a catch 22.

I'm quite sure the City of Cincinnati is about as committed to the streetcar as it possibly could be.  It's not just the mayor and council either; the voters are the ones who rejected Issue 9.

It's a sad state of affairs that we send the bulk of our taxes to Washington and then have to beg to get it back. I understand that the Feds want to see a commitment to a project before awarding funds, but at the same time no place can commit to a project if they don't have the funds to build it. It's a catch 22.

 

I agree with your sentiment somewhat, but I don't entirely seeing it as "begging to get back our money." Federal money was taken from citizens of all the states, and I see it as a privilege to use all the citizens' money on our local project. Just like 3C rail, or The Banks. But this in no way entitles the federal transportation department to be arrogant. That part does disgust me.

 

They should always frame what they say as though they are stewards of the citizens' money, not some rich daddy teaching us a lesson.

  "No place can commit to a project if they don't have the funds to build it."

 

    Some local governments have their act together and some don't. There are municipalities out there that collect loads of money from the state and feds. They do it by "leveraging" their own resources - they spend money to make money. For example, a municipality might higher a full time employee to apply for grants. Say they pay him $100,000 a year, and he brings in $1,000,000 a year in grants - that's a positive ratio from the municipality's point of view, even if he only gets one grant per year.

 

    Of course you have to have the seed money to play this game. If you can't come up with $100,000, indeed you are stuck in a catch-22.

 

    A realistic plan to get this streetcar funded is to come up with $20 million and hire a consulting firm to design the project and apply for grants. Maybe it will get designed but the grant won't come through and the project won't get built. That's the chance you take. But it might work. On the other hand, if you can't come up with the $20 million, you are really fighting an uphill battle.

 

 

    "Here is a listing of opening day populations...."

 

    That's nice information to have, but it doesn't matter. It is not the job of the feds or state to step in and solve your problems for you. If you think that your country would be served well by a streetcar in your neighborhood, you need to come up with a plan and sell it to the feds or state.

 

    Work already done and a real plan to move forward is favored well by the folks in charge of writing grants. It takes a lot of work to properly apply for a grant.

 

 

 

   

That's nice information to have, but it doesn't matter. It is not the job of the feds or state to step in and solve your problems for you. If you think that your country would be served well by a streetcar in your neighborhood, you need to come up with a plan and sell it to the feds or state.

 

 

I can't quite synthesize what you're trying to say with all that. It's kind of all over the place. The potential impact of the investment does matter very much, especially if you can communicate it in your application. ...Which would be one part of a good grant application.

 

And I think you might mean that work already done is favored well by the people awarding grants as opposed to the people writing them. You could have meant it either way I suppose, but the former makes more sense...

Cincinati City Council Prepares For Streetcar Showdown

 

As City Council prepares to make its biggest decision to date on the controversial streetcar proposal, next week’s debate will be laced with intrigue and drama: Will the city give an unconditional green light to $64 million in bonds, or does that prospect unnerve some streetcar backers on the council? And another question lingers: Will opponents mount another ballot campaign to block the project?

 

An article called "The Streetcar Showdown" is coming out this sunday in the Enquirer.  There's a good chance given the Enquirer's track record that it will completely biased against the streetcar - especially with that last sentence in their teaser...Here's hoping they actually do some research on both sides of the issue this time

 

 

Given that the Enquirer has publicly stated they are not in favor of the streetcar, but in favor of a comprehensive light-rail system, should shed some light in that this won't be a decent article. As for the latter part of the brief statement, no, COAST will not petition for another ballot campaign to block the project.

If the Enquirer wanted to take the lead in pushing a comprehensive light rail system and can find the massive amount of money to pay for it, I'd be willing to sacrifice the streetcar.

Given that the Enquirer has publicly stated they are not in favor of the streetcar, but in favor of a comprehensive light-rail system, should shed some light in that this won't be a decent article. As for the latter part of the brief statement, no, COAST will not petition for another ballot campaign to block the project.

 

When did the Enquirer say that? 

 

Interestingly the Cincinnati Streetcar has a higher B/C ratio than I-71 light rail- http://www.hdrinc.com/Assets/documents/Publications/transitline/march2006/EconomicValue.pdf

 

So if you are in favor of billion dollar rail line with a 1.8 to 1 B/C ratio, why wouldn't you be in favor of a $128 million dollar rail line with a 2.7 to 1 (note that is only for the downtown circulator potion) B/C ratio?

By the time the streetcar opens in 2012 there will be almost 20 million visitors a year to attractions along the line-

 

http://cincystreetcar.wordpress.com/2010/05/07/11903450/

If the Enquirer wanted to take the lead in pushing a comprehensive light rail system and can find the massive amount of money to pay for it, I'd be willing to sacrifice the streetcar.

 

I'd love to have light rail, but you still need streetcars to make downtown more walkable because the area between The Banks and OTR is huge.  I always thought it would be nice if light rail connected the suburbs to the city, with various neighborhoods having their own streetcar loops feeding off of that, as opposed to an interconnected streetcar system.  But at this point, I'll take what's on the table and move forward from there.  I don't want 10 more years of nothing before Cincinnati gets serious about rail again.  Better to build a little at a time.

Given that the Enquirer has publicly stated they are not in favor of the streetcar, but in favor of a comprehensive light-rail system, should shed some light in that this won't be a decent article. As for the latter part of the brief statement, no, COAST will not petition for another ballot campaign to block the project.

 

When did the Enquirer say that?

 

Interestingly the Cincinnati Streetcar has a higher B/C ratio than I-71 light rail- http://www.hdrinc.com/Assets/documents/Publications/transitline/march2006/EconomicValue.pdf

 

So if you are in favor of billion dollar rail line with a 1.8 to 1 B/C ratio, why wouldn't you be in favor of a $128 million dollar rail line with a 2.7 to 1 (note that is only for the downtown circulator potion) B/C ratio?

 

Brad, that's not of my opinion; I'm recounting what the Enquirer -- as a collective, wrote about the streetcar during the Issue 9 debacle. This was something from 2009, but I can't find it at the moment. Let me dig.

Sorry, I wasn't trying to imply that it was, It was more of a thinking aloud question, I should have written:

 

So if one is in favor of billion dollar rail line with a 1.8 to 1 B/C ratio, why wouldn't one be in favor of a $128 million dollar rail line with a 2.7 to 1 (note that is only for the downtown circulator potion) B/C ratio?

Because the streetcar doesn't directly benefit the Enquirer's suburban-focused readership, and light rail does. 

No worries. I can't find it on here because it's so loosely worded and makes it difficult to search, but I believe it ran in October 2009.

use of the phrase "unconditional green light" gives you a pretty good idea of the slant of the article.  You could simply say "approve," but that wouldn't generate as much foaming fervor among the teabagging klavern.

Given that the Enquirer has publicly stated they are not in favor of the streetcar, but in favor of a comprehensive light-rail system ...

I've never read that the Enquirer is in favor of a comprehensive light-rail system. Show us.

From around the internet: http://archiculturefilm.com/director/?p=1426

Given that the Enquirer has publicly stated they are not in favor of the streetcar, but in favor of a comprehensive light-rail system ...

I've never read that the Enquirer is in favor of a comprehensive light-rail system. Show us.

Nor have I.  They always seem to be in favor of "another plan"/"any other plan" except for the one being proposed. 

 

John, do you foresee another charter amendment proposal?  I know Smitherman made threats about it after the election last year that he would create something specifically for the streetcar, but I haven't heard anything since. 

 

 

We all drink too much coffee. Makes you fret too much.

 

We're going to get enough money by the end of the summer to start the Downtown/OTR loop this year. That would make a referendum moot.

 

Assuming the bonds can be approved on a non-contingent basis, the Fed funding's in the bag, with maybe more state money coming. May even some private money if someone wants to be a hero.

 

Big Finance Meeting mid-afternoon on Monday, Council Chambers. I'd plan to go. I'd say if we can get the bonds approved we're a shoo-in based on what I know about what other cities are doing. I mean, many of them don't have plans and think they're going to get 100% Fed funds to build their streetcars.

We all drink too much coffee. Makes you fret too much.

 

We're going to get enough money by the end of the summer to start the Downtown/OTR loop this year. That would make a referendum moot.

 

Assuming the bonds can be approved on a non-contingent basis, the Fed funding's in the bag, with maybe more state money coming. May even some private money if someone wants to be a hero.

 

Big Finance Meeting mid-afternoon on Monday, Council Chambers. I'd plan to go. I'd say if we can get the bonds approved we're a shoo-in based on what I know about what other cities are doing. I mean, many of them don't have plans and think they're going to get 100% Fed funds to build their streetcars.

 

Lies.  You can never drink too much coffee!

Cincinati City Council Prepares For Streetcar Showdown

 

As City Council prepares to make its biggest decision to date on the controversial streetcar proposal, next week’s debate will be laced with intrigue and drama: Will the city give an unconditional green light to $64 million in bonds, or does that prospect unnerve some streetcar backers on the council? And another question lingers: Will opponents mount another ballot campaign to block the project?

 

An article called "The Streetcar Showdown" is coming out this Sunday in the Enquirer.  There's a good chance given the Enquirer's track record that it will completely biased against the streetcar - especially with that last sentence in their teaser...Here's hoping they actually do some research on both sides of the issue this time

 

The italicized portion speaks volumes.  If the streetcar is 'controversial,' I'd like to know where the Enquirer is getting this idea.  From the letters to the editor that they printed, nearly 100% of anti-streetcar letters were from outside the city limits.  Why didn't the Enquirer ask if the anti-streetcar minority on City Council will get some civic self-respect and support the city they supposedly represent?

Fake drama sells newspapers!

 

Or iPad subscriptions. Or direct brain download. Whatever. Cheesy journalism is here to stay!

  "Support the city they supposedly represent?"

 

  It is very common for City of Cincinnati city council members to move on to county commissioner or state representative or other offices. I have to imagine that some City of Cincinnati city council members are looking for support from voters outside of the city, even though they represent city voters now. Plus, campaign supporters don't necessarily have to be city voters.

 

  Assuming that the Enquirer is not itself biased but prints letters that represent a sample of all letters received, it is clear that the suburban readership is opposed to the streetcar.

Given that the Enquirer has publicly stated they are not in favor of the streetcar, but in favor of a comprehensive light-rail system ...

I've never read that the Enquirer is in favor of a comprehensive light-rail system. Show us.

 

Sorry, the article I have in hand has the Enquirer's disapproval of the streetcar during the Issue 9 debacle, but it does show a general support for the light rail, but it is not an outright endorsement. I would have to go back to 2002 or 2003 for that.

   "Support the city they supposedly represent?"

 

   It is very common for City of Cincinnati city council members to move on to county commissioner or state representative or other offices. I have to imagine that some City of Cincinnati city council members are looking for support from voters outside of the city, even though they represent city voters now. Plus, campaign supporters don't necessarily have to be city voters.

 

   Assuming that the Enquirer is not itself biased but prints letters that represent a sample of all letters received, it is clear that the suburban readership is opposed to the streetcar.

 

 

Rght, so the typical anti-streetcar council member cares more about his/her pathetic goal of becoming a career politician than in improving the urban core and, therefore, the region.

You'll want to be in City Council Chambers on Monday afternoon. If Council's Finance Committee votes to approve bonds to pay for the Cincinnati Streetcar, the Feds have said this action will improve the streetcar's chances to win a Federal grant needed to build the project. They said that last week. In Cincinnati.

 

According to Vice Mayor Roxanne Qualls, quoted in today's Enquirer, "If we don't issue the bonds, that could be very problematic." And without the Fed funds, the streetcar won't get built.

 

If these bonds are approved, we'll have amassed about $90 million toward the $128 million construction cost to reconnect the center of Cincinnati. And construction could start this year.

 

A successful vote Monday moves the issue to Wednesday's meeting of the full City Council, where another solid vote will send a strong message that Cincinnatians want a better city.

 

Passing this bond financing for the Cincinnati Streetcar should come as no surprise. Since 2007, this has always been the plan. And now's the time.

 

I hope you'll attend Council's Finance Committee's meeting at 2:30p on Monday in Council Chambers. It's a relatively short Agenda, with hardly any other items. Just the bonds, mostly.

 

If you have time on Monday morning, please reach out to the Council members you trust most and ask them to advance this funding for the Cincinnati Streetcar.

 

* Jeff Berding = [email protected]

* Chris Bortz = [email protected]

* Laketa Cole = [email protected]

* Leslie Ghiz = [email protected]

* Chris Monzel = [email protected]

* Roxanne Qualls = [email protected]

* Laure Quinlivan = [email protected]

* Cecil Thomas = [email protected]

* Charlie Winburn = [email protected]

 

I'll be there. I might even get up and say something.

Luken can spend his "lonely hours" doing something more productive for this city...

 

Streetcar plan faces critical week

By Barry M. Horstman, Cincinnati Enquirer, May 10, 2010

This article first appeared in The Sunday Enquirer May 9, 2010.

 

A momentous Cincinnati City Council debate this week on the $128 million streetcar plan will be packed with political intrigue and drama - unusually sharp passions on both sides, thorny ethics questions, eleventh-hour arm twisting and the expected presence of a seriously injured council member whose vote could be pivotal.

 

The highest drama about Wednesday's council meeting, though, is whether there will be enough votes to give a green light to the proposed Downtown-to-Uptown streetcar, something that appears less than certain despite Mayor Mark Mallory's prediction that he has a dependable majority in hand.

 

Even if council approves the bonds, that action may not be the final word on the contentious subject, because opponents are pondering whether to again circulate petitions to force a public vote.

Lawsuit threatened over Bortz vote

 

BY BARRY M. HORSTMAN • [email protected] • MAY 10, 2010

 

"Arguing that Cincinnati City Councilman Chris Bortz should not vote on up to $64 million in bonds for the streetcar project because of a potential conflict of interest, a local lawyer has threatened to file a lawsuit to block any council action dependent on Bortz’s support.

.......

His clients, he noted, are Tom Luken, a former Cincinnati congressman, mayor and councilman, and Mark Miller of the anti-tax group Citizens Opposed to Additional Spending and Taxes (COAST)"

 

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20100510/NEWS0108/305100038/Lawsuit+threatened+over+Bortz+vote

 

Get ready.  This week is gonna be a barnstorm of misinformation, bias from the enquirer through articles and letters, Luken/COAST/Smitherman hyperbole, and ridiculous quotations. 

Berding sounds like he will vote no. Bortz will vote, and then COAST will try to sue him. They won't win, but it could make things messy long enough for Luken to get his signatures.

 

It is amazing to me how the same tiny group of suburban men can wreak such havoc on a major city for so long.

Berding sounds like he will vote no. Bortz will vote, and then COAST will try to sue him. They won't win, but it could make things messy long enough for Luken to get his signatures. 

 

John, what are your thoughts on Civvik's post? What'd you predict?

Sigh.

I hear Berding's a "No." Can't imagine what questions he still has that haven't been answered by City adminsitrators. They are over-thinking this.

Darn it Berding!?  What the heck is he thinking?  He's going to be the one to screw this all up.  I mean, his opposition to moving forward doesn't even make sense politically.  He's not going to win any points with the conservatives after he's already voted in favor of the streetcar many times in the past.  He's just stalling the project from moving forward and its not going to do anything but hurt his reputation with his democratic supporters. 

Why does Cincinnati have such a hard time getting anything done!?

Why does Cincinnati have such a hard time getting anything done!?

 

Because Tom Luken has lived here almost 85 years?