That $15M could pay for .004% of the new Brent Spence Bridge!

 

It's actually $12.5 million....

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2012/08/18/government-frees-up-transportation-money.html

 

....which is roughly equal to the amount of state funding allocated for public transportation each year.

The Big Lie from Blue Ash

9:31 PM, Aug. 24, 2012  | 

Written by Thomas Brinkman

Tom Brinkman is chairman of Coalition Opposed to Additional Spending and Taxes (COAST).

 

 

When COAST learned that the Blue Ash City Council had already decided – behind closed doors – that it was going to submit to the wishes of Cincinnati on a re-do of the six-year-old airport deal, we asked one question: Why?

 

What we received from various council members and the mayor in response was Soviet-style doublespeak about threatened litigation from the City of Cincinnati and the FAA that makes utterly no sense. It was the Big Lie.

 

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20120824/EDIT02/308240134/The-Big-Lie-from-Blue-Ash?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|FRONTPAGE|s

Tom Brinkman is of course telling big iies in this piece.  Blue Ash HAD to rescind the deal or else Cincinnati was NOT going to close the airport, sending the whole affair to federal court, where Cincinnati was most certainly going to be awarded the right to spend the airport proceeds as it wished.  That's why the FAA suggested the rescinding. 

 

What's more, the Blue Ash ordinance is worded so that Cincinnati CANNOT sell the airport to any entity other than Blue Ash, so all that business about a new buyer sweeping in is pure fancy. 

And of course the Enquirer doesn't even pretend to do any fact-checking of its own. Rather, they just print one op-ed from each side -- one factual and one full of lies -- and pretend like they're both equally valid points of view.

And of course the Enquirer doesn't even pretend to do any fact-checking of its own. Rather, they just print one op-ed from each side -- one factual and one full of lies -- and pretend like they're both equally valid points of view.

 

This false equivancy argument drives me crazy.

 

So annoying. All the media does it to appear non biased.

 

Btw one of the female commenters said Capell was thrown out and banned from the blue ash Rec center for harassing female customers. Any truth to this?

 

 

ICYMI: There was a second COAST OpEd in the paper this weekend, this one written by psychopath Jeff Capell:

 

http://local.cincinnati.com/community/Story.aspx?c=100044&url=http://news.communitypress.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/C2/20120824/NEWS/308240021/

 

Guest column: Shame on Blue Ash council for airport deal

 

Blue Ash City Council recently voted to rescind their 2007 airport property purchase from Cincinnati, then passed a reworked proposal which allows Cincinnati to spend the proceeds on their streetcar. Now council is squandering our tax dollars to mislead residents about their actions....

 

The article repeats the same lies about the Streetcar, Blue Ash City Council, etc. It also states that Capell is a Blue Ash resident, but never identifies him as a member of TOAST.

 

Also, in comments on the Brinkman OpEd, Julie Matheny, who is the Executive Director of the Springdale Chamber of Commerce, and a frequent target of Capell's outragious attacks on his unmentionable blog, wrote the following:

 

Julie Matheny · Cincinnati, Ohio

Sticking their noses in other people's business again. COAST and that idiotic Cappel [sic] that is banned from the Blue Ash Rec. Center for inappropriate comments made to women should clean up their own house first!

 

Capell has been permanently banned from the Blue Ash Recreation Center for antisocial behaviour. This news comes as absolutely no surprise to anyone familiar with Capell's antics.

Also, it appears that we missed the news that COAST is not going to circulate a petition in Blue Ash:

 

http://cincinnati.com/blogs/northeastnotes/2012/08/15/blue-ash-airport-park-proceeds-referendum-threat-fades/

Also, it appears that we missed the news that COAST is not going to circulate a petition in Blue Ash:

 

http://cincinnati.com/blogs/northeastnotes/2012/08/15/blue-ash-airport-park-proceeds-referendum-threat-fades/

 

After pimping TOAST's antics at the Blue Ash City Council meeting with headlines stories that included this juicy tidbit:

 

Christopher Finney of Anderson Township, general counsel for COAST (Coalition Opposed to Additional Spending and Taxes) in Hamilton County, said his organization was poised to circulate referendum petitions if Blue Ash City Council re-did the sales agreement – adding that that would delay the development of the park until the issue went to voters, also in November 2013.

 

“It’s not a possibility, it’s not a likelihood,” Finney said. “It’s a guarantee"

 

The Enquirer then buries that news that TOAST in fact will not be circulating said referendum petitions in an obscure blog entry. Typical Enquirer sensationalist BS.

An article in Congress for New Urbanism's blog: http://www.cnu.org/cnu-salons/2012/08/city-spotlight-cincinnati-chooses-streetcarbut-why?fb_comment_id=fbc_10151036209646297_22539860_10151037316171297#f1fb919134

 

The writer is a planning student at UC, so I was extremely disappointed to read her rehashing the talking points of the opponents of the streetcar in her article and I attempted to punch holes in her arguments. You should comment on things I missed or got wrong.

Some material to use in combating the subsidy angle. It would be interesting to do an Asset Value Index for Ohio highways and then propose to abandon all roads or sections of road that had the largest gaps between revenues and costs. I suspect that so many roads would be threatened with abandonment that it could finally support calls to raise the gas tax to levels that would help reduce the highway subsidy. At worst it would raise awareness that the one of the greatest lies is "highways pay for themselves"...

__________

 

http://www.cnu.org/cnu-salons/2008/08/texas-dot-fesses-about-endless-subsidies-highways-%E2%80%94-will-wisconsin-be-next

 

Excerpt from TXDOT:

 

Until recently, when TxDOT built or expanded a road, no methodology existed to determine the extent to which this work would be paid off through revenues.

 

The Asset Value Index, was developed to compare the full 40-year life-cycle costs to the revenues attributable to a given road corridor or section.

 

The shorthand version calculates how much gasoline is consumed on a roadway and how much gas tax revenue that generates.The Asset Value Index is the ratio of the total expected revenues divided by the total expected costs.

 

If the ratio is 0.60, the road will produce revenues to meet 60 percent of its costs; it would be “paid for” only if the ratio were 1.00, when the revenues met 100 percent of costs.

 

Another way of describing this is to do a “tax gap” analysis, which shows how much the state fuel tax would have to be on that given corridor for the ratio for revenues to match costs.

 

Applying this methodology, revealed that no road pays for itself in gas taxes and fees.

 

For example, in Houston, the 15 miles of SH 99 from I-10 to US 290 will cost $1 billion to build and maintain over its lifetime, while only generating $162 million in gas taxes.

An article in Congress for New Urbanism's blog: http://www.cnu.org/cnu-salons/2012/08/city-spotlight-cincinnati-chooses-streetcarbut-why?fb_comment_id=fbc_10151036209646297_22539860_10151037316171297#f1fb919134

 

The writer is a planning student at UC, so I was extremely disappointed to read her rehashing the talking points of the opponents of the streetcar in her article and I attempted to punch holes in her arguments. You should comment on things I missed or got wrong.

 

I'm surprised that this piece wound up on the CNU web site. It doesn't really reflect the CNU's vision if you ask me.

Another cameo by a DAAP student who has participated in the events surrounding the streetcar in no way whatsoever.

An article in Congress for New Urbanism's blog: http://www.cnu.org/cnu-salons/2012/08/city-spotlight-cincinnati-chooses-streetcarbut-why?fb_comment_id=fbc_10151036209646297_22539860_10151037316171297#f1fb919134

 

The writer is a planning student at UC, so I was extremely disappointed to read her rehashing the talking points of the opponents of the streetcar in her article and I attempted to punch holes in her arguments. You should comment on things I missed or got wrong.

 

I'm surprised that this piece wound up on the CNU web site. It doesn't really reflect the CNU's vision if you ask me.

 

I think the CNU's vision provides for healthy debate about the merits of various initiatives. You can believe in the principles and goals of new urbanism and disagree with the assertion that the streetcar is the best means to accomplish them.

 

That said, this is an out of date, poorly written, and weakly supported piece.  A number of the assertions are either factually inaccurate or misleading, including the comment about Over-the-Rhine as the most deteriorated and crime-ridden region within Cincinnati.  What I maybe take the most issue with, however, is the notion that the streetcar is a bad idea because Cincinnati is a car-oriented city.  This is backwards logic, epitomized.  I typically look to CNU to advance the discussion about our transportation networks and built environment, so I'm especially disappointed that they gave this credibility. 

This is not the first instance of ignorance coming from a planning student regarding the streetcar. Last month I was out with a recent graduate who referred to it as the mayor's pet project.

This is a poorly researched article. In addition to what people have pointed out here and written in the Comments to her article, I would add:

 

* This is not a particularly auto-oriented city; perhaps the region is, but not the city per se. About 25 % of Cincinnati families don't have access to cars; about half of those living along the streetcar line didn't in the 2000 Census, thought that may have changed.

 

* $2.00 to $2.25 fare? Where did that come from? The highest fare I've heard is $1.00.

 

Amazing that CNU accepted this.

 

Maybe she interviewed Tom Luken.

Seriously, think of the names of people the media has associated with this debate & who would you interview? This is a failure of supporters who have clearly seen the media whoring that opponents have used so successfully.

No, really, I think she contacted someone from COAST as a source and they confused the hell out of her.

Over-the-Rhine was the most deteriorated and crime-ridden area in Cincinnati for over five decades.  It has earned that reputation and I don't have a problem with her pointing that out.

 

Cincinnati is indeed car-oriented.  The fact that 25% of Cincinnati families don't have access to wheels is the crying shame in all of this.  A car-centric city where a quarter of the families don't even have one, in a region with very challenging pedestrian topography.  You see far too many people walking three miles or more for their essentials on an everyday basis.

 

33% poverty in the City of Cincinnati is why we need the Streetcar.

No, I'd argue other neighborhoods are worse -- in no particular order Lower Price Hill, South Cumminsville, South Fairmount, English Woods, Fay Apartments, etc.  OTR gets the most attention because it was the most architecturally significant, between downtown and UC, and had people like Buddy Gray playing games with it.

^ And ... more visible and much closer to the TV stations. Easy to do a crime stand-up there.

No, I'd argue other neighborhoods are worse -- in no particular order Lower Price Hill, South Cumminsville, South Fairmount, English Woods, Fay Apartments, etc.  OTR gets the most attention because it was the most architecturally significant, between downtown and UC, and had people like Buddy Gray playing games with it.

 

Everyone out there on the Westside will tell you downtown is still where the fittest of the fit are in Cincinnati.  The Westside got wilder in large part due to downtowners who moved out there for one of a dozen reasons.

 

If there was an area in Cincinnati to rival downtown in sheer thoroughbred activity and unpredictability, it's gotta be Avondale.  Evanston is bad, I'm with you on Fairmount.  Bond Hill is deteriorating in front of our eyes.  Fairmount just isn't safe at night and never has been as long as I can remember, but neither is College Hill for completely different reasons.

No, I'd argue other neighborhoods are worse -- in no particular order Lower Price Hill, South Cumminsville, South Fairmount, English Woods, Fay Apartments, etc.  OTR gets the most attention because it was the most architecturally significant, between downtown and UC, and had people like Buddy Gray playing games with it.

 

Everyone out there on the Westside will tell you downtown is still where the fittest of the fit are in Cincinnati.  The Westside got wilder in large part due to downtowners who moved out there for one of a dozen reasons.

 

If there was an area in Cincinnati to rival downtown in sheer thoroughbred activity and unpredictability, it's gotta be Avondale.  Evanston is bad, I'm with you on Fairmount.  Bond Hill is deteriorating in front of our eyes.  Fairmount just isn't safe at night and never has been as long as I can remember, but neither is College Hill for completely different reasons.

 

Everyone already knows what Over-the-Rhine was and what Over-the-Rhine is, but to refer to something as "the most deteriorated and crime-ridden," you better have some very strong empirical evidence.  As both you and Jake pointed out, there are plenty of deteriorated and crime-ridden areas throughout the city.  The writer made a sensational statement meant to conjure emotion, rather than state the facts in a manner I'd expect of a piece on the CNU website.

 

Your point about the high level of poverty in the city as support for a streetcar is well taken.  Living in NYC for the past three years, one of the things that has amazed me is the mobility of the poor among the five boroughs.  A low-income worker who lives in an outer neighborhood in Queens or Brooklyn can commute to work in Manhattan, or elsewhere within their borough, for usually no more than $4.50 per day in subway and bus fare.  It's not perfect, but it opens a world of opportunities that are unavailable in most American cities.

No, I'd argue other neighborhoods are worse -- in no particular order Lower Price Hill, South Cumminsville, South Fairmount, English Woods, Fay Apartments, etc.  OTR gets the most attention because it was the most architecturally significant, between downtown and UC, and had people like Buddy Gray playing games with it.

 

What Jake said. OTR was depopulated post-riot thanks to changes in the Section 8 program. The wide availability of Section 8 vouchers led to a mass exodus of the OTR's poor residents. Before the current revitalization started the neighborhood's population had dwindled to under 5000.

Living in NYC for the past three years, one of the things that has amazed me is the mobility of the poor among the five boroughs.  A low-income worker who lives in an outer neighborhood in Queens or Brooklyn can commute to work in Manhattan, or elsewhere within their borough, for usually no more than $4.50 per day in subway and bus fare.  It's not perfect, but it opens a world of opportunities that are unavailable in most American cities.

 

More like $1.50 a day if you get a 30-day pass (about $90) and use it twice a day, but that type of mobility for low-income people is exactly what the streetcar opponents don't want. Their only goal is to keep the region segregated along racial and class divisions.

^Bingo. they want the poors bottled up in the City of Cincinnati. Look at the sh*tstorm that requiring Green Township to take a few Section 8 rentals has caused.

Living in NYC for the past three years, one of the things that has amazed me is the mobility of the poor among the five boroughs.  A low-income worker who lives in an outer neighborhood in Queens or Brooklyn can commute to work in Manhattan, or elsewhere within their borough, for usually no more than $4.50 per day in subway and bus fare.  It's not perfect, but it opens a world of opportunities that are unavailable in most American cities.

 

More like $1.50 a day if you get a 30-day pass (about $90) and use it twice a day, but that type of mobility for low-income people is exactly what the streetcar opponents don't want. Their only goal is to keep the region segregated along racial and class divisions.

 

Both fair points, though the 30 day pass is unfortunately now up to $104.

^Bingo. they want the poors bottled up in the City of Cincinnati. Look at the sh*tstorm that requiring Green Township to take a few Section 8 rentals has caused.

 

And this is why it's pointless to argue with the COASTers on fiscal grounds, because money is the last thing they care about. It's merely a convenient rhetorical tactic to make them sound "fiscally conservative" rather than like a bunch of white supremacist thugs.

Here are some important bits of information:

 

Note where Cincinnati falls on this housing/transportation affordability index compared to 27 other metro areas (Page ):

http://www.cnt.org/repository/heavy_load_10_06.pdf

 

And note where Cincinnati falls on this chart in terms of transportation access to the metro area (and thus, to jobs):

http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2012/07/11-transit-jobs-tomer

 

Now, one can argue that transit should be extended to where the jobs are. Another person can argue that  job growth should be nurtured where the transit is, and developed with such densities to increase the opportunities within walking distance of a transit facility. Now, what transit mode is capable of sustaining such development densities?

Here was Mary Kuhl of Westwood Concern asking Blue Ash City Council to "save us [Cincinnatians] from ourselves":

Crazy, racist Mary said "the citizens [of Cincinnati] do not want the streetcar..."

 

Yea, that 's why they voted for it. Twice.

The maintenance and operations facility is a go! See the memo in the article.

 

http://www.wvxu.org/post/city-and-duke-still-fueding-over-streetcar

So if all goes according to plan, the streetcar is operational by Summer 2015. That still seems like a LONG time away... Hopefully the city can fund the design and enginering of the Duke utility relocation and then charge Duke if they win the lawsuit/legal challenge to force them to pay. That's the best solution I can think of to getting the work started ASAP. Is that something the city can do?

Posted today on the TOAST blog in regard to the WVXU story:

 

COAST heard recently, but we have yet to confirm, that the City now intends to use all $37.5 million in Blue Ash Airport sale proceeds to fund the Streetcar, instead of just the $11 million that previously had been announced.

 

The chronic liars and perennial (sore) losers are at it again.

So...what does COAST suggest doing instead?  Dropping residential property taxes by $8 annually?

No doubt in my mind Kasich and COASTers are leaning on Dule to hold out

I modified and retweeted a TOAST tweet from this evening:

 

RT @GOCOAST: Let ODOT know Streetcars are answer to Ohio's transportation needs! Statewide Planning survey: http://po.st/peQLU

 

 

I wasn't even aware that ODOT was conducting a survey. Many thanks to the Machiavellian geniuses at TOAST for letting all of us progressives, urbanists, socialists and Streetcar supporters know about the big ODOT survey!!!  :clap:

 

Be sure to take the survey and pass it along to a friend.

Apparently TOAST's shortened link no longer works. Here's a corrected link: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/odotpreference

No doubt in my mind Kasich and COASTers are leaning on Dule to hold out

Something like that can't be legal.

The TOASTers are pushing a new one: Grandstanding Charlie Windbag demands end to Streetcar, alleges $20 Million cost for Duke to move utilities:

 

Media Advisory Re Duke Gas & Electric Rates Re Streetcar 8 28 2012 Copy

 

^According to Winburn, Duke is requesting $20 to $28 million to move the Duke utilities, but if the City of Cincinnati doesn't come up with the money and a court forces Duke to pay, then Duke will recover the funds via increased rates for 3 years.

 

I can't say enough that this is a really big deal. In the event that this goes to court, it will likely add time to the schedule.

 

So if all goes according to plan, the streetcar is operational by Summer 2015. That still seems like a LONG time away.

The Waldvogel Viaduct took about 10 years, most of which was design and coordination. Projects of this type take a long time.

 

Hopefully the city can fund the design and enginering of the Duke utility relocation and then charge Duke if they win the lawsuit/legal challenge to force them to pay.

 

I don't think the City of Cincinnati has the capability to design or construct the Duke utility relocation. That is very specialized work. On another project, Duke used a design consultant from Chicago because there aren't any local ones with ability to do the work.

Eighth, Charlie Winburn is always lying.  You should know this by now. 

I don't think the City of Cincinnati has the capability to design or construct the Duke utility relocation. That is very specialized work. On another project, Duke used a design consultant from Chicago because there aren't any local ones with ability to do the work.

to move crap 3 feet?

Maybe we need the ancient space gods who built the pyramids.......

Ugh. The city relocates utilities all the time; they've just never done it for a streetcar line. But the actual process of relocating a utility line is the same, regardless. Duke is making a mountain out of a molehill.

 

But then, we've been over this already.

Here we go, a front page story published at 2:59am and written by Barry Horstman and his Magical Hair Hat:

 

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20120828/NEWS/308290026/City-threatens-Duke-over-streetcar-costs

 

City threatens Duke over streetcar costs

 

The city of Cincinnati, at an impasse with Duke Energy over who should pay to relocate utility lines for the $110 million-plus streetcar project, says it is “investigating potential legal remedy” to the financial standoff.

 

In a three-page update to City Council members on the streetcar’s status, City Manager Milton Dohoney Jr. Tuesday acknowledged that City Hall’s inability to reach an agreement with Duke “threatens to pose significant cost risk” and also could delay construction of the Downtown riverfront-to-Over-the-Rhine line.

 

Duke officials have said previously that if City Hall does not pay what initially was an $18.7 million cost for relocating gas and electric lines, the price could be passed on to the utility’s customers in the city of Cincinnati. The company has filed a proposal to that effect with the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio.......

TOASTer Streetcar/Mallory/Cincinnati bashing comment storm in 3,2,1....

From the Republican platform:

 

URBAN TRANSIT:

 

"Infrastructure programs have traditionally been nonpartisan ... The current administration has changed that, replacing civil engineering with social engineering as it pursues an exclusively urban vision of dense housing and government transit."

 

[as opposed to sprawl and government roads, I guess]

No doubt in my mind Kasich and COASTers are leaning on Dule to hold out

Something like that can't be legal.

Probably not legal, but I'm not surprised that those a**holes are doing it anyway. 

Latest update from City Manager divulges that streetcar maintenance facility is under contract:

http://city-egov.cincinnati-oh.gov/Webtop/ws/fyi/public/fyi_docs/Blob/2919.pdf?rpp=-10&m=1&w=doc_no%3D%272478%27

Another Hit piece by barry horseman.  :roll:

 

 

http://news.cincinnati.com/comments/article/20120828/NEWS/308290026/City-threatens-Duke-over-streetcar-costs

Duke to city: OK operating deal, then we'll talk costs

Business Courier

 

Cincinnati officials broke ground on the streetcar project in February.

 

Duke Energy Corp. wants the city of Cincinnati to approve a streetcar operating agreement before deciding who will pay to relocate the utility’s underground infrastructure to make way for the $110 million streetcar project.

 

Such an agreement would include a set of “unbreakable rules” that govern when the system could be stopped for maintenance and emergency repairs, said Blair Schroeder, a spokesman for Duke Energy. The agreement also is needed to determine how far the company’s infrastructure must be moved from the streetcar line, he said.

 

Cont

I've never seen a recent project have to jump through so many hoops and obstacles.  What is it with this region?