on WLWT

http://www.wlwt.com/news/local-news/cincinnati/live-streetcar-shutdown-costs-presentation/-/13549970/23087830/-/9tvmbx/-/index.html

Any way to make that picture larger?

 

So, if I understand correctly, the bottom line per John Deatrick for scrapping the streetcar (excluding law suits?) is $60M+ - $80M+

To be spent by 11/30/13: $32.8M (pd out of Capital Budget)

Close-out Costs: $33-47M (wld be pd out of Operating Budget)

Sub-total: $66M-80M

Loss of Fed $$: $44.9M

 

Total Loss: $110M-124M (assuming NO litigation)

 

Any way to make that picture larger?

 

https://twitter.com/ChrisSeelbach/status/403578016787206145/photo/1

That seems like a fairly concrete reason to not cancel the project, but I'm sure Cranley (he's probably not in attendance, right?) will find a way to make himself believe his opinion is more accurate than actual quotes from the people actually involved with the project.

They didn't even figure in the city credit rating which will drop and effect every financial decision going ahead. Or does the city really think the credit rating will not change?? lol

uh oh, SORTA could lose fed funding?

Total cost (including fed $ we would lose) will range from $107.3 Million to $124.9 Million. Total cost of project to complete: $133 Million.

 

That's assuming no litigation against us and doesn't take into account ROI of a streetcar or other intangibles (credit rating, federal government ignoring us for future grants, etc).

^that's the total project cost.  If we've spent $32.8M already, then the options are really:

 

A) $100M to complete project

B) $107M-$125M to cancel and get nothing

The bottom line:

 

Budget director re streetcar cancellation vs completion costs: "For an $8M difference, you get a project, you get a streetcar."

^that argument isn't going to be good enough for cranley. He'll just point at how he saved $8M, which sounds like a lot of money.

 

We need to focus on completion being $100M, and cancellation being $125M.

Per wlwt.com:

 

When asked about the presentation, Cranley spokesman Jay Kincaid told WLWT News 5, "It amounts to political theater designed to make their case. What we've said all along is that they've missed every deadline, came in over budget, and haven’t put a plan in place to operate it. So, we're not sure how much stock to put into that presentation. Ultimately, there needs to be a real accounting of where we stand, how much the cost will be going forward and the benefits of shutting it down."

 

Read more: http://www.wlwt.com/news/local-news/cincinnati/streetcar-admin-to-brief-city-council-on-cancellation-costs/-/13549970/23068594/-/13wv5stz/-/index.html#ixzz2lJ2IfLgf

 

so Mann is there but Sittenfeld, Smitherman, Winburn & Cranley are not?

Any of the other newly elected council people there?

Cranley will probably just say this is a witch hunt.

mak McGuire just informed me all these guys are lying.

My WLWT connection has crashed & burned

On wlwt.com I saw Amy Murray in the audience sitting next to David Mann.

Murray, Flynn, and Mann all in attendance according to Twitter.

 

PG has been briefed but is at the White House today so can't go to the meeting.

 

Smitherman and Winburn have "excused" absences. Haven't heard what those are.

Here's how to look at it:

 

$125 million to cancel it and get no streetcar and a $0 ROI.

$133 to build it and get a streetcar with a 2.7-to-1 ROI.

If Sittenfeld isn't there, to me that says his vote has been swayed in favor of completion (by his meeting earlier in the week). He is not someone who would take the appearance of being rude or closed-minded lightly.

 

Edit: Nevermind, I realized his personal meeting must have been set up because he couldn't make it to this one.

Smitherman, Winburn, and Cranley all absent?  What a frickin' joke those guys are. 

 

It's not like today's meeting was important or what not. 

 

Smitherman, Winburn, and Cranley all absent?  What a frickin' joke those guys are. 

 

It's not like today's meeting was important or what not. 

 

 

It's the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and going "LALALALALALALALALA"

WOW.  These are BIG numbers.  At minimum we're talking over 100 mil lost if he cancels it.  And the maximum could be 125+ NOT including potential litigation.  SO, cancelling the project could easily end up costing the city MORE than finishing it!  If Cranley and our new council members don't see the stupidity in cancelling it now, then they are hopelessly lost and our city is in for complete disaster.

Here's how to look at it:

 

$125 million to cancel it and get no streetcar and a $0 ROI.

$133 to build it and get a streetcar with a 2.7-to-1 ROI.

 

Here's how to look at it:

 

Spend $8m to get a 45-to-1 ROI

Per wlwt.com:

 

When asked about the presentation, Cranley spokesman Jay Kincaid told WLWT News 5, "It amounts to political theater designed to make their case. What we've said all along is that they've missed every deadline, came in over budget, and haven’t put a plan in place to operate it. So, we're not sure how much stock to put into that presentation. Ultimately, there needs to be a real accounting of where we stand, how much the cost will be going forward and the benefits of shutting it down."

 

This, I don't understand.  The presentation is just a compilation of the figures that are out there.  The numbers are what the numbers are.  If they don't believe the figures, fine.  But what do they expect to turn up with "a real accounting of where we stand, how much the cost will be going forward"? 

 

It's basically just saying "we don't give a damn about facts, we're going to kill it because we want to kill it".

Here's how to look at it:

 

$125 million to cancel it and get no streetcar and a $0 ROI.

$133 to build it and get a streetcar with a 2.7-to-1 ROI.

 

Here's also how to look at it:

 

Absolute madness :x

Per wlwt.com:

 

When asked about the presentation, Cranley spokesman Jay Kincaid told WLWT News 5, "It amounts to political theater designed to make their case. What we've said all along is that they've missed every deadline, came in over budget, and haven’t put a plan in place to operate it. So, we're not sure how much stock to put into that presentation. Ultimately, there needs to be a real accounting of where we stand, how much the cost will be going forward and the benefits of shutting it down."

 

Read more: http://www.wlwt.com/news/local-news/cincinnati/streetcar-admin-to-brief-city-council-on-cancellation-costs/-/13549970/23068594/-/13wv5stz/-/index.html#ixzz2lJ2IfLgf

 

The truth is that if the delays had not been caused by people such as COAST and Cranley, then the project would be more close to the original budget and time schedule.  The dismisal of what is currently going on as political theater is the pot calling the kettle black.  This is an attempt to use logic and reason to sway the oppinions of smart, respectable elected officials into making the correct decision based on numbers instead of opinion and political rhetoric.

The problem is there are too many people on each side who are so entrenched in their positions that there is no reason anymore. On one side there are the streetcar zealots who feel the streetcar is the most important thing to be done to transit ever and is worth it at a cost of billions of dollars, price is not an option.

 

On the other side there are those who are against the streetcar by any means and would kill it even it the project were 99% complete and due to open in a month. They would then remove the infrastructure so as not to be tempted to ever come up with the idea again. (I am a bit extreme on both sides I know)

 

Problem is that neither side is willing to give an inch in the battle and therefore we are staring at the ridiculous situation we have today.

 

As a disclaimer, My own position, was aligned with PG's. I was for the streetcar in principle but then I found the cost too high for the ROI. I would not have gone forward a few years ago. However, my view lost in council, did I agree with the decision, no, but the voters spoke at that time. Now while the voters have spoken again in their desire to kill the project, realistically, they have passed the point of no return. To do so now would be very financially imprudent.

 

Both sides need to look at this now and say, 1) we have agreed to build the first phase and have progressed too far to cancel this now. However 2) Cranley and his supporters can claim a win because he can shelve plans for Phase II. At this point that is the only reasonable plan. 

Smitherman, Winburn, and Cranley all absent?  What a frickin' joke those guys are. 

 

It's not like today's meeting was important or what not. 

 

 

We only need two votes to flip right?  If PG and Mann flip the project continues?  Is this correct?

Yes. We need two people to change opinions: Mann, Flynn, and Sittenfeld are the most likely. Murray is possible. Smitherman and Winburn are lost causes IMO.

Now while the voters have spoken again in their desire to kill the project...

 

This is incorrect.  The voters elected a mayor, and most of the electorate didn't even show up.  Cranley is trying to convince everyone that he has a mandate to kill the streetcar, but maybe voters just liked him, or didn't like Qualls, or wanted the parking lease dead.  There's no way to separate out the streetcar from other factors, so he has no such mandate.

 

I agree with a lot of what your post said, but it's important to point out that no one voted on the streetcar in 2013, despite what Cranley and the Enquirer want everyone to believe.

 

Yes. We need two people to change opinions: Mann, Flynn, and Sittenfeld are the most likely. Murray is possible. Smitherman and Winburn are lost causes IMO.

 

Anyone care to handicap the odds of 2 of council members changing their stance?

I found the cost too high for the ROI

 

I agree with much of what you said, but this point doesn't make sense to me. The ROI is still conservatively estimated at 2.7-to-1. The cost of this project has only went up by around 15%, mostly due to 2 years of delays caused by the opponents. If the cost were to skyrocket up to $200 million, I would not be in favor of it. I disagree with your assessment that streetcar supporters would support the project no matter the cost.

The problem is there are too many people on each side who are so entrenched in their positions that there is no reason anymore. On one side there are the streetcar zealots who feel the streetcar is the most important thing to be done to transit ever and is worth it at a cost of billions of dollars, price is not an option.

 

On the other side there are those who are against the streetcar by any means and would kill it even it the project were 99% complete and due to open in a month. They would then remove the infrastructure so as not to be tempted to ever come up with the idea again. (I am a bit extreme on both sides I know)

 

Problem is that neither side is willing to give an inch in the battle and therefore we are staring at the ridiculous situation we have today.

 

As a disclaimer, My own position, was aligned with PG's. I was for the streetcar in principle but then I found the cost too high for the ROI. I would not have gone forward a few years ago. However, my view lost in council, did I agree with the decision, no, but the voters spoke at that time. Now while the voters have spoken again in their desire to kill the project, realistically, they have passed the point of no return. To do so now would be very financially imprudent.

 

Both sides need to look at this now and say, 1) we have agreed to build the first phase and have progressed too far to cancel this now. However 2) Cranley and his supporters can claim a win because he can shelve plans for Phase II. At this point that is the only reasonable plan. 

 

I agree with your bottom line.  The 1st phase should be finished because the costs of killing it are too high (both financially and in terms of ruining the city's reputation).  If he wants to scrap plans for phase 2, fine.  At least it would still be an option after he's out of office.  If you kill phase 1,  this city will not stand a chance in hell of getting any sort of rail transit in this region for at least another generation.  Why?  Because the feds will not do business with us again (at least not for a very long time).  Rail projects are too expensive for most city's to afford on their own and so we must rely on federal grants to get them built.

This is incorrect.  The voters elected a mayor, and most of the electorate didn't even show up.  Cranley is trying to convince everyone that he has a mandate to kill the streetcar, but maybe voters just liked him, or didn't like Qualls, or wanted the parking lease dead.  There's no way to separate out the streetcar from other factors, so he has no such mandate.

 

The whole mandate thing is ridiculous either way. However, the fact remains that Cranley made his campaign synonymous with canceling the streetcar and he won the election by a significant margin. Higher turnout could have shrunk that margin but I doubt that, say, the 2011 turnout would have turned the election.

 

Also, the 2011 election had the result of a pro-streetcar supermajority. Many on this board have said that this meant the voters clearly wanted a streetcar. This time around they elected an anti-streetcar mayor and installed 3 new members of council that have expressed opposition to the project. The 2011 turnout could have put Quinlivan in over Murray, but Flynn and Mann would probably still be on.

 

Anyone care to handicap the odds of 2 of council members changing their stance?

 

I think it is pretty likely that at least 2 of the "swing" votes will vote for a delay. I'll give it a 75% chance of happening.

Amy Murray reaction right after meeting as tweeted by WVXU:

 

"I don't believe the numbers are correct"

 

so I think you can count her out...

...the fact remains that Cranley made his campaign synonymous with canceling the streetcar and he won the election by a significant margin.

 

That still doesn't address the parking lease issue that he stumped heavily for.  How many voters were against that but neutral on the streetcar?  It's impossible to tell.  It also doesn't address the many other reasons why a voter would have conceivably picked Cranley. 

 

 

Also, the 2011 election had the result of a pro-streetcar supermajority. Many on this board have said that this meant the voters clearly wanted a streetcar.

 

The voters also voted directly on rail in 2011, voting down the anti-rail charter amendment.  So the "many on this board" actually had a compelling point.  This year, a well funded democrat edged out a less well funded democrat by getting 16% of the voters to pick him.  I would hardly say that this is equivalent to "voters have spoken again in their desire to kill the project".

More from @WVXU:

 

Mann reax: Project should be on hold until new council is in. Also needs to review the numbers.

 

Flynn reax: Wants more details. Also skeptical about the $$ numbers. Thinks project should be on hold until new council comes in.

Also, the 2011 election had the result of a pro-streetcar supermajority. Many on this board have said that this meant the voters clearly wanted a streetcar.

 

You are ignoring the context of the second referendum being on that same ballot.

^^I was really hoping for a figure indicating what it would cost per day to put the project "on hold" until the new council members wake up and decide to educate themselves on the project.  They have another 10 days until they are sworn in.  Plenty of time to get answers to all of their questions.  But instead, they'll wait until 12/01 and then declare that they need to look into it.  That's pure incompetence.  Where is the outrage in the local media?

The problem is there are too many people on each side who are so entrenched in their positions...

Welcome to politics. You have to be willing to push a mile to get an inch. There's a sports analogy there but I forget it.

I would never in a million years have guessed getting this thing done would be so hard. I think someone posted earlier something about this project getting a little more scrutiny than others??

...the fact remains that Cranley made his campaign synonymous with canceling the streetcar and he won the election by a significant margin.

 

That still doesn't address the parking lease issue that he stumped heavily for.  How many voters were against that but neutral on the streetcar?  It's impossible to tell.  It also doesn't address the many other reasons why a voter would have conceivably picked Cranley. 

 

 

Also, the 2011 election had the result of a pro-streetcar supermajority. Many on this board have said that this meant the voters clearly wanted a streetcar.

 

The voters also voted directly on rail in 2011, voting down the anti-rail charter amendment.  So the "many on this board" actually had a compelling point.  This year, a well funded democrat edged out a less well funded democrat by getting 16% of the voters to pick him.  I would hardly say that this is equivalent to "voters have spoken again in their desire to kill the project".

 

Yes, but that is the same as saying that since issues 9 and 48 addressed more than just the streetcar, many of those who voted yes COULD have just not wanted to encumber all possibility of rail for the following decade. My point is really that Cranley's win no more gives him a mandate then any election gives any elected official a mandate. Our elected representatives have a mandate to make decisions and vote on them based on what they think is best for the citizenry. Based on the numbers presented today, it sounds like they ought to vote not to cancel. However, Cranley, Murray, Flynn, and Mann will not be defying the will of the electorate if they vote to cancel the streetcar. They stated they would vote that way and they got elected.

More from @WVXU:

 

Mann reax: Project should be on hold until new council is in. Also needs to review the numbers.

 

Flynn reax: Wants more details. Also skeptical about the $$ numbers. Thinks project should be on hold until new council comes in.

 

Put the project on hold and the federal funding goes away. I don't think that is a complicated scenario to understand. If it is too complicated, then perhaps they should rethink their ability to oversee the basics of running a major city.

I found the cost too high for the ROI

 

I agree with much of what you said, but this point doesn't make sense to me. The ROI is still conservatively estimated at 2.7-to-1. The cost of this project has only went up by around 15%, mostly due to 2 years of delays caused by the opponents. If the cost were to skyrocket up to $200 million, I would not be in favor of it. I disagree with your assessment that streetcar supporters would support the project no matter the cost.

 

Real quick - 1) Right now, you need to build it because the money has been spent already.

2) at the 133 million for phase 1, I did not necessarily feel the cost was worth it, but again that was my opinion and the cost had reached my personal threshold.

3) While $200 million may have been your max, in all fairness there are a few people here that are build at any cost. Plus part of the point was to reduce both sides positions to the absurd.

 

^^Yep and all the doomsday scenarios will start to play out. Only bankruptcy can resolve the contracts and any lawsuits. But Fed money is gown forever for this project.

If the new mayor and council are foolish enough to pause/cancel this project despite the mounting evidence that such a move would be a disaster, how quickly would federal funds be reallocated?  Could potential legal action tie them up in court for a while? 

The presentation today stated the streetcar increases tax revenue by $237M over 35 years, or $6.77M per year. Of that $237M, $123M is due to the city, or $3.5M per year. It costs $3.5M per year to operate the streetcar. What's the issue?

 

Supposing the city has to pay the entire cost to operate (which it would not have to) the project still pays for itself so there is no added $100M that Cranley likes to talk about.

More from @WVXU:

 

Mann reax: Project should be on hold until new council is in. Also needs to review the numbers.

 

Flynn reax: Wants more details. Also skeptical about the $$ numbers. Thinks project should be on hold until new council comes in.

 

Put the project on hold and the federal funding goes away. I don't think that is a complicated scenario to understand. If it is too complicated, then perhaps they should rethink their ability to oversee the basics of running a major city.

 

That's the thing.  It seems they are trying to align their abilities by demoting Cincinnati from "major city" status.

This:

Amy Murray reaction right after meeting as tweeted by WVXU:

 

"I don't believe the numbers are correct"

 

so I think you can count her out...

+

This:

More from @WVXU:

 

Mann reax: Project should be on hold until new council is in. Also needs to review the numbers.

 

Flynn reax: Wants more details. Also skeptical about the $$ numbers. Thinks project should be on hold until new council comes in.

=  :cry: for America.

 

Honestly the level of bullshit that is considered to be acceptable nowadays is really depressing.  "Doesn't believe" or is "skeptical of the numbers"?  This is it, folks, the administration is where you get your numbers from and will be where you get your numbers throughout your four year term.  Are you going to be skeptical or not believe all the numbers that come from the City Administration?  How exactly are they going to go about doing their independent research?

 

Do they understand why a civil service administration has been in place for over a hundred years?  Do men like Flynn or Mann who took the bar (or Cranley, for that matter), who are officers of the court, do they have any respect for the idea of a profession?  Do these people actually think that it's right to malign people simply because they have more access to the media and no fear of any consequences?  It's pathetic.

This is the best headline the Enquirer has given this project yet...."Nearly as much to halt streetcar as finish it"

http://cincinnati.com/blogs/politics/2013/11/21/city-lays-out-streetcar-cancellation-costs/

^And in that blog post:

 

Cranley, the only newcomer who didn’t attend, ridiculed the idea that it would take more than a year to shut down the streetcar.

 

“Of course the people who have incompetently run this project would be incompetent at shutting it down,” he said. “That’s why we’re going to have new leadership.”

 

All three incoming council members and Cranley also repeated their calls for the current council to stop construction until they’re seated. A majority of the current council supports the streetcar, but Mann, Flynn and Murray will join past “no” votes P.G. Sittenfeld, Christopher Smitherman and Charlie Winburn.

 

“They should stop spending money immediately,” Cranley said. “They are defying the voters.”

 

Cranley is of course completely ignoring the fact the project is on-time and budget since construction started and J Deatrick was hired to run it.