Good article Brad, definitely on point :)

Certainly worth thought... But to me, one of the things that has to be on the table for private partnership dollars (a big part of the funding) is something akin to naming rights, or at least have it available as a possible carrot.  I like "Findlay Market Streetcar" better than the "Pampers Express", but if P&G wants to cough up 30 mil to call it the Pampers Express, have at it ;)

 

Just my two cents anyhow :)

 

The TIDE TROLLEY!!!

What, in general, do people think is Cranley's beef with the streetcar? I'm puzzled. Does everyone think he's just anti-transit, or is there something more? I wish I had a week to just investigate this to see if there is some sort of property interest or something so we get him to pipe down and just recuse himself.

What, in general, do people think is Cranley's beef with the streetcar? I'm puzzled. Does everyone think he's just anti-transit, or is there something more? I wish I had a week to just investigate this to see if there is some sort of property interest or something so we get him to pipe down and just recuse himself.

 

It's not very complicated, really. John Cranley has long been opposed to higher-level public transportation. Whether it was opposing light rail in 2002, new buses for SORTA in 2007 or the Cincinnati Streetcar, whatever the plan is, he always has another plan. In doing so, he has cleverly masked his opposition over the years, though now people are on to him.

 

He doesn't view public transportation as a city-builder, but as a bare-bones social program for people who don't drive. While that's an important role for public transportation, most city leaders across America would today view it as insufficient. He's kind of rooted in a Sixties/Great Society mentality on this.

 

I doubt anyone will change his mind. In fact, the more often you engage opponents on this issue, the more embedded they become in their opposition.

The City Council meeting is today correct?

I do believe the main council vote on the funding for the uptown study will be today.

Certainly worth thought... But to me, one of the things that has to be on the table for private partnership dollars (a big part of the funding) is something akin to naming rights, or at least have it available as a possible carrot.  I like "Findlay Market Streetcar" better than the "Pampers Express", but if P&G wants to cough up 30 mil to call it the Pampers Express, have at it ;)

 

Just my two cents anyhow :)

 

I was just about to suggest the same thing.  A large local company like P&G might be interested in the naming rights.  The whole system could be referred to as something along the lines of The Cincinnati Procter & Gamble Streetcar System (the CPG or CPGS for short) and each individual train could be color-coded and named for one of their more famous products; orange for Tide, white for Ivory, red for Pringles, blue for Dawn or Crest, etc. 

 

The TIDE TROLLEY!!!

 

lol!

Don't laugh. Cleveland Clinic Foundation and University Hospitals Health System in Cleveland won $6 million in naming rights to the Euclid Corridor busway -- calling it the Health Line. Whatever.

Honestly, tax wise, such naming deals can be a good deal for large corporations.  Spending on good will, and strenghtening branding, talk about a mechanism to further ingrain local brands in the public eye!  And this is why we need City Council to move forward with financing so that we can start looking into these types of deals.  With the concentration of fortune 500 companies, we should be able to get some of these deals, but even these things take time to negotiate.  Its a marathon indeed.

We could always approach Ollie's Trolley for naming rights.

What, in general, do people think is Cranley's beef with the streetcar? I'm puzzled. Does everyone think he's just anti-transit, or is there something more? I wish I had a week to just investigate this to see if there is some sort of property interest or something so we get him to pipe down and just recuse himself.

 

It's not very complicated, really. John Cranley has long been opposed to higher-level public transportation. Whether it was opposing light rail in 2002, new buses for SORTA in 2007 or the Cincinnati Streetcar, whatever the plan is, he always has another plan. In doing so, he has cleverly masked his opposition over the years, though now people are on to him.

 

He doesn't view public transportation as a city-builder, but as a bare-bones social program for people who don't drive. While that's an important role for public transportation, most city leaders across America would today view it as insufficient. He's kind of rooted in a Sixties/Great Society mentality on this.

 

I doubt anyone will change his mind. In fact, the more often you engage opponents on this issue, the more embedded they become in their opposition.

 

MAYBE WE SHOULD CHANGE HIS MIND FOR HIM COME THE NEXT ELECTION!!!!!!!!

He doesn't view public transportation as a city-builder, but as a bare-bones social program for people who don't drive. While that's an important role for public transportation, most city leaders across America would today view it as insufficient. He's kind of rooted in a Sixties/Great Society mentality on this.

 

That describes it well. Many self-proclaimed "Conservatives" regard public transportation as a safety net program that may be a moral obilgation of society, but that should be done as cheaply as possible. To dredge up another pejorative from the sixties, they regard it as an "income redistribution" program.

I'm totally opposed to naming rights for the entire line.  My point is that the city can use the streetcar as a way to boost other city-owned and operated items around town, thus turn Cranley's argument around on itself a bit.  Any "bailing out" the streetcar might need would be offset by the streetcar's unmeasurable benefit to Findlay Market, the zoo, and other things partly underwritten by city and county taxes.  Advertising is big business because it works, and I think there are simple steps that could be taken to help advertise Findlay Market and other things around town.

^ I'm open to whatever gets this thing built.  If the city can advertise things like Findlay Market, great.  But if they choose to paint all the cars red and call it the 5/3 ATM (Alternative Transit Mode  :-D), I'm also fine with that.  Just get the rail in the street and I'll be happy.

I dunno about the naming rights. I've noticed that some of the light rail vehicles in Portland have lately been shedding their "KOIN" logos -- the call letters of one of that city's TV stations -- which have been wrapped around the cars forever there. And don't get me started on what Metro's bus wraps have done to the inside of the coaches here.

 

I kinda think the notion that transit vehicles should be moving billboards is an idea whose time has come. And gone.

David Hickey's 1997 take on advertising:

 

 

"I mean look at the Stones. Keith Richards is always on top of the beat, and Bill Wyman, until he quit, was always behind it, because Richards is leading the band and Charlie Watts is listening to him and Wyman is listening to Watts. So the beat is sliding on those tiny neural lapses, not so you can tell, of course, but so you can feel it in your stomach. And the intonation is wavering too, with the pulse in the finger on the amplified string. This is the delicacy of rock and roll. And it has its virtues, because jazz only works if we're trying to be free and are in fact together. And rock and roll works because we're all a bunch of flakes. That's something you can depend on, and a good thing too, because in the Twentieth Century that's all there is: jazz and rock and roll. The rest is term papers and advertising."

 

 

 

Personally, I can't write off the advertising angle as a way to develop the private funds needed to build the cars.  As much as I would rather not see such giant moving billboards, its one thing companies can invest in easily.  Its a no brainer compared to some other forms of advertising.  Easy money. 

I don't care whats it's called, although Findlay Market streetcar has a nice ring to it.  Lay some track!!!

I like the naming idea, especially the Findlay Market idea. Instead of calling the entire system the Findlay Market Streetcar, why not just call the first loop the Findlay Market Line. The Uptown extension could be something else like, well, the Uptown Line. Not terribly creative, but my point is that as others have mentioned happening in other cities, naming a line, or selling naming rights to a line, as opposed to the entire system seems like the best idea to me. And with I think 8 posts now to my name, you should listen to me and stop all further discussion.

the market line.  i like that better. 

the market line.  i like that better. 

 

i do too, whoever rambled on before you about the findlay market line is an idiot

I kind of feel like a lot of advertising is just kind of the business version of the nuclear arms race.  Who out there doesn't know that you can buy Coke or Pepsi?

^ Please note that in your example, you referenced the two biggest advertisers in the soda business as alternatives to each other, and left out other semi-popular brands that don't advertise such as RC, Diet Rite, and Jolt.  Intentional, or the subliminal effect of their mass marketing campaigns?  You be the judge.

^ (oops, Jimmy James got in before me) True, but if the fiction that you need it to do business (even when your products are by the far the best) continues, why not leverage that into the private dollars required to build the streetcar line... Its fairly rare that an ad actually influences me directly to buy something (saving of course Apple ads), but whatever, you can continue to make your sales pitch so long as it offloads some financial burden from me :)  I tune it out automatically at this stage.

Council spends $800,000 to study streetcars

 

UPDATED, 3 p.m.

 

Jane Prendergast reports from City Hall:

 

Cincinnati will spend $800,000 to study the feasibility of extending a proposed streetcar line from downtown to Uptown.

 

City Council agreed to the appropriation this afternoon, but not until members debated the issue again for about 30 minutes. The money comes from City Manager Milton Dohoney and city officials sorting through accounts from other capital improvement projects, some dating back years, and finding leftover money.

 

Three council members opposed the expenditure: Roxanne Qualls, Chris Monzel and John Cranley.

 

Qualls voted against it because she said it spent money without council first having given the admninistration clear direction to make sure the streetcar line goes to Uptown. The city's initial proposal put a line from downtown through Over-the-Rhine, but kept the more northern piece to the area around the University of Cincinnati as a second phase. Several council members have said they do not believe a streetcar line would support itself if it doesn't connect the city's two main job centers, downtown and Uptown.

 

Chris Bortz, a main proponent of the streetcar plan, encouraged his colleagues to think of the study as just the next step in the process, not as a huge deal.

 

"We're not breaking ground," he said. "We're not buying (street) cars, we're not buying track."

 

Council voted after Vice Mayor David Crowley requested permission to speak and said: "I t hink everything's been said. Let's vote."

 

It's been heartening to hear the comments coming from Crowley and Thomas lately -- my feelings exactly -- GIT 'ER DONE, to borrow a phrase :-P 

 

Qualls seems to be grasping at anything to delay progress :yap:  Enamored with the sound of her own voice, it seems.

 

The "Convention Center", the "Ballpark", the "Bengals' Stadium", the "Coliseum" (this goes way back, but so do I) -- everyone knows what I'm talking about when I use these identifiers.  I can't keep track of who the current sponsors are and I bet I'm not alone. 

 

I just hope the streetcar vehicles are as classy-looking as possible and if any sponsors want their names on them, it's done tastefully.  In any case, I have a feeling people will be saying things like the "Market" line, the "Uptown" line, the "Riverfront" line and the "OTR" line, etc. -- no matter the ostensible name -- when identifying various legs of the "Cincinnati Streetcar System".  I refrain from calling it simply the "Streetcar System" because we don't need another SS, especially in Cincinnati.

I saw that article about a further streetcar study.  That's all well and good, and I know that Bortz sees it as the next step in the process, but how many times have Cincinnati politics killed projects in this way?  I can easily see the streetcar becoming the next Banks, where it will get bogged down in studies and committees, and nothing will ever come of it.  Maybe I've just lived in Cincy too long and am too pesimistic about Council politics.  I hope I'm wrong.  I don't see why we can't get this thing started downtown RIGHT NOW, and then use the federal matching grants for the uptown connection, as was the original plan.  It wouldn't need to be a stand-alone project downtown, because as soon as that leg is completed, federal matching would kick in and they could begin the uptown line.

I don't want Coke or Pepsi,  I want orange juice!  8-)

Qualls voted against it because she said it spent money without council first having given the admninistration clear direction to make sure the streetcar line goes to Uptown.

 

Foxy Roxy sure is trying to ensure that her friends at the university get hooked into this system.  I wonder what Jim Tarbell thinks about this whole thing, as the streetcar will primarily effect his beloved OTR (not mention that Qualls holds his old council seat).

juicy juice streetcar

I saw that article about a further streetcar study.  That's all well and good, and I know that Bortz sees it as the next step in the process, but how many times have Cincinnati politics killed projects in this way?  I can easily see the streetcar becoming the next Banks, where it will get bogged down in studies and committees, and nothing will ever come of it.  Maybe I've just lived in Cincy too long and am too pesimistic about Council politics.  I hope I'm wrong.  I don't see why we can't get this thing started downtown RIGHT NOW, and then use the federal matching grants for the uptown connection, as was the original plan.  It wouldn't need to be a stand-alone project downtown, because as soon as that leg is completed, federal matching would kick in and they could begin the uptown line.

 

I agree.  I dont understand why they can't start phase 1 and research the line into uptown at the same time...maybe i'm missing something.  i'd rather do both at the same time then wait an undefined amount of time completely halting the process and therefore increasing the probabilities of anything going wrong (price tag, more time and resources for the opposing view to persuade others,  etc). The timing of this qualls motion from left field has had me as well as others perplexed for some time.  I realize the importance of a good study and getting things right, however the momentum for this project to get done is great right now.  who knows what will happen in a year. 2 years. 3 years.

Qualls voted against it because she said it spent money without council first having given the admninistration clear direction to make sure the streetcar line goes to Uptown.

 

Does anyone else find this statement as utterly ridiculous as I do?

Premise - Qualls wants to insure the streetcar goes uptown

Requirement for Streetcar to go Uptown - A full study of how it could be done

Requirement for study - funding

Result - evidence council wants the line to go uptown

But Qualls voted against the motion, thereby refusing to present tangible evidence that council wants the line to go uptown.

 

Conclusion - premise is flawed

 

That is riduculous, to the extreme.

 

I agree.  I dont understand why they can't start phase 1 and research the line into uptown at the same time

That is exactly what the latest funding for the uptown study does.

 

^ The first vote for money is always the hardest. To the extent that this study further defines the Uptown extension, it's a very good thing. It will establish the route, the costs and the ridership -- all important variables in the design of the overall system.

 

Chris Bortz would have the most informed opinion on this, but I don't regard the Uptown planning as necessarily delaying the start of construction on the Downtown-OTR loop.

 

By the way, I thought all of our champions were in top form today. We have a solid majority for this.

Chris Bortz would have the most informed opinion on this, but I don't regard the Uptown planning as necessarily delaying the start of construction on the Downtown-OTR loop.

 

I tend to agree.  I think it is an important statement -- noone can deny that uptown is part of the plan.

I saw that article about a further streetcar study.  That's all well and good, and I know that Bortz sees it as the next step in the process, but how many times have Cincinnati politics killed projects in this way?  I can easily see the streetcar becoming the next Banks, where it will get bogged down in studies and committees, and nothing will ever come of it.  Maybe I've just lived in Cincy too long and am too pesimistic about Council politics.  I hope I'm wrong.  I don't see why we can't get this thing started downtown RIGHT NOW, and then use the federal matching grants for the uptown connection, as was the original plan.  It wouldn't need to be a stand-alone project downtown, because as soon as that leg is completed, federal matching would kick in and they could begin the uptown line.

 

I agree.  I dont understand why they can't start phase 1 and research the line into uptown at the same time...maybe i'm missing something.  i'd rather do both at the same time then wait an undefined amount of time completely halting the process and therefore increasing the probabilities of anything going wrong (price tag, more time and resources for the opposing view to persuade others,  etc). The timing of this qualls motion from left field has had me as well as others perplexed for some time.  I realize the importance of a good study and getting things right, however the momentum for this project to get done is great right now.  who knows what will happen in a year. 2 years. 3 years.

 

The Uptown study runs concurrent with the Downtown/OTR planning and design.  Council has yet to offer additional direction on Downtown/OTR.  We are still working on that.  My hope is that we take the next step (start looking for private money) in Downtown/OTR without backing ourselves into a corner on the Uptown loop and connector. 

 

In my opinion, two things kill this: 1) delay and 2) biting off more than we can chew.  If we agree not to start on any component of a streetcar system until we have every penny for Downtown/OTR, Uptown loop, and Uptown connector, we may find ourselves with nothing. 

 

I draw that conclusion for a couple reasons.  First, we are much more likely to get federal funds if we have already built (or are in the process of building) a streetcar.  Though the city has resources to build the Uptown pieces without federal funds, the sources of those city dollars may be politically difficult to allocate.  Second, people, businesses, institutions, etc. are more likley to support financially a project they can touch.  It is hard for people to have confidence in something if it is just on paper (see The Banks). 

 

I want to see a streetcar looping around downtown and OTR, connecting Uptown, and looping around Uptown.  It may be that the only way we get it all is to take a risk and start with a little. 

By the way, I thought all of our champions were in top form today. We have a solid majority for this.

 

Ditto.  It's such a relief to have Bortz, Berding, Crowley, Thomas and Ghiz -- FIVE count 'em FIVE council supporters.  Plus the Mayor and City Manager and fellow administrators.  We may really be turning a corner in this city, at long last  :clap:

You forgot to mention Cole.

 

 

:oops: sorry -- glad Cole's on board too.

>glad Cole's on board too.

 

Cole posts on here?  Maybe she's Mark Glove!.

 

from the online 'pulse of the city'

 

Council majority votes in support of the streetcar

By Bradley Thomas

 

  The Cincinnati Streetcar is proceeding along, with the support of Mayor Mark Mallory, the City Manager Milton Dohoney and a solid majority of City Council members.

  A 6-3 majority of city council voted to take the next step in bringing streetcars to Cincinnati. The vote, held Wednesday, March 12, involved a resolution, which authorized a transfer of $800,000 of already allocated funds to study a downtown to uptown connection for the streetcar. This study is critical if the streetcar is to receive federal funds for later expansions.

  Councilpersons Jeff Berding, Chris Bortz, Laketa Cole, David Crowely, Leslie Ghiz, and Cecil Thomas voted for the resolution, while John Cranley, Chris Monzel, and Roxanne Qualls voted against it. Although Monzel and Qualls both stated that they support the streetcar, their votes may seem the opposite.

  Mallory and the majority of council need to work to schedule a vote at the next Finance committee meeting, to make the Cincinnati Streetcar a reality.

 

The allocation of these funds is a great step. I think it just adds momentum, because the more we spend toward the plan, the less people will be willing to throw the plan away. Does anyone know if the administration gave any indication when it would have a complete financing plan ready for Council to vote on (private investment included)?

^ Please note that in your example, you referenced the two biggest advertisers in the soda business as alternatives to each other, and left out other semi-popular brands that don't advertise such as RC, Diet Rite, and Jolt.  Intentional, or the subliminal effect of their mass marketing campaigns?  You be the judge.

 

You can still by RC Cola and Diet Rite?  Did you order them at the only still-functioning Rax?  (If you know where a Rax in actual operation is, please let me know.  Also, where do you buy you're Diet Rite and RC from?)

"The Linder Family Street Car"

 

^They already have their name all over Cincinnati, what difference does a streetcar name. 

Qualls is walking a fine line right now, and if she is wrong about this anti-streetcar stance (which I think she will be) then her hopes of running for Mayor again will be dashed.  It is a calculated risk she is taking and it doesn't look like her odds are very good.

 

Personally I'm really not a big fan of all the political staturing she has taken part in thus far in her young return to city politics.  Put politics aside for a brief moment, and do what is right for your constituents.

"We just seem to be spending and spending," Cranley said.

 

Oh...I see.  Cranley is a fiscal conservative all of a sudden.  Nice try.

Qualls is walking a fine line right now, and if she is wrong about this anti-streetcar stance (which I think she will be) then her hopes of running for Mayor again will be dashed.  It is a calculated risk she is taking and it doesn't look like her odds are very good.

 

Personally I'm really not a big fan of all the political staturing she has taken part in thus far in her young return to city politics.  Put politics aside for a brief moment, and do what is right for your constituents.

 

I don't think her mayoral (or other higher office) hopes are dashed if the streetcar does happen.  Its just as easy for her to say to her constituents "I was just trying to be prudent, I was for the line all along, but only if we did our due diligence"

 

Its much easier politically to be an opposer and then justify after the fact if what you oppose turns out to be a success.

Yes, but lets say (hypothetically) that she runs against Mallory in the next election.  This is something where they will differ on and Mallory has always been a key proponet of the project - whereas Qualls says one thing, then votes another.  I think that kind of doublespeak with come back to haunt her.

True, so long as she is running against someone who can make this point.  Mallory is one who could, but if its post Mallory's next term (fingers crossed), that opportunity goes away.

Yes, but lets say (hypothetically) that she runs against Mallory in the next election.  This is something where they will differ on and Mallory has always been a key proponet of the project - whereas Qualls says one thing, then votes another.  I think that kind of doublespeak with come back to haunt her.

 

Lets hope she runs against Mallory next election, then we can shoehorn Brad into her spot :), then she loses against Mallory, and that little mistake is done with!

^Brad Thomas?