^I was very annoyed by that line as well.  Thanks for highlighting it.

How is the contingency fund doing otherwise? I know this was separate, but just curious.

The headline should read "judge decides to give duke a free ride on streetcar". Hope they appeal.

Do we think the city will really appeal with Cranley at the helm? Or is it more likely he just says "I told you so" and blames more things on the streetcar? It's a tough call, who knows if his ego will win out and he will just this to make a point, or if he wants to get his little hands on that $15 million badly enough to use on his own projects.

Hope they appeal.

 

Do we have a chance to win an appeal? I don't want the city to appeal something that has no chance of winning.

Harry Black says the city will appeal the decision.

I'd appeal simply on this information: Judge Carl Stich Jr was appointed to the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas by Gov. John Kasich in March 2013

 

Mayor Cranley will be on Bill Cunningham's show at 2:06 this afternoon.

I'd appeal simply on this information: Judge Carl Stich Jr was appointed to the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas by Gov. John Kasich in March 2013

 

Mayor Cranley will be on Bill Cunningham's show at 2:06 this afternoon.

 

From Kasich's perspective, this ruling keeps the $15 million out of the hands of Cranley's Democrat cronies + embarrasses the city.  The region's citizens are paying for this either way -- either through taxes or through their Duke bill.  In fact this ruling means the city's residents are paying this tab, not the region's, which was one of the early criticisms. 

 

Former top attorney: Why Cincinnati is right to appeal Duke ruling

Dec 2, 2014, 1:17pm EST

Chris Wetterich Staff reporter- Cincinnati Business Courier

 

The city of Cincinnati should appeal a judge's decision that the city owes Duke Energy for relocating its utilities to accommodate the streetcar project because of the precedent it could set for all Ohio cities, the city's former top attorney says.

 

Appealing the decision would be "wise," said former city solicitor John Curp. City Manager Harry Black said Tuesday the city will do so.

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2014/12/02/former-top-attorneywhy-cincinnati-is-right-to.html

Former top attorney: Why Cincinnati is right to appeal Duke ruling

Dec 2, 2014, 1:17pm EST

Chris Wetterich Staff reporter- Cincinnati Business Courier

 

The city of Cincinnati should appeal a judge's decision that the city owes Duke Energy for relocating its utilities to accommodate the streetcar project because of the precedent it could set for all Ohio cities, the city's former top attorney says.

 

Appealing the decision would be "wise," said former city solicitor John Curp. City Manager Harry Black said Tuesday the city will do so.

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2014/12/02/former-top-attorneywhy-cincinnati-is-right-to.html

 

The irony in this is phenomenal. By appealing, the City will have to argue the decision on the basis that the Streetcar is a transportation project and not just an economic development project.

I'd appeal simply on this information: Judge Carl Stich Jr was appointed to the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas by Gov. John Kasich in March 2013

 

Stich is also a lame duck judge, because he just lost his re-election to a Dem

Former top attorney: Why Cincinnati is right to appeal Duke ruling

Dec 2, 2014, 1:17pm EST

Chris Wetterich Staff reporter- Cincinnati Business Courier

 

The city of Cincinnati should appeal a judge's decision that the city owes Duke Energy for relocating its utilities to accommodate the streetcar project because of the precedent it could set for all Ohio cities, the city's former top attorney says.

 

Appealing the decision would be "wise," said former city solicitor John Curp. City Manager Harry Black said Tuesday the city will do so.

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2014/12/02/former-top-attorneywhy-cincinnati-is-right-to.html

 

The irony in this is phenomenal. By appealing, the City will have to argue the decision on the basis that the Streetcar is a transportation project and not just an economic development project.

 

With the possible exception of a recreational trail, all transportation projects are economic development projects.

 

And even a trail has an economic development aspect.

And even a trail has an economic development aspect.

 

Yes, ask West Virginia.

 

But one form of rail transit does have a spotty record when it comes to economic development... the monorail.

Flynn said this morning they're going to appeal because Duke sent notices to the city that gas lines needed to be replaced ... in some areas more than others. He mentioned Downtown was one of those areas and now Duke is trying to get off the hook for something they would've paid for anyway.

 

 

Flynn said this morning they're going to appeal because Duke sent notices to the city that gas lines needed to be replaced ... in some areas more than others. He mentioned Downtown was one of those areas and now Duke is trying to get off the hook for something they would've paid for anyway.

 

 

 

Exactly. Duke's business model is building infrastructure and then using that infrastructure to sell us gas and electricity. Why should the city give them brand new electric and gas lines for free, and allow Duke to profit from them for the next 50+ years?

 

A good compromise might be something like this: If the utilities have 20% of their useful life left before they need to be replaced, the city should only pay 20% and Duke should pay the other 80% of the replacement cost.

Great, now the Cincinnati Streetcar is killing jobs in other states!

 

 

Streetcar production grinds to a halt – for now

By Tim Becker and KOIN 6 News Staff

Published: December 2, 2014, 3:32 pm

 

When United Streetcar’s first vehicle rolled off the production line in 2009, it was praised from Portland to Washington, DC.

 

But a recent article in the Washington Post quoted company president Kevin Clarke as saying United Streetcar now “is in hibernation.”

 

http://koin.com/2014/12/02/streetcar-production-grinds-to-a-halt-for-now/

I hate to see a good company go under (or go into "hibernation") but what did they expect? Their product was fine for its time but they didn't innovate or update in a way that makes them competitive. Low-floor is all the rage and they still don't offer fully low-floor trains.

 

And from an aesthetics standpoint their trains looks somewhat dated. The trains we're getting look and feel modern. And offer low-floor. It's a no-brainer we went with CAF instead of United Streetcar.

 

Edit: Wrote wrong acronym for streetcar manufacturer.

^Oh CAF, not UO's favorite single-thread user.

Flynn said this morning they're going to appeal because Duke sent notices to the city that gas lines needed to be replaced ... in some areas more than others. He mentioned Downtown was one of those areas and now Duke is trying to get off the hook for something they would've paid for anyway.

 

 

 

Exactly. Duke's business model is building infrastructure and then using that infrastructure to sell us gas and electricity. Why should the city give them brand new electric and gas lines for free, and allow Duke to profit from them for the next 50+ years?

 

A good compromise might be something like this: If the utilities have 20% of their useful life left before they need to be replaced, the city should only pay 20% and Duke should pay the other 80% of the replacement cost.

 

I find it hilarious that people took Obamacare to the Supreme Court because it was going to make it illegal to not buy health insurance. Ever try building a house and not hooking it up to utilities?

Bill Cunningham compared the streetcar to Herpes.

 

Add that to the list of extreme comparisons

Bill Cunningham compared the streetcar to Herpes.

 

Add that to the list of extreme comparisons

 

I mean, if it means that it never goes away...

Bill Cunningham compared the streetcar to Herpes.

 

Add that to the list of extreme comparisons

 

I mean, if it means that it never goes away...

 

And spreads with ease...

I had 700 WLW on the radio last night and the "preview" was for a 9:06 show, and I don't know who the host was.  But anyways, the preview was, "With the new streetcar loss of $15 million, is this the beginning of the end for Cincinnati?".

 

Lol, yeah since that $15 million was already set aside and is in the budget, and also the overall budget of the city is about $998 million, I am guessing the city will be ok.

I got to see the new Cincinnati Streetcar Founders' Club Cards (giftcards) today and they are BEAUTIFUL!  I really love the logo.  As much as I like the branding for the Atlanta Streetcar, I think ours might actually be better.  It's sleek, industrial and has forward momentum.  I wish I could post a pic, but it's technically still proprietary.  Usually when they let me see stuff like this though, it's only a day or two before it becomes public.  Get ready!

Such a tease!

 

I can't wait to see them. It's good to hear the branding surrounding the streetcar is good. That's super key to winning over people on the fence (and maybe over it).

Cincinnati streetcar progress ramps up before holidays: PHOTOS

Dec 5, 2014, 2:53pm EST

Erin Caproni Digital Producer- Cincinnati Business Courier

 

After a quick Thanksgiving break, construction of Cincinnati's streetcar resumed last week, and crews began installing a new component.

 

Some of the brackets and arms that will hold the streetcar's overhead power wire have been installed. In addition, Duke Energy crews have been working on Main Street in manholes and work at the Maintenance and Operations Facility has continued.

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/blog/2014/12/cincinnati-streetcar-progress-ramps-up-before.html

I had 700 WLW on the radio last night and the "preview" was for a 9:06 show, and I don't know who the host was.  But anyways, the preview was, "With the new streetcar loss of $15 million, is this the beginning of the end for Cincinnati?".

 

 

How can anyone write that, utter that or believe that with a straight face?? If there's a significant number of people believing that, I would argue that's the real threat to Cincinnati....

Well, there is always a pallet option: https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=868802063170411

Why question LW?  Their motive is owning the ears of suburban white men over 45. 

Sunday nite, 12/7, I hope you guys all saw 60 minutes about Duke Energy's record in North Carolina. 

Sunday nite, 12/7, I hope you guys all saw 60 minutes about Duke Energy's record in North Carolina. 

 

Thanks, I checked it out. Can be viewed online here:

http://www.cbs.com/shows/60_minutes/video/mMNhMyK3d3Qkaaq15NvLHMvP2rlEMvgV/the-spill-at-dan-river/

 

In the segment, it is claimed that Duke Energy is the most powerful entity in the state of North Carolina. Now we have them flexing their muscle in Ohio, claiming roads made of steel are rightly treated discriminately versus concrete roads because, the better part of a century ago, steel roads (which no longer exist) were built by private businesses (which no longer exist). Perhaps this anachronism "needs more study" (as is perpetually the case with environmental issues and solutions presented in the video), but for now we should obviously act in whichever way is most fair advantageous to Duke.

^ Maybe time to move your electric service to another provider if you haven't done so already.

 

^ Maybe time to move your electric service to another provider if you haven't done so already.

 

 

What other options are there?

^I've been wondering that. I don't know of anyone who has someone else.

 

Doesn't Duke also own the supply lines? Meaning that unless you live in an area where another supplier has built utilities you really don't have an option? Or am I completely inept at my understanding of utility ownership (which is completely possible).

^Duke has to be your energy company. You can choose a different supplier of energy though. So while Duke is required to maintain the lines and treat all customers equally, you have a choice as to who produces the energy. http://www.switchonohio.com/site/viewprovider?provider_id=7

^Duke has to be your energy company. You can choose a different supplier of energy though. So while Duke is required to maintain the lines and treat all customers equally, you have a choice as to who produces the energy. http://www.switchonohio.com/site/viewprovider?provider_id=7

 

If you are in the city and use Cincinnati’s aggregate buying, you are already getting your electric from someone else (my bill says FirstEnergy is the supplier). It looks like Duke does provide natural gas, though. I have always doubted that going off on your own to buy gas/electric from another provider would be cheaper than sticking with the city-wide lowest bid, but that depends on a lot of things. I don’t think there’s substantial/consistent savings (though you can gamble on fixed rates/terms), but if the purpose is to make a statement, it’ll probably only cost a few bucks a month at most for most residences.

Nearly all single family homes, condos, and most apartments are already switched from Duke electricity supplier to First Energy supplier. the Bill will still come from Duke and have duke's logo on it, but under supplier it should say FES. 

 

If it Doesn't, you can switch to FES, which is 7% lower than the Duke rate. 

Nearly all single family homes, condos, and most apartments are already switched from Duke electricity supplier to First Energy supplier. the Bill will still come from Duke and have duke's logo on it, but under supplier it should say FES. 

 

If it Doesn't, you can switch to FES, which is 7% lower than the Duke rate. 

 

I remember having great difficulty changing our provider to First Energy last year (representative acted like I was bothering them trying to switch).  We just purchased a new condo this year in OTR and it looks like the electrical charges (not distribution charges) were defaulted to Duke Energy.  Has anyone else had these problems with getting First Energy as the provider and having new service default to Duke?

Using FirstEnergy as supplier (for city residents) is supposed to be opt-out. So Duke shouldn't be your provider unless you specifically request that they be. If this is not the case, and Duke is a default provided for some city residents, there's some kind of problem that the city should be notified of. Perhaps a previous property owner's choice rolls over?

 

I don't think gas is covered by this. Does anyone know about alternative gas providers, if it isn't?

^Is there any way for the "gas hookup fee" that's attached every month to be less? It's $35/month which is more than half my bill. I use so little gas every month which is frustrating.

I don't believe it is possible. I lived in an apartment that only used gas for the stove. That stove cost me $35/month. The $35/month fee is for maintaining the gas lines.

That's what I figured. I really wish everything that is gas in my place was just electric instead. Having half my energy bill dedicated to that charge isn't something I'll ever be happy with.

^Is there any way for the "gas hookup fee" that's attached every month to be less? It's $35/month which is more than half my bill. I use so little gas every month which is frustrating.

 

What's worse is that for much larger customers, who have bigger pipes and consume much more gas, the connection charge is not proportionately higher.

^ Or suburban locations where there's way more length of pipe out at the street.  It's one of those insidious ways that city dwellers, or anyone living in apartments or more compact development, subsidizes those who live in less dense areas without even knowing it.

I don't believe it is possible. I lived in an apartment that only used gas for the stove. That stove cost me $35/month. The $35/month fee is for maintaining the gas lines.

 

This is a newer charge, too. There used to be a minimal fee for a gas connection, and the usage based charge was higher. Sometime around 2008 or 2009, when I also lived in an apartment that only used gas to the stove, the fee was introduced and it was $25. I went from $10 a month gas bill to $35 overnight, a 350% increase in price despite using the same minimal amount of gas to cook a few nights a week. Even owning a home now that uses gas heat, during the summer months I only use gas for the stove and I’m in the same boat – paying $40 a month to be able to cook.

 

When I had an apartment in OTR I had an electric stove and only used gas for heat. I would call up Duke every April and October to have them turn off/on the gas when the heating season rolled around because I was not about to pay $35 a month and not use any gas whatsoever. I actually had an operator try to tell me I wasn’t allowed to do that once, but they gave in when I started to complain and ask for a supervisor.

 

I remember when I got my first apartment in Lancaster in 1998-99 my gas bill was only $7 a month during the summer despite having a gas stove. I don't know if it's gone up any, but since the gas company is owned by the city there it doesn't have to turn a profit or grow revenue enough to please investment fund managers.

I don't believe it is possible. I lived in an apartment that only used gas for the stove. That stove cost me $35/month. The $35/month fee is for maintaining the gas lines.

 

This is a newer charge, too. There used to be a minimal fee for a gas connection, and the usage based charge was higher. Sometime around 2008 or 2009, when I also lived in an apartment that only used gas to the stove, the fee was introduced and it was $25. I went from $10 a month gas bill to $35 overnight, a 350% increase in price despite using the same minimal amount of gas to cook a few nights a week. Even owning a home now that uses gas heat, during the summer months I only use gas for the stove and I’m in the same boat – paying $40 a month to be able to cook.

 

When I had an apartment in OTR I had an electric stove and only used gas for heat. I would call up Duke every April and October to have them turn off/on the gas when the heating season rolled around because I was not about to pay $35 a month and not use any gas whatsoever. I actually had an operator try to tell me I wasn’t allowed to do that once, but they gave in when I started to complain and ask for a supervisor.

 

 

I've had Duke inspectors tell me this is very common.

It certainly makes sense that you should have a fixed cost associated with the maintenance of the delivery infrastructure, which is independent of the amount of gas/electricity/water/sewer/phone/cable/etc. you actually use.  In fact, some even argue that you shouldn't be able to get out of that responsibility for payment by disconnecting service, in much the same way you can't get out of paying property taxes by abandoning a house.  Utilities, which include streets, sidewalks, transit, etc. are a collective investment that works best when everyone is connected and paying for them, making the per-user cost as low as possible since it's spread amongst everyone.  This is why cord-cutting and going off-grid are being fought so hard by the entrenched businesses, because it increases the per-user cost and drives more of them away, a slippery slope.  It's not unlike when the historic streetcar and bus systems had to start raising fares to cover increased costs and inflation.  It drove some riders away, and as they had to raise fares even more to compensate, it drove even more away and on and on until they went bankrupt. 

^^I'll have to keep that in mind. I won't need it once I stop heating my place in the Spring. That would be a pretty substantial savings.

I have this exact same problem right now and it infuriates me. My actual gas use last month was $4.65, but my hookup fee was $35. I get the shared use sentiment, but there's got to be some kind of better formula they can use to allocate the costs better.