http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cincinnati,_New_Orleans_and_Texas_Pacific_Railway

 

Sell or keep city railroad?

By Barry M. Horstman • [email protected] • August 14, 2009

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20090814/NEWS01/908150345/Sell+or+keep+city+railroad?

 

With the city of Cincinnati trying to close a $28 million budget gap that could force police layoffs and other service cuts, the chance for City Hall to get its hands on more than $500 million seems, at first blush, an attractive option.

 

Yet most City Council members are skeptical of a possible deal that could bring in that much money, or more, through the sale of the 140-year-old Cincinnati Southern Railway, the city's least-known asset - but long one of its most profitable.

I say sale for 500 million. Interest a year alone will cover any shortfalls in city revenue FOREVER.

 

The question is whether or not the general market can provide a higher payout in interest than the railroad can pay in rent.

 

I'm betting that the general market will go down while the railroad interest will remain the same. Railroads are likely to become more valuable as a percent of market share in the future, in particular this one because there are few alternate routes.

That would make for a nice high-speed rail line to Lexington, Knoxville, Chattanooga, and Atlanta.

I followed the line on satellite views from Cincinnati to Chattanooga and it looked like a very well engineering line, though "high-speed" is probably pushing it since it is a busy freight route. It appeared to be a relatively straight alignment considering the rough terrain it travels through. Too bad it bypasses Knoxville (a station just west of it on I-40 might work tho), but that's about the only knock against it as a future passenger rail line.

That would make for a nice high-speed rail line to Lexington, Knoxville, Chattanooga, and Atlanta.

 

It handles far too much freight traffic to make it ideal for any sort of regular passenger traffic, unfortunately. As KJP noted, the line was very, very well engineered and has had nearly all of its bottlenecks and steep descents eliminated, so that it can handle medium-speed freight of up to at least 79 MPH today (sans some at-grades that need to be eliminated).

You could always add parallel tracks to handle passenger trains. The important part is that the right-of-way already exists.

True, and that would work well for a 79 mph passenger rail service (or possibly 90 mph if tilt equipment were used). But to run above 90 would require a totally separate passenger track built with its centerline 28 feet from the centerline of the nearest freight track. The right of way is probably not wide enough in some sections of the CS RR in order to do that very easily -- unless some serious earthmoving and tunneling were done. If you have to do that to exceed 90 mph, you might as well just go ahead and engineer the passenger track for 220 mph....

The CS line runs through a lot of communities where the ROW cannot be expanded, and there is that dreadful Kentucky River High Bridge ... :)

 

They did rebuild a lot of the line at King's Mountain, Ky. a few years back that can handle 50 MPH trains, but the topography in the southern reaches doesn't make high-speed really feasible for the long-term.

This is worth A LOT more than $500 million.  We are talking about s 200 mile strip of land, and many random parcels of land alongside it, and the big Kentucky and Ohio river bridges, and scores of smaller ones. And its future earnings potential, of course, which probably why NS want to buy it instead of lease it. 

Isnt this the same line where Covington wants one of the bridges painted or something because of the eye sore?

This is worth A LOT more than $500 million. We are talking about s 200 mile strip of land, and many random parcels of land alongside it, and the big Kentucky and Ohio river bridges, and scores of smaller ones. And its future earnings potential, of course, which probably why NS want to buy it instead of lease it.

 

Agreed.

 

I don't think the City should sell. Instead, it should negotiate a new contract with NS and use at least a portion of the proceeds to:

 

a) Finance a bond issue for local transit improvements and an intermodal hub. This could include at least the beginning stages of a streetcar system and avoid the naysayers by not having to go to the ballot box.

 

b) Provide a steady, year to year operating fund for transit operations, both bus and rail. This would reduce or eliminate a major problem area. Transit systems have been carrying record ridership, while cutting staff, due to reduced operating budgets.

 

There are other ideas (TIF's, etc.), which could be rolled into a transit master plan for Cincinnati. I think this should be done as soon as possible if Cincinnati is to move forward.

The Provost raises an interesting scenario about what could happen if the city sold the railroad for $1B (by law, the money would have to go into capital funds), and got another billion from the feds in matching funds. That would certainly build many miles of streetcar, finish and expand the Central Parkway subway, and add a few new transit lines within the city.

 

Presumably, the value of the existing Central Parkway subway as well as other publicly-owned rights-of-way (Oasis Line, Wasson Line, Riverfront Transit Center, etc.) could also be applied toward the federal matching funds. How much is all that stuff worth?

 

By selling the railroad, the city would lose out on the revenue stream from Norfolk Southern, but they would more than make up for it in time with all the development that would occur on the new transit lines. Build the new lines right up to the city limits, and then watch how fast the suburbs start begging for extensions to their business districts.

 

If such a scenario came to pass, Portland would be sending their public officials to Cincinnati to see how awesome the city is.

 

Never hurts to dream a little...

I'm not 35 lawyers, which is the kind of army that's going to get involved with this.  But I do suspect that this is much farther along than they'll say at this moment.

 

The federal government has been awarding 50% matches to local funding for transit projects since the late 1970's, and sometimes much more.  But 50% is the bare minimum for ones that go through the federal review process.  So if this railroad is worth $500 million, it could turn into $1 billion.  If it's $1 billion, it turns into $2 billion. It's like a 401(k) match -- that investment from the 1880's has not only made tons of money for the city while we owned it, all the sudden its sale price is instantly doubled. Also, the existing subway tunnel, if used, is worth $100 million so could be bundled to receive another $100 million in federal funds.   

 

Obviously, there will be pressure to build a city-wide rail network with such a windfall, which will mean a lot of surface streetcar and/or light rail lines. $2 billion could build a big-time subway between downtown, UC, the hospitals, and XU, but not much more than that.

 

I do think the idea of building a rail network that stops at the city limits and at the river would not only provide the city with an advantage over its surroundings, but also move along efforts for Hamilton county and NK to connect to it with their own funds. Hell, set up a situation where Kentucky and Hamilton county have to pay Cincinnati to run their trains on Cincinnati's tracks.   

When the interstate highways were being built, the feds provided $9 for every $1 provided by local and state governments. With that sort of match, Cincinnati could build a full-on Washington Metro system for the entire region. (As it so happens, the Surface Transportation Authorization Act, which includes National Infrastructure Bank, is currently working its way through Congress, so who knows how the federal matching formula will work in a couple years.)

 

While they're at it, have the city buy development properties along the proposed transit lines, even out in the suburbs. They'd have to pay property taxes to the county and the burbs, but they'd also reap the windfall when the real estate market improves. This is pretty much how Singapore's transit agency manages to be the only subway system in the world that actually turns a profit.

I think you hit the point where the city could get burned -- if the federal match situation improves, and then all the sudden all cities get this kind of funding. That's what happened to the states that built turnpikes and cities that built their own expressways before the interstate highway act. I think those places did work out deals where they at least got some of the money back.

 

The other issue -- reaching the cities most distant neighborhoods eats up track miles that could be in the city proper, and reaching Bond Hill and Pleasant Ridge, specifically, means going through Norwood, which is not Cincinnati.  Hopefully that run through Norwood could be partly funded by the county or state.  The original subway was built through Norwood entirely with Cincinnati funds.   

 

 

If the railroad gets sold, it would take some time to develop a master plan for spending the money and to go through the process of submitting that plan to the feds. By that time, hopefully the Surface Transportation Act will be law and the city would have a better idea of what's possible.

 

There are ways to get around the city/suburban issue, especially in the case of an island like Norwood. The city could purchase the right-of-way through places like Norwood without formally annexing the property, but they wouldn't have power of eminent domain unless some deal is reached with the county and/or the suburb. For example, the City of Chicago owns a big chunk of neighboring DuPage County that happens to fall within the boundaries of O'Hare Airport, and O'Hare itself is only part of Chicago because it's connected to the rest of the city by a 200-foot-wide strip of land that runs through Rosemont and Schiller Park.

 

The first phase of any regional rail plan -- that which is paid for by the railroad sale -- could be entirely within the city of Cincinnati, but I think it would need to be built according to a long-term master plan that includes the entire region. But if such a sale were to take place (since we're talking hypotheticals here), I'd argue that the city should set up a strong regional transportation authority to plan and build the system. The city would appoint a certain number of board members to this new authority (preferably a majority), but Northern Kentucky and the other suburbs would ideally have a seat at the table as well.

 

As you say, it would take a small army of lawyers to work out all the details.

Obviously, there will be higher overall ridership if suburban lines are built.  Problem is, that can influence the path of lines in the city, away from key business districts and developable pieces of property.

 

I could definitely see big spending in the the downtown and uptown areas sacrificed for losing propositions like rail to Westwood.  That place likes to brag that it's the biggest city in the neighborhood, which it is technically, but it has almost zero businesses and contributes just 1% to the city's annual bottom line.  So literally instead of a Mt. Auburn tunnel, we could have some 3,000 per-day light rail line heading up Queen City Avenue. 

I can't think of many logical reasons to sell this RR. Like Bortz said, only if you are talking about an absurd windfall where you have enough money to endow an account that earns $20 million per year AND have hundreds of millions left over.

 

Also - with all respect - anyone who thinks the sale of the RR would be used to fund comprehensive mass transit is completely delusional (although I can appreciate the wishful thinking). The money would go to capital funds, and maybe fund the current streetcar plan, or the Eastern Corridor plan. But the other $400 million would be shoved directly into ill-advised road construction and other auto-oriented infrastructure projects. Come on, you all know that's exactly what would happen.

 

I think the city would have to specifically spell-out that proceeds from the sale of the RR goes towards mass transit - otherwise it's going straight to roads. Even then, I fear that a billion dollar capital infusion would just encourage people to make bad decisions with "free" money - like the current Eastern Corridor alignment.

 

Perhaps I'd be less skeptical if the city had any solid plans for a quality light rail or commuter rail system. But right now, all they have is the streetcar plan (which is good) and the Eastern Corridor plan (which is a damn abortion which should never happen as currently proposed). 

^

I fear that a billion dollar capital infusion would just encourage people to make bad decisions with "free" money - like the current Eastern Corridor alignment.

 

I completely agree.  As appealing as someone's transit wet dream was earlier stated, I'd be afraid that $1 billion would be extremely prone to a quick jerk.  That's why we leave it up to the feds to filter money down to local entities, who can show that they have the necessary blocks in place before spending money.

I'm willing to follow along with the idea of the benefits of incremental mass transit growth, but I don't see Cincinnati having the near term capacity to grow quick enough to fully recoup the investment that would flow from selling the RR. You give up cash in hand for the hope that you could do what? I don't see Cincy displacing Chicago as the midwest metro. I guess it could recapture a claim to the dominant metro of the Ohio Valley but that entire valley has been declining for a half-century nearly at this point. Unless you can get cash in hand yearly that is equal to or greater than what we get now into perpetuity then I'd have to say no.

 

You can't fix CPS with a mass transit system, you can't solve Cincinnati's segregated living patterns, you can only hope to transform the anti-urban bias of the larger metro.

Interesting development in this story: NS plans major work on the Cincinnati Southern as part of it's overall capital expenditurs plan....

 

NS boosts capital spending by 12 percent for 2012

 

During its fourth-quarter earnings conference yesterday, Norfolk Southern Corp. announced it has budgeted $2.4 billion for capital spending in 2012, up 12 percent compared with 2011’s $2.16 billion budget. Replacement and core spending will total about $1.6 billion, or 67 percent of the total budget, said Executive Vice President and Chief Information Officer Deborah Butler.

 

NS plans to spend $840 million on roadway projects, including rail, tie and ballast programs, and bridge and culvert replacements. The budget also allocates $322 million for facilities and terminals, such as mechanical shops, industrial products facilities and intermodal terminals along NS’ Crescent Corridor intermodal route between New Jersey and Louisiana. The railroad plans to complete three Crescent Corridor terminals this year in Alabama, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee. The facilities/terminals budget also will help fund a multi-year initiative to expand and update NS’ locomotive servicing facility, said Butler.

 

Read more at: http://www.progressiverailroading.com/financials/news/NS-boosts-capital-spending-by-12-percent-for-2012--29612

That's interesting about the PTC installations, too. If you increased curve super-elevations and lengthened warning circuits at road crossings, passenger trains can operate up to 90 mph on PTC signaled NS lines. Glad to see NS is going ahead and doing this work. It's perhaps the greatest expense to attaining 90 mph.

That's interesting about the PTC installations, too. If you increased curve super-elevations and lengthened warning circuits at road crossings, passenger trains can operate up to 90 mph on PTC signaled NS lines. Glad to see NS is going ahead and doing this work. It's perhaps the greatest expense to attaining 90 mph.

 

Now let's put on an Auto Train between Northern Kentucky and Sanford, Fl. It'd be very interesting if NS and/or a private operator could acquire and rebuild secondhand Ex-Santa Fe hilevel cars and run it as a for-profit operation. Or, maybe Amtrak if it wakes up to the opportunity.

 

As far as the income to the city from the railroad goes, I realize that it goes to city coffers for a variety of purposes, but it represents exactly the sort of dedicated revenue stream we have dreamed of in Ohio for rail projects. I wonder if it would be possible to use it to help bankroll a joint powers authority to develop rail service between NKY (Airport)-Cincinnati, Dayton and Columbus? This could also be considered a transit project since it's well under the 135 mile limit for eligibility for FTA funding, bypassing a hostile state government.

 

I'd like to suggest that a proposal be made to the City of Cincinnati to ask that it help create a JPA, with funding allocated to leverage bonds to get the project rolling. I'd further suggest that the city solicit developers to partner with the city and other en route communities, especially Dayton and Riverside. At one point Forest City Enterprises was set to spend hundreds of million of dollars in the latter two cities. Maybe they could be enticed again. We have to keep trying to keep moving the ball forward.

 

Is there an easy way to see where the money from the Cincinnati Southern goes?

 

(Probably someone from Cincinnati would be better suited to answer this, so it's not necessarily directed towards KJP and BuckeyeB.)

 

Edit: Looking through some budget documents on the city webpage. So far I see this:

Southern Railway Note Proceeds.  Cincinnati owns the Cincinnati Southern Railway and leases its

use.  In 1987, the City renegotiated the terms of the lease for more favorable annual income.  The

City Council endorsed a policy by resolution to dedicate resources generated by the Southern

Railway to infrastructure projects.  The notes issued and interest income provide a resource for

infrastructure projects.

 

I'll add anything else here which I find interesting.

 

Considering the way some people go nuts about gas tax revenue being restricted to road spending, you'd think the railway revenue being used exclusively (or primarily) for rail projects would have a significant political following, right? My guess is those same people would be those most against such a proposal. I'm sure city officials would not like it either, though.

 

I do think this is a positive (promising?) place to look. If we could come up with a plan which doesn't pull too much away from general funds, but supplies a steady stream of income for railway projects, it would be worth petitioning for a ballot initiative. With some COAST-style (but more honest) ballot language engineering, it could be worded in a way to make it sound reasonable and appealing to voters.

I believe the lease was renewed in 1987 for 30 years, if correct, that means it's up in 2017. Plenty of time to get our act together. By that time the streetcar should be up and running and we might be on our way with other projects. By 2017, we will have a record of success to base our push for this fund on. Maybe the thing to do is push for a dedicated public transportation fund that would include the JPA I proposed previously.

 

As far as financing goes, tax increment financing, dedication of a portion of new income and other taxes collected, contributions from developers and a new passenger facility charge at the airport could all be leveraged with bonds and matched with federal contributions. Hopefully, by the time this starts Kasich will be history and the state will have a more enlightened attitude. :-)

Cincinnati's use of the revenue is defined by state law.  It was revised in the late 40s to pay Cincinnati's expressway construction debt. Specifically, railroad income was permitted to expand bonding, not just pay bond interest.  I suggested in my book that the railroad's revenue could have been used to finance completion of the subway, so I beat y'all to this idea several years ago!

Cincinnati's use of the revenue is defined by state law.  It was revised in the late 40s to pay Cincinnati's expressway construction debt. Specifically, railroad income was permitted to expand bonding, not just pay bond interest.  I suggested in my book that the railroad's revenue could have been used to finance completion of the subway, so I beat y'all to this idea several years ago!

 

Great minds think alike! Shall we rename Cincinnati Union Terminal the Mecklenborg Intermodal Center in your honor?  :-D

As far as financing goes, tax increment financing, dedication of a portion of new income and other taxes collected, contributions from developers and a new passenger facility charge at the airport could all be leveraged with bonds and matched with federal contributions. Hopefully, by the time this starts Kasich will be history and the state will have a more enlightened attitude. :-)

 

That is only possible for a verrry small range of projects. If anyone but airline passengers benefit from the infrastructure, PFCs cannot be used. End of story.

 

So they might be used for a station at the airport, but it's highly doubtful they could be used for laying any track. And there can be no park & ride or anything at such a station. Airport customers only.

 

Edit: Actually, I see a potential trap here. If tracks were laid going to the airport with the use of PFCs, it would then be impossible under federal law to extend the tracks elsewhere, as they would no longer dead end at the airport, which would allow non-airline customers to use the track. Similarly, no stops would be able to be added along tracks funded with PFCs.

As far as financing goes, tax increment financing, dedication of a portion of new income and other taxes collected, contributions from developers and a new passenger facility charge at the airport could all be leveraged with bonds and matched with federal contributions. Hopefully, by the time this starts Kasich will be history and the state will have a more enlightened attitude. :-)

 

That is only possible for a verrry small range of projects. If anyone but airline passengers benefit from the infrastructure, PFCs cannot be used. End of story.

 

So they might be used for a station at the airport, but it's highly doubtful they could be used for laying any track. And there can be no park & ride or anything at such a station. Airport customers only.

 

Edit: Actually, I see a potential trap here. If tracks were laid going to the airport with the use of PFCs, it would then be impossible under federal law to extend the tracks elsewhere, as they would no longer dead end at the airport, which would allow non-airline customers to use the track. Similarly, no stops would be able to be added along tracks funded with PFCs.

 

If that's true, it's a stupid policy that just reinforces the same-old, same-old....

>no longer dead end at the airport

 

Take a look at the Silver LIne metro extension in Washington.  Dulles is 20 miles from DC, but they are planning two more stations beyond the airport. 

Ahem.... Topic?

So...on September 28, 2013 councilman Charlie Winburn suggested selling the railroad to fill the city's pension deficit.  Horrible idea even if it was legal. 

 

So...did anyone hear the estimated sale price in 2009?  Apparently it was studied in August 2009 but I glanced over the year's meeting minutes and there was no mention of it. 

 

If anyone is interested, an explanation of how Norfolk-Southern's payment to Cincinnati is calculated each year is explained here:

http://cincinnatisouthernrailway.org/documents/Supplementary-Agreement-Jan-1-1987.pdf

 

This will make your head hurt a little:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GDP_deflator

 

 

So...on September 28, 2013 councilman Charlie Winburn suggested selling the railroad to fill the city's pension deficit.  Horrible idea even if it was legal. 

 

So...did anyone hear the estimated sale price in 2009?  Apparently it was studied in August 2009 but I glanced over the year's meeting minutes and there was no mention of it. 

 

If anyone is interested, an explanation of how Norfolk-Southern's payment to Cincinnati is calculated each year is explained here:

http://cincinnatisouthernrailway.org/documents/Supplementary-Agreement-Jan-1-1987.pdf

 

This will make your head hurt a little:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GDP_deflator

 

 

 

I don't understand financial stuff like this. Can you explain it?

I do not have any background in finance.  However it appears that there was a base payment of $11,000,0000 in 1988, then each yeah the payment either goes up or goes down based on the growth of the U.S. economy and inflation as determined by that government-calculated figure.

 

I do not have any background in finance.  However it appears that there was a base payment of $11,000,0000 in 1988, then each yeah the payment either goes up or goes down based on the growth of the U.S. economy and inflation as determined by that government-calculated figure.

 

 

Got it.

 

I'd like to see the railroad sold by the city and the amount used to upgrade the Chicago-Cincinnati rail line for 110 mph passenger trains by day and fast intermodal freight trains by night.

I do not have any background in finance.  However it appears that there was a base payment of $11,000,0000 in 1988, then each yeah the payment either goes up or goes down based on the growth of the U.S. economy and inflation as determined by that government-calculated figure.

 

 

Got it.

 

I'd like to see the railroad sold by the city and the amount used to upgrade the Chicago-Cincinnati rail line for 110 mph passenger trains by day and fast intermodal freight trains by night.

 

Some of the proceeds from the railroad lease could be used to leverage a RRIF loan to do this. The beauty of this is that as is the case with the proposed Columbus-Chicago line, this route is mostly secondary and lightly used.

I do not have any background in finance.  However it appears that there was a base payment of $11,000,0000 in 1988, then each yeah the payment either goes up or goes down based on the growth of the U.S. economy and inflation as determined by that government-calculated figure.

 

 

Got it.

 

I'd like to see the railroad sold by the city and the amount used to upgrade the Chicago-Cincinnati rail line for 110 mph passenger trains by day and fast intermodal freight trains by night.

 

That would never work.  The railroad currently provides $19 million of annual capital to Cincinnati each year.  Just to be clear, The City only spends about $60 or so million in general capital each year.  So the railroad is about 1/3 of the City's general capital expenditures.

 

Secondly, there would never be a City who took one of its most valuable assets, sold it (which they wouldn't get near the full value for- it's estimated to be valued at over $1 billion, but Norfolk southern isn't going to pay that), then funded an upgrade through two other states for a service managed by a federal agency and hoped that sources outside of their control (Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Federal government) didn't stop the service at some point in the future.  City's should never ever ever be funding things through other states, let alone very far outside their own borders.  If they were going to leverage it in another way, it should be for more rail in Cincinnati.  OR for major terminal upgrades at Union Terminal as part of an increase in passenger service due to an upgrade on the line to Chicago. 

 

But not sell the line to fund the upgrades ourselves.

Never ever ever?? :)

The legal situation is odd because there was (and I believe still is) no legal framework that allows a municipality to own and operate a common carrier railroad.  So once it was finished being built, the city leased the property to the CNO&TP, which became part of the Southern Railway and now Norfolk Southern.  The leasing railroad is responsible for all maintenance, tunnels, tracks, bridges, etc., which I believe they own outright at this point, but I could be wrong on that.  Anyway, the point is that I believe all the city actually owns is the right-of-way, i.e. the land, but not any of the equipment or infrastructure.  That makes it less valuable to sell off. 

I think N-S has the right of first refusal, meaning we must offer to sell it to them first.  This right does not expire until something like 2051.  This means N-S gets to dictate the sale price, which will be much lower than its market value.  Its sale price independent of the N-S right of first refusal would be very high, in the billions.  Think about it this way: How much principal do you need to get a 5% return equaling $20,000,000?  Somewhere around $4 billion. 

Consider that the state of North Carolina owns the North Carolina Railroad from Charlotte to Morehead City (317 miles). NCDOT uses the revenues from leasing that line as a local share for federal capital grants to upgrade the line for freight and passenger service. I believe NCDOT also uses some of the lease revenues to purchase service from Amtrak.

Unfortunately I know very little about the finances or ownership of the Cincinnati Southern Railroad. I do think it seems shortsighted to sell the asset to pay off the pension obligations. We should be using any money gained from a sale to improve the city and thus increase revenue the city sees from taxes. Though I'm not saying we should sell it in the first place, just that using it to pay off the pension obligations would be foolish.

There's probably an accounting gimmick by which the railroad could be sold to Hamilton County or the State of Ohio or the Port Authority which would protect some ongoing revenue for the city but also provide an upfront payout ala the parking lease.  However it would take a pretty brilliant legal and financial expert to investigate that possibility. 

Cincinnati should hold on to it, and may be in 20 years turn it into a high speed rail line!

I find this endlessly fascinating. How about a rail line to Atlanta, Chattanooga, Cincy, and Chicago, but I'll settle for the small town of Columbus ;-).

This month's issue of Trains Magazine features the Cincinnati Southern (aka the Rat Hole) as it's cover story. If you're at all interested in the history, development, and current operations of the line it is a must-read.

 

I think it also does a good job pointing out how difficult it would be for the city to sell the line. While it is extremely useful to NS, few other railroads would get the same value from the property. Without at least 2 legitimate bidders, I doubt Cincinnati would get the line's full value as a lump-sum.

In May, I went on the "New Royal Palm" service on the Cincinnati Southern Railway, from Cincinnati to Danville, KY and back. This is part of the 21st Century Steam program operated by Norfolk Southern and the Tennessee Valley Railroad Museum. It was pulled by a restored steam engine, the Southern 630 (as well as two diesel locomotives).

 

 

Also check out my photos from the trip.

Cincinnati should hold on to it, and may be in 20 years turn it into a high speed rail line!

 

I think the city would be very wise to negotiate the right to have passenger service on this line as a part of a new lease agreement with NS when that comes due. The city should retain ownership of the line and at least a part of the proceeds used for public transportation improvements including the expansion of the streetcar, Cincinnati Union Terminal and other rail passenger services.