Cincinnati Streetcars

[Jay Andress]

  It looks like Cincinnati will be installing a streetcar system. The Feds just announced that they are awarding $25 million to the project. The total project cost is about $110 million. With state assistance (about $10 million) this is going to be mostly locally funded.

   I just can't believe that this is going to happen. It can't be justified from an environmental, energy or transportation position. It is basically an amusement park ride in downtown that will hopefully draw residents and businesses. It is even opposed by about 60% of the residents!!!

   We are also getting a casino downtown so maybe it will work is rejuvenating the downtown. Maybe I'm just too old fashioned.

                                                                                                  Jay

[Jerry Roane]

Jay

Wow a casino!!!  That is great I will certainly take a high speed train ride to Cincinnati to go see a casino!  I never made the connection before but it makes sense.  Cincinnati starts with sin and what better competition to sin city than a city whose name is already cin (sin).  Are they going to fund all education with the billions lost on the craps tables or are they just keeping the widow's money in the state by offering electronic slot machines?  I can see how transportation wins by not transporting the widows to the old sin city to waste their husband's life savings.  The pres did say to stay away from Las Vegas.  I want the cigarette concession at the casino.  I will get rich supplying the nicotine to the gamblers.  You can supply the cheap houch.

I share your frustration observing the federal government doing what they do best, attempting to buy votes and using leveraging to get credit for more than they pay for. 

Since everyone wants to live behind a casino urban life should really be fantastic.  When the mob throws the accused card counting gambler off the roof won't they land in some urbanite's yard?  Is that visual intrusion? 

Jerry Roane

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group.
To post to this group, send email to transport-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transport-innova...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators?hl=en.

[Jerry Schneider]

Sounds like the downtown stakeholders are running the show already in
Cincinnati - true? If the public doesn't want it (i.e. the voters),
why would the feds fund it if the object is to get votes? Doesn't make sense.

- Jerry Schneider -
Innovative Transportation Technologies
http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans

[Jerry Roane]

Jerry

I think the votes are called campaign contributions.

I agree it does not make sense at face value so there must be something else going on.

Jerry Roane

[Jay Andress]

I think that Jerry Schneider is right. The downtown powers (business and developers) wanted this to happen and that is why it is moving ahead. The mayor (who is supposedly a populist Democrat) has surprisingly had a very myopic view of this. I think that it is bizarre. The only way I can justify this is that if downtown is revitalized that will be good for the City. I imagine that this will end any flirtation the City has had in the past with PRT.

   One lesson to learn....everyone in this group suffers because we do not have a lobbying group to push our agenda.

[Jerry Roane]

Jay

I thought you were our lobbyist!  I have done my share of this kind of activity but obviously I suck at being a lobbyist from the net total result.  I think it takes a lobbyist and cashola.  I know several lobbyists around this state capitol but they drive pretty nice cars and live in the gated, guard-manned community.  I doubt we could even touch that realm.     

On the positive side of rehabilitating downtowns it does look bad to have blight in any part of a town even if it is the dysfunctional part.  Land speculation in downtowns causes significant decay as the land owners wait it out till their parking lot gets bought up for a condo high rise.  Austin has a number of these ugly weed filled lots worth millions but not yet sold.  They do surface parking at a nominal fee while the land prices supposedly go up.  If downtowns were not favored this speculation by a few super-rich who can sit on a few million for years would end.  An easier approach would be to tax the empty land higher making it uncomfortable to hoard downtown land like is the accepted practice.  Once land is released to businesses at a price they are willing to pay then you do not need trolleys or federal subsidies.  If a piece of land goes down the price goes down till it sells and that is urban renewal without federal money being paid to the super-rich interests. 

Jerry Roane

[Kirston Henderson]

Jerry,

Almost nothing that I have seen LaHood do makes any sense to me!

Kirston

[Jerry Schneider]

My guess is that he is trying to help the Administration stay in
office by doing things that
please people who are likely to vote to do so - and given the lively
response in his blog,
I sense that he is doing a "good" job. He is a politician, not an
engineer and behaves like one.

One needs to think hard about why streetcars are so popular with
urban stakeholders and many members of the general public,
beyond the "free" federal money (ignoring the paperwork that is
needed to apply for it, which one can hire people to do who know how
to do it) that is available to help pay for them.

[Walter Brewer]

Federal money, aka nation taxpayer money largely collected through the
income tax system.

Walt Brewer

[Jerry Schneider]

At 11:05 AM 7/12/2010, you wrote:
>Federal money, aka nation taxpayer money largely collected through
>the income tax system.

Yes, that is what it is. It's supposed to be used for public purposes
to provide for the common good, infrastructure in this case.
All you have to do to get it is write a competitive proposal, do a
lot of advocacy with the "right" electeds (willing and able), and
come up with the local share (also taxpayers money). My "free" label
is an exaggeration, but from the recipients point of view, not far
off. Other points of view are, of course, possible.

[Walter Brewer]

Agree most think it is free.

San Diego has a plan up for consideration of a multi $ milllion one stop
shelter, and medical/dental/etc/etc facility. Investment about $130,000 per
bed.

To a question: shouldn't traxpayers expect some sort of meaningful
intervention program to restore capable homeless to self support, the answer
by an activist for homeless was, there is Federal money available to help
build the facility.

Walt Brewer
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jerry Schneider" <j...@peak.org>
To: <transport-...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 2:18 PM
Subject: Re: [t-i] Cincinnati Streetcars

[Jerry Schneider]

At 11:46 AM 7/12/2010, you wrote:
>Agree most think it is free.
>
>San Diego has a plan up for consideration of a multi $ milllion one
>stop shelter, and medical/dental/etc/etc facility. Investment about
>$130,000 per bed.
>
>To a question: shouldn't traxpayers expect some sort of meaningful
>intervention program to restore capable homeless to self support,
>the answer by an activist for homeless was, there is Federal money
>available to help build the facility.

The analogy is valid, I think. The money is available, the
stakeholders along the route think that a "fixed transit" investment
by the public will improve their property values. Some ordinary
people will support the idea just because they like the prospect of
streetcars making a comeback (or LRT in some cases).

[Walter Brewer]

Great bases for "investing" taxpayer money!

Walt Brewer
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jerry Schneider" <j...@peak.org>
To: <transport-...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 4:22 PM
Subject: Re: [t-i] Cincinnati Streetcars