Cincinnati Streetcars (Cleveland, Hamilton, Beavercreek: upkeep, place to live, manufacturing)

[kjbrill]

This thread is just a self-feeding beast. The Pros and Cons are not about to give in to each other. But the reality is very little in the way of any productive dialogue is now being generated. It is akin to separating into two groups and putting a chalk line down the middle of the room to divide us. You stay on your side of the line and we will stay on ours.

[The Don]

Originally Posted by deg1114

.. additional property taxes available to the city ($34 million over over 30 years). And these are all conservative numbers. There are cities who have implemented a streetcar systems where they are seeing even more than the estimated numbers.

First of all I am very suspicious of 30 year estimates -- who can predict anything over 5 years let alone 30? That is just silly.

I can remember Cincinnati in 1970 - it was a totally different entity back then - headquarters for C.G&E, First National Bank, Central Trust Bank, Shillito's McAlpin's, etc. There was so much going on, they built a second level walk way.

But anyway, let's say your figures are accurate -- $34 million over 30 years. That amounts to about $1 million per year.

The article you cite quotes a price of $100 million to build this thing. Correct me if I'm wrong by 1/100 = 1% return on investment per year.

Now I'm no investment genius, but give ME the $100 million, I assure you, I could do better than 1% return on investment.

[kjbrill]

Originally Posted by The Don

First of all I am very suspicious of 30 year estimates -- who can predict anything over 5 years let alone 30? That is just silly.

I can remember Cincinnati in 1970 - it was a totally different entity back then - headquarters for C.G&E, First National Bank, Central Trust Bank, Shillito's McAlpin's, etc. There was so much going on, they built a second level walk way.

But anyway, let's say your figures are accurate -- $34 million over 30 years. That amounts to about $1 million per year.

The article you cite quotes a price of $100 million to build this thing. Correct me if I'm wrong by 1/100 = 1% return on investment per year.

Now I'm no investment genius, but give ME the $100 million, I assure you, I could do better than 1% return on investment.

I like your math a whole lot better than the advocates. As you say, a $34 million return over 30 years is $1 million per year. Compared to a $100 million investment it is 1% or less. And compared to the actual cost including the interest to pay off the bonds/loans it is far less. And since it is still all based on estimates, I don't need to say more.

[jjakucyk]

The city is only bonding half of the project cost ($64 million) and the rest is coming from state and federal grants, so using $100 million as a cost to the city is very misleading. Also, $34 million over 30 years sounds extremely low. That may be due to deferred tax collecting from TIF zones or other tax incentives to spur development, but those kinds of incentives are by definition short-term. If there's an expected increase in property values of $379 million, that should yield $6.4 million per year in property taxes (as best as I can tell the average assessment in Cincinnati is about 1.7% annually). That's already double the operating subsidy, and there's still increases in the city income tax and sales taxes too that will come from it, or even increased parking meter fees. Savings in things like time and mileage, etc., do not benefit the city financially, they're social benefits, so their monetary value is pretty much a sham when looking at return on investment. Of course, for most road projects that time savings makes up more than 95% of the monetary "benefit" of the project. That doesn't mean time savings and convenience have no value, as that's something that makes an area more attractive. Further monetary benefits can certainly grow out of that improved convenience and access beyond what's already been analyzed.

Of course all this begs the question, if you want to scrutinize the financial aspects of this project, that's fine, but why aren't you putting the same spotlight on the supposed benefits of the new Brent Spence Bridge, or the widening of I-75, or Covington's 12th Street widening, or the rebuilding of the Waldvogel Viaduct?

[Cincy-Rise]

There is a $350+ million return.

[Wilson513]

Originally Posted by kjbrill

I like your math a whole lot better than the advocates. As you say, a $34 million return over 30 years is $1 million per year. Compared to a $100 million investment it is 1% or less. And compared to the actual cost including the interest to pay off the bonds/loans it is far less. And since it is still all based on estimates, I don't need to say more.

Putting aside the bond amortization and the annual operating costs, it is appalling that the advocates treat the federal and state grant money as "free" money as though it falls to Earth with no consequences.

First of all, money wasted on the toy train means that other federal and state grants which might have been substituted for the toy train cannot be made. And, given the back and forth horse trading in Washington and Columbus, this same money might have been available to Ohio or Cincinnati for other far more deserving projects.

Second, even though this is federal or state money, as opposed to money paid back by Cincinnati Income Tax, it is still money that we as citizens have to pay.

This irresponsible thinking is why we are where we are: at the brink of financial crises all the time. I pray for the future with this idiotic thinking prevailing.

Here is a radio show clip of some Detroit folks who want the free money too. This is the same thinking that motivates the advocates:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOZ-Etb0k0Q

[kjbrill]

Originally Posted by Cincy-Rise

There is a $350+ million return.

That's a nice figure - where does it come from? Oh, let me guess, an increase in property values over what - 30 years, with 95% of it to come in the last 5 years. So the public will invest $128 million and maybe property values will increase by 2.5 times 30 years from now after we pile up another $90 million or so in operating losses.

I will still stick with the toy train group.

[UKUKUK]

Public transportation is key in economic sustainability. The cost of sprawl (building massive sections of infrastructure to cram a smaller amount of people in a larger area) and freeway maintenance are much greater than that of the operating losses of a train. Public transportation attracts and serves density.

Read Jane Jacobs' Death and Life of Great American Cities, you'll get a better understanding for how things work.

A link to purchase this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Death-Life-Gre.../dp/067974195X

A quote from the review which may make it seem more interesting to you conservatives completely against government assistance programs:
"In response to the reviewer from N.H. who said Jacobs vindicates conservatism: I don't completely agree. Jacobs' work criticizes liberal reliance on big government housing/urban renewal projects, but is equally critical of big government highway projects that a lot of conservatives seem to like."

[Cincy-Rise]

Wilson, you mention better projects to invest in that yield a greater return ... What are they? If there is, I'm all for it!

[Wilson513]

Originally Posted by UKUKUK

Public transportation is key in economic sustainability. T

OK, here are the top 10 fastest growing cities in the US:

1 2 Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood, TX MSA 2 1 Austin-Round Rock, TX MSA 3 8 Huntsville, AL MSA 4 4 McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, TX MSA 5 5 Kennewick-Richland-Pasco, WA MSA 6 25 Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV MD 7 10 Raleigh-Cary, NC MSA 8 40 Anchorage, AK MSA 9 14 El Paso, TX MSA 10 5 Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX MSA
How much does public transportation have to do with that growth?