1,800 HIGH paying GE jobs to Cincinnati... THANK YOU STREETCAR!

[Ocklawaha]

General Electric will build its new global operations center at the Banks.

Making an impact on the city, parking, the ability to draw young talent and the streetcar were among the factors that led General Electric to choose the Banks over other potential sites in Mason and Oakley for its U.S. global operations center, company and government officials said Monday.

"We had four very competitive bids," said Joe Allen, general manager of GE's new shared services center. "The Banks was not the cheapest when it came down to it, but it was attractive for what we're trying to develop, which is to bring 2,000 world-class folks to a great facility."

GE spokesman Rick Kennedy shot down a rumor that a deal to put the new site, which will employ 1,800, in Oakley had been struck and then reversed.

"That's not true," Kennedy said. "We didn't make a decision on Oakley and then change our mind."

Company officials told the city and the county that both parking for older employees and public transit was important because many of the employees who will work there will be millennials, who increasingly do not want to have to drive everywhere.

"Parking was absolutely critical," said Tom Gabelman, a Frost Brown Todd attorney who advises the county on the Banks project and other economic development initiatives. County commissioners signed off on a 30 percent discount for GE employees parking at the Banks.

"I can tell you that unequivocally in one of our first meetings with General Electric, the access in terms of transit was very critical. The fact that the city had committed to doing the streetcar was one of the items that they cited as important for them to move forward in looking at the Banks as a potential location."

Cincinnati Mayor John Cranley, who has been strongly against the Cincinnati streetcar project, said he was skeptical that the streetcar was an important factor in GE's decision.
source: http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/blog/2014/06/why-ge-chose-the-banks.html?page=all

NOTE TO JACKSONVILLE COUNCIL MEMBERS: ASK GE!!!

[thelakelander]

Cincinnati Mayor John Cranley, who has been strongly against the Cincinnati streetcar project, said he was skeptical that the streetcar was an important factor in GE's decision.

LOL, so he rather call the company's officials liars than admit he was wrong and take the credit for landing 2k jobs in downtown Cincy? That's great leadership!

[Ocklawaha]

Yeah, same thing I was thinking, then it occurred to me why not get a letter from GE stating that fact and running it here?

[ronchamblin]

The following statement in the article reminds me to wonder again why the streetcar seems so much more desirable than the bus ... to me that is ... and I suspect to some others.     

"I can tell you that unequivocally in one of our first meetings with General Electric, the access in terms of transit was very critical. The fact that the city had committed to doing the streetcar was one of the items that they cited as important for them to move forward in looking at the Banks as a potential location."

Of course, the mayor opposed the streetcar ... as follows: 

"Cincinnati Mayor John Cranley, who has been strongly against the Cincinnati streetcar project, said he was skeptical that the streetcar was an important factor in GE's decision."

I remember riding the streetcar in Baltimore in the late forties, and might have ridden them in Jax, after we moved here in '49.  Time confuses memory.

In a practical sense, the streetcar seems to be cleaner to operate ... no diesel fumes .. at least on the road.  After all, the electricity is often produced with the byproduct of smoke and fumes from a coal burning power station. 

But why do the streetcars look so much more attractive?  Are they cute?  They always seem to be more colorful.  They don't go as fast as the buses.  But then, they don't have to while running in the inner city areas.

What of the necessity to have overhead power lines to supply electricity to the cars?  Is this ugly to some?  It wouldn't make good sense to power these things via the tracks, as someone might get fried.  The streetcar has an interesting sound ... its quiet and different.  One can hear the electric motor.  And just knowing that its path will not deviate from the tracks is strangely comforting. 

Are we bored with so many buses?   "Oh ... another one of those buses.  Wouldn't it be fun to see some streetcars ... just a few.  They are so brightly painted ... don't give off fumes ... are quiet ... simply unique."

What if we had had streetcars in Jax straight through the fifties and into the 21st century?  What if they were now running into and out of the city, to and from the suburbs, and throughout the city core?  Would we then say ... "Let's get some buses ... and get rid of these streetcars.  Damned tracks are all over the place.  Can't we do better?  Grumman is making some nice looking buses ... and offering some real deals to our city.  And buses can run slow in the city core, and fast on the highway ... and way out into the outer suburbs."

I must admit that I like the idea of the streetcar ... its looks ... its sound .. and its clean operation.  And the power generating station smoke stack can always be cleaned up.  Overall, I suspect that most people would like the streetcar too.

But is it a practical thing to do?  We know it is ultimately environmentally friendly ... and that it adds color to the core ambience.  But is it ultimately economically friendly ... over the long run? 

There must be some significant plus to the streetcars ... over the buses that is ... else why would we see other cities bringing them back? 

[thelakelander]

Ron, the GE example Ock shared basically answers your last question. The major plus is that they are a catalyst for economic development.  Just that GE office alone will more than pay for Cincinnati's investment indirectly (increased tax rolls, 1000s on payroll living and spending money in Cincy, etc.). Major infill projects like GE, then turn around and heavily contribute to the concept of downtown vibrancy, which is more economic development and money into the city's pockets. You simply don't get that wth buses.

[ronchamblin]

Ron, the GE example Ock shared basically answers your last question. The major plus is that they are a catalyst for economic development.  Just that GE office alone will more than pay for Cincinnati's investment indirectly (increased tax rolls, 1000s on payroll living and spending money in Cincy, etc.). Major infill projects like GE, then turn around and heavily contribute to the concept of downtown vibrancy, which is more economic development and money into the city's pockets. You simply don't get that wth buses.

I guess I was trying to understand the more fundamental aspects ... that is, if we understand that the streetcars do become catalysts for economic development ... why and how.  I suspect these questions are answered in earlier MJ coverage ... will go back and see.  Perhaps I can then understand the basic economics of it.   

Of course, to a degree, the fact that GE states its approval of, and desire to engage, the streetcar environment is enough of an answer as to why the streetcar can be a catalyst to development.  Perhaps it is enough for anyone, including GE persons, to simply enjoy the bright colors, the quiet, the clean running, and I assume, the ultimate efficiency, and other positives, whatever they are, not offered by buses.   

The bottom line however, as you've mentioned, is the significant long range push to economic development and revitalization ... which is, finally, the great positive ... and I suppose, enough of an explanation for the issue.

[strider]

We once had a Thrift Store on Main ST.  There was a bus stop right at the corner.  The day they closed that particular bus stop we lost 25% of our business. That is the difference between Street Car (fixed rail) and buses.  Once the investment in fixed rail and the station is made, the odds are it will be there as long as the street car is, presumably many decades due to the investment costs.  With wheeled buses, stops can change on a whim, here to day, gone tomorrow.  To me, it is basic dollars and sense.

[thelakelander]

Ron, the GE example Ock shared basically answers your last question. The major plus is that they are a catalyst for economic development.  Just that GE office alone will more than pay for Cincinnati's investment indirectly (increased tax rolls, 1000s on payroll living and spending money in Cincy, etc.). Major infill projects like GE, then turn around and heavily contribute to the concept of downtown vibrancy, which is more economic development and money into the city's pockets. You simply don't get that wth buses.

I guess I was trying to understand the more fundamental aspects ... that is, if we understand that the streetcars do become catalysts for economic development ... why and how.

Investments in permanent transportation infrastructure tend to lead to supporting economic development.  In that sense, a fixed transit system is no different from a "fixed" road.  Build an expressway with interchanges to high capacity roads and eventually, it will sprout tract home subdivisions, strip malls, and fast food joints. Fixed transit has the ability to do the same with the major difference being resulting development tends to be pedestrian scale while roads trigger autocentric development.  Rubber wheeled transit does neither because very few are willing to invest dollars tying into something that could easily be switched to another route the next day.

[ronchamblin]

I love being enlightened to these fundamental aspects of an issue.  It humbles me to realize I could miss one of such obvious impact.  Tnx Strider and Lake. 

[Ocklawaha]

The following statement in the article reminds me to wonder again why the streetcar seems so much more desirable than the bus ... to me that is ... and I suspect to some others.     

"I can tell you that unequivocally in one of our first meetings with General Electric, the access in terms of transit was very critical. The fact that the city had committed to doing the streetcar was one of the items that they cited as important for them to move forward in looking at the Banks as a potential location."

Of course, the mayor opposed the streetcar ... as follows: 

"Cincinnati Mayor John Cranley, who has been strongly against the Cincinnati streetcar project, said he was skeptical that the streetcar was an important factor in GE's decision."

I remember riding the streetcar in Baltimore in the late forties, and might have ridden them in Jax, after we moved here in '49.  Time confuses memory.

The Jax cars made their last run on a COLD rainy day in December of 1936.

In a practical sense, the streetcar seems to be cleaner to operate ... no diesel fumes .. at least on the road.  After all, the electricity is often produced with the byproduct of smoke and fumes from a coal burning power station.

Or conversely, CNG power plants, tidal power, hydroelectric power, solar power, wind power, etc. See Calgary's RIDE THE WIND! http://library.tac-atc.ca/proceedings/2002/calgary.pdf

But why do the streetcars look so much more attractive?  Are they cute?  They always seem to be more colorful.  They don't go as fast as the buses.  But then, they don't have to while running in the inner city areas.

Streetcars have faster acceleration, stronger braking and can attain much higher speeds then transit buses, but as you say they are pretty contained in city traffic lanes, which is something systems then and now try to avoid in all but downtown segments. IE: The original Jax system ran in landscaped medians and on the side of the road on lines like Ortega, Panama Park, Main Street, San Jose, Kings Road, etc.

Streetcars have about double the passenger capacity of a bus and can be operated as a train with a single operator.


Slow is a myth, this photo of the car pacing a plane - and winning the race, at 97.9 MPH, you can't do this with a transit bus, you would need a over-the-road motor coach to come close.

What of the necessity to have overhead power lines to supply electricity to the cars?  Is this ugly to some?  It wouldn't make good sense to power these things via the tracks, as someone might get fried.  The streetcar has an interesting sound ... its quiet and different.  One can hear the electric motor.  And just knowing that its path will not deviate from the tracks is strangely comforting.

Tracks are a permanent investment (except in the case municipal urban suicide).  Overhead is optional today, though I'd add that in a heritage system it's pretty much a given for nostalgia's sake BUT not a requirement. Overhead needn't be ugly with a single strand trolley wire, see the Tucson photos. OKC is doing a modern system, they will use wire in some area's and none in others. New battery technology makes this possible, charging on the wire segments and running battery on others. Induction charging with a electromagnetic plate under the pavement is also a possibility today, all of the Disney Main Street vehicles use this system and they run HEAVY all day and half the night, charging at each stop invisibly.

Are we bored with so many buses?   "Oh ... another one of those buses.  Wouldn't it be fun to see some streetcars ... just a few.  They are so brightly painted ... don't give off fumes ... are quiet ... simply unique."

Buses certainly have a dominant role in transit, as they will serve lighter density lines, while the much higher capacity streetcars serve the core routes.

What if we had had streetcars in Jax straight through the fifties and into the 21st century?  What if they were now running into and out of the city, to and from the suburbs, and throughout the city core?  Would we then say ... "Let's get some buses ... and get rid of these streetcars.  Damned tracks are all over the place.  Can't we do better?  Grumman is making some nice looking buses ... and offering some real deals to our city.  And buses can run slow in the city core, and fast on the highway ... and way out into the outer suburbs."

Had that been the case the system would have continued to upgrade and today we'd probably have modern cars just like Boston, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Pittsburgh etc. And like those cities, we would consider going to an all bus fleet a huge demotion in service. We would also have a much more pedestrian friendly and probably larger downtown core. Pittsburgh pioneered BRT by scrapping some of the streetcar lines and found it to be MUCH MORE expensive over the long run, thus they upgraded the streetcars to Light-Rail running in subways downtown.

I must admit that I like the idea of the streetcar ... its looks ... its sound .. and its clean operation.  And the power generating station smoke stack can always be cleaned up.  Overall, I suspect that most people would like the streetcar too.

But is it a practical thing to do?  We know it is ultimately environmentally friendly ... and that it adds color to the core ambience.  But is it ultimately economically friendly ... over the long run?

It makes far more sense then to continue to expand the Skyway beyond the immediate modern core, IE: San Marco, Brooklyn, FSCJ and the Stadium. You could build the entire downtown - Park & King Heritage streetcar line for about the same price as taking the Skyway to the Stadium and Brooklyn.

There must be some significant plus to the streetcars ... over the buses that is ... else why would we see other cities bringing them back?

Hopefully I've answered some of this.

[ronchamblin]

Thanks Ock. You "have" answered some questions.  I now find myself gaining interest in these things.   Although I've had a gut opinion that having streetcars in JAX would be a wise investment, my wish is to add some reason and knowledge to these opinions so that I can then ask questions as to why they do not exist in the city ... that is, if I can convince myself further, and arrive at the conviction that it actually does make sense to have them.

And now I know without doubt that "all" of my streetcar riding was in Baltimore, from which I moved in '49.  I was surprised to discover that JAX ended streetcars as early as '36.  I'm not sure as to why the streetcar was pulled from JAX so early ... perhaps it was the new bus technology that overwhelmed decisions.  Maybe the change was simply that the best salesmen were with the bus companies, and not with the streetcars.

The fact that the streetcar has greater capacity, "and" that the cars can be "hitched" to form a train, were great assets I missed entirely.  Greater capacity per car is a boon to overall efficiency of any streetcar system.  I wonder if a two-car "train", or even a three-car, would be designed to function by using only the lead car's motors?  I presume that each streetcar has two "trucks"  and one electric motor per truck.

My brief research allows me to say that I like the idea of the vintage or heritage car, and not the modern types, as the vintage offers the nostalgia and classic image, much like the old '34 Ford I drive.
 
And the laid rails make a statement about permanence in the areas where tracks exist ... much like the newly laid tracks across the country during the 19 century, around which thousands of towns, cities, and populations gathered.

The high speeds you've mentioned .. the good acceleration and braking ... allows greater respect for these things.  But I really like the idea of cleaner running ... using power generated via clean methods, from perhaps many miles away.   And the ability to run on "battery" power for short runs, without the overhead lines, is a new idea to me.  Of course, perhaps the early streetcars ... before the existence of efficient batteries ... ran 100% from the overhead lines.   

Now I'm curious, and will be back once I've done more research.  I would like to gain enough knowledge so that I can ask, from a solid foundation ... "Why don't we have a streetcar system in Jax?"  ... that is, if I "do" arrive at the solid opinion that the streetcar system would actually be viable and effective in this city.   

[mtraininjax]

Hey, does Cincy have the world's largest scoreboards? Does Cincy have a mayor who gives the professional franchise everything they ask for, with little in return (so far). Come on Ock, I think you have your priorities out of line. We have the Good Ol Boy network running again, with a new candidate from out of the city, so as much as people like to campaign with fresh ideas, they ALWAYS come back to the center and work with the same power brokers to give from city coffers to those who run Jacksonville.

[thelakelander]

^You don't think those scoreboards will deliver the next GE to downtown?

[Jdog]

I gotta believe -- but don't know the math -- over the long-term streetcar, and even paying to convert monorail platform to accommodate streetcar,  is more economical than continuing with monorail. 

Connect and market the city of "urban and beach villages" (get a streetcar over the monorail platorm and then on the ground to San Marco, Riverside / 5 Points, etc.) and, yes, a solid BRT to the Beaches' downtowns and city will be way better for it. 

I'd also take notice if I didn't live here (and were young like a Millennial). 

Also sounds green as an added bonus.   

[mtadams1208]

Hey everyone! Cincinnati resident here....

I love this guys response...

"LOL, so he rather call the company's officials liars than admit he was wrong and take the credit for landing 2k jobs in downtown Cincy? That's great leadership!"

Yep that's Cranley. I can't stand the guy. Never could.

I have to say, when they were planning the streetcar, they said it had economic development benefits. I didn't disagree.  I did, however, have the mindset that I think most people naturally (and correctly) do about a lot of economically beneficial planning projects – I thought, yes, it will help, but it will help incrementally and slowly, slowly enough for the naysayers to turn a blind eye and insist there is no connection between the planning strategy and the improvement in econ. Over time.....

After all most stuff happens slowly and incrementally and that's the hook that many anti planners/whoever, hang their hat on whenever they want to insists that a certain planning step had no positive effects.  Time obscures things.

Here, I am SHOCKED....like, REALLY shocked at the immediate and dramatic effect that this has had.  Like, it was almost too easy. You should see the investment going up around it. The Over-the-Rhine (OTR) neighborhood was affordable as can be all along but overnight it went from extremely affordable and dangerous neighborhood to a still somewhat shaky crime area but WAY out of my price range.  Suddenly those awesome $80k one bedroom condos i saw for years are $200K and people are buying and gutting and redoing single family brownstones for $700k to $1M a pop. 


GE has been amazing here. They have a major presence in one of the surburbs - GE Aviation - and that Town just approved a medical center on-site which includes a pharmacy and occupational therapy, general medicine, etc, for all cinci area GE employees (at the industrial site and elsewhere) and their families to use. With all the additional GE jobs theyre bringing into the area, they will eventually be expanding on it, added a pediatric facility, etc.

Don't even get me started on the quality co-op jobs available to UC students and others with all the GE growth - so great for students.  Also, UC is very landlocked and always trying to expand any way it can.  The UC law school is considering a move down to the Banks as well. They would build an all new facility down there with the idea that the UC law school is pretty independent of the university as it is anyway, and law students can afford the housing in the downtown area....also, the streetcar will eventually connect the banks and Uptown (where UC main campus is)....so that would be cool for the law school if they could move down there.

This week the city has allowed 3CDC to control and develop some city owned properties.  The downside was a feeling from the OTR community that their voices wouldn't be heard, so there's been a parallel increase in the role the OTR community council plays in what 3CDC does...which luckily many have said that the fact that there is tension between 3CDC and the residents is a good thing bc it means that there is a presence powerful enough in OTR to elicit a reaction along with residents that care enough to want to be involved.  I think that's the first time ive seen Cincinnati people look at healthy tensions between parties as a good and positive thing and not put that old fashioned Cincinnati negative spin on it.

Jacksonville is a lot like Cincinnati in that it has a lot of conservatives, similar in size, geographically a nice area being on water and everything, historic areas, and a long history of setting a low bar and complementing that with some negative "can't do" attitudes and inside the box thinking.  even five years ago it was quite different here.

The downside, the city of Cincinnati is in a lot of debt - a lot more than Jacksonville.  So far it hasn't stopped them from moving forward. The recently approved budget had no layoffs or pay reduction in it. With the US's economy as a whole shrinking again, its hard for cincinnati to grow the way it should, but it is trying!

3CDC is a unique organization and I am not too savvy on the business and money front of all things, but maybe Jacksonville could use a presence like that in the City?  3CDC is a nonprofit development corporation with a Board of Directors comprised of many of the leaders/CEOs/etc of the largest corporations in town.  People were skeptical at first when this was formed a few years ago, but when you get the power and influence and knowledge of several large corporations, many fortune-500, all coming together to focus on improving one area of town that would most promote the urban growth of the area, man, is it effective..........