hohum

Its not $40 per plate, its $40 for each person for dinner. In other words, your entree isn't going to cost $40, but app + entree + wine will. Quite comparable with all of Ruby's other restaurants/everything by Jean Robert, etc.

My point exactly a several posts back... If one circulator would be a failure how will connecting it to another make it a success? Answer - a transportation centric, instead of a development centric, view of streetcars. It doesn't need to be an either or proposition. The real beauty of streetcars? They are good at both... Damn this tiny keyboard!

Michael, what I read from his posts is that he does think cbd/otr will be a failure or at least not much of a success. This seems to stem from skepticism about the development potential created by streetcars and a focus on the transpotation aspects of streetcars ("a system that doesn't do very much"). You and I (I think ;)) see it from the other way. I've enjoyed this little back and forth...

Ok I think I see where you are coming from chance. My opinion, for what little it is worth, is that an uptown circulator would be better for transportation uptown than the downtown circulator will be for transportation downtown. I think the downtown circulator will be better for development downtown than the uptown circulator will be for development uptown. I understand the need to hedge for uptown construction. I just think the connector is a sledgehammer when we need a cobblers hammer.

No, what I am saying is that we shouldn't consider the connector urgent until it can actually serve the need. With a connector but no circulator it can at very best serve a miniscule fraction of whatever the need may be. Further, the best proxy current need is our existing transportation studies. Given that our current studies show little commuting traffic between uptown and downtown, if this is a "hedge" its a very expensive hedge for little return until the uptown circulator is built. To use your mars analogy, is it urgent to build a mars supply base on the moon if we can't meet the "need" to get to mars yet? I don't have time to fully think all of what u say through at this moment, but I also worry about the conflation of need and desire. (Sorry, on blackberry so pls excuse abreviations and typos)

Yeah, a staffer of one ilk or another would not be suprising to me at all.

That is certainly part of it given that she is saying she wants "gaurantees"(hedge) My only gripe is that this is a VERY expensive guarantee/hedge. Further, by insisting that it is studied, fully planned, funded, etc, before ANY work can commence, its even MORE expensive and delays progress on the ground where forces are already in motion. If it really is a hedge (which I think is possible), then what really is needed to move forward is the sense that the CBD/OTR circulator can succeed on its own. The only way the hedge makes sense is if there is a real fear that the first phase circulator will be an abject failure. I don't think that fear is the least bit well grounded.

The existing studies quantify the amount of commuter traffic between those regions. This is not an absence of proof, it is a presence of proof. As far as circulation between the attractions on the OTR/CBD circulator, I don't have in front of me any studies indicating what that level of traffic is presently, but one of the stated goals is to increase the current circulation (through neighborhood development, increasing residents, and making that very circulation easier and more convenient). With merely a connector, and no circulator in Uptown, all you provide is a connection from a very narrow part of Uptown (wherever the terminus of the connector is). This type of connector, absent a presently existing Uptown circulator, does nothing but provide an up to down commute, serving nowhere near the entire commuting base of the Uptown area. Given that that base is small based upon the study numbers, how does it make sense to build this connector link as part of the first phase? The logic doesn't presume that if you don't provide easy, safe, and efficient transport between two regions that people WON'T travel between them. It does however presume that if you provide easy, safe, and efficient transport between two regions that there will be MORE public transit travel between them, and more circulation between them in general. Does this same logic apply to building a connector between Uptown and Downtown, well yes, it does. But ONLY once the Uptown circulator is working and the Uptown portion of the line can serve that whole area effectively.

Response from Crowley's office. It was sent via email so in the end, who knows if it was all read or considered. Thank you very much for providing your detailed comments in support of the streetcar. As you indicated I am a supporter of the streetcar. Presently Council is in the process of working through many serious issues regarding the financing plan and the initial scope of the route. As we continue our discussions I will certainly keep your support in mind. David

WOW!!!!! Thats damn sweet. Tapas downtown would rule!!!! (and, right on the streetcar line :))

Letter sent -- Dear Vice Mayor Crowley, I am writing to you because I want to urge you to support Phase I of the Cincinnati Streetcar. I have attended many council meetings now and I have been quite proud of your support thus far. Now that a real turning point is upon us, it is important that we move forward prudently and continue the momentum Downtown and in Over the Rhine. I understand the desire that any streetcar system reach Uptown and the University, however, I have to question the push to do it all right away with the financing and studies of each part of the system as intricately tied as is currently proposed in Councilmember Qualls’ motion. There are several reasons why this seems to be a quite imprudent and unnecessary tie in. The proposed circulator through the CBD and OTR, as it currently stands at 3.9 miles, will already be the longest first phase construction of a modern streetcar line in history. This alone should give us pause to consider adding greater complexity to the first phase, especially considering that other cities, such as Atlanta, have scaled back their first phase plans to make them more manageable. Secondly, the transportation studies which have been done on the commuter travel between Uptown and Downtown do NOT show significant travel between these two locations. The Uptown Transportation study, which council member Cranley was involved in, indicated as much. I encourage you to talk to councilmember Cranley to get the actual numbers of commuters between Uptown and Downtown. Anecdotally, I ride the roads between Uptown and Downtown every day during rush hour and there just isn’t a significant amount of travel on these routes. This indicates that the connector, standing alone, is at very best only a minor improvement to the currently planned circulator until the uptown circulator is completed. Further, its a VERY expensive minor improvement, that will inexorably delay the construction of the CBD/OTR circulator, if the requirement is that it must be fully studied before the serious engineering of the CBD/OTR circulator can commence. Finally, just in terms of how the financing is to be secured, it makes sense to approach all three parts of the desired system independently — each of these parts (CBD/OTR circulator, Downtown – Uptown connector, Uptown circulator) has different funding options and different needs. What we have now is a plan on the table, with an idea of how to fund it, and some data that indicates it will be a success. We already have investors on the ground buying property and developing properties. These developers are counting on that streetcar line because OTR cannot become a viable neighborhood without it, it just can’t support the parking necessary if there is no quality transport between OTR and downtown. I cannot stress this enough, the CBD/OTR circulator can and will be a success standing on its own. The data from the Uptown Transportation Study indicates as much. The tie in to Uptown is not necessary for the CBD/OTR circulator to be a success, and the data tends to indicate this. Further, the data also indicates that an Uptown circulator can be a success on its own. Finally, the data indicates that while a connector between the two areas would draw some ridership, it won’t draw nearly as much as either circulator. Everyone who has been pushing for this streetcar project understands that the best winning scenario is to build several circulators, that are interconnected. Each circulator and each connector makes the system as a whole incrementally better. However, to tie our hands on one until the planning and funding for another is completed does us no benefit. Do we do other types of planning and funding this way? Did we say that the work on the Price Hill incline district cannot commence until we study and find funding for all the other potential incline districts? I urge you to consider the history of such streetcar projects and the transportation studies before making your decision about whether to require a connector to Uptown in the first phase. The history and the studies indicate that it will be of little benefit until the Uptown circulator is built, and further, we can study the connector and begin the serious engineering on the CBD/OTR circulator simultaneously. I respectfully urge you to consider that it is not necessary to tie the planning and construction of a Downtown project to the funding of an Uptown project. Sincerely, Christopher St. Pierre

Yeah, I was very curious about that too. John, has ORDC endorsed the Cincinnati streetcar plans?

I really like that last piece. Right on the money!

Just anecdotally, I was up in Columbus yesterday, grabbing a few beers at the Elevator (awesome beer btw, and quite nifty bar interior), and I was talking with the patrons at the bar and the bartender about what they thought about the streetcar idea. There was definitely still quite a bit of negativity and skepticism. Anyhow, public perception does matter, and even if this is just anecdotal, it seems that there is still some public marketing that needs to happen. I heard some of the same skeptical comments I've heard down in Cinci (this is a foolish waste of taxpayer money cause there's nothing here, etc). No matter how unconnected to reality those comments may be, there is politicking yet to come. Just "the word on the street" :) As a comare and contrast between the line that is proposed in Cincinnati, I walked the proposed Columbus route, and it definitely seems like it will serve somewhat different development agendas, but also the area seems well suited to a streetcar line. (Going past the convention center is going to be a big win I think)

Heh, I am in the process of testing this hypothesis ;) Joo know my zip is 45211 don't ya ;)

More letters "brilliance" from today's Enquirer letters to the Editor STREETCARS WILL WORK IF WE BAN TRAFFIC It looks like Cincinnati streetcars are going to become a reality. With all the pluses and minuses bouncing around, there is one item about the Portland streetcars that I don't think has yet come to light. A good portion of ridership is by people going from their parking area to the downtown area. Why, you ask? It seems that there is no traffic allowed in the immediate downtown corridor for several blocks in all directions. The only way to get to the downtown area is to either walk or hop the streetcar. Do Cincinnatians want to walk? Ray Vedder, Kings Mills

As a textbook purchaser, I'd be happy with more variety and someone who could actually manage the ordering between the various bookstores. I mean honestly, I've ALWAYS had to wait for a book over the last 3 years due to the underordering by the various bookstores. Not that B&N could necessarily fix that, but they have managed several University Bookstores that I know of quite well (and they have a MUCH better distribution chain)

If he gets on the air on the radio up there, make sure to call in and give him a hard time. He'll say he lives "near" Portland. (But he lives near Portland like Cleveland is near Cincinnati) Someone really needs to call him out on this ;) (Never mind the complete distortions he is using to argue against streetcar systems)

That is a very very intersting bit of information John, thanks for sharing! Thats a whole new perspective on whats going on right now...

I guess this is where I diverge from some. I think CBD/OTR loop can be QUITE the success standing alone. The current synergies along the ciruclator in CBD/OTR -- with the massive development push in OTR, combined with the timing of the Banks coming online, and a brand spandy new skyscraper, combined with the stadiums, the momentum around the square, the arts venues... all of this could come to complete fruition at roughly the same time. That is HUGE, and I can't stress this enough. This is what leads me to believe the CBD/OTR circulator can stand on its own. This is why I think we can build the CBD/OTR circulator, while planning to build the connector and the second circulator uptown. If I didn't think that the downtown circulator could be a success standing on its own, then my thoughts would likely be completely different. The two areas are both huge business/commercial/residential sectors in the city. Connecting them builds on the synergies going on in both of these areas. Connecting to Uptown makes the system that much better. I don't think that either circulator standing alone is as great a success as when they are connected. So, do I want an Uptown circulator and a connector? Absolutely. It makes the whole system better. I still see them as separate entities (from a political standpoint), viable on their own, financable on their own, and better when connected.

Who knows, this si t3h int4rw3b. Seriously though, I don't know, but I doubt it. Even if that is the case, none of chance.mcgee's postings were of the hit and run, troll nature, and all of his/her questions/concerns were addressed fairly by the posters here. I am more than happy to go back and forth when there is some thought on both sides.

That switchback line is impressive, and could certainly make for some really interesting redevelopment! That hill is quite soft (I know only from cutting through to Clifton), nothing some concreted and street forming couldn't fix. I dig the switchback.

doh

In this case we have the same scenario, but the parties are reversed. The city has a reasonable idea of what the project costs, $(X+Y) (at least for the OTR/CBD circulator). The city has a financing plan that provides $X (some proceeds from the sale of blue ash, issuing some bonds, and tapping into a TIF district). The city does the same math as the private developer, and figures that they need to ask private entities for $Y. But, this is why we need some approval of the financing plan for $X (its the equivalent of the private developer having to prove they have $X in the bank). This approval can be contingent on getting $Y from those private entities, just like the private development may also not proceed unless the $Y dollars materialize. In either case, then its time to reconsider the financing. The tradeoffs to generate $X have been debated to some degree through a few iterations of the financing plan. It has been fairly well balanced to allay the concerns of competing interests. Further, there are other financing options (such as parking surcharges, or event ticket surcharges) that could be investigated should the $Y dollars not materialize. Would you agree that there it is technically feasible to bring a streetcar from OTR to the University? It seems to me that technically, from all the evidence of the car capabilities and the actual grade of the hills, there are a few possible routes within the capabilities of modern streetcars. Should we delay the financing approval and the ability to seek private entity funds from CBD/OTR until all those routes have been studied, and then financing for them have been studied, etc.? The financing options for those routes are tied to where that route goes. If you agree that "getting up the hill" is technically feasible, then, from my perspective, at this juncture, it seems wiser to: 1) authorize the funds to study those routes up the hill 2) authorize the funds to do the detailed engineering and planning required for the CBD/OTR circulator 3) authorize the city manager to approach private entities for private funding 4) authorize a financing plan for the city's contribution (TIF, blue ash, state funds, bonds, etc) that is contingent upon the success of getting private dollars Then, we get several benefits - the studies on the uptown lines can begin, the manager can start feeling out sources of private funds, the serious engineering design for the CBD/OTR circulator can begin. There are a few failure points with those specific authorizations 1) The private dollars don't materialize If this happens, its OK, the financing plan is contingent upon these dollars, it goes back to finance for consideration of other options. Even in this case, the serious engineering work is underway, so that we have better information moving forward. Further the uptown studies have also begun. A setback, but not a showstopper - and there is progress towards what will need to be done in any case. 2) The funding doesn't materialize for uptown If this happens, we will still be working on CBD/OTR, and hopefully it will be generating returns for the city. The studies for further work uptown will be done, and when we can get funding, we can move forward. Yes, this is true. But further study, and longer delays to "guarantee" that uptown and downtown are connected via the line don't allay this concern. Frankly, if the fear is that it will be a complete failure standing alone in CBD/OTR, does anyone think it can succeed because of the connection to uptown? I don't think that uptown alone can make this a success if it is a failure (which I don't think it will be) downtown.

^ Great point John I didn't read the shifting of the OTR portion of OTR/CBD alignment into Qualls' motion... I did see the "requirement" that just the use of either Vine/Sycamore/Clifton as the location of the connector "finger" (seeing how many times I can use "finger") would be studied.