urbanpioneer

:clap: great visuals as usual, jmecklenborg :clap: Those power lines look a lot more intense in the distorted perspective of a telephoto shot. But still, I'm glad ours in the CBD are buried -- contributes to the big-time urban character :-D Is it me or does anyone else think there's a chance that chance.mcgee is somehow associated with Councilmember Qualls? Posting those links to other streetcar studies, complaining that our study isn't as long as others, etc. -- sounds suspiciously bureaucratic to me. But aside from that, the simple fact that chance.mcgee [laughably] considers Uptown to be THE HUB of the city diminishes everything he/she has posted. I for one totally disagree with the notion, seemingly repeated over and over in an attempt to make it the conventional and accepted wisdom, that the success of Phase I depends on a future Uptown route. Council and the Administration have sufficiently indulged Qualls and Cranley on this point, IMO. ENOUGH! They're both posing red herrings -- Cranley to kill it and Qualls to change it to the point where she can claim authorship. BTW, I think it would be more insightful to know, rather than the length of various studies, which cities have studied streetcars and opted not to build them -- and why.

FYI - The Weston Gallery in the Aronoff Center is exhibiting its annual canned/packaged food sculptures. One is in the shape of a trolley car. Check it out but spread the word that the Streetcar WILL NOT look like it :-P

That Ch.19 segment is always a waste of airtime. I've never heard an original thought -- just the same old curmudgeonly blather to maintain the status quo. Kind of a bedtime story for naysayers. BTW, it's been my experience that people who generally oppose change in Cincinnati are the very ones who are most eager to hear praise about the city from outsiders. It's almost as if they hope Cincinnati is still the "Paris of the West". Ironic when you think of it -- self-consciousness without a willingness to improve -- or at least a smug attitude about not needing to. It seems the Streetcar opponents may be trying the divide and conquer approach, pitting one neighborhood against another. We're seeing it here on this forum via their surrogates. I've never been opposed to worthwhile subsidies in any city neighborhood -- I feel improvement anywhere adds to the greater good. I just hope the feeling is reciprocated and appreciated. The Streetcar is something every Cincinnatian could feel civic pride in, and I bet they will once it's up and running.

Councilmember Qualls doesn't seem to realize that a new generation has come of age during her extended absence to get a degree, and during that time the idea of living downtown has become a desirable option for larger numbers of YPs as well as middle-class suburban empty nesters. The days of downtown living being attractive to eccentrics-only are gone. As a long-time downtown resident, I can attest to the fact that one of the first things out of the mouths of the uninitiated is, "BUT WHERE DO YOU GET GROCERIES???" This question is often posed in breathless, panicked tones. Don't ask me why, but it's a fact. Anyone who thinks Findlay Market isn't a worthy destination doesn't know what they're talking about -- they're totally ignorant about the subject. The Streetcar will undoubtedly cause an increase in customers and therefore eventually help make the market more user friendly, besides securing the investment the City has already made. I'm counting on it, and tired of waiting for it. The pedantic politician and her obstructionist colleague need to get out of the way and let the majority opinion prevail. They are thwarting democracy.

:oops: sorry -- glad Cole's on board too.

Ditto. It's such a relief to have Bortz, Berding, Crowley, Thomas and Ghiz -- FIVE count 'em FIVE council supporters. Plus the Mayor and City Manager and fellow administrators. We may really be turning a corner in this city, at long last :clap:

It's been heartening to hear the comments coming from Crowley and Thomas lately -- my feelings exactly -- GIT 'ER DONE, to borrow a phrase :-P Qualls seems to be grasping at anything to delay progress :yap: Enamored with the sound of her own voice, it seems. The "Convention Center", the "Ballpark", the "Bengals' Stadium", the "Coliseum" (this goes way back, but so do I) -- everyone knows what I'm talking about when I use these identifiers. I can't keep track of who the current sponsors are and I bet I'm not alone. I just hope the streetcar vehicles are as classy-looking as possible and if any sponsors want their names on them, it's done tastefully. In any case, I have a feeling people will be saying things like the "Market" line, the "Uptown" line, the "Riverfront" line and the "OTR" line, etc. -- no matter the ostensible name -- when identifying various legs of the "Cincinnati Streetcar System". I refrain from calling it simply the "Streetcar System" because we don't need another SS, especially in Cincinnati.

Seems like the motion to put it on the ballot (at least I think this is what they were voting for -- don't know if Qualls or Cranley made other motions that I missed) failed. The usual suspects voted in favor (Cranley, Qualls, Monzel) but the others voted no :clap: I'm hoping those more informed about process will be able to enlighten us and let us know what's next. In the meantime, I'm [cautiously] thinking this is a happy day for Streetcar supporters.

Seems Cranley and Qualls are still trying to stall (which Berding says will essentially prevent it from happening) by pushing for Uptown financing to be in place before moving forward. Sorry I haven't been able to tune in to the entire hearing, but I'm sure others who are in attendance will chime in with more details later.

I've only been able to catch a few minutes of the hearing on CitiCable, but heard Monzel say something about putting it to a vote on the November ballot! It seems Crowley, Thomas, Berding plus Bortz of course are in favor of letting the Administration move forward.

The longer O'Toole talked, the more unconvincing (IMO anyway) he was because it became obvious he's opposed to public transit per se. He didn't have a good thing to say about ANY system, and continually made the case that, for the money these systems cost, X number of roads, highways, lanes, etc. could be constructed. I guess the CATO Institute is, to put it politely, selective in their Libertarian causes when it comes to opposing government funding. It was the first time I'd ever heard him speak and I was surprised at how unsophisticated he sounded, and how obvious his agenda is. I know nothing about any sex scandal but interjected the way it was, it seemed like sensational pandering to the lowest among talk radio audiences -- certainly not anything germane to the discussion. Again, IMO, he's not persuasive but merely serves to affirm the opinions of those already inclined to oppose transit.

FYI here's a fairly recent online resume for Ms. Crowell. Note the address provided -- seems she lived Downtown for a while in the Gibson Lofts: http://daapspace3.daap.uc.edu/student_data/resume/crowelc.pdf

Hi 3231 - Besides aesthetics, practical aspects like the ratio between riders and operators (and the concomitant expense of operators/drivers) is one advantage of streetcars. Fixed routes because of rail, as well as pollution, noise, access, etc. are others. But IMHO, aesthetics shouldn't be scoffed at. Automakers certainly don't ignore or dismiss aesthetics -- aesthetics apply to consumers of public transit too.

Maybe Pete Witte should sit tight -- everything old is new again as far as transportation goes. I'm too lazy to do a search now but I thought it was on this forum that someone envisioned a tram to Price Hill someday. Sounds like an interesting idea to me, one worth giving more thought to at some point. I think Price Hill deserves some attention too, for many of the same reasons OTR does. We need to take the first step somewhere though. I guess it's my hope that Phase I of the Streetcar will succeed in not only achieving its stated goals, but in leading the way to more creative solutions to urban transportation and development needs, especially as we face rising gas prices. And I'm sure this is exactly what transit opponents fear, and why they don't want Cincinnati to get a taste -- an appetizer before the main course.

Maybe Qualls wasn't trying to play "Gotcha" today but the obfuscating Cranley certainly was. Actually, I thought the City Manager did a decent job in spite of the baiting. When Cranley made the snide inference that the current study is less-than-objective because of Parsons' participation (since they build transit systems) and seemed to be sowing the seeds of conflict of interest, I could've LOL when Dohoney simply replied that the Administration wouldn't do anything illegal or unethical. I guess by Cranley's logic, one shouldn't trust the advice of an attorney who counsels a client to litigate rather than not -- after all, the attorney makes more money going to trial :roll: BTW, it's hard to imagine that a chairman of a Finance Committee would think it speaks well of his understanding of economics to reduce the benefits of the Streetcar to only the specific number of residential buildings that are improved because of it. He tried but failed to seem ingenuous while doing it. This rationale is what cramer referred to -- the Lexus-for-everyone-would-be-cheaper approach to transportation :roll: :roll: :roll: It's getting harder and harder to believe that Cranley ran against Chabot for Congress. What's next -- combing his hair in a spiral too??? Unfortunately I arrived late and had to leave early. Ditto about Ms. Fay's testimony. She sure said a mouthful when she recited all of those transit studies. Boy, I bet the cost of those alone could pay for a big chunk of any transportation project -- we may not be making any progress but we're sure making consultants rich. And I loved the civic constipation remark that came earlier. Did anyone else think Qualls was being a bit condescending by telling everyone to relax? It seemed an unwarranted remark to me since the crowd was civil all along and no one who testified was shrill or anything. It gave me the impression that she thinks those in favor of the Streetcar aren't concerned about details (or sophisticated enough to understand?). So, are any other council members blocking the bowels? What's the consensus among those who paid the closest attention and know about these things?

Nancy Zimpher had the courage (or audacity, depending on one's POV) to get rid of Bob Huggins. She seems like an upfront person to me! So I find it hard to believe that she would conceal any strong desire to have a Streetcar connect UC with Downtown. She probably wouldn't mind, but so far she hasn't made it an issue. As far as the former head of Kroger's goes, I'm not surprised he doesn't want the Streetcar to go to Findlay Market, a competitor. After all, the libertarian rationale has left him wide open to cries of hypocrisy vis a vis public subsidy, which he should've anticipated.

It's been said before but please permit me to say it again: where's the clamor from Uptown interests for a Streetcar??? I haven't read anything in The Enquirer, which surely would consider such interest worth mention. Or have I missed something? Also, if Uptown really wanted a Streetcar connecting it to Downtown, why wouldn't councilmember Cranley, especially considering his lone dissenting vote [because he ostensibly insists on an Uptown connection] have trumpeted that UC, the medical community, and/or even residents are in alliance with him and/or have lobbied him to insist on Uptown in the first Phase??? Because he hasn't, I find it hard to believe that councilmember Qualls has been lobbied or is in alliance with a major Uptown interest. Rather, I suspect what we have here is the two top vote getters in the last City Council race posturing and positioning themselves for higher office. Yes, I'm old and jaded. But then again I wasn't born yesterday.

Could it be Pride of Authorship???

I've followed this thread with interest for quite a while. But this latest development has thrown a wrench into the Streetcar plan and seems likely to derail it for a long, long time. It's demoralizing, and I can lurk no longer and must speak up. As a Central Business District resident since the late '70s, I've had a hard time understanding all of the angst and urgency about the need to connect Downtown to Uptown. I chose to live where I live because I like to do things Downtown, not Uptown. If I wanted to do things or needed to go to Uptown very often, I'd live there! What's more, could someone please enlighten me about the rationale to connect the two major employment centers? After all, most people work in one or the other -- not BOTH. So what's the need to connect them? It seems to me that promoting the proposal in this fashion defies logic and doesn't do a very good job of making the case. Having said that, I understand the reasoning about OTR being a potential residential area for students and medical employees. Fair enough, and probably a good reason to link Uptown with OTR... someday. And it doesn't escape me that some Uptown residents would like to be able to ride a Streetcar Downtown to various attractions. After all, parking can be an issue at both ends. But the original streetcar plan takes me where I want to go NOW: the Riverfront, Music Hall, Findlay Market and various points along the way. If Phase II to Uptown has a tangential connection with Phase I, then I'll probably take the Streetcar to the Esquire Theater on occasion. Other than that, there aren't many other Clifton destinations that lure me. I'm hoping I live long enough to see OTR realize its potential. It certainly would make my urban experience safer and much more pleasant. I admire what's been done so far, but it hasn't been enough to make a huge impact. Development there needs the jump start that the Streetcar would provide. I think this habit of constant planning without progress that ultimately results in nothing more than the waste of taxpayers dollars is a tiresome pattern in our city. I'm sick of politicians putting their political ambitions and/or egos FIRST. I seem to recall an 8-1 vote in favor of the current Streetcar proposal before the election. Seems that at least one of those YEA votes was merely lip service.