BKeller

The streetcar does not need to attract new residents to the region in order to be successful. To think so is colonial economic thinking from 1775. There are several ways that a streetcar will financially benefit Cincinnati and its residents, without an arguement on migration patterns. First would be actual capital expenditure of the $128 million to build it and the economic activity (multiplier effect) that the wages and new business that this money would spur. Next is the reason that transit is now public, increases in property values can be captured by the city but not by private companies. These increased property taxes will help all city residents by helping the solvency of both the city and the school system. The third reason is somewhat more esoteric in its explanation. Transit is a cheaper option then owning a car. This means a couple with one car instead of two is saving some (x) amount of money each year. That money is either spent or saved, or more likely, both. Spending the money means more money for businesses (hopefully local), these businesses will hire more workers and those workers might just want to live in OTR. Saving means increased money supply, so 5/3 or whomever can lend cheaply to people looking to start their own business, say, in OTR. This process repeats itself continuously. And all of this business, will be captured by various local, state, and federal taxes. Remember, not all spending is equal, $1 towards transportation may yield less utility to you than $1 towards a Reds game. Fourth, if the City of Cincinnati were a business then quality transportation would probably have never left. Density and transit creates all sorts of cost savings for a city, from garbage collection to street paving. The more tax paying residents per foot of street, the better. None of the stuff I've said above is new, but what I can't get over is how much arguing there has been about needing people from outside of the metro to move to OTR in order for it to prosper. I thought I would just rehash the economic reasons about why streetcars make sense, without the colonial limited amount of wealth/people/whatever hoopla that has everyone distracted.

Unfortunately I don't have any pictures, but I remember the 22 tram line in Prague navigating a serious hill. I don't know the actual grade but it is worth some research. There are some other serious hills in that city as well. Prague has an old system and is upgrading to new Skodas from what I know. It could give some insight in terms of maintenance of streetcar lines on hills and the ability of Skodas to navigate those hills beyond just a theoretical maximum grade.

^^ That is the definition of an eyesore. I wonder how long eminent domain proceedings could take if lexington decides to turn this into a park leading up the the World Equestrian Games.

Dan B, that is the worst use of logic I have read in a while. We are all in this together and something that is good for OTR and Uptown, is good for people in Avondale and Lower Price Hill. But, I have a small problem with the analogy used by Living in Gin. There is only one landlord for everyone. When the decision is made to invest in a particular complex, money comes from every one of the owners assets. That is just how things work. Look at this situation with the eyes of a private company. If it has a division that is not performing, you are basically left with 2 options. Either you sell off the division or you invest money to improve returns. In reality you can't sell off a part of a city, so the only logical idea is to invest. Increasing returns would mean attracting taxpayers to a part of the city that is largely vacant.

I'm normally quiet, but I just want someone to answer this question. Why is COAST even allowed to call this the "Anti-Streetcar Petition"? To me that is willfully misleading the public and constitutes fraud. But I'm no lawyer.

That was one ugly block if you ask me. But, there were definitely some buildings worth saving on that block though. It's even worse that every day it seems there is less of a chance that anything will be built there in the foreseeable future. Lexington seems to be good at coming up with good plans and the like, but poor on execution. I believe there was a plan for development in Downtown that called for no development being above a certain height to promote density and infill rather than a few concentrated structures. It was followed until someone wanted to build something larger and then the powers that be decided to ignore it. This survey sadly sounds like the same thing.

This is my first post here on UO, so here it goes. DanB, I have ridden buses in places like Louisville, Lexington, Cincinnati, and Cleveland. I have also ridden the subway in NYC, DC's Metro, and even Cleveland's rapid. Bus transit in no way can compare with the ease, reliability, and simplicity that is provided by rail. Sure, some of it is psychological, but then again isn't your transportation choices loosely based on a collection of subjective values? (And your ability to pay for it) Which begs the question, since when is having to pay an average of $8000 a year on a car so you can function in a car-based society, 'freedom'? It is tyranny if you ask me. You may want to pay that, but I don't. I don't want this to conversation to degenerate into something silly. I want to know what you think would give many people in Cincinnati the opportunity to live a "car-reduced" life. To me that is the streetcar. I think the streetcar proposal is a great step towards Cincinnati launching itself back into the minds of Americans as a first-class city.