LincolnKennedy

^They are putting in a high school across the street. You think those bums really want to hang around a bunch of obnoxious teen-agers?

^^Cranley's such a hypocrite. Sure he wears good old Midwestern plaid when he's in Cincinnati, but when he goes on the liberal East Coast cocktail party circuit he switches into polos.

Cincinnati- 19 years Washington, DC- 3 & 1/2 years Cincinnati- 2 1/2 years Columbus, GA- 5 years (26 months of which were spent abroad)

I don't quite know what the relationship is between the executive directors of the NAACP (Smitherman, et.al.), the board and their constituents. But I suspect there's a certain amount of push from Smitherman to act in an obstructive manner in general, and he's found this alliance with the COAST group as the perfect means by which to regain "relevance" for the organization. It's a shame that too often relevance is equated with the prominence that comes from opposition, rather than quiet and constructive support. I suspect that being in opposition to politicians that were more successful than himself is personally gratifying to Smitherman as well. The best way to combat naysayers and fence-sitters who lean to opposition on this issue is through word of mouth education. Most people aren't familiar with the budget of a large corporation- a $130 million dollar investment seems enormous, when it is really quite typical. They think that all government money that is spent comes from the same giant pot, another fallacy. The people who know need to keep making individual efforts to educate people on this matter.

Unfortunately this would be falling into the same Cincinnati problems of old. The City (as hard and as painful as it might be) needs to reach out and embrace its regional counterparts. In order to truly grow and prosper we have to realize that we are one region...and we have to realize that the success of the whole is much greater than its parts. Agreed, but it strikes me that the region needs leadership by example as well as through consultation. And it seems to me that only the City of Cincinnati can provide the kind of leadership through example that would generate real action in the region. Hamilton County stood up for a short period between 1999 and 2003 (perhaps even as long as 1996-2007), with the success of the stadium tax deal, the creation of the Banks project, and the attempt at the MetroMoves plan. But the defeat of the MetroMoves plan in November of 2002 was the first in a series of county initiatives that began to fail. Heimlich's pathetic thrashings-about regarding the Banks project and the jail tax spelled the end of the local Republican Party's attempts to be constructive. Pepper's presence on the County Commission might have lead to keeping the county executive as the political engine of the region, and during this time the Banks project was at last finalized, but the failure of Pepper's jail tax, which lost due to a coalition between the enemies of constructive local government as well as some of Pepper's natural allies, largely ended the effectiveness of the County as the locus of regional initiatives and planning. There's not going to be any local rail in the Cincinnati region outside of the City. If others in the area don't want to get on board, that shouldn't stop us. And as others have said, while it might be a little more difficult to get the project off the ground with the City going at it alone, it also gives the City greater control. A successful streetcar has the potential of inducing other governments in the region to get on board regional rail as well. Activist City planning doesn't necessarily mean that that planning can't be made in a regionalist context. Thanks Dave.

^What? Regarding the streetcar, where does this leave the City? If the project just needs 3 million from the State at the moment, and 10 million overall, is there a way they can finance it without the State contribution? It seems like its doable.

^You're right, but let's not also forget that the simultaneous economic downturn had a bit to do with it, as well as the general shock the nation received that September. Those groups took advantage of weakness, but they didn't have much of a constructive plan to address the things they were supposedly agitating for. I'd also say that the lack of projected revenue (or at least the numbers that were sold to the people as the projected revenue) from the stadium deals was a big problem for the City post 2001 (even though it was under the purview of Hamilton County), in that it strikes me as having been a major cause for the delay in getting on with the Banks project.

I was driving down there after this weekend and I'm concerned that the street widths will be bigger than those in downtown proper. I think that would be a mistake, part of the insipient suburbanizing of the City.

^They are helping to build America.

One of you planners/architecture students on this thread with a need for a thesis project should do it on a comprehensive plan to stop all demos of historic structures in OTR by 2010.

Well, it is sort of funny to think that the Mayor of Cincinnati would need a security detail, even though it does consist of only a single police officer. But considering that 1) a man, with an amount of public notoreity, doing business at City Hall (so-called General Kabako Oba) was shot to death in a drive by shooting on or in front of the steps of City Hall; and 2) this sort of detail (though with far more police officers assigned) is standard for mayors throughout the U.S. (I know Chicago, Baltimore, NYC and Detroit all have this kind of thing); it's not very silly that he has a security detail.

I'm not opposed to light rail. I just think that the MetroMoves plan was kind of crappy. I understand that we needed to pass a local tax so that there would be guaranteed local funding in place so that the feds would match us. I also understand that there was real need for the I-71 corridor light rail system, and that it was the first part of the plan that was to be built. The proposed route for the I-71 corridor wasn't bad, though I thought it was considerably less good than it could have been (obviously as planned it was also probably cheaper than other routes and designs I would have considered more comprehensive). Also a regional transit system that doesn't take you directly to the airport is ridiculous. I understand that there were difficulties to doing this, but that strikes me as being first priority- intracity to intercity. I like that the streetcar is wholly capabale of being built by the City of Cincinnati. I like that it is focused on connecting the two largest employment, cultural and entertainment centers in the City with an extremely dense urban neighborhood that is being underutilized currently and has been disinvested in historically. I think the cost benefit ratio is better. I don't want streetcars for the sake of streetcars, or light rail for the sake of light rail. I want what they are capable of doing for the individuals of the City and the region, as well as for the City and the region as a whole. I think that the current Cincinnati streetcar plan is better designed and accomplishes these goals better than the MetroMoves plan could. You asked me the question and I explained myself- I'm not looking to turn this thread into a critique and defense of MetroMoves for the next page and a half.

I respectfully disagree with the above opinion, and it seems to me that the streetcar is trying to do something completely different from what the MetroMoves plan was designed for. I think this is a positive and that it is important not to equate all rail style transit projects with each other simply because they all don't run on wheels.

Cincinnati isn't the largest City in Ohio on the I-75 corridor?

I've wondered this myself. It seems to me that after the 3C corridor, the I-75 corridor is the most important within the state. Maybe I-80/I-90/whatever that Chicago-Toledo-Cleveland-points beyond corridor is more important. Why does the Ohio Hub plan have a Detroit-Toledo-Columbus corridor, instead of just bringing that down to Dayton and letting Dayton be the transfer point east? That's the way the highways go, and I suspect that's the way a lot of business travels as well. Lima and Dayton trump Marion and bunch of other towns in middle Ohio that no one has ever heard of. I suspect it doesn't get much play because Cincinnati is the largest City in Ohio on the I-75 corridor, and I think we all know how insular Cincy is when it comes to considering itself alongside the rest of Ohio. But to connect the third, fourth and fifth biggest cities in the state along one of the most heavily traveled north/south corridor in the country seems like it should be a high priority for passenger rail advocates in Ohio, despite the airy and slightly vainglorious self-regard the Queen City often displays.

Streetcars are cheaper than other rail transit (affordable even for small cities) ^That quote from the above article strikes me as being extremely important. I don't know what the relationship between the Cincy streetcar and the state of Ohio is or will be during the construction process, but it seems to me that if it isn't set up in a way in which the rolling stock, maintainance, purchasing etc., could eventually be available and workable for other municipalities in the State, we'll be missing out on a great opportunity.

I noticed a decent amount of surface lots in Edinburgh near the university, slightly north of the main thoroughfare (Holyrood?), the name of which I've forgotten. I don't think that the parking lots are so much of an aesthetic problem (except in certain places, for instance 7th and Sycamore and 9th and Court on Elm) as they are a huge economic waste. If our support system for the market was geared to urbanity rather than sprawl these sorts of places would get built on, and fast. The single most aesthetically pleasing parking related structure has to be the garage on 7th across from the Aronoff near where Frisch's used to be. Personally I consider the biggest aesthetic problem in Cincinnati is the trend to rip out massive portions of our hillsides for structures. This has been happening a lot in Mt. Adams, though the single worst instance of it that I can find is that Bigg's skytop place off Beechmont where the El Rancho Rankin Motel used to be.

Shoot. That "Exactly" was for Rando's post.

^Exactly. But because one is the most important person in one's own life, being the center of it and all, people are inclined to think that the world revolves around them. I'm venturing dangerously close to original sin/truisms too obvious to bother mentioning/the way my mother would answer a question. I think we need to seriously re-valuate the idea of the 'image problem' and 'the importance of perception'. The notion of the 'perception of safety' is absurd. One thing the first years of the 21st century have taught us is the importance and triumph of substance over style. At least that's what I've learned from watching The Wire. But seriously, I would just ignore statements such as those from the lady referenced in the article. Either that or mock them relentlessly, depending whether or not you can afford it. This idea that perception is more important than reality is just a way for consultants and advertising and marketing people to con you into paying them for their worthless advice.

Don't let dmerkow game you. He's actually a licensed tithound.

Dilettante.

^This is on topic?

Right. It's a bit silly to say that the only city to have financed and constructed (and which still owns) its own major railroad had couldn't see the importance of railroads to the post Civil War economy. It seems to me that the biggest 'cause' of the slowing of growth in Cincinnati was the shift in the American economy after the Civil War from being primarily agricultural to one focused on manufacturing. The higher value added of manufacturing meant that they would be able and willing to pay more for transportation, therefore using railroads more than inland waterways (which to this day are utilized primarily by commodities like grains and coal). The rise of Chicago is no surprise (and I believe it passed Cincy in population in 1863), rather, the rise of Cleveland, Detroit, and to a lesser extent, Pittsburgh, really illustrate what happened to Cincinnati. These towns, closer to new booming industries (oil, general manufacturing, coal and steel), and above all, better connected to the East/West Great Lakes/St. Lawrence axis, began to rise at much faster rates than the Queen City. As dmerkow said in an earlier post (possibly in a different thread), the pre-Civil War American economy was largely focused on the economics of slavery. Cotton was the biggest export, the biggest cash crop, and the manufactures of the north largely served the needs of the South that focused almost relentlessly on this incredible money maker. After the Civil War, the tables turned, with what was left of the American cotton-growing industry sending it's product north to be manufactured here rather than to Great Britain (Egypt and other places jumped into the mix in the meantime) and U.S. exports begin to be typified by manufactured goods, rather than just raw materials. There are somethings even a Cincinnati City Councilman can't control.

^There's also a bit of geographic inevitability to the importance of certain cities. New York City has the largest deepwater harbor on the Eastern Seaboard. Combine that with the Hudson and the Erie Canal and you have a wholly American version of the St. Lawrence system. Chicago sits at the shortest distance between the Great Lakes/St. Lawrence drainage basin and the Mississippi drainage basin. It is the Chicago Ship and Sanitary Canal that connects these two most important natural highways of communication. And largely because bulk goods, particularly farm products, are more efficiently trafficked via water, Chicago, sitting at the closest point between these two systems, is the natural deposit point. So the railroads were built (by New York capital as dmerkow said) to this most convenient spot. The same thing happened (to a lesser extent) in Houston at the the beginning of the 20th century.

The discussion of the collection of fares has been quite interesting, and is obviously relevant to the thread topic. Let's please not make a seperate thread for it. One thing that the city may well consider is an all purpose "transit card" that one could put money on and would be good to deduct cash when you use it for the bus, streetcar, toll roads (perhaps in the future), city owned parking garages and parking meters (perhaps we could see if the city could get this debit card to be accepted at gas stations for gas purchases as well). Aside from the convenience of having a one stop card for travel expenses in our increasingly cashless society, this would possibly go toward bringing people to the mindset that all transportation options have costs.