John Schneider

^ I doubt it's the money. Some people would be opposed to rail in Cincinnati even it it were free. It fails to comport with their view of how the world should be and their place in it. Think about it.

I dunno. I try to take skeptics, but opponents have tended to be a real drag on these trips. You're never going to change their minds, and they just bum everyone out. We're going again in February-March, probably.

^ I'm fortunate to part of a worldwide network of rail professionals -- why I'm in it, I dunno -- and have been able to follow news about rail developments on several continents very closely over many years now, and what Ken says above is so true. They are losing everywhere, perhaps not at first, but nevertheless losing. It may take 18 years to get the first little streetcar line built in Cincinnati, or 28 years to get rail in Austin, or four losing votes before the overwhelming 2-1 vote for rail in Phoenix, but eventually we win. No city that has gone down the path of building rail has ever turned around and gone back. They do get stalled for a while, like Cincinnati between 2002 and 2006, but eventually they regroup and march on. In the United States, the only areas where rail has not penetrated deeply these days are the Industrial Midwest the Deep South. Every little bit of progress like the Cincinnati Streetcar just chips away at the remaining holdouts. The COASTers of the world are fighting a long-running and losing battle. They spend a lot of political capital opposing these projects, and they almost always win in the early stages, often by wide margins. But a seed gets planted, people travel around the country and abroad and, sooner or later, they begin to understand the benefits. The opponents' champions are eventually discredited and exhausted, and few new ones ever join the cause. Meanwhile, how many new faces have become politcally active on account of the Cincinnati Streetcar and may now be having a broader impact? Ask Wayne Lippert, Amy Murray or Leslie Ghiz. What's really ironic is that by putting all their chips on rail opposition, groups like COAST appear strident and lose support for other initiatives they would like to pursue. Things like pursuing the sewer-relocation issue down the rabbit hole to no avail may come back to bite them. Now, apparently, sewers are political things. OK, fine. So maybe the city of Cincinnati now starts to question sewer expansions as a way to halt sprawl. As fuel prices rise, cities repopulate, and people continue to travel and talk to people in other cities, their road is going to get even steeper. On the other hand, we now have a wind at our back.

Business Courier running a story today about the city's plan to build the streetcar over the sewers that Hamilton County won't share in the cost to move. Monzel quoted that county taxpayers didn't vote on the streetcar, and it wouldn't have passed if it did. Which make me wonder if, say, all the new sewers in Greeen Township should have been put to a vote. How do you suppose that countywide vote would have gone? My guess is that this is the basis of the theatened lawsuit. City taking the position that it owns the streets and can do what it wants.

^ My guess is that some people on this list are too young or too new to Cincinnati to remember the old riverfront -- the flooding, the severe grade change, the hamster tubes over the twice-as-wide FWW, and the super-elevated, single-destination Riverfront Stadium. I think it's truly remarkable how seamless and natural the transition from "downtown" to the Banks is today, so much so that eventually the Banks' name will be forgotten as it gets wholly absorbed part and parcel into the fabric of the CBD. All of this didn't come easy. The city's 1980's-genre plans for reconnecting the riverfront to the CBD were truly grostesque and were undone by five guys sitting in a room one afternoon in the mid 1990's, redefining the "level of life" for the new riverfront that you see today. There were a couple of years of infighting and manuevering to make this happen, with far more intrigue than even with the streetcar. The city's development director, who was wedded to the old plan, lost his job over it. It's a good story, worth recounting someday.

The issue with getting the streetcar deeper into the Banks has to do with building over the parking garages (one tends to forget that the Banks sits atop North America's largest underground parking garage). Building over the garages can be done, but it's more expensive that other parts of the line, and I suspect it is problematic in terms of maintenance, leaks into the garages, etc. And besides, the idea is to get people walking a little. I walk Main Street from Second Street to the river's edge almost every day. It's a short walk, and the grade never exceeds 5%. Few people will object to doing so. Plus I like the idea of the streetcar's hanging out on Second Street at its end of the line for its short layover. Together with its crossing the Main and Walnut Street bridges over FWW, it will be hugely visible to the entire region forever. I think it's fine.

Correct, and it's enough to get the streetcar to the edge of the Banks @ 2nd Street.

^ I'll ask around and see if I can do that. Doubt anyone wants to increase speculation. It would be many years away.

Such an agreement was negotiated and signed in 2001. I expect there will be a sort of "code-sharing" airline-type agreement where costs are pooled and split up based on mileage traveled in each jurisdiction. Kentucky knows where it wants the streetcar to go and is just waiting for it to be successful in Cincinnati before moving forward.

^ Streetcar is never going south of Second.

This too shall pass.

The problem with using the transit center is that you can only enter it at the Broadway and Central Avenue end-portals, so you'd be going way out of the route's path to gain access to it. Plus, you want to keep streetcars on the street where they are visible. They have more of an opportunistic role as opposed to commuter rail where the users know exactly where to go every day. I'm not feeling particularly old, but I doubt I'll ever live to see a train in the transit center. One of these days, I'll recount the story of how it was conceived merely to be a place to store special-event buses -- getting them off the riverfront street grid -- and how scope-creep and egos turned it into a "train station" against Metro's objections. Well, actually, that's the story.

Then there's this ... of the whole fleet of streetcars was lined up to take fans away after a game, it could accomodate, oh, I dunno, maybe 1.5% of a sellout crowd.

^ They are supposed to be awarded by the end of the year.

^ It was only going to go to Freedom Way. That's about a minute walk from Second Street. I don't see a problem.

The streetcar won't be going south of Second Street. They have decided not to take it into the Banks. I'm guessing we'll get the Federal grant in December, order vehicles in January and have a groundbreaking in February.

Yes- RIDICULOUS. I wish council could raise the number of signatures needed to get amendments on the ballot from 10% of the previous years electorate to 15%. Or require a super majority to pass a charter amendment. ^ Requires a change in state law. Unlikely in this environment.

^ I led the first MetroMoves campaign, and if it does come back, we need to re-think it. I have gradually become convinced that counties are not the correct building-block for transit issues. County government represents the collective will of township government, not cities. Many people live in townships because they don't need, don't wan't or don't want to pay for more than a minimum of public services. On the other hand, people do value cities and towns for the services they provide, transit among them. So if we ever bring back something like the first MetroMoves, it ought to be financed by the collection of cities, towns and villages along the routes. In the I-75 Corridor, they are contiguous -- no gaps between incorporated areas. The Eastern Corridor has contiguous cities if they would use the Wasson Line to Fairfax, Mariemont and Terrace Park, although there is a slight gap where Columbia Township intervenes between the latter two. I-71 has nearly contiguous cities and towns except for the intervention of Sycamore Township around Kenwood. The townships along these lines could participate and gain stations if they agreed to participate in the funding. Otherwise, the line would bypass their jurisdictions, and the benefits and economic development would instead flow to adjacent towns at their peril.

I moved downtown in 1976 and rememeber seeing stray box cars on and around Eggleston. I assume they came in along the Oasis Line.

^ Or a streetcar or both.

^ Slightly better than excellent.

Sometimes if you want something done right, you have to do it yourself. Houston didn't choose to build its first rail line with local funds only. Its former congressman, Tom DeLay, put language in the 2005 Federal transportation bill stating that no Federal funds could be used for light rail in Houston. Sort of an early-day Shannon Jones.

^ Will you email this to me?

^ Wow, Jake, that's one for the record.

What? No Luken? No Louis? No Kasich? Hardly seems right to leave them out.