John Schneider

I hear they are looking at some new temporary station alternatives for Cincinnati.

We'll be applying later this year to the state and Feds for additional funds to build out the entire Uptown circulator system.

COAST and NAACP are not going to be in the petition drive.

^ Kevin Osborne of CityBeat is doing a story on this. He's looking for facts. You should contact him = [email protected]

^ What is controversial about a 6-2 vote?

But we won't hear about the federal funding until the end of June, correct? In the mean time, are they doing the engineering so that when federal dollars are approved they can start construction this summer, or are we still looking at another year before dirt is moved? We'll be under construction by fall.

It's still there: http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20100510/NEWS0108/5090335

A former real estate partner, who lives in Indian Hill and who'd someday like to move downtown, sent me this: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/04/here-comes-the-neighborhood/8093/

^It's assured. $4 million.

^ Moves to the full Council on Wednesday. Fed money by the end of June.

I hear Berding's a "No." Can't imagine what questions he still has that haven't been answered by City adminsitrators. They are over-thinking this.

You'll want to be in City Council Chambers on Monday afternoon. If Council's Finance Committee votes to approve bonds to pay for the Cincinnati Streetcar, the Feds have said this action will improve the streetcar's chances to win a Federal grant needed to build the project. They said that last week. In Cincinnati. According to Vice Mayor Roxanne Qualls, quoted in today's Enquirer, "If we don't issue the bonds, that could be very problematic." And without the Fed funds, the streetcar won't get built. If these bonds are approved, we'll have amassed about $90 million toward the $128 million construction cost to reconnect the center of Cincinnati. And construction could start this year. A successful vote Monday moves the issue to Wednesday's meeting of the full City Council, where another solid vote will send a strong message that Cincinnatians want a better city. Passing this bond financing for the Cincinnati Streetcar should come as no surprise. Since 2007, this has always been the plan. And now's the time. I hope you'll attend Council's Finance Committee's meeting at 2:30p on Monday in Council Chambers. It's a relatively short Agenda, with hardly any other items. Just the bonds, mostly. If you have time on Monday morning, please reach out to the Council members you trust most and ask them to advance this funding for the Cincinnati Streetcar. * Jeff Berding = [email protected] * Chris Bortz = [email protected] * Laketa Cole = [email protected] * Leslie Ghiz = [email protected] * Chris Monzel = [email protected] * Roxanne Qualls = [email protected] * Laure Quinlivan = [email protected] * Cecil Thomas = [email protected] * Charlie Winburn = [email protected]

We all drink too much coffee. Makes you fret too much. We're going to get enough money by the end of the summer to start the Downtown/OTR loop this year. That would make a referendum moot. Assuming the bonds can be approved on a non-contingent basis, the Fed funding's in the bag, with maybe more state money coming. May even some private money if someone wants to be a hero. Big Finance Meeting mid-afternoon on Monday, Council Chambers. I'd plan to go. I'd say if we can get the bonds approved we're a shoo-in based on what I know about what other cities are doing. I mean, many of them don't have plans and think they're going to get 100% Fed funds to build their streetcars.

I've never read that the Enquirer is in favor of a comprehensive light-rail system. Show us.

You are missing the point, Sherman. Transit in general and streetcars in particular produce what economists call "indivisible benefits." There is no practical way you can charge all the beneficiaries in full for the benefits they are receiving, especially since they may not even realize they are receiving them. Transit takes (some) drivers off the roads. This benefits the drivers who remain on the roads who then have faster travel times and more parking at their destinations. Will they pay the transit agency directly for these benefits? No. In fact, a lot of them will vote against having more of them. You are talking finance = "Who pays and how much?" Most thinking around transit these days deals with comparing benefits with costs. If the benefits exceed the costs -- as they clearly do with the streetcar -- then you figure out a way to have the beneficiaries pay most of the costs, and the beneficiaries aren't just the streetcar passengers. TIF districts and re-pricing parking along the route are good proxies for doing this.

^ The streetcar is only a "money-loser" because it cannot capture and monetize the benefits that accrue to its area of influence because of its presence. If the streetcar could capture some of the incremental gains in real estate prices, retail sales and increased wages achieved directly because of the streetcar and dedicate those funds to its construction and operation, it would be a huge money-maker. But how could you do that in a free society?

I'm guessing a countywide vote for transit, but not a regional rail plan with LRT to all parts of the county like in 2002. Focused on I-75, where rail will have to proof its worth against a cheaper but less-beneficial BRT plan. Plus completion of the Uptown streetcar network. Say. And, who knows, maybe money to bring rail into CUT. A lot of wishful thinking here. I think the key would be a set of solutions aimed at well-known needs rather go with than a shotgun approach. Brad Thomas has some original ideas on finance that he may or may not want to talk about. I'll leave that up to him. I think the plan needs to be done first, next the economic case for its worthiness proven, and then fit the political and finance strategies to the plan.

Tarbell v. Monzel. Will have a good debate on the subject of public transportation, a prelude, maybe, to another try for rail in 2012.

^ These data would comprise a good LTE. Of course, the Enquirer would probably respond with something like, "We print the letters we receive and 90% of them are against the streetcar."

I've always assumed that a Gilbert route would be a wholly second line, the second of perhaps five lines that would be built-out over the next 20 years. I'm guessing it would use the Main/Walnut pair through downtown, turn east on Central Parkway travel through the casino site, go behind Staples and the Gateway Building and use the Elsinore bridge over I-71 to Gilbert. It would connect the casino with Uptown and a lot of job-seekers. I see nothing wrong with a roundabout route. This is a circulator, not a corridor-level plan. It connects a lot of dots in Uptown, and my guess is a lot of Uptown residents would rather travel across Uptown than to Downtown. The Vine and Clifton buses will be considerably faster than the streetcar for getting Downtown from Uptown. Just the way it is.

^ You would turn left from Gilbert to Taft to University Plaza and beyond -- say to Ohio or Clifton Avenue -- and return via McMillan. It's actually shorter (13 minutes vs. 16 minutes) going from Fountain Sqaure to University Plaza -- not a particularly great destination, by the way -- via Gilbert than the circuitous route up to Henry Street and doubling back south to eventually get to Vine and then reversing direction again. Drive it and see for yourself. It's an eye-opener. I know many people who travel from Uptown to Downtown this way.

About the streetcar's being car-competitive: * Its frequent service means that its performance approaches the car's "on-demand" characteristic. It's there when you need it, with minimum wait times. * It's reliable in winter when cars sometimes aren't -- if you pick a reliable route. * The streetcar's super-smooth ride comes closer to emulating the creature-comforts of automobiles. It you're selling $200,000 condos with less or no parking, that's going to be an important consideration. * It attracts riders in ways buses don't. In the words of Chris Bortz, streetcars attract "choice riders" -- people who would otherwise drive, but who prefer the frequency and comfort of the streetcar, even if they happen to have a car. The irony I tried to draw out is that if all we're trying to do is match the performance and access provided by our bus system, such as it is, then why do all of us reject the opponents' notion of simply running fake trolley-buses on the streetcar route? And, LK's right, I think pricing parking at the margin will especially make streetcars more car-competitive. What I see with Vine Street is a tortured route, without frequent stops, or maybe without even one stop, and virtually no chance that, as LK says, "a certain mode of transportation [the streetcar] for a certain area [the Vine Street Gulch] [will] give rise to a certain type of development [or any development]." And it's very relevant whether the streetcar goes up Vine or Gilbert to get to University Plaza and beyond. The latter is mostly straight, has a lesser grade, touches two or three more neighborhoods in Phase I, and has an abundance of scalable development sites on Gilbert and a great pair of streetcar-friendly streets on McMillan and Taft/Calhoun. Let's be honest: were it not for our limited funds, does anyone seriously doubt we'd be looking at Gilbert instead of Vine to get to Uptown?

Reflect upon the irony of those two sentences for a while.

There is only one place where modern streetcars are used on a steep, curving slope, one that's less step and much shorter than the Vine Street hill. And it doesn't work very well. It's not a comfortable ride. The objective, in part, is to be car-competitive.

I am totally happy to wait until the engineers make a final determination. All I can say is I'm far from the only person who has doubts about Vine Street, for a number of reasons. Remember, just because something is possible doesn't mean it is desirable.