Eigth and State

Whether I am correct or not, you have to agree that the Duke issue has delayed this project. Several other posters brought this up. COAST appears to have won a few battles, but is losing the war. They were successful in bringing a lot of negative publicity to the project. The day that the main construction contract is awarded is the day that I consider the project "under construction."

^$250 million is, admittedly, a guess. I know that $110 million isn't enough, though. MSD wanted some $15 million to move the sewer; they were ordered to take about $3 million and do what they can. Duke wanted some $30 million to move their utiliites. If I remember right, CWW wanted $15 million. Plus, there are more that we haven't even talked about. And the 2007 feasibility study called for only $15 million for all of them! So, I guessed somewhere around $100 million for all the utility work, plus the original $95 million for the track, vehicles, and maintenance facility, and posted a round number of $250 million. This is just plain inaccurate. The City of Cincinnati does not own the streets in the same way that you or I might own a house. The city has jurisdiction over the streets for maintenance and police protection, but they do not have exclusive use of the streets. Duke has a right to be there under state law. We've been over this before, but here it is again: Under Ohio law, streetcars have the same legal status as other utilities, and if there is a conflict, the utility that was there first has precedence. The fact that the streetcar is sponsored by a municipality does not give the municipality any special rights over the other utilities. At least that is the position that Duke is taking. The city could have taken a more proactive approach with PR. What they are legally allowed to do I am not sure. As it stands, the city let COAST walk all over them.

Sunspots, taken with a solar filter.

I disagree. Yes, it was funded, but the funding was inadequate. The city really needed $250 million, not $110 million. The 2007 feasibility study called for $15 million for all utility relocations, but Duke wanted $30 million just for the Duke utilities. The burden is on the city, not on Duke. I'll give you that, but the city should have expected the opposition and should have been prepared for it. All of this costs money.

^The utilities didn't take this project seriously for a number of reasons. The ballot initiatives influenced the outcome, but also the lack of funding did. If the city had started with $250 million in cash instead of $110 or so million or so, some of which came from sources that may or may not materialize, the project probably would have been built by now. I'm sure Duke would have been happy to move the utilities if the City had paid them to do it. Same with MSD, etc. And COAST and others would not have had time to do anything about it. Maybe they didn't have $250 million in cash? Then they should have considered a smaller project. What has actually happened so far is that the city has been able to get by with a smaller cash outlay, but at the expense of time and goodwill. By contrast, the stadium project went the other way. They got the project completed in short order, but at a high expense. You just can't get a project done with a low budget and a tight schedule. I am not surprised at all that the streetcar project has taken this long, though it looks more and more that it will actually get built.

I found this guy on the sidewalk on the way home today.

The two elections so far did not provide any funding for the streetcar, they merely refused to block it. Saying that you support the streetcar and actually putting up the money to build it are two different things. And while I am aware that progress is being made, I wouldn't use the words "The streetcar is under construction," at least not yet. The tone of this forum over the past few days is that COAST, WLW, Steve Chabot, private airplane pilots, or what have you are responsible for the delay in the streetcar project. I don't buy it. The delay is due to the fact that the project has been underfunded. A well-funded project would have been built by now, despite the opposition. That's my point.

Glad to see. Thanks for sharing. Are you going for 50 state capitals?

^You know, in the old days streetcar companies were started by corporations who ooerated them at a profit. There was no problem raising capital to start a new line. 90% of the effort with the streetcar project is convincing the public, or their representatives at all levels from the City of Cincinnati to the federal government, including folks at the FAA concerning the airport, that the streetcar project is a worthy cause. If the streetcar proponents had started off with lots of cash and just built the thing, it would have been a different story. The number one reason why businesses fail is undercapitalization. It is possible to use other people's money to achieve your goals, but only if those other people are willing to part with their money to help you.

Everyone has their favorite pet government project. I like the United States Geological Survey (USGS), which most have never heard of. The Blue Ash Airport was someone's baby. So is the Cincinnati Union Terminal, the Showboat Majestic, French Park, the Cincinnati Metropolitan Housing Authority, the Drop-in Center, and countless more. The Proposed Cincinnati Streetcar is a pet project to a lot of folks. We can argue all day about whether or not it will pan out economically; it may or may not, and I tend to think it will not. But you have to recognize that whether you are in favor of it or not, it takes on the characteristics of a pet project. It doesn't matter what the economic studies say; at the end of the day, someone has to make a decision whether to build it or not, and that decision has a lot of emotion wrapped up into it. In fact, this project has more emotion than most projects. Interestingly, I remember a time when City Council voted NOT to sell the airport, on the assumption that all land would increase in value in the future and Cincinnati should invariably hold on to all the land she can.

Perhaps a more likely example for sake of argument would be driverless commercial trucks. Some truck drivers only move from terminal to terminal, where the trucks are loaded or unloaded, on a specified route, much of in on the Interstates. Could a trucking company load a truck and send it on it's way? As long as it is safe, there should be no issue. The problem happens when there is an accident. Maybe some day a trucking company won't wait around for the legislature to make a decision, but will just do it. A "black box" on the truck could record everything, to be used in the event of an accident. (Most accidents involving trucks are not the fault of the professional truck driver, but are usually due to poor judgement of drivers of passenger cars.)

Anyone notice that there are no cars in that Moscow photo? I have a buddy that drove across Russia in 2007 who says that there are thousands of buildings that look like that and most of them are in terrible condition.

Is there any way I can take a look at those drawings? Procrastination is a legitimate strategy. It is my opinion that Duke doesn't want this project - ar at least they don't want to contribute to it - and they think that biding their time will lead to the best outcome for them. If it doesn't get built, Duke saves all the trouble of moving the utilities. If it does get built, Duke at the very minimum puts off spending any effort on this project for as long as possible. The city should not expect every other party to drop what they were doing and help them out. because it just doesn't work that way.

Did you know that there is a federal law that says you are not allowed to mail a child? I don't know the story behind it, but I would bet that somebody tried to mail a child. This is an example of the way that laws are written. Lawmakers respond to some problem AFTER it happens. We already have mass-produced driverless cars that can parallel park. We have experimental driverless cars that are driving around in traffic (though I think they have a human co-pilot). The technology is there, and I think it's a matter of time until some manufacture puts it all together, assuming that it occurs while we still have some petroleum to consume. I figure that someday, someone is going to place a child in a car and order the car to drive to school or soccer practice, or wherever. At that time, the legal system is going to have to play catch-up: is it legal, or not? It may not happen in this country first; it could be Japan, or Korea, where the people are even crazier about technology than we are. Today, we have a mixed bag of laws regarding cell phone use while driving. Clearly, there are a lot of accidents caused by drivers talking on the phone, or texting. The safe thing to do is ban cell phone use while driving, but this particular ban is extremely unpopular, not to mention hard to enforce. I could see a similar thing with driverless cars.

^Thanks for that. I will have to look at it again when I have more time. One thing I noticed, though, was that in the example of New Haven, the block sizes appear to be much larger than those in Over-the-Rhine. Also, the title was conversions in downtown areas. I wouldn't call Over-the-Rhine a downtown area.

I have a hard time believing this. The real benefit of one-way streets is that intersections are simplified, eliminating most of the potential for angle collisions.

^"This is a very complicated project. It is the first time our city has done this project. We're learning a lot of new territory here." :wink:

^Thanks for that. :-)

I see a lot of London and Paris on these lists. Here's a different list, from Scientific American: Most populated cities in 1950: 1. New York 2. Tokyo 3. London 4. Paris 5. Moscow Most populated cities in 2010: 1. Tokyo 2. Delhi 3. Sao Paulo 4. Mumbai 5. Mexico City So far, I don't think anyone has picked Delhi or Mumbai.

I watched the men's and women's bicycling. I watched it just as much for the scenery as for the sport.

You metioned a bike trail. Are you saying that the railroad became a bike trail, and then was returned to a railroad? I understand that the rails-to-trails program is meant to use vacant railroad grades as bike trails UNTIL the railroad is reactivated. I can think of some bike trails that are very popular, and most of the users have no clue that it was formerly a railroad, despite all of the unused railroad infrastructure and the easy grade. I can imagine that if the railroad ever tries to reactivate, the bike trail users will be upset, but is there anything they can do about it?

In the 1970's, it was thought that someday driverless cars would follow wires embedded in the pavement. Instead, we have global positioning, radar rangefinders, and image recognition devices. The technology for driverless cars is already here; we already have cars that can parallel park, tractors that steer themselves, and construction equipment guided by global positioning. What we don't have yet is a manufacturer of automobiles that has put it all together. There are still some issues, such as two driverless cars coming to a standstill at a 4-way stop because neither will enter the intersection in front of the other. Also, the legal system has to catch up to the technology. If a driverless car is involved in a collision, who gets the ticket? The owner? Does one need a driver's license to operate a driverless car? I can imagine a couple of things that could change: 1. Drivers could put the car on autopilot and go to sleep. This could lead to a lot of nightime driving. 2. Commercial trucking companies could do away with the drivers altogether. What will the Teamsters do about that? 3. Parents could let the car drive the kids to soccer practice. 4. Anybody could drive to the front door of his destination, whether it be a downtown building or a suburban Wal*mart, and have the car park itself. Then, when he's ready to leave, he can phone the car and have it pick him up. 5. Even a small number of driverless cars on the road could improve safety for everyone. 6. Driverless cars could be provided with route finding devices, and even tie into real time traffic data, and choose the fastest route from A to B. Humans are creatures of habit, and do not necessarily take the best route. So, driverless cars could reduce the total vehicle miles travelled. 7. Maybe full-service fuel stations will come back. For that matter, driverless cars could order take out from drive-through restaurants. Electronic circuit boards do not cost that much. The real cost is in the design. If any manufacturer ever puts up the R&D dollars, it should be easy to crank out lots of driverless cars, and they probably won't cost much more than present cars. After all, all kinds of electronic gadgets have been added to cars over the last 20 years, yet the price has remained stable, or has even dropped. The real advantage of cars compared to mass transit is that cars are free from routes and schedules. The disadvantage of cars is that they take up so much space, both while moving and while parked, that cars have destroyed the human scale of cities. Driverless cars could alleviate the parking problem somewhat by driving to a parking space outside of pedestrian areas, and clear up traffic overall by taking the shortest route. It has been said that 50% of the traffic in some core areas is due to drivers circling around looking for a parking space!

Hamilton County did not block the streetcar; they just declined to participate in funding it.

Paddlefest on the Ohio River is said to be the largest paddling event in the Midwest. It attracts over 1000 paddlers. Getting all of those boats into the water within a few hours is a challenge that the organizers have learned to overcome. People are starting to ask, "Ok, Paddlefest is the largest in the Midwest, but where in the WORLD is there a larger event?"

Instead of tourism advertising, how about advertising for business?