Eigth and State

^One of my aging relatives kept her keys, but her car was disabled by removing the battery without her knowing. Probably this won't work on grandpa if he has any mechanical ability at all. I don't blame you for taking the keys, though. My grandfather was always a really careful driver, and made a big fuss if his car was ever scratched, whick usually happened when it was parked. In the last few years of his life, he started bumping into things while driving. Fortunately, nothing serious happened.

These are fantastic. Please keep them coming.

If you are really concerned about mileage: 1. Keep the tires properly inflated and the change the oil on time. 2. Get the smallest car you can live with. 3. Avoid driving whenever possible. 4. Don't carry around extra weight. 5. Avoid using the A/C as much as possible. (or get a car without A/C! Do they make them anymore?) Park in the shade, face away from the sun, put shades on the windows, etc. If you are concerned about total life cycle cost: 1. Buy used!

What are you supposed to do with the evil eyes? :-o Great photos. Thanks for posting.

^ In the urban core or near-ring suburbs where it is possible to walk, one could say that parking is partly subsidized by non-drivers. Howeve, almost all of the customers who shop at the typical big-box store in the suburbs drive and hardly anyone walks. The cost of parking is just bundled with the rest of the goods, in the same way that they don't charge to use the bathroom. What I find interesting is that while some cities and municipalities provide on-street parking and sometimes parking lots or garages, in the suburbs the parking is nearly 100% privately owned. Meanwhile, the highway network is nearly 100% publicly owned. Cities have an opportunity to improve on this, by making the motorway network and the parking work together. One of my favorite parking projects is the Court Street area; it seems to work so well. When you think about it, the fact that the Interstate Highway System designers completely ignored the need for parking is ridiculous. An idea that didn't happen might have been parking at the interchanges, reducing the need for parking spread about urban areas.

^The donut effect has been going on for a long time. The population of Over-the-Rhine peaked in 1890! The pioneers landed at Yeatman's Cove, and since then the population has been expanding outward. However, as the population expanded outward, new immigrants moved in, increasing density even while the population expanded geographically, When Cincinnati ceased to become a destination for foreign immigrants, there was no one to fill the center, and the hole in the center of the donut started to develop. What happend in the 1960's was an acceleration of the outward expansion trend, not only due to automobiles and highways but also due to the extension of utiities, especially water. The expansion of the donut hole has been slowing in recent decades,but I don't think it's because people are growing tired of the suburbs. It's simply that we cannot afford to expand any longer. Meanwhile, the suburbs are getting denser, while the core is thinning out, both moving toward a simlar density.

Stand on one of the sidewalks on an overpass over I-75 in the West End and count the cars that pass underneath. Pretend that each one of them has a person in it with $10, $20, or $100 of spending money. Look at all of the trucks. Some are heavy trucks with a load of stuff on the way to Wal-mart. Besides the heavy trucks, there are hundreds of lighter trucks, vans, contractors, and tradesmen passing through. Imagine that each of those trucks are on the way to a destination to unload goods or provide some service. Say want you want about the stupid suburbanites; they will be happy to spend their money elsewhere. I don't have the answer, and I don't advocate any more big-box parking lots. But to say that there isn't a problem, or that it is the suburbanite's own fault that they don't come downtown, is ignoring the largest potential source of participants.

These are fascinating. Please keep them coming.

I hear things like this all the time: "I would go to more Reds games if parking wasn't such a hassle." "I went to Reverfest once. I liked the fireworks, but I don't think it was worth putting up with traffic." "I can't move my business downtown because I need space to load my trucks." "I hope my conpany never moves downtown because parking is so expensive."

Really? And were all of the surface lots on Central Parkway full too? And both the Alms & Doepke and the Gateway garage? Parking is not that simple. Many parking spaces go unused because they are too far, out of sight of the destination, are reserved, are costly, etc. What everyone wants is a parking space directly in front of the building they are visiting. Personally, I have no problem finding a parking space anywhere near Downtown or Over-the-Rhine, because I am willing to walk. I'll walk 10 blocks, and I'll actually enjoy it. Not everyone is like me. Believe it or not, there are people who are not willing to walk as much as a block or two to go to Main Street. They will go someplace with more convenient parking instead.

To get a feel for what is in the codes, just pick up your local zoning code and see what's in it. Lots of jurisdictions publish their codes online these days. My favorite urban design book is not a zoning code at all, but the antithesis of a zoning code: "A Pattern Language," by Christopher Alexander.

^Well there's an invitation to take this thread right off topic. Let's just say that I would put priorities elsewhere, and not necessarily into a capital project. Not all problems can be solved by building something, but new construction makes a good photo op. But I'm not the mayor, so it doesn't matter.

^Let me say it a different way. If I was the mayor or a councilman on City Council, I would put my priorities on a different project other than the streetcar. That said, I am not opposed to the streetcar project, and in no way am I trying to impede it. The reason why it's important to write down the project risks is to be prepared to address them. You've probably heard of Murphy's Law: "What can go wrong, will go wrong." The way to deal with Murphy's Law is by preventing things from being able to go wrong, not by hoping that things won't go wrong. During Desert Storm, General Norman Schwartzkoff said in a press conference that you "Prepare for the worst and hope for the best." One way to deal with uncertainties is to keep options open. What if the maintenance facility goes to eminent domain? A poor strategy would be to assume that the property owner is going to accept the first offer by the city, and do it cheerfully, because if this assumption turns out to be wrong, the project could be delayed by a year. A better strategy is to assume the worst case, and build a year into the project schedule from the get-go. Writing down the risks is not a sign of despair; it is a method to identify which efforts warrant the most attention. In my opinion, for example, more effort should be applied to the Duke issue than the bicycle issue, because the Duke issue has a greater chance of delaying the project.

Some of the big-box suburban developers are applying for variances to reduce the number of required parking spaces. So, it is clear that minimum parking requirements have gotton out of hand. While this parking discussion is leaning off-topic, I'd just like to say another time that possible re-development of Over-the-Rhine is a very complicated issue, including all kinds of things like zoning, availability of infrastructure, traffic, taxes, schools, crime, subsidized housing, and garbage collection, to name a few. I don't think that construction of a streetcar is magically going to make all of the other issues go away. Sure, the streetcar would be a visible sign that something is happening, and may develop some interest in Over-the-Rhine, but urban proponents could take any one of those issues and work on it for years. Portland and other cities that have streetcars appear to have their act together in more ways than just streetcar construction. Cincinnati seems to have a long way to go. If I was in charge of things, I might try to tackle a different issue first, but I can see why people are excited about the streetcar. "Never build anything underground. You won't get credit for it." - former Ohio governor James Rhodes.

Prepare for the worst, and hope for the best. Over the years, it has gotten harder and harder for governments to obtain property. Sometimes there are multiple mortgages, and there is a lot of beauracracy to go through before contacting the owner. Sometimes the election cycle plays a part, because judges like to put off controversial cases until after the next election. Sometimes it's just a big hassle to track down an out-of-town owner. All of these things take time, and money, and that's before the city even gets to court! On the contrary, I would be shocked if it took less than six months. The City of Cincinnati doesn't have a reputation for getting things done fast.

Highways and parking are two sides of the same coin. Neither one works without the other. In the highway era, agressive highway construction by all levels of government mostly addressed the need for moving space, but not parking space. Think of it this way: I-75 is about 20 miles long within the borders of Hamilton County, with 3 lanes in both directions in most places. At 60 mph, I-75 will acommodate up to about 60,000 cars at one time. (Count the cars in aerial photos.) But those cars don't drive continuously; they have to stop somewhere. So where do they stop and park? I-75 has not a single parking place! Cities often established on-street parking, surface parking, and even some parking garages. ODOT finally built some park & rides. But for the most part, governments at all levels did nothing to construct parking spaces. Instead, they enacted zoning ordinances that prohibited new construction unless it was accomodated by lots of parking. Surburban areas did fine, since there was open land for new construction, but established urban areas such as Over-the-Rhine were doomed to abandonment. Downtown has survived due to being surrounded by parking, somewhat like a suburban shopping mall, and due to the persistance of the old mass transit system, preserved in the form of buses. I went to Main Street in Over-the-Rhine one busy night and found that all of the on-street parking was taken, and the parking spilled onto adjacent streets such as Walnut. Yet, there wasn't much action on Walnut, and even on Main Street half of the storefronts are underutilised. So, if all of Over-the-Rhine was developed to the density of present day Main Street, it is clear that there just isn't enough parking to redevelop all of Over-the-Rhine. I know, I know, the streetcar is supposed to address all of that by reducing the need to drive. But unless Over-the-Rhine is filled with car-free people, there is still going to be a parking problem. That is, new residents can be expected to bring their cars. Where are they going to park them all?

Minimum parking requirements were also intiated to clear parked cars off of city streets. As cities didn't have the resources to license cars, they instead regulated land use, which was more workable, but not necessarily a better solution.

In the event that ownership of the land for the proposed maintenance facility goes to eminent domain, the City of Cincinnati will likely end up with the property at a fair price. That's not really a problem. The problem is that it could be tied up in court for a year. Thus, there has to be enough time in the schedule to allow for this. The procedure would go something like this: First, the City approaches the property owner and offers payment for the land. If the property owner accepts, all is well. If he counter-offers and the City accepts, all is well. But if the property owner refuses, then the city must either take it by force or forgo. In the event that the city initiates eminent domain procedings, then the city has to prepare a case, file a lawsuit, and get a court date scheduled. This can take a year. So, assuming eminent domain, count on a year for court and a year for construction, and if the city starts today we have the maintenance facility opening in 2014 at the earliest. Anything eariler is unrealistic.

In Ohio, Streetcars are utilities, not transportation projects. I think in Oregon the law reads that streetcars and light rail are considered transportation projects, and the policy of the state explicity favors transit. That's not the case in Ohio. Honestly, I don't know exactly how an eminent domain case might turn out, but I don't think it works the same way as a taking for a highway project.

Utilities are out of sight and out of mind, until there is a problem. I've heard the stories of wood water mains, but I have yet to come across one. I think that is a myth. We do have some wood sewers. For that matter, the Roebling Bridge piers are built on wooden piles. Many of the 100-year old brick sewers are in excellent condition. We have some steel gas mains, and those have a reputation for accidents. I have to wonder if Duke really wants 8 feet of clearance because they are worried more about steel gas mains exploding than worker safety. Every city in American has problems with aging infrastructure. What's unique about Cincinnati is that so much of it is so old, because Cincinnati itself is so old. You wouln't expect a building to last a century without any rehabilitation or maintenance. How are the utilities any different? Out of sight, out of mind, I guess. For comparison, Cincinnati was founded in 1788. In 1850, Cincinnati had a population of 100,000. Portland, Oregon was founded in 1843. In 1850, Portland had a population of about 800. Although Cincinnati and Portland are about the same size today, have about the same density, etc., it stands to reason that the utilities in Cincinnati are much older.

Just as a point of reference, eminent domain proceedings can take up to a year. This is a project schedule constraint.

But are you sure that it is really ADDITIONAL revenue, and not offset by slightly lower ridership? I am not in favor of wrapping at all, because it really is that bad. I rode Metro buses before any of them were wrapped, and I remember that the first day that I boarded a wrapped bus, it felt really dismal inside, and the visibility was so bad that I had trouble watching for my stop. Since I was a regular rider, I found my stop ok, but if I was a new rider on a new route, it would be terrifying, It's already intimidating enough to take transit on an unfamiliar route. Why make it hard on your passengers, all for a paltry amount of ad revenue?

Just for comparison, Queen City Metro (SORTA) gets about 4% of its operating budget from advertising. There's a couple things I don't like about the ads on Metro buses: 1. When a bus is wrapped, a lot of the visibility through the winows is lost. This makes for a less pleasant ride. 2. Many of the ads on the outside of the bus are directed toward suburban commuters, particularly the auto sales ads, which doesn't do much for urbanism. 3. Many of the ads on the inside of the bus are directed toward the low-income demographic. So, when the hipsters and young professionals ride the streetcar, do we really want to blast them with ads for paternity testing and injury lawyers? To me, the little bit of advertising revenue hardly seems worth the trouble, and doesn't give mass transit a better image. You don't see ads on the inside and outside of airplanes, except to advertise the airline.

^ I know what you mean, but still the majority of traffic on I-75 is going someplace other than downtown. New express but routes terminating downtown will have only marginal value in alleviating traffic on I-75.

The reversed skyline is driving me crazy. Can you believe they would print that?