Eigth and State

^ Very clever! Make that a one-way counterclockwise loop, round the corners a little, and keep traffic moving. I wonder how the pedestrian movements will turn out, though.

His campaign promise was to shake things up, and that's not limited to the Cincinnati Streetcar and the 3-C line.

Just a note of caution: I don't know how this affect the Census numbers, but watch out for prison populations. If the Sherrif opens or closes a facility, it might make a big difference. :police:

Oh dear.

For a good background on why some town planners made the streets so wide, I recommend "City of Tommorow" by LeCorbusier. Basicly, as cities expanded into large cities (LeCorbusier called them Great Cites and noted that Great Cities have only been around since about 1700,) the older cores were found to be congested. So, towns began to be laid out with wide streets from the beginning. The problem is that some streets were laid out to be TOO wide. Streets can be very narrow indeed and still be functional.

"A woman I work with lives out in Indiana..." Sometimes folks with long commutes came from farm families or small towns far away from metropolitan areas. When the jobs are mostly located in metropolitan areas, these folks have to choose between a long commute and moving away from home and family. Other times, they come from metropolitan areas and moved out for the country lifestyle.

Nice. Thanks for posting. "I drove to Toledo to attend an All Aboard Ohio meeting." So sad. I can't blame you for driving, since there is no better way to get there, but it just feels so hopeless.

"(excuse me, The Village of Indian Hill)" Make that the City of The Village of Indian Hill. If the population of the City of The Village of Indian Hill ever falls below a certain number, will it become the Village of The Village of Indian Hill? :-D

^Ah, but what really is the definition of "through traffic?" Most traffic occurs within cities, not between cities. This was a fact recognized by Robert Moses, who advocated freeways in cities. People go where the transportation is, not the other way around. Building a circle freeway around a city just encourages development near the circle freeway instead of in the older core.

^For what reason? Just to show a bigger Census number? Small chance of that happening. It sounds like it would take an interstate compact, which would require consent of Congress. Meanwhile, Cincinnati can't even gobble up adjacent municipalities in the SAME STATE. But even if it DID happen, what would you expect the Census to do about it? The Census counts population based on state lines. They would probably report something like, "The Ohio portion of Cincinnati has X people, and the Kentucky portion has X people," which is essentially the same as they do now.

"Ohio's secret weapon is its cities." :shoot: As if we were fighting a population war or something? :| Look at the bright side: we could be living in Lagos, Mumbai, or Cairo, all cities with impressive population numbers.

First, allow me to say that I am NOT celebrating the loss of population. A number of forums have expressed surprise. Those who know me may remember that I predicted that Cincinnati would be less than 300,000 in the 2010 Census. I think that the challenges to the Census were misinterpreted as a sign that Cincinnati was gaining population when Cincinnati was actually losing population. I based my prediction on continuation of the trends between 1980 and 1990, and between 1990 and 2000. A lot of attention is focused on the movement of people from one place to another. Indeed, the trends show that people are moving south and west, and from not only urban areas but also from rural areas to the suburbs. However, that's only part of the story. The other part is natural increase, or the difference between births and deaths. In Ohio, we still have more births than deaths, but not by much. To put it in more familiar terms, in 1950 it was common for families to have 5 children. I know several older relatives that came from families with 5 children or more. Going back even farther, it was common for families to have even more children - with 10 children per family in 1840 not being uncommon. Today, a family with 5 children is considered large, and somewhat rare. I can think of a few families of that size that I know personally, but not many. I know lots of families with one or two children. The stats on family size are a bit shocking. In 1950, the average family had 3.5 children. In Ohio today, it's more like 2.0. But keep in mind that that only counts families that have any kids at all - more and more people are having no kids, and I'm not sure if that is counted in the average. Would you believe that over 25% of all households in the United States have just ONE PERSON? There are singles, divorcees, widows, and widowers like never before. This is why neighborhoods that appear stable are often losing population. A typical house in 1950 had two parents and 3.5 kids, for an average population of around 5.5 per house. Smaller family size leads to smaller neighborhood population, assuming the same number of houses. Basicly, if a community is not adding new houses, they are losing population. If they are abandoning / demolishing houses without replacing them (even if they add more commercial buildings), then they are losing population even faster. The population formula is this: Population change = births - deaths + immigration - emigration. In Ohio, births are slightly more than deaths, but deaths are expected to become more than births by the next Census. In Ohio, immigration and emigration are both small compared to births and deaths. There are really only two ways to increase population in Ohio: increase the birth rate, or attract a lot of foreign immigrants. The immigration option is tricky, since it is no longer possible to attract immigrants that are already skilled and educated from developed countries because those countries are already losing population themselves. As for increasing the birth rate, I hear a lot of this: "I would like to have another child, but I can't afford it." No surprises here.

^Hence more fuel-efficient automobiles do NOT reduce reduce oil consumption! Suppose a politician says, "The average car get 20 mpg, and we consume 20 million barrels of oil per day. Increasing the average fuel efficiency to 40 mpg will save 10 million barrels of oil per day." This is false. Increasing average fuel efficienty to 40 mpg will STILL result in consumtion of 20 million barrels of oil per day, if not more, other things being equal. The difference is that people will drive more miles.

^--- Now, now, Democrats don't have a monopoly on Facts, Logic, or Reason, either. Elections aren't necessarily based on Facts, Logis, or Reaons. Voters are not required to base their decision on Facts, Logic, or Reason. As a matter of fact, the electorate can vote for the guy with the most hair, the guy with the better voice, the guy with the best one-liner, the hometown hero, the underdog, the maverick, the guy that went to Ohio State, the guy who has a pretty wife, or plain and simply, the Republican (or Democrat). Or maybe, they will vote for the guy that bought the most negative campaign ads. My point is not to expect too much from a politician from either party when the voters who put him there make their decisions based on something other than Facts, Logic, or Reason.

The first photo is very interesting. It shows a covered sidewalk, with the second story of the building constructed over the sidewalk, supported by columns. This pattern was encouraged in some Roman cities. If all buildings followed this pattern, then there would be a continuous covered sidewalk, and pedestrians could stay out of the rain. There would be no need to clear snow from the sidewalk. In Ohio, this kind of construction is illegal in most places. I suspect that this particular building got away with it. Some modern buildings, especially strip malls, are built this way, but the difference is that they are on private property on not adjacent to the street.

KJP: "I see you've never tried either option." I have tried both options, and lived well doing each. The drawback is that I had to sacrifice the opportunities in the suburbs - shopping, entertainment, etc. "You couldn't care less what pains our citizens are experiencing." I think you misinterpreted my post. I'm not saying how I wish things were, I am saying how they are. The poor, disabled, etc., are under-represented in the political systems of this country, because they do not participate. That mean, in general, they do not vote, do not show up to town meetings, and do not participate in election campaigns to the same degree that people who own cars do. Suppose you are a politician, and there are 10,000 people in your district. You ask for comments on how you can make things better. You get 100 letters. 30 of them complain about traffic and ask to widen the road. 30 of them complain about crime and ask for more police. 30 of them complain of lack of parks and ask for more parks. 10 of them complain about all other things combined. (This is the actual result of a survey in my community.) What do you do as a politician? You widen the road, hire some more police, and build another park. The people who own cars in this country have more political clout than those who do not. I'm not saying that's the way it should be. That's the way it is. As a result, the state has allocated more resources to highways than to public transportation. TBideon: "It affects everyone and everything." I agree with you, man, and I think we have only seen the tip of the iceberg.

^Look at the photo on the right in a mirror and it will appear correctly.

Naw, you can still have a high quaility of life without a car. There are basicly two options: 1. Live in a walkable neighborhood. Yes, there still are some of those. Take advantage of local transit and the occasional taxi ride if you have to. 2. Live in one place self-sufficiently. The small farm comes to mind, but it doesn't have to be a farm. Both of these can be done in Ohio. You can save yourself the cost of care and feeding of a car. The reason why big box stores locate along suburban highways is because it is economical for them to do so. There is no reason why Wal*mart can't build a 5-story department store downtown, like the grand dames of the 1920's, except that that's not the way the customers want to shop. Most customers - especially the ones with money to spend - own cars, and have made the choice of living in the suburbs. I will admit that O.D.O.T. could have done better in the detailing of the transporation infrastructure, but basicly, they gave the people what they wanted. Ohioans have no one but themselves to blame. As for those who can't afford to own cars - well, I'm sorry, but as a group they just don't participate in Ohio's political system to the same degree as those who can afford to own cars.

^- That pair of photos is wierding me out. After studying it for some time, I figured out that they were taken not only at different times about a decade apart, but that they are taken from different directions, and the one on the right is mirrored.

"America's transportation policies have made it impossible for alternatives to driving to exist." Oh come on, KJP. You don't have to drive if you don't want to. Yes, it is more difficult to walk around in neighborhoods due to traffic. Some streets have been cut-off by construction of highways. But impossible? No. There are many places in America where it is possible to live quite comfortably without driving. About 50% of Americans do not drive.

I have a feeling that the Cincinnati Streetcar will either be a fantastic success or a dismal failure, depending on how details are worked out. I do not like the proposed alignment with all the bends, mainly because it is 10 blocks longer than the alternate that I proposed, but we have discussed that already. In my mind, fares are analagous to highway tolls or parking meters. Whether or not to charge fares should depend on the technical and economic merits of the system and not on a political whim. Toll highways are rare in the United States, and fees for parking are hardly ever seen in the suburbs. The typical suburban big-box establishment has a few acres of "free" parking; they are providing a portion of the transporation infrastructure at no cost to the user, and recovering the cost through sales. If the streetcar brings about all of the development that it is supposed to bring, property owners along the route should have no issue with paying slightly higher property tax to support the operation of the streetcar, and the City should have no problem collecting increased tax revenue. In this way, the city is analagous to the big box store that provides a portion of the transportation infrastructure in reture for sales. The fact that we are talking about fares does little to boost my confidence in the streetcar. Either it will bring the development, or it won't. If it does, there should be no problem funding the operation cost. If it does not, then it will require a "subsidy" to operate, and there will be constant political pressure to reduce the operation subsidy, which will leave no funds available for improvement.

That red, white, and gray PCC looks so worn. I would hesitate to ride that, just in case the rest of the system was in the same state of repair.

^Oh dear.

"Straight Street? For real? " I often take my bicycle on Straight Street. But let me explain: I figure it is easier to walk up straight street, and get the uphill climb over with in about 5 minutes, while exercising some different muscle groups and resting my bicycle legs, than to pedal a long, steady, uphill route for 20 minutes or more. So, if I am bicycling from, say, Northside to Hughes Corner, either Spring Grove or Central Parkway along with Straight Street is not a bad route. Going in the reverse direction, I wouldn't ride down Straight Street and waste all of that energy on friction brakes. I would take Clifton Avenue and Ludlow Avenue, which is a long, steady, fast downhill ride with hardly any pedaling.

^So, don't keep us waiting. What works?