Gordon Bombay

Don't necessarily disagree that that's a bad site or could help develop an entertainment district/destination there, but that site was never considered, was already under the ownership of someone else (who's now building there), and it isn't going to come into play this late in the game anyways. The stadium is going to go in Oakley or Newport barring some last minute West End gymnastics, but even then that has been a nightmare for all parties involved it seems. Too bad all this discussion had to happen after the election.

The TIF it's tied to: http://thinkkentucky.com/kyedc/pdfs/TIFProjects.pdf?07062017 Little bit of info here: https://www.fccincinnati.com/stadium Newport definitely doesn't get the scrutiny that the other sites get, probably because it's not requiring any kind of infrastructure spending or political approval. The TIF at the Ovation site already exists.

Remember how random it was when they jumped from Oakley to the West End? It wasn't random at all. They initially announced three potential sites: Oakley, West End, and Newport. From the beginning the West End has been in consideration. They had to get a site nailed down for the MLS bid, so all of their focus was on Oakley, which was the easiest in Cincinnati to get done in time. Then, they switched their attention to the West End, which is a more complicated project. Can you imagine if they tried to get the West End deal done in a single month with a hard deadline? They would never have gotten that done. I personally never understood why a "deal" wasn't being pushed for after the sites were announced, but it seems to be that certain politicians wanted to keep that until after the local election. Interesting who was for it before, became against it after getting re-elected, and who uses it as an opportunity to bolster their supposed "i listen to all sides and I'm your guy" approach.

Correct. It's the Enquirer.

A semi truck got stuck trying to back into the Aronoff Center's loading dock off of Main St. Blocked all vehicular traffic. What does the Enquirer report? Streetcar suspended: https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2018/03/01/streetcar-service-temporarily-suspended/385778002/

This is spot on.

Here is the Newport TIF in question: http://thinkkentucky.com/kyedc/pdfs/TIFProjects.pdf?07062017

On Friday evening, the RTC's Eastern entrance had about a foot of water blocking it and the western entrance had some water accumulating near Paul Brown Stadium. By today (Monday), water seemed to be flowing through the center. The above ground entrances were fogging up. Metro's parking shuttle had to detour off of Mehring Way, but the RTC isn't open to passengers so no transit users were impacted. If the RTC was used as Metro's central hub in lieu of Government Square, I wonder what the detour set up would've been for this kind of flooding.... a 2nd/3rd street temporary transit corridor?

For sure, I definitely don't think it's the best set up, but at the same time a lot of the existing leagues have already gotten their legs and put together a lot of the infrastructure. It can be a lot easier for an investor to join them rather than try to do their own thing at great financial risk. I think as a fan, if anything, rooting for lower division is the way to go. The USL for example is really putting some nice things together and forming a strong league with some great regional rivalries. Even as an FC Cincinnati supporter, I wouldn't be too miffed if MLS passes and our club sticks around to help grow USL. carnevalem[/member] touched on the 2009 NASL (the one that's currently fighting in court), but I think another good example is the original NASL which essentially took a few different rag-tag soccer leagues and tried to build it into a full fledged, top tier league, the likes of MLS and NFL. Those teams often shared NFL venues. That league's rise and fall is tied to several things and several storylines, but like the USFL, I guess the lesson is that starting yuor own thing from scratch is not only difficult, but requires a ton of clout. To do that today, yuo'd have to find a handful of owners willing to lose a good deal of money, for a long time, all aligned on the idea of challenging the current set up. Soccer in the United States is going to get interesting over the next few decades as the sport continues to grow here. The aforementioned Dennis Crowley has shown how you can make it work at the grassroots, amateur level and clubs like Detroit City FC have shown you can garner a loyal following even without being "pro." I don't necesarily think the USL is going to directly challenge MLS in the next five years or even ten. The notion is intriguing, but it's worth noting that the league has a very good relationship with MLS with some of its clubs being direct MLS "II" teams, direct hybrids ala a AAA team, or "hybrids" that feature some MLS development players/independent players. If you eliminate those clubs, there's a lot of ground to make up. The USL currently has 33 teams for 2018. Of those 33, only 12 clubs are fully independent with no MLS affiliation of any sort. Of those 12, Charleston, Penn, and Colorado have had "hybrid" agreements in the past and may have them again this year or in the future. Of the remaining nine, Nashville is headed to MLS in 2020. Of the remaining eight, both FC Cincinnati and Sacramento are still considered MLS expansion candidates. We'll find out which one got it (hopefully soon), but whichever remains will likely still be looking to jump to MLS). Of the remaining six, Indy XI, NCFC, Tampa, and Phoenix have all submitted MLS expansion bids. Phoenix probably has the edge on the others, but if MLS does keep growing, Indy, Tampa, and NCFC could be contenders again. That leaves Louisville and Las Vegas as your only truly independent clubs that currently have no direct plans to attempt to join MLS. It's likely not all of them will get in to MLS and could keep making strong runs in USL, but I think that league is going to take its time growing out its divisions with stronger clubs and gain truly solid ground in makrets before it goes about contesting Division 1.

Interestingly enough, Cleveland almost had an MLS team with a stadium in Macedonia. The public rejected a sales tax to pay for the stadium and the man leading the effort passed away. The club was slated to potentially start playing in 2005.

Not a naive question at all and I'll attempt to answer it from a perspective of studying American soccer history/being a support of my local pro team. However, this is just my take on it. The biggest thing keeping a group from starting a league is sanctioning from the United States Soccer Federation. For better or worse, the way the system works now is that the USSF provides division sanctioning to pro leagues in the United States. MLS is Division 1. USL just recently went from Division 3 to "provisional Division 2" to now being Division 2. The NASL (what's left of it at least) is currently tied up in court arguing against division sanctioning. The USL will launch another league in 2019 at the Division 3 level and the National Independent Soccer Association (NISA) is also attempting to get a D3 league off of the ground. The USSF is partnered/aligned with FIFA in terms of governing the game here domestically. This can complicate things, because if you operate at the pro level outside of the USSF you're likely to not get FIFA recognition, meaning your players and coaches could be black listed from playing for other teams both domestically and internationally. Interestingly enough, there's rumblings of a "Division 0" happening, the self described name for a new pro league that would in fact operate outtside of the USSF. Unfortunately, Division 0 is the product of Robert Palmer (Jacksonville Armada) owner and a few other NASL sides who don't want to wait for NISA, have no interest in USL, and still want to be pro teams. There's a lot of risk involved with not working with the national federation. So to your scenario, there's nothing really stopping a group of entrepreneurs from getting together, except that they'd be better off playing along with the USSF. This kind of happened in the early days of Major League Soccer. Many teams started out playing in college football and NFL stadia. The Columbus Crew sort of bucked that trend in 99 when they opened what's considered the first soccer-specific stadium. For MLS teams, I believe seeking out their own venues was for a number of reasons. - League perception. Having your own home symbols permanence and looks better on tv when 20,000 seats are filled compared to 20,000 sprinked across 40,000 empty NFL seats. - Revenue opportunities. You stand to make more money in a building you own and operate (or got someone to build for you) than you do sharing revenue with a landlord. - Fan interest. Providing fans with a unique experience in an intimate, purpose built venue is more appealing than a re purposed NFL stadium. In a lot of cases, MLS clubs needed their own venue to secure revenue streams and exist in the long term. Teams like Seattle, Atlanta, and New England (also Detroit if it is admitted under its current expansion proposal) share common ownership with the existing NFL team so their rent/revenue is moot. Like, 8 rich people field 8 moderately paid teams, keep gate receipts, and let the venue owners keep concessions revenue as rent? While this sounds ideal, I imagine these agreements are more complicated. For example, if you're in an agreement with an NFL teams stadium, do "gate receipts" only count as tickets at the turnstiles or luxury suite revenue as well? Would concessions alone be enough to satisfy who you're renting the venue from? More than likely, venue agreements are not this simply clear cut. I think the thing keeping agreements like this from happening are that businesses inherently want to make as much money as possible. Not taking a share of the gate receipts is a pretty generous move. Massive NFL stadiums are also costly to operate. I agree it often seems crazy, but like you said, I think there are a lot of costs involved with bigger venues. It also comes down to supply/demand and who regulates that. MLS controls Division 1 and if you want in, they've indicated they're only taking so many teams (at least for now). Want to make your expansion club appealing? Having your own venue where you control revenue and scheduling certainly puts you ahead of the guy willing to share an NFL stadium that may still look bad on tv if the crowd is respectable, but not full. Look at the current expansion round. Nashville, Sacramento, and Cincinnati were all prioritized over Detroit for having their own stadium plans. Interestingly enough, in the lower divisions you do see a lot of venue sharing. Indy XI will be playing some games at Lucas Oil Field this season and A LOT of USL teams play on baseball fields shared with minor league teams. OKC actually plays in a nice high school football field. Even still, some have built their own venues. Louisville City FC is currently doing that for Division 2 simply because it's not financially sustainable to be tenants with the Bats baseball team and they see a stadium as a chance to get a long term existence. With the launch of USL Division 3 and USL Division 2 indicating that it's ok to continue expanding (and looking at a 3 conference set up), I think you're going to see even more pro teams spring up in markets without them, using existing venues. For example, I still can't believe that markets like Cleveland and Baltimore haven't had new teams yet. If a pro, USL team were to pop up in Cleveland, First Energy could be a venue they'd use and I doubt the league would be against it, but I'm not sure how the team would feel about the optics and costs.

There is literally a grassroots coalition of bus riders who would all be better candidates Aside from being everyday users, they actively promote improvements and ideas on their Twitter accounts rather than going out of their way to refer to Chris Seelbach as "Chrissy." Cranley wanted a vocal proponent who would be a yes man (who used to refer to himself as a "future city councilman," who no doubt is allying himself for future ambitions) and Chris Smitherman/Pastor got to go out of their way to make it seem like he was being targeted for "thinking independently." Thousands of regular transit riders in this city still available for the appointment.

As I understand it, Stargel and its needs can fit in the Citirama site whereas a full fledged, 20,000 seat stadium with all the frills can't.

Hahaha, this is so true. I'll admit that my expectations of Nippert have been blown out of the water (it helps with the attendance this club has seen). I thought playing at UC was going to be cavernous even with 10,000 in the stands (if we were lucky), but it's turned out pretty great. I love being able to hang out in Uptown. However, Nippert has some glaring issues with crowds and at the end of the day, it's a college football stadium on a college campus. Maybe I don't get that excited about it since I didn't go there/am indifferent about UC athletics. I would hope that even if MLS doesn't happen, the club would seek out its own, smaller soccer specific stadium ala Louisville City FC when the lease at Nippert is up. That seems to be corrected with the newer arena built across the street, no? And if not, were those businesses along 5th Ave. around for the Civic Arena? In previous articles posted here, it seems the club is interested in development opportunities other than just a stadium. It also helps that you're located nearby another developing area and a permanent transit line. Developers have been speculating on the West End well before any talks of a stadium. For me, I'm interested to see what FCC's plans are and how they engage CPS/residents. I still think Newport was objectively the best location (if you can look past the fact that it's *gasp* not in Cincinnati), but compared to Oakley, I think the West End is a much better site. I'm curious too about the concerns of residents. Right now, the concerns seem to mainly be stemming from those concerned about CPS. thebillshark[/member], I've enjoyed a lot of your thoughts and ideas on The West End over the years, curious to see how exactly you feel about the proposed stadium.

Not sure if you read the article beyond the headline (and it's pay-walled so I get it), but essentially that article said they looked at the idea, it was faced with hurdles, and they haven't resisted it since. "Obstacles" was a word consistently used and the option of using Nippert is no longer being pursued. It was a meaningful article with interviews and content, but the headline is a bit click-baity. They're not going to use Nippert, wouldn't get the University or State to agree to that anyways, and MLS isn't interested in the stadium. https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2018/02/02/could-nippert-stadium-still-be-a-permanent-option.html

This would lend credence to making Walnut and Main transit only south of Court St or something like that. I wish that could get some traction because as someone had mentioned earlier in this thread, it could be a great idea. This would be a boon to Metro buses as well. I used to catch an express on Walnut and would track it. The bus was always on schedule, but it rarely ever made it to my stop (and then Gov. Square D) on time, due to traffic on Walnut. If the streetcar had a dedicated lane shared with buses and a priority light at 5th that allowed that buses to turn into Gov. Square/5th/or continue South with the streetcar, it would really hasten not just transit, but ALL traffic. Same with Main. I now catch a bus on Main/7 every day and it's a constant flow of Metro routes contesting with cars. Main generally flows better than Walnut, though.

This. This. This. 1,000x THIS! Love your comment, Jim. The cold weather issues being experienced currently and recently aren't unique to our system. Kansas City has faced similar issues, but seems to somehow be tackling them a lot more effectively. Let's put those mechanical issues aside for a moment, though, and go back to the core issues with the Cincinnati Streetcar. - Real-Time signs took way too long to work properly and effectively. By the time they did, confidence in them had been eroded. - Even if the real-time signs didn't work, effective tracking via a phone app would've more than made up for it. However, unlike Kansas City and several other similar/bigger systems throughout the nation/world, the Cincinnati Bell Connector has no app that allows you to track vehicles. You can pay fare from your phone, but that app provides absolutely no useful information for knowing when/if a train is coming. - Even if an app wasn't developed, there are free, downloadable alternatives using data put out by transit agencies. I've used the free "Transit" app on iOS in New York City, Boston, Las Vegas, and Chicago; that app tracks those systems far, far, far more effectively than any Metro bus or Cincinnati streetcar. When the streetcar is working, it rarely appears on the app in real-time at all. When it does, it's only showing 1 (or if you're lucky maybe 2!) vehicles. Ironically, the only time I've seen it show all vehicles in a reliable format was when Metro buses marked as "Route 100" were filling in during the recent shutdown. If other cities can somehow make this seemingly reliable service work, why can't we? - Even if the real-time signs aren't reliable and there's no app available, a proper frequency wouldn't right the ship, but it would make things easier. It's a lot easier to walk to a station and think "Hmm, at most, I have ten minutes until a train comes" than think "I believe trains come every 12-15 minutes, maybe." Yet, our frequency is ridiculous. - Even if you rely on frequency and no technology, this system was designed with certain sections having proper signal timing in mind. When that was eliminated, relying on any sort of frequency is just a guess at that point, because cars are likely to get bogged down or delayed, especially in evening commute traffic. And then there's the whole issues of vehicles blocking the tracks and facing no repercussions. I don't buy into the arguments that you can "walk faster than the streetcar." You can't. I've walked from 4th to 12th several times on nice days and been passed by trains making that trip quicker. However, when you factor in that your station wait time could be anywhere from a few to fifteen (or more) minutes, why wouldn't you just hop on a bike or start hoofing it? If you're a downtown office worker, having no confidence in location, availability, or frequency gives you little incentive to use the system to grab lunch, run errands, etc. within a reasonable time frame. There are all these little things that can be quite clearly and easily fixed, yet here we are over a year into this thing opening and what's been done? Nothing. We can all commiserate about Cranley, Smitherman, and their ilk. At least they've said they've been opposed from the beginning, that was never any secret. But where's the leadership looking to make this thing not just run, or even run well, but just run properly?. Who's out there promoting that it should be done right, should be an asset, and something we can do well? Because like it or not, it's here to stay. Yet P.G., Seelbach, and Young, who have been proponents in the past, are seemingly quiet (or bogged down with twitter spats). Where's the leadership? In my opinion, Murray handled things alright for someone who was opposed and clearly isn't going to tackle the issue, David Mann always seemed lukewarm. We won't see them be champions anytime soon. Landsman, Dennard, and Pastor are new or made their positions known. So who, if anyone, of our elected city officials is going to step up? Sorry for the rant, but it just seems so typical of Cincinnati to not be able to remotely execute a project that has been proven successful in so many other places. These problems aren't hidden and the solutions aren't some mystifying sorcery. Yet, here we are. Edit: Spelling

It's a return to the Charlie Luken/Tom Luken years. The big question is why the blue bloods, who owned the Lukens and own Cranley, so deeply fear a city with effective public transportation? Harder to control a city that is prosperous than one that is sputtering along? Maybe they are just collectively morons who can't see past their own noses... I dunno. Looks like he deleted that tweet, anyone have a screen grab?

Personally, I was excited because I live nearby and hoped maybe, just maybe it would start catalyzing some decent development in that part of Oakley, but WE and Newport were always far better options. I consider Oakley a city neighborhood and it's a great neighborhood, but match days were going to feel very suburban even if technically in the city limits.

I mean, if the stadium goes in The West End, it'll be right near OTR as well as a few streetcar stations.

Yes. Correct. Not quite accurate. MLS set deadlines for final bids to be submitted and announced when their expansion committee would be meeting. They met and a few weeks later announced the admittance of Nashville. As for the other teams, information has been sparse and speculation rampant, but MLS has never set a hard deadline or date as to when this would occur. Is it frustrating for some? Sure, but that's mainly been due to hand wringing and poor reporting by a certain people at a local paper (PB does a good job, the rest don't), typical local tv reporting, and talk radio. People were under the impression that an announcement would come on certain days or various timelines, but the league never said "Hey, yo, we gonna choose this day, be ready!" Miami's franchise has been in the works for years and was part of a separate process outside of the current expansion rounds and the previous Orland/Minnesota round. It dates back to when David Beckham joined the league (and as part of his contract was promised an expansion franchise locked in at the 2006/2007 price). Miami was announced alongside LAFC, with plans for both teams to begin in 2018. LAFC got off the ground easily, while Miami has featured stumbling block after stumbling block. The team is now set and will likely join in 2020. Because lower division soccer in the United States is still tumultuous and in flux. While the USL has made great strides in recent seasons, not every team is anywhere near as successful as FCC, Louisville, and Indianapolis. See the Rochester Rhinos this season for a good example of when "minor league" is fully embraced. Except Austin didn't have The Crew "wrapped up." It was leaked that the Crew owner was finally pursuing Austin (and that he had a contract clause to pursue only Austin). He still needed a stadium plan and public support to make the move. So far in that process, the Austin City Council has been a bit tepid. However, Austin was never a done deal and in the end, may not happen. I would argue that a well established history of major league sports, a large population, and presence of large businesses' already grants Cincinnati "major league" status (even if this city/region continually drop the ball on certain things). However, if FC Cincinnati wants to get into the top flight of American soccer, the time to do it is now.

Streetcar service to resume Monday, Jan. 22, at 6:30 a.m. Buses continuing coverage until 11 PM Sunday night: http://www.cincinnatibellconnector.com/news/58/35/STREETCAR-SERVICE-TO-RESUME-MONDAY-MORNING-Jan.-22-at-630-a.m.

Ideally, these kind of kinks wouldn't have happened, but unfortunately they did. They're not the biggest hindrance to reliability, though. "12-15" minute headways, lack of signal timing or prioritization, and poor leadership from the city are.

Couldn't agree more. It's one thing to have a mayor with a few allies proclaiming to be against the project, but when the so called "supporters' failed to do anything worthwhile to help, it's even worse. Typical Cincinnati.

So, thank you, for putting this together. I've never really envisioned light rail to the airport working this way. For some reason, I always kind of assumed they would go across Clay Wade or a new bridge near the BSB, along 75/71 and then cut over to the airport like the highway does. This proposal would shorten that trip quite a bit. Would a tunnel be needed, though or is the grade too steep in the NKY hills near the ferry?