JYP

I listen to WVXU almost every morning. They do a really great job at being objective and usually I end up learning more about the issue than from print or television media. A few months ago they hosted a debate on the streetcar issue with Roxanne Qualls and the SORTA guy that opposes the plan.

No. It's the area around City Hall and W. Court Street which has become a weird mix of suburban type office complexes, parking lots, abandoned buildings and very few businesses. Even the Busken Bakery that was there a few months ago moved to the east side of Downtown.

Very true. The west side of DT needs some love!

In addition to this it would be interesting to see the effect new condo towers in OTR & downtown would have an effect on the skyline if/when the streetcar is built. I am thinking 12 to 20 story mixed use condo/apartments. There is potential along Liberty between Race and Elm as well as other vacant or parking lots. Also there is the potential of a 13 story hotel where the Red Cross Building is.

This could affect future phases though. Deters was apparently the one that helped craft the Paul Brown Stadium lease, a lease that has been nothing but an impediment and drain on the County. I am not so much concerned with the dismissal of the firm as I am that Deters, a long time critic of the project, will now handle legal matters regarding the Banks project. That means ample opportunities to take a project that is coming in under cost and ahead of schedule and turn it into Kenwood Towne Place.

Someone was kind enough to model QCS in Google Earth. Here is the model: http://sketchup.google.com/3dwarehouse/details?mid=f9a7861be9545565b2f52a2bcb0397fa&prevstart=0 Why wait for the building to finish when you can enjoy the completed thing right now?! Download and view to your hearts content!!

If the Enquirer picked up anything from this part of the forum, they would be less clueless about the streetcar project.

I would pay to watch this!!

I think Jake's issue is less about bicyclists organizing in opposition and more about that Vine street probably does not need to be reconfigured to accommodate bicycles because there is not a significant amount of people that use that street as a bicycle route. IMO I am opposed to removing on-street parking in favor of bike lanes. On-street parking helps along with street trees to provide a better buffer from traffic for the pedestrian. If we want to make Vine St even remotely attractive for any development improvement we have to remember that the streetcar is about increasing walking and biking for the casual person. I for one, wouldn't bike up any of those hills unless I was training for something or in exceptional physical shape. And if the streetcar is that much of a problem, Auburn Ave and W. Clifton both present adequate route alternatives.

In all honesty if I was a beginner biking to work, the streetcar would definitely be an option. Bike mounts on buses are intimidating to the novice.

Dig a tunnel or go up Reading or Gilbert. Vine St, Clifton St, Sycamore are all going to cause problems. I'm tired of all of 'em I tell ya!

My pavement's better than yours!! Honestly, this project has way more impact than a street resurfacing bid and the argument that this benefits some more than others, although true still should not apply to Bortz. There is no direct interest, only possible residual interest. Does this mean everyone along the streetcar corridor shouldn't have voted on Issue 9? I would think that the only direct benefit is if Bortz tried to designate direct stops on the line in front of his properties.

In general the issue still has a majority but with Laketa Cole resigning next month, its imperative that a replacement is found that also maintains that balance. I'm sure they have already taken this into consideration. So does this decision mean if I am on Council and my road is up for repaving that I have to recuse myself from that vote? I mean everyone gains from the new pavement but maybe I use it a little more?

David is spot on. From what has been proposed, CUT is the best bet. Build a limited facility and roll the possible surplus into financing the 4tha main to CUT. The money for the study has already been awarded so it is proceeding forward. I've heard there is congestion on the Kentucky side as well but I am not sure if it affects the freight bottleneck north of CUT.

They will continue to slant negatively and claim that it is the job of the media to remain skeptical of projects such as these. But yet, highway projects costing at or more than the streetcar continue to move on without a peep or a poll. This controversy is manufactured for profit. Profit for the fish wrap that Enquirer has become. They are too busy trying to save themselves and attacking the City to appease their readership demographic solidifies their readership; the shrinking demographic of aging suburbanites with land line telephones.

I think these results show a few things. A) There is still a lot of ignorance about where the funds come from (capital vs general funds). B) Issue 9's defeat cannot be based on the streetcar alone as other rail projects, bad wording of the amendment may have played a greater role in its defeat than just the streetcar. My initial suggestion is that streetcar supporters have got to do more on educating people about this issue. But upon thinking about it further I wonder if streetcar projects in other cities generated the same scope of negative reaction prior to construction? If I remember correctly they did not have popular support in many cities where they were implemented initially and then support was won once the concept was proven to work. I think its tougher to sell the concept to Cincinnati because of it's conservative population.

Yes, sorry morning brain fart. It's not a debate about the 670 cap, its an example of what can be done. It's not like we are proposing 40 story buildings over the highway (a la I-94 in NYC). A park works, but I think a building works better. If you walk down to that area it feels exposed. There's no shade and its kinda like crossing the desert on a hot day. You're not compelled to cross unless there is something over there you have to go to (i.e. a sports game) and even then its a challengingly bleak crossing. Putting something on either side of the street helps maintain a continuous retail corridor and increases the likelihood of pedestrians to continue on into the banks. Once again I don't think its absolutely essential, a park is fine, but I think a retail corridor would be more of a psychological draw to the banks, and a better bridge between both the CBD and the Banks.

Something along the lines of the I-675 cap in Columbus would be nice. Even a 1 story retail building would do wonders for connecting across FWW.

Noise?

And you can forget about walking across that street!

This is just golden. In order to cross the intersecting street in an automobile you have to turn right, go down another lane, then turn left, go back and turn right. I'm glad they are making things so much easier in the 'burbs!

I support the Bond Hill station but there is some merit to Portune's argument for the eastern line. I believe he thinks that investing in this line allows the City and state to investigate and construct a solution to the CUT accessibility problem. Once CUT becomes the main destination, the rail line can be used for the Eastern Corridor rail line with little expense to bring the tracks up to standards and possibly use the RTC. Although I can't remember if the RTC can support commuter rail sized trains.

There needs to be more of these. It's still 2 pro vs. about 30 negative.

If the intent is to go from Uptown to Downtown, the route using Gilbert is the fastest. This could be a good choice because it provides reliable transit to downtown for University students. Although it would take longer to go from Findlay Market to UC. I guess in the end it comes down to funding and connectivity issues. But I believe the intent of the uptown connector is a connection to downtown more so than a connection OTR north of liberty.

This is a C.Y.A. move by the mayor. No one knows how far the ethics implications would affect this project and Bortz's support is critical for the project regardless of it's outcome. If I was on council and approved a major highway system next to my property would the same apply for me? I am sure they would result that the benefit is incidental to construction but not a direct contribution to the increase in property value. A conflict of interest arises if there is a direct benefit from the outcome of what is being voted on. Cranley's resignation stemmed from his involvement with a specific development project that was associated with the city. The streetcar is for the public investment for public use and benefits everyone like other infrastructure projects , not an approval of a project for a for-profit company. The difference is everyone can ride the streetcar, just like everyone can drive on a road.