I like LiG's suggestions for sure. And for the return north, could cut up Central Ave then across the lot between Central Ave and Central Pkwy to rejoin the subway tunnels.

Northbound and southbound tracks want to be as close together as possible, so you don't have people having to walk across downtown for their return commute. Returning north via Central Avenue would also require construction of a very costly junction at Central Parkway.

 

Under my proposal, the trains would terminate at RTC for the time being. In the future, the line could be extended westward along River Road, and if politically feasible in the future, head across the river via the Clay Wade Bailey Bridge and eventually toward the airport.

That does make more sense.

I don't think tracks on Eggleston make much sense, and if they do, it would be for this bizarre reason: elevating the value of property whose only current value is its visiblity from I-71.  Any new development on those lots would need to provide parking for itslef and the parking it replaced, and there would be basically zero opportunity for ground-level retail.

 

Downtown would have to be more or less built out (most surface lots redeveloped) before development will push into the old Deer Creek gulch.  And the idea streetcar connection in that scenario would be a streetcar line directly west into the CBD on 4th, 5th, or 5th.  Not beneath 2nd St. or Central Parkway. 

The subway tunnel absolutely was going to be used as part of the Metro Moves plan.  The match is worth much more, somewhere between $50 and $100 million. 

 

It could not be used with diesel commuter rail unless ventilation was installed, the cost of which I cannot begin to estimate.  The whole tunnel was lined with vents when it was built in order to permit the use of steam locomotives, with space for fans to be installed. 

 

 

 

In addition to the matching funds, I have to think that the psychic benefits of using the previously built subway tunnels would be incalcuable.  Imagine some folks not having the ability to point to the subway failure in their arguments about Cincinnati. 

 

Like the U-Bahn in Berlin, where some tunnels and stations sat unused for many years because they connected the east and west sides. It's a really neat thing to see and talk about.

There was at least one line that remained active while traveling briefly (with no stations) into Soviet territory, or vice-verse. 

I don't think tracks on Eggleston make much sense, and if they do, it would be for this bizarre reason: elevating the value of property whose only current value is its visiblity from I-71.  Any new development on those lots would need to provide parking for itslef and the parking it replaced, and there would be basically zero opportunity for ground-level retail.

 

Downtown would have to be more or less built out (most surface lots redeveloped) before development will push into the old Deer Creek gulch.  And the idea streetcar connection in that scenario would be a streetcar line directly west into the CBD on 4th, 5th, or 5th.  Not beneath 2nd St. or Central Parkway. 

 

But we were talking about a commuter-style rail system, not a streetcar. The main purpose of a streetcar is economic development, while the main purpose of other types of rail transit is to get large numbers of people quickly from Point A to Point B.

^ Where on earth did you get those figures, and what "geological factors" are you referring to? Cincinnati is in a relatively stable seismic area with consistent bedrock. In many cases deep-bore tunneling is much cheaper than cut-and-cover, since there's little need to relocate utilities or tear up the surface streets.

 

The $15 million per mile is based on the tunnel in northern Kentucky that is pictured. The finished tunnel with liner is 12' in diameter, but the actual bored tunnel was 15'. They used a Tunnel Boring Machine.

 

The bottom of the Ohio River Aquifer is about 200 feet below the bottom of the Ohio River in the downtown area. The same geologic formation exists in the lower Mill Creek Valley, where the pilings for the Western Hills Viaduct had to extend over 100 feet underground. A tunnel boring machine can bore through soil, or it can bore through rock, but it does not do well boring through a soil-rock transition because it would have to be removed to replace the cutting heads. Also, building a tunnel in a soil formation that bears water is problematic; one of the London subway tunnels had a severe accident when they hit water and the tunnel flooded. So, to stay in rock and clear beneath the aquifer, it would have to be much deeper.

 

Another factor is that the rock beneath the surface changes in quality, and the rock 300 feet deep is a better quality for tunneling. We know this due to some work by the Army Corps of Engineers for a flood control project that didn't get built.

 

The rocks that you can see outcropping on Cincinnati Hillsides are OK for tunneling. This is the formation that the never-completed Deer Creek Tunnel was in, or the proposed Mt. Auburn tunnel that didn't get built. Incidently, I wonder why they took the time to take test bores for the Mt. Auburn Tunnel when all they had to do was look at existing information that we already had.  A tunnel from some point in Over-the-Rhine to Idlewild beneath uptown is feasible because it would stay in the same rock formation.

 

It's also significantly less expensive to build a tunnel when access is through a portal rather than a shaft, because material can be hauled straight out in hoppers rather than having to transfer it to an elevator and lift it.

 

There are other existing crossings under the Ohio River but they were't built with Tunnel Boring machines.

But we were talking about a commuter-style rail system, not a streetcar. The main purpose of a streetcar is economic development, while the main purpose of other types of rail transit is to get large numbers of people quickly from Point A to Point B.

 

That's an interesting way to say it.

8&ST, what is that picture from? What kind of tunnel is that?

^It's from a tunnel under construction in northern Kentucky.

 

More photos can be found here:

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php?topic=20751.0

I don't think tracks on Eggleston make much sense, and if they do, it would be for this bizarre reason: elevating the value of property whose only current value is its visiblity from I-71.  Any new development on those lots would need to provide parking for itslef and the parking it replaced, and there would be basically zero opportunity for ground-level retail.

 

Downtown would have to be more or less built out (most surface lots redeveloped) before development will push into the old Deer Creek gulch.  And the idea streetcar connection in that scenario would be a streetcar line directly west into the CBD on 4th, 5th, or 5th.  Not beneath 2nd St. or Central Parkway. 

 

But we were talking about a commuter-style rail system, not a streetcar. The main purpose of a streetcar is economic development, while the main purpose of other types of rail transit is to get large numbers of people quickly from Point A to Point B.

 

All transportation is economic development.

^Amen.

And the main purpose of all transportation is to move people (or objects).

And the main purpose of all transportation is to move people (or objects).

 

I don't think so. That's what it does, but it's not its purpose. My TV translates electronic signals into images, but that's not why I bought it.

 

I think it's an important concept to promote, because to the state DOT, they seem to have forgotten that transportation is the backbone of urban form and pretty much dictates what development is going to look like and how it's going to work.

Not just the DOT, but the media and the public.  They're unable to recognize that the US, as it exists today, is grossly unnatural. 

I don't think so. That's what it does, but it's not its purpose. My TV translates electronic signals into images, but that's not why I bought it.

 

I subscribe to the school of thought that function = purpose. You bought the TV because it allows you to watch moving images on it. You drive your car to take you where you want to go. You will ride on the streetcar to move about the downtown/OTR area and go farther and faster than you would on foot. You aren't riding on the streetcar because it is a great economic development catalyst. That might be the reason we fund its construction but not its purpose. Mass transit's purpose is first and foremost for people to actually use it.

>You drive your car to take you where you want to go.

 

People also own cars to appear normal.  To avoid having teenagers in passing cars yell and throw stuff at them when they're walking or biking on the side of a road where hardly anyone walks or bikes.  It's much more complicated. 

 

I don't think so. That's what it does, but it's not its purpose. My TV translates electronic signals into images, but that's not why I bought it.

 

I subscribe to the school of thought that function = purpose. You bought the TV because it allows you to watch moving images on it. You drive your car to take you where you want to go. You will ride on the streetcar to move about the downtown/OTR area and go farther and faster than you would on foot. You aren't riding on the streetcar because it is a great economic development catalyst. That might be the reason we fund its construction but not its purpose. Mass transit's purpose is first and foremost for people to actually use it.

 

In the Streetcar's case, it is not a stretch to say that people will be riding it because it's an economic catalyst, because it's not being built to serve existing ridership demand. It's being built to attract residents and development.

In the Streetcar's case, it is not a stretch to say that people will be riding it because it's an economic catalyst, because it's not being built to serve existing ridership demand. It's being built to attract residents and development.

 

I definitely see where you are coming from in terms of economic development creating the demand/ridership. The purpose of building the streetcar is certainly not necessarily to serve an existing ridership demand from the banks to Findlay Market; whereas, the purpose of building lightrail along I-71 and I-75 corridors is to service an existing need. However, while the purpose of the lightrail itself matches the purpose of building it, that is not the case with the streetcar. The streetcar will serve as a pedestrian accelerator. People will not say to themselves "Wow, that streetcar sure is a great economic development engine, let's ride it!" They will say, "Wow, it is so awesome that the streetcar connects the stadiums, the banks, fountain square, gateway quarter, washington park, and Findlay Market! Let's ride the streetcar and go to all those places!" 

>You drive your car to take you where you want to go.

 

People also own cars to appear normal.  To avoid having teenagers in passing cars yell and throw stuff at them when they're walking or biking on the side of a road where hardly anyone walks or bikes.  It's much more complicated. 

 

 

Not owning a car will definitely get a person yelled at on one of TV's many judge shows.

Interesting conversation going on in the comment section of the recent UrbanCincy article about the Wasson Line rail corridor. Some argue in favor of it being turned into a "rails to trails" path, while UrbanCincy advocates letting it wait to be used for light rail.

 

http://www.urbancincy.com/2012/02/cincinnatis-wasson-rail-corridor-should-not-be-converted-into-recreational-trail/

 

After looking at the map and finding out that the corridor passes right by my work in Hyde Park, I have to agree with UrbanCincy. I'm all for more bike/hiking/walking paths, but if we do that and down the road we want to turn it into light rail - imagine the uproar and talk radio fodder. "The people who brought you the unsuccessful trolley (that streetcar could bring that Jesus feller back and they'd still call it unsuccessful) now want to destroy a park for more trains!"

 

IMO, we need to keep riding the streetcar momentum and push for light rail soon.

^Technically the Wasson line was never a railroad, but an interurban. I don't think the "rails to trails" program applies. It could still become a bicycle path, but not under that program.

 

Someone tell me if I'm wrong, but I thought that the "rails to trails" program involves railroads that are unused but not officially abandoned, with the possibility of re-using them as railroads in the future. The line has to be connected to an active railroad; isolated sections do not apply.

 

I think the Little Miami folks would go crazy if the bike trail was proposed to be converted back to an active railroad, but that's the way the paperwork reads.

 

 

I don't think so. That's what it does, but it's not its purpose. My TV translates electronic signals into images, but that's not why I bought it.

 

I subscribe to the school of thought that function = purpose. You bought the TV because it allows you to watch moving images on it. You drive your car to take you where you want to go. You will ride on the streetcar to move about the downtown/OTR area and go farther and faster than you would on foot. You aren't riding on the streetcar because it is a great economic development catalyst. That might be the reason we fund its construction but not its purpose. Mass transit's purpose is first and foremost for people to actually use it.

 

In the Streetcar's case, it is not a stretch to say that people will be riding it because it's an economic catalyst, because it's not being built to serve existing ridership demand. It's being built to attract residents and development.

 

Why we're building the streetcar: The biggest barrier to redeveloping the core of our region is the burden of accommodating the automobile. Building two garage parking spaces for a new downtown apartment adds at least $50,000 to the price of the apartment. If some or all of that cost can be eliminated, the unit can be sold for much less. Plus, the average Cincinnatian spends about $8,000 per year on his or her car. If some of this money can be diverted to housing, then the condo buyer or renter would have more disposable income to purchase more or better housing. So the streetcar reduces the cost of the housing while the purchasing power of the resident goes up.  In effect, housing becomes more affordable.

 

But there's more. As people begin living and working along the streetcar route, they will tend to shop and entertain themselves within a smaller footprint. Earned income that now leaks out of the city will instead be spent more locally. Restaurants, grocers and other retailers will spring up to meet this demand. The Cincinnati Streetcar is all about creating a climate to capture more spending in the places where paychecks are earned.

 

Read more at www.protransit.com

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Can I get an AMEN?

 

AMEN!

Interesting conversation going on in the comment section of the recent UrbanCincy article about the Wasson Line rail corridor. Some argue in favor of it being turned into a "rails to trails" path, while UrbanCincy advocates letting it wait to be used for light rail.

 

http://www.urbancincy.com/2012/02/cincinnatis-wasson-rail-corridor-should-not-be-converted-into-recreational-trail/

 

 

IMO, we need to keep riding the streetcar momentum and push for light rail soon.

 

I've talked to numerous people from the suburbs and city, many of whom I NEVER thought would be for any form of mass/rail transit, who now firmly support light rail in the region.  Current and future gas prices are really changing peoples minds out of necessity...finally...across all demographics.  Cincinnati can be a leader in Ohio.  The problem, of course, is not getting any help from the Governor and state elected officials. 

More than gas prices, I think the streetcar debate has forced people to think seriously about what it would be like to have rail in the region. While they don't like the streetcar because they don't see it as convenient for their own use, they do see lightrail connecting the activity hubs they frequent as something they would use. Which, of course, is the prerequisite for not-boondoggles.

 

The question is if they could support a real project, as opposed to an abstract one, once the toasters start spewing their venom. Kind of like how healthcare reform was really popular until the final (watered down) bill was cast as a radical Muslim socialist atheist death panel crime train choo choo boondoggle.

I think Heavy rail needs to run down the medians of the interstates. Light rail or electric buses can feed hubs along the interstate.

Interesting conversation going on in the comment section of the recent UrbanCincy article about the Wasson Line rail corridor. Some argue in favor of it being turned into a "rails to trails" path, while UrbanCincy advocates letting it wait to be used for light rail.

 

http://www.urbancincy.com/2012/02/cincinnatis-wasson-rail-corridor-should-not-be-converted-into-recreational-trail/

 

 

IMO, we need to keep riding the streetcar momentum and push for light rail soon.

 

I've talked to numerous people from the suburbs and city, many of whom I NEVER thought would be for any form of mass/rail transit, who now firmly support light rail in the region.  Current and future gas prices are really changing peoples minds out of necessity...finally...across all demographics.  Cincinnati can be a leader in Ohio. The problem, of course, is not getting any help from the Governor and state elected officials. 

 

...who will leave office eventually.  If we get the ball rolling on MetroMoves 2.0 NOW, by the time we get to State and Federal funding applications we'll be in a completely different climate politically.

Why we're building the streetcar: The biggest barrier to redeveloping the core of our region is the burden of accommodating the automobile.

 

I agree with you except for one thing: do you really think that the streetcar will promote living car-free? I know you don't own a car, but not everyone is like you. What I imagine is that most of the new development in Over-the-Rhine, if it happens at all, will come with parking. Either that, or it will be targetted toward the poor or disabled who do not drive.

 

I have a friend who lives downtown. I asked her how she liked living downtown. The first thing she said is that parking is such a hassle. She rents a parking space in a garage. She drives to work.

Why we're building the streetcar: The biggest barrier to redeveloping the core of our region is the burden of accommodating the automobile.

 

I agree with you except for one thing: do you really think that the streetcar will promote living car-free? I know you don't own a car, but not everyone is like you. What I imagine is that most of the new development in Over-the-Rhine, if it happens at all, will come with parking. Either that, or it will be targetted toward the poor or disabled who do not drive.

 

I have a friend who lives downtown. I asked her how she liked living downtown. The first thing she said is that parking is such a hassle. She rents a parking space in a garage. She drives to work.

 

If you can cut a 2 car family down to a one car family, or if you can leverage the streetcar and increased density to attract car sharing, then you can make a huge reduction in the amount of parking needed.

Why we're building the streetcar: The biggest barrier to redeveloping the core of our region is the burden of accommodating the automobile.

 

I agree with you except for one thing: do you really think that the streetcar will promote living car-free? I know you don't own a car, but not everyone is like you. What I imagine is that most of the new development in Over-the-Rhine, if it happens at all, will come with parking. Either that, or it will be targetted toward the poor or disabled who do not drive.

 

I have a friend who lives downtown. I asked her how she liked living downtown. The first thing she said is that parking is such a hassle. She rents a parking space in a garage. She drives to work.

 

I know of at least a dozen people (probably closer to 20 if I think about it) who moved downtown with their cars and have since sold them.  Once you realize how easy car-free life is down here, there's absolutely no reason.  Zipcar is right up the hill on campus and makes renting a car short term incredibly easy.  All of the car rental places are a short 2X Airport Express ride away for longer term rentals.  Still, I only find myself renting a car maybe once per month.  Another perk is that I ALWAYS drive a new car.  I had a friend loan me his beater to save me a few bucks the other day and it shocked me how terribly the thing handled.  To think that people are paying an arm and a leg to chauffeur themselves around town in that garbage (and still having it be seen as superior to riding a bus) astounds me.

 

Car-free life is catching on quickly and the streetcar undoubtedly promotes that lifestyle.

My girlfriend and I went from 2-car to 1 after living in OTR for 4 months. Mostly to save money. And all the rental companies have offices downtown - Hertz, Avis, Budget, Enterprise. We've rented a car once when we took a trip to IKEA for some furniture larger than would fit in our car. She's the only one who really drives much. Works at the Zoo and its more convenient to drive because her schedule is flexible and continuously changing. We walk nearly everywhere else we need to go, hold for the occasional larger grocery trip to the Newport Kroger.

Why we're building the streetcar: The biggest barrier to redeveloping the core of our region is the burden of accommodating the automobile.

 

I agree with you except for one thing: do you really think that the streetcar will promote living car-free? I know you don't own a car, but not everyone is like you. What I imagine is that most of the new development in Over-the-Rhine, if it happens at all, will come with parking. Either that, or it will be targetted toward the poor or disabled who do not drive.

 

I have a friend who lives downtown. I asked her how she liked living downtown. The first thing she said is that parking is such a hassle. She rents a parking space in a garage. She drives to work.

 

It's not for everyone, but living car-free or car-light, especially among young people, has been a trend that's been growing in Japan, Western Europe and North America for ten years now. You could look it up.

I have a friend who lives downtown. I asked her how she liked living downtown. The first thing she said is that parking is such a hassle. She rents a parking space in a garage. She drives to work.

 

If she's renting a dedicated space, where's the hassle??

I have a friend who lives downtown. I asked her how she liked living downtown. The first thing she said is that parking is such a hassle. She rents a parking space in a garage. She drives to work.

 

If she's renting a dedicated space, where's the hassle??

 

hassle = she has to pay for it...

I have a friend who lives downtown. I asked her how she liked living downtown. The first thing she said is that parking is such a hassle. She rents a parking space in a garage. She drives to work.

 

If she's renting a dedicated space, where's the hassle??

 

Where does she live compared to where she has to drive to?

 

I've freelanced for a company downtown and we'd do on location work all over the CBD and OTR. Every time we would walk unless we had some big equipment to haul. One day we all walked to up to OTR and everyone was remarking about how great it would be to have the streetcar soon enough.

I have a friend who lives downtown. I asked her how she liked living downtown. The first thing she said is that parking is such a hassle. She rents a parking space in a garage. She drives to work.

 

If she's renting a dedicated space, where's the hassle??

 

Where does she live compared to where she has to drive to?

 

I've freelanced for a company downtown and we'd do on location work all over the CBD and OTR. Every time we would walk unless we had some big equipment to haul. One day we all walked to up to OTR and everyone was remarking about how great it would be to have the streetcar soon enough.

 

I think it depends on what type of company you're working for, I think.  I work for an architecture firm and people I work with will walk all over downtown to eat, even though we are in the very corner.  Admittedly, though, we drive if we do lunch at Findlay Markey.  There's just not enough time in a lunch hour to walk up there and eat unless you're Barry Horstman.  I think people outside of the "creative" fields are less inclined to go out and walk somewhere.

 

I'm pretty willing to walk almost anywhere, but I even drive from OTR if it's raining or cold.  In my case, the streetcar could easily replace my car, though I'll probably keep it until it breaks down.  I like the idea of having the car as a luxury option, not a necessity, which is why I kept it even while living in New York City.

I have a friend who lives downtown. I asked her how she liked living downtown. The first thing she said is that parking is such a hassle. She rents a parking space in a garage. She drives to work.

 

If she's renting a dedicated space, where's the hassle??

 

Besides having to pay for it, her parking place is located some distance from her apartment, adding to her commute time and partly defeating the purpose of having a car.

 

Where does she live compared to where she has to drive to?

 

She lives downtown and works less than 2 miles away. Seems like it would be a possible car-free lifestyle, but she chose to drive.

 

If I were in her situation, I might consider living car-free. That's not my point. My point is that SHE chooses to drive, and I think that most people would do the same.

 

It's not for everyone, but living car-free or car-light, especially among young people, has been a trend that's been growing in Japan, Western Europe and North America for ten years now. You could look it up.

 

How about in Cincinnati? It seems that every new development I see, whether it be in the suburbs or the core, comes with parking.

^ It's sort of chicken-and-egg, right?  Until the average resident sees the basin as walkable, they will demand parking.  But if it's easy to keep a car there's little incentive to walk more than a couple of blocks.

 

I noticed something recently.  The American Can lofts advertise secure indoor bike parking, and we all nod and say "sure, it's Northside, makes sense."  Except I had opportunity recently to apartment hunt in Chicago, and I'd say 75% of the buildings I looked at advertised secure indoor bike parking, but very few had any auto parking, and those that did charged a fortune. 

 

So it seems that cycling is the "bridge" mode to get people out of their cars and on foot.  Make it harder (but not impossible) to keep a car but easy to keep a bike.  People will bike and eventually figure out that it's pretty easy to walk, too.

 

I bet if the city offered an extra year of tax abatement in buildings that include bike storage in their designs, we'd see a lot more demand for condos and apartments with bike storage...

^ I hope this indoor bike-storage idea catches on here, but isn't Cincinnati's hilly topography a real turnoff to would-be cyclists (at least on a mass scale)?  Obviously, Chicago's utter flatness is a distinct advantage (as would be the topographies of cities like Columbus and Indianapolis).  Please don't misunderstand--even though I'm a senior citizen, I simply drool with envy when I view European and Asian cities with huge bike populations.  For example, think Copenhagen--but once again it's another flat city.

^ San Francisco has a huge bike population - not sure I need to say more. Also, it is extremely easy to bike throughout the basin and Newport/Covington.

I walk from OTR (Vine at 14th) down to 4th street every day, including on days like today (quite the downpour).  Some days it would certainly be easier to drive, but I don't think it's worth the expense (it would cost $180 for a parking pass right next to work) and the exercise is nice.  I understand why others might still drive.

 

Even living in OTR and working downtown, it's very difficult to be car free.  There are things that you want to do that require auto or bus transportation.  When you already have the car, it's easier to keep it and just use it less (which is what I do).  I think you can sell people on that idea:  you may still need a car, but you will use it much less, and save money on gas, etc., by living downtown.  Then, you can bridge from a sort of "half-car" culture to maybe a "no-car" culture. 

And to add to that, I thin it's VERY doable for a couple that has two cars to move downtown and only need one car. 

I walk from OTR (Vine at 14th) down to 4th street every day, including on days like today (quite the downpour).  Some days it would certainly be easier to drive, but I don't think it's worth the expense (it would cost $180 for a parking pass right next to work) and the exercise is nice.  I understand why others might still drive.

 

Even living in OTR and working downtown, it's very difficult to be car free.  There are things that you want to do that require auto or bus transportation.  When you already have the car, it's easier to keep it and just use it less (which is what I do).  I think you can sell people on that idea:  you may still need a car, but you will use it much less, and save money on gas, etc., by living downtown.  Then, you can bridge from a sort of "half-car" culture to maybe a "no-car" culture. 

 

ZIPCAR!

I walk from OTR (Vine at 14th) down to 4th street every day, including on days like today (quite the downpour).  Some days it would certainly be easier to drive, but I don't think it's worth the expense (it would cost $180 for a parking pass right next to work) and the exercise is nice.  I understand why others might still drive.

 

Even living in OTR and working downtown, it's very difficult to be car free.  There are things that you want to do that require auto or bus transportation.  When you already have the car, it's easier to keep it and just use it less (which is what I do).  I think you can sell people on that idea:  you may still need a car, but you will use it much less, and save money on gas, etc., by living downtown.  Then, you can bridge from a sort of "half-car" culture to maybe a "no-car" culture. 

 

I've lived downtown since 1976 and had a car until, I dunno, 1982 or something. My wife and I have things organized to where we need a car maybe once every couple of months. I'm picking one up Friday morning and will turn it in Monday morning for a grand total of $63.19 including tax. We almost always get a new car too. 

 

My company spends about $200 per year for a super-umbrella liability and collision policy, and depending on the kind of AMEX card you have, AMEX will cover the insurance.

 

I'm guessing we've saved a couple hundred thousand dollars over the years doing this. That's a house for most people.

Cincy really needs to get Zipcar in the basin.  I live in Center City Philly and still here 44% of people have a car.  But more and more I hear people ditching their car for Zipcar or Philly Car Share.  The cost to have a car down here is just so cost prohibitive.  Plus, it is completely socially acceptable and even celebrated to have a Zipcar account.  When I lived in Indy and was car free, it was seen as such a socially unacceptable thing to not have a car.  There seemed to still be such a social significance to what you drove.  People regularly said things to me like: "when are you going to grow up and get a car?"  In Indy, I think people assumed I was broke because I didn't have a car.  In Philly, many people would assume I am stupid if I had a car in CC.   

It's a very difficult transition for people who have lived their entire lives dependent on cars, independent of how walkable an area is.  Nearly everyone I know who has been transplanted into NYC was aghast when they moved here that they would be unable to have their cars, even though the city has the most robust public transportation network in the country.  Now that they've been here and become accustomed to living car free, I can't think of one who has any interest in resuming an auto-dependent lifestyle.

 

This is the quandary in a place like Cincinnati, where the supply of parking continues to be ample.  Those friends who moved to NYC and were forced into being car free would probably have brought their cars if they moved to Cincinnati and never learned the benefits of living without one.

 

One other point that I think has an impact is, getting back to the topic, the absence of regional transit.  A large portion of current and potential downtown/OTR dwellers are Metro Cincinnati natives who have family and friends outside the core.  If they have a want or need to go and visit them, the only way to do it is by driving.  A strong Zipcar presence downtown might help to alleviate this issue, but the best solution would be a regional rail network.

I would think Jackson Street between 12 and Central would be a good spot for Zipcars.  Located centrally in the basin, plenty of residential uses nearby (including the Art Academy) and located in the almost exact middle of the Phase 1 streetcar route.