I've crafted this response and sent it directly to Peter Bronson:

 

Peter Bronson:

 

I could not have found your piece about red light cameras and more specifically streetcars to be more irresponsible and sensational.  The most shocking thing of all is that you went to one of the most sensational opponents to streetcars, in this country, and pulled quotes.  What happened to fair and balanced reporting?  It seems as though you had an initial reaction to the streetcar proposal and then went looking for every piece of information that would support your initial reaction rather than pulling accurate data that illustrated the pros and cons.

 

You mention crime problems about a light rail system, when you are supposedly talking about a streetcar system (two very different systems).  You also throw out the $100 million price tag as if the city is going to be writing a $100 million check.  That is not the case and if you have done the appropriate research you would know that; and if you do know that and simply decided not to report it to further accentuate your view then that is simply irresponsible.

 

You essentially went on to use this column as a chance to get on your soapbox and go on about how mass-transit is a bad idea.  You talk about how Portland has more congestion and what not than other major cities, and you talk about how Portland’s transit system only serves a percentage of the population.  The point of transit is to take people off the roads so that others who continue to drive have a long-term fix to an ongoing problem of congestion.  By adding lanes to roadways you are merely putting a band-aid over a much larger wound.

 

There have been studies that even show that after you add a lane to a highway that it will take no longer than 5 years for that roadway to reach the same levels of congestion there were prior to the additional lane.  I guess you are advocating adding a lane to our roadways every 5 years then, but the problem with that is that our gas tax is not near enough to pay for even the projects we are building now, much less if we crank it up a notch as you may be suggesting.  Are you then suggesting that we hike the gas tax to the appropriate level to pay for our infrastructure improvements?

 

We are going to be spending billions of dollars rebuilding I-75 from I-275 to the river, and the reports have shown that by the time construction finishes the interstate will go from a Level-D interstate today to a Level-D interstate when they finish.  We are spending billions to maintain the status-quo, and I would think that you (of all people) would be in favor of doing something to scale back on that kind of wasteful spending.  We’re talking $25 million of capital money from the city and a variety of other sources to pay for the streetcar system and you are writing about it as if we’re building the Panama Canal.  Start paying the same attention to the wasteful roadway projects that are getting us literally nowhere, and start to look at mass-transit with an open mind.  I bet that you will be surprised with some of the things you come to find out.

I appreciate the effort Rando, but you might note that Bronson is not in the business of reporting—he's a columnist, and not a very good one.

 

Not to get all inappropriately transitive, but when the NY Times is hiring Bill Kristol, one might expect a paper like the Enquirer to have a columnist that is even more clueless.

^Nicely done!

Well and generously spoken...might I also add angrily. lol. Well done though. I think you got your point across. I would also send it to the enquirer. Maybe reword it a bit so that it isn't speaking to him directly but through the paper.

It's a shame.  I sort of agree with Bronson on the red-light cameras.  Too bad he then went on to blast the streetcar for the remainder of the article.  I'm not really sure what one has to do with the other, but it was in the Enquirer, so it's probably better for my sanity not to question the logic of that choice. 

 

What's hilarious to me, though, is that if his statistics are correct and we take him at his word: "But that's just a pebble in a pothole compared to what streetcars could do to Cincinnati", then increased accidents and fatalities somehow is a far less serious problem than the city spending $100 million (3 years of red-light ticket revenue!  :-D) to add a much needed alternative to driving.  He does a decent job of refuting some of the upsides of the streetcar gamble, but he in no way outlines what (if any) downside there is.  So the reader is left with the impression that he feels that potentially wasted money on public transit is a greater evil than increased traffic fatalities.  Really?  What a hack.

I'm a bit concern about crime on the streetcars. I can't help but think they could become mobile Drop-In Centers.

 

I wouldn't be surprise if running red-lights is more dangerous than speeding. I'm all for the cameras.

^When I have thoughts like that, I think about subways in NY or light rail in Baltimore, etc....their is always going to be some element of crime and risk on such ventures.  I think the positives will far outway the negatives.

I wouldn't be surprise if running red-lights is more dangerous than speeding. I'm all for the cameras.

 

That may very well be true.  But the counter argument is that the city is creating wrecks by adding the cameras, as some panicky drivers unexpectedly (to the cars behind) slam on the breaks at yellow lights out of fear of a $100 ticket.  Whether or not that's true, I can't say for sure, but the data I've seen so far supports that hypothesis.  The cameras were a good idea, but they don't work in practice.  They are supposed to decrease accidents, not increase them, yet that's the effect they seem to have overall, assuming the data is accurate.

moonloop, is there a reason you feel that way?

I've been riding buses since April and haven't witnessed a single issue. I could only assume the streetcar would be as safe.

I've heard that arguement from some poeple that they'd be concerned about riding the streetcar because ^gasp^ there might be people different from them on there.

OK another point Bronson missed is this, if I ride the streetcar and sell my car, I hardly drive it now, thats $400 a month in gas/parking/insurance/upkeep that is now in my pocket. Am I going to save it? I wish, it will probably get spent going out a few extra times a week or spent at Mica or Park+Vine.

So what if a hundred people do this? A thousand?

Now you're taking some money lubing downtown.

 

As for the camera lights, as long as everyone is honest and says they're doing it for the money. There are too many studies about safety to argue that camera lights increase it. I guess the streetcars would be built to increase investment, so it could be argued this is at least consistant with that.

moonloop, is there a reason you feel that way?

I've been riding buses since April and haven't witnessed a single issue. I could only assume the streetcar would be as safe.

I've heard that arguement from some poeple that they'd be concerned about riding the streetcar because ^gasp^ there might be people different from them on there.

 

I've ridden the Metro DT many times and it's pretty uneventful. I know the goal of the streetcars is to increase DT living, but there's an existing element in OTR that could overwhelmed the streetcar which could hamper its full potential. I may be over-reaching, but I think crime will need to be watched closely. I'm all for dollar fares every time you step onto the car.

I wouldn't be surprise if running red-lights is more dangerous than speeding. I'm all for the cameras.

 

That may very well be true.  But the counter argument is that the city is creating wrecks by adding the cameras, as some panicky drivers unexpectedly (to the cars behind) slam on the breaks at yellow lights out of fear of a $100 ticket.  Whether or not that's true, I can't say for sure, but the data I've seen so far supports that hypothesis.  The cameras were a good idea, but they don't work in practice.  They are supposed to decrease accidents, not increase them, yet that's the effect they seem to have overall, assuming the data is accurate.

 

I know this getting off topic, but I'll just say if your trying to beat the red light, the light is probably still yellow. If the light turns red while your doing this, you better be slamming on the brakes regardless if there is a camera or not. And unless a person is driving an anxious SUV or Semi, vehicles behind you should also be paying attention to the light and also be prepared.

 

In AZ, I have experience these cameras and I'm pretty a sure a photo will only be taken when the light is red, not yellow. The photo will catch you "in the act". Now photo radar on highways is interesting. Everyone knows where they are and there is a build it cushion. Usually, 10+ mph. You can see the cameras and flashes on the side of the road. They can even get you at night. ;-) These cameras aren't hidden. I would expect the locations to listed. Would people rights feel less violated if the city hired a cop to do nothing but patrol a single intersection?

 

At the very least your breaking the law and at worst, you just killed someone. If people need to re-learn driving 101 so be it.

It's a shame.  I sort of agree with Bronson on the red-light cameras.  Too bad he then went on to blast the streetcar for the remainder of the article.  I'm not really sure what one has to do with the other, but it was in the Enquirer, so it's probably better for my sanity not to question the logic of that choice.

 

It's the classice Bait and Switch: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bait_and_switch

 

I know you didn't need the Wikipedia reference, I just thought it was funny that they had an entry on it.  Anyway, Bronson is getting his audience angry about the red-light cameras, and then moving their anger toward that to something completely unrelated, the streetcar.  Really the Bronson column is in and of itself an example of the bait and switch.  We go to a newspaper assuming unbiased information reporting from multiple sources, and we read an article where one source is referenced.  It reminds me of the "comparison" between downtown Cincinnati and downtown Indianapolis The Enquirer made back a year or so.  They compared an 0.8 square mile of Cincy with 4.8 (or so) square mile of Indy.  Real accurate.

 

Those red-light cameras are nothing but a way for the City to make money.  They do not improve safety.  They tried to get those through when Luken was still mayor and they lossed in Council.  I wouldn't be surprised if they don't pass this time either.

 

^When I have thoughts like that, I think about subways in NY or light rail in Baltimore, etc....their is always going to be some element of crime and risk on such ventures.  I think the positives will far outway the negatives.

 

Well, a fatal car accident is a crime.  There's no reason to think you are going to get assaulted on public transit more than anywhere else.

A fatal car accident is a crime?

Rando....I might suggest also sending your response to his bosses at the Enquirer as well.  Columnist or not, there is no excuse for sloppy and clearly biased reporting.

I can't believe that he is quoting one of the most well known opponents to transit in his article.  Going to a Libertarian and asking them what they think about a project like this would be like going to a member of the Green party and asking them what they think of a proposed highway expansion or new suburban development.  Can we get something a little more middle of the road please...what a sensational piece of trash that article is.

 

Weren't we just talking about Libertarians and how they've become shills of the highway lobby? Sounds like Bronson is their lap dog.

Anyway, Bronson is getting his audience angry about the red-light cameras, and then moving their anger toward that to something completely unrelated, the streetcar.

 

Good call.  I hadn't thought of that.  He may be more clever than I gave him credit for.

 

 

I know this getting off topic, but I'll just say if your trying to beat the red light, the light is probably still yellow. If the light turns red while your doing this, you better be slamming on the brakes regardless if there is a camera or not. And unless a person is driving an anxious SUV or Semi, vehicles behind you should also be paying attention to the light and also be prepared.

 

In AZ, I have experience these cameras and I'm pretty a sure a photo will only be taken when the light is red, not yellow. The photo will catch you "in the act". Now photo radar on highways is interesting. Everyone knows where they are and there is a build it cushion. Usually, 10+ mph. You can see the cameras and flashes on the side of the road. They can even get you at night. ;-) These cameras aren't hidden. I would expect the locations to listed.

 

Yeah, we're definitely getting off topic, but for the sake of clarity, the argument is that the additional accidents are caused by people who WEREN'T intending to run the light.  They're people who would normally coast through an intersection (without speeding up or slowing down) if the light changed from green to yellow as they approached.  Stereotypically, I always imagine these drivers as old women, but it could be anyone who knows about the cameras and is afraid of getting a ticket.  Anyway, fearing a pricey ticket, they hit their brakes and come to a fast stop at a yellow light rather than risk being in the intersection when the light goes from yellow to red, and the car behind them now has to slam on their brakes.  Realistically, with city driving, you could be talking about 2 or 3 additional cars in that lane that must all be aware that the car a few feet in front of them has suddenly come to an unexpected halt.  The odds are pretty fair that one of those drivers won't make the stop in time and then boom, a camera created accident.  Not the fault of the camera itself, but probably something that wouldn't have happened if the camera wasn't there.  The fact that the camera isn't hidden doesn't matter, because the whole thing happened because driver number one already KNEW that the camera was there.  The data suggests that this sort of thing happens more often than the accidents that are allegedly prevented, meaning that the government's attempt to protect the people from themselves has actually increased the danger at intersections.  Meanwhile, some people still don't know about the camera, and run the light, potentially causing an accident, just as if the camera wasn't even there.  This may have started as someone's idea to make driving safer, but the data is available, and it's just a money grab for the government now.

 

Would people rights feel less violated if the city hired a cop to do nothing but patrol a single intersection?

 

Maybe.  But the point is that the city is claiming that this will reduce accidents, when most (all?) studies indicate otherwise.  They want the extra $$$ but can't say that because it will p#&% people off.  They doubly can't say that, because if they acknowledged that traffic accidents will probably increase, it would make them look even worse.

A fatal car accident is a crime?

 

almost every car accident is a crime, ORC 4511.21 states that every motorist must keep an assured clear distance between themselves and other motorists.  Violation is a misdemeanor

Hey if its about safety, there was a traffic light north of Youngstown that had many accidents, they installed an additional light that flashed yellow a couple seconds before the traffic light turned yellow. It wasn't as dumb or redundant as it sounds here, but it gave you a heads up that its was getting ready. In the city I watch the crosswalk signs, if they're flashing, I prepare to stop no matter what the traffic light is.

BUT, if city councill acknowledges its for the money, damn the accidents and I'll be OK with it.

I saw Peter Bronson in public last week.  Coincidentally I was roaming the streets with someone who years ago proclaimed Bronson "The worst op-ed columnist...ever".  But it was Christmas or thereabouts so we didn't confront him, and there was the slightest chance it wasn't actually him.  But next time he won't be so lucky. 

 

But really, with all the whining coming from newspapers uncertain about their future, it's this exact kind of thing that undermines them with the internet being what it is these days.  Not only is the web a forum for the public to pick them apart, but it shows that there is tremendous interest in topics that newspapers typically gloss over or ignore completely.  And sites like this will soon replace the community-linking function newspapers and local TV stations once filled.  Newspapers, TV, and radio will serve increasingly older and uneducated audiences.     

 

Randal O'Toole is a liar or a fool. Probably a little of each.

 

Here's the Tri-Met fact sheet that says that transit ridership has increased in Portland for 18 straight years:

 

http://trimet.org/pdfs/trimetfactsheet.pdf

 

First, consider the argument that transit carries only only 2.3% "of the people." The opponents come up with this argument by counting "trips." So today, if you walked to lunch and back a block away from where you work, that's two trips. Would you ever take transit for that? If a parent picks up nine Little Leaguers, one at a time, and moves whoever's in the car to pick up each player successively and then returns all of them to their origins, that's about 100 trips. If they stop for ice cream afterwards, that's another ten trips. Would you take a train to do that? But it makes transit's contribution seem really small.

 

Here's the more relevant figure with respect to the 2.3% "of the people." The Brent Spence Bridge carries about 2% of our region's auto trips each day. Replacing it at a cost of $1-2 billion is our region's highest priority. Should we then not replace the Brent Spence Bridge, based on O'Toole's reasoning?

 

And the thing about the subsidies? That's a typical straw-man argument. Nobody ever said that the Cincinnati Streetcar would eliminate subsidies. Reduce them maybe. Make buildings too small to garner subsidies developable without them. But not necessarily reduce. Some people think that Portland is starting to wean itself from subsidies. A new waterfront apartment building is going up right now, projected to rent for $2 psf per month. Not one penny of subsidy. And the subsidies that Portland does employ serve a public purpose. They're given for including store-front retail, building green buildings or having a component of affordable housing. Next time to see a beautiful photo of the Pearl District, look at it closely. See if you can tell that 20% of the skyline you see are apartments for low-income renters. I can't.

 

Oh, and residents of the City of Portland have never voted against any kind of rail initiative. Sure, some efforts to extend rail to Portland's suburbs have failed, but within the city where transit is rich and part and parcel with the urban ethic, no vote has ever failed.

 

This is why I take people to Portland -- to compare what scoundrels like O'Toole say about one of the most successful urban turnarounds in American history with what Cincinnatians can actually see there. You're all invited on February 15th to do your own due-diligence and reach your own conclusions. I saw a $167 RT fare out of Louisville today.

 

The sprawl opponents can't afford to celebrate Portland's success because, if they do, many of the investments this country has made for the last fifty years start to come into question. But don't take my word for it. Go see for yourself.

 

 

Here is Peter's response to my email...I must say that I give him credit for responding and doing so in a quick manner.

 

Thanks for the note.

 

As an opinion columnist, I express my opinion, backed up by reporting, research and facts. I did not "pull quotes." I contacted O'Toole and asked him questions. He has good credentials and has done plenty of research on this topic.

 

I did not present the pro-side of streetcars because that was already done in a lengthy story about the Cincinnati visit to Portland, in which none of the downside was reported. In fact, none of the criticisms I reported had been part of any of the coverage of the Cincinnati proposal.

 

If the goal of mass transit is to get people off the roads, Portland's 3 percent is a big failure. If 97 percent still prefer to drive they have every right to insist that their tax dollars be used to relieve congestion, even if more improvements must be made later.

 

As for wasteful spending -- I'd say spending $100 million (or even $1 million) on streetcars fits the description.

 

Here's a link to Randal O'Toole's full report. I think you will agree that he knows a lot more about Portland than either of us.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-596.pdf

 

Best wishes,

 

Peter Bronson

look, lets shut this down, everyone knew Bronson would be against it, he is, lets move on.  one day news story, over.

Sorry, but I can't let O'Toole's stilted statistics go unchallenged. When should the efficiency of a single transit route be judged against the traffic of an entire metro area? On that score, no road project would be justified either, because they also don't carry more than a few percentage points of an entire metro area's traffic. A competant, unbiased researcher would compare the road or transit line against the share of traffic in the affected geographic area for which it will actually compete, and whether the city will get an economic return on its investment.

 

O'Toole's deceptions are no more an example of "research" or "expertise" than Bronson's stenography is an example of journalism.

I agree with Brad. These guys want to bait us and keep the story going. You'll never change Bronson's mind. I've talked with him at length about this. He's an idealogue. I'd drop it and hope it's a one-day story.

 

By the way, the "relieve congestion" argument is another straw-man. Did anyone ever hear anyone say that was an objective of the Cincinnati Streetcar? Frankly, our downtown and OTR could use a little congestion.

^The report could have offered a mature check to transit fever but he stooped to sensationalism (Mentioning the Mayor's sex scandal on the second page, for example) in order to gather attention.  Critiquing specific TOD's without elaborating on other factors contributing to their underperformance such as cheap design, to give one example, is unfair.  Comparing why one transit stop is more successful than another is like comparing why one highway interchange has attracted more development than another -- there are often a combination of seen and unseen forces at play.  For example, in Boston the rebuilt Orange Line has failed to attract significant development due to a combination of poor design, poor neighborhoods, poor station locations, and infrequent service.

 

And to whatever extent a so-called mafia was behind Portland's rail projects, there is a much more sinister one behind sprawl.  And if there is corruption behind mass transit projects, the end result is nevertheless typically superior to the alternative.       

 

 

If you have too much time on your hands this evening -- Thursday -- watch CitiCable, Channel 23 on Time Warner, at 11:00p.

 

It's a half-hour interview show about the Cincinnati Streetcar that originally aired last summer. The host, David Surber, has had many requests to re-air the segment, and he's done so over the past few months, and so it's on again tonight.

 

He seems to think it was one of the best shows he's done over the last thirty years he's been doing public affairs television. It's got a lot of video and still images. Probably worth watching to sharpen your arguments.

I did not present the pro-side of streetcars because that was already done in a lengthy story about the Cincinnati visit to Portland' date=' in which none of the downside was reported.[/quote']

 

I guess in a way he has a point, although I doubt very much its backed up by research. Interviewing one guy isn't research.

But it definitely is opinion, which he is paid to express.

 

I have said before, everyone keeps saying the streetcar won’t change anything and it won’t by itself. But has anyone been in the Q this summer on a Saturday afternoon and not felt the energy? Or been to Fountain Square on a Saturday movie night and not been amazed by the crowds?

The streetcar is another piece of the puzzle that in a few years coupled with the Banks, QCS, the expanded Convention Center and the numerous other small  projects are going to put Cincy off the hook.

 

moonloop, is there a reason you feel that way?

I've been riding buses since April and haven't witnessed a single issue. I could only assume the streetcar would be as safe.

I've heard that arguement from some poeple that they'd be concerned about riding the streetcar because ^gasp^ there might be people different from them on there.

 

I've been attacked on the RTA in Dayton twice and shown a gun when I was sitting on there by myself a third time. After the gun incident. I have since banned all public bus riding for myself. So yes, it does happen.

A fatal car accident is a crime?

 

I'm pretty sure it is vehicular homicide if you kill someone else with a car.  I suppose if you lose control of your car and end up killing only yourself no crime gets charged.

 

The idea that there would be more crime resulting from public transit rather than driving is ludicrous.  Auto thefts, parking violations, moving violations, they're all criminal to one extent or another.  They take time and money for the government to police and regulate.  Auto-related felonies and misdemeanors have to out-number any that occur within the vicinity of public transit.

maybe you should avoid Dayton, not public transportation.    :yap:

But yeah, that would swear me off it, luckily the worst I've ever experienced is sitting near people with poor hygiene

Classic bait and switch.

look, lets shut this down, everyone knew Bronson would be against it, he is, lets move on.  one day news story, over.

 

I'm going to quit talking about the article, but I will not lay off of Bronson.  I as well as Cincinnati, have put up with his trash for too long.  I no longer want writers, with the Enquirer, to write these negative articles because they are directed and encouraged to do so from the top.  Right now the publishers think that is what their readership wants to hear...so that is what they give them.  It's time for some change and I'm going to make my voice heard with the Enquirer.

^I'm in.      When do we make our assault on the Enquirer Bldg.    We could do this Castro style! :wink:

I did not present the pro-side of streetcars because that was already done in a lengthy story about the Cincinnati visit to Portland' date=' in which none of the downside was reported.[/quote']

 

Wow.  Even Bronson's reasoning doesn't make sense.  I agree that the previous Enquirer story was positive, and didn't report the "downside" of the streetcar, but neither did he!  He tried to refute the upsides of the plan, but didn't list any detriments at all.  We can infer that he thinks it's a waste of money, but aside from that, how exactly would the streetcar make downtown worse than it is today?  That column was pretty weak. 

^Not to mention, that other Enquirer article wasn't written in the cheerleading fashion for the streetcar...it was simply reporting on what was seen in Portland with their streetcar system.  If he takes reality as being overly positive than that is his problem, but that doesn't mean that they were going out of their way to be positive on the subject.  They didn't present the pros or the cons...just the reality of what happened on their trip to Portland.  I would like to know when, if ever, Mr. Bronson has been to Portland.

^Also Randy following up on your Libertarian post, first of all there is too much discord within the Libertarian Party for it to ever be a serious force.  Anyone identifying as Libertarian tends to do so because they are extremely intense in their beliefs about specific areas of policy.  It's a one strike and you're out thing with them, be it one of their own or an enemy. 

 

But salient to our discussion of mass transit, one of the top 5 functions of government in the eyes of Libertarians is road building and maintenance (the military, police, a mint, etc., round out some of the core beliefs).  Automobile travel and trucking is seen as a Freedom with a capital F.  In my opinion, and in the opinion of many here, an environment which demands automobile ownership isn't particularly free.  Libertarians will never be convinced of this because transit systems "lose money".  What's more, the staff tends to be union.  They're only going to see it through those eyes, so don't attempt to debate these people.   

 

 

MONORAIL WOULD BE BETTER THAN STREETCAR

Frivolous cutesy streetcars are just that. People can come to Cincinnati and say "how cute" and that is the end of it. Citizens and visitors do not want to get on a streetcar and ride to a high-crime area of Cincinnati.

Remember, installation cost is only the beginning, and the cost continues on and year after year gets larger and larger. Also included are salaries, benefits, management, maintenance, and, oh yes, more taxes. It will not pay for itself.

Now, if you must have another transportation system, a monorail plan would be more sensible and admittedly more expensive. A monorail could take in all the downtown area highlights, including Northern Kentucky, the stadiums, Sawyer Point, Mount Adams, Eden Park, Union Terminal, park-and-ride lots, and several stops in the downtown area. Check out Detroit ... they did it!

 

William Thomas

Highland Heights

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080105/EDIT0202/801050337/1022/LETT

 

I guess Thomas forgets that the monorail would need the support of the whole county and that aintgonnahappen.com

Man living downtown, its easy to fall into a trap that everyone feels the same way, but I'm starting to worry about whether this issue would pass a vote city wide. Is it something that will be voted on or is it a decision for city leaders.

Man living downtown, its easy to fall into a trap that everyone feels the same way, but I'm starting to worry about whether this issue would pass a vote city wide. Is it something that will be voted on or is it a decision for city leaders.

 

This will not be subject to a public vote...it is a decision for city leaders only.  I guess someone could suggest that it go up to a public vote, but then it would be required to gather the necessary amount of signatures to put it on the ballot.  I don't see that happening with this issue.

The CInci voters voted down light rail and I think if this went before the voters, it would be a mistake. Let the city decide what to do with it and keep the voters out unless it required a chunk of tax change.

The CInci voters voted down light rail and I think if this went before the voters, it would be a mistake. Let the city decide what to do with it and keep the voters out unless it required a chunk of tax change.

 

Hamilton County voted down light rail...voters within the City of Cincinnati actually supported the initiative I believe 2:1.  It was in the other areas of Hamilton County where the initiative went down in flames...primarily in the western portions of the county (ie Green Twp, Delhi Twp, Harrison, Miami Twp).

Ahh, I see. Thanks for the clarification.  :wink2:

The CInci voters voted down light rail and I think if this went before the voters, it would be a mistake. Let the city decide what to do with it and keep the voters out unless it required a chunk of tax change.

 

It is also important to remember gas was about 1.15 a gallon at the time, now it is almost three times higher

MONORAIL WOULD BE BETTER THAN STREETCAR

Frivolous cutesy streetcars are just that. People can come to Cincinnati and say "how cute" and that is the end of it. Citizens and visitors do not want to get on a streetcar and ride to a high-crime area of Cincinnati.

Remember, installation cost is only the beginning, and the cost continues on and year after year gets larger and larger. Also included are salaries, benefits, management, maintenance, and, oh yes, more taxes. It will not pay for itself.

Now, if you must have another transportation system, a monorail plan would be more sensible and admittedly more expensive. A monorail could take in all the downtown area highlights, including Northern Kentucky, the stadiums, Sawyer Point, Mount Adams, Eden Park, Union Terminal, park-and-ride lots, and several stops in the downtown area. Check out Detroit ... they did it!

 

William Thomas

Highland Heights

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080105/EDIT0202/801050337/1022/LETT

 

HAHAHAHA!!!!  :laugh:

 

This is just comical.  Can you picture a monorail riding around Cincy like it's f****in' Disney World? 

 

All I can think of is that Simpsons episode where Springfield puts in a monorail and they do that song about it.

 

But seriously, wouldn't a monorail cost more due to elevating it rather than laying a couple rails in the ground?  This post isn't worth the minute it took to type it.

Lyle Lanley: Well, sir, there's nothing on earth

Like a genuine,

Bona fide,

Electrified,

Six-car

Monorail!

What'd I say?

Ned Flanders: Monorail!

Lyle Lanley: What's it called?

Patty+Selma: Monorail!

Lyle Lanley: That's right! Monorail!

[crowd chants `Monorail' softly and rhythmically]

Miss Hoover: I hear those things are awfully loud...

Lyle Lanley: It glides as softly as a cloud.

Apu: Is there a chance the track could bend?

Lyle Lanley: Not on your life, my Hindu friend.

Barney: What about us brain-dead slobs?

Lyle Lanley: You'll be given cushy jobs.

Abe: Were you sent here by the devil?

Lyle Lanley: No, good sir, I'm on the level.

Wiggum: The ring came off my pudding can.

Lyle Lanley: Take my pen knife, my good man.

I swear it's Springfield's only choice...

Throw up your hands and raise your voice!

All: Monorail!

Lyle Lanley: What's it called?

All: Monorail!

Lyle Lanley: Once again...

All: Monorail!

Marge: But Main Street's still all cracked and broken...

Bart: Sorry, Mom, the mob has spoken!

All: Monorail!

Monorail!

Monorail!

[big finish]

Monorail!

Homer: Mono... D'oh!

"It was in the other areas of Hamilton County where the initiative went down in flames...primarily in the western portions of the county (ie Green Twp, Delhi Twp, Harrison, Miami Twp)."

 

    Could that be because west siders knew that the light rail was never going to make it to the west side?

 

    Sure, the map showed a line to Dent but everyone knew that the west side line was last on the priority list.

OK, sports fans. Here's the comparative bus and rail ridership, cost and other operating data from Portland:

 

http://trimet.org/pdfs/ridership/busmaxstat.pdf

 

You should remember these. What they say to me is

 

* rail recovers over twice as much as its operating costs

 

* rail passengers are subsidized at less than one-third the rate of bus passengers

 

* trains only collectively travel about one-sixth the miles that buses do in Portland but they carry way more than half the passengers the buses do

 

* bus ridership is less than it was ten years ago; rail ridership has tripled

 

* I could go on

 

These are the things you never hear from O'Toole.

 

 

here is my test for evaluating whether busses or rail provide better service.  "List five cities with great public transportation"  I would bet non one of those cities is bus only.

^Why stop at five? Why not, say, 25? I'm reallly hard-pressed to name a really great American city that doesn't have rail. But take a shot.

^--- A good example is Phoenix. Until 3 years ago, they were the largest city in the world without a rail system. Even with Phoenix as spread out as it is, they understood bus transportation alone was not enough, hence the creation of the Valley Metro Light Rail, which actually doesn't open until late 2008, so technically it is still the largest city without a functional rail system.

 

All cities that have more than a 500,000 (edited: I originally said 1 mill which is probably too high) in the metro area can benefit from rail...heck, even Dayton, which hopefully we will be getting the streetcar line soon.