I'm hoping that you will reserve two hours starting at 1:00p on Monday, February 25th to attend an important meeting on the Cincinnati Streetcar.

 

City Council's Finance Committee will hold a hearing on the first phase of the streetcar project, unquestionably the most significant step in the process so far. A favorable recommendation of the Finance Committee would likely result in a decision by the full City Council to move ahead with the project.

 

The meeting will be held in City Council Chambers on the Third Floor of Cincinnati City Hall, 801 Plum Street, Downtown. There's lots of cheap parking in the old Lazarus Garage southeast of City Hall.

 

I've been assured that the City Administration has answers to the questions which have recently appeared in The Cincinnati Enquirer and that it will be presenting those and other facts at the February 25th hearing.

 

Please plan to attend and bring a friend or two. If you can't stay for the entire hearing, come for the start of it and leave whenever you must.

 

I've never seen a project that has so much intrinsic civic support. Now's the time to show it.

 

Thanks for taking the time and trouble to do this.

 

But Findlay needn't be the end of the streetcar line if it doesn't go up Vine or Clifton. it could travel northwest along McMicken to Central Parkway -- a sort of linear Pearl District. At Central Parkway, it would intersect with light rail going to Northside and eventually to Tri-County.

 

What are the chances the streetcar could go up to Clifton Road via Marshall and Probasco?  Or bringing it through the Central Parkway Frisch's parking lot up one of those streets to Clifton Rd.?

^ Jake, can you calculate the slopes?

 

One missed opportunity -- now built on -- was the valley that connects Marshall & McMicken with Stratford & Clifton. I always thought that was the best way to come up from Central Parkway.

 

Another possibility is the unbuilt ROW that descents from Clifton at Dixmyth. It emerges neat the Frisch's parking lot on Central Parkway.

I think that Marshall Ave. slope is as steep as any, approaching 10%. 

 

Let me throw another idea out there, using W. McMillan, which also formerly had streetcars.  The new streetcars would turn west at Findlay, travel atop Central Parkway to the Brighton Bridge, then cross the Parkway and follow McMicken to the McMillan St. hill.  It would attract some passengers from Fairview and all of Clifton Ave. past the university.  It also sets up the interesting potential for a transfer to future light rail traveling through the subway at Brighton.  Such a scenario with the streetcars paralleling the subway would allow the subway to skip a station at Liberty St., saving money and time on a high-speed straightaway.   

 

 

^ What's the slope of West McMillan? I'd be concerned a little about all the turns with so many people standing. Otherwise, I agree it connects a lot.

 

At 9:00p tonight - Tuesday - 700WLW host, Scott Sloan, will host a program on the Cincinnati Streetcar.

 

His guest is Cincinnati City Council Member John Cranley.

 

At 9:00p tonight - Tuesday - 700WLW host, Scott Sloan, will host a program on the Cincinnati Streetcar.

 

His guest is Cincinnati City Council Member John Cranley.

ughhh..This is gonna get ugly

This is going to be fun!  I bet they call it a trolley!!!!!    :-D

Here is my  2nd phase.  This is partly a combo of bus rt 24/39 and follows much of the old streetcar line. Many colleges, residential, hospitals and entertainmet areas would be served.

 

W.Mcmicken->E Mcmicken->Main St-> E liberty-> Liberty Hill-> Highland->Ringold->Josephine->

Dorchester->Auburn Ave->Euclid->Corry->jefferson->MLK->Clifton->Ludlow->Hamilton Ave-> END at COMET AND RETURN  :-D

 

 

 

 

At 9:00p tonight - Tuesday - 700WLW host, Scott Sloan, will host a program on the Cincinnati Streetcar.

 

His guest is Cincinnati City Council Member John Cranley.

 

Oh, please someone have a transcript of this.

This is going to be fun!  I bet they call it a trolley!!!!!    :-D

 

Well, opponents of The Streetcar usually do.

So now it has a name? The Streetcar sounds kind of awesome.

>What's the slope of West McMillan? I'd be concerned a little about all the turns with so many people standing. Otherwise, I agree it connects a lot.

 

Looks like it maxes out at about 8% but what's interesting is that the twisty part near the side streets and the entrance to Fairview Park is virtually level.  It gives the impression of being a steep switchback but it is in fact climbing at only 1-2%.  This means that the roughly 180-200 foot climb between McMicken and the six-way intersection with Ravine St. is split into two different parts, the lower being about 1,100ft. long and the upper about 800ft.  West McMillan climbs another 60-80 feet in the quarter mile between St. Monica's Church and Clifton Ave at a 4-5% grade.

 

I still think Vine St. should be the goal, such a roundabout way of getting up the hill is much slower and slightly confusing to the potential rider.  The distance between Findlay market and Clifton Ave. via the McMillan hill is exactly 10,000ft., the distance from Findlay Market up Vine to McMillan is half that distance.  To the corner of Clifton and McMillan is 7,500ft., still a half mile and probably 3-4 minutes faster to the exact same point.   

 

That said this route splits the climb into smaller pieces and manages to touch on the West End and Brighton, areas with some interesting redevelopment potential. 

 

Here is a photo of streetcars using the Brighton Bridge:

 

My preferered phase 2 is Vine > Calhoun/McMillan > Clifton to Ludlow.  It doubles the route of the #17/18/19 buses on Clifton but also hits the McMillan/Calhoun area so there's no dead space at all. 

 

^ I actually walked Vine from McMillan to Eighth Street today. I feel it has little to recommend it for streetcar -- steep slopes to the west, few sites, and I'm not even sure there's a level enough piece of land for a stop.

 

Remember, streetcars, like the Metro and the Tube, work well as intersecting routes. Just because the first line goes to Findlay doesn't mean the second line has to be an extension of that one.

So now it has a name? The Streetcar sounds kind of awesome.

 

the name is The Cincinnati Streetcar

Let me add a little addendum for the top of the McMillan Plan. Instead of staying on McMillan past St. Monica's, send to the left side of the church and then make a right onto Straight and a left onto Clifton. This prevents from screwing up the traffic anymore than it already is on McMillan past St.M-St.G. Just a thought. Honestly, if we are going for shortest route finding a way to do a modern version of the incline seems more valuable than actually sending it up Vine Street.

An incline could actually slow things down a bit since in order to operate it ideally there needs to be one vehicle going up and one going down simultaneously, meaning the whole system would have to be timed around efficient use of the incline.  I'm sure in the past a counterweight of some kind was used to offset some of the weight of a one-way trip, but I don't know the nuts and bolts of it.  But considering cranes with 100 ton lifting power are commonplace these days, it doesn't offer any significant technical challenge, only $ on for custom design and fabrication.   

 

The listed empty weight of the Skoda vehicles is 61,000lbs., with 200lbs X 170 max passengers = an extra 34,000lbs for a total of nearly 50 tons.  Double that for the point where both vehicles cross and the center of the incline would have to support 100 tons minimum.  The Skoda cars are 66ft. long, somewhat longer than traditional streetcars, meaning the loading areas at the bottom and top would have to be somewhat larger and the platform on which the streetcars would ride would be larger.  Obviously it's technically doable, but if there have to be full-time people at both the bottom and top of the incline, costs shoot through the roof.     

 

That said running from Elm St. up to Bellevue Park and to the university via Ohio Ave. would be fantastic.  It would instantly turn the whole streetcar into a tourist attraction, especially if one line branched to the zoo as the #46 once did.  It would be visible from I-75 and downtown hotels.     

^ At the request of Jim Tarbell, during the LRT planning early in this decade, the engineers took a look at this -- an incline up the face of Mt. Auburn. Basically, it didn't compute, though I can't remember all the specifics. I don't think it was seriously pursued after the Mt. Auburn Tunnel became the preferred alternative.

I'm listening to WLW right now, and I think my head is going to explode from the half-truths and lies being thrown about.  :drunk:

I'm listening to WLW right now, and I think my head is going to explode from the half-truths and lies being thrown about.  :drunk:

 

I know what you're saying.  :whip:

Apparently the streetcar is going to run by Paul Brown Stadium...they're blocking off Vine St....you can't ride a motorcycle anymore downtown...

^ Think it's worth calling in, or just let it go?

...the streetcar is going to be ripped up for the Brent Spence Bridge replacement...

I weep for the future of our city and country, based on the ill-informed mouth-breathers on this show.  Not one person, from Sloane to Cranley to all the idiot callers presented one single lousy fact.  Everything was a twisted or completely made up.

....don't forget we're "kids" for wanting our dessert first, whatever the hell that means.

 

Is there any way to get a transcript of the show, to go through every line to show how ill-informed these people are?

The best thing to do is to NEVER listen to 700 WLW!  Furthermore, take your distaste for 700 and spread the word to everyone you know.  That station is trash and is ruining our city.

That's a bit strong.  Call in and voice your opinion.  If this thing was up for a vote, it would fail.  Give the people a reason to support it.

That's a bit strong.  Call in and voice your opinion.  If this thing was up for a vote, it would fail.  Give the people a reason to support it.

 

I have voiced my opinion to these clowns before...and it is a waste of time.  They make their money off of being sensational...so that's what they do (whether it is right or wrong).  As for the voting portion of your comment, do you have any evidence to back up that statement?  I know that the City supported the MetroMoves initiative before and that the OVERWHELMING majority of people within Downtown and OTR support this - you know where it is being built initially.

 

I also know that many more people support the effort when it connects to Uptown.  I'm sorry, but hearing some clowns on the radio who don't even live in Cincinnati talk about this isn't really enough.  It also really isn't enough to hear from someone out in Sharonville, Milford, Anderson Twp, etc.  Talk to those people who will be affected by this and see what they think...then come back and we can talk.

That's a bit strong.  Call in and voice your opinion.  If this thing was up for a vote, it would fail.  Give the people a reason to support it.

 

It would fail because what is being promoted by people like Deters and the clowns at WLW are not even close to facts.  I am doing my part to mobilize supporters and get the word out other ways.  Me speaking for 30 seconds before being cut off by an ignorant radio host will do no good.

...streetcars now being compared to outhouses...

^ I actually walked Vine from McMillan to Eighth Street today. I feel it has little to recommend it for streetcar -- steep slopes to the west, few sites, and I'm not even sure there's a level enough piece of land for a stop.

 

Remember, streetcars, like the Metro and the Tube, work well as intersecting routes. Just because the first line goes to Findlay doesn't mean the second line has to be an extension of that one.

There is something very appealing  and easy to understand about one line connecting from the basin to UC and the hospitals.  Did I miss the dismissal of the West Clifton option?  I am still attached to the bridge over McMicken and the dramatic entry to the basin that would result when coming down the hill. 

 

I was drawing some of these options on a map for myself here:http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?hl=en&ie=UTF8&msa=0&ll=39.125533,-84.512415&spn=0.039152,0.093555&z=14&om=0&msid=106816888191886420883.000445749a2ab1fb9a21d

Here's an email I sent to Mr. Sloan:

 

 

Scott, you made a spectacular fool of yourself tonight with regards to the streetcar.  Your boss often says "don't let the facts get in the way of good talk radio", your show this evening was neither factual nor good talk radio.  John Schneider had you on your heels (you sounded like a frustrated little kid) and you cut off the fellow offering an insightful counterpoint who was standing at the corner of 13th & Vine, a place you probably haven't been in 10 years if ever.

 

Much of your shtick orbits around sensible finances -- better mass transit helps people spend less money.  It helps turn parking lots into new buildings for businesses and residents.  Cars destroy real cities, mass transit builds real cities.  But no need to bother with a detailed explanation of that shibboleth since you don't read, don't know what real research is, and don't take much interest in this city or cities in general.   

 

At a young age I'm sure you were seduced by the radio business and couldn't realize that at age 40 you'd be getting paid to lie to a gullible public for a living.  There are many people who care deeply for this city, enjoy every day of our lives here, and live in a place that couldn't be more different than the dark, simple picture painted by 700WLW. 

^ The guy standing at 13th and Vine was Jim Tarbell.

Wow, I can't believe he cut him off like that.  Incredibly rude. 

I was just listening to Sloan for the first time... I find the guy to be incredibly boring.

^ The guy standing at 13th and Vine was Jim Tarbell.

 

Oh wow, I can't believe he cut off Mr. Cincinnati. Is that the state of media in Cincinnati? Sadly, I think it is. Can't fight an argument, leverage the button against the argument. There is a reason I stopped listening to 700, and I can see now that my decision to stop listening was justified. Nothing more than a bunch of bumbling radio baffoons. Why not have legitimate discussions? Is it because their listeners are suburban soccer parents? I think it is. I grow tired of their crap. These people (Sloan, McConnell, Willie) have no authority to talk on many issues, and the streetcar is one of them.

 

Stay strong Cincinnati. Be a leader in something that needs to be done. Ask any planner and even some traffic engineers and they'll tell you that a successful city is inclusive of all modes of transportation. Grow the pedestrian mode. Provide alternatives to driving. Such actions will only lead to a healthier city.

I only caught a tiny bit, but what I did hear infuriated me (as the station usually does.)

 

John, kudos for calling in and explaining despite being cut off by the host midway through every statement.

 

To paraphrase the host, he stated that there is no parking problem in Cincinnati, and that if he wants to go from downtown to OTR, he will get in his car and drive.  His narrow rationale and complete disrespect (from what I heard) toward John made my blood boil.

Sloane isn't Cincinnati . . . He was the big dog up in Toledo and that is actually where he is from, perhaps we should escort him back north. He may already be there as he was doing the night show from Toledo for awhile. Interestingly, I would argue that Toledo is even better suited to a streetcar system than Cincinnati with its oversized roads (in many parts of town) and it is flat so no long conversations about getting up hills, but I digress.

 

Anyway, it is just so sad.

As obnoxious as these guys and their opinion shows are, let's not forget that no one actually creates an opinion, or takes any action whatsoever, from any of the notions expressed on these shows.  If they did, the city of Cincinnati would be an abandoned post-apocalyptic shell, while the surrounding suburbs would be an Eden of racial harmony filled with their original residents as well as refugees from the city who were finally able to escape the oppressive liberal governments that had held down the lowly city-dwellers for so long, with the new utopia all sustained by a pure and unadulterated capitalism.  That's doesn't exist anywhere.  Maybe China.

Got this from my pal Scott...

 

 

 

Mass transit only works if there's a demand for it.  To create the demand you artificially tilt the market.

 

Enjoy the Kool Aid.

 

Thanks,

 

 

Scott Sloan

700WLW

8044 Montgomery Road, Suite 650

Cincinnati, OH 45236

www.700wlw.com

700WLW on XM Channel 173

 

 

To which I replied:

 

 

 

Scott, considering you used the P-word tonight (Progress), just let it be known you're falling into a dangerous rut of pop thinking.  Also, if you studied transportation policy in the United States, you'd know that that there was a conscious effort made by the government and by the car & oil companies to force us to drive cars and enter into the financially crippling car culture.  The perceived freedom of auto travel tickles the Libertarian mind when there is nothing purely capitalistic about car travel at all.  I consider true freedom the the choice to *not* own a car and still be able to get around to the places I need to go.   

 

Please read this following article, written in 1974, and btw that "Jim" caller you cut off was Jim Tarbell.  Just thought you should know. 

 

 

 

GM & the Streetcar--

 

‘American Ground Transport’*

 

Reprinted by

permission from

The Third Rail,

September 1974

Street Railways:

‘U.S. vs. National City Lines’ Recalled

by Paul Matus

 

 

     NO FORCE CAPTURED and guided the American imagination in the Twentieth Century so powerfully as the concept of “progress.” 

    “Progress” implied the steady and natural advance of a nation moving forward toward a future goal, even as our predecessors in the last century pursued “manifest destiny” until our national borders stretched from ocean to ocean. This same “progress” demanded that we put aside all which the forces of change decreed as “obsolete’‘—and that we never look back.

     The story of America’s transportation evolution in the automotive age illustrates, as no other area of our national experience, the meaning of “progress.” At the turn of the century, America had a massive complex of public transportation....

 

Steam railroads provided frequent service between urban centers and branch lines carried passengers and freight to the remotest comers of the country. Barely a dozen years earlier, Frank Sprague’s first successful trolley installation in Richmond, Va., heralded a new era of electric transportation for our cities and towns.

     But even as electric transit technology evolved and overspread the nation, the infant auto industry was producing the antique ancestors of the vehicle that was to indelibly alter, and, many would say, ruin, the American style of living.

     The electric railway industry grew rapidly and peaked early. During the era preceding World War I changes in the physical structure of the industry mainly took the form of adjustments. New service was instituted for new markets, as trimming of marginal lines marked areas where promoters’ ambitions exceeded patronage potential.

     After the “World War” a new and disturbing element made itself felt in the urban picture as the introduction of advanced assembly techniques began to turn a rich man’s toy into a transportation alternative for many amidst the prosperity of the '20s.

     Trolleys and autos got in each other’s way as they fought for the same street space and a contemporary observer might not have believed which mode would eventually prevail.

     As auto development and marketing progressed, the street railway industry didn’t stagnate. Differing approaches to transit needs produced a variety of ideas and inventions, but it was not until 1936 that the efforts of the Presidents’ Conference Committee (PCC) produced the fist batch of 100 modern streetcars, which represented the greatest single advance ever made in electric rail transportation. More than a mere cosmetic facelift of old equipment, or a series of minor improvements in previous technology, the PCC car set a new standard of comfort, performance and patron acceptance through technical innovations still used in the design and manufacture of rapid transit and light railway equipment throughout the world.

      Yet, just 20 years after that huge forward step, the street railway had all but disappeared from the American scene. Why?

     A casual observer might well ask whether that question has more than historical significance in today’s auto-dominated world. His answer would be a definite yes. We have reached a crossroads in national transportation policy, where our future way of life may well depend upon decisions which may be better understood in the context of recent transit history.

     Against this background, American Ground Transport, a new report prepared by Bradford C. Snell and financed by the Stern Fund of New York, ties together many of the loose ends of years of transportation transition to present a picture of public policy goals influenced by private business considerations. The report was submitted in February [1974] to the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Antitrust and Monopoly of the Committee on the Judiciary. Mr. Snell is presently assistant counsel to the sub-committee, which is chaired by Sen. Philip A. Hart of Michigan.

     “This is a study of the social consequences of monopoly,” the report begins. What follows reveals, among other things. the anatomy of changes which altered the American landscape.

    While emphasizing that “[t]his is not a study of malevolent or rapacious executives. . .” and that many of the corporate actions portrayed in the report can be viewed as reasonable from the point of view of the interests of stockholders, the Snell report reveals the extent to which General Motors and other industry decisions influenced the course of apparently objective planning decisions.

     When, in the 1920’s, the nation’s auto market seemed to be approaching saturation, GM diversified into the mass transit market, producing city and intercity buses. Thus GM first moved toward the potential of spanning all phases of surface transportation.

     “After its successful experience with intercity buses, General Motors diversified into city bus and rail operations. At first, its procedure consisted of directly acquiring and scrapping local electric transit systems in favor of GM buses. In this fashion, it created a market for its city buses. On June 29, 1932, the GM-bus executive committee formally resolved that ‘to develop motorized transportation, our company should initiate a program of this nature and authorize the incorporation of a holding company with a capital of $300,000.’ Thus was formed United Cities Motor Transit (UCMT) as a subsidiary of GM’s bus division. Its sole function was to acquire electric street-car companies, convert them to GM motorbus operation, and then resell the properties to local concerns which agreed to purchase GM bus replacements. ‘In each case,’ [GM General Counsel] Hogan stated, GM 'successfully motorized the city, turned the management over to other interests and liquidated its investment.’ The program ceased, however, in 1935 when GM was censured by the American Transit Association (ATA) for its self-serving role, as a bus manufacturer, in apparently attempting to motorize Portland’s electric streetcar system.”

     Smaller companies proved only a beginning, however, as GM influence extended to the nation’s largest cities: “The massive conversion within a period of only 18 months of the New York system, then the world’s largest streetcar network, has been recognized subsequently as the turning point in the electric railway industry.”

     In 1936, GM caused its officers and employees to form National City Lines, Inc. (NCL) the report alleges, and continues: “During the following 14 years General Motors, together with Standard Oil of California, Firestone Tire, and two other suppliers of bus-related products, contributed more than $9 million to this holding company for the purpose of converting electric transit systems in 16 states to GM bus operations. The method of operation was basically the same as that which GM employed successfully in its United Cities Motor Transit program: acquisition, motorization, resale. By having NCL resell the properties after conversion was completed, GM and its allied companies were assured that this capital was continuously reinvested in the motorization of additional systems. . .

     “By 1949, General Motors had been involved in the replacement of more than 100 electric transit systems with GM buses in 45 cities including New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, St. Louis, Oakland, Salt Lake City, and Los Angeles. In April of that year, a Chicago Federal jury convicted GM of having criminally conspired with Standard Oil of California, Firestone Tire and others to replace electric transportation with gas- or diesel-powered buses and to monopolize the sale of buses and related products to local transportation companies throughout the country. The court imposed a sanction of $5,000 on GM. In addition, the jury convicted H.C. Grossman, who was then treasurer of General Motors. Grossman had played a key role in the motorization campaigns and had served as a director of Pacific City Lines when that company undertook the dismantlement of the $100 million Pacific Electric system. The court fined Grossman the magnanimous sum of $1.

     “Despite its criminal conviction, General Motors continued to acquire and dieselize electric transit properties through September of 1955. By then, approximately 88 percent of the nation’s electric streetcar network had been eliminated. In 1936, when GM organized National City Lines, 40,000 streetcars were operating in the United States; at the end of 1965, only 5,000 remained. In December of that year, GM bus chief Roger M. Kyes correctly observed: ‘The motor coach has supplanted the interurban systems and has for all practical purposes eliminated the trolley (street-car)’ . . .

     “Electric street railways and electric trolley buses were eliminated without regard to their relative merit as a mode of transport. Their displacement by oil-powered buses maximized the earnings of GM stockholders; but it deprived the riding public of a competing method of travel,” the report asserts, and quotes urban transit expert George M. Smerk as saying that " ‘Street railways and trolley bus operations, even if better suited to traffic needs and the public interest, were doomed in favor of the vehicles and material produced by the conspirators.’ "

     Progressing from the conversion of rail systems to bus transportation, new market temptations appear on the transportation scene:

     “General Motors’ gross revenues are 10 times greater if it sells cars rather than buses. In theory, therefore, GM has every economic incentive to discourage bus ridership. In fact, its bus dieselization program may have generated that effect. Engineering studies strongly suggest that conversion from electric transit to diesel buses results in higher operating costs, loss of patronage, and eventual bankruptcy. They demonstrate, for example, that diesel buses have 28 percent shorter economic lives, 40 percent higher operating costs, and 9 percent lower productivity than electric buses. They also conclude that the diesel’s foul smoke, ear-splitting noise, and slow acceleration may discourage ridership. In short, by increasing the costs, reducing the revenues, and contributing to the collapse of hundreds of transit systems, GM’s dieselization program may have had the long-term effect of selling GM cars.”

     But the last chapter of mass transit history has not been written and the Snell report views the present and anticipates the future as it looks at “the political restraint of rail transit” by the continuing efforts of auto makers. “[The auto industry] has used [its revenues from auto sales] to finance political activities which, in the absence of effective countervailing activities by competing ground transport industries, induced government bodies to promote their product (automobiles) over other alternatives, particularly rail rapid transit.

     "On June 28, 1932, Alfred P. Sloan, Jr., president of General Motors, organized the National Highway Users Conference [whose] announced objectives were dedication of highway taxes solely to highway purposes, and development of a continuing program of highway construction.

     “During the succeeding 40 years, the National Highway Users Conference [now Highway Users Federation for Safety and Mobility (HUFSAM)] has compiled an impressive record of accomplishments. Its effect, if not purpose, has been to direct public funds away from rail construction and into highway building. At the State level, its 2,800 lobbying groups have been instrumental in persuading 44 of the Nation’s 50 legislatures to adopt and preserve measures which dedicated State and local gasoline tax revenues exclusively to highway construction. By promoting these highway ‘trust funds,’ it has discouraged governors and mayors from attempting to build anything other than high- ways for urban transportation. Subways and rail transit proposals have had to compete with hospi- tals, schools and other governmental responsibilities for funding.. Prom 1945 through 1970, States and localities spent more than $156 billion constructing hundreds of thousands of miles of roads. During that same period, only 16 miles of subway were constructed in the entire country.”

     Comparing the highway lobby’s strength with transit organization muscle, Snell notes that “the three leading transit lobby group; are financially weak and torn by the conflicting interests of their membership. The American Transit Association, the largest element of the transit lobby, operates on an annual budget of about $700,000 which must be apportioned between the conflicting political needs of its bus and rail transit manufacturing members. . The third and smallest element of the transit body, the Institute for Rapid Transit, operates on a meager budget of about $200,000 a year. In short, HUFSAM and [the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association] alone outspend the three principal transit organizations by more than 10 to 1."

     And, ironically, the GM presence extends even to these promoters of transit—“Due to its position as the Nation’s largest producer of bus and rail vehicles, it is a major financial contributor to both the American Transit Association and the Railway Progress Institute. It is also an influential member of the Institute for Rapid Transit.”

     Viewing future prospects, the Snell report sees the auto industry attempting to thwart the kind of mass transit development which could provide the impetus for continuing growth: ". . . General Motors is engaged in a continuing effort to divert Government funds from rapid rail transit, which seriously threatens the use of cars in metropolitan areas, to GM buses, which fail consistently to persuade people to abandon their autos. In place of regional electric rail systems, for instance, it promotes diesel-powered “bus trains” of as many as 1,400 unite, each spaced 80 feet apart. Instead of urban electric rail, it advocates the use of dual-mode gas/electric vehicles which would be adapted from GM’s minimotor homes. In sum, the auto-makers embrace transit in order to prevent it from competing effectively with their sales of automobiles.”

     The Snell report’s objective, as stated in its introduction and summary, is to promote the reorganization of the nation’s auto industry into smaller, more competitive units which would broaden opportunities for future transportation diversity. “By proposing to reorganize these firms . . . [the report] does not pretend to offer a blueprint for better transportation. Rather, it seeks to eliminate an otherwise insuperable obstacle to that end.”

 

 

Mass transit only works if there's a demand for it.  To create the demand you artificially tilt the market.

 

Enjoy the Kool Aid.

 

Thanks,

 

Scott Sloan

700WLW

 

Wow.  At first I thought these guys were just hacks.  But his deft command of transportation economics and land use policy, not to mention his ability to quote some of the great political and economic thinkers at length and from memory to bolster his argument is impressive.  Next time I run out of toilet paper I guess I should just grab my college diploma.

The best thing to do is to NEVER listen to 700 WLW!  Furthermore, take your distaste for 700 and spread the word to everyone you know.  That station is trash and is ruining our city.

 

Powell Crosely is spinning in his grave

Scott Sloan and the rest of WLW have been Kool Aid servers for the anti-urban suburbanite sheeples for as long as I can remember. There IS a demand for the streetcar, and I'll be on the maiden voyage when it rolls.

That is going to be a tough ticket to procure. 

 

 

That is going to be a tough ticket to procure. 

 

Hey! I'm allowed to dream a little.

 

We also need to have Jim Tarbell break a limited edition Christian Moerlein OTR Beer Stein on the streetcar. :-D

Mass transit only works if there's a demand for it.  To create the demand you artificially tilt the market.

 

Enjoy the Kool Aid.

 

Thanks,

 

Scott Sloan

700WLW

 

 

Wow, what a jerk.  If he wasn't going to respond with something intelligent, why did he respond at all?  It was just an email, and he could have easily ignored it. 

 

The nice thing about all of this is that 99% of the opposition to The Cincinnati Streetcar is coming from people who aren't even residents of the city and/or idiots like Scott Sloan.  Meanwhile, City Council overwhelming supports it, the Mayor is taking every opportunity to hype it, and the people who actually live downtown are practically pleading for it. 

 

I still have no idea why people in the suburbs even care about this issue.  If we were adding a new road or building a new bridge, they wouldn't care one way or the other.  So we want to augment the city with a little rail.  This is an infrastructal improvement for city residents.  It won't positively or negatively affect people in the suburbs AT ALL.  Why are they so fired up about this?

By the time the trolley is a reality in Cincinnati, the rest of the world will be riding Jetson style hover craft!  Again, cincinnati will be behind the times.  The trolley tracks will become another subway!

 

Everything done in Cincinnati, whether good or bad, affects the rest of the tri state area.  We all contribute in one way or another, and we will have our say.  If what you say is true, than prove it by having specially designated buses ride the proposed trolley route on the proposed schedule.  Let's see what demand is.

 

 

It won't positively or negatively affect people in the suburbs AT ALL.  Why are they so fired up about this?

 

I talked with someone at work the other day and they mentioned that their daughter went to the Art Academy. We spoke about OTR and how it is improving. To make a long story short, they blame the new crime wave that is going on in Mt washington because of the displacement of crime in OTR.  :lol:  One things for sure I bet they listen to 700 wlw!

^ I would imagine to streetcar would have higher demand, seeing as how the streetcar carries many more people at one time, its much more handicap accessible, and the stops dont take forever, waiting for people to get on like a bus.  And plus, all the transit oriented development thats going to get spurred will only increase ridership and demand for this thing, which will make it more obvious to do the second phase. 

I would imagine to streetcar would have higher demand, seeing as how the streetcar carries many more people at one time, its much more handicap accessible, and the stops dont take forever, waiting for people to get on like a bus. 

 

I used to take the bus with my son in a stroller,  you have to fold up the stroller and its a huge hassle paying the fee with one hand a stroller in the other and wiggly worm in your arms.  Total pain in the ass! With a streetcar baby strollers can roll right on.