What's not to like about this project?  I think some are afraid that it might be successful, especially light rail opponents.  Besides the built in market from workers, visitors, and residents of the downtown area, this will likely create some tourist business as well as spin-off development.  As I understand it, this is supposed to be part of the larger plan - since the light rail to the suburbs plan failed the idea is to take smaller steps and build from there. 

 

My question of course, is can this really get done?  It seems like the political will is there minus Cranley, but I am not sure where the money is coming from.  Based on gas prices and environmental concerns you would think the Federal pot for mass transit would grow, but I have not heard anything about additional funding.  This is a project that really needs to get everyone pulling in the same direction, which always seems to be our most difficult step, so hopefully it happens.  I have actually tried not to watch this one too closely as the ebbs and flows of projects like this really bug me.

orange??? How about  green? 

 

most people will be wearing dark suits, orange stands out better and

 

www.cincystreetcar.com

 

is orange

 

Orange is the color of revolution

orange is the color of the bengals.. Green is revolutionary!

Before you all jump on me, let me ask a serious question.  Everyone says that downtown will come alive if there is a streetcar.  Downtown Cincinnati was vibrant and alive in the 70's.  I know that is ancient history to most of you guys, but it was yesterday to me.  Fountain Square was as exciting as it is today, there were restaurants on the square, there were clubs and theaters, both movies and live.  The Skywalk was exciting and safe.  There were restaurants and movies attached to the skywalk.

 

How could this happen without the streetcar?

The department stores all moved out because they couldn't compete with their own suburban locations.  The suburban malls give free rent to anchor stores, since their beginnings the stores built their own buildings, warhouses, and parking garages downtown.  Cincinnati and other cities were forced to pay the department stores to stay or watch them go.  And with the department stores went many of the smaller stores, just like when suburban malls die. Everyone blames "the city" for the fall of downtown retail when it's the federal government's fault for building the damn highways. 

 

 

Okay, good answer.  All the stores were downtown.  Pogue's, Mabley & Carew; Shillitos, McAlpins.  There was a reason to shop there.

and the reason all the stores where downtown in the first place was because downtown was the best serviced by streetcars, inclines, and interurbans

Before you all jump on me, let me ask a serious question.  Everyone says that downtown will come alive if there is a streetcar.  Downtown Cincinnati was vibrant and alive in the 70's.  I know that is ancient history to most of you guys, but it was yesterday to me.  Fountain Square was as exciting as it is today, there were restaurants on the square, there were clubs and theaters, both movies and live.  The Skywalk was exciting and safe.  There were restaurants and movies attached to the skywalk.

 

How could this happen without the streetcar?

 

The decade of the 70's was much different than our current time...many things have changed.  Primarily the way we look at urban development, the environment, and most importantly the different demographics.  The people driving the change in cities today desire different things than those of the 70's.  Furthermore, the focus of development, in the 70's, wasn't as so much focused on residential development as it was office/commercial.  Residents demand this type of transit source much more than businesses alone.

My question of course, is can this really get done?  It seems like the political will is there minus Cranley, but I am not sure where the money is coming from.

 

This is from page 29 of the Cincinnati Streetcar presentation:

Also I-75 opened more or less in 1963 but it was joined in the mid-1970's by I-71 and I-74.  I-471 opened around 1981.  Many people knew where all the bus routes went then because they remembered where the streetcars had run and were familiar with the routes.  Compare the outermost suburbs of the 1970's...Finneytown is 10 miles closer to downtown than West Chester and Mason.   

Before you all jump on me, let me ask a serious question.  Everyone says that downtown will come alive if there is a streetcar.  Downtown Cincinnati was vibrant and alive in the 70's.  I know that is ancient history to most of you guys, but it was yesterday to me.  Fountain Square was as exciting as it is today, there were restaurants on the square, there were clubs and theaters, both movies and live.  The Skywalk was exciting and safe.  There were restaurants and movies attached to the skywalk.

 

How could this happen without the streetcar?

 

I-71, I-74, I-471, I-275

I'm a bit concern about the funding.

 

From CityBeat - "An early version of the financing plan relied heavily on tax increment financing (TIF) revenues -- taxes generated by new development along the streetcar route. The plan called for $25 million to come from TIF funds and the city's capital project budget; $11 million from the sale of Blue Ash Airport, which was owned by Cincinnati; $10 million from state grants; and $31 million from private contributions from area corporations."

 

The last part seems kind of shaky. But I just read about Gov. Strickland State of the State speech - "The plan also would invest $200 million in a program to revitalize downtown neighborhoods and $400 million in the Clean Ohio fund to clean up abandoned factory sites." http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080206/NEWS01/302060088

 

I would think the city could tap into this $200m or is that part of the state grants? I'm sure Cleveland would give up their share. :-) Of course the article doesn't explain where Strickland is getting $1.7b for his entire plan.

there are 18 stops and 6 cars, sell the naming rights to each for one million and there is 24 million right there, it isn't really that simplistic, but we have a huge number of corporations and private capital.  I will gladly donate

 

^ Don't worry about the funding. They've got it figured out.

Rando - thanks for the reply!  Let's get on with it.  As others have replied already downtown today is a much different animal than 30-40 years ago.    Unless there is a coordinated effort or common interest, downtowns normally do not effectively compete with shopping closer to home any more (unless they are unique, like Tiffany's).  Just look at Columbus for example, where a mall went from a crown jewel to nearly vacant in 15 years.  Part of the solution is to continue to build the market downtown.  This will simply be another tool in the toolkit to improve life for those already regularly using downtown as well as draw more investment and people.

 

My question of course, is can this really get done?  It seems like the political will is there minus Cranley, but I am not sure where the money is coming from.

 

This is from page 29 of the Cincinnati Streetcar presentation:

It is better for the government to invest in infrastructure than to try to pick winners using traditional economic development methods. The expressways created certain markets and destroyed others (usually the ones focused on the streetcar and rail system). This is a well-thought investment in the built environment that can advance investment. It is easy to throw money at residential developers, but attracting business investment is always risky and has often failed. Better to use government funds to provide a foundation and then let the new market realities play out. The key is that this isn't a Disney World type affair, moving through places people don't, instead provides a tool for people to use to expand their range of foot traffic.

Okay, good answer.  All the stores were downtown.  Pogue's, Mabley & Carew; Shillitos, McAlpins.  There was a reason to shop there.

 

Let's not forget that the type of people who live downtown and in OTR and the incomes they command as well are quite different from what was there in the 70s.

 

Can I put in a plug for our seniors?  I think dmerkow mentioned this somewhere recently.  I know plenty of older and well-involved empty-nesters whose children have moved out of the house.  These folks are very involved in the arts and cultural scene, and they have been moving downtown more and more now that high-end condos are available.  Forcing people to drive their own automoblie to get anywhere is a terrible burden on our seniors, as well as children and teenagers (and obviously to those of limited means as well).

 

DanB, one of the reasons the anti-streetcar people are so frustrating is because they don't stay on topic.  Anyone who says that the funds for the streetcar would be better spent on more police or on the schools is immediately arguing without merit, since the funds available to build the streetcar can not, by law, be spent on either of those two areas.  Those who argue for such things (and they seem to be the most popular choices for "better things to spend money on than the streetcar") either don't know the law or they do and are assuming that their audience doesn't.  Both alternatives are highly discreditable.

 

Other ideas also being considered include imposing a special assessment fee on surface parking lots for their "wasted development potential," sources say.

 

I love this idea. Surface lots are the biggest sign of urban decay in my opinion. I am working on creating an existing land-use map for my senior project of this area, and it is embarrassing how many surface lots are surrounding it. The Broadway Commons lot looks like it belongs in front of a walmart. The only good thing about all these surface lots is they offer a ton of design freedom for later development.

 

You'd think the pro-streetcar advocates would hype this point more, or maybe it's getting drowned out.  Saying that all the empty lots in OTR exceeds the acreage of Burnet Woods Park is a powerful rhetorical point.

someone asked me if I was going to the february 25th meeting, I replied that I would walk through hell in a gasoline suit to go to that meeting

 

Thomas: I got the Pete Rose reference... well done!

 

Max:  Love the "I heart WLW"

 

David:  Thank you for questioning intelligently.  If someone has questions or objections, that's how they should be raised, rather than throwing around half-truths and lies *ahem* Scott Sloan *ahem*

And we all know what happens on all those acres of Burnet Woods (or at least used to) . . .

oh im going.  we should have a meet before, get drunk, and then show them what we really think... :drunk:

 

I'm in... Time?  Place? 

 

I'm sure Cranley would love some rowdy fools in the back chanting "Street-car! Street-car! Street-car!"  You know Bortz is down!  Hell, he'd probably meet up with us before too!

Im definitely pro Streetcar, I just think it's good to bring up those different scenarios so that if a smart opponent comes in with a legit concern we know how to counter it (not that that happens too often :) ). It's funny how most of the people who oppose the streetcar or make fun of it don't even live in the city. I wouldn't expect anyone living in the suburbs to be enthusiastic about transit oriented development.

^ Um, no.

i dont know, my parents are pro streetcar and they live in Harrison Township...

>Perceptions of Cincinnati by insiders and outsiders differ greatly, and many of us born here consider Cincinnati a major joke.

 

Sentence structure?  Here's a core problem with Cincinnati -- it's lamest residents consistently compare it against vacation destinations.  Since a bunch of fanny-pack sporting overweight people don't come here and mindlessly snap photos of their kids this place must be worthless. 

 

 

>It is particularly so if one has traveled and lived in other parts of the world and has seen what truly creative and enlightened leadership can do and has done in other countries.

 

Amazing, since there's hardly a city in the world that attracts tourists which doesn't have rail transit. 

 

 

>owntown, which is the focus of the scheme, is not a desired destination after working hours for most people. There is nothing to recommend downtown to visitors, and most people tend to visit Newport which at least has a central area in which one can find diverse divertissement.

 

 

Typical, because the most successful suburban entertainment, shopping centers, and condo developments all mimic Florida's design schemes.  I heard someone remark once that they felt like they were on vacation in Newport.  People overlook all kinds of things when they're "on vacation".  "Vacation" is one of the sloppiest, most powerful, and most dangerous pop ideas out there.   

 

 

>jobs and increased parking fees were the legacy of automated facilities. Many were driven to take the bus, which has now increased fares 50 percent despite legendary poor service. If bus service were greatly improved and routes, stops and hub points more rational and convenient, people would use that system and a streetcar, nee rail, system would not be a point of consideration.

 

Well massive improvements in suburban bus service were part of the MetroMoves plan he fought to defeat.

 

 

>schmoozing with each other. Where is the excitement, the activity? The so-called entertainment on the square is unhip, totally square, pathetic and ill-advised. Where's Black entertainment? Not tired uncle toms and other assorted hankie-heads, but rocking, bass-regulated music that gets everybody moving. There's a lot of hip-hop and rap that is not objectionable, where is it? Why is the music always 'white rock?'

 

Well if he ever came down there he'd see there's a wide variety of programming.  When I used to play, the time we were booked to play Fountain Square on a Wednesday night we were the only white musicians on the bill. 

 

 

>The students who complete local colleges, for the most part, have no interest in Cincinnati beyond their undergraduate experience.

 

Guess what, the average college student anywhere hardly leaves the campus area at any time in their four years.  Except maybe to drive to a suburban mall. 

 

 

>Many graduates, now scattered, recall the Short Vine days with something approaching nostalgia. Nice place to visit, but I wouldn't want to live there accurately describes Cincinnati.

 

He here declares that Cincinnati is in fact an interesting place to visit after having essentially said the whole problem with the city is that it doesn't measure up to tourist cities around the world.  Which all have rail transit. 

 

 

 

 

 

Amazing, since there's hardly a city in the world that attracts tourists which doesn't have rail transit. 

 

 

 

 

Agreed...I can't think of many.  NYC, Vegas with the monorail on the strip, Chicago, etc all do.  I guess LA doesn't have effective rail at the moment, but they are actively working and building new lines.  Any city overseas has rail.  You right, theres not many top notch tourist destinations without a rail plan...

>It is particularly so if one has traveled and lived in other parts of the world and has seen what truly creative and enlightened leadership can do and has done in other countries.

 

I would agree with this point, actually (did I just say that?  :bang:).  But I think that our council is moving in the right direction, hence the streetcar project.  Once there is a little more turnover on council (we all know who I mean), then you will see better synergies and creative/progressive alliances.  I think Chris Bortz is the proof of that, and as he gets older and wiser you will see him emerge as one of the leaders on that council.

I drew a pair of maps with prospective Phase II routings, including distances.  My previous distance estimate for a McMillan St. hill was off, it's actually not much longer than Vine to the the corner of Clifton and Calhoun St.

 

Fairly self-explanatory, distances are measured in feet from 5th St. using the current planned Phase I routing:

 

Here is the uptown area, with red marking a pair of lines diverging from the intersection of Vine & McMillan.  The east branch would travel north on Short Vine, east on University, north on Eden through the UC Medical Center, then west on Erkenbrecher to the Cincinnati Zoo.  The west branch would travel due north on Clifton Ave. and terminate at the Ludlow Ave. intersection.  Without extending to Northside, I don't see much advantage in running streetcars west on Ludlow at all, since anyone who would ride it would walk the extra 3 blocks to the Jefferson Ave. intersection.  Using the W. McMillan St. hill, alternate distances are easily measured.   

 

Also, notice that the intersection of Ludlow and Clifton is exactly one mile north of McMillan, a vestige of the Licking Township section grid.  Also, Erkenbrecher is in exact alignment with Ludlow, again marking that section line.  It makes it easy to estimate distances. 

 

If only one branch was built, I think the Ludlow one is better first.  The zoo could be reached fairly easily by this route also. 

^

Looks good when can we get started!

 

I think that the red line would be much more utilized, obviously because there is much more, and it serves much more of the uptown area. I vote red line.

The red line is great. Think of all the people who work at the hospital and UC that could easily commute!

Actually I think the zoo as a terminus of whatever route for phase 2 is needed because Ludlow is too vague to garner support.  The zoo on the other hand is seems like a legitimate destination for a trip.  I'm thinking politically here, and here the symbolism of that destination carries more weight than potential ridership. 

 

Also this is a small amount of riders that I'm thinking about but the transfer from TANK to Metro is only performed by the most intrepid or desperate transit riders.  For those in Kentucky, any form of rail transit to UC is going to be the way they go because the transfer seems simpler even if there's no real difference.  Also for those from out of town staying at NK hotels, taking the southbank shuttle to the streetcar then to the zoo is something that hotels could advise guests to do with total confidence.  I used to live right across from the zoo and seeing tourists take the bus to the zoo was very, very rare. 

Actually I think the zoo as a terminus of whatever route for phase 2 is needed because Ludlow is too vague to garner support.  The zoo on the other hand is seems like a legitimate destination for a trip.  I'm thinking politically here, and here the symbolism of that destination carries more weight than potential ridership. 

 

I agree, but I do think the Gaslight district and UC are a little too fragmented (for lack of better words). That route could tie them closer together. I thought about living there but I didn't like that it would be inconvenient to go to classes. Of course I only represent one subset of the uptown population. I see both routes as having great benefits but I favor the red one slightly more because it caters to such a large employment center; plus, Short Vine is prime location to have a Streetcar running through. Are they both proposed as Phase II or is it either/or? I'd like to see both happen.

Something for discussion...is it more important to create Uptown routes that are oriented towards travel between Uptown/Downtown - or is it more important for the Uptown routes to simply connect the Uptown "dots?"

 

I tend to think it is more important to focus on connecting the Uptown "dots" because the connection between Uptown/Downtown will be there regardless and will function well either way.

I'd say connecting the various uptown nodes (gaslight, UC, McMillan, Short Vine, East Campus/hospitals and Zoo are more important than connecting downtown. They just have more to do with each other compared to a collective relationship to the basin. Besides, if saving money          increases the likelihood that Phase II comes to fruition; it should be promoted more. Like you said, the connection between DT and Uptown will still be there, either way.

Here is something I want to throw out there...I'm not sure whether or not I actually like this alignment or not, but I think it is worth discussing.  This does factor in the reconnection of Short Vine to Vine, but I think you hit 90% of the "dots" in Uptown.  As much as I would love it to get to Ludlow...I don't think the cost/benefit ratio is in its favor.  This concept would also require some changes on Short Vine itself.

 

I also think there is a lot of merit in running a portion of the Uptown route through more of the Corryville neighborhood and over towards Reading Rd.

 

 

 

 

BTW, here is what I had previously thought of (minus the green line)...this scenario would unfortunately probably require some "death track" stretches, as well as some double tracking in other locales:

I can barely see those routes due to my colorblindness. Randy what made you choose to include those portions of the Corryville neighborhood the models?

Randy what made you choose to include those portions of the Corryville neighborhood the models?

 

It is central and will thus have the greatest impact over the greatest area (remember the 2 block hot zone around streetcar lines).  It is also running through streets that are already connected, and will thus not have to bulldoze through houses/private property.

 

Like I said...I'm just throwing an idea out there that hasn't been discussed all that much.  If you, or anyone, has other ideas/suggestions...please do tell.

Nice as it would be, I doubt you could ever get through the UC campus. The University of Minnesota was threatening to kill the whole Central Line project between Minneapolis and St. Paul because the transit agency wanted to do that. It's still not settled.

 

Transit agencies also tried to build LRT through the San Diego State and Arizona State campuses, and I don't think they ever succeeded. The main reason for opposition always seems to be the disturbuance of scientific equipment on the campus, but I've felt that universities simply don't want anyone else in control of the physical development of the their campuses. Not that most of them have done such a good job with that.

 

Airports mostly keep LRT away from their campuses too. They have a million reasons, but the one they never give is, to me, the most obvious one - they don't want to lose parking revenue. And the airlines don't push for the connections either, because if parking revenue goes down, there will be pressure on landing fees -- maybe averagng $250 per landing now at major airports -- will go up.

 

I love all the maps that appear here. Makes me think.

Could hospitals be connected to Ludlow by going through the new Zoo parking lot and cutting up Ruther?

Nice as it would be, I doubt you could ever get through the UC campus. The University of Minnesota was threatening to kill the whole Central Line project between Minneapolis and St. Paul because the transit agency wanted to do that. It's still not settled.

 

Transit agencies also tried to build LRT through the San Diego State and Arizona State campuses, and I don't think they ever succeeded. The main reason for opposition always seems to be the disturbuance of scientific equipment on the campus, but I've felt that universities simply don't want anyone else in control of the physical development of the their campuses. Not that most of them have done such a good job with that.

 

Airports mostly keep LRT away from their campuses too. They have a million reasons, but the one they never give is, to me, the most obvious one - they don't want to lose parking revenue. And the airlines don't push for the connections either, because if parking revenue goes down, there will be pressure on landing fees -- maybe averagng $250 per landing now at major airports -- will go up.

 

I love all the maps that appear here. Makes me think.

 

The San Diego Trolley (LRT) actually has a stop at SDSU. The stop is under street level and very nice. I was there in July and it was being used by a lot of students who were there for summer courses. UC could maybe do something under street level. It would be a boon to UC sports fans who hate negotiating the parking situation around campus.

University of Maryland is fighting the extension of the Green Line through their campus. I think Ludlow/Clifton needs to be in Phase Two because that is area where you get a lot of buy-in from the residents and they have more sway than probably just about any neighborhood in town.

Streetcars offer lots of economic development potential...and it is important to connect the "dots" and also tap into areas where you could see a great return on your investment.  I'm not sure that Ludlow Ave brings you that possibility...I'm also not sure whether or not there are enough "dots" on Ludlow Ave to warrant that lengthy extension.

Yes, but the folks in Clifton have political power and this streetcar is going to require more than just economic arguments. --> see failure of Metromoves and nearly all ideas had by planners.

 

You also have a sizable ridership in that area and we've discussed the weakness of the Ludlow strip quite a bit which I would argue is exacerbated by the parking situation (too much in some places, not enough in others). There are also plans afoot to really intensify the investment in that area and the streetcar could give it the push it needs.

 

In fact, I'll go further and say it is worthless to build a phase two uptown loop that doesn't include Ludlow and Clifton. HUC, Good Sam, the west side of campus will drive as much service as the east side hospitals and the zoo.

 

 

Streetcars offer lots of economic development potential...and it is important to connect the "dots" and also tap into areas where you could see a great return on your investment.  I'm not sure that Ludlow Ave brings you that possibility...I'm also not sure whether or not there are enough "dots" on Ludlow Ave to warrant that lengthy extension.

 

But all everyone is saying is that the streetcar can transform entire neighborhoods!  Won't Ludlow just explode with development?

There isn't much room on Ludlow for development... Most of Ludlow is residential and the commercial area is quite dense. The purpose of connecting Ludlow would serve more to connect people to that development, rather than solely to create increased development, although that would still occur, just not to the extent it would in OTR.

You also have a sizable ridership in that area and we've discussed the weakness of the Ludlow strip quite a bit which I would argue is exacerbated by the parking situation (too much in some places, not enough in others). There are also plans afoot to really intensify the investment in that area and the streetcar could give it the push it needs.

 

Yes there are plans to intensify the area, but those plans are being met with much opposition.  I'm not saying it is a bad idea to connect over to Ludlow...but I'm just not sure it would be justified.  Maybe it would work better if you then ran it all the way down Ludlow and into Northside, but then that is another whole animal/extension of sorts.  Something that is worth exploring though I think.

^Actually I was thinking the link could work both ways, including if the line came down the length of Clifton along the west side of campus, then zig over and terminate at the hospitals.

This is going to sound extraordinarily dark and snarky . . . but a lot of that opposition will head off into senility soon. The old funeral home on Clifton will be developed and the corner with the library and post office will see its investment. Cramer is probably the expert on the reality what is going to happen there, but it strikes as a place ripe for growth.

Re: Ludlow. The common thread to difficult to develop urban sites (Calhoun, the Banks) is the parking situation. It's the same story with the proposal for the lot on Howell: the parking garage on the bottom of the development and the scale it produced made the project objectionable to part of the community.

 

To the extent a streetcar reduces parking requirements, it unlocks the development potential of that site, as well as the funeral home. Not to mention the Marathon, UDF, and Brugger's locations, which really would be the most appropriate for mixed use development in the four-six story range, which I think is just about as high as the community would want to go.

 

I'd love to see several one story buildings razed and then raised as well, but that small site development might not be worth it, with or without a streetcar.

 

If it were up to me, I'd develop on the north edge of Burnet as well, connecting the Ludlow business district with Jefferson's up to near Bishop. JSkinner's line would do a good job of that. But encroaching on Burnett Woods would be a non-starter.

But all everyone is saying is that the streetcar can transform entire neighborhoods!  Won't Ludlow just explode with development?

 

I think the difference is that OTR has a vast amount of unrealized potential, whereas that section of Ludlow is already pretty nice.  A streetcar would help matters and might spur some development there, but nothing like what it will do in OTR where properties are cheap and vacant buildings with historic character are plentiful.  It's basically a ready-built hotspot that is just waiting for someone to pour money into it.  The streetcar will hopefully encourage that type of investment.

I think the difference is that OTR has a vast amount of unrealized potential, whereas that section of Ludlow is already pretty nice.  A streetcar would help matters and might spur some development there, but nothing like what it will do in OTR where properties are cheap and vacant buildings with historic character are plentiful.  It's basically a ready-built hotspot that is just waiting for someone to pour money into it.  The streetcar will hopefully encourage that type of investment.

 

Hence my reasoning behind the Corryville orientation.