I do not disagree, and I will.  But at some point some of these questions have to be answered because when we say to them we want this, they are going to ask the same things I am asking. 

 

Make me a better advocate.

UncleRando, I have a few letters in the works right now, but I would like to be able to argue intelligently about why the current proposal and funding doesn't in any way preclude a second round of funding to get the cars up the hill.  One obstacle to making that argument is that I don't really know which routes up the hill are feasible...  I know from bicycling which are the harder routes, just trying to wrap my head around the actual physics and capabilities of the proposed cars...

I do not disagree, and I will.  But at some point some of these questions have to be answered because when we say to them we want this, they are going to ask the same things I am asking.

 

All of the questions that Cranley put out there have been answered by city staff and City Manager Milton Dohoney.  You will hear these answers at the 25th hearing.  Cranley also knew that there were answers ready/waiting when he publicized his 9-page list.  He went through with it anyways, and will vote against the Cincinnati Streetcar proposal regardless of those answers.

 

In a nutshell...Cranley is a rail opponent.

UncleRando, I have a few letters in the works right now, but I would like to be able to argue intelligently about why the current proposal and funding doesn't in any way preclude a second round of funding to get the cars up the hill.  One obstacle to making that argument is that I don't really know which routes up the hill are feasible...  I know from bicycling which are the harder routes, just trying to wrap my head around the actual physics and capabilities of the proposed cars...

 

Find more information here:

http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/city/downloads/city_pdf16343.pdf

 

http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/city/downloads/city_pdf16342.pdf

In a nutshell...Cranley is a rail opponent.

 

Once again, I don't disagree.  These are not Cranley's questions, they are mine.  Can someone tell me what the uptown link is from Race and Elm?

The stakeholder working group decided that the 4-mile Main/Walnut downtown alignment and the Elm/Race Over-the-

Rhine route would make a reasonable study of overall feasibility, cost and benefits of streetcar.

How did they come to this conclusion?

The Study team decided to examine a relatively short “starter” line focused directly on downtown

and the immediately adjacent neighborhood of Over-the-Rhine. Additional services connecting to

Uptown and UC, as well as to other locations, can be examined in next steps.

To me this says not only are we not going to address this now but we will totally dismiss the next step and make no plans ease connection.  I am sure I am misunderstanding it, please someone explain.  If this is a question I have, then people a lot smarter than I will certainly harp on this and hold you up for a lot longer than just a year or so.  So once again, make me a better advocate.

sweet, very helpful.  that was the information I was after.

 

Cheers!

 

edit - hmmm, I don't see any info about which streets up the hill would be possible though... I really think that information is crucial to being able to fairly state the case for why the current proposal, which has already been studied, doesn't preclude a key future route to uptown.

The problem is that we're arguing against an unknown at the moment.  We don't know what the Qualls route is.  It could be the original phase 1 loop route with the phase 2 loop route built all at once, a completely new single loop route, or something entirely different.

 

Michael, the original route had the phase 1 loop ending at McMicken, and then the Uptown loop would overlap or otherwise connect around Findlay and go up the hill along Vine or Clifton.  It was never meant to be one continuous loop all the way to Uptown.

 

The methodology is spelled out in the appendixes in the feasibility study on the city's website.

 

The problem is that we're arguing against an unknown at the moment.  We don't know what the Qualls route is.  It could be the original phase 1 loop route with the phase 2 loop route built all at once, a completely new single loop route, or something entirely different.

 

That's why my point is not what her route is, but rather her pitching a new option.  If her plan (whatever it is) gains traction, then it will without a doubt put this whole effort back another 1-2 years.

 

If she is able to keep the same routes and come up with the additional $100M or so that will be needed for the Uptown portion and do it all at once - then I believe she deserves a medal of some sort and an immediate promotion to Mayor (which would probably be below her qualifications).  Needless to say, I don't think there is a snowballs chance in hell that she'll be able to do that.

Michael, the original route had the phase 1 loop ending at McMicken, and then the Uptown loop would overlap or otherwise connect around Findlay and go up the hill along Vine or Clifton.  It was never meant to be one continuous loop all the way to Uptown.

 

The methodology is spelled out in the appendixes in the feasibility study on the city's website.

 

I will take a look at that.  So it was to go up to McMicken and loop back down for the OTR route.  The Uptown route would come down Vine, loop up Clifton, with a line running West over to Race to connect the two?  I've gotta see it to understand it.

 

Question, if Qualls is proposing to do a straight shot up Vine through OTR, up the hill to uptown, is that a no-go?  Isn't that actually less track?  Couldn't you get further for less?  I do not want to have to plead ignorance, but I am just not getting it.

This route shows the uptown loop going up Vine and connecting to the Downtown loop at Findlay.

 

http://www.ci.cincinnati.oh.us/city/downloads/city_pdf17771.pdf

 

And I am looking at a closer view of it and it looks like I was right.  After seeing it I feel even stronger about the Vine route.  This acknowledges that the only route up to uptown is Vine and Race and Elm look cumbersome in the mix.

OTR is well  suited for the streetcar since it is a very dense neighborhood  that does not need anymore surface parking lots. 

http://www.ci.cincinnati.oh.us/city/downloads/city_pdf17771.pdf

 

And I am looking at a closer view of it and it looks like I was right.  After seeing it I feel even stronger about the Vine route.  This acknowledges that the only route up to uptown is Vine and Race and Elm look cumbersome in the mix.

 

You have to remember too, that the streetcar is not meant to be the fastest route between two places, but a neighborhood circulator.  If it can catch more area for redevelopment by being circuitous, then all the better.

 

If you look at the map of OTR, there is more land to the west in the basin.  The further east you move the more you are restricted by the hillside.

The McMicken route, although benefiting me personally is the only hold up I see.  In that route, why not bring it up Main and then do the connection from there.  I see the biggest holdup being money, I could be wrong, but this usually is the one thing that will push a project back.  Longer route=more money.  KISS principle should be applied here, in my opinion.  The shortest distance between 2 points is a straight line.  We are fortunate that the straight line runs through the heart of OTR, Vine.

 

You have to remember too, that the streetcar is not meant to be the fastest route between two places, but a neighborhood circulator.  If it can catch more area for redevelopment by being circuitous, then all the better.

Just consider me a devil's advocate here.  You say neighborhood circulator, I say neighborhoods circulator.  I don't think we can justify this in saying it is easier to get from Race to Elm within OTR, but it is easier to get from CBD to OTR to Uptown.  Isn't that the circulation we are looking for?

The further east you move the more you are restricted by the hillside.

But that hillside has to be tackled at some point right?  If your argument was developable land then sure, but that just isn't the case, as a matter of a fact I would say the eastern hillside is by far more developable.

 

Look, I hope no one gets me wrong here, I am not arguing against the streetcar in any way.  These are questions that I would like answered before I am asked these very same questions by someone like a Cranley.

Ok, a couple of things:

- Vine Street as a street for the street car south of McMicken to Central Parkway is not really an option from what I understand based on what most traffic experts say. It was just converted to two-way traffic not that long ago and eliminating parking for instance so both streetcars and cars could move both north and south really isn't an option. I believe the thought is operating with two-way traffic on the hill portion would be easier.

- I could/would buy a Main and Walnut alignment from the Banks to McMicken and then over to Vine & up the hill but we have asked a company to prepare a study, meeting certain criteria and ultimately going over to Elm & Race links Music Hall, Findlay, Brewery District, etc. that the "East Alignment" doesn't. If the criteria was get me from point "A" to point "B" the fastest, then yes but that is not the goal - Econonic Development and Circulation are the goals.

- And if you study the maps and the impact of the route, going on the "West Alignment" through Over the Rhine helps us cover much more of Over the Rhine (and Northwest CBD) in the crital redevelopment impact area of 3 blocks on either side of the tracks.

My half-assed map is here: 

 

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=105458733150298621490.000446af53bd33c5282ad&ll=39.114312,-84.51323&spn=0.017315,0.035663&z=15

 

The blue is the hillside, which has less development opportunities due to the slope (besides high end housing).  As the routes shift to the east there is less development potential in the basin within the 1 block radius. 

 

We can't make the route too simple, or we won't get the return on investment.  Adding a couple of blocks of rail is a pretty small share of the costs.  I agree that the connection has to be made between neighborhoods as well, but if we're going to this expense it should maximize the benefit.

Econonic Development and Circulation are the goals

 

I could debate economic development differences all day as well, plus the circulation argument is more beneficial to the east than the west.  Everything on the West has limited operation.  Whether it is Music Hall or Findlay.  And those are big, but still only 2 points of interest.  Main has multiple with longer hours of operation therefor greater impact.

 

 

My half-assed map is here: 

 

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=105458733150298621490.000446af53bd33c5282ad&ll=39.114312,-84.51323&spn=0.017315,0.035663&z=15

 

The blue is the hillside, which has less development opportunities due to the slope (besides high end housing).  As the routes shift to the east there is less development potential in the basin within the 1 block radius. 

 

We can't make the route too simple, or we won't get the return on investment.  Adding a couple of blocks of rail is a pretty small share of the costs.  I agree that the connection has to be made between neighborhoods as well, but if we're going to this expense it should maximize the benefit.

 

I think that map does a great job of illustrating which route is best for development potential!  Cool :)

The blue is the hillside, which has less development opportunities due to the slope (besides high end housing).  As the routes shift to the east there is less development potential in the basin within the 1 block radius.

 

Vs hard to convert warehouse spaces? What does this map say about the Vine route then?  I am willing to just say I don't get it, I don't understand.  If I wanted to help all of OTR, this isn't the route I would take--If I only wanted to help the Brewery Dist than sure.  But to me, this makes little sense.  If this is truly the case, then why has the east developed faster than the west? 

 

Is the Brewery Dist only hope a streetcar?  And if it is and the streetcar doesn't happen (heaven forbid) then what are you left with as an argument to attract future dev? 

 

:drunk: We're Flat! :drunk: is not an affective slogan for the Brewery Dist.

 

One more thing, look at the map again, forget the colors, just the route.  How does pulling everything over to only 1 side help the circulation of OTR?  How does that help Sycamore, Main, Walnut, Vine, Mulberry, Peete, E. Clifton, E McMicken any of Penleton, the art acadamy, Ent. Dist etc?  How are they benefited by 'circulation'?  And on the flip side, how does the streetcar benefit from any of the riders that could come from these areas?

 

What is the average walking dist someone will go to get on the streetcar?

Everything on the West has limited operation.  Whether it is Music Hall or Findlay.  And those are big, but still only 2 points of interest.  Main has multiple with longer hours of operation therefor greater impact.

Findlay Market is critical.  This is a prime streetcar destination as it makes life easier for downtowners if they can shop easier at the market.  Also there is no reason that Findlay Market could become a 7 days a week operation.  If you are worried about it not hitting Main Street enough, I would say cross over at 13th instead of Central Parkway and voila you have hit the center of the Main Street district.  I cannot support any route that doesn't come within a block or so of Findlay Market.

 

I just came back from the tour of Portland, and I think that Race and Elm seem ideal for the way the streetcars run.  They run best when it is flat and straight.  You just get so many more blocks of coverage on the west as the basin is flatter for a longer distance.  You are linking more points.  The link up the hill can happen in any of the proposed routes separate from the basin loop.

I agree J skinner, that Findlay Market is critical.  I like to go to the market 2-3 times a week.  Saturdays, parking can be a hassle. For suburbanites they may leave if there is no nearby parking. ( I know people that won't get out of their car if they can't get in the main lot).   A suburbanite could now park in a surface lot downtown and ride to the Market.  This could ease the parking issue there.

 

How does that help Sycamore, Main, Walnut, Vine, Mulberry, Peete, E. Clifton, E McMicken any of Penleton, the art acadamy, Ent. Dist etc?  How are they benefited by 'circulation'?  And on the flip side, how does the streetcar benefit from any of the riders that could come from these areas?

 

Send the streetcar from Race/Mcmicken down Mcmicken to liberty and up liberty hill. All of us eastsiders would be very happy

 

I cannot support any route that doesn't come within a block or so of Findlay Market.

 

So Vine?  I cannot support any route that is only focused on just ____________ (fill in the blank).  I do not want it only for Main, not only for Findlay, I want it to be only a block or so from Main, from Gateway, from Wash Park, from the Art Academy, or from Music Hall etc.  What route can put you just "a block or so" from all of these?

One more thing, look at the map again, forget the colors, just the route.

 

The colors are everything.  People will walk a few blocks to take a streetcar, but not much more.  The shaded areas take this into consideration by representing the area where increased development is highly likely (according to the study).  I think its easy to see from that map where the greatest possible area of development is, and realistically, the best benefit we can get from the streetcar is the increased development/redevelopment.  Forget the route, think about the maximal development surface area :)

 

PS - I agree, Findlay is crucial.

Vs hard to convert warehouse spaces?  I am willing to just say I don't get it, I don't understand.  If I wanted to help all of OTR, this isn't the route I would take--If I only wanted to help the Brewery Dist than sure.  But to me, this makes little sense.  If this is truly the case, then why has the east developed faster than the west? 

 

Is the Brewery Dist only hope a streetcar?  And if it is and the streetcar doesn't happen (heaven forbid) then what are you left with as an argument to attract future dev? 

 

:drunk: We're Flat! :drunk: is not an affective slogan for the Brewery Dist.

 

There is not one route that is going to be the magic bullet and help all of OTR at once. Because the eastern portion has developed faster doesn't necessarily make it the "better" location.  In a perfect world, we would link Main Street, Findlay Market, and the whole neighborhood, but we can't right now.  Since we only have one route, then it should be the one with the most potential that serves the greatest good. The Brewery District has other development opportunities and doesn't have all it's eggs in the streetcar basket, but just like the rest of OTR it would be a tremendous help.

Saturdays, parking can be a hassle. For suburbanites they may leave if there is no nearby parking. ( I know people that won't get out of their car if they can't get in the main lot).  A suburbanite could now park in a surface lot downtown and ride to the Market.  This could ease the parking issue there.

 

AMEN!  Although I do find it laughable when people won't go if they can't park in the lot... There is tons of on street around there, usually you can even get a spot directly across from the entrance by the Col. Del. Ray (my personal fav).  To be honest, what keeps me away from the market on Saturday is the insane crowds and the inability to shop in any way efficiently unless you get there really early.

The colors are everything.  People will walk a few blocks to take a streetcar, but not much more.  The shaded areas take this into consideration by representing the area where increased development is highly likely (according to the study).  I think its easy to see from that map where the greatest possible area of development is, and realistically, the best benefit we can get from the streetcar is the increased development/redevelopment.  Forget the route, think about the maximal development surface area

 

Trust me when I say I know where the development is taking place and who and where (and why) are considering future redevelopment.  I am simply asking someone give me a compelling argument for side loading the neighborhood.  Perhaps others on here are satisfied, especially those who have interest along the proposed route, but I just have a hard time seeing this as the most beneficial route.  But who am I?

 

 

Trust me when I say I know where the development is taking place and who and where are considering future redevelopment.  I am simply asking someone give me a compelling argument for side loading the neighborhood.  Perhaps others on here are satisfied, especially those who have interest along the proposed route, but I just have a hard time seeing this as the most beneficial route.  But who am I?

 

And I am saying that from my viewpoint, there is simply a greater physical area that can be developed with that western loop - while still not being too far away from the development already happening in the east.  I don't know any more that what I can see in the studies and exploring the area... so, again, anecdotal, and not related to actual development contracts, etc.... I have no interest along the proposed route, I just want the greatest development bang for the buck.

 

Well then push it through then.  If this is the best argument that we have, then ok, so be it.

I think Qualls is basically right on two points. The neighborhoods beyond the basin need access to investment just as much. I know there are a lot of downtown and OTR folk on here, but there are more institutions that have weight atop the hill. I wouldn't be at all surprised that Qualls and Zimpher are working together on this, since Zimpher knows that UC needs that as much or more than any part of the city. I'd throw out up Main to Liberty Hill that circles around Uptown then comes down McMillan to catch the Brewery District and Findlay Market.

Trust me when I say I know where the development is taking place and who and where are considering future redevelopment.  I am simply asking someone give me a compelling argument for side loading the neighborhood.  Perhaps others on here are satisfied, especially those who have interest along the proposed route, but I just have a hard time seeing this as the most beneficial route.  But who am I?

 

On a personal level, having in on Main or Vine would be a lot closer to my buildings, but I want to make sure it is the best possible route for the whole neighborhood as well.  To be honest, the north south orientation limits me using it to get to the Market. I am not as opposed to a Race/Vine route, but there are logistical hurdles with that route as noted by others.  Any routing further to the east shortchanges the economic impact.

Michael - As I said above:

"Vine Street as a street for the street car south of McMicken to Central Parkway is not really an option from what I understand based on what most traffic experts say - both in my office and at City Traffic.  It was just converted to two-way traffic not that long ago and eliminating parking for instance so both streetcars and cars could move both north and south really isn't an option.  I believe the thought is operating with two-way traffic on the hill portion would be easier."

 

, but I want to make sure it is the best possible route for the whole neighborhood as well.  To be honest, the north south orientation limits me using it to get to the Market. I am not as opposed to a Race/Vine route, but there are logistical hurdles with that route as noted by others.  Any routing further to the east shortchanges the economic impact.

 

well if you can effectively argue that this is best for the "whole" community then good luck, we are all counting on you.

 

"Vine Street as a street for the street car south of McMicken to Central Parkway is not really an option from what I understand based on what most traffic experts say - both in my office and at City Traffic.  It was just converted to two-way traffic not that long ago and eliminating parking for instance so both streetcars and cars could move both north and south really isn't an option.  I believe the thought is operating with two-way traffic on the hill portion would be easier."

 

Once again, if you feel that a western loaded initiative is best for the whole community and the only viable option then ok, have at it.

 

 

Has 3CDC made known its preferences? If so, what was it?

Well then push it through then.  If this is the best argument that we have, then ok, so be it.

 

Agreed.  What matters most is to get this past the 25th.  Gotta get this funded, ready to go, and we can debate which proposed route is better till we are blue in the face if financing is in place...  I want the streetcar to go uptown, I want there to be an OTR loop to spur development there.  These routes aren't mutually exclusive.  Financing them together makes it more than twice as hard to accomplish.  Thats the bottom line. (in my sometimes not so humble opinion)

What matters most is to get this past the 25th.  Gotta get this funded, ready to go, and we can debate which proposed route is better till we are blue in the face if financing is in place...  I want the streetcar to go uptown, I want there to be an OTR loop to spur development there.  These routes aren't mutually exclusive.  Financing them together makes it more than twice as hard to accomplish.  Thats the bottom line. (in my sometimes not so humble opinion)

 

And my bottom line is to get the funding, these questions will have to be answered.  If you feel like these are the answers to questions that many who are controlling those funds or have some influence are asking, then lets give it a shot.  You may not have my understanding or agreement, but you do have my support.

 

Any answer to that 3CDC question?

And my bottom line is that to get the funding is that these questions will have to be answered.  If you feel like these are the answers to questions that many who are controlling those funds or have some influence are asking, then lets give it a shot.  You may not have my understanding or agreement, but you do have my support.

 

I am not sure that there is a complete answer here.  All we can do is point to the study, the potential impact, and whether or not following through on one of the proposed routes in the study precludes later funding for a route uptown.  From what we've discussed so far today, I don't think anything about the current proposed routes precludes a link to uptown (there being at least a few viable routes up the hills).  Further, there is at least a reasonable argument that by working to affect the greatest change in the greatest area we can spur the greatest amount of development.  Are these THE answers, I don't think there are absolute answers.  Is this a good argument?  I think so.  Good enough?  Time will tell.

 

Edit - I don't know what route 3CDC would prefer, the only thing I know is that 3CDC wants to make sure that any line doesn't cut off their funding sources, and frankly, that does need to be considered.  As skeptical as I was about 3CDC, they've come a long way.

I do not want it only for Main, not only for Findlay, I want it to be only a block or so from Main, from Gateway, from Wash Park, from the Art Academy, or from Music Hall etc.  What route can put you just "a block or so" from all of these?

 

The current route being proposed does hit all of these spots within a 1 block distance from the line.  I think it would be more ideal to run the line further North on Main thus getting rid of the Central Parkway portion.

 

I am simply asking someone give me a compelling argument for side loading the neighborhood.  Perhaps others on here are satisfied, especially those who have interest along the proposed route, but I just have a hard time seeing this as the most beneficial route.  But who am I?

 

Downtown is "side-loaded" as well...the bottom line is that you can't design an effective system that will directly hit every single spot.  The key is hitting as many as possible.  In the Downtown portion the Convention Center, City Hall, and W. 4th Street are not within 2 blocks of the route...but you are getting the lionshare of everything else.  The same can be said for OTR.  I don't see what you pick up by running the line up Vine, Sycamore, or Main all the way to the bottom of the hill.  Whereas with Race/Elm you pick up Findlay Market, Music Hall and the Brewery District.

 

I just tend to think that there are more advantageous points along the Race/Elm orientation than the others.  Vine poses additional problems with traffic circulation and the conversion of the street back to a 1-way design.  I think that Sycamore brings very little to the table, but Main brings a lot...what Main offers though could easily be accomplished by pushing the E/W portion a little further North on Main as I mentioned earlier.

Is this a good argument?  I think so.  Good enough?  Time will tell.

Yes it will.

 

Downtown is "side-loaded" as well...the bottom line is that you can't design an effective system that will directly hit every single spot.  The key is hitting as many as possible.

 

I don't particularly care so much about CBD although I could make an argument for flip flopping the CBD and OTR routes as it effectively misses the largest collection of residential but what does that matter?  I agree, hitting as many points as possible is key, and if you think taking it up the route of Race and Elm does that, then you know something I do not. Go for it!

 

3CDC preferences, anyone, anyone at all?

I agree, hitting as many points as possible is key, and if you think taking it up the route of Race and Elm does that, then you know something I do not. Go for it!

 

Your over-simplifying the OTR route.  It does go up primarily Race/Elm, but it first comes up Main to 12th Street and cuts across OTR hitting the Arts Academy - through the Gateway Quarter - and over to Washington Park and onto the Race/Elm portion.

Personally, I think we should stay with the original loop.  We brought in experts to view the city objectively, analyze the data, and provide us with a line that both provides the most bang for the buck and can serve as the base that a more comprehensive system will grow from.  And they delivered that.  It wasn't exactly the route that I had envisioned, but I'm not a rail transit expert.  Neither is Roxanne Qualls.  She's just a politician.  Maybe her plan is rooted in good intentions, but I don't really care.  I'm supporting the plan that was laid out BY THE EXPERTS.  They had nothing to gain by picking that particular route, and nothing to lose either.  And up until Roxanne dropped this bombshell yesterday, the streetcar supporters embraced the route without too much opposition other than "I wish it would go to point X or along street Y", knowing full well that not everything is possible and that this is only Phase 1.  Now we're all over the place with what is and isn't acceptable.  I really wish she had either voiced these concerns earlier or kept her mouth shut on this one.  Putting forth an alternate plan less than one week before the vote is totally unacceptable and borderline inappropriate.

 

On a side note, wow, there are 30 people reading this thread right now!  That's either a really good sign or a really bad sign.

City Council To Discuss Revised Streetcar Plan  :x

 

Last Update: 2:04 pm 

 

Cincinnati city leaders are weighing a new proposal to bring streetcars Downtown.

 

The revised plan includes a line from Downtown to Uptown, near UC's campus, instead of a loop through Over-the-Rhine.

Officials said the project would cost an estimated $100 million.

The Finance Committee will discuss the new proposal on Monday.

Earlier this month, Mayor Mark Mallory called the streetcar plan a priority

 

 

I understand that it does do that although I may not have specifically expressed it.  Without that little turn then I would not be hesitant, I would flat out disagree.  Still, in my mind, knowing the neighborhood, knowing what is what, where is where and putting all things together, I just have a hard time with that turn up Race and Elm.  If you gave me a blank map and asked me to draw a route that accomplished the linking of downtown to uptown, create the greatest economic impact, and effectively moved people from 1 community to the next and within the same community as well, this just isn't the map I would have drawn. 

 

That being said, if you believe in it, then sell it. But why are these proposal changes coming in now?  Experts be damned. 

Cincinnati city leaders are weighing a new proposal to bring streetcars Downtown.

 

What do you gleam from this?  I am trying to help here, it may be painful, but hopefully it will be helpful.

Like I said, this is VERY disturbing.  Maintaining a $100M pricetage means that the line is virtually bypassing OTR for the quickest/most streamlined route to Uptown.  This will provide less benefit for OTR than a perceived "side-loaded" plan by the experts or any of the other options thrown out by forumers on here.

 

This proposal seems to be looked at through a commuting ideal instead of the "connect the dots" ideal.  This illustrates the lack of understanding, about streetcar systems, from the individual proposing it (not to name names).  I personally think that you will see very few people hopping on the streetcar to ride from Corryville to the CBD for really anything.  The lionshare of the ridership will come from people going from point A to point B within a particular area.  If you're Uptown you'll most likely travel it within Uptown (and vice versa).  It is beneficial to connect Uptown and Downtown for a more connected system, but it is not the main purpose that streetcars serve.

 

I really wish she had either voiced these concerns earlier or kept her mouth shut on this one.  Putting forth an alternate plan less than one week before the vote is totally unacceptable and borderline inappropriate.

 

You hit the nail right on the head here.  I expect more from someone as smart as her.

the quickest/most streamlined route to Uptown.

What is that route?

Putting forth an alternate plan less than one week before the vote is totally unacceptable and borderline inappropriate.

I am most disheartened that it was seen as unexpected.

This illustrates the lack of understanding, about streetcar systems, from the individual proposing it (not to name names).

I said right from the beginning that I didn't understand and can someone make a compelling argument to me.  I am more worried about the lack of understanding of how the individuals that are making the funding decisions works.  This is about politics as much as transportation, no, let me correct myself, it is more about politics then transportation. 

 

I haven't been successful in presenting my arguments that very well may be the same arguments of people you are trying to convince, and vice versa.  What does that equate to?  Funding?  A streetcar?  I am trying to present some realities to you so this thing can be funded.  Take it or leave it, I am just one person.

the quickest/most streamlined route to Uptown.

What is that route?

 

Race/mcmicken to liberty and up liberty hill  :-D

 

I can't believe, Im shocked really that I now have more respect for ummmmleslie Ghiz than Roxanne Q. This is worse than what Cranley pulled a couple of weeks agao.

This proposal seems to be looked at through a commuting ideal instead of the "connect the dots" ideal.  This illustrates the lack of understanding, about streetcar systems, from the individual proposing it (not to name names).

 

100 percent agreed.  It shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what key ideals can make a streetcar successful.  Namely, the ideal is to concentrate people in a given area, not to move people from point A to point B.  This is what brings development, this is what can be the spark to improve an area of our city in dire need.  This is what can bring new people to the area.  A direct line minimizes the effective development area - 2 blocks on either side of the direct route vs a potential 8 block wide swath served by a loop.  Effectively halving the potential development area at the same time increasing the costs by inevitably slowing down the building of the line (which directly results in increased costs due to time value of money). 

 

Can anyone really say that the costs of this proposed direct link have REALLY been studied?  How can anyone say with a straight face that this proposed new line will cost $100 mil without doing a study to figure out that cost?  Its ludicrous, and irresponsible.

 

I expected a lot more, a WHOLE LOT more...

I would say that the fact that you and everyone here....

expected a lot more, a WHOLE LOT more; shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what key ideals can make a streetcar successful

 

A streetcar can not be successful if there is no streetcar.  You have a competing plan, what are you going to do about it.  Just say, I expected more, I am so disapointed?  That doesn't overcome the competing plan, that doesn't get you a streetcar any faster, that doesn't get you anywhere.

Can anyone really say that the costs of this proposed direct link have REALLY been studied?  How can anyone say with a straight face that this proposed new line will cost $100 mil without doing a study to figure out that cost?

 

So what is their answer to this?  We had better study it then before we sink 100 mil into anything.

I'm supporting the plan that was laid out BY THE EXPERTS.

You know the city hired an EXPERT for Main once or twice as well.  Don't hang your hat on an 'expert' opinion.

 

I would say that the fact that you and everyone here....

expected a lot more, a WHOLE LOT more; shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what key ideals can make a streetcar successful

 

A streetcar can not be successful if there is no streetcar.  You have a competing plan, what are you going to do about it.  Just say, I expected more, I am so disapointed?  That doesn't overcome the competing plan, that doesn't get you a streetcar any faster, that doesn't get you anywhere.

 

 

 

If I am not mistaken, everyone here (except possibly UncleRando) who says this is going to be at the meeting on the 25th arguing why Qualls plan makes no sense.  THAT is what we are going to do.

Can anyone really say that the costs of this proposed direct link have REALLY been studied?  How can anyone say with a straight face that this proposed new line will cost $100 mil without doing a study to figure out that cost?

 

So what is their answer to this?  We had better study it then before we sink 100 mil into anything.

 

 

 

The answer to this is that we already completed a study, a third party study, which included input from the important stakeholders.  That study came to the conclusion that the best option was to do the CBD/OTR loop. 

If you gave me a blank map and asked me to draw a route that accomplished the linking of downtown to uptown

 

The point of the line isn't to link uptown with downtown.  The point is to spur development in OTR, to create investment in a neighborhood that has long since been in decline.    If I gave you a map and asked you to create a line that can create the most amount of economic and community development, your map would probably look like the current plan.

 

I have repeatedly heard the experts talk about streetcars working best when they connect a residential area to a destination.  A 'destination' would be a business or entertainment district. The current alignment fits the bill very well and has the potential to create a housing mass in OTR.  This housing mass would be completely walkable and traversable by streetcar.  Conversely, I have learned that streetcar routes are less effective when they connect two business districts because there is no base of citizenry to ride the thing.  Why would someone who works in clifton take a streetcar downtown to shop, only to take the streetcar back in order to drive home?  In this scenario, the person would have a car at their place of employment and it would save a trip to just drive downtown in the first place. 

 

The current alignment does not include Clifton, but that doesn't mean that there will never be a line to Clifton.  All that it means is that the line to Clifton is contingent on the OTR/CBD streetcar's success.  I have seen the excitement that this proposal has brought to the city and I believe that it is the best way that we can save the basin.  The streetcar's current alignment will work!  There is no need to re-invent the wheel when we already have the idea solution.

 

 

why Qualls plan makes no sense.  THAT is what we are going to do.

Great!  Whats her plan?  What is the proposed route?  I think I have read the same thing as you have, what information do you have to argue against or is everyone going to do it on the fly?

 

The point of the line isn't to link uptown with downtown.  The point is to spur development in OTR, to create investment in a neighborhood that has long since been in decline.    If I gave you a map and asked you to create a line that can create the most amount of economic and community development, your map would probably look like the current plan.

Well that isn't the point of the people you are arguing against from what I just read.  And no, I have written a page or two now about how my map would be different as I would consider myself an 'expert' (whatever that means) in economic and community development especially as it pertains to OTR.

 

The streetcar's current alignment will work!  There is no need to re-invent the wheel when we already have the idea solution.

I am glad you think so.