Yes, UC

Here's the kind of stuff Cheryl Crowell has developed in Clermont County. Does this seem like desirable product for OTR or Downtown?: http://www.thecrowellco.com/

 

Ms. Crowell tesified that the Portland Streetcar carried only 2,700 riders per day. More like four times that. See: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=pORTLAND+sTREETCAR+2007+RIDERSHIP&btnG=Google+Search

 

Ms. Crowell's main conceptual problem is converting operating statistics from "track miles" to "route miles". Cheryl, give me a call at 579-1300, and I'll help you through the calculation.

 

Wasn't there a Cheryl who posted unsubstantiated info and misguided analysis on this thread a while back?  If so, would this be the same one?  Certainly seems to have a strong agenda.

 

Wish I could've made the meeting.  Sounds like it went well and I still feel positive about it.

wow, thats crap reporting

 

Of course it is.  It's from The Enquirer.

 

 

OH, also gotta love this garbage

{ this is not news }

Streetcar Math:  Funny numbers from the boondoggle

Monday, February 25, 2008

New numbers show the sustainability of the Cincinnati Streetcar Proposal based on population densities and daily ridership totals that do not make any sense.  Analyst Cheryl Crowell, who spoke before Tuesdays Finance Committee Meeting at City Hall, wonders how Cincinnatis system, at the same size as Portlands, is going to cost about half the amount as Portlands to operate yearlyespecially since the Cincinnati plan estimates 4,600 average daily riders, when Portlands 2007 average daily count was 2,763 with twice the population density.

(from where else of course - and if you can't guess... heh)

 

 

   For those who weren't there, about 30+ people spoke to council, only 2 were vaguely negative, this Cheryl Crowell was one of them, and I don't quite know how they get to call her an "analyst"

 

Anyhow, back on point, gotta love how the 2700 number was thrown around by Cranley even though the number is *cough* nearly 4 times that.

 

(from a more reputable source)

Portland Streetcar ridership, initially projected to be 3,500 passenger-trips a day, was reportedly exceeding 9,800 by the fall of 2007 growing at about 17% a year.

 

 

Even if their number of 2700 was correct (which it isn't), Cincinnati is planning on charging a fare on their streetcar, whereas rides on Portland's streetcar are, for the most part, free.  You only pay a fare in one zone that I know of.  So even if we had less ridership, the operating costs could still be lower, due to make more on the fares.

Wasn't there a Cheryl who posted unsubstantiated info and misguided analysis on this thread a while back?  If so, would this be the same one?  Certainly seems to have a strong agenda.

 

 

Yup, it is the same one.

 

Here is Cheryls chart.

 

http://www.scribd.com/full/2171503?access_key=key-1luccp0l5jgwe3rtvqp8

CityBeat

February 25, 2008

Manager: Uptown Link Will Have to Wait

 

A proposed $102 million streetcar system in downtown and Over-the-Rhine won't jeopardize funding for other development projects, Cincinnati's city manager said today, but added that it's unfeasible to consider building a route to the uptown area at the same time as the downtown loop is constructed.

Thanks for those who attended and gave updates here!  Like many others, I couldn't get out of work.  I'm sure there will be more...

 

And btw, Cheryl has great taste in development... I'll take a nice strip flex building over Italianate architecture any day.

 

And her paper is priceless... love the project status for the Madison streetcar: "off the table."  Is that academic language or what?

Maybe Qualls wasn't trying to play "Gotcha" today but the obfuscating Cranley certainly was.  Actually, I thought the City Manager did a decent job in spite of the baiting.  When Cranley made the snide inference that the current study is less-than-objective because of Parsons' participation (since they build transit systems) and seemed to be sowing the seeds of conflict of interest, I could've LOL when Dohoney simply replied that the Administration wouldn't do anything illegal or unethical.  I guess by Cranley's logic, one shouldn't trust the advice of an attorney who counsels a client to litigate rather than not -- after all, the attorney makes more money going to trial  :roll:

 

BTW, it's hard to imagine that a chairman of a Finance Committee would think it speaks well of his understanding of economics to reduce the benefits of the Streetcar to only the specific number of residential buildings that are improved because of it.  He tried but failed to seem ingenuous while doing it.  This rationale is what cramer referred to -- the Lexus-for-everyone-would-be-cheaper approach to transportation  :roll: :roll: :roll:  It's getting harder and harder to believe that Cranley ran against Chabot for Congress.  What's next -- combing his hair in a spiral too???

 

Unfortunately I arrived late and had to leave early.  Ditto about Ms. Fay's testimony.  She sure said a mouthful when she recited all of those transit studies.  Boy, I bet the cost of those alone could pay for a big chunk of any transportation project -- we may not be making any progress but we're sure making consultants rich.  And I loved the civic constipation remark that came earlier.  Did anyone else think Qualls was being a bit condescending by telling everyone to relax?  It seemed an unwarranted remark to me since the crowd was civil all along and no one who testified was shrill or anything.  It gave me the impression that she thinks those in favor of the Streetcar aren't concerned about details (or sophisticated enough to understand?).   

 

So, are any other council members blocking the bowels?  What's the consensus among those who paid the closest attention and know about these things?

Cheryl's analysis is poor.

 

I'd throw out the Tampa and Little Rock examples because they are special-purpose enterprises. Little Rock's mainly is a connector to the Clinton Library, and Tampa's mainly serves waterfront tourist venues, not employment centers. I wouldn't put either in the realm of serious transportation.

 

Kenosha uses vintage cars, and the city is so much smaller than Cincinnati, it's just not a very good example either.

 

Portland and Tacoma are the only cities that use the modern streetcar, along with Seattle -- and Cincinnati is as dense or denser than all three of them.

 

Portland has 7.9 track-miles, not 4.8. Portland charges a $1.00 fare, not $2.05. There's no light rail in Tacoma, and there's no way Tacoma's center-city population is 21,200 -- 2,120 would be closer to the mark.

 

 

 

 

> Actually, I thought the City Manager did a decent job in spite of the baiting. 

 

I agree, he refused to get flustered and controled the pace.  As much as I marveled at Cranley's ability to spin a web of nonsense, I was impressed more by Mr. Dahoney's ability to stay cool.  The whole day in fact was The John Cranley Show.  All lines in the room itself converged and diverged from and to his glossy forehead, it was prefectly centered sort of like that Land-o-Lakes Indian. 

 

From where I was sitting on balcony I can confirm that Ms. Cole was text messaging for about 45 minutes straight, then simply got up and left the meeting an hour before it ended without asking any questions.  Later I saw her stamping around outside chambers, no telling what the problem was.     

don't know if this has been linked yet - http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080226/NEWS01/802260353/1077/COL02

 

Suprisingly, the enquirer is more accurate on the facts (where the TIF money comes from and how much of it) and the quotes than the CityBeat article....

 

 

What can someone do who is interested in seeing this project come to fruition?  I am frustrated that I wasn't able to go to or speak at the meeting due to work.  I did however watch it replayed on public access television.  I am really disgusted by the tone John Cranley took during the meeting, and it seemed to me more of a trial than a public forum.  What happens in a vote on city council?  Majority wins?  Or can cranley crush this whole project my himself?

 

What other steps can one take to help in this effort?

majority wins, Cranley practically said that he won't be in the majority (ie, a guaranteed no vote), but we all knew that.  I am thinking the next big thing is to show up at the next meeting.  Also, keep spreading the word.  At least, those are my plans.  I am sure John Schneider or others can pipe up with what else we can do to keep it moving forward.

The best thing to do is to write letters -- not send emails -- to Council members who haven't said publicly how they will vote. That would be Cole, Crowley, Ghiz, Monzel and Qualls. Tell each how the streetcar would benefit Cincinnati in general and you and your family in particular.

 

Cranley's a lost ball in high weeds on this.

IMO, Cranley doesnt care about anything but his City Lights development.

CityBeat updated their article to reflect the actual presented TIF figures.  Hooray for CityBeat :)

Mallory: Cincinnati Will Have Streetcars

 

While members of Cincinnati City Council's finance committee are taking their two weeks before their next meeting to think about the proposed $102 million streetcar plan, Mayor Mark Mallory is confident the streetcars will happen here.

 

 

He said at his weekly press briefing Tuesday that he's "always been clear" that the route would go to Uptown once money was raised to pay for it. A city proposal suggests building a loop from downtown through Over-the-Rhine as an initial phase, but a majority of council members last week signed a motion by Roxanne Qualls that says the city shouldn't proceed with construction until it can build the route all the way to Uptown.

 

Part of the confusion among council members, he said, is that they have conflicting definitions of words like "phase" and "plan."

 

 

 

"We're going to do it," the mayor said. "It's going to take resources. It's going to take commitment. But the energy is there."

 

 

 

posted by Jane Prendergast at 2/26/2008 03:49:00 PM  0 comments links to this post

 

 

 

 

Council receives groundswell of public support for streetcar

By Guest Columnist Brad Thomas

 

City Council discussed the Cincinnati Streetcar at a three-and-a-half hour finance committee meeting before a standing room only crowd on Monday, February 25. Public comment included a total of 32 speakers who represented a broad swath of the community all in favor of the streetcar.

 

Over-the-Rhine residents, developers, University of Cincinnati and Xavier students, architects, and high school students from the outer suburbs all voiced their opinions about the benefits that the streetcar would bring to the city. Many Young Professionals indicated that they would invest in the urban core if the city goes ahead with the streetcar project. The two who spoke against the streetcar only urged further study of the proposal.

 

Cincinnati City Manager Milton Dohoney provided a financing plan that will neither interfere with the existing capital budget nor the TIF districts that have been used by 3CDC in the redevelopment of Over-the-Rhine. He laid out a convincing vision for how the streetcar will improve the future of this city. Councilmen Jeff Berding and Cecil Thomas both drew spontaneous applause when they spoke in favor of the system.

 

 

City Council must not hesitate to move forward on making the Cincinnati Streetcar a reality. The momentum is here, now. The City of Cincinnati cannot afford to miss an opportunity of this magnitude. Columbus, Ann Arbor, Grand Rapids, Indianapolis, and Louisville are all studying building streetcars as well. Presently, Cincinnati is ahead of or tied with the progress of our peer cities, but Council must keep the plan rolling or we will loose our comparative advantage in the region.

 

Over 40 cities around the country are currently studying streetcar systems. If Cincinnati cannot offer this amenity, then we will have an increasingly difficult time attracting the best and brightest workers to our region.

 

Two councilmember and the city manager all referred to Cincinnati as a progressive city. The defining characteristic of a progressive city is that it is taking steps to move forward to implement realistic change. It is encouraging development that our civic leaders are identifying. The city is considering steps to move forward, but the time to actually take that step is now. If nothing else, the council meeting reinforced the point that the political will is there. With political will and the current momentum in and around downtown, the Cincinnati Streetcar can become a reality.

 

Brad Thomas is the founder of cincystreetcar.com.

heh, so much for editors :)

Council receives groundswell of public support for streetcar

By Guest Columnist Brad Thomas

 

City Council discussed the Cincinnati Streetcar at a three-and-a-half hour finance committee meeting before a standing room only crowd on Monday, February 25. Public comment included a total of 32 speakers who represented a broad swath of the community all in favor of the streetcar.

 

Over-the-Rhine residents, developers, University of Cincinnati and Xavier students, architects, and high school students from the outer suburbs all voiced their opinions about the benefits that the streetcar would bring to the city. Many Young Professionals indicated that they would invest in the urban core if the city goes ahead with the streetcar project. The two who spoke against the streetcar only urged further study of the proposal.

 

Cincinnati City Manager Milton Dohoney provided a financing plan that will neither interfere with the existing capital budget nor the TIF districts that have been used by 3CDC in the redevelopment of Over-the-Rhine. He laid out a convincing vision for how the streetcar will improve the future of this city. Councilmen Jeff Berding and Cecil Thomas both drew spontaneous applause when they spoke in favor of the system.

 

 

advertisement City Council must not hesitate to move forward on making the Cincinnati Streetcar a reality. The momentum is here, now. The City of Cincinnati cannot afford to miss an opportunity of this magnitude. Columbus, Ann Arbor, Grand Rapids, Indianapolis, and Louisville are all studying building streetcars as well. Presently, Cincinnati is ahead of or tied with the progress of our peer cities, but Council must keep the plan rolling or we will loose our comparative advantage in the region.

 

Over 40 cities around the country are currently studying streetcar systems. If Cincinnati cannot offer this amenity, then we will have an increasingly difficult time attracting the best and brightest workers to our region.

 

Two councilmember and the city manager all referred to Cincinnati as a progressive city. The defining characteristic of a progressive city is that it is taking steps to move forward to implement realistic change. It is encouraging development that our civic leaders are identifying. The city is considering steps to move forward, but the time to actually take that step is now. If nothing else, the council meeting reinforced the point that the political will is there. With political will and the current momentum in and around downtown, the Cincinnati Streetcar can become a reality.

 

Brad Thomas is the founder of cincystreetcar.com.

 

Link to where this appeared or will appear?  I hope not just here.  :)

 

 

heh, so much for editors :)

 

yeah, rush job

Council receives groundswell of public support for streetcar

By Guest Columnist Brad Thomas

 

City Council discussed the Cincinnati Streetcar at a three-and-a-half hour finance committee meeting before a standing room only crowd on Monday, February 25. Public comment included a total of 32 speakers who represented a broad swath of the community all in favor of the streetcar.

 

Over-the-Rhine residents, developers, University of Cincinnati and Xavier students, architects, and high school students from the outer suburbs all voiced their opinions about the benefits that the streetcar would bring to the city. Many Young Professionals indicated that they would invest in the urban core if the city goes ahead with the streetcar project. The two who spoke against the streetcar only urged further study of the proposal.

 

Cincinnati City Manager Milton Dohoney provided a financing plan that will neither interfere with the existing capital budget nor the TIF districts that have been used by 3CDC in the redevelopment of Over-the-Rhine. He laid out a convincing vision for how the streetcar will improve the future of this city. Councilmen Jeff Berding and Cecil Thomas both drew spontaneous applause when they spoke in favor of the system.

 

 

advertisement City Council must not hesitate to move forward on making the Cincinnati Streetcar a reality. The momentum is here, now. The City of Cincinnati cannot afford to miss an opportunity of this magnitude. Columbus, Ann Arbor, Grand Rapids, Indianapolis, and Louisville are all studying building streetcars as well. Presently, Cincinnati is ahead of or tied with the progress of our peer cities, but Council must keep the plan rolling or we will loose our comparative advantage in the region.

 

Over 40 cities around the country are currently studying streetcar systems. If Cincinnati cannot offer this amenity, then we will have an increasingly difficult time attracting the best and brightest workers to our region.

 

Two councilmember and the city manager all referred to Cincinnati as a progressive city. The defining characteristic of a progressive city is that it is taking steps to move forward to implement realistic change. It is encouraging development that our civic leaders are identifying. The city is considering steps to move forward, but the time to actually take that step is now. If nothing else, the council meeting reinforced the point that the political will is there. With political will and the current momentum in and around downtown, the Cincinnati Streetcar can become a reality.

 

Brad Thomas is the founder of cincystreetcar.com.

 

Link to where this appeared or will appear? I hope not just here. :)

 

this will appear in the pulse of the city. it was written in the hour between the end of the meeting and press deadline

 

 

 

 

 

nice column brad!  hopefully we won't see the exact opposite sentiment in coming enquirer editorials.

BTW, it's hard to imagine that a chairman of a Finance Committee would think it speaks well of his understanding of economics to reduce the benefits of the Streetcar to only the specific number of residential buildings that are improved because of it.  He tried but failed to seem ingenuous while doing it.  This rationale is what cramer referred to -- the Lexus-for-everyone-would-be-cheaper approach to transportation  :roll: :roll: :roll:  It's getting harder and harder to believe that Cranley ran against Chabot for Congress.  What's next -- combing his hair in a spiral too???

 

I enjoyed this statement.

 

So, are any other council members blocking the bowels?  What's the consensus among those who paid the closest attention and know about these things?

 

I wasn't there, but my suspicion is that the vote will break down this way:

In Favor:

Bortz

Thomas

Cole

Crowley

Qualls

 

Against:

Cranley

Monzel

Ghiz

 

Unknown:

Berding

 

Crowley is not eligible for re-election and has no further ambitions, but the mayor will probably be able to cajole him into voting with him (payback for being name vice-mayor).  Plus, he may end up wanting it as well.  Qualls is eligible for re-election and has ambitions, so she'll end up having to vote in favor.  Otherwise a large portion of her supporters will end up being severely disappointed.  Berding may still end up voting in favor, since his position as a leader on council has plummeted since the city manager hearings, the first big fight Mallory had with Council.  For a West Side Democrat, Berding gets far less consideration than Portune, Driehaus or Cranley, not to mention anyone with the surname of Luken, so he might be thinking that siding with the Mayor would do more to help his ambition than battling him would.  Cole will end up voting for it because the mayor wants it.  The fact that she was texting throughout the meeting and displayed absolutely no interest is actually a positive for the streetcar people, because she clearly doesn't care about it one way or the other, not even enough to pretend like she does.  It will be more difficult for her to explain a lone vote against the Mayor and Thomas than it would be to simply go along with them.

^Berding will support the streetcar so long as financing does not appear dubious and public support remains high.

^Then Berding is in.  Who knows, even Ghiz may jump on board if it looks like this thing is going to go forward.

 

The key thing is that Mallory is really pushing it, as this article posted above shows:

 

Mallory: Cincinnati Will Have Streetcars

 

While members of Cincinnati City Council's finance committee are taking their two weeks before their next meeting to think about the proposed $102 million streetcar plan, Mayor Mark Mallory is confident the streetcars will happen here.

 

He said at his weekly press briefing Tuesday that he's "always been clear" that the route would go to Uptown once money was raised to pay for it. A city proposal suggests building a loop from downtown through Over-the-Rhine as an initial phase, but a majority of council members last week signed a motion by Roxanne Qualls that says the city shouldn't proceed with construction until it can build the route all the way to Uptown.

 

Part of the confusion among council members, he said, is that they have conflicting definitions of words like "phase" and "plan."

 

"We're going to do it," the mayor said. "It's going to take resources. It's going to take commitment. But the energy is there."

 

posted by Jane Prendergast at 2/26/2008 03:49:00 PM

 

What I've highlighted is 1) the "out" he has given to those council members who signed Qualls' motion, and 2) Mallory's implicit threat that this is important to him and he is expecting support.

 

It's great, and a tremendous change for Cincinnati that a Mayor who truly believes in transit-oriented development is in charge and is pushing for it with all he's got.

Berding has been a consistent supporter from the start

It's great, and a tremendous change for Cincinnati that a Mayor who truly believes in transit-oriented development is in charge and is pushing for it with all he's got.

 

Agreed.  And if this is successful, it may start a trend in this city, opening the door for future mayors to consider expanding/improving the transit system, instead of essentially ignorning it as we have for the last 50+ years.

From the 2/27 enquirer

 

Streetcars would only help a few city neighborhoods

 

Hey City Council how do the other 50 neighborhoods in the city benefit from the Streetcars? Will Bond Hill benefit? How about Mount Washington, Westwood, Price Hill, etc?

 

City Hall needs a telescope to see beyond the blocks outside their windows.

 

Why would this city support $100 million effort to shuffle a couple hundred people a day around Over-the-Rhine and Downtown? We need to link Westwood to Mount Washington and Bond Hill to Uptown, not make it easier for bar hoppers to hit OTR and Fountain Square. Maybe a thoughtful council member will encourage a referendum so that citizens can vote on this expenditure. A referendum will force them to think about a comprehensive plan benefiting many, not the few.

 

Pete Witte

 

West Price Hill

 

 

Bah humbug, OK, so now I have to write a letter to the editor too...

 

That letter to the editor by Pete Witte is most likely a red herring.  I doubt he supported the MetroMoves plan in 2002.  Also, no offense, but it makes no sense to make rail to Mt. Washington a priority.  His collection of neighborhoods is laughable.

^Then Berding is in.  Who knows, even Ghiz may jump on board if it looks like this thing is going to go forward.

 

Ghiz is for it.  From the 2/20 Enquirer article reacting to Qualls' hold-up resolution:

 

"Councilwoman Leslie Ghiz disagrees. She did not sign Qualls’ 19-page plan.

'It’ll slow up the whole process,' she said. 'We’ve already paid for a study.'”

While his argument isn't the strongest, dismissing the neighborhood argument in a condescending manner is not the best tact. It remains the strongest counter-argument.

the counter argument to the neighborhoods is that the streetcar will grow the tax base and population base resulting in greater resources for the whole city.  It will increase public saftey in the core allowing officers to redeployed to 'hot spots' in other neighborhoods.  It will help us attract and retain young talent increasing the likelyhood of attracting and retaining corporations and employers.

I have no intention of dismissing the neighborhood argument in a condescending manner.  I think it can be rationally stated that looking at only the direct benefits of the streetcar to local neighborhoods neglects the big picture.  The indirect benefits are not negligible.  Increased tax base helps us all.  Whether you want to live in a suburb, or live in downtown/OTR, everyone benefits from improving the urban core of the city.  Its not just who will ride the streetcar.

Good old Pete "price Hill" Witte.

 

Interesting... http://blackcincinnati.blogspot.com/2004/10/price-hill-overrun-with-those-people.html

 

Pete Witte, President of the Price Hill Civic Association and a business owner in the community, said the increased violence could be traced to an increase in the number of low-income residents moving into the community.

 

"It's all about housing," he said. "Ask any police officer and they will tell you the problems they were dealing with in the West End and Over-the-Rhine have shifted to Price Hill and Westwood"

 

 

http://frontier.cincinnati.com/blogs/gov/uploaded_images/witte-786727.jpg

http://frontier.cincinnati.com/blogs/gov/uploaded_images/powrcouncil-774279.jpg

Oh Jebus, I didn't know that letter was from "him"

Council receives groundswell of public support for streetcar

By Guest Columnist Brad Thomas

 

City Council must not hesitate to move forward on making the Cincinnati Streetcar a reality. The momentum is here, now. The City of Cincinnati cannot afford to miss an opportunity of this magnitude. Columbus, Ann Arbor, Grand Rapids, Indianapolis, and Louisville are all studying building streetcars as well. Presently, Cincinnati is ahead of or tied with the progress of our peer cities, but Council must keep the plan rolling or we will loose our comparative advantage in the region.

Are you sure Louisville is studying streetcars? I couldn't find anything on google, and I talked to a friend in that area who hadn't heard anything about it.

listing of current and proposed streetcar/lightrail systems - http://www.lightrailnow.org/features/f_lrt_2007-04a.htm

 

Louisville is trying to revive a light rail plan (not streetcar) as far as I can figure.

 

Edit - John might have more insight into what local groups are working on down there that hasn't yet hit the media...

http://blogs.citybeat.com/porkopolis/2008/02/streetcar-appro.html

 

February 26, 2008

Streetcar Approval Process Criticized

 

Cincinnati City Councilman John Cranley's action Monday to postpone any decision on a proposed streetcar project until March 10 was Mayor Mark Mallory's request, so Mallory can try to negotiate a compromise that will yield a unanimous council vote.

 

Cranley told CityBeat today that Mallory made the request Feb. 20 during a private meeting held in his office that was attended by Cranley, Vice Mayor David Crowley, council members Chris Bortz and Roxanne Qualls and City Manager Milton Dohoney Jr.

 

Cranley wanted to publicly clarify his action to deflect any possible criticism that he was delaying the project. Although skeptical about some aspects of the streetcar plan, Cranley said he wouldn't use his power as Finance Committee chairman to block a vote when a council majority is ready to have one.

 

But Cranley noted that decisions to designate a loop through downtown and Over-the-Rhine as the system’s first phase and to spend $170,000 on a feasibility study of the route were made by city staffers without getting approval from the entire city council, possibly overstepping the staffers’ authority. Those decisions were based on discussions held in city council’s Economic Development Committee, but the committee never forwarded a motion for council action, he added.

 

“I’m not trying to nail anyone against the wall for it, but we need to make sure important decisions like that come before council in the future,” Cranley said. “It’s our job to decide on things like that.”

 

He and Qualls have questioned whether the first phase of any streetcar system should be built in the uptown area, near the University of Cincinnati and several local hospitals. Dohoney said Monday that any uptown link probably would have to be built after the downtown/OTR loop because the feasibility study for downtown already was done.

 

Meanwhile, a city councilman’s staffer has done calculations to show how long the streetcar system would have to operate each day and how many riders it would need to meet fare projections. The feasibility study estimated the system’s operating cost at $2.3 million annually and said about half that amount — or $1.15 million — would come from fares.

 

A spreadsheet prepared by Brad Beckett, Councilman Chris Monzel’s chief of staff, indicated several possible scenarios under which the system would generate that amount of revenue. If the fare were $1 and the system operated 14 hours per day six days a week, it would need an average of 264 riders per hour to meet the threshold, the spreadsheet indicated.

 

If the fare were $1 and the system operated 14 hours per say seven days a week, it would need an average of 226 riders per hour. Other scenarios calculated included one in which the system operated five days a week and another in which the fare was $2.

 

Monzel hasn’t yet decided whether to support the downtown/OTR loop but wants to study a possible uptown route as the first phase, as well as expanding other transit options.

 

For the past few months, city council has debated a proposal to build a streetcar system, which supporters say would spark redevelopment of vacant or underutilized parcels within a 2-mile radius of the route. The 3.9-mile zig-zag loop would link Findlay Market to Great American Ball Park, with several stops along the way.

 

Estimated cost to build the downtown/OTR loop is $102 million; cost to build the uptown loop is $82 million.

 

 

Would the fare be for the entire loop? Would it be $1 everytime you hopped on and off?

 

Maybe Pete Witte should sit tight -- everything old is new again as far as transportation goes.  I'm too lazy to do a search now but I thought it was on this forum that someone envisioned a tram to Price Hill someday.  Sounds like an interesting idea to me, one worth giving more thought to at some point.  I think Price Hill deserves some attention too, for many of the same reasons OTR does.  We need to take the first step somewhere though.  I guess it's my hope that Phase I of the Streetcar will succeed in not only achieving its stated goals, but in leading the way to more creative solutions to urban transportation and development needs, especially as we face rising gas prices.  And I'm sure this is exactly what transit opponents fear, and why they don't want Cincinnati to get a taste  -- an appetizer before the main course.

Besides aethetics, how is the streetcar an improvement over a bus that would run on the same route?

Hey City Council how do the other 50 neighborhoods in the city benefit from the Streetcars? Will Bond Hill benefit? How about Mount Washington, Westwood, Price Hill, etc?

 

Everyone benefits from a strong downtown.  This argument is brought up time and time again primarily out of ignorance by groups who on one hand will say how bad downtown is and on the other hand say lets not do anything for downtown.  Without a strong core, Bond Hill is negatively affected, Mount Washington is negatively affected, Westwood is negatively affected, Price hill is negatively affected, even Mason and West Chester is negatively affected.

 

A strong downtown is what drives the entire city.  This is our face to the rest of the nation and the place that people come for things like conventions when they get their only taste of what Cincinnati is.  We need to put the money where it is most visable and that is downtown, not Westwood.

 

Increased tax base helps us all.

When you think of Chicago, what comes to mind?  When you think of New York, and on the flip side Detroit or any other major city, what comes to mind?  It is the downtowns, not the suburbs.  The same is true for Cincinnati.  If we want to leave a great taste in some ones mouth when visiting our city then we need to put our best foot forward in the urban core.  That will get you more business, and more people saying Cincinnati is a place I would love to live.  That is what benefits everyone, Citywide.

A referendum will force them to think about a comprehensive plan benefiting many, not the few.

How many people are in the CBD, OTR, and Uptown daily vs Westwood, Price Hill, and Mt. Wash daily. 

Increased tax base helps us all.

When you think of Chicago, what comes to mind?  When you think of New York, and on the flip side Detroit or any other major city, what comes to mind?  It is the downtowns, not the suburbs.  The same is true for Cincinnati.  If we want to leave a great taste in some ones mouth when visiting our city then we need to put our best foot forward in the urban core.  That will get you more business, and more people saying Cincinnati is a place I would love to live.  That is what benefits everyone, Citywide.

hopefully this doesn't get screwed up since I am posting from my blackberry, but... I agree with you entirely, the tax base argument is easier to quantify and explain how it benefits the whole city.  The making people want to live here is a definite upside, but harder to quantify without proof that that is what will happen.  In otherwords, I can point to numbers to argue tax base (which is the direct result of more people wanting to live live there).  Its hard to quantify desire to live someplace other than in terms of real growth.

 

Edit - apparrently cell phone vpn/remote desktop actually works... cool

Besides aethetics, how is the streetcar an improvement over a bus that would run on the same route?

 

Hi 3231 - Besides aesthetics, practical aspects like the ratio between riders and operators (and the concomitant expense of operators/drivers) is one advantage of streetcars.  Fixed routes because of rail, as well as pollution, noise, access, etc. are others.  But IMHO, aesthetics shouldn't be scoffed at.  Automakers certainly don't ignore or dismiss aesthetics -- aesthetics apply to consumers of public transit too.

While his argument isn't the strongest, dismissing the neighborhood argument in a condescending manner is not the best tact. It remains the strongest counter-argument.

 

Dave, when have I ever been condescending?  I mean aside from just right then.  Seriously though, Witte's so-called argument is the one that is condescending, "We need to link Westwood to Mount Washington and Bond Hill to Uptown, not make it easier for bar hoppers to hit OTR and Fountain Square."  And why exactly is a link between Westwood, Mt. Washington and Bond Hill to Clifton/Avondale more of a priority (or even a feasible alternative to) than connecting the downtown employment zone to the abandoned historic housing of OTR?  Not to mention the fact that by his statement neither downtown nor Over-the-Rhine qualify as neighborhoods despite the fact that numerous people live and work there, and they are growing compared to other neighborhoods in the city, which are more or less filled.

 

To other problems with Witte's "argument": 1) the possibility that improving OTR and the West End will result in less movement of people he seems to consider problems from those neighborhoods to Westwood and Price Hill, and 2) the persistence of the fallacious notion that the streetcar project can't be pursued at the same time other City projects are also being pursued.  While the streetcar may reduce funds from other possible projects, it doesn't necessarily do so.  It strikes me that Witte is attacking the streetcar for the sake of attacking it rather than honestly rejecting it because he thinks other projects that the streetcar would actually cannibalize should take precedence.

another thing to look at is the funding sources

 

1. TIF- can only be used in district

2. State capital grant

3. public private partnerships with institutions in the area

4. capital funds that won't affect any already approved projects

5. blue ash money (of all the funding sources this is the one that could most be considered 'taking away from' the neighborhoods, but if we dilute the $10 million 52 ways it won't make as much of a difference to give each neighborhood $200,000.  furthermore the airport was transportation, it only makes sense to keep the money ion transportation)

Just took another look at that Cheryl person's "analysis"... and *cough* it seems to me it is fundamentally flawed in one very key way - the number of residents she quotes for the "streetcar area" is off by a factor of twoTHREE.  She says 3189 (the 2000 census number for CBD only), and leaves out the numbers for OTR (*cough* the other key service area for the plan).  If you add in the 7638 from OTR (according to 2000 census), you have a figure that is MUCH closer to portlands density, and roughly equivalent to the ration of our overall city sizes.  (10,829 (sum of CBD and OTR))

 

That umm, is what we should be highlighting as COMPLETELY off base about that *report*

Somebody needs to write a letter to the editor regarding the flawed report and number being quoted by certain people including Cranley.  We cannot let the *facts* as presented by Cranley and Cheryl be used to bash the streetcar movement.  These people need to be corrected publicly, to ensure these inaccurate numbers don't become the public perception

Some more numbers - she says portland population served as 12,902 (NO FREAKING CLUE where that number comes from), but you can get a good estimate from the portland district populations.

 

Three districts served by initial portland plan

Pearl District - 1113

Downtown Population - 9965

Not fair to include all of northwest district, only a very small portion is served by the streetcar

even figurint 25% (which is a generous assumption), you get 25% of 11455, or say 2863

TOTAL 13941

 

Thats somewhere near what her number is, but still..

 

I used to read the beacon for a good laugh, but this is beyond haha, Its plain irresponsible...

I guess Mr. Witte realizes that all those people displaced by a completely rehabbed OTR have to live somewhere, and they aren't going to be able to stay where they are.