Does Cincinnati really NEED a Streetcar, or is this more of a WANT issue?  Are we hoping to get a streetcar just to say that we are on the same level of other cities with streetcars? 

 

Not a bad question...  Cincinnati really needs RAIL, not streetcars specifically.  A metro area of 2+ million residents needs something other than expressways connecting the various neighborhoods with the employment centers.  I think that most posters in this thread would prefer a comprehensive light rail system that connects downtown with the suburbs, but we tried that and failed back in 2002 when Hamilton County voters unfortunately rejected the plan.  However, what we learned from the Metro Moves campaign is that the majority of city-dwellers want rail transit, whereas the majority of suburbanites are willing to live without it.  Because of this, we're now focusing on a streetcar system that will at least make the urban core more pedestrian friendly, encouraging development, and allowing residents to reduce the number of autos per household if they so choose.  The hope is that eventually the desire for better tranist will grow in the suburbs and a light rail system can get tied in at that point.  If that never happens, at least "the city" (the CBD, OTR, Clifton, the West End, the Banks, Covington, and Newport) will be rail-connected for those of us who prefer it.

^ 100 % agreed.  What is needed is rail, and the streetcar is baby step number one down that path...

 

What I hope for is increasing density at the core due to developments along the rail lines, and then secondary growth in the suburbs, hopefully increasing the demand for rail to go further... And hence my sig, cincy 500K by 2020.  If only we could annex Norwood.... ;)

^That would be like 15,000 new residents a year from 2009 - 2020...and that is given a 350,000 population to start with (which is probably a little high).  I LOVE your optimism though...I'm right there with ya.

I understand that streetcars are primarily used as "people-circulators" that work best at fairly short distances.  I'm just curious as to what the furthest distance would be that would still keep the streetcar effective.  Could a interconnected streetcar line operate effectively within all the neighborhoods inside the City of Cincinnati, or would light rail be more effective for the furthest extremeties?  Would a streetcar line from Pleasant Ridge to the CBD be an effective mode of transportation for commuters, or would light rail be better?

^That would be like 15,000 new residents a year from 2009 - 2020...and that is given a 350,000 population to start with (which is probably a little high).  I LOVE your optimism though...I'm right there with ya.

 

Heh, thats exactly the number I was figuring as the most optimistic that is at least marginally feasible.  We've got enough vacant housing stock ;)  Streetcar is step 1, banks residential units step 2, 3CDC in OTR, and finally some rebuilding along whatever line is chose to uptown.  I think we could see a significant upside.  Regardless of the number, I want cinci to be the fastest growing city in Ohio, its got a lot to offer, and more to offer if we can get rail off the ground.

I understand that streetcars are primarily used as "people-circulators" that work best at fairly short distances.  I'm just curious as to what the furthest distance would be that would still keep the streetcar effective.  Could a interconnected streetcar line operate effectively within all the neighborhoods inside the City of Cincinnati, or would light rail be more effective for the furthest extremeties?  Would a streetcar line from Pleasant Ridge to the CBD be an effective mode of transportation for commuters, or would light rail be better?

 

The further you go, the more sense light rail makes.  Streetcars, in my experience, are great for the < 5 - 6 mile trips.  Light rail is much better suited for the actual "I only use this to commute to and from work in the burbs" types of trips.

Yes even the Uptown/Downtown connection won't be the quickest commuting route for people.  That is why Uptown will have its own circulator network, but it makes sense to connect the two so that you don't have a fragmented system.  The same would be done if/when you run lines out to places like Price Hill and so on.  They would be their own circulators, but would still tie into the existing system.

 

If you are looking for commuter purposes though...light rail makes much more sense.  Look at light rail as an at-grade subway system...you would have just about the same frequency of stops and also speed.  The differences between something like light rail and heavy rail are more or less schematics and less about what their purpose is.

^ The upside is that light rail can function as a "streetcar" when it gets to downtown.  Portland's streetcar and light rail lines intersect around SW 10th St, and the casual observer would never know that they are two different types of trains unless they were side by side.  I think that a lot of people don't realize that light rail trains can run through the streets, which is great for rolling through downtown, but then they can still zip out to the suburbs on dedicated railway after they clear the city.

 

I'm also fascinated by the prospect of utilizing some of the old subway tunnels for light rail.  I'm pretty sure that I read that Chris Bortz floated that idea as a possible future use, but I can't remember the exact details.

The hope is that eventually the desire for better tranist will grow in the suburbs and a light rail system can get tied in at that point. If that never happens, at least "the city" (the CBD, OTR, Clifton, the West End, the Banks, Covington, and Newport) will be rail-connected for those of us who prefer it.

 

As the banks and OTR become attractive places to go to, maybe all of the people in the suburbs will have more of a reason to favor a light rail system in order to get there. What incentive did they have back when light rail was voted down to go downtown other than work? I want to see the center city become a destination...not a place that closes after 6pm.

Thanks for the responses.  Here's hoping the streetcar system will be able to snowball into a larger county-wide light rail system.

 

If anyone could post updates about the council meeting today it would be greatly appreciated!  Thanks!

If anyone could post updates about the council meeting today it would be greatly appreciated!  Thanks!

  live action?  anybody?  thanks!

The hope is that eventually the desire for better tranist will grow in the suburbs and a light rail system can get tied in at that point.  If that never happens, at least "the city" (the CBD, OTR, Clifton, the West End, the Banks, Covington, and Newport) will be rail-connected for those of us who prefer it.

 

As the banks and OTR become attractive places to go to, maybe all of the people in the suburbs will have more of a reason to favor a light rail system in order to get there.  What incentive did they have back when light rail was voted down to go downtown other than work?  I want to see the center city become a destination...not a place that closes after 6pm.

 

It is more than just taking light rail from the 'burbs to the center city.  You could take it from the 'burbs to the airport...or from one 'burb to another.  A lot of the daily commutes are from suburb to suburb (see I-275).  Obviously the vast majority are still going into the center city...and those would obviously be covered.  Light rail would have opened up this region to all sorts of trip alternatives via rail.  When you combine light rail with streetcars and an enhanced bus system...you then have a very comprehensive transit system that can start to eliminate the need for a car altogether.  Streetcars are one piece of that puzzel, so is an improved/expanded bus system, and also light rail.  Eventually HSR would further expand that system.

You could take it from the 'burbs to the airport...or from one 'burb to another.

 

I've travelled to Portland on business and being able to take light rail to downtown from PDX for a dollar was great!  Actually, I think it was $1.05 :-P  Of course, then you're in the middle of a very walkable city and the thought of a car doesn't cross your mind. 

If anyone could post updates about the council meeting today it would be greatly appreciated!  Thanks!

  live action?  anybody?  thanks!

 

Just got back from the hearing. 

 

They are postponing voting on any proposal until the next meeting (2 weeks).  There is currently a motion from Qualls and Cranley that would require study a connector up the hill as part of the first phase, and apparently there is a motion being discussed between Mallory, Crowley, and Bortz that is not as specific in regards to commitments for the Uptown route (in terms of it holding up the first phase).  They are going to try to come to an agreement before then.

 

Cranley wouldn't let up on Bortz, and kept trying to goad him (like half a dozen times) into saying he would build the first phase without funding in place for the Uptown route.  Bortz, rightfully, stated he couldn't say for sure until alternative funding options for the Uptown route were studied.

 

Qualls repeatedly stated she was for the streetcar, but didn't want to commit until the whole plan and funding was presented.  She seemed very perturbed at the "people who think I am anti-streetcar".  She also seemed to think anyone who was supporting doing the first phase first didn't understand all the "complexities".

Ugh.  I have the horrible feeling that this project is never going to happen.  Cranley and Qualls are doing a hell of a job throwing up roadblocks.  Why do we need a connector up the hill in the first phase, when it could easily be added in the second?  Let's just get some tracks in the ground downtown and the rest will fall into place, especially with federal matching.  Do you think Council is just afraid to deal with this project, especially if we are heading into a recession?

If she's so pro-streetcar, why has she voted against every proposal to date?  She's sure making a pretty good case that she is anti-streetcar.

^ So it was a bunch of posturing and playing (or trying to play) "gotcha."  awesome. 

By the way, thanks for the update McMicken! (though I wish it was better news)...

thomasbw, hohum, and John Schneider were there as well and spoke eloquently.

^ So it was a bunch of posturing and playing (or trying to play) "gotcha."  awesome. 

 

Ah, a return to the Cincinnati politics of the 90s.  Welcome back, Roxy.

 

btw.. thanks McMicken!

This is too much, I'll check back here in a couple of months, Keep up the good work.  Cheers

They are postponing voting on any proposal until the next meeting (2 weeks).  There is currently a motion from Qualls and Cranley that would require study a connector up the hill as part of the first phase, and apparently there is a motion being discussed between Mallory, Crowley, and Bortz that is not as specific in regards to commitments for the Uptown route (in terms of it holding up the first phase).  They are going to try to come to an agreement before then.

 

Who decides whether or not the vote takes place?  Cranley?  If so, isn't it a sort of unethical that an opponent of an issue can just keep pushing off the vote when it appears that he won't win?  Wasn't voting on this issue the entire point of today's meeting?

 

 

Qualls repeatedly stated she was for the streetcar, but didn't want to commit until the whole plan and funding was presented.  She seemed very perturbed at the "people who think I am anti-streetcar".  She also seemed to think anyone who was supporting doing the first phase first didn't understand all the "complexities".

 

BOO!  HISS!

Yeah I am confused.  How do they come to the conclusion to keep putting this off?  Can one person on a council of people actually decide that they won't vote.  Unbelievable.

The motion on the floor was co-signed by Cranley and Qualls only, so they offered to put a hold on it until there was more agreement.  No other member objected.

 

There was no competing motion on the floor.  I'd rather have them wait two weeks and get it right, but obviously it's frustrating when it's two weeks, then a month, then another couple of weeks and all of a sudden it's a year later.

Or a decade later (the Banks).  Unfortunately that's how politics in this city work.

Politics are the same virtually any place you go...and when you have people in high positions of power that are opposed to something that has majority support - this is what you get.  It truly is unfortunate that Qualls has come back into local politics to do nothing more than grandstanding and posturing.

 

I say its about time to start cranking up the heat on Qualls in addition to Cranley.  If you want to say one thing and do another fine, but you're going to get grilled for it.  Don't want to be called anti-streetcar/transit...then prove it.  She has done nothing but proven her opposition thus far, and it is an insult to say that those who don't agree with her don't understand the process.

The world is not ending. It is important to get this moving but politics is not pretty and never will be. This is why planners love Robert Moses and the rest of the world thinks he ruined a rather large swathe of the world.

 

I've been talking a lot of urbanists lately who would seem the target audience for the streetcar and I've been surprised how profoundly negative they have been about a basin circulator. They are uniformly city residents though all of them are in neighborhoods from Clifton and further out. In general, they don't fall in the Portland fetishization that often occurs with urbanists. They are the reason I've been unwilling to accede to a basin dominant vision of the streetcar.

Agreed Rando.  I'm drafting a letter to Qualls as we speak, although I should probably wait until I am less angry to proof it and send.  It is just incredibly frustrating to have a project that could be so beneficial to the city continually pushed back.  I'm beginning to regret my vote for Qualls in the last election.  It seems to me that the majority of the citizens of Cincinnati want this project to proceed.  It should be our representatives' job to do the will of the people.  Apparently Qualls and Cranley missed that memo. :wtf:

The world is not ending. It is important to get this moving but politics is not pretty and never will be. This is why planners love Robert Moses and the rest of the world thinks he ruined a rather large swathe of the world.

Moses was more of an engineer than he was planner.  He (like many different professionals) took on the title, but did not really act in a Planners fashion.  I am a planner for example and feel that Moses directly ruined huge portions of NYC, but also enabled the destruction of cities across the U.S.

 

What irritates me about this is that these are actions that are not being made in good faith.  This is political grand standing/staturing...and this is the very reason so many people have been turned off to the political process in this country.  These kinds of actions should be labeled as such, and the voters should know how these politicians act when the heat is on.  Clearly Qualls and Cranley need a wake up call.

From the Enquirer Politics blog: http://frontier.cincinnati.com/blogs/gov/

 

Two more weeks before streetcar vote

 

Cincinnati City Council Finance Committee -- which includes eight of nine council members -- will wait another two weeks before voting on the streetcar proposal.

 

Chris Bortz didn't submit the motion he described last week, meant to set city officials to work seeking funds. Instead, Roxanne Qualls brought in a motion that would require the city to build a connector line -- David Crowley called it a "finger" -- from Over-the-Rhine to Uptown at the same time as the original downtown/OTR system.

 

After some wrangling between Bortz and chairman John Cranley (who opposes the city's plan), members agreed to give themselves another two weeks to come up with language that would let officials get started on the project, while promising to follow up with streetcars for Uptown.

 

posted by Margaret A. McGurk at 3/24/2008 02:56:00 PM  0 comments links to this post

 

They are the reason I've been unwilling to accede to a basin dominant vision of the streetcar.

 

The basin seems to me to be the logical point to begin the project.  The CBD is the dominant area of the city, so why shouldn't it be the dominant portion of the streetcar route?  Obviously it shouldn't (and won't) be contained solely to the basin area, but this is where the majority of the jobs are, and it could do a lot to bring back more of the entertainment aspect that has been lacking (although is slowly returning).  Anyway, the basin is only the 1st phase and once the uptown loop is completed, and the project moves on to additional phases (hopefully), who's to say which segment would really dominate the line anyway?

 

    ^---"How will a streetcar system benefit all of cincinnati? by growing the tax base and increasing population, providing greater resources for all of the city of cincinnati."

 

    I respectfully disagree. Cincinnati and Hamilton County are losing population. This is what bothers me the most about the streetcar.  Please don't hate me.

As much as i agree with the streetcar. I do not think it is correct to say that a overwhelming majority of city residents agree with it.

 

I do not think that any of the council members have delayed this process enough for me to get too upset. This is dissapointing for sure, but if she can truly garner support and financing for a CBD-OTR-Uptown link in the first phase... i think the 3 month delay is worth it. ....If she fails....bad politics...

     ^---"How will a streetcar system benefit all of cincinnati? by growing the tax base and increasing population, providing greater resources for all of the city of cincinnati."

 

    I respectfully disagree. Cincinnati and Hamilton County are losing population. This is what bothers me the most about the streetcar.  Please don't hate me.

 

 

Well, the plan is to make OTR and downtown more attractive places to live.  They're building it in an attempt to encourage people to move TO the city.  How does the population trend of the city (currently without streetcars) apply to that?

 

I would agree with your rationale if the streetcar was being proposed because we're anticipating that our current bus service can't handle an influx of new residents, but since the streetcar is designed to attract new residents, I actually think that your concern about decreasing population in the city (assuming that you are correct) is a good argument for building it.

I do not think that any of the council members have delayed this process enough for me to get too upset. This is dissapointing for sure, but if she can truly garner support and financing for a CBD-OTR-Uptown link in the first phase... i think the 3 month delay is worth it. ....If she fails....bad politics...

 

So on her watch we build the two at the same time...at the current rate we build the Downtown/OTR portion then move forward with the Uptown portion.  Had we not been delayed 3-6 months by her actions the timelines would have probably been the same whether we did the two at once or one after another.

 

That is the best case scenario, that all her shenanigans results in what will have ultimately happened under the current process.  If she fails, then at best she delays the process significantly costing valuable taxpayer dollars and time.  At worst, the whole thing goes by the wayside and she still costs the taxpayers money and the city time.

 

In my book that looks like a lose, lose situation.

^-----  "the streetcar is designed to attract new residents.."

 

    The key word is "new."  If they move in, from say, Westwood, then development in one area is offset by decline somewhere else. If they move in, from say, Germany, then they really would be new residents, but I don't see it happening.

 

    Same with The Banks, etc.

 

    Cheers. Carry on.

^----"politics is not pretty".

 

    :wink:

^

I think that this plan will attract a lot of YP's into staying, those of us who are originally from the city and the ones who went to UC and Xavier. Otherwise I see the leak of YP's to Chicago, NYC, Baltimore, Boston, ect. continuing.

^ Yes, I suppose that I would have been more accurate if I had said "residents who would otherwise live in another region" rather than "new", because the idea is to both attract people from other parts of the country and retain those that already live here.  My bad.

 

In regards to leeching population from other areas, I suppose the streetcar could be a "sprawl fighter" in that young couples/singles might consider buying condos in downtown or OTR instead of houses further out or in the 'burbs.  This region has sprawled too much already, so I wouldn't mind seeing development hasten in the center city and slow down further out.

http://www.urbancincy.com/2008/03/challenge-for-those-who-demand-better.html

Very bold Randy.  (And I do not disagree with the sentiment at all)

 

I did indeed speak today, however, I ditched my planned speech entirely due to "changing circumstances on the ground"

 

I will say I am a bit frustrated.  Councilman Bortz again acquitted himself excellently, and I have to commend him on his responses to Cranley's questions. 

 

For now, I am reserving judgment.  (I really want to see what the competing motion has to say, and after beers is the last time I should be writing online or otherwise ;)... Oh, and reading over printed copies of the 1981 Cincinnat 2000 plan and the MetroMoves light rail/streetcar plans while commiserating over said beers at Kaldi's didn't help :P  Sad to hold millions of dollars of good intentions, good intentions that failed for the same kind of politics, in your hands... *sigh*)  I will have more to say once I have a chance to sit back and blow off some steam.

 

I will look forward to seeing whatever motion Bortz and Crowley seem to be working on, and I hope it is worded carefully.  Some good clean language could put to rest quite a lot of the "concerns"

 

Ms. Qualls

 

     I'm sending you this e-mail urging you to reconsider your apparent "stall tactics" in getting the first phase of the streetcar built. As a vendor at Findlay Market, I feel that the

introduction of the first phase of the streetcar line from downtown onto Over The Rhine would greatly enhance and insure that the market remains a vital part of the rebirth

of our entire city.  While Findlay Market still enjoys a relatively healthy Saturday market. as I'm sure you know, the rest of the days of the week that the market is open:

Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, and Sunday, the market  traffic is very light to almost negligible. I can assure you that the Market is struggling to be a successful venture.

For many of the vendors, one good day is not enough to be able to survive in the long term, this is why a huge chunk of the market remains vacant.       

 

      The current proposed streetcar line running along Elm Street would greatly affect the attendance at Findlay Market. One easily can envision downtown workers and

residents hopping the streetcars during lunch hour to do some quick shopping and grab a bite to eat. I also see less apprehension from the

suburban workers who might be afraid to venture into the neighborhood but would be willing to leave their cars parked downtown and take a clean, quick

and safe mode of transportation to explore OTR and Findlay Market. Saturday's market would also be greatly enhanced because our parking lots during peak season

are filled to capacity for most of the day, but with this mode of transportation, once again the downtown residents would have little reason to drive. Oh yeah, let's not forget the

tourists visiting Cincinnati, staying downtown being able to easily visit one of our true Historic attractions.

 

   I spoke briefly with Mr. Tarbell while he was buying some flowers from me. I asked him if he thought that the streetcar was going to pass the city council vote and he was

cautiously optimistic. I also asked him why you were so opposed  to the plans where the first phase was to be built and used as leverage for the second phase

which will ultimately reach UC. He said that he did not know that I should write to you asking for your support of the current plans. I didn't think I needed to as the Enquirer

indicated that the measure had enough support to pass. Well, It looks as though you and Mr. Cranley stalled the referendum again dalaying the vote for another

two weeks. Maybe if I and most streetcar supporters understood what you are trying to accomplish with your obvious stall tactics, then we could stomach them better. Time

is of the essence we only have a short window of opportunity to get this accomplished. The streetcar, I'm sure ,will not just be an enhancement to Findlay Market, it will make the

whole city a better place in which to live, work and visit.  Findlay Market's viability is in jeapody, and is just one entity that could certainly thrive because of the streetcar being built

much sooner than later. How many millions of dollars do you think it would cost the city to build a long discussed parking garage big enough to make Findlay market successful?

I say lets kill two birds with one stone, build the streetcar so the garage won't be necessary.

 

Until then, I regret Mr. Tarbell's  forced retirement from council and you specifically as being made his replacement. Mr. Tarbell was and is OTR's greatest advocate.

I feel that ,if he were still on council, we would be laying track much sooner.

 

Sincerely,

 

Edward Wildey

Wildey Flower farm

 

Here's what I wrote in total frustration.

 

Ed

 

 

CincyDad, that is a very good letter.  It is well-written, to the point, and clearly asks for a response as to what Qualls intentions truly are, rather than simply slamming her for stalling the project.  I will be sending a similar letter soon.  Please post Ms. Qualls response when and if you recieve one.

Also, I think you're right that if Tarbell was still on council this project would be a reality much sooner.  It's too bad that OTR's greatest advocate was replaced by a true politician like Qualls.

Thanks

 

  I will certainly post the response if any.

 

Ed

I certainly feel the sentiment in that letter... If I had to guess, I would guess that the response will be "I am not stalling the project, see, I presented a spit polished version of my old motion.  I'm trying to move forward, and its a good thing that Cranley signed on to it.  Its councilman Bortz and the Vice Mayor who are stalling, they wouldn't vote on my motion"

 

Just a guess :)

 

Also want to thank those of you who spoke at the meeting yesterday.  I was fortunate enough to catch a replay of the meeting on public access last night.  You all made very good points.  It was very convenient how Cranley almost "forgot" to allow public comments.  Is that the format for all meetings, where the public speaks after the discussion has already happened among council members?  Seems to me that it would be fruitful to have public comments earlier, so they could be addressed by the council.

The format varies.  Its up to the chair to dictate when and how comments are allowed.  Sometimes its before the discussion, sometimes after the discussion.

What is the difference between "streetcar" and "BRT"?  Is there any talk of doing BRT versus streetcar?

 

One of my thoughts on rail has always been, you need to build a neighborhood around the rail instead of building rail around a neighborhood.  Sounds deep, but oh well.  I always thought you need to look at rail similar to expressways and rail stations similar to expressway interchanges.  Look what happened when expressways and interchanges were built in farmland 20 miles outside of the city.  The area around the interchange developed rapidly.  I don't know much about the area that Cincy is proposing to build the streetcar line, but is there traffic congestion along the route right now that would ease the drivers commute if they took the rail?  Or will it be just as simple to drive the route as it is to use the streetcar?  Don't kill me for my questions, they are just things that need to be thought of. 

 

If there is money for this development, is this the best line to start with, or is there one better that would really get alot of people using the line and therefore lead into more intrest in streetcars?  The first streetcar line is the one that needs to make a first impression on the metropolitan area as the wave of the future for transportation.  It could lead into more streetcar development.  Remember, if this line does not work out well, future development would not be likely due to budget problems etc etc.  The line can not be used as a tour guide for people seeing what it is like on a nice Saturday and not using it again i.e Clevelands Waterfront line.  It needs to be functional and something that eases alot of peoples commuting patterns significantly. 

My other question is, is a streetcar basically the same thing as the Euclid Cooridor project in Cleveland with trains?