Okay, so what's our new timeline?  There's a vote in the Finance Committee on Monday, right?  If that passes, will there be a vote at council on Wednesday like there would have been last time, or will there be a longer wait between the two now?

I am not in the know as to whether there will actually be a new motion introduced at Finance on Monday or not.  That was where it was left last week.  Ideally, Bortz presents his motion, it passes, then it passes general council on Wednesday. (in an ideal world).  But there's been a lot of wrangling going on, and I really don't know what will actually end up happening on Monday.

What time is the meeting on Monday? Is this a good one to attend? I would like to show support/learn a bit more about the debate and political process.

 

Haha. Still don't know where I stand on the debate, but I think the "this would be the biggest initial system in the US" (if I have that right) is a strong arguement. On the other hand, I don't think the "there is no demand for  transportation between Uptown and Downtown" is a very strong arguement as the whole premise of the OTR circulator is to basically create demand (create development).

 

In my humble and personal opinion, I think a streetcar from UC (say at Clifton and McMillan) would open up Downtown for a huge chunk of the student and greater uptown population. In other words, safe, efficient, and reliable transportation would increase demand for travel downtown. Students wouldn't wait for a circulator to use the streetcar  ... they are used to walking across campus.

The meetings are at 1:00, and yes this would be a good time to come.

 

It already is the largest intial first phase of a modern streetcar (3.9 miles, longer than all the first phases in places that have built systems)

 

The argument is not that there is no demand, its simply that the demand is light right now, so why require the connector as part of the first phase given that the connector is VERY expensive, and without the circulator only serves a very small population close to where it terminates.  I think the connector should be built, it just doesn't make sense to do it in phase 1.  (This doesn't mean that we can't look at phasing in a connector early on, I am just questioning where this "need to have uptown to make it work" argument comes from)

 

Come to the finance meeting on monday.

It already is the largest intial first phase of a modern streetcar (3.9 miles, longer than all the first phases in places that have built systems)

 

I actually kind of like that it will be the largest initial phase so far.  Right now, most of the studies use Portland as a model because they were the first.  I like to think that if ours is successful, future studies done for other cities might debate the benefits of Portland's small initial phase with Cincinnati's large initial phase as models for cities with different types of demand. 

It already is the largest intial first phase of a modern streetcar (3.9 miles, longer than all the first phases in places that have built systems)

 

I actually kind of like that it will be the largest initial phase so far.  Right now, most of the studies use Portland as a model because they were the first.  I like to think that if ours is successful, future studies done for other cities might debate the benefits of Portland's small initial phase with Cincinnati's large initial phase as models for cities with different types of demand. 

 

I agree, I just want to see it get much bigger...  As it stands, its ambitious.

 

Haha. Still don't know where I stand on the debate, but I think the "this would be the biggest initial system in the US" (if I have that right) is a strong arguement.

 

Here are the facts on this. The first phase of the Portland Streetcar began construction in 1999 on an "L"-shaped route between 23rd and Northrup and 10th and Market, a total of 3.8 track-miles, one-tenth of a mile less than what's being proposed for downtown Cincinnati and Over-the-Rhine. During the course of that construction, Portland State University got a second phase of the route funded and extended through its campus, bringing the total to 4.8 miles of track. This was done by a simple change-order to the original contract. The first two phases opened simultaneously in July 2001.

 

Two subsequent phases brought the streetcar first down the hill to "Riverplace" on the Willamette River and later to the new "South Waterfront" neighborhood -- Portland's "Banks" project, a total of 7.9 track-miles. That was completed last year.

 

And that's where it stands today. Portland just received a $50 million Federal grant to take the route across the Willamette for an additional 3.3 track-miles. They are now planning a very comprehensive system -- I dunno, maybe fifty track-miles or so -- serving most of the close-in "flatlands" of Portland. It would be built out over the next fifteen or twenty years.

 

So here are the lengths, in track-miles, of the initial phases of the only modern streetcar systems now open in the United States:

 

Portland: 3.8 miles

Tacoma: 3.2 miles

Seattle: 2.6 miles

 

I don't generally think of these systems in terms of "track miles." That's really inside-baseball lingo used by engineers and financial types who have to finance, build and maintain these systems and also by Cincinnati's streetcar planners. I like to think of them in terms of "route miles" -- the distance between the end points of the line including both directions of travel. Light rail systems are almost always expressed in terms of "route miles."

When people say it's the longest initial segment at 3.9 miles, does it have "longest initial segment" status merely because it's being run up and down separate one-way streets?  In other cities, I assume there's a good chance there would be two sets of track on the same street, so depending on how you look at it, you could only get 1/2 the mileage counted. 

 

I realize by running it on one-way streets (Cincinnati's easiest and perhaps only option) there would probably be greater infrastructure expense, so it could make sense to make a lop-sided comparison. 

 

Hmmm, I thought Seattle was shorter than 2.6, in fact I think I just told someone 2.3 the other day... oops.  Anyhow, good numbers to know and have at the ready ;)

Also, to forestall the inevitable OTR wasn't built for an automobile age.  Consider, the cost of development is going require rents exceeding $1/sq.  Are you telling me that YPs who can afford that and want to live in OTR are not going to have a car? At all? And the only people that are going to check out these new venues are going to be located in OTR are going to be patronized only by OTR residents? If not, where will these folks park?  Loads of new parking is going to have to be constructed with or without the streetcar.

 

you wont need to have new parking because people from outside the area would be parking @ the banks and fountain sq.

 

For what its worth I live uptown and work downtown, I dont really want a connector I would rather have light rail running from northside to oakley passing threw clifton first then a connector downtown later on.

 

A streetcar in clifton would work but it would be best if it just went from ludlow to shortvine (or short vine <->calhoon <-> ludlow)and circulated people that way.

Here are the facts on this. The first phase of the Portland Streetcar began construction in 1999 on an "L"-shaped route between 23rd and Lovejoy and 10th and Market, a total of 3.8 track-miles, just under what's being proposed for downtown Cincinnati and Over-the-Rhine. During the course of that construction, Portland State University got a second phase of the route funded and extended through its campus, bringing the total to 4.8 miles of track. This was done by a simple change-order to the original contract. The first two phases opened simultaneously in July 2001.

 

Two subsequent phases brought the streetcar first down the hill to "Riverplace" on the Willamette River and later to the new "South Waterfront" neighborhood -- Portland's "Banks" project, a total of 7.9 track-miles. That was completed last year.

 

And that's where it stands today. Portland just received a $50 million Federal grant to take the route across the Willamette for an additional 3.3 track-miles. They are now planning a very comprehensive system -- I dunno, maybe fifty track-miles or so -- serving most of the close-in "flatlands" of Portland. It would be built out over the next fifteen or twenty years.

 

So here are the lengths, in track-miles, of the initial phases of the only modern streetcar systems now open in the United States:

 

Portland: 3.8 miles

Tacoma: 3.2 miles

Seattle: 2.6 miles

 

I don't generally think of these systems in terms of "track miles." That's really inside-baseball lingo used by engineers and financial types who have to finance, build and maintain these systems and also by Cincinnati's streetcar planners. I like to think of them in terms of "route miles" -- the distance between the end points of the line including both directions of travel. Light rail systems are almost always expressed in terms of "route miles."

 

Thanks for clearing that up.  For some reason, I was thinking that Portland's initial phase was a much shorter 1.9 miles, making our system more than twice as long.  The difference between 3.8 and 3.9 is pretty negligible.

Seattle's streetcar is 1.3 route-miles end-to-end, but it has 2.6 track-miles. Cincinnati planners are using track-miles instead of route-miles. My guess is, even if you were building both directions of a streetcar line on the same street, most planners would describe it in terms of track-miles.

 

If the downtown/OTR phase of the Cincinnati's system were described using either one-way track miles or two-way route-miles, it would still be, in each instance, the longest first phase of a modern streetcar ever built in the United States.

 

 

^ Perfectly clear.  Thx. 

>Also, to forestall the inevitable OTR wasn't built for an automobile age.  Consider, the cost of development is going require rents exceeding $1/sq.  Are you telling me that YPs who can afford that and want to live in OTR are not going to have a car? At all? And the only people that are going to check out these new venues are going to be located in OTR are going to be patronized only by OTR residents? If not, where will these folks park?  Loads of new parking is going to have to be constructed with or without the streetcar

 

 

Building parking garages is not sending men to Mars.   A big garage under the current Findlay Market parking lot could provide parking for the market, for area residents, and for development above the garage.  But then cranley will pull that "what are the goals/how much more after the streetcar does it take to achieve these goals" argument.  Another obvious below-grade garage site in the area is the park bordered by Findlay and Vine St. which is currently a solidly underused an unattractive city park.  Yet another to the east at the similarly pathetic park where Walnut diverges from McMicken.  More potential parking directly underneath Liberty St., all the way across.   

 

Parking garages under historic plazas and parks are very common in Europe.  Often a brick or stone plaza has been completely ripped up and been rebuilt over a large historic square with tourists oblivious.  I bet Cranley's been to Europe but he'll squint and act like he "wants to understand" if you bring up a point like this to him. 

I bet Cranley's been to Europe but he'll squint and act like he "wants to understand" if you bring up a point like this to him.

 

That's good stuff.

Talked to a friend the other day who would've moved near the arts college downtown had it had a better connection to his work.  There are some definite missed opportunities by not having what makes sense done already.

Here's a shot (at right) of the almost-complete Bank of America tower in New York City on Bryant Park.  It is 54 floors, 2 million sq. feet of office space, and...ZERO PARKING.  NO PARKING GARAGE WHATSOEVER:

 

 

Meanwhile Queen City Square will be 800,000 sq feet with 2,400 parking spaces.  Granted, some of those spaces will serve activities on adjacent blocks, but still. 

Mecklenborg you have a good point.  Take a look at all the surface parking lots we could use for maybe a 5-10 story parking garage!  But the thing about the people not agreeing with a connector aren't seeing the big picture.  There IS a demand for it, its just not recognized yet.  If people want proof that a connector would work, just go to Boston/Camrbidge.  Even though a subway and not a streetcar connects Harvard square in a straight shot into downtown Boston, that connection alone is huge.  We have our Clifton hospitals and UC on that line while Cambridge has MIT and Harvard...it's a no-brainer and we NEED it.

Mecklenborg you have a good point.  Take a look at all the surface parking lots we could use for maybe a 5-10 story parking garage!  But the thing about the people not agreeing with a connector aren't seeing the big picture.  There IS a demand for it, its just not recognized yet.  If people want proof that a connector would work, just go to Boston/Camrbidge.  Even though a subway and not a streetcar connects Harvard square in a straight shot into downtown Boston, that connection alone is huge.  We have our Clifton hospitals and UC on that line while Cambridge has MIT and Harvard...it's a no-brainer and we NEED it.

 

The connector and UC circular is what most people envision to be the obvious phase 2 choice.  My concern is after 2-3 years of feasibility and ROI studies Roxanne now want to add to the scope of the initial plan. Back then no one on council offered any opinion on what the consulants objectives should include or what routes the study should take.  It was just go out and do it and tell us what you think. When the result were delivered council voted 8-1 in favor of moving forward, no mention of a UC connector.  Probably most council members underestimated the momentum that Chris Bortz and the supports would have in getting things this far.  They felt go head, here is $150K for another study and we can forget about it. 

 

I'm really optimistic about how well things are going and I believe Bortz has the votes to get this through the hoop, If they insist on guarantees for a UC connector than we will not see tracks in the ground for another 5 years.  That would be a missed opportunity. 

Here is something laughable for your Sunday morning. The Beacon is such a waste of time. I found this link on cinplify.com and thought i would share this. Sorry if any of you feel dumber for having read it. I know i do.

 

 

The Cincinnati Beacon

Those against streetcars, rumbling in the distance

Saturday, April 05, 2008

Posted by The Dean of Cincinnati

 

There are some rumblings around town—a great many people, in fact, from all across the political spectrum, who are not sure if increased government spending should be dedicated to a very short streetcar loop so people in river-front condos can socialize without having a car.  Is this really the most pressing issue facing the City?  Is this really what it means to serve the citizens of Cincinnati?  Do residents of College Hill care if The Banks hooks up with OTR?

 

A vocal minority, backed by business interests and politicians, have insisted that Cincinnati needs a streetcar.  And if anyone dares to pause, to question, or to critique the concepts—these victims are attacked viciously by the streetcar advocates, who would love nothing more than to watch their property value increase on the backs of the rest of the City.

 

But I have seen the writing on the wall.  I have seen the writing.

 

Yes, brother and sisters, I see a day coming.  A day when Westside whites and Avondale blacks join arms in solidarity against the fast track to a streetcar train wreck.  I see an unlikely coalition derailing business efforts to spend taxpayer money on a big dollar item that will only benefit the few.  I see a new day coming in Cincinnati.

 

I see a new Cincinnati emerging.  A Cincinnati where citizens have learned how to organize, how to ignore differences to focus on similarities.  A Cincinnati where the big money influence of special interests no longer rolls all over the spirit of the regular folks.  You know who I mean—not the ones with expensive downtown condos, nor the ones with big pockets for the politicians, nor the people who are friends with the well-connected.  Just regular people—some richer, some poorer—but all sharing that desire to see a City shaped by their interests, the interests of the people.

 

The politicians continue not to put people first.  I think the time is coming when the people have decided to cut in line.  And I think the streetcar line is the next one on the list.

 

I do feel a little dumber having read that, but at the same time it is interesting to learn that I am part of the group of people with "expensive downtown condos, big pockets for politicians, and simply roll over the regular folks."  I didn't know I was part of that group of people.

And if anyone dares to pause, to question, or to critique the concepts-these victims are attacked viciously by the streetcar advocates...

 

I'm sorry, but when has this EVER happened?  Outside of some bickering on The Enquirer messageboard, I never see anything even remotely resembling "vicious attacks" by streetcar advocates.  In fact, all of the streetcar proponents I've seen have been going out of their way to be cordial and address the issue with data and logic, only getting mildly emotional when referencing this city's history of talking big and then never pulling the trigger.  Many anti-streetcar articles reference the "rail zealots" who viciously attack any who dare to question the concept of a streetcar loop, but I have yet to see that happen anywhere.  Of course, they never reference specific incidents, so it's nearly impossible to call them on what appears to a false accusation.  Meanwhile, 700WLW and The Enquirer publicly bash the streetcar plan constantly without any semblence of impartiality and often with questionable assertions, but somehow that's okay.

 

Yes, brother and sisters, I see a day coming.  A day when Westside whites and Avondale blacks join arms in solidarity against the fast track to a streetcar train wreck.  I see an unlikely coalition derailing business efforts to spend taxpayer money on a big dollar item that will only benefit the few.  I see a new day coming in Cincinnati.

 

What in the world does being white in the Westside or black in Avondale have to do with the streetcar?  And what makes this "coalition" unlikely?  Once again, race is needlessly dragged into the debate by a streetcar opponent.  Nice.  Thanks for that, Dean of Cincinnati. 

There are some rumblings around town—a great many people, in fact, from all across the political spectrum

 

Who are they?  You're writing a story, tell me who you're talking about.

 

A vocal minority, backed by business interests and politicians, have insisted that Cincinnati needs a streetcar. 

 

I like vocal minorities.

 

who would love nothing more than to watch their property value increase

 

No! :-o

 

Yes, brother and sisters, I see a day coming.

 

Is he for real?

 

I see a new Cincinnati emerging.

 

Me too, pal, and it rides on rails!

Yes, brother and sisters, I see a day coming.

Is he for real?

 

You're talking about a guy that used to wear capes around town.  Literally, and not just on Halloween.  He's basically a short notch above the wacky hat guy.

Yes, brother and sisters, I see a day coming.

Is he for real?

 

You're talking about a guy that used to wear capes around town.  Literally, and not just on Halloween.  He's basically a short notch above the wacky hat guy.

 

Sounds more like the Cool Ghoul. 

An excellent read.  Follow the link for a nice photograph, too.

 

http://theoverheadwire.blogspot.com/2008/04/streetcars-getting-out-of-our-silos.html

 

Sunday, April 6, 2008

Streetcars: Getting Out of Our Silos

 

This began as a response to some comments on a thread over at the Seattle Transit Blog. Almost everyone over there on that thread is supportive of streetcars, just not how they are implemented. Some want fixed guideways, some think buses are better and others believe that streetcars are worthless.

 

When we look at streetcars from a purely transportation standpoint, we are missing the point. We are creating silos in which to put different aspects of the city. Transportation here, land use here, city fiscal responsibility here, and the environment here.

 

If we are to look at the overall benefits and needs, we see that there is a great benefit to streetcars when they are appropriate which I believe they were in Portland and Seattle given the goals of these lines. The goals implicitly or explicitly were to tie downtown to a new neighborhood that would boost walkability and livability in the city for more people. There is an important lesson for how cities benefit from transportation such as the streetcar.

 

1. The Corridor vs. Node

 

Streetcars are not meant to be rapid transit but rather pedestrian accelerators within districts and areas just outside of town. If you think that streetcars are the solution to everything, you are wrong. A system is needed but how the technology influences land use is important to the decision. Given that the streetcar is pedestrian scaled, it creates a corridor of pedestrian oriented development. This is why many of the first ring suburbs have commercial strips that were once served by streetcars. It's also why many of the former interurban lines formed small towns around the station, just like light rail creates a node of development today. Two different transit modes, two different purposes.

 

2. Streetcar Corridors Create More Density/Value

 

More density means more rooftops means more close retail means more walking. This is important because when we build new neighborhoods we want people not to do the same things they do in sprawl. The key to the streetcar is increasing the envelope for density on a corridor. In fact the streetcar in Portland pushed developers to get closer to their density maximums closer to the line. 90% of the envelope was filled one block from the line. 75% two blocks and further down. Seattle is doing the same thing. Building at higher densities that would usually be built because of developer confidence in the future of the streetcar.

 

But why is this important? Well it means that over the long term, that piece of land will create more tax revenue than whatever dreck was built next to the bus line. So when we look at the streetcar funding issue versus the bus, how much more value was created for the community? What is the tax creation of a 10 story building over 100 years versus a 5 story building? So in the whole scheme of things, the bus is a cheap alternative that in the end costs the city more. We need to get out of that silo.

 

3. It Creates the Pedestrian Experience

 

Part of the reason for building the streetcar and creating the density is creating a good pedestrian and street environment. Who wants a bus running by your dinner? Your coffee?

 

 

 

But also, the creation of a pedestrian environment and pedestrian accelerators increased the area folks are willing to walk. And the creation of more of these neighborhoods on a corridor by streetcars is important because this increased walking has been shown to reduce VMT. In fact the 7,200 housing units along the Portland Streetcar line have been estimated to reduce VMT by 53 million miles a year. Thats nothing to sneeze at and will be something that decreases greenhouse gases. But all of this is not attributable to the streetcar, but to the creation of a walkable environment from the densities and streetscapes. Developers are more willing to create these densities and places with the streetcar instead of a bus.

 

As I have said before, its not always about speed. Creating an environment for pedestrians means also a slower environment, a safer environment. While 43,000 a year die on the highways, I heard this weekend from Rick Gustafson of Portland Streetcar Inc that the Streetcar has had accidents, but no one has been seriously injured.

 

So while a bus might be more flexible, as a circulator and distributer the streetcar serves a community organizing purpose. It is not for every corridor and in fact it might animate less used streets such as the North-South streets chosen for Portland's streetcar. That does not mean that the route should travel away from the preferred corridor such as Guadalupe street in Austin and Guadalupe should have a dedicated lane due to its traffic volumes. But these are decisions that should be made based on the location and with the whole vision in mind. We need to stop thinking in our silos and think about and articulate all the benefits of certain investments from all standpoints, not just transportation and moving people. After all, thats all the highway engineers do and look what it gets us, big roads that move cars faster while killing street life.

 

Transmitted by Pantograph Trolleypole at 9:57 PM 

Labels: Capital Transit Investment, Cost Effectiveness, Portland, Rapid Streetcar, Seattle

 

 

Thats a great article...  Makes all the right point about how we can't pidgeon hole the benefits of streetcars into just one silo.  The hard part is convincing people that while another means might be more beneficial within one particular silo, when you consider the benefits accross the spectrum of silos, the streetcar wins for this type of environment.

 

Yes, brother and sisters, I see a day coming.

Is he for real?

 

You're talking about a guy that used to wear capes around town.  Literally, and not just on Halloween.  He's basically a short notch above the wacky hat guy.

 

Bahahahahhaha...Literally laughing out loud at work.  SO true.  Who is the wacky hat guy btw, never actually talked to him about his agenda...

I generally have had a similar experience as chance and a pretty substantial level of alienation with OTR post-riots.

 

Fundamentally, there is a sense that downtown/OTR can't really sustain the streetcar on its own. I'm especially worried that one of our Fortune 500 HQs leave and take a few thousand workers with them. If I couldn't get Uptown, I'd still want a really close to happening Phase Two - Covington or Newport or even the East End.

 

Yeah, I don't really know where you get this sense from.  I think when you were living here you were spending way too much time at Arlin's and Fries and not enough time at say, Pitiful's or Main City.

What can I say, I'm just an uptown kind of guy. . .

 

 

^Living in your white bread world, as long as anyone with hot blood can.  Dave, aren't you getting tired of your high class toys, and... okay, I can't do anything with these terrible lyrics.  How the hell did this song get to #3?  1983, I guess everyone was coked out of their gourds.

^Living in your white bread world, as long as anyone with hot blood can.  Dave, aren't you getting tired of your high class toys, and... okay, I can't do anything with these terrible lyrics.  How the hell did this song get to #3?  1983, I guess everyone was coked out of their gourds.

 

Baha, I thought it but didn't go there.  Indeed.

>long as anyone with hot blood can.  Dave, aren't you getting tired of your high class toys

 

Come to think of it, I merely remember Dave being at Ursuline's prom, I don't recall him even having a date.  It's a hot blooded man indeed who crashes an all-girls' school prom...

 

Oh I had a date, but she 'decided' that she was tired of slumming, she was a downtown (well Cincinnati Country Club) kind of girl and as I said, I was an uptown guy. So I was at Ursuline's and X's prom with a date but without a date.

 

If we had the streetcar back then I could have circulated off in to the sunset.

Any word yet on how today's meeting went?

^ Chris Bortz introduced a motion that was held. No action was taken on Qualls' motion to require Uptown and Downtown to both be funded before any construction could start on the downtown leg. Sounds like they're working toward a compromise.

 

^ That's good news... I think. :|

Good news John, thanks for the update

 

(edit) the Reds sucked it up, what else is new!!! Come on Bronson!!

 

On the streetcar note - is there a copy of Bortz's motion online somewhere?

John, can you explan a little further?  What was Bortz's motion?  When do they actually move to make this a reality or do they keep delaying for two weeks over and over again?

 

Also, does anyone know when they replays are on citicable?

^ even without seeing Bortz's motion, its not infinite delay.  This was the competing motion we were suspecting.  I certainly expected some delay on a contrary motion.

 

No ideas of replays on citicable.

I'd like to see Bortz's motion, but just to throw this out there...

 

If Uptown is such a priority, why not do a fixed bus route along the proposed uptown connector routes and sus out which would be the best?  I understand this opens up the streetcar proponents to the argument "why don't we just do bus routes along the proposed line?".  However, its distinguishably different for development purposes.  We all know that bus routes don't spur the type of high density TOD's we are hoping for in OTR.  However, given that a connector minus an uptown circulator is not likely to serve any need beyond "guaranteeing that an uptown circulator is built" and certainly not the development related results of a streetcar line, why not explore this to figure out which uptown connectors would be more profitable?

My wife and I moved to a new condo on the downtown/OTR border almost two years ago.  Since we both worked in the Central Business District and were looking to simplify as well as enrich our lives, it was a natural move.  We were able to justify the additional cost of the condo in part with a lower cost of car insurance (walking to work lowers your insurance rate) as well as lower vehicle costs (went from two cars to one with less wear/tear mileage and gas cost).

 

Since then we've found the sense of community, walkable shopping/dining, green living, and simplier lifestyle to be ideal.  All the wonderful new (as well as old) shops that serve our community keep us from having to waste time/gas driving as well as give us some good exercise.  Unfortunately, there are still some car trips that are unavoidable.  While Findlay Market is within walking distance, it is difficult to walk back carrying all the meats, vegtables, fruits, etc....  Also, while most of our needs can be met by downtown businesses, there are some gaps in store items and hours.  From what I've seen of the steetcar proposal, I am very hopeful there will be a development boom that will help bring extended store hours and missing offerings.  Heck, just the other day I needed to go to the Apple store in Kenwood, but after 10 minutes of circling the parking lot and almost getting into a wreck I gave up and went back home.

 

While our current home (a modest 1200 square feet) serves us quite well, when we decide to have kids we'd love to move into a somewhat larger location further north in Over-The-Rhine.  However, without something like the streetcar to maintain our easy work commute and general access to OTR/downtown businesses, it will be harder to stay downtown.  Given our love of city life I'm sure we'll make it work, but others interested in living downtown may not feel the same way.

 

There are many in this city who do not believe urban Cincinnati is a great place to visit much less live.  They do not see what others who move here from other cities see.  Even worse, they do not believe in a vision for the future of the city, but instead work to halt any progress.  I'm sure all of you have interactions with these people just as frequently as I do.  They speak volumes against things like the streetcar, but when you ask them what aspects of the proposal they disagree with they admit to never having read it.  These people are plainly put - "LOSERS".  Call them out when possible and then move on.  Cincinnati IS a great place to live.  There are always things that can be improved through rational discussion of the issues and ACTION based off the discussion.  I just hope that those in power continue working to improve the city for us all and not playing the political/ideological games that have hampered progress in the past.

 

This thread has been a wonderful place to work out the facts for and against the streetcar.  Hopefully the random thoughts and explanations of one new downtowner is helpful to the discussion.

bfwissel - i get the sence that you are from out of town?  is that true?  care to share where you are from?  im just curious as im continuously interested in the reasons why people move here.  i always find it interesting how "outsiders" view Cincinnati and obviously from your post above your view is positive. 

First of all, bfwissel...you are a great American.  Now as for the the stuff that went down today.  Bortz's motion seems to be a compromise (as mentioned) and looks to have easily appeased a couple of people on the fence.  Both Qualls and Crowley now seem to be solidly on board with this specific motion...and of course you still have Cranley and Monzel that will oppose anything remotely related to mass transit improvements.

 

This does unfortunately push us back 2 more weeks, but this one is not because of stall tactics, but rather the actual process that is needed for this to happen.  Two weeks from now we should have an actual vote on this and see it approved.  Two days following that Finance Committee vote it will go onto City Council and appears poised to pass 7-2 (Cranley and Mozel in opposition).  Hopefully this clears things up a bit.

Dear bfwissel - First of all, howdy neighbor :wave:  Secondly, I couldn't agree with you more.  There are people who will simply never understand the joys of urban life and will always be naysayers.  Some have a disdain for those of us who want to live differently from them -- in diverse environments around people who may be totally unlike ourselves.  They'll never understand the value of better transit because better transit to them is more and wider roads with potholes promptly repaired (and with more parking on the side, preferably surface lots).  The kind of transit we desire competes with the transportation funds required to maintain their lifestyle, so they're loath to share. 

 

The fear of parallel parking is probably enough of a deterrent for many when it comes to discovering what downtown has to offer.  They don't understand the joy of being able to walk to get or do simple things required for everyday life because most of them don't even have sidewalks where they live.  Some are probably secretly envious of the infrastructure we have in the city and downtown -- sidewalks, sewers, buried electrical lines, etc.  Then there's the quality architecture...

 

I don't consider them losers, but I wish they'd try harder to be tolerant and open-minded.  Everyone can't be alike -- it would be boring if we were. 

bfwissel - i get the sence that you are from out of town?  is that true?  care to share where you are from?  im just curious as im continuously interested in the reasons why people move here.  i always find it interesting how "outsiders" view Cincinnati and obviously from your post above your view is positive. 

 

Nope, bfwissel was born and raised in Cincinnati.  He has also been called "Mr. xumelanie" on occasion.  ;)

^Kids eh...no pressure.  :-D

^"I don't consider them losers, but I wish they'd try harder to be tolerant and open-minded."

 

Sorry, but I didn't mean to imply that people who disagree are losers.  I do not agree with Monzel on most things, but admire him for his integrity, community activism and sticking to well thought out beliefs.  The people I'm so frustrated with are those that constantly talk vocally about our how terrible Cincinnati is and when any proposal for change is made they complain then too.  Just yesterday I mentioned The Banks project and some guy who constantly whines about lack of parking downtown complained that the first phase was "only a parking garage."  Where do I even start with that one?  I try to call people out when it comes to the misconceptions of things like the streetcar, but yesterday I was just a my whits end and probably came off a little harsher than I normally would.

I know I'm about 100 pages too late to be jumping into this thread, but I wanted to throw in my two cents ...

 

As a soon-to-be resident of Cincinnati, I'm extremely excited about this proposal. If a streetcar is built, I know that I would be shoping and spending money in downtown and OTR much more frequently. I'm also very interested in eventually doing small adaptive re-use projects when my time and income allow. OTR looks like a great prospect, but without an investment like the streetcar, I would be more hesitant to invest my own money in the neighborhood.

 

However, I'm hoping someone could answer my question about why the streetcar proposal is so EXPENSIVE? My understanding was that streetcars cost about $25 million per mile. Although the Cincinnati proposal is wisely marketed as a 4 mile project, it's actually just a 2 mile doubletracked streetcar, whose parallel tracks happen to be one block apart.

 

Shouldn't the streetcar cost about $50 million plus the extra cost of redundant electrical wiring? Why is the estimate $100 million? You only need two miles worth of parallel track, and a two mile system worth of cars. Aren't the cars and the tracks two of the three biggest costs? The only major extra costs should be the 4 miles of electrical wiring, right? What am I missing here?

That average cost per mile (25M per mile) is actually the cost per track mile not per route mile.  See John's post here - http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,9.msg273664.html#msg273664 for a better description than I can give for the difference.  We are at nearly 4 track miles, and the estimate is about 102 million.

Actually, $100M is pretty cheap as far as a rail system goes.  Linking up the region via Light Rail, which would be ideal, would also be extremely expensive.

 

As far as expenses go, the cars, rail, and wires are big ticket items, but I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out that the labor was more expensive.  Having a whole crew working 5 or more days a week for 2 or 3 years can't be cheap.

 

Also, if I'm not mistaken, the $102 million was adjusted for inflation, because the process will take several years.  So, if constuction could have been started immediately in early 2007 when the report was written, it would have been cheaper, but they adjusted for a realistic start date in late 2008/early 2009.

 

I know I'm about 100 pages too late to be jumping into this thread, but I wanted to throw in my two cents ...

 

Don't sweat it.  I didn't jump in until around page 80 or so.  It's a fast moving thread, so stick around.  We'll be at 200 before you know it!