It's very tough to listen to that guy.  He looks at everything from one angle.

At least he get s the job done...

I say this because I'm up here in Milwaukee and the ONLY radio station I know of in the Greater Cincinnati area is 700 WLW.  This is solely due to the fact that everyone seems to have a negative opinion about this station.  I'm guessing they know this down at the station and it works for them because it's free publicity.

Their negativity produces ratings. It's sure got you all talking about them.

and Reds games . . .

I'm sure this has been answered somewhere in the 133 pages, but has it been explained how the $2-$3 million annually (this was the number I last heard) to operate the street car will be funded?

My guess is 700's news staff relies heavily on interns and people without newspaper experience (facts are incorrect and wording is crude in the following report) and the hosts have no expertise in this subject. 

 

 

A Desire Named Streetcar

 

Council approves plan to take first step to building a streetcar system.

By 700WLW News

Wednesday, April 23, 2008

(Cincinnati) -- The streetcar isn't approved yet, but the City is moving closer to installing a system.  The City Council voted, 6-2, Wednesday afternoon, in favor of going forward with plans to build a system, reaching from the Banks, through Downtown, and to the Clifton neighborhood, also known as Uptown.

The estimated cost is at $102,000,000. 

Former Vice Mayor Jim Tarbell testified before the finance committee that if the City had gone ahead with a planned subway system in the 1920's, the cost, in today's dollars would have been about $110,000,000.  But he says, with a subway system, Cincinnati would have boomed.

Council Member Chris Bortz touted the streetcar plan, saying the city needs to take "big, bold, challenging and new" steps in order to become vibrant. 

The two dissenting members, Chris Monzel and John Cranley said they were worried about where the money would come from.  They were concerned that projects in other neighborhoods would be ignored or abandoned in favor of the streetcar.

Approval of the motion means the city manager, Milton Dohoney can now solicit contributions and partnerships with private entities to help cover the cost.  He admits, if they cannot find companies willing to pitch in, the project will have to be abandoned.

 

For previous coverage, Click Here

A Desire Named Streetcar

 

I've said this already, but...

 

Someone please tell the local media that there is nothing clever or witty about referencing "A Streetcar Name Desire" in article titles repeatedly.  It doesn't matter if you transpose the words or swap in a whole one.  It was lame the 1st time, and it's not any better the 100th time.  Seriously.

congratulations on the promotion John

 

from the enquirer's message boards [a place of high minded debate]

 

"Already there is a discrepency between what the present cost(137 million,up from 102) estimate for the streecar project is being touted and that estimate which was quoted to Rep. Schneider and other comittee members when Mayor Mallory and the promoters of the project. Rep. Schneider stated clearly during a radio interview that the city and representatives told them the project would cost 182 million. When in the history of a Cincinnati project was the actual cost ever reduced?

--James Bender, Oakley, Friday, April 25, 2008 - 4:34:00 PM"

Not the full article, but here you go.......

 

Streetcar snubbed at capitolBusiness Courier of Cincinnati - by Dan Monk Senior Staff Reporter

Republican lawmakers from the Tri-State suburbs are trying to derail Cincinnati's request for state dollars to build a downtown streetcar system.

 

"It has zero support at present," said Ohio Sen. Bill Seitz, one of six Hamilton County Republicans who recently submitted capital spending requests that exclude the $6.5 million sought by city officials for a downtown streetcar loop.

 

"The city should be looking at their budget problems rather than thinking of new ways to spend money," said Ohio Rep. Michelle Schneider, R-Madeira, who joined with five other house members in submitting a $19.4 million package of capital grants they support.

 

Both lawmakers questioned the viability of the streetcar project and accused city officials of reneging on an earlier pledge to use money from downtown's tax increment financing (TIF) districts to build a riverfront park. TIF districts are a financing tool that let property tax revenues from multiple properties accrue in a separate account so they can be used to finance infrastructure improvements for development projects.

 

http://cincinnati.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/stories/2008/04/28/story2.html

Boo!!  Once again, more opposition from the suburbs to a project that promises to revitalize part of the city.

"The city should be looking at their budget problems rather than thinking of new ways to spend money," said Ohio Rep. Michelle Schneider, R-Madeira, who joined with five other house members in submitting a $19.4 million package of capital grants they support.

 

It will be interesting to see how poorly their $19.4M worth of capital projects rank in terms of sustainability/viability compared to the streetcar.

Don't worry, it will fix lots of potholes, because we have such big problems with potholes!

Isn't fixing potholes the ultimate expression of throwing good money down a hole?

“The popular narrative on the collapse of housing prices has only blamed exotic lending

practices,” said Cortright, “but the much more important story is about how higher gas prices have

re-drawn the map of urban real estate values. Vibrant central cities just got a whole lot more

valuable.”

 

 

Here's the media release:

 

http://www.ceosforcities.org/newsletters/files/Driven_Release_Final.pdf

 

 

Read the full study here:

 

http://www.ceosforcities.org/newsletters/files/Driven%20to%20the%20Brink%20FINAL.pdf

 

Streetcar snubbed at capitol

BY DAN MONK | CINCINNATI BUSINESS COURIER

April 25, 2008

 

CINCINNATI - Republican lawmakers from the Tri-State suburbs are trying to derail Cincinnati's request for state dollars to build a downtown streetcar system.

 

"It has zero support at present," said Ohio Sen. Bill Seitz, one of six Hamilton County Republicans who recently submitted capital spending requests that exclude the $6.5 million sought by city officials for a downtown streetcar loop.

I guess it's time to shift attention from City Council members to State Representatives, Gov. Strickland, etc.

Banks-to-Uptown line makes sense

EDITORIAL | CINCINNATI BUSINESS COURIER

April 25, 2008

 

Got $35 million to move Cincinnati light years ahead of where it is today?

 

That's the amount City Manager Milton Dohoney must find now to make a streetcar line from the Ohio River to Clifton work, as he was directed to do April 23 by Cincinnati City Council. The $35 million is the estimate of what it would cost to build a streetcar line from Over-the-Rhine to the University of Cincinnati. Another $47 million would be needed to create additional streetcar lines circulating through the Uptown neighborhoods around UC.

>"If you look at who we represent, we don't just represent the city of Cincinnati," Schneider said. "We represent all of Hamilton County. So, we spread the money out."

 

Right, since Groesbeck and the West Side are at such a loss for ball diamonds, basketball gymnasiums, etc.  The key to the streetcar plan was and is Cincinnati going at it more or less alone since the state can't be expected to be much help and the suburbs hate that they don't have any say over this.  But if NK was planning this, they'd point to NK's ability to "get things done".  Like the Millenium Tower. 

 

I hope Strickland sticks it to Seitz's and Blessing's requests. Punishment for attempting to punish the city. As Jake said, the west side has more than enough parks and ball fields.

So much for the city paying for it by itself without any other public money!!  :-D

^ I'm actually torn on that issue myself.  On one hand, I think that rail transit is a essential to the city's future, so I'm happy to see them pursue any and all funding options.  On the other hand, I'd prefer to see Cincinnati fund this venture entirely on its own, so that the county and state have no influence over it and minimal opportunity to kill it outright.  I'm not sure how realistic that is now, thanks to Qualls' and Cranley's meddling that has increased to price tag of the project.  Given that we live in an area where the city and county are reluctant to co-operate with one another AND with suburbs that for some reason both despise their urban core and oppose rail transit, I have always thought that it is imperative that the city look out for itself, adding streetcars because they are a necessary next step, without the approval or permission of the surrounding areas.  Hopefully, that's still realistic.

Anecdotal evidence of our rail shortcomings:

 

I met a girl at a bar last night.  She was under 30 and definitely someone who should be classified as a young professional.  A native of the area originally, I was surprised to learn that she plans on moving within the next 5 years, likely to Chicago or New York.  When I asked her why she wanted to leave (which seemed odd, since her destination wasn't set in stone), she replied "I want to be able to live without a car and you can't do that here.  I'm looking for my next job in another city where that's possible."  I mentioned the streetcar plan, and the fact that the Mayor mentioned adding light rail just this week in his "climate protection plan".  Her response was "I've lived in Cincinnati for a long time.  Streetcars and light rail would be great, but that will never happen here."  The conversation continued from there, but that was the really striking part of it.

 

So there you go.  Why can't Cincinnati retain it's own YPs, not to mention lure in more?  First, our long term residents have ceased to believe that we can accomplish anything here.  Hopefully, recent successes will help with that stigma.  Second, our complete lack of a rail system is a huge drawback.  Rail opponents claim that no one decides where to live based on mass transit, but that isn't the case.  Yes, this is just the opinion of one random local girl, but it was totally honest and uncoached.  And yes, you've got to take my word that this conversation actually happened.  I promise that it did.

Someone needs to start a pro-urbanist, pro-rail reform movement in the Ohio GOP. Arrgh!

Rail opponents claim that no one decides where to live based on mass transit, but that isn't the case. 

 

As gas prices increase, the evidence shows that yes, indeed, people move to places where trasit or a shorter commute are a possibility. One study shows that housing prices in exurbs are being negatively affected more than in close-in neighborhoods. This trend will only accelerate with increasing gas prices.

 

Unfortunately, SW Ohio seems to be afflicted with more than its share of right wing legislators who won't allow themselves to be confused by the facts. They are wedded to their ideology and that will make any progressive move very difficult.

Anecdotal evidence of our rail shortcomings:

 

I met a girl at a bar last night.  She was under 30 and definitely someone who should be classified as a young professional.  A native of the area originally, I was surprised to learn that she plans on moving within the next 5 years, likely to Chicago or New York.  When I asked her why she wanted to leave (which seemed odd, since her destination wasn't set in stone), she replied "I want to be able to live without a car and you can't do that here.  I'm looking for my next job in another city where that's possible."  I mentioned the streetcar plan, and the fact that the Mayor mentioned adding light rail just this week in his "climate protection plan".  Her response was "I've lived in Cincinnati for a long time.  Streetcars and light rail would be great, but that will never happen here."  The conversation continued from there, but that was the really striking part of it.

 

So there you go.  Why can't Cincinnati retain it's own YPs, not to mention lure in more?  First, our long term residents have ceased to believe that we can accomplish anything here.  Hopefully, recent successes will help with that stigma.  Second, our complete lack of a rail system is a huge drawback.  Rail opponents claim that no one decides where to live based on mass transit, but that isn't the case.  Yes, this is just the opinion of one random local girl, but it was totally honest and uncoached.  And yes, you've got to take my word that this conversation actually happened.  I promise that it did.

 

 

People are cynical like that everywhere, I think. A guy I know, said that when he was in Portland talking to some people about how their city has progressed, they would basically say yeah, the city is great but they still seem to have a hard time getting anything done. It's in no way surprising that people point to Chicago and NYC because they're so big and everything is done on such a large scale that change is easily noticable. I think it's funny though, we all think Portland is a very ideal city--which it is, but to some extent, no matter where you go there's still the feeling that the city can't implement things, developers are greedy, etc. coming from the local residents.

So there you go.  Why can't Cincinnati retain it's own YPs, not to mention lure in more?  First, our long term residents have ceased to believe that we can accomplish anything here.  Hopefully, recent successes will help with that stigma.  Second, our complete lack of a rail system is a huge drawback.  Rail opponents claim that no one decides where to live based on mass transit, but that isn't the case.  Yes, this is just the opinion of one random local girl, but it was totally honest and uncoached.  And yes, you've got to take my word that this conversation actually happened.  I promise that it did.

 

I can't count how many times I have had an almost identical conversation with a young person in Cincinnati.  Go to DAAP Works in a couple weeks and just ask around where all the DAAP grads plan on going after graduation.  I bet less than 10% say Cincinnati.  Go to CCM and do the same thing and the number might be slightly better but minimal still.

 

People who move here for school have little to no connection to the City outside of their college experience.  They look at Cincy as a typical Mid-sized, conservative town.  They are stunned to hear about the streetcar pitch and that it has a very good chance at becoming reality...and soon.  With that said, it is still only a piece of the puzzle and most Midwestern cities are waaay behind.  We need to start being leaders/innovators.  As Chris Bortz said,  "this is a time for Cincinnati to be bold."

It doesn't help that most of the UC faculty feel that way as well.

You can add UC Law to that list as well... its really sad!

I hear the streetcars got the green light, so what is the timeline? And no, I'm not going back through 134 pages to find out. :lol: I'll add that what that young women said is not true. You have access to those amenities already without a car, at least in Columbus and I bet Cincy is the same, they just don't want to put in any effort. Here, living Downtown yes, there isn't much within walking distance, but there is everything within biking distance and we also do have COTA lines (COTA is notorious for having crappy routes and hours) that are pretty good which you can take. Are these people who say they want to be in Chicago, etc, really going to go urban once there? I bet old habits die hard and they don't bother to use what's there even though they could. If they don't put forth the effort here, why would it be any different there?

I hear the streetcars got the green light, so what is the timeline? And no, I'm not going back through 134 pages to find out. :lol:

 

The goal is to have streetcars taking on passengers in early 2011.  With that said, it is all contingent upon the necessary private money being raised.  The sooner, the better.

Also, for many, the hills of Cincinnati serve as a natural "barrier to entry" into the truly walkable urban lifestyle, in the neighborhood to neighborhood sense.  Its a bit easier to walk from Downtown to the University area up in Columbus. 

 

I do the Uptown/Downtown walk fairly frequently (to work and back), but its no small hike for many folks from my house up near UC (Near where Ravine dead ends onto Straight) down to say CBD (3 miles, 250 ft change in elevation on my usual route).  A streetcar system can easily help to bridge that walking gap, especially because of its "choice" status as compared to buses.  It would be within the "choice urban lifestyle" of many more if they could, for example, go from UC to Findlay on the Streetcar.  Are there bus routes that go this route, many.  Its just not the most convenient form of transportation at times.

With that said, it is still only a piece of the puzzle and most Midwestern cities are waaay behind.  We need to start being leaders/innovators.  As Chris Bortz said,  "this is a time for Cincinnati to be bold."

 

I hadn't thought of that.  This is an excellent chance for Cincinnati to lead the way in the midwest.  I don't mean this in a negative way, but other cities like Columbus, Louisville, and Dayton might just say "Well, if Cincinnati can do that, we certainly can."

 

I'll add that what that young women said is not true. You have access to those amenities already without a car, at least in Columbus and I bet Cincy is the same, they just don't want to put in any effort...

 

...Are these people who say they want to be in Chicago, etc, really going to go urban once there? I bet old habits die hard and they don't bother to use what's there even though they could. If they don't put forth the effort here, why would it be any different there?

 

I think her point was that she wants to live in a city that is more walkable and has a transit system that is more comprehensive than Cincy's.  You could certainly live here without a car, but it would be a huge pain in the rear.  This isn't the case in Chicago and NYC, where many residents live without personal vehicles because the transit system is advanced to the point where it's fairly easy to do so.  In Cincinnati, it's more realistic to own a car that you only use sparingly.  But to be quite honest, I didn't delve much deeper into it than that.  I love rail transit, but I had other things on my mind at that point...    :angel:

^ I live downtown sans car, and it can be a big pain in the butt.  Sure, the bus line can get you most places around town, you just have to figure in how much time you want to devote to transit.  A 15 minute highway drive from downtown takes over an hour on the bus.  Plus, many bus routes don't stay running late nights on the weekends for those who hit the town.  A car is a def. advantage here, where in places like Chicago rail transit has the time and convenience advantage.

See, but when I ditched my car two years ago, I quickly got over the stuff that was an hour bus ride away.  My favorite mall, Mayfair, would probably still be my favorite mall...but I just don't care about it anymore because I've realized that I can get EVERYTHING I need right here in my own neighborhood.  I also learned to get light grocery loads, and started going to the store daily to get only the food I need.  This cut down on my energy bill because I no longer have a fridge. 

 

This is why I don't really understand why Conservatives are so against rail initiatives.  Ditching your car SAVES LOTS OF MONEY!!! 

^ I've lived car-free since 1973, almost all of that time in downtown Cincinnati, which is about the only place you can do it easily.

 

They key is just making a commitment for work, live, shop and entertain yourself in a small area. And rely on rental cars from time-to-time. Taxis are worthless.

 

Not everyone could do it, but lots could. I've noticed that my neighbors, even those who have cars, tend to adopt this pattern of living over time.

Neglecting the innacuracies in virtually every detractors comments, the Enquirer has published a fairly balanced summary of the opionions expressed in their online comments section.  Of note, the header to the comments was talking about the debate between John (of course, they mispelled John's last name) and Chris.

 

You can find it <a href="http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080428/EDIT01/804280313/1090">here</a> (I would cut and paste due to the Enq's outdated linking policy, but frankly, I didn't see fit to repost all of the detractors factually false commentary here)

^ I live downtown sans car, and it can be a big pain in the butt.  Sure, the bus line can get you most places around town, you just have to figure in how much time you want to devote to transit.  A 15 minute highway drive from downtown takes over an hour on the bus.  Plus, many bus routes don't stay running late nights on the weekends for those who hit the town.  A car is a def. advantage here, where in places like Chicago rail transit has the time and convenience advantage.

I can go "mostly" car free here, with the one caveat being sometimes its just too much of a PITA to go completely car free.  The taxi service here is worthless (and it would be so easy to improve, but alas, *sigh*).  And its not the trips to Kenwood (which I only do when I absolutely have to hit the mac store for a piece of hardware to complete a project or something) but the trips to work when the weather is less than accomodating, or late at night.  Like I said above, I could take the bus, and at most times of the day, there is relatively frequent service, but honestly, I can bike here much faster than the bus, and I can almost walk it back faster than the bus (I often get from 4th and Vine to the bottom of Clifton before a bus passes me).

 

A streetcar to Uptown would completely change that picture for me.  I can count on the frequency of service with minimum wait times, and even later in the evening, depending on what schedule they run for the Uptown connection, it would likely be very much more convenient.

^----"A car is a def. advantage here, where in places like Chicago rail transit has the time and convenience advantage."

 

    That's the frustrating thing. Chicago, New York, etc, are simply so big that their core cities themselves are big and dense enough for transit. I'm not sure Cincinnati will ever be a transit city as long as we have cars. We just don't have the density.

 

I'm not sure Cincinnati will ever be a transit city as long as we have cars. We just don't have the density.

 

 

Cincinnati is as dense as Portland and more dense than many other cities building light rail or streetcars including Seattle, Tacoma, Sacramento, San Diego, Phoenix, Salt Lake City, Denver, Dallas and Houston -- just a few that come to mind.

How cool would this be?

http://www.cooltownstudios.com/mt/archives/001290.html

 

"a roving streetcar dance party with music, disco lighting and two bars, bringing new meaning to the term bar hopping."

 

Some of my ideas from back in March;

I imagine something like during baseball season the cars are total Reds and anyone with a game day ticket rides free. Taste, the various restaurants sponsor different cars and everyone rides free. Oktoberfest, beer sponsors all over the place and that weekend everyone rides free. Riverfest, the cars are all WEBN and everyone rides, yep free. Buy something in the Q, ride home free. Eat on Fountain square, ride home free. You could go on and on. I don’t think there will be any buy-in from hotels because their business model is designed to try and keep customers from leaving. I also like the idea of a surcharge for parking in the CBD that goes to the streetcar. But with the right marketing and some thinking outside the box, the streetcar will be a huge success.

^ I think you will start to see buy in from the hotels once its up and running (they already send folks around town via recommendations now, but you can bet they aren't recommending OTR right now.  With the streetcar, I think this could change.

    That young woman wanted to move to Chicago or New York. Quite frankly, those cities are in another league. 

   

 

 

I so want to be snarky toward Chicago and their recent outbreak of violence that far surpasses anything that Cincinnati has to deal with.

 

I would think that the streetcar would eventually contribute to enough density that Cincinnati could support a Zip-car franchise. For those unaware, Zip-car or the variously named car-share groups operate a pretty cool business. You pay a monthly fee (usually less than a hundred bucks) to get access to a car when you need it. The cars are spread around town and you go online to figure out the nearest available car. One of the coolest parts is that they have pick-ups and other similar work vehicles in the fleet, so you don't have to worry about getting something home on your next trip to Ikea.

^I use zipcar frequently.  It's the supplement to a carless lifestyle that convinced me (and will convince many others) to take the plunge. 

 

side note: firefox thinks "carless" isn't a word.  haha, it is now. 

 

 

That young woman wanted to move to Chicago or New York. Quite frankly, those cities are in another league.

 

They are also the first thing that comes to mind...everybody who claims to like cities and urban environments says they want to move to NYC and Chicago.  Once you sit down with these people they can easily be swayed by logic.  Once they realize the extreme costs and how much of they cool things in those cities can be matched, to a certain degree, elsewhere.

They are also the first thing that comes to mind...everybody who claims to like cities and urban environments says they want to move to NYC and Chicago.  Once you sit down with these people they can easily be swayed by logic.  Once they realize the extreme costs and how much of they cool things in those cities can be matched, to a certain degree, elsewhere.

 

I think you hit the nail on the head with that.  They are the first two places that you think of, but are both insanely expensive.  We just need to be able to offer a reasonable alternative to what they provide, and right now, our transit system is abysmal.

 

 

 

That's the frustrating thing. Chicago, New York, etc, are simply so big that their core cities themselves are big and dense enough for transit. I'm not sure Cincinnati will ever be a transit city as long as we have cars. We just don't have the density.

 

So we can't be a transit city while we have cars?  But we can't get reduce our dependence on cars without better transit.  I think that if we had a good transit system, we'd have less cars, rather than the other way around.

 

 

 

This is why I don't really understand why Conservatives are so against rail initiatives.  Ditching your car SAVES LOTS OF MONEY!!! 

 

My own personal theory as a pro-rail conservative (please forgive the length of this):

 

At the core of the conservative philosophy is the belief that the government doesn't do anything efficiently or effectively, and thus shouldn't have roles and responsibilities beyond what is absolutely necessary; also, that the government's main charges are to protect the people (military, police, etc) and provide physical, economic, and other varieties of infrastructure.  Rail should fall under that second category, but I think the problem is that cities tend to be liberal while suburbs and rural areas that require cars tend to be conservative.  So even though passenger rail is part of our transportation infrastructure, it is viewed as largely unnecessary by conservatives, who are more likely to require a car anyway based on where they tend to live, so they don't quite understand the concept the way someone living in the city would.  Thus, rail is viewed as an unnecessary waste of the people's money, adding yet another layer to a gov't that conservatives already view as being too bloated and out of control.  Roads don't get the same treatment because you need roads everywhere (city, suburb, & rural).  Most people don't pay enough attention to realize how colossally expensive these roads really are, and if they do, that's seen as just a necessary evil.  This in turn makes rail seem even more superfluous, since we're already spending so much on the roads, when it should really be viewed as a tool that can reduce the burden, and thus our spending, on those roads.  Anyway, ditching your car does save lots of money, but conservatives view that as a personal choice, so they don't care if you ride a bike or drive a Ferrari.  They are interested in eliminating government waste, not personal excess.  The fact that many conservatives wrongly view rail as unnecessary is the problem that rail advocates need to address.  All of that said, I know many conservatives who feel that the state of our transportation infrastructure is a major concern, rail included.  I also know many liberals who don't care about transportation infrastructure AT ALL and are far more interested in the expansion & creation of other gov't programs.  In short, I don't think that it breaks entirely along the liberal/conservative line, though I do believe that conservatives are more likely to oppose rail than liberals, by their very nature of opposing big gov't.

 

By the way, do you really not own a refrigerator?

Hah, thanks for the response Jimmy James.  No, I really don't use a refrigerator.  I just typed a really long response to this, but then realized that it had NOTHING to do with streetcars.  So, if you're really curious you'll have to PM me.

Gotta love the pic being used for this story.  :lol:

 

 

 

 

Public Forum Tonight On Cincinnati Streetcar Plan

 

Web produced by: Alyssa Bunn

 

Tri-State residents have a chance to weigh in on a plan to build a streetcar system around Downtown.

 

Cincinnati used to have a streetcar system, but it stopped running in 1951.  Last week, city council approved a plan to build a new system that would eventually connect Downtown, Uptown and Over-the-Rhine.

 

The Blue Chip Young Republicans will be hosting a public forum on the issue Monday night.  The forum will be at Monty's at 4108 Montgomery Road starting at 7 p.m.

 

Among the issues to be discussed is the question of how the system will be funded.

 

 

^ I think YOU have hit the nail on the head as regards conservative vs. liberal views of rail systems.

 

I find myself on a hard line on these issues.  Generally, I am a social liberal - I believe in government spending on social policy, especially where the market is ill suited to provide the desired service.  I believe that along with the conservative version of government (as well put above as providing military, police, economic infrastructure) there is another role for government, to provide those services which the private sector alone cannot adequately provide.  Social security is a perfect example - social security is an insurance plan that is need based, and existing condition blind.  NO private insurer could do this because they would HAVE to take on some percentage of aid recipients who will never pay into the system - a serious losing money proposition.  This is what Social Security does now, and unless you take the extreme view that "the uninsurable" should do without and just die, well , we need to provide some minimal baseline.  So, I am for government spending on these types of programs that I see the private sector is ill suited to provide (the marketplace would dictate a result I disfavor)

 

However, in other cases, where the market could provide, but does not provide, then I think there needs to be a justification for that spending, in real dollars and sense, ROI fashion.  Sometimes, what the private sector needs is a good kick in the pants to realize that there is indeed a market for something, and I think this can be justifiable government spending (where the return is plausible). 

 

From my perspective, modern rail systems, such as the proposed Cincinnati Streetcar, fall into this latter category.  The market could provide, but it does not yet see the value.  Show them the returns that such systems can yield, and its a whole new ball game. 

Streetcar debate continues

Cincinnati City Council may have approved a streetcar plan by a 6-2 vote last week, but debate over the proposed $185 million Downtown/Over-the-Rhine/Uptown transit system will continue.

 

Readers are strongly divided on the proposal's merit, as the following selections from our continuing online comment board demonstrate. And tonight, the public gets another chance to weigh the streetcar's pros and cons. Advocate John Schnider from the Alliance for Regional Transit and City Council member Chris Monzel, one of two "no" votes on the plan, will debate it at a forum at 7 p.m. at Monty's, 4108 Montgomery Road, Norwood. The event, open to the public, is hosted by Blue Chip Young Republicans.

 

Their top arguments?

 

For Schneider, it comes down to growth and lifestyle. "At its core, the streetcar is a strategy for repopulating the city without building more highways and parking," he said. "We have all these great jobs, but we don't have enough of those people who live and spend in the city. It is a lifestyle issue that makes the city more attractive, (especially to) folks in their 20s to mid-30s who are well-traveled and know what they want in a city."

 

Monzel knows it's a done deal, but thinks shaky finances could undo it. "We have to have a solid financial plan, not only for the system's construction costs but its operating costs. There are a lot of holes in the plan. We need to have those answers ahead of time so taxpayers understand what's involved here. There's a lot to be done."

 

• Comment on the streetcar plan and read what others are saying

 

A SAMPLING OF OUR READERS' VIEWS

 

Fabulous idea. Streetcars would go a long way toward attracting young people like myself to the city. The important difference between buses and streetcars is that streetcars require a physical, and relatively permanent, infrastructure commitment. This spurs development in a way that less permanent types of transportation (buses) cannot.

 

Justin Ogilby, Downtown

 

Are you kidding? With the crime situation downtown, the poor, all the homeless and social services this money could help, and we're building streetcars for nobody? We can't keep summer pools open without a corporate bailout, and these streetcars are going to make downtown a better place? All we're doing is giving the criminal element another free ride somewhere. What a waste of taxpayers' money ... again.

 

Chris Gramke, Downtown

 

I have never been more excited for this city! We have lived in various cities, like Denver, with concepts such as this one and they have done nothing but prosper because of it. We have always thought about getting a place downtown; this might just be the reason we decide to end up doing it.

 

Megan Day, West Chester

 

What a boneheaded rip-off of the taxpayer. This is a plan destined to complete failure, offered up to enrich a select few individuals and companies. Follow the money trail on this proposal and see if it does not lead back to either council members, their families and/or friends, or their "supporters." Perhaps we can offset the cost by ditching the communication centers and emergency services radios and reinstalling police call boxes around town. Now that would be a nice vintage touch to go with the streetcars.

 

Matt Briedis, Kenwood

 

Welcome to progressive thinking in Cincinnati. This project will inject more development and economic stimulation into the city's urban core than any other project planned or prior. Before long, developers will adopt the line as a spine to their planning and accommodate all the affordable living that south of Fourth Street cannot provide. This will create a true community where neighbors respect each other and property is maintained. Look how quickly this has taken shape vs. The Banks development, the stadium developments, Fountain Square, etc. In three years, you could see a divided community finally connected and thriving again. All the intangibles of a wonderful urban community are just under the surface ... much like those old rail lines that weave through our city.

 

Mike Rafter, Mount Washington

 

Personally I think this is a fad, much like the clothes worn in the '70s. However, to help support an idea people believe in, let's restrict the initial funding to a special Streetcar Tax for residents and property owners in the ZIP codes that will make use of and benefit the most. For everyone else who rides, let them pay a higher usage fee. I expect this won't even come close to the funding required.

 

Kendell Saylor, Grand Rapids, Mich.

 

(formerly of Mount Airy)

 

The streetcar idea is sheer stupidity. It will end up like the museum downtown - costing a fortune and end up losing money and shutting down. Would I ride the streetcar? No. They need to get crime under control first, stop the thugs. They will be the first ones to ride the streetcars, and good, decent, honest, hard-working folks will be afraid to ride. Do you understand that, council members? I doubt it very much.

 

Mary Lou Bowling, Winton Hills

 

I say bravo to those who have worked hard to achieve this progress. Cincinnati has created positive momentum in recent years, and I think this project might be the tipping point (at least for Over-the-Rhine). I am confident in its success and only hoping for it to grow in the future (more streetcar lines, light rail, commuter rail, etc.) To all you suburbanites: First, get out of our business. We asked for your help with 2002's MetroMoves campaign and you gave us the finger. Now we are going alone. Second, many of you don't seem to get it. Some people like living in cities and riding public transportation because it's not so boring.

 

John Hoebbel, Northside

 

If Cincinnati is going to build a streetcar system, there is probably no better time than the present. An article in Money Magazine's November 2007 issue reports that "one in eight people between the ages of 60 to 64 who plan to move want to head for the city." With 78.2 million baby boomers poised to retire, Cincinnati needs to remain competitive. More and more retirees are trading in their suburban homes to take advantage of culturally rich downtowns for their restaurants, entertainment, walkability, public transit, historical significance and livelihood. In addition, easy access to hospitals and health care facilities are bringing more retirees downtown.

 

Steve Beckman, Oxford

 

Only a politician can see success in a $185 million investment (in today's dollars) projected to lose $3 million a year. The inmates are, in fact, running the asylum.

 

John Spencer, Hyde Park