October 29, 200816 yr No its not pointless. I too believe it has to start somewhere, but I think a line from Clifton to downtown would have been better than just a loop from OTR. But then, thats just my opinion. They're building a line from Clifton to Downtown as part of Phase I now, right?
October 29, 200816 yr "They're building a line from Clifton to Downtown as part of Phase I now, right?" Yes.
October 29, 200816 yr Have any other private corporations, (such as P&G, or Kroger) contributed money to the streetcar project, or is Duke the first onboard?
October 29, 200816 yr It has been proven time and time again, that while a streetcar may not be fiscally self-sufficient, the amount of economic development (and revenue) that it brings in over a ten year period is anywhere from 3x to 5x the initial investment. Then take that argument to the taxpayers to decide, not as part of a rate plan. John, your argument of savings over cars, take that to the taxpayer, not as part of a rate plan. Every good argument on here, and some are very good, take that to the taxpayer, not as part of a rate plan! You can win, you can bring this to the arena of public debate and win instead of employing tactics like back door taxes (Said it again, still true) of any dollar amount to fund this. It wasn't explicitly stated that the rate hike would fund the streetcar, so any connection between the two is nothing more than a myth at this point. I can't even believe you wrote that. It was part of the negotiation of a rate hike and explicitly states 6.5 million will go to fund the streetcar. Are we just making stuff up as we go along now or have we already forgot the details of the hike? It is in the very first line! "Duke Energy’s agreement to lower a requested rate hike includes spending $6.5 million to help Cincinnati build a streetcar system". a myth? And since someone said all gov. projects are paid like this, then what if we had some money going to the stadiums, to the freedom center, additional parking lots or garages etc., still a good idea? Cap their profit, like it already is, and the rest should be for energy production and distribution. That way, an even smaller rate hike, if any, when you back out all the other handouts over the years including naming rights, would perhaps be possible. God, I can't wait till they get ahold of my water bill.
October 29, 200816 yr Read that line AGAIN! DUKE ENERGY AGREED TO REDUCE THEIR PLANNED RATE HIKE (down to 4% from 5.7%) IN EXCHANGE FOR CINCINNATI SIGNING OFF ON THE DEAL AND GETTING MONEY FOR THE STREETCAR. THERE is NO CONSPIRACY. Quit making shit up that isn't there. Don't read into it more than is there.
October 29, 200816 yr Mike, Duke is reducing their planned rate hike in exchange for the city signing off on the deal. The deal also included Duke, as a public corporation, donating money to the streetcar. The rate hike was necessary; Eon and AEP are also hiking rates due to higher prices being paid for coal and natural gas.
October 29, 200816 yr It wasn't explicitly stated that the rate hike would fund the streetcar, so any connection between the two is nothing more than a myth at this point. I can't even believe you wrote that. It was part of the negotiation of a rate hike and explicitly states 6.5 million will go to fund the streetcar. Are we just making stuff up as we go along now or have we already forgot the details of the hike? It depends on where the money comes from. Time and time again on this board, people point out that funding for gov't projects doesn't come from one big pot. The same is true of corporate spending. Corporations often throw money at products that they hope will increase their revenue down the road or simply for image & good will's sake (see P&G's PUR water efforts in the third world). It's entirely possible that Duke views revitalization due to the Streetcar as untapped potential in the market (of which they have a monopoly), and thus a good investment. If this money comes out of a fund that they have earmarked for spending aimed at increasing demand, then there's no problem here. If it's coming directly from a portion of the rate hike, that might be different, but as of right now, we just don't know.
October 29, 200816 yr Have any other private corporations, (such as P&G, or Kroger) contributed money to the streetcar project, or is Duke the first onboard? We'll all have to wait to find this out when City Manager Milton Dohoney gives his report before the end of the calendar year. I would tend to think yes, but don't know anything as it would be a strategic blunder to let that kind of information out while you are negotiating with these companies.
October 29, 200816 yr More information from the Business Courier... Duke Energy to help finance Cincinnati streetcar initiative http://cincinnati.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/stories/2008/10/27/daily32.html The city of Cincinnati has secured a $3.5 million contribution to its streetcar initiative as part of settlement of an electric-rate case with Duke Energy. Under an ordinance to be presented to Cincinnati City Council Wednesday, Duke has agreed to purchase and maintain more than 20,000 city streetlights for $4 million and award a $3 million economic development grant to the city. The ordinance indicates the city will invest $3.5 million of those funds in a roughly $100 million streetcar system that would link the Banks riverfront development to Music Hall and Findlay Market in Over-the-Rhine. A city financing plan calls for $30 million in private contributions to finance the plan.
October 29, 200816 yr I really don't get the intensity of the opposition to the pennies Duke just handed out. I haven't voted for any of the tax games being used to help redevelop the OTR area and I bet my taxes would be much lower if we weren't handing out money to real estate moguls who are only in it for their own self-interest. I'd certainly like to see all the gov't giveaways for real estate go away. The taxpayer and the market should decide where the money goes not some politically connected real estate developers. Since I don't live in a utopia, I find this trade off perfectly rational just like the tax games being played to help redevelop a significant Cincy 'hood.
October 29, 200816 yr Duke Energy is a private business, not a government entity. They have the right to spend their own money how they see fit, whether on marketing or donations or elsewhere. To call it a tax on the public is illogical. More like, it's now built into the cost of doing business. What about when they donate money to charities? Shouldn't they be blocked from doing that, since it will effectively raise rates for their customers?
October 29, 200816 yr People do have the option of living off the grid. Generators are cheap, there are also solar panels and wind turbines which aren't quite so cheap and don't always produce power. UC operated off the grid until just recently. The rate hike is a much bigger deal to businesses which use a lot of electricity, speaking of which, due to so much industry and so many residents pulling out of the basin there's probably quite a but of unused capacity that means this won't be too big of a deal for the power company. A big reason why the US has gotten away without building any new nuclear plants since the early 80's is because steel and so much manufacturing left the country. A cursory drive around Fernald evidences an incredible amount of electrical infrastructure going unused.
October 29, 200816 yr I wonder if this would work in the Ohio? Power the streetcar with it! Low-impact Kinetic Hydropower http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Verdant_Power Verdant Power is a world leader in commercializing low-impact kinetic hydropower solutions, harnessing the energy from river, tide, and man-made channels. They have one prototype installation presently producing power for customers. Commercial production, following the conclusion of the prerequisite impact testing, is expected to commence at the end of 2008, beginning with expanding the New York City East River site to 300 turbines, from its present six, where the river flows over bedrock at around 2 meters per second, producing 1 megawatt-hour of electricity per day. Eventually they envision an eleven-meter turbine which will generate one megawatt, to be situated in larger water-movement bodies such as Puget Sound.
October 29, 200816 yr I wonder if this would work in the Ohio? Power the streetcar with it! Low-impact Kinetic Hydropower http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Verdant_Power Verdant Power is a world leader in commercializing low-impact kinetic hydropower solutions, harnessing the energy from river, tide, and man-made channels. They have one prototype installation presently producing power for customers. Commercial production, following the conclusion of the prerequisite impact testing, is expected to commence at the end of 2008, beginning with expanding the New York City East River site to 300 turbines, from its present six, where the river flows over bedrock at around 2 meters per second, producing 1 megawatt-hour of electricity per day. Eventually they envision an eleven-meter turbine which will generate one megawatt, to be situated in larger water-movement bodies such as Puget Sound. Where do you suggest we harness that hydropower? You can't use the Ohio.
October 29, 200816 yr I haven't voted for any of the tax games being used to help redevelop the OTR area and I bet my taxes would be much lower if we weren't handing out money to real estate moguls who are only in it for their own self-interest. I'd certainly like to see all the gov't giveaways for real estate go away. The taxpayer and the market should decide where the money goes not some politically connected real estate developers. Since I don't live in a utopia, I find this trade off perfectly rational just like the tax games being played to help redevelop a significant Cincy 'hood. QFT
October 29, 200816 yr Ok, I have a job people but this real quick... Again, as opposed to the countless government projects of all stripes that are partially (or even totally) funded through the taxes and fees of people who don't even live in the same state, let alone the same municipality. Funded through taxes, yes, utility rates no. I've got a call out to a friend and we will see if there is a case or no. If not, then hey, I might try and fund some things through the water company next go around. EDIT: formatted quote box
October 29, 200816 yr Author Duke funds a lot of things, like scholarships , the Cincinnati Children's museum, the holiday train display, the United Way, the American Red Cross, and community college grants. http://www.duke-energy.com/community/education.asp http://www.duke-energy.com/community/programs.asp
October 29, 200816 yr Where do you suggest we harness that hydropower? You can't use the Ohio. Not to get off topic but Hydroelectric power generation facilities are in place at five Ohio River navigation dams. http://www.orsanco.org/rivinfo/basin/hydro.asp A dam would not work of course but turbines would. Power the damn streetcar with it and give Michaels $2. back so the endless bickering will stop. :wink: EDIT: formatted quote box
October 29, 200816 yr Actually the city of Hamilton has rights to any hydroelectric plant built at the Markland Dam. It would produce a very small amount of electricity, which is why it hasn't been built.
October 29, 200816 yr Where do you suggest we harness that hydropower? You can't use the Ohio. Not to get off topic but Hydroelectric power generation facilities are in place at five Ohio River navigation dams. http://www.orsanco.org/rivinfo/basin/hydro.asp A dam would not work of course but turbines would. Power the damn streetcar with it and give Michaels $2. back so the endless bickering will stop. :wink: EDIT: formatted quote box Sorry about that. I had turbines in mind, but I wasn't thinking about the dams down and up river. Proven wrong though, thankfully. Maybe then we'd get some gov't money if we also needed turbines in the river. ;)
October 29, 200816 yr Cities for the most part are no longer in the power/energy business. Those that still are, more than likely, have been considering dropping it from their repertoire.
October 29, 200816 yr Maybe then we'd get some gov't money if we also needed turbines in the river. ;) HAHA, they'd have to be ridiculously tall so they'd never be submerged. That would be terrifying for boats to go under.
October 30, 200816 yr Duke Energy is a private business, not a government entity. They have the right to spend their own money how they see fit, whether on marketing or donations or elsewhere. To call it a tax on the public is illogical. More like, it's now built into the cost of doing business. What about when they donate money to charities? Shouldn't they be blocked from doing that, since it will effectively raise rates for their customers? Duke is a regulated monopoly. They do not have the right to spend in the form of 'exchange' to one customer (the city) for non opposition to PUCO, not their money, but ratepayers money through a rate hike for a streetcar to the tune of 6 and one half million dollars. To call it a tax is improper (not illogical) in the seance that it was never taken to the voters to decide on but rather buried in a rate hike for your utilities to fund the streetcar in part. That is neither a tax or a fee, it is a utility rate with an undisclosed rider. I am all for a tax or at least the up or down by the voter for the streetcar but the people in the know here realize that they can't get it past the voters but they can backdoor them. If you want to discuss the legal ramifications of this and whether it is ethical or not, then do so with legal aid and please report back. Thanks. Ok Randy, attorney speak as I can best translate what I just heard. There may be an anti trust case here but this, as with anything is only an issue if someone brings suit. The Clayton Act does allow for that plus all attorney fees and damages by anyone affected by the issue in question. To say that they have attorneys and they must know what they are doing is not how it works. The attorneys are there if and when an agreement is brought into question to defend Dukes position. From what I heard today, there may already be opposition so we will just have to see how it all plays out. By the way, you are welcome. Bottom line, why should this not go to a vote? Why not put it in front of the very people who just saw rates go up come next year who for the most part aren't paying attention to the fine print (and there will not even be that on their bill)? Is anyone here pushing to get this on a ballot ever? If so when, if not why not. Does what I am saying seem unreasonable? Am I being unfair, or misrepresenting any of the facts? I am being upfront in my questions, not to the motivations, but the tactics used to fund this. Is that not valid?
October 30, 200816 yr I know this has been going off topic but Hamilton does operate a hydro electric generating facility at the Greenup Dam and has been moving forward with project development of another generating facility at the Meldahl Dam. One interesting thing to ponder is that the streetcar or light rail will likely not have a net positive effect on greenhouse gas reductions in part because the coal fired emissions from the electrical traction power offset the reduction in exhaust by cars that are forecast to be taken off the road by new transit riders.
October 30, 200816 yr Duke Energy is a private business, not a government entity. They have the right to spend their own money how they see fit, whether on marketing or donations or elsewhere. To call it a tax on the public is illogical. More like, it's now built into the cost of doing business. What about when they donate money to charities? Shouldn't they be blocked from doing that, since it will effectively raise rates for their customers? Duke is a regulated monopoly. They do not have the right to spend in the form of 'exchange' to one customer (the city) for non opposition to PUCO, not their money, but ratepayers money through a rate hike for a streetcar to the tune of 6 and one half million dollars. To call it a tax is improper (not illogical) in the seance that it was never taken to the voters to decide on but rather buried in a rate hike for your utilities to fund the streetcar in part. That is neither a tax or a fee, it is a utility rate with an undisclosed rider. I am all for a tax or at least the up or down by the voter for the streetcar but the people in the know here realize that they can't get it past the voters but they can backdoor them. If you want to discuss the legal ramifications of this and whether it is ethical or not, then do so with legal aid and please report back. Thanks. Ok Randy, attorney speak as I can best translate what I just heard. There may be an anti trust case here but this, as with anything is only an issue if someone brings suit. The Clayton Act does allow for that plus all attorney fees and damages by anyone affected by the issue in question. To say that they have attorneys and they must know what they are doing is not how it works. The attorneys are there if and when an agreement is brought into question to defend Dukes position. From what I heard today, there may already be opposition so we will just have to see how it all plays out. By the way, you are welcome. Bottom line, why should this not go to a vote? Why not put it in front of the very people who just saw rates go up come next year who for the most part aren't paying attention to the fine print (and there will not even be that on their bill)? Is anyone here pushing to get this on a ballot ever? If so when, if not why not. Does what I am saying seem unreasonable? Am I being unfair, or misrepresenting any of the facts? I am being upfront in my questions, not to the motivations, but the tactics used to fund this. Is that not valid? As an advocate and real estate agent in OTR, I don't understand why you are so against the streetcar. I know, you say you're just against this supposed unfair rate hike to pay for it, but you've come out against the streetcar time and time again in many different threads. I understand that you think the way to revitalizing OTR is through individual developments like Inwood and and the work 3CDC is doing, and I would agree that those are all great projects. However, progress like this has been made in OTR before, such as the booming Main St. in the 90's (even in some threads here from a few years ago, you made predictions that Main would be booming by now, and that is definitely not the case). Having isolated pockets of development with nothing to connect these pockets will just set up OTR to revert back to its history of neglect and crime. The streetcar is the thing that is going to do a fairly rapid overhaul of OTR, get the critical mass there, and allow for development in areas of OTR that private development would never touch had it not been there. There was a minor rate hike to pay for many things, including part of the streetcar. Is it necessarily fair? Maybe not, but it's a minor fee for a greater cause. I don't like paying for Social Security that I will probably never see, but I do anyways and that is not put to a vote...suck it up, pay the rate hike, and move on towards revitalizing OTR.
October 30, 200816 yr As an advocate and real estate agent in OTR, I don't understand why you are so against the streetcar . I know, you say you're just against this supposed unfair rate hike to pay for it, but you've come out against the streetcar time and time again in many different threads. First thing first. I am not against the streetcar. I do not, have not, and will not oppose the streetcar to the city, to developers or otherwise.(if you didn't know my organization was co signer of a letter of support to the city for streetcar in the OTR Alliance) As for saying I have come out against the streetcar time and time again, reread those threads in their full context. First one was when John, on this thread said that money that had been allocated to 3CDC for OTR development in the Gateway Quarter would best be spent on the streetcar. "For those who believe that it would be more prudent to subsidize the construction of more downtown and OTR condos instead of investing in the public realm by building the streetcar, read this:" John Schneider Second, when you see the various comments I make on streetcar on other threads it is in direct reaction to a claim by a few others (yall know who you are) that streetcar is somehow the make or break for other development projects including, but certainly not limited to Inwood. As for my predictions on Main, reread. I was not predicting, I was reporting moves (which I had inside knowledge of) by various bars and restraunts, some of which had opened, and some of which are still slated to open and that all began with an argument with Nick Spencer about OTR's downward spiral as he described it and I whole heartedly disagreed with. Was I wrong? Finally, "streetcar is the thing that is going to do a fairly rapid overhaul of OTR, get the critical mass there, and allow for development in areas of OTR that private development would never touch had it not been there." is the type of statement that does draw a reaction from me as that "isolated development" that you are referring to is engulfing most all of OTR, the Gateway Quarter (which I also have an interest in), and that is without a streetcar. "allow for development in areas of OTR that private development would never touch had it not been there." is the same type of statement that came out of the mouths of many anti-citylink people also (I was critical of them as well for that very reason and accused of being in support somehow). How do you back out of that rhetoric and convince a developer that it is still a good thing to invest in our community if and when your plans do not go through? If you think you can, try and get a developer to look at the west end today. Do not hang my communities future around whether or not we have a streetcar because what if you fail? I promise you OTR will not.
October 30, 200816 yr One interesting thing to ponder is that the streetcar or light rail will likely not have a net positive effect on greenhouse gas reductions in part because the coal fired emissions from the electrical traction power offset the reduction in exhaust by cars that are forecast to be taken off the road by new transit riders. This is untrue. Reductions in Vehicle Miles Traveled on account of the streetcar were estimated by the economists engaged by the city to study the streetcar's benefits. When you convert this number into the greenhouse gas reductions due to less driving, the burning of coal to power the streetcar produces only half the amount of CO2 that the cars do for every VMT. So, the streetcar's transportation benefit alone has a 2:1 "net positive effect" in greenhouse gas production. But the mayor's Climate Change Task Force found there were even larger reductions in greenhouse gases on account of changes in settlement patterns around the streetcar line. Because it's known that people who live in dense areas served by rail transit live in buildings that require less energy to build and maintain, because they tend to work nearer to where they live and shop and entertain themselves much closer to home, the net CO2 reductions are actually many more times the CO2 used in the streetcar's operation. Read about it here starting on Page 53: http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/cmgr/downloads/cmgr_pdf18280.pdf. The finding was a reduction of 7:1 in greenhouse gas produced when all factors are considered. I'd call that a "net positive effect" for sure. Just as an aside, New York City has a small per capita greenhouse gas profile compared to, say, Houston or Atlanta. You could look it up. In any case, the power used by the downtown/OTR leg of the Cincinnati streetcar is not significant -- maybe as much as fifty houses or a small office building use in a given year.
October 30, 200816 yr >electrical traction power offset the reduction in exhaust by cars that are forecast to be taken off the road by new transit riders. The Moscow plant near the Mendahl dam was designed as a nuclear plant and was well under construction when environmentalists lobbied to have it changed to coal, at a cost of $1 billion in early 1980's money, which would be more than $2 billion today. 80% of France's power is nuclear and when you ride the TGV you speed past one of the plants at 180mph. Nuclear causes no direct greenhouse gasses and neither does electrified rail (obviously, construction of the power plant and the railroad uses gasoline, as do maintenance vehicles, etc., but those emissions are negligible), so a similar arrangement here in the US could vastly reduce CO2 emissions. But ironically it is environmentalists holding this back. And the democratic party depends on UAE and other unions for votes (ironically, the very inefficiency of automobiles strengthens its lobby) so expect the same changes under Obama you saw under Clinton, which is nothing.
October 30, 200816 yr Cincinnati Streetlights For Sale Reported by: Jay Warren Email: [email protected] Last Update: 12:17 am The city manager is considering the sale of Cincinnati's streetlights to Duke Energy. The money would help fund the proposed Downtown trolley. "We look at the streetcar proposal the city has put forth, as a key economic development plan that will provide long term benefits to the entire region," said Duke spokesperson Steve Brash. Currently the city owns roughly 20,000 street lights, but they sit atop Duke utility poles. Duke wants to buy the lights for roughly $4 million. As part of the deal, the city would continue to maintain them. Duke also plans to give an economic development grant of almost $3 million that would be earmarked for the trolley proposal. This all comes after an agreement was reached that will see Duke's ratepayers energy costs rise two-percent in 2009 and two-percent in 2010. "That's a bad deal for the city and a bad deal for the citizens," said council member Chris Monzel. Monzel thinks the trolley would serve too few people at a cost to too many. "These folks are going to have their utility rates increased. They're going to have their street lights, now being maintained by Duke, that the city is going to have to pay for and then all this money is going to go into a streetcar system that's only going to help two neighborhoods," said Monzel, criticizing the plan. The proposal which was brought before city council Wednesday afternoon will next be heard at the Economic Development committee meeting in a couple of weeks. Here are some comments, your gonna love these.. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Oh yes! The Trolly! What a worthless waste of money. cash123 - 10:38 AM At least Monzel is against the tolley's, do we need a stupid trolley NO, who was the brainchild on putting this stupid trolley together anyways, Im so glad I only have to work downtown, and moved to NKY, Cinti council is a complete joke at least my money wont go towards it. I got taken 2 times already by the city, the reds stadium and the bengals stadium when are people going to figure out that Cincinnati politicans are just plain horrible, I cant wait to read the enquirer in 15 years, announcing the grand opening of the banks! Ha! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- scoobyforme - 10:14 AM That's it!!! Get rid of the lights !!! Man, people will really feel safe then. That should bring lot's of tourism to the streets of Cincinnati!! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- opie48 - 10:03 AM typical city council move, sell them for 4 mil. pay that back in the first month for the power bill and pay the cost to maintain them? WOW brilliant!! Duke wants to help with the trolley? the trolley is a joke and this is just lip service, they know it will never get done (the banks etc.). If this trolley pipe dream does ever get done the city will go broke paying out money to victims on their ride through Jurassic park (OTR) as they get picked off by the heathens. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- hoonew - 9:46 AM sell them otr. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Cincigirl74 - 9:20 AM Selling something to Duke?? How can they afford to buy anything? Guess they have endless pockets now that they give us heafty increases every year while giving kickbacks to companies. Duke would just get the money back they paid with outlandish electric bills for the streetlights. The last thing the city needs is a friggin trolley that doesn't even go throughout all of downtown. This collissal waste of tax payer money is one of the reasons I moved back to the burbs two years ago! The fountain, Kroger, Saks, purchase of cameras (if that passes), City West etc. None of these so called investments generated any return for the city or people in it. These handouts to business is nothing short of welfare. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- danielle4848 - 9:12 AM haha yep OTR don't need lights anyway, as "The Answer" said go crazy ghetto! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Answer - 7:59 AM Umm, anyone remember how Duke handled "the wind"? Good thing we didnt buy cameras at each light, cause now they wont even be functional. Go crazy ghetto! http://www.wcpo.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=6227f784-8bc8-43a0-b4b6-b92e87028891
October 30, 200816 yr WCPO's refusal to use the proper terminology as laid out in the proposal illustrates their bias with regard to the STREETCAR Proposal.
October 30, 200816 yr You have to love when they quote people calling them streetcars but still refuse to refer to them as such in their writing. Unbelieveable.
October 30, 200816 yr loved hearing Monzel call it a trolley!!!!!!!!! :evil: That's nice. But its still not the proper terminology.
October 30, 200816 yr I read this in regards to the coastal elite and their disdain for "flyover country" but I think the quote applies here, "People have to begin caring outside their immediate radius of relevance."
October 30, 200816 yr loved hearing Monzel call it a trolley!!!!!!!!! :evil: That's nice. But its still not the proper terminology. I'm going to start calling it the Metro, just to be European.
October 30, 200816 yr ^the Washingtonian is a magazine. In Europe they are called Straßenbahn or Tram. I'd stick with Tram, if I were you.
October 31, 200816 yr loved hearing Monzel call it a trolley!!!!!!!!! :evil: Um, I know that you're joking, but read that article again. Monzel clearly said STREETCAR. The author said TROLLEY. In fact, both people quoted in the article called it a Streetcar. Only Jay Warren said "trolley", which then sparked its use on their message board. Neville and GetBackCincy are 100% right on this.
October 31, 200816 yr The HDR/HLB report is predicated on dozens of interdependent assumptions which are just that and I would say are open to interpretation if they are realistic or not. It assumes a reduction in 128,000,000 VMT over 30 years and an average transit trip length of 3.8 miles and a very high percentage transit trips diverted from existing auto and bus trips. Progressive changes due to increases in density could also be assumed to generate additional automobile VMT within the core as new residents and commercial activity increase (not a bad thing). I have not seen any detailed analysis or simulation of the electrical traction power demands for the propose streetcar route yet since a vehicle has not been selected and the route has not been finalized. While a supporter of the streetcar in general I don't think anyone should assume that it will have a tremendous impact (positive or negative) by itself on GHG emissions locally. It is not "the" reason to invest in the streetcar.
October 31, 200816 yr I spied John Cranley at Jeff Ruby's tonight, at the table right in front of the band. No cake on him, but he probably had enough time between sets to see how long it takes to walk to Findlay Market.
October 31, 200816 yr loved hearing Monzel call it a trolley!!!!!!!!! :evil: Um, I know that you're joking, but read that article again. Monzel clearly said STREETCAR. The author said TROLLEY. In fact, both people quoted in the article called it a Streetcar. Only Jay Warren said "trolley", which then sparked its use on their message board. Neville and GetBackCincy are 100% right on this. According to the sound byte I heard, it was Chris Monzel on the radio, referring to the trolley.
October 31, 200816 yr ^the Washingtonian is a magazine. In Europe they are called Straßenbahn or Tram. I'd stick with Tram, if I were you. Yes of course it's a magazine. It is also what people from Washington are called. The New Yorker is also a magazine, you know...
October 31, 200816 yr ^ah. now I understand. Washingtonians don't call it "the Metro," though. Just "Metro."
October 31, 200816 yr All my friends and I call it "the metro". Don't you? You say "lets take metro to get to the ballpark"?
Create an account or sign in to comment