I disagree about the airport line.  Even if you're right though, building a line to the airport isn't that much extra effort.  We'd need a line following I-75 through NKY anyway, and the airport would just be the end of that particular line.

^I think that extended streetcar service would be more sensible for NKY areas like Newport, Bellevue, and Covington.

 

If NKY wants to extend light rail down to the airport, that's on them, but I think it would be a huge mistake.

^I think that extended streetcar service would be more sensible for NKY areas like Newport, Bellevue, and Covington.

 

If NKY wants to extend light rail down to the airport, that's on them, but I think it would be a huge mistake.

 

Granted, but a light rail line wouldn't serve Covington, Newport, and Bellevue.  There might be one stop in Covington, but that would be about it.  The line to airport shown on that map follows I-75 through Fort Wright, Fort Mitchell, Park Hills, Crescent Springs, and Villa Hills, then follows 275 to the airport.  No stops are shown on that map, but I'm assuming there would be 2 or 3 stops at Park & Rides in these neighborhoods.  If you've ever driven I-75 in NKY between 7am and 9am, you can see that the demand is there.  It's a parking lot for 2+ hours every morning.  Kenton County needs a line at least to the Buttermilk Pike/I-275 exits, which are only 5 miles or so from the river.  Once you go that far, you might as well tie in the airport. 

^Based on the map we're looking at, it seems like light rail *would* serve Newport, Covington, and Bellevue.  Each of the interstate corridors south of the river already serve these neighborhoods.  I wasn't referring to several-stop neighborhood access.  We all know, at this point, that that's not the point of light rail, but to serve a region.

 

I don't believe in "might as well".  It's easy to get caught in those sorts of dreams, when we're not even certain it will ever become a reality.  I believe that we should to take a closer look at *why* we should provide service to certain areas, not just because we have a corridor where it'll look pretty.  Additionally, if it costs another $100 million or $500 million to extend a line to a more desired terminus (in this case, the airport), I don't see that has being worthy of a "might as well".  That's a huge chunk of change that we could do without if it's not actually in demand.

The airport terminal is 4 miles from the I-75/275 interchange.  That is no fleeting distance, as many light rail lines around the country pass closer to airports without reaching them, Los Angeles being the most spectacular example.  Also if airline travel shrinks, so do airline and ancillary airport workers, and it's unlikely that CVG will ever return to the passenger levels of just a few years ago. 

I'm not sure we need to get rails in the ground to the airport. Even if you could take a train to Buttermilk and then hop on a shuttle to the airport, that would be infinitely better than our current situation. If the shuttle ran every 10 minutes or so that would make it viable for those coming town with no intention of using a car. Since the big traffic worry for the airport is always the cut in the hill, just being able to skip that would make the airport a more valuable asset to the region.

Excellent points, but I still think that when you sell a transit system to the public, it has to connect certain places like downtown, universities, zoos/museums, etc.  I think the airport makes that list, but clearly that's up for debate. 

 

^Based on the map we're looking at, it seems like light rail *would* serve Newport, Covington, and Bellevue.  Each of the interstate corridors south of the river already serve these neighborhoods.  I wasn't referring to several-stop neighborhood access.  We all know, at this point, that that's not the point of light rail, but to serve a region.

 

Okay.  I was confused about what you meant because we were talking about access to CVG specifically, and Newport & Bellevue aren't part of the CVG line on that map. 

Great questions and comments.

 

The plan on www.protransit.com is the Regional Rail Plan that was developed in 2001-2002 by SORTA and TANK.

 

With respect to the airport, I remember a lot of that discussion, which is pretty much echoed on these pages today. First, the airport stop didn't have great ridership, even in the days when Delta was rolling and going. My recollection was about 2,000 boardings per day, and most of those were airport workers. In fact, some people in and around Boone County -- and maybe even TANK too -- thought an Erlanger or Florence terminus made more sense. This was never settled and was dealt with this way: the line would split at the I-275/75/71 interchange -- one branch would go to the airport, the other to Florence. You'd run an "A" train and a "B" train, alternately, to each terminus.

 

Mark Donaghy, who was TANK's manager then and Dayton Regional Transit's manager now, had a really clever idea. Run the line to near-Florence just short of Burlington Pike and then cut though (what was then and may still be) the small golf course and come into CVG from the back way. This was never fully examined prior to the 2002 vote, but it clearly killed two birds with one stone.

 

You know, it's funny, everyone always wants service to their city's airport, but it never seems to materialize. I bet there aren't ten cities in the U.S. with a one-seat ride on rail from their airport to their CBD. I've heard this is because airport managements always find a way to kill the deal -- because they are too dependent on parking revenues to tolerate the competition.

 

i appreciated being able to take light rail to the airport in st. louis, beats parking your car there for a couple weeks or taking a cab. but i guess that's your point.

You know, it's funny, everyone always wants service to their city's airport, but it never seems to materialize. I bet there aren't ten cities in the U.S. with a one-seat ride on rail from their airport to their CBD. I've heard this is because airport managements always find a way to kill the deal -- because they are too dependent on parking revenues to tolerate the competition.

 

John, thanks for the responses.  They cleared up several questions I had.

 

I do have question regarding the quoted text above.  If the airports are too concerned with parking revenues to allow rail, most times, why do they allow public bus shuttles on airport property?  Is it usually a government intervention to ensure that public buses reach the terminal pickups?  Couldn't the same be argued for rail and access to each respective city?

 

And with that, as I said before, I'd be satisfied with BRT to the airport if need be.  However, Indianapolis currently has their Green Line bus shuttle from the CBD to Airport.  Fare is $7 per direction and picks up very frequently.

I think that a system should be focused more on creating/strengthening neighborhoods. Park and rides IMO only cause more sprawl. Installing rapid transit in our older neighborhoods would be best because they are already walkable and you can connect the dots with streetcar systems. Sure this type of format would be costly and would take longer, but we cannot continue down the road that we have been for the past 50+ years. Sprawl is not sustainable and by making the commute easier for people in mason and west Chester only promotes it.

 

In my mind connecting Peebles Corner Mt. Lookout Square, Ludlow Business District, Hyde Park Square, UC, Xavier, The Zoo, Union Terminal, ect. to downtown is the best plan because they offer the most return. If in 25 years we are in a situation where our older neighborhoods are completely saturated then move to the park and ride.

although i'm very excited about potentially having a streetcar I'm concerned that we need to implement rapid transit along with the streetcar systems to connect the dots.

You know, it's funny, everyone always wants service to their city's airport, but it never seems to materialize. I bet there aren't ten cities in the U.S. with a one-seat ride on rail from their airport to their CBD. I've heard this is because airport managements always find a way to kill the deal -- because they are too dependent on parking revenues to tolerate the competition.

 

I do have question regarding the quoted text above. If the airports are too concerned with parking revenues to allow rail, most times, why do they allow public bus shuttles on airport property? Is it usually a government intervention to ensure that public buses reach the terminal pickups? Couldn't the same be argued for rail and access to each respective city?

 

 

I suspect the reason is that they really can't bar buses from roads that were probably financed with public money. But they can make it difficult to obtain ROW through private property. And I suspect they have made a calculation that most bus riders would probably never be parkers anyway.

 

On the streetcar vs. light rail issue, i.e. which should come first, I think they together represent two ways to skin a cat. Light rail corridor-level transit is all about moving people over distance. Streetcars are more about making the city so desirable and multi-use that people no longer need to travel much of a distance. Either way, you're getting cars off the freeways.

I think that a system should be focused more on creating/strengthening neighborhoods. Park and rides IMO only cause more sprawl. Installing rapid transit in our older neighborhoods would be best because they are already walkable and you can connect the dots with streetcar systems. Sure this type of format would be costly and would take longer, but we cannot continue down the road that we have been for the past 50+ years. Sprawl is not sustainable and by making the commute easier for people in mason and west Chester only promotes it.

 

In my mind connecting Peebles Corner Mt. Lookout Square, Ludlow Business District, Hyde Park Square, UC, Xavier, The Zoo, Union Terminal, ect. to downtown is the best plan because they offer the most return. If in 25 years we are in a situation where our older neighborhoods are completely saturated then move to the park and ride.

 

I agree with this for the most part, but I don't mind the idea of Park & Rides.  The genie's already out of the bottle, so to speak, when it comes to sprawl.  I don't see neighborhoods like Mason and West Chester rapidly declining any time soon (unfortunately), so I view Park & Rides as the lesser of two evils.  Yeah, maybe they encourage sprawl somewhat, but if they also make it easier for companies to locate offices downtown instead of moving to Mason, so be it.

I think that a system should be focused more on creating/strengthening neighborhoods. Park and rides IMO only cause more sprawl. Installing rapid transit in our older neighborhoods would be best because they are already walkable and you can connect the dots with streetcar systems. Sure this type of format would be costly and would take longer, but we cannot continue down the road that we have been for the past 50+ years. Sprawl is not sustainable and by making the commute easier for people in mason and west Chester only promotes it.

 

In my mind connecting Peebles Corner Mt. Lookout Square, Ludlow Business District, Hyde Park Square, UC, Xavier, The Zoo, Union Terminal, ect. to downtown is the best plan because they offer the most return. If in 25 years we are in a situation where our older neighborhoods are completely saturated then move to the park and ride.

 

^I'm inclined to agree with this statement.  Frankly I think the value added is greater when this sort of planning is the priority.

 

But ultimately, the way things get built are going to depend on what government is the primary source of funding.  Even though the MetroMoves plan included a streetcar, it struck me that the purported aims of those routes serviced some conceit of the County, rather than the City, for example.  Even the new Regional Rail map that John Schneider posted strikes me as ignoring two if not all three of the economic development corridors in the City outlined in the GO Cincinnati plan.  If the City is the main economic driver for the region, and rail is a multiplier for economic development, it seems to me that it should at least try and be coordinated with the economic development plan of the City (not to mention a direct rail connection to Clifton, the second largest employment zone in the area).

^hills

Jake, you wanna post something on the Mt. Auburn Tunnel? That's the real answer for the direct rail connection to Clifton and beyond -- eight minutes from Fountain Square to Jefferson and Corry, way faster than driving. With three LRT routes -- the Central, Northeast and Eastern Corridors -- pulsing through the tunnel, there would be a train every three minutes at peak. It would pretty much be transit on demand.

 

It would fundamentally change the way our city works.

 

You know, it's funny, everyone always wants service to their city's airport, but it never seems to materialize. I bet there aren't ten cities in the U.S. with a one-seat ride on rail from their airport to their CBD.

 

 

i can think of the very first one....and its right in ohio!  :wink:

 

Jake, you wanna post something on the Mt. Auburn Tunnel? That's the real answer for the direct rail connection to Clifton and beyond -- eight minutes from Fountain Square to Jefferson and Corry, way faster than driving. With three LRT routes -- the Central, Northeast and Eastern Corridors -- pulsing through the tunnel, there would be a train every three minutes at peak. It would pretty much be transit on demand.

 

It would fundamentally change the way our city works.

 

This is the kind of thinking that our city needs. We really need to create an updated plan for regional transit, and we should have brought it to vote when gas was at $4.50. The country and people's mind sets are rapidly changing and we need to jump on the wave so that we don't get left even further behind.

>Jake, you wanna post something on the Mt. Auburn Tunnel? That's the real answer for the direct rail connection to Clifton and beyond -- eight minutes from Fountain Square to Jefferson and Corry, way faster than driving. With three LRT routes -- the Central, Northeast and Eastern Corridors -- pulsing through the tunnel, there would be a train every three minutes at peak. It would pretty much be transit on demand.

 

And with that I think this thread has come full circle since this is what most of the discussion surrounded before the streetcar proposal appeared. 

 

 

>It would fundamentally change the way our city works.

 

Right, and interestingly the original subway scheme from 1920 completely bypassed what is now considered the Uptown area because it was an interurban collector.  It would not have attracted growth to what has since become the most important area outside downtown.  UC and the hospitals were nowhere near the employment centers that they are now. 

 

As for the Mt. Auburn tunnel itself, obviously it or something similar is the only way for light rail to reach the uptown area and the speed and safety advantage would be tremendous.  And the way it could be the trunk line of a regional light rail network would be ideal.  Someone needs to raise money for a high quality computer animation that could be posted on youtube that would help people really understand how it would work.  The city's chaotic street layout makes it hard for people to really understand why this conceptual route makes so much sense because it's somewhat counter-intuitive and few people have familiarity with all of the points it would reach.  But it basically does connect major activity centers in a relatively straight line.             

 

Here is a diagram I posted maybe two years ago showing how the various suburban light rail lines could converge at Xavier, making the 4 miles between it and downtown a transit line with incredible frequency even during off-peak times. 

 

I would love for this city to direct policy toward repopulating OTR, Corryville, and Walnut Hills -- the three central residential areas that are the most underpopulated.  Modern streetcar lines could probably achieve most of this goal at a fraction of the cost of light rail, although it's unclear if the city will ever be able to attract significant county, state, or federal money to do so.  But if the goal is instead for a county-wide transit system, I'm afraid politicians will manage to go cheap and skip this area of town thereby leaving the uptown area marooned.  In the worst case such a scenario would relieve parking needs for downtown but not work to improve the value of OTR, Corryville, and Walnut Hills.   

^ There's hope. A month ago, the City Planning Commission voted not to sell a parcel of city-owned land at the south portal of the tunnel precisely because it might be needed someday.

 

We'll have another shot at this.

 

Jake, can you blow up the the segment between, say, Liberty and MLK and Reading?

I thought the Metromoves plan included a value engineered version of the I-71 light rail that did not include the tunnel in favor of running along I-71 to downtown.  Is that the current thinking and if so how would those interchanges at MLK and or Taft change things?  Are they being designed for LRT?

^ That's true. But the consequence was the loss of a one-seat ride to UC from the south. A lot of people didn't like that. And the alternative was running LRT up Reading Road, which was a push. I think the tunnel will come back again.

 

With respect to the interchanges, I assume they will preserve ROW for LRT just as they're doing in the planning of the I-75 rebuild right now.

 

I think the other thing is, in 2002, you had a declining Uptown and OTR, and people had doubts about putting more money into infrastructure there. That view has clearly changed.

Any really effective densification is going to have involve quality rail transit to the hill-top neighborhoods (in Zane Miller's parlance) as many have noted. There are limits to the ability of the Mill Creek valley to support growth (pollution being the primary one). In contrast, there is so much potential in those neighborhoods that it would be a crime to do otherwise. Plus I imagine if one successful tunnel was used there, there might be greater support any number of tunnels we've discussed throughout the region - under the Ohio, getting up the West Side, getting to the airport.

How do we go about digging a tunnel in this day and age anyway?  I mean, I've seen the footage of the "Chunnel" being dug out by that huge machine.  Is that how they're all done now?  Seems like that's much easier than doing it by hand like they would have done 100+ years ago.

^ You would use a Tunnel Boring Machine. They're in service around the world. My recollection is that it would have taken a year, starting at the foot of the Main Street steps, to bore a twin tube to Corryville. Fred Craig, who works for PB, wanted to reduce the amount of bore by daylighting the tunnel through the area just west of Christ Hospital. Sometime drive up to the Christ Emergency Room entrance and look over the rail into the valley to the west. I think it was a good idea that was never fully investigated prior to the time SORTA decided to drop the tunnel from the plan.

 

We did find out that the soils -- rock, actually -- under Mt. Auburn was ideal for tunneling.

 

The tunnel plan, as is, definitely needs some tweaking. URS had both portals emptying onto Main Street north of Liberty with the southbound direction crossing Main diagonally just west of Main and Liberty. Then it went through the Uptown Arts parking lot and behind Grammer's, which is now a development site. I think the tunnel needs to split just inside the Mt. Auburn hillside with the southbound direction emerging onto Lang Street and then to Walnut well north of Liberty.

How do we go about digging a tunnel in this day and age anyway?  I mean, I've seen the footage of the "Chunnel" being dug out by that huge machine.  Is that how they're all done now?  Seems like that's much easier than doing it by hand like they would have done 100+ years ago.

 

Pittsburgh's doing it right now.  Here's a fun little website to put the Pittsburgh project into kids terms: http://www.boretotheshore.com/

i know this is off topic but what is the typical length of a streetcar?

^ Sixty-six feet, I think.

Streetcar: 66 feet long, 8.08 feet wide.

Ford Taurus: 16.8 feet long, 6.2 feet wide.

Bus: 40 feet long, 8.5 feet wide.

 

The width doesn't really matter on a streetcar as it takes up one lane, and a car also takes up one lane and so does a bus. 

 

But if you look at the linear distance the streetcar takes up, that is where you see a huge congestion reducing benefit.  Also you have people who would be pedestrians on the streetcar, reducing turning conflict with traffic.

 

Think of it this way. 

-A streetcar holding 130 people takes up 66 linear feet of a lane of traffic. 

-Cars, holding an average of 1.2 passengers would take up 1949 feet, and that is assuming only a 2 foot gap between the cars.

-Buses do better, but you need 3 of them to get to 130 riders, meaning 126 feet of a lane of traffic, half the number of boarding doors, more noise and 3 times the labor costs.

Question: Why are we proposing a Mt. Auburn tunnel when the former CL&N line was once double tracked and can handle a light-rail line?

^---- Double tracked? Technically, yes, but with conditions.

    The Cincinnati, Lebanon, and Northern Railroad was originally a narrow-gauge railroad between its namesake cities. Narrow gauge is 3 feet between the rails; standard gauge is 4 feet, 8 1/2 inches. Narrow gauge locomotives and rolling stock are also, as expected, more narrow than standard equipment.

 

    There is a major tunnel and one smaller underpass that were sized for the narrow guage railroad, with double track.

 

    When the CL&N became part of the Pennsylvania system, it was converted to standard guage. However, the tunnel and underpass were too narrow, and there was an accident involving two locomotives sideswiping each other in the tunnel.

 

    The track in the tunnel was then converted to gauntlet track, an unusual arrangement where the two tracks were laid so close to each other that they actually overlapped. Only one train could use the tunnel at a time.

 

    So, could light rail use the tunnel with double track? I don't know, but it is definitely an issue. Maybe two light rail vehicles can pass safely, or maybe only one could pass at a time, or maybe a route could be chosen that only uses single track in the tunnel and the return train takes a different route, or maybe the tunnel could be widened or daylighted.

 

      It would seem that the simplest way would be to build single track in the tunnel area and allow one train at a time, controlled by signals. The tunnel could be widened or daylighted in the future, if traffic warrants it.

 

    By the way, Queen City Metro owns most of the CL&N right of way. The maximum grade is 4%, which caused trouble when it was a steam line but is well within the limits of light rail.

 

    In the 1975 Exclusive Guideway plan, the CL&N right of way was chosen for a route between Cincinnati and Norwood. At that time, it was still in operation under the Pennsylvania system.

 

    The CL&N right of way is still in operation in two sections north of Norwood under the Indiana and Ohio railroad.

^ The main problem is, was, the CL&N doesn't go anywhere near UC. It bypasses it. Plus, it's been built on. It's a non-starter.

http://www.abandonedonline.net/index.php?catid=497 (article I've been working on about the CL&N)

 

Looking at the tunnel's width, it was originally designed for standard-gauge and narrow-gauge, but that the gap between the lines are far smaller than what modern lines would tolerate. I forgot about the sideswiping, so you are correct that the tunnels would not be able to adapt to twin-tracks without serious modifications.

^---"It's a non-starter."

 

    I disagree. The CL&N is at least worth consideration, especially between Cincinnati and Norwood. It has been recommended in numerous studies going back to 1975. It is mostly intact (I walked it) on the ground if not on paper. It is owned in part by Queen City Metro. It enters downtown at Broadway Commons, which is of course filled with parking lots, allowing fairly simple construction. It has a maximum grade of 4%. Granted, the section through the Baldwin Piano factory is built over, and the line is no longer intact through Norwood. I'm not proposing anything north of Norwood. 

 

    I will grant you that it does not go near U.C. It is, however, parallel to major corridors: I-71, Reading Road, Gilbert, etc. An awful lot of Metro buses presently use those corridors.

 

    What is the advantage? Easy construction, plain and simple, and easy maintenance too for that matter. No heavy grades. No major new tunnels. No new interstate crossing. No sharp curves. Few street crossing, and the ones that exist were historically street crossings on low traffic streets. Few if any utility relocations. Most of the track could be built as open track, which is to say, a track not in a street, which is much, much less expensive.

 

    A light rail vehicle could perhaps travel from Norwood to Downtown at 50 mph. High speed equates to fewer vehicles required and fewer drivers, not to mention faster commute times. A future connection could be the existing Hyde Park line to Mariemont. A future branch line to U.C. should be no more difficult than one up Vine Street, although the distance would be longer. (A former line branched toward University Hospital; I wonder if it is useable?) An extension across the L&N bridge to Newport on the Levee and up Saratoga Street would be possible. There are ample vacant industrial sites along the line for a maintenance facility.

 

    Being in a private right of way (outside of the street), high-platform vehicles could be considered, elimating all hassles associated with steps and ADA, making it more comfortable for everyone, allowing easier vehicle maintenance, and a slightly higher capacity. Stepped vehicles could be added later if extentions go into the street.

 

    Acquire a diesel light rail vehicle or two and save the cost of catenary, at least at first. Reroute some Metro buses to stop at the northern terminus for transfer. Or, even pave it for buses only and reroute all Metro express buses from the other corridors (This has been proposed by OKI in the past.)

 

    Although it may not pass next to U.C., it still has an impressive list of potential stops: Xavier University (via a departure from the CL&N over a different line), McMicken Avenue, the Baldwin complex, Bethesda Hospital, Proctor and Gamble downtown.

 

      All of this talk about routes is a compromise between least cost to build and least cost to use. The CL&N between downtown Cincinnati and Norwood would give us the most track for the money. The lower the initial cost, the more likely that funding will be found.

 

      Build it today and see what happens. Or, spend the next 20 years studying the Mt. Auburn tunnel or the Uptown Connector without building anything.

^ The main problem is, was, the CL&N doesn't go anywhere near UC. It bypasses it. Plus, it's been built on. It's a non-starter.

 

Why would it need to go near UC if the streetcar would serve Downtown, OTR and Uptown?  I think light-rail plans and studies should happen now, so that we can properly integrate streetcar service with future light rail configurations.

Did anybody hear the Council meeting this afternoon on the Council members budget proposals. I know Cranley and Monzel introduced motions to eliminate or reduce the funding that has been allocated or assumed for the streetcar (Blue Ash Airport sale etc).

 

Just curious what may have come of it.  With Mallory and most of Council opposed to any increases in fees or taxes the funding for the streetcar may be an attractive source for reallocation of funding to other areas.

 

The work has been extensively fact-checked. You can rely on it. Have a look, starting with this really cool map: http://www.pro-transit.com/Maps/

 

 

I like the maps, but have a question about the regional one - You show the red line serving Hyde Park and Mariemont before terminating in Milford, presumably using the existing Wasson line.  Just curious, why did you show this route rather than the riverfront/oasis line that seems to be the route selected by the Eastern Corridor Tier 1 EIS?

My friend, Pete Jenior, a civil engineer in Baltimore, shared with me a link to their planned streetcar network --

http://www.charlesstreet.org/trolley/

 

Looking good!

I'm relying on the Regional Rail Plan developed by SORTA in 2002.

 

No one I know thinks the Eastern Corridor Rail Plan has any viability. It's a stalking horse for a highway plan.

Did anybody hear the Council meeting this afternoon on the Council members budget proposals. I know Cranley and Monzel introduced motions to eliminate or reduce the funding that has been allocated or assumed for the streetcar (Blue Ash Airport sale etc).

 

Just curious what may have come of it.  With Mallory and most of Council opposed to any increases in fees or taxes the funding for the streetcar may be an attractive source for reallocation of funding to other areas.

 

Monzel and Cranley has been using the money from the Blue Ash Airport as a talking point for some time now.  Ultimately they're using it as an argument against a system that they both seem to be fundamentally opposed to.  That opposition came out loud and clear during the votes that were held earlier this year.  Those votes approved city funding for the streetcar and approved the financing plan.

Yeah but is that an irreversible decision?

Here we go...

 

http://cincinnati.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/stories/2008/12/08/daily2.html

Finance Committee Chairman John Cranley proposed eliminating $60 million in streetcar funding so the money can be “reprogrammed for other purposes,”

 

Well maybe we can take the $60 million out of that uptown spur/loop he was so adamant about.

At least it was the same two sticks-in-the-mud who made the cuts. Everybody else still seems to be all for it.

Cincinnati provincialism at its best.  No suprise that Cranley wants to take money from the streetcar to "do other things" like support his own developments in Price Hill.  Monzel is pet to cranley

^ It's more fundamental than that. Cranley is a long-time opponent of any kind of rail transit. He fools a lot of people who believe he is a supporter. Whatever the plan -- and this goes back to the beginning of this decade -- he always has another plan. You will never change his mind.

 

In his heart of hearts, I believe Monzel is a rail supporter, but his backers would never let him vote that way. So he does what he's told.

This is about community leaders deciding to be short or long term sighted. I hope they go with long term.

I'm about |-----| <----that close to just getting the monorail from Jungle Jims, building track along 275 to 71, then down to cincy myself and having my own damn transit line. Anyone free to help build some stuff this weekend?

I love some of Monzel's budget cuts...not forward thinking AT ALL....(suprise) 

 

• cutting Enhancements to the recycling program
  eliminating a climate protection plan
   
  Cutting the Innovative Transportation Strategies Project
   
  Eliminating a Climate Protection Coordinator
   
  Eliminating funding for streetcars
  
•