Also, if not for my YouTube videos at FSQ, 3CDC would have never made the garage, and the square, more handicapped accessible.  Our work on that was a benefit to the whole City.  (You're welcome.)

 

If you actually care about accessibility for the disabled, that's yet another reason why you should support streetcars and not more buses.  Buses have steps and the disabled must ask if they can be "accomodated", which requires the bus to lower or a platform to rise, and often people need to be shuffled around inside to free up specific seats.  On a streetcar, there's a handicap symbol that you can press getting on or off that activates a tiny ramp.  It takes no longer for them to board than anyone else and they don't have to ask permission to ride the system.  Score one for human diginity.

 

It is my understanding that the newer buses are built to accommodate wheelchairs.  They don't have steps, include ramps, and can actually lower themselves while stopped.

 

Again, the handicapped have to REQUEST that the ramps be lowered or the bus be lowered. Streetcars do not have to lower, they are already at the proper level.

dean, how do you respond to the development impacts of a fixed rail system over a rubber tire system?

 

thanks for coming here to provide an opposing view. though i wish both sides would avoid potshots.

 

I don't think anyone can show me development near a streetcar that was not also caused by massive government subsidies. Given their presence, one cannot attribute causality to the streetcar. If anything, it indicates that massive subsidies spur development.

 

Well, the subsidies are already in place here, and those subsidies wouldn't go away.  So if anything, development subsidies are givens in smaller cities, and what is needed is a catalyst (see FS) to spur development.  The catalyst in this case is the streetcar.  It will drive the market, as consumer/resident tastes and preferences are shifting toward that lifestyle.

Also, if not for my YouTube videos at FSQ, 3CDC would have never made the garage, and the square, more handicapped accessible.  Our work on that was a benefit to the whole City.  (You're welcome.)

 

If you actually care about accessibility for the disabled, that's yet another reason why you should support streetcars and not more buses.  Buses have steps and the disabled must ask if they can be "accommodated", which requires the bus to lower or a platform to rise, and often people need to be shuffled around inside to free up specific seats.  On a streetcar, there's a handicap symbol that you can press getting on or off that activates a tiny ramp.  It takes no longer for them to board than anyone else and they don't have to ask permission to ride the system.  Score one for human dignity.

 

It is my understanding that the newer buses are built to accommodate wheelchairs.  They don't have steps, include ramps, and can actually lower themselves while stopped.

 

Please see the 2:20 to 3:00 portion of the following video, which shows someone in a wheelchair getting on and off of the Portland Streetcar without inconveniencing other passengers or asking for assistance from the driver.  Lowering a bus and loading a disabled individual takes time, which makes the bus run late, meaning that people think of it as less reliable.  On a streetcar, this doesn't happen so it has a better chance of showing up at each stop without delay.

 

Notice as well that there is plenty of room for multiple disabled individuals, not just one or two.  These benefits are because the streetcar rides lower and smoother, and so is designed for standing.  This allows it to be used easily by people with wheelchairs as well as people with bikes:

 

Read the link. It is about one of many homeless people who ride the streetcar for free to get heat in the Winter. With his pit bull.

 

I know all about the 3CDC deal. Do you? Can you tell me the projected lost revenue from the parking garage over the terms of the 30-40 year loan? Can you tell me how much the City still pays yearly to upkeep the garage from which they see no income?

 

As for renovation, all they did to the garage was slap up some paint and some lights. And made it so you pay a machine instead. It's the same garage. Same layout. If anything, less people work there. Four bucks, huh? What were the old rates, anyway?

 

I'm not sure where the whole homeless person anecdote is going...

 

What does the projected lost revenue have to do with anything? The city doesn't take that loss, 3CDC does. They pay $500,000, what they always paid - 3CDC covers everything beyond that. And 3CDC gave the city $7.5M for the revenue rights.

 

Paint and lights were badly needed. So was the security system, waterproofing, elevator renovation and payment system. The restaurant, added retail, square redesign, fountain restoration were all added bonuses I guess.

 

Most probably couldn't tell ya what the old rates were... they never had much of a reason to park there until all the new entertainment and cultural venues went up. Those that did park under the old rates (if there was an increase) realize the cost is offset by the benefits renovation. But either way, $.50 an hour seems like a steal to me.

 

I'm happy to talk FSQ garage details.

 

What do you mean, "The City doesn't take that loss, 3CDC does."  That is a totally uninformed statement.  3CDC bought the garage revenues from the City for 40 years.  That means that any money the City would have earned into the parking system from 3CDC disappears, and it's profit for 3CDC.  Get it?

 

If you need to understand more about the impact of this move, read this. 

 

You used to be able to park for a buck for a good long while.  Now it tends to start at four.  As for the new "destination locations," well, keep an eye on Oceanaire and the Brazilian Steakhouse.  See what their futures hold.  As for Via Vite, tons of questions exist on that front -- primarily, how to you build a restaurant on PUBLIC SPACE.  Maybe you don't value that concept -- of public space -- but I do.

primarily, how do you build a restaurant on PUBLIC SPACE.  Maybe you don't value that concept -- of public space -- but I do.

 

It's simple... the city builds the building and rents it out to Via Vite....

Why do Streetcar advocates keep talking about Light Rail systems as if this is one? This isn't a Light Rail Transit system and I don't believe it will lead to Light Rail in Cincinnati. I actively supported the campaign for Light Rail in 2001 and 2002.

 

For those that are criticizing the Green Party for supporting the NAACP's ballot initiative, the Green Party put out a statement about why they support giving the voters a choice on this. I hope that people here are interested in having an in-depth discussion as opposed to just attacking people that question their beliefs on this issue.

 

I invited Brad Thomas to write about the Streetcar at the Beacon, so those that are out there in the blogosphere pretending we are censoring comments that disagree with our point of view are lying. Just go to our blog and you can see lots of posts from Streetcar advocates. I welcome a debate on the issue and think a discussion about the benefits of mass transit is long over due.

The environmental debate is interesting but I would think that streetcars would have a clear advantage over air quality in the city, which is certainly a concern. Ohio definitely has a problem with burning coal but I find it hard to get real excited about burning diesel as a true better solution.

 

Also, I'm not educated enough about the issue to reply to your incentive argument (though hopefully someone else will), I'd imagine the argument could be made that they work together. There have been subsidies and investment into OTR, perhaps the streetcar coupled with those investments could really turn it around.

No one on here is talking about the streetcar and light rail like they are the same thing. I'm not sure where you're getting that. They are both public transit options which many people have said.

primarily, how do you build a restaurant on PUBLIC SPACE.  Maybe you don't value that concept -- of public space -- but I do.

 

It's simple... the city builds the building and rents it out to Via Vite....

 

Really?  Then why did 3CDC build the building and keep the rent?

Why do Streetcar advocates keep talking about Light Rail systems as if this is one? This isn't a Light Rail Transit system and I don't believe it will lead to Light Rail in Cincinnati. I actively supported the campaign for Light Rail in 2001 and 2002.

 

I don't think that anyone has claimed that the Streetcar is a Light Rail system.  But I think an important first step toward getting Light Rail is to make the urban core more accessible without a car.  The day when Cincinnati/Clifton/Covington/Newport are easily traversible via rail will be the day that people in suburbs like Mason, West Chester, and Union start considering how nice it would be to hop on a train to work instead of sitting in traffic.  So I believe that the Streetcar will make Light Rail possible.  I'd happily support a Light Rail system if one were currently proposed, but that isn't the case right now.  Since what we do have on the table is a Streetcar that will tie the urban core together more tightly for those of us that live here, that is what I am supporting now.

 

For those that are criticizing the Green Party for supporting the NAACP's ballot initiative, the Green Party put out a statement about why they support giving the voters a choice on this. I hope that people here are interested in having an in-depth discussion as opposed to just attacking people that question their beliefs on this issue.

 

Just because they've issued a statement, that doesn't mean I have to agree with their reasoning.  Biodiesel buses are not a large enough improvement over our current system to warrant the spending of any amount.  If that is what you are proposing, I'd rather have nothing.  They are only a modest improvement on emissions (and I'd argue that they are less of an improvement there than the streetcar, because their emissions are right in the public's faces on the street, not somewhere away from the city), they offer no improvement for the disabled, none for bike riders, no permanence of routes that make the system reassuring to visitors and encouraging to development, are still a rough, bumpy, and generally unpleasant ride.  They'll also do nothing to encourage Light Rail at a later date, whereas the streetcar tracks could, theoretically, double for Light Rail tracks when a train arrives downtown.  So if more buses are really what you're proposing, I'll pass.

Dean,

 

Before I read your response: "you guys have already made your mind up, you're streetcar advocates" ... or something similar, I was thinking ... or wondering the same thing about you. Can you honestly - publicly state that this is not the case with you? I feel like you're in it too deep, and there is too much commotion around this topic, that even if you were swayed the other way, you would stand your ground.

 

 

Someone brought this up on the Bearcast, but I noticed this during the debate... You brought up a number of times, "can we really trust city council?" ... "Haven't we seen them fail enough?" ... these questions get old. Out of the 12 city leaders that are on payroll today, how many were on payroll during the stadium tax ordeal? How many were there that made accused false promises?

 

Out of the city leaders that are on payroll today, what have we accomplished? Just off the top of my head, I can come up with over $2 BILLION dollars worth of development.

 

 

I could be wrong here, but I cannot think of a larger metro in the U.S. that doesn't have rail-transit, than Cincy? Why is this?

Out of the 12 city leaders that are on payroll today, how many were on payroll during the stadium tax ordeal? How many were there that made accused false promises?

 

Two key words for you:  Jeff Berding.

Also, Cincinnatus, just explain to me how the streetcar is environmentally, economically, and socially sustainable, considering all the examples I have already provided.  If you are right, I will change my position.  Right now, I don't think you are right.

Why do Streetcar advocates keep talking about Light Rail systems as if this is one? This isn't a Light Rail Transit system and I don't believe it will lead to Light Rail in Cincinnati.

 

If there is a message board where its members aren't aware of the difference between a streetcar and LRT, UrbanOhio ain't it. lol

 

 

Hell, most of us have ridden on streetcars/light rail more than suburban residents that live in the metro of those cities that have it ... that's why we're such huge supporters.

 

When I travel, I usually check in at a hotel near a rail line and leave my car parked the entire time I'm there visiting.

Also, Cincinnatus, just explain to me how the streetcar is environmentally, economically, and socially sustainable, considering all the examples I have already provided.  If you are right, I will change my position.  Right now, I don't think you are right.

 

How is a bus system environmentally, economically, and socially sustainable?  Could Metro currently be described in this way?  If not, what is the alternative?  Cities need mass transit to survive.  The three characteristics you've mentioned are certainly noble goals that should be striven for, but they are not the primary point of mass transit. 

Your opposition just entrenches this city in it's car-dependent ways. How long is it going to take before someone like you will come around?

 

I don't speak for a coalition.  I have said I support improved mass transit.  That's why I support a painted line bio-fuel tire trolley on downtown closed circuits.  Why do you pretend I have not said that repeatedly, in a variety of places?

 

Why do you continue to refer to your proposed "bio-fuel tire trolley" as such.  It's a bus that runs on bio-fuel.  There's nothing wrong with that.  In fact I would prefer to see all of our existing busses run on bio-fuel or some other alternative.  Your system is nothing new.  It is Metro running on bio-fuel, with some painted lines.  I'm not sure how that accomplishes much more than the existing Metro busses running on diesel with some painted poles along the route.

 

Improving bus service is something that should be commended, but lets label it as such.  Your attempt to call it a "trolley" is disingenuous at best.  If you really want to improve bus service then lets try to start with GPS tracking and real-time arrival.  Add in an alternative fueling source and a few articulated busses on high-volume routes and you have yourself a significantly improved system.  Why not be FOR that instead of AGAINST something completely different?

I welcome a debate on the issue and think a discussion about the benefits of mass transit is long over due.

 

Did your coalition of anti-streetcar groups attend any of the many meetings about the streetcar over the past several years?  Have you been on any of the trips to Portland?  Have you gone to the City Council meetings on the issue?

 

The reason I ask is because this is often a scapegoat reason for why people stand against something.  This is not an issue that has come up overnight.  The City has been working on this for many years now, and for as long as I've been engaged I don't remember seeing anyone from your coalition at these public meetings, discussions, etc.

Also, Cincinnatus, just explain to me how the streetcar is environmentally, economically, and socially sustainable, considering all the examples I have already provided. If you are right, I will change my position. Right now, I don't think you are right.

 

How is a bus system environmentally, economically, and socially sustainable? Could Metro currently be described in this way? If not, what is the alternative? Cities need mass transit to survive. The three characteristics you've mentioned are certainly noble goals that should be striven for, but they are not the primary point of mass transit.

 

Is the streetcar plan a mass transit plan?

If you really want to improve bus service then lets try to start with GPS tracking and real-time arrival.

 

Oh, I really like that idea!  I've long dreamed of a Cincinnati version of Tokyo's Yamanote alarm clock:

 

 

http://www.mediatinker.com/yamanote29/archives/009812.html

 

 

 

 

dean, how do you respond to the development impacts of a fixed rail system over a rubber tire system?

 

 

I don't think anyone can show me development near a streetcar that was not also caused by massive government subsidies. 

 

Dean, you just lost me there.  I have lived in a number of places where development followed "a fixed rail system" without any other massive subsidy.  Granted, there's some vagary with massive (how much is that?) and some argument with caused (couldn't any development in downtown be said to be caused by stadium subsidies?)  Care to clarify that statement?  What do you really mean?

Also, Cincinnatus, just explain to me how the streetcar is environmentally, economically, and socially sustainable, considering all the examples I have already provided.  If you are right, I will change my position.  Right now, I don't think you are right.

 

How is a bus system environmentally, economically, and socially sustainable?  Could Metro currently be described in this way?  If not, what is the alternative?  Cities need mass transit to survive.  The three characteristics you've mentioned are certainly noble goals that should be striven for, but they are not the primary point of mass transit. 

 

Is the streetcar plan a mass transit plan?

 

I'll take your ridiculous question as evidence that you can't answer my legitmate questions.  Either that, or you don't like the answers that you would have to provide.  Just to be polite, I'll answer your question, though you dodged mine.  Yes, clearly the streetcar plan is part of a mass transit plan.  Phase I may be just downtown and OTR, but it's been well documented that future phases will tie in Clifton, the West End, NKY, and beyond.  If you don't think that the Streetcar plan is mass transit, please explain how your biodiesel bus proposal differs in such a way that it would be considered mass transit, whereas the Streetcar would not.

Also, Cincinnatus, just explain to me how the streetcar is environmentally, economically, and socially sustainable, considering all the examples I have already provided. If you are right, I will change my position. Right now, I don't think you are right.

 

How is a bus system environmentally, economically, and socially sustainable? Could Metro currently be described in this way? If not, what is the alternative? Cities need mass transit to survive. The three characteristics you've mentioned are certainly noble goals that should be striven for, but they are not the primary point of mass transit.

 

Is the streetcar plan a mass transit plan?

 

I'll take your ridiculous question as evidence that you can't answer my legitmate questions. Either that, or you don't like the answers that you would have to provide. Just to be polite, I'll answer your question, though you dodged mine. Yes, clearly the streetcar plan is part of a mass transit plan. Phase I may be just downtown and OTR, but it's been well documented that future phases will tie in Clifton, the West End, NKY, and beyond. If you don't think that the Streetcar plan is mass transit, please explain how your biodiesel bus proposal differs in such a way that it would be considered mass transit, whereas the Streetcar would not.

 

It is not a ridiculous question.  When Chris Bortz went before OKI, he said the streetcar is "not a transit plan."  He called it a "development plan," and characterized it as NOT a transit plan.  So, I think the streetcar advocates need to make a decision about what kind of plan this is.

 

Now, what is the purpose of transit?  Is it to meet people where they are, and to take them where they want to go?  If so, how does a tire trolley fail?  If trends change, it is not stuck in the same location.

dean, how do you respond to the development impacts of a fixed rail system over a rubber tire system?

 

 

I don't think anyone can show me development near a streetcar that was not also caused by massive government subsidies.

 

Dean, you just lost me there. I have lived in a number of places where development followed "a fixed rail system" without any other massive subsidy. Granted, there's some vagary with massive (how much is that?) and some argument with caused (couldn't any development in downtown be said to be caused by stadium subsidies?) Care to clarify that statement? What do you really mean?

 

Name the places, and the types of fixed rail systems, that brought development with no subsidy.  Certainly Portland is not one of these places, even though it is frequently cited by the streetcar advocates.

 

Pardon me if I don't address every point by everyone here.  I'm on limited time and, well, I'm a bit outnumbered!

Thank you for again dodging my questions.  I view it as both transit and development, as the two are not mutually exclusive, but please don't throw someone else's words at me in a loaded question with a planned retort, as if I uttered them.  (Though I do support Bortz and agree with him most of the time.) 

Pardon me if I don't address every point by everyone here.  I'm on limited time and, well, I'm a bit outnumbered!

 

No problem, it's also obvious that you're picking and choosing which points to address and which points to leave unanswered.

Virtually all transit is fixed, thats what makes it great.  Your argument that we need transit that adapts to changing demands is, in my opinion, ridiculous.  Highways are fixed, subways are fixed, light rail is fixed, etc, etc, etc.  Are you telling me we need more transit that isn't fixed, because I think NYC's (and Paris's, and Boston's, and DC's, and and and and...) fixed subway system is working out for them pretty well. 

 

Development should follow transit, not the other way around.  Unfortunately, it has been the other way around in the US for years now, (allowable by highways which is development following transit, but nonetheless, I digress) and that is a reason why we have unsustainable sprawl.  We want and need predictable development in our city (see the recent effort on form based codes.)   

Dean, you just lost me there. I have lived in a number of places where development followed "a fixed rail system" without any other massive subsidy. Granted, there's some vagary with massive (how much is that?) and some argument with caused (couldn't any development in downtown be said to be caused by stadium subsidies?) Care to clarify that statement? What do you really mean?

 

Name the places, and the types of fixed rail systems, that brought development with no subsidy. .

 

 

In the 1980's I lived between Old Town Alexandria and the future King St. station for the Washington Metrorail.  I witnessed massive development in that run down, vacant lot area over that decade.  These developments were not getting what most people would consider massive subsidies (if any at all.)

Pardon me if I don't address every point by everyone here. I'm on limited time and, well, I'm a bit outnumbered!

 

No problem, it's also obvious that you're picking and choosing which points to address and which points to leave unanswered.

 

that's nothing new. Check out his debate on the Beacon....

^Nah.  I'd prefer not to drive traffic to his website since he's cherrypicking and asking leading questions right here.  :-D

It is not a ridiculous question.  When Chris Bortz went before OKI, he said the streetcar is "not a transit plan."  He called it a "development plan," and characterized it as NOT a transit plan.  So, I think the streetcar advocates need to make a decision about what kind of plan this is.

 

It is clearly not mass transit. It is a circulator, at last in its current incarnation.  If expanded all the way through three phases to the zoo, it would cover 8 miles.

 

That said, however, it is certainly the first step in what could be a mass transit system.  Maybe if we took the 800 million dollars that the Dean's comrade Chris Smitherman wants to spend on widening I-75, add it to the current proposal, then we really would have some semblance of mass transit. 

 

If we're going to govern by ballot box, why doesn't the Dean put the I-75 widening project on the ballot as well?

 

Incidentally, the whole subsidies argument is a weak red herring designed to muddle the issue.  Do we really want to go down that road?  If so, what are the subsidies for the beloved bio-fuels which will supposedly supply the fuel for these imaginary trolley trucks?  Like I said, it's a red herring.  To bypass it, assume the trolley-trucks and streetcars both have available the same economic subsidies. Which will spur more economic development?

 

If the Dean has read the studies, then he knows the answer to this question.

This is what happens when you don't get out of the fishbowl and get perspective...

 

Stop hating the city in which you live.

Dean,  I am probably as anti-coal (maybe more don't know??) than you. I am also a conservationist, preservationist and sustainabilty proponet. I have question.

 

1) If the streetcar were powered by (what %) renewables  Today would you support it? 

 

 

Yes, we do get coal from mountaintop removal, we should all demand that Duke stops buying from coal companies that use this environmentally degrading method of coal removal or at least use full cost pricing when this type is used.

 

http://www.ilovemountains.org/myconnection/show_connection.php?zip=45202

 

Cincinnati can lead the way in making a difference for the environment especially due to our close proximity to the coal industry.  Supporting more environmentally friendly modes of transportation and energy will attract more people with this same mindset to our city and we can change our car culture here for good!

Pardon me if I don't address every point by everyone here. I'm on limited time and, well, I'm a bit outnumbered!

 

No problem, it's also obvious that you're picking and choosing which points to address and which points to leave unanswered.

 

Give me a numbered list of questions, devoid of the other stuff, and I will answer as best I can. 

It is clearly not mass transit. It is a circulator, at last in its current incarnation.

 

Granted.  But he's clearly trying to lure us into a semantic debate instead of addressing fair questions with honest answers.

Virtually all transit is fixed, thats what makes it great. Your argument that we need transit that adapts to changing demands is, in my opinion, ridiculous. Highways are fixed, subways are fixed, light rail is fixed, etc, etc, etc. Are you telling me we need more transit that isn't fixed, because I think NYC's (and Paris's, and Boston's, and DC's, and and and and...) fixed subway system is working out for them pretty well.

 

Development should follow transit, not the other way around. Unfortunately, it has been the other way around in the US for years now, (allowable by highways which is development following transit, but nonetheless, I digress) and that is a reason why we have unsustainable sprawl. We want and need predictable development in our city (see the recent effort on form based codes.)

 

The fixed subway systems of which you speak also have an exclusive right of way.  So it's not even the same species as the Cincinnati streetcar, in the middle of traffic.

It is not a ridiculous question. When Chris Bortz went before OKI, he said the streetcar is "not a transit plan." He called it a "development plan," and characterized it as NOT a transit plan. So, I think the streetcar advocates need to make a decision about what kind of plan this is.

 

It is clearly not mass transit. It is a circulator, at last in its current incarnation. If expanded all the way through three phases to the zoo, it would cover 8 miles.

 

That said, however, it is certainly the first step in what could be a mass transit system. Maybe if we took the 800 million dollars that the Dean's comrade Chris Smitherman wants to spend on widening I-75, add it to the current proposal, then we really would have some semblance of mass transit.

 

If we're going to govern by ballot box, why doesn't the Dean put the I-75 widening project on the ballot as well?

 

Incidentally, the whole subsidies argument is a weak red herring designed to muddle the issue. Do we really want to go down that road? If so, what are the subsidies for the beloved bio-fuels which will supposedly supply the fuel for these imaginary trolley trucks? Like I said, it's a red herring. To bypass it, assume the trolley-trucks and streetcars both have available the same economic subsidies. Which will spur more economic development?

 

If the Dean has read the studies, then he knows the answer to this question.

 

You are not making any sense.  Why would you talk about subsidies to the bio-fuel industry?  I have said nothing about King Coal and his massive government subsidies.

 

I also have not said the streetcar itself (or the trolleys themselves) are subsidized.  I'm talking about the development that happens near the route.  Get it?

If the Dean has read the studies, then he knows the answer to this question.

 

You don't even know what I mean when I say "subsidy," so what are you talking about?  It seems you keep referring to subsidizing the line. I'm talking about development coincidental to the line. Just write down the number, please.  Why do you keep playing games?  Is this a joke?

^Nah. I'd prefer not to drive traffic to his website since he's cherrypicking and asking leading questions right here.   :-D

 

Uh... okay.  Because if you went to our website, we'd, uh... get... uh... Nevermind.

By the way, how many people am I debating here, at one time, while being accused of cherry-picking?

 

How about you send John Schneider to meet with The Beacon, the NAACP, COAST, and the SW Ohio Green Party.  We'll say a bunch of things, and if he doesn't answer he'll be cherry picking.

 

Oh, wait, he already did that with just me at the UC Forum.

^Nah.  I'd prefer not to drive traffic to his website since he's cherrypicking and asking leading questions right here.  :-D

 

Uh... okay.  Because if you went to our website, we'd, uh... get... uh... Nevermind.

 

Wow, you're quite the wordsmith.  How about using your time to actually answer a fair question or two instead of just making trite remarks and asking loaded questions?  Otherwise, this is just a waste of everyone's time.

 

It is clearly not mass transit. It is a circulator, at last in its current incarnation.  If expanded all the way through three phases to the zoo, it would cover 8 miles.

 

 

That's why I'm so against it.  It's 100 million to go nowhere, hoping that development will occur at some point in the future.  Somebody must have invested heavily along the route.

 

I'd rather see the first effort be from the Banks to the zoo, then let development dictate where it will branch off.

 

 

It is not a ridiculous question.  When Chris Bortz went before OKI, he said the streetcar is "not a transit plan."  He called it a "development plan," and characterized it as NOT a transit plan.  So, I think the streetcar advocates need to make a decision about what kind of plan this is.

 

It is clearly not mass transit. It is a circulator, at last in its current incarnation.  If expanded all the way through three phases to the zoo, it would cover 8 miles.

 

That said, however, it is certainly the first step in what could be a mass transit system.  Maybe if we took the 800 million dollars that the Dean's comrade Chris Smitherman wants to spend on widening I-75, add it to the current proposal, then we really would have some semblance of mass transit. 

 

If we're going to govern by ballot box, why doesn't the Dean put the I-75 widening project on the ballot as well?

 

Incidentally, the whole subsidies argument is a weak red herring designed to muddle the issue.  Do we really want to go down that road?  If so, what are the subsidies for the beloved bio-fuels which will supposedly supply the fuel for these imaginary trolley trucks?  Like I said, it's a red herring.  To bypass it, assume the trolley-trucks and streetcars both have available the same economic subsidies. Which will spur more economic development?

 

If the Dean has read the studies, then he knows the answer to this question.

 

You are not making any sense.  Why would you talk about subsidies to the bio-fuel industry?  I have said nothing about King Coal and his massive government subsidies.

 

I also have not said the streetcar itself (or the trolleys themselves) are subsidized.  I'm talking about the development that happens near the route.  Get it?

 

not sure who isn't getting it. If you are concerned about development subsidies along streetcar routes, then maybe you should put that to a vote as well.

 

Your debate seems to be getting pretty far afield. If you want to talk about the efficacy of government subsidies, then pretty bio-fuels are fair game.  Like I said, you've gone off on a tangent that seems more designed to obfuscate than make a point.  Why not get it back to streetcars? 

 

As I have repeatedly stated, let me keep it simple for you, assume the eco development subsidies for streetcars and trolley trucks are equal.    What will generate greater economic development?  The streetcars or your beloved trolley trucks (on bio-fuels of course)?  If you have done your homework assignment for today (I suspect not) then you would know the answer.

 

By the way, when are you going to repudiate your comrade Smitherman's demand to widen 8 miles of I-75 at the cost of 800 millions as opposed to the streetcar route (phases I through III)? Seems kind of at odds with your goals of economic, environmental and social sustainability?  Yet neither you nor Justin has chosen to disavow or repudiate Smitherman, despite...oh, what....10 requests on my part today to do so?

 

Stay tuned for Tuesday's Soapbox for request #11.

 

 

Yes DanB, the city has an interest in seeing a massive section of it's urban core redeveloped and instead of being a drain on resources actually contributing to the city. Diabolical, I know.

Thats not what I'm saying, and you know it.  If you want to discuss, fine.  If you want to be insulting, so be it.  There are no guarantees that a massive section of urban core will be redeveloped.

Imagine the following scenario between an out-of-town businessman visitor walking up to the Downtown Westin hotel concierge:

 

Visitor:  Ma'am, where could I go to catch a nice performance this evening?

Concierge:  Well, sir, we have a world-class symphony here, and they happen to be playing this evening at Music Hall, one of the most stunning cultural jewels in the country!

Visitor:  That sounds excellent!  Please get me a pair of tickets.  What is the best way to get there?

Concierge:  Well, if you go outside, you'll see a painted red line on the street.  Just wait on the curb by that line and a bus that looks like an old trolley will come pick you up.  It will follow that red line all the way to Music Hall, and you'll be there.

Visitor:  HAHAHAHA!

 

Sounds like a world class urban experience to me!  Can you imagine what he/she would tell other people about Cincinnati's brilliant culture and nightlife?  Or would he talk about the extensive investment the city has put into its transit, and how welcome he felt and how easy it was to get to and from attractions, meetings, conventions, etc.?

 

That same businessman won't be on a streetcar either.  He's taking a cab.

The economic development argument is being used for the Dayton streetcar too.  Im not really clear on how that would work aside from making land along the line maybe more accessible via transit since streetcars stop often and have short headways.

 

Of course you could do this with a bus, but the public seems to prefer using rail transit to busses for some reason.  This is one of the big selling points, the pyschological preference of riders for rail vs bus  It's not rational (one should be the same as the other) but it is real.

 

 

Also, the distiniction between streetcars and light rail is artificial.  Sacramento has a light rail line that has extensive street running in the heart of the city.  It looks like a streetcar to me when I lived there.  These low slung streetcars people are posting pix of are a newer technology, but the concept is the same...run an electric powered train down the middle of a street. 

 

 

Honestly, I think a lot of people would be more than happy to take the painted line system the way you just described it. I still think that fixed rail, logically, will spur more business investment, but I wouldn't mind the system you described. Actually, I enjoyed taking the trolley in the summer to go get lunch.

 

And DanB I never said it was guaranteed, but it seems to me that city hall is pushing this plan because they have seen it have a positive return in other cities and think it could help revive OTR, which is in their interest.

:-D  Nati  all aboooooard the holly jolly downtown trolley!  I would rather take a horse drawn carriage, at least the carriage has class.