Charlotte faced the same issues Cincinnati was having with its negativity perception. The Lynx Blue Line averaged 16,479 weekday trips in June 2008. Charlotte projected ONLY 9,100 trips for 2008-09, increasing to 18,000 by 2025. The park+ride lots are constantly and consistently reaching capacity.

 

Light rail can move 12,000-14,000 riders using the same energy cost as one diesel bus running one entire day -- that's less pollution and a nicer environmental footprint. Because of the cheaper energy costs, lines could theoretically be powered by wind and solar sources if so retrofitted.

 

Light rail trains operate at 400-500 MPG -- a bus averages 5-8 MPG, yet light-rail can carry many more passengers.

 

--

 

Check out the Charlotte Light-rail and streetcar thread

 

 

Much cleaner than a bus...

 

Activity!

 

More transit oriented development, which is lining the route.

 

Yes, more TOD... this time, a grocery store.

 

Those who complain that light rail or streetcars will not work in the United States have obviously never been on a light rail or streetcar network.

At lunch today I was thinking about The Green Party's coal argument.  Well, if coal is so evil, then they would be opposed to any and all new construction in the Cincinnati area.  They would be opposed to vacant buildings in Over-the-Rhine being redeveloped and the electricity restored.  So if the Dean's biodiesel trolley did in fact spur redevelopment of vacant buildings and new construction in Over-the-Rhine, it would be causing more air pollution via our evil coal power plants.   

 

So Dean, the coal & biodiesel argument just ended.  I didn't think of it at the debate, because I was so flabbergasted by it, or else I would have asked about it in the Q&A period.  If you bring it up on the internet or in public again, brace for a round of laughter and further damage to your credibility.       

There seems to be a couple primary issues with the streetcar that DO need to be addressed:

 

-The current plan is small-scale.  When and what will be done to A) increase the scale to the level of a true transit system, or B) clearly communicate to the public on why a centralized loop is the only thing City Hall can agree on concerning rail transit?

 

-Why can't the city manage its existing infastructure any better?  Rehabilitation and a coat of paint to standing properties as well as inspired infill could do much more for Cincinnati as the streetcar as currently proposed.  Mt. Adams is the only neighborhood in Cincinnati that can give you an impression of what a healthy 19th century neighborhood should look like, and that's a problem.

And Phoenix's Light-Rail...

 

 

 

TOD!

 

Already, the system is meeting or exceeding projections for ridership... and it's only been open a few months!

There seems to be a couple primary issues with the streetcar that DO need to be addressed:

 

-The current plan is small-scale. When and what will be done to A) increase the scale to the level of a true transit system, or B) clearly communicate to the public on why a centralized loop is the only thing City Hall can agree on concerning rail transit?

 

 

62,136--That’s the number of residents, according to the 2000 Census, in Downtown, Over-the-Rhine and Uptown, the neighborhoods served by the streetcar line running from the Riverfront to the Zoo in Avondale. That is the about the same number of people who live in the neighborhoods of:

 

California,

Camp Washington,

Carthage,

Columbia-Tusculum,

The East End,

East Walnut Hills,

English Woods,

Fay Apartments,

Hartwell,

Kennedy Heights,

Linwood,

Lower Price Hill,

Millvale,

Mt. Adams,

Mt. Lookout,

North Fairmount,

Queensgate,

Riverside,

Sayler Park,

Sedamsville,

South Cumminsville,

South Fairmount,

Spring Grove Village, and

Winton Hills

 

http://cincystreetcar.wordpress.com/2009/02/10/62136/#comments

There seems to be a couple primary issues with the streetcar that DO need to be addressed:

 

-The current plan is small-scale. When and what will be done to A) increase the scale to the level of a true transit system, or B) clearly communicate to the public on why a centralized loop is the only thing City Hall can agree on concerning rail transit?

 

I think both of those questions have the same answer, though there are certainly some that can provide more information than I can.  Trace all of this back to MetroMoves in 2002.  Cincinnati tried to implement a whole rail transit system at once a few years back and this failed.  This time they're trying a new strategy; start small and add additional lines as needed.  I think that City Council would agree that Light Rail is needed.  The problem is getting agreement and funding from the rest of Hamilton County.  So until that can be addressed, Light Rail or a more comprehensive system is out.  What Cincinnati can currently realistically build is a Streetcar network, so we need to get behind this attainable goal.  Hopefully the Light Rail will follow shortly.

Train Wreck, by Kevin Osborne

 

Citing last year’s amendment approved by voters that banned red-light cameras, Haap says the charter can be changed — and changed again — to suit the mood of the electorate.

 

“These critics make a charter amendment into a bigger deal than they should,” Haap says. “Any amendment can be revoked at a later time. So it’s not like red-light cameras, for example, will be banned forever. If a group really thinks red-light cameras can save our city, they can petition to get their issue on the ballot and change the charter.”

 

No, No, No, No, NO. The charter is Cincinnati's constitution. Sure, any ammendment can be revoked, but the fact is they shouldn't be there in the first place, and getting them revoked is a MUCH harder task then putting them on. What you're doing is tying the hands of the ELECTED officials of this city.

 

How in the HELL are they supposed to get anything done when all your group of merry men has to do is find 6,000 nuts to sign your petition? And then proceed to run a fear-based campaign against the street car before the vote?

 

Haap, what is your ultimate goal? Honestly. Because right now it looks like it is either one of two things:

 

a.) to make a name for yourself

b.) to make sure this city can NEVER compete for the best and brightest

 

So are you upset that we don't have red light cameras?  (Or is that part of the campaign against the car?)

 

The truth is that this public safety issue was raised in the Finance Committee as a money raising strategy.  That is inappropriate, and an abusive use of government.  If you agree, you see the power of a petition.  If you wish we had red light cameras, then we have  fundamental disagreement on how things work.

I think the reason you may have seen some pushback on these is because they are not what is being proposed, yet they are what the local news typically shows footage of.  It's an accuracy thing.

 

OK, thanks, I wasn't aware of the local media coverage since I'm up in Dayton. 

 

As for streetcars/light rail I was famliar with the one in Sacramento.  When it was built the bus system was rearranged to take advantage of the line as feeder lines, and the streetcar became sort of a crosstown route.

 

Rail transit became an issue in the LA area, however.  The issue (as I remember it) was there was that the opinion was a lot of money was being spent on a subway that would serve a gentrifying/tourist corridor between LA and Hollywood at the expense of additional equipment and service improvements for the LA bus system, which was seeing heavy use (LA apparently has a large carless population due to immigration).  So the benefit of that subway was seen as limited and the people who actually did use public transit felt shortchanged. 

 

I think this equity issue is a legitimate issue, which is one reason I was concerned about costs.  This would be a very big issue in Dayton as the local transity authority, RTA, has repeatedly cut service and raised fairs just to keep a basic system going.

 

Apparently this has not come up as an issue in Cincinnati yet, maybe because the funding and operating issues havn't been worked out.  But I can see this as the most legtimate issue opponets would have against a streetcar.  Except, in the case of the  one in Cincy, it would serve poorer and minority areas as well as downtown and the UC area.

 

 

 

 

 

 

At lunch today I was thinking about The Green Party's coal argument. Well, if coal is so evil, then they would be opposed to any and all new construction in the Cincinnati area. They would be opposed to vacant buildings in Over-the-Rhine being redeveloped and the electricity restored. So if the Dean's biodiesel trolley did in fact spur redevelopment of vacant buildings and new construction in Over-the-Rhine, it would be causing more air pollution via our evil coal power plants.

 

So Dean, the coal & biodiesel argument just ended. I didn't think of it at the debate, because I was so flabbergasted by it, or else I would have asked about it in the Q&A period. If you bring it up on the internet or in public again, brace for a round of laughter and further damage to your credibility.  

 

New construction needs to tap into better energy saving strategies, like geo-thermal systems for heating and cooling, for example.

 

Presumably, all people need a place to live.  If new construction and renovation as part of redevelopment accomplish this, then that is a net gain for the environment.

 

Try again.

I listened to the Bearcat broadcast.. The first 15 minutes were a total waste of time.  Haag was lecturing about where electricity comes from to an urban sustainabilty  forum..  :lol: friggin hilarious.. Thanks for wasting our time!   Good job Mr Schneider.

 

 

 

Two points:

 

1.  It seems many of you still struggle to understand the implication of coal burning.  Earlier on this strand, someone admitted coal burning was worse, but at least it was "somewhere else."  How absurd!

 

2.  Since it was recorded and is now online, it was for a broad audience.  Besides, it was just a story.  The real joke was Schneider's slide show, as if staged pictures prove a point.

Train Wreck, by Kevin Osborne

 

Citing last year’s amendment approved by voters that banned red-light cameras, Haap says the charter can be changed — and changed again — to suit the mood of the electorate.

 

“These critics make a charter amendment into a bigger deal than they should,” Haap says. “Any amendment can be revoked at a later time. So it’s not like red-light cameras, for example, will be banned forever. If a group really thinks red-light cameras can save our city, they can petition to get their issue on the ballot and change the charter.”

 

No, No, No, No, NO. The charter is Cincinnati's constitution. Sure, any ammendment can be revoked, but the fact is they shouldn't be there in the first place, and getting them revoked is a MUCH harder task then putting them on. What you're doing is tying the hands of the ELECTED officials of this city.

 

How in the HELL are they supposed to get anything done when all your group of merry men has to do is find 6,000 nuts to sign your petition? And then proceed to run a fear-based campaign against the street car before the vote?

 

Haap, what is your ultimate goal? Honestly. Because right now it looks like it is either one of two things:

 

a.) to make a name for yourself

b.) to make sure this city can NEVER compete for the best and brightest

 

I agree 100%      I listened to the entire Bearcat broadcast!      Haag, your way out of your element and your doing more harm to your name and credibility (if you had any).  It has become BLATENTLY OBVIOUS that you, COAST, and NAACP are not very informed on the subject and are using this just for political purposes and PERSONAL GAIN AND NOT TO MAKE CINCY ANY BETTER.

 

Coal???????????    WTF?????????????  That's all you can come up with?  Get out of town and SEE the world.  Broaden your horizons.  You might just be enlightened!!

 

 

Yes, coal. Something you don't understand about the tax on the environment from burning coal?

^The cost-benefit of modern streetcar beats light rail in the downtown/uptown area.  Light rail does not begin to attract significantly higher ridership within downtown and uptown without significant and very expensive extensions into the suburbs.  The Mt. Auburn tunnel alone would cost more than Phase 1 of the streetcar.   

 

In short, to built a light rail line between downtown and Findlay Market would offer no additional ridership but much higher capital costs.  Light rail between downtown and UC would not attract more ridership than modern streetcar either. 

^^Shouldn't you be going after the energy companies then?

 

Do you knock on people's doors in the middle of the night to tell them they should turn their porch light OFF because they are consuming coal?

 

I'll ask this as diplomatically as I can!

 

      DO YOU REALIZE HOW F'n STUPID YOU SOUND?

 

 

Dean, what do you have to say about the Chevy Volt?  Are electric cars increasing our carbon footprint by moving us from gas to coal?

What about the massive amount of energy consumed by the gasoline refineries? Fueling stations? Automobile dealerships? Automobile manufacturers?

^^Shouldn't you be going after the energy companies?

 

Do you knock on peoples doors in the middle of the night to tell them they should turn their porch light off because they are consuming coal?

 

Comments like this are why people on the outside of the debate will side against the streetcar dogmatists.

 

Look, I understand I have walked into the echo chamber by coming on this board.  No one here will consider alternatives.  Your minds are made, and no information can change your position. 

 

For a mind experiment, consider listing what sorts of information might cause you to change your mind. 

 

Here is what will cause me to reconsider:

 

1.  Show me a streetcar plan that does not put out more CO2 than gasoline.  My numbers were for straight gasoline -- the worst of the worst, and it's still better than coal.  Bio-fuels are better, especially depending on the mix.  Switch grass and grease is better than corn, for example.

 

2.  Show me, in concrete terms, any example where development followed a rail line WITHOUT government subsidies for that very development.  If you cannot do this, stop insisting that the development was due EXCLUSIVELY to the rail line.  We can bring development with subsidies alone. 

 

3.  I keep saying that, for me, there are three key concepts for sustainability:  environmental, economic, and social.  We touched on the first, and briefly on the second.  I think justifying an expenditure in the millions of dollars should be juxtaposed with the kinds of services the City keeps shutting down -- like health clinics for the poor, or swimming pools in poor neighborhoods.  I think basic services like these are part of our moral responsibility.  And I'm not sure how to justify the price tag of this plan when I know how these other things get the ax.  You may be tempted to tell me that, at some undetermined future time, the streetcar will have made it so there is enough development to feed back into the tax base to fund these very things.  I've heard that story before.  With Convergys.  With the stadium tax.  I think people struggling don't want to wait around for The Next Big Fix to come during some undetermined future time.  The truth is that time doesn't come, time and time again.  This is also the story people on the ground hear when collecting signatures.

 

Again, those have been my three key points.  I could go on, but you should be able to get the drift.  It's just deductive.

 

The broad population, beyond this echo chamber, sound more like me than you.  Instead of yelling at me, get used to the fact and learn how to engage us.  Don't yell at us for not engaging you satisfactorily.  Do you think insulting us will help?  If you want us to stop our behavior, is this a strategy for doing it? 

 

I think you need to convince people like me that you are right, not this constant barrage of insults and character attacks.  It will only reinforce momentum against your positions -- which, so far, seem quite indefensible.  Or, should I say, you keep not defending them.

^YAWNING!!!!   

 

Dude, seriously find a tree hugger site and go to town!    You've highjacked this site for too long and have worn out your welcome.  Your not even making sense! 

 

Your wasting all of our time AGAIN and now one of the MOD's will have to use even that much more coal burning electricity and go back and clean this thread up.

I want to move out of la-la land.  Trying to make this city a place worth living is the definition of insanity because of people like Bill Cunningham and people like the Dean. Nothing will ever be satisfactory.  There will alwasy be huge problems with ANY development.  Always.

 

And for the record, i'm part of that young professional crowd that the city should be after.  But if you are driving me out, I can only imagine how many more there are like me...

>The Next Big Fix

 

When the city shut down our streetcar system in the 1950's, it was like them shutting off the water (or dare I say electricity) to the neighborhood business districts.  The free(?)ways bypassed them and suburban shopping centers could build parking lots on corn fields instead of having to demolish surrounding buildings.  The decision to make roads exclusively for cars and and to not toll bridges and expressways is central to any discussion of postwar American cities.   

 

I suspect that your campaign against mass transit is to compensate for your own suburb-to-suburb commute.  How did you get to the debate?  By car, bus, or bicycle? 

 

>The Next Big Fix

 

When the city shut down our streetcar system in the 1950's, it was like them shutting off the water (or dare I say electricity) to the neighborhood business districts. The free(?)ways bypassed them and suburban shopping centers could build parking lots on corn fields instead of having to demolish surrounding buildings. The decision to make roads exclusively for cars and and to not toll bridges and expressways is central to any discussion of postwar American cities.  

 

I suspect that your campaign against mass transit is to compensate for your own suburb-to-suburb commute. How did you get to the debate? By car, bus, or bicycle?

 

What are you talking about?  Are you on a campaign against the car?  Newsflash - we have them now.  Let's talk about serving the society that exists, not the utopia in your imagination.

I want to move out of la-la land. Trying to make this city a place worth living is the definition of insanity because of people like Bill Cunningham and people like the Dean. Nothing will ever be satisfactory. There will alwasy be huge problems with ANY development. Always.

 

And for the record, i'm part of that young professional crowd that the city should be after. But if you are driving me out, I can only imagine how many more there are like me...

 

And for the record -- if you want the rest of us to care about whether you stay here or not, stop stomping your feet and throwing a tantrum when things don't go your way.

 

Look (not that you care), but I did not run away from the City to live in West Chester.  I'm here.  I'm staying here.  I decided I cared about my City and I have made it a home.  So I think I have a bit more at stake than some people with no roots, no investment, who can just haul off and leave on a whim.

1.  It seems many of you still struggle to understand the implication of coal burning.  Earlier on this strand, someone admitted coal burning was worse, but at least it was "somewhere else."  How absurd!

 

I believe you're referring to me, and if so, I did nothing of the sort.  Here's what I ACTUALLY said:

 

...They (Biodiesel Buses) are only a modest improvement on emissions (and I'd argue that they are less of an improvement than the streetcar, because their emissions are right in the public's faces on the street, not somewhere away from the city)...

 

Please stop misquoting.  I said nothing of streetcars being worse.  Assuming that a streetcar and biodiesel bus did emit an identical number of emissions, clearly it's better to not have them spewed directly into the lungs of passengers and pedestrians.

 

 

 

 

Look, I understand I have walked into the echo chamber by coming on this board.  No one here will consider alternatives.  Your minds are made, and no information can change your position.

 

 

Really?  Then what do you call posts like the following?  I understand that you've partially addressed these questions in your most recent post, and I appreciate that.  But please don't pretend that we're closed minded and not trying to address the concerns that opponents may have:

 

Also dean and Jeffrey, what (if anything) about the current proposal could be altered to make it better suit your goals for the city?  By this, I mean realistic alterations of the streetcar proposal currently on deck, not "don't build it", "add buses", or "build light rail instead".  We're not going to get many opportunities to add rail of any kind, so it's critically important that we take advantage of the one we have right now, particularly with the country beginning to finally turn back to the cities and rail transit.  What if a different power soure or funding method were to be found?  Vintage-style cars?

 

If you have no answer for this, that's fine.  Just trying to find some common ground here.  As you claim to support mass transit and other green initiatives, it seems like our two sides of this debate should be more in line than they are currently.

  I'm here.  I'm staying here.  I decided I cared about my City and I have made it a home.  So I think I have a bit more at stake than some people with no roots, no investment, who can just haul off and leave on a whim.

 

Aww come on, you should try it!

I hear California uses very little coal!

I decided I cared about my City and I have made it a home.  So I think I have a bit more at stake than some people with no roots, no investment, who can just haul off and leave on a whim.

lol Well said.

>The Next Big Fix

 

When the city shut down our streetcar system in the 1950's, it was like them shutting off the water (or dare I say electricity) to the neighborhood business districts.  The free(?)ways bypassed them and suburban shopping centers could build parking lots on corn fields instead of having to demolish surrounding buildings.  The decision to make roads exclusively for cars and and to not toll bridges and expressways is central to any discussion of postwar American cities.    

 

I suspect that your campaign against mass transit is to compensate for your own suburb-to-suburb commute.  How did you get to the debate?  By car, bus, or bicycle? 

 

What are you talking about?  Are you on a campaign against the car?  Newsflash - we have them now.  Let's talk about serving the society that exists, not the utopia in your imagination.

 

We are talking about society that exists now: One that is having to deal with horrible amounts of congestion and traffic on its highways and roadways. It has been show time and time again that adding traffic lanes to highways only serves to increase traffic and cause the same congestion to occur again. Look to I-5 in California for the extreme example of this. How do we reduce this congestion?? Provide reliable alternatives to the car. These alternatives include light rail or commuter rail, subway systems or streetcar systems. These systems should ultimately be comprehensive, but in the city of Cincinnati, we have proved in 2002, that we need to start small. This initial system would be open to expansion and inclusion of other neighborhoods as it grew.

1.  It seems many of you still struggle to understand the implication of coal burning.  Earlier on this strand, someone admitted coal burning was worse, but at least it was "somewhere else."  How absurd!

 

I believe you're referring to me, and if so, I did nothing of the sort.  Here's what I ACTUALLY said:

 

...They (Biodiesel Buses) are only a modest improvement on emissions (and I'd argue that they are less of an improvement than the streetcar, because their emissions are right in the public's faces on the street, not somewhere away from the city)...

 

Please stop misquoting.  I said nothing of streetcars being worse.  Assuming that a streetcar and biodiesel bus did emit an identical number of emissions, clearly it's better to not have them spewed directly into the lungs of passengers and pedestrians.

 

 

 

 

Look, I understand I have walked into the echo chamber by coming on this board.  No one here will consider alternatives.  Your minds are made, and no information can change your position.

 

 

Really?  Then what do you call posts like the following?  I understand that you've partially addressed these questions in your most recent post, and I appreciate that.  But please don't pretend that we're closed minded and not trying to address the concerns that opponents may have:

 

Also dean and Jeffrey, what (if anything) about the current proposal could be altered to make it better suit your goals for the city?  By this, I mean realistic alterations of the streetcar proposal currently on deck, not "don't build it", "add buses", or "build light rail instead".  We're not going to get many opportunities to add rail of any kind, so it's critically important that we take advantage of the one we have right now, particularly with the country beginning to finally turn back to the cities and rail transit.  What if a different power soure or funding method were to be found?  Vintage-style cars?

 

If you have no answer for this, that's fine.  Just trying to find some common ground here.  As you claim to support mass transit and other green initiatives, it seems like our two sides of this debate should be more in line than they are currently.

 

Whatever.  In that example, I am asked a question, then banned from giving a number of answers.  What if one of those banned answers is the one I think correct?  Should I be prevented from giving it?

 

(Hell, I'm starting to feel like I'm in chapter 6 of Plato's Republic.  Keep up the good work, Thrasymachus.)

 

Show me a streetcar plan that does not put out more CO2 than gasoline. 

 

 

Happy to.

 

Mayor Mallory's Climate Change Task Force studied this extensively using VMT and other data that were explicitly calculated by the economists who investigated the downtown leg of the Cincinnati Streetcar.

 

The reduction in CO2 caused by the decrease in Vehicle Miles Travelled due to mode shifts from car to streetcar was about 2:1. In other words, for every unit of CO2 produced by burning coal to generate electricity to power the streetcar, two units of CO2 were reduced because there was less driving.

 

Furthermore, when you start to figure-in the dense settlement patterns that are likely to develop because of the presence of the streetcar, the reductions are more like, I recall, 5:1 or 6:1 because, as Dean saw in the photos he so disparages, people start to live their everyday lives around the streetcar, livng closer to where they work, buying groceries near where they live, entertaining themselves closer to home. They live in multi-family dwellings which are inherently more energy efficient.

 

It's clear The Dean has little awareness of the subject. He is being fed talking points by rail opponents and has a very shallow understanding of what is involved.

 

It's not been pretty to see what has unfolded over the past few days. I kinda feel sorry for him.

 

 

3.  I keep saying that, for me, there are three key concepts for sustainability:  environmental, economic, and social.  We touched on the first, and briefly on the second.  I think justifying an expenditure in the millions of dollars should be juxtaposed with the kinds of services the City keeps shutting down -- like health clinics for the poor, or swimming pools in poor neighborhoods.  I think basic services like these are part of our moral responsibility.  And I'm not sure how to justify the price tag of this plan when I know how these other things get the ax.  You may be tempted to tell me that, at some undetermined future time, the streetcar will have made it so there is enough development to feed back into the tax base to fund these very things.  I've heard that story before.  With Convergys.  With the stadium tax.  I think people struggling don't want to wait around for The Next Big Fix to come during some undetermined future time.  The truth is that time doesn't come, time and time again.  This is also the story people on the ground hear when collecting signatures.

 

And we keep asking how your bus plan is more environmental, economic, and social (and I believe sustainable was one of your original concerns as well). 

 

As far as city services getting the axe, stopping the streetcar won't have any effect on that, so it's an invalid argument.  Funding doesn't come out of one enormous pot where money spent on one thing like a streetcar can just magically be used for another like a public pool.  The best chance those services have is to increase the number of residents.  Maybe the streetcar will do that.  Maybe it won't.  But not building it will do absolutely nothing, so don't blame the streetcar proposal for empty pools and closed health clinics.

 

Show me a streetcar plan that does not put out more CO2 than gasoline.

 

 

Happy to.

 

Mayor Mallory's Climate Change Task Force studied this extensively using VMT and other data that were explicitly calculated by the economists who investigated the downtown leg of the Cincinnati Streetcar.

 

The reduction in CO2 caused by the decrease in Vehicle Miles Travelled due to mode shifts from car to streetcar was about 2:1. In other words, for every unit of CO2 produced by burning coal to generate electricity to power the streetcar, two units of CO2 were reduced because there was less driving.

 

Furthermore, when you start to figure-in the dense settlement patterns that are likely to develop because of the presence of the streetcar, the reductions are more like, I recall, 5:1 or 6:1 because, as Dean saw in the photos he so disparages, people start to live their everyday lives around the streetcar, livng closer to where they work, buying groceries near where they live, entertaining themselves closer to home. They live in multi-family dwellings which are inherently more energy efficient.

 

It's clear The Dean has little awareness of the subject. He is being fed talking points by rail opponents and has a very shallow understanding of what is involved.

 

It's not been pretty to see what has unfolded over the past few days. I kinda feel sorry for him.

 

 

 

You don't make any sense.  You are offsetting the CO2 from coal burning due to people driving less.  The same would happen with a bio-fuel trolley.

Whatever. In that example, I am asked a question, then banned from giving a number of answers. What if one of those banned answers is the one I think correct? Should I be prevented from giving it?

 

(Hell, I'm starting to feel like I'm in chapter 6 of Plato's Republic. Keep up the good work, Thrasymachus.)

 

You're welcome to answer as you please.  But I was specifically looking for constructive criticism on the plan that is on the table, not pie in the sky wishes for Light Rail or the advice to not proceed at all.  I'm giving you the opportunity to take what may not be a perfect plan and make it better.  If you don't want to participate constructively, that's fine, but please don't claim that we aren't willing to accept input from those with opposing viewpoints. 

Whatever.  In that example, I am asked a question, then banned from giving a number of answers.  What if one of those banned answers is the one I think correct?  Should I be prevented from giving it?

 

(Hell, I'm starting to feel like I'm in chapter 6 of Plato's Republic.  Keep up the good work, Thrasymachus.)

 

You're welcome to answer as you please.  But I was specifically looking for constructive criticism on the plan that is on the table, not pie in the sky wishes for Light Rail or the advice to not proceed at all.  I'm giving you the opportunity to take what may not be a perfect plan and make it better.  If you don't want to participate constructively, that's fine, but please don't claim that we aren't willing to accept input from those with opposing viewpoints. 

 

You forbade the answer "add buses," which means that the idea of, say, a painted line bio-fuel tire trolley is not acceptable.  I don't understand that.

Whatever.  In that example, I am asked a question, then banned from giving a number of answers.  What if one of those banned answers is the one I think correct?  Should I be prevented from giving it?

 

(Hell, I'm starting to feel like I'm in chapter 6 of Plato's Republic.  Keep up the good work, Thrasymachus.)

 

You're welcome to answer as you please.  But I was specifically looking for constructive criticism on the plan that is on the table, not pie in the sky wishes for Light Rail or the advice to not proceed at all.  I'm giving you the opportunity to take what may not be a perfect plan and make it better.  If you don't want to participate constructively, that's fine, but please don't claim that we aren't willing to accept input from those with opposing viewpoints. 

 

You forbade the answer "add buses," which means that the idea of, say, a painted line bio-fuel tire trolley is not acceptable.  I don't understand that.

 

He is asking that you provide a MODIFICATION of the already preexisting Streetcar plan that would make it more palatable to you.

2.  Show me, in concrete terms, any example where development followed a rail line WITHOUT government subsidies for that very development.  If you cannot do this, stop insisting that the development was due EXCLUSIVELY to the rail line.  We can bring development with subsidies alone.

 

You're a smart individual and you should know that it's not that simple.  Government subsidies are often offered to make urban development financially doable as a result of the higher construction and operating costs associated with urban development.  Streetcars, or any transportation for that matter, do not affect these development costs up front.  A streetcar or light rail system that reduces vehicle dependency will reduce this demand long-term, but that will take more than the transit system, but also an overhaul to the zoning code and its associated parking requirements.

 

What good transit does is create a demand for such a product to exist.  Some government subsidies are a necessary evil in the urban development game (don't ask me, ask a financial guy for a developer/real estate investor).  Other subsidies are icing on the cake (i.e. your beloved Convergys deal or the Saks deal).  What a streetcar will specifically do in Cincinnati (as shown in the HDR Study and reaffirmed by UC Economists) is create a demand for urban living that otherwise wouldn't be there.  This new demand may indeed require subsidies for amenities like parking spaces, low-income housing inclusion, etc but the demand is created - that is the economic gain.

 

You don't make any sense.  You are offsetting the CO2 from coal burning due to people driving less.  The same would happen with a bio-fuel trolley.

 

Show me the ridership projections, economic impact studies, cost analysis, feasibility study, and cross-examination to prove this point.  The streetcar's data is there for everyone to read and has been reaffirmed by several sources.

You forbade the answer "add buses," which means that the idea of, say, a painted line bio-fuel tire trolley is not acceptable.  I don't understand that.

 

If that's your only answer, that's perfectly acceptable.  But since the proposal involves streetcars, not buses, it isn't really a suggestion for how to make the streetcar proposal better; it's a completely separate alternative that, while possibly possessing some merit, isn't a realistic alteration that we could present city council with as an enhancement to their plan.  I was hoping that you would have some input to offer regarding how to modify the proposal so that it better addresses your environmental and/or funding concerns, such as designating a power source other than coal, while still retaining the bulk of what city council has worked for so far.  Compromise, you know?  I had hoped that perhaps we had overlooked something that we could address in the near future.  But if there's no middle ground to be achieved, then I'll stop wasting my time trying to find it.  We are, for the most part, rail proponents.  We're certainly willing to entertain the idea that our plan isn't perfect and accept any suggestions you may have, but you're unlikely to convince us that buses are better than streetcars.  Sadly, I'm not quite sure what you are hoping to achieve here. 

You forbade the answer "add buses," which means that the idea of, say, a painted line bio-fuel tire trolley is not acceptable. I don't understand that.

 

If you put in a bus line that runs on bio-fuel, you're locked into that choice.  If you plug into the power grid instead, you have a limitless range of choices in terms of power generation.  They may not be everyone's favorite choices immediately, but the range is limitless.  Installing a self-contained fuel system on each vehicle eliminates future choices that may be a lot more clean/efficient than burning bio-anything.  With a train, efficiency is also gained because the vehicle need not burn any fuel just to carry the weight of the fuel itself. 

 

Also, building infrastructure beyond "painted lines" signals a more permanent commitment to the affected area.  Instead of just having more buses, which can be yanked at a moment's notice, the businesses served by a train line can count on it being there for decades-- making their store walking distance from everywhere else the tracks go.  Bus routes change all the time. 

 

Another issue is that buses carry a certain stigma that trains don't.  People who are not predisposed to try public transit are much more open to riding a train than a bus. 

>I don't understand that.

 

Well I understand that you keep going round and round and pulling rabbits out of hats until the other person gets frustrated, at which point you declare yourself the winner.  It's the strategy of a coward. 

 

You keep saying you don't understand or want to understand just like John Cranley.  And you're against everything just like John Cranley.  And you invent distractions like your biodiesel trolley just like John Cranley.  But you're not as good at any of that as John Cranley was.     

 

« Reply #5606 on: Yesterday at 06:32:02 PM » Quote Modify 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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! 

 

« Last Edit: Yesterday at 07:14:59 PM by Maximillian » 

 

Re: Cincinnati: Streetcars and light rail news

« Reply #5684 on: Today at 02:35:12 PM » Quote 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote from: Maximillian on Today at 12:06:38 PM

I listened to the Bearcat broadcast.. The first 15 minutes were a total waste of time.  Haag was lecturing about where electricity comes from to an urban sustainabilty  forum..  friggin hilarious.. Thanks for wasting our time!  Good job Mr Schneider.

 

 

 

 

Two points:

 

1.  It seems many of you still struggle to understand the implication of coal burning. Earlier on this strand, someone admitted coal burning was worse, but at least it was "somewhere else."  How absurd!

Dean, I hope you weren't referring to me.

There seems to be a couple primary issues with the streetcar that DO need to be addressed:

 

-The current plan is small-scale.  When and what will be done to A) increase the scale to the level of a true transit system, or B) clearly communicate to the public on why a centralized loop is the only thing City Hall can agree on concerning rail transit?

 

 

62,136--That’s the number of residents, according to the 2000 Census, in Downtown, Over-the-Rhine and Uptown, the neighborhoods served by the streetcar line running from the Riverfront to the Zoo in Avondale. That is the about the same number of people who live in the neighborhoods of:

 

California,

Camp Washington,

Carthage,

Columbia-Tusculum,

The East End,

East Walnut Hills,

English Woods,

Fay Apartments,

Hartwell,

Kennedy Heights,

Linwood,

Lower Price Hill,

Millvale,

Mt. Adams,

Mt. Lookout,

North Fairmount,

Queensgate,

Riverside,

Sayler Park,

Sedamsville,

South Cumminsville,

South Fairmount,

Spring Grove Village, and

Winton Hills

 

http://cincystreetcar.wordpress.com/2009/02/10/62136/#comments

 

Incidentally, many (most) of the areas you listed are in disarray and in some cases, bordering desertion.  I could have looked up the crime rate in Uptown/Downtown and it would be astounding.  You have to support city neighborhoods if you don't want them to end up like Fairmount.

Show me the ridership projections, economic impact studies, cost analysis, feasibility study, and cross-examination to prove this point.  The streetcar's data is there for everyone to read and has been reaffirmed by several sources.

 

It is clear that he has not read the data/reports.  He can, however, cite to a City Beat article.

 

The "development subsidies" argument he harkens back to is clearly a talking point designed to obfuscate rather than to reach an answer, and it has been rebuffed multiple times. Moreover I don't think he has thought it through, based on his response to the rebuttals.  I could do it for him but I don't think it's necessary to engage in any further remedial logic on these points. 

 

The "subsidies for development along the streetcar lines" argument is a red herring as well as a straw man, and is as relevant to this discussion as a debate on governmental subsidies for bio-fuels (i.e. irrelevant).  Simply put, the streetcar is a huge catalyst when mixed with the incentives.  I have not seen evidence of trolley trucks as catalysts for future development, although would be happy to review the Dean's data if he has it.  As I indicated before, nobody thinks the streetcar exists solely in a vacuum.  Clearly some developers/investors/small business owners may find incentives available, but they would never make the initial decision to access them but for the streetcar, hence the catalyst. 

 

As for as dollar amounts and cost-benefit ratios, if he has not read the studies, it's clear he doesn't plan to acknowldge them now. Don't hold (or waste) your breath.

 

What has become clear in the debate over the past few days is that the Dean's motivation and personal agenda in opposing streetcars is a little different than that which has been publicly stated.  I had a hunch when hearing the debate, but his statements and postings since then have confirmed it. Scratch the service of Smitherman's opposition and I suspect a similarly personal agenda will materialize.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You don't make any sense.  You are offsetting the CO2 from coal burning due to people driving less.  The same would happen with a bio-fuel trolley.

 

That's assuming that people would ride the biofuel trolley, correct? 

 

Do you dispute that there's an inherently different attitude with potential riders between rail transit and buses? 

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=5416+Chrysler+Drive,+detroit+michigan&sll=39.154097,-84.485507&sspn=0.058837,0.153809&g=45229&ie=UTF8&ll=42.364743,-83.055439&spn=0.007008,0.019226&z=16&iwloc=addr&layer=c&cbll=42.364964,-83.055597&panoid=xqcbozlyNNVjiQqs5BiSig&cbp=12,74.21931204037086,,0,-5.217768215140205

 

Detroit has a couple of hundred extra trolley-trucks they aren't using following a failed experiment (you can see them lined up in this streetview link).  I'm sure they are ready to deal.  Unfortunately....not a lot of buyers. They've been sitting in this lot for over 6 years.

 

But hell yeah. Let's follow the failed example of Detroit. 

Again, Biofuels are just a feel good measure. Biodiesel increases NOx emissions and leads to more smog, has a higher cost than regular diesel, the environmental costs of course or not included in the market place. Also it will compete(already is) with growing food on cropland, loss and degradation of biodiversity from crop plantations, and does not work in larger formulations during the cold months. Renewables are the answer. (to eventually power streetcar)

 

 

Detroit has a couple of hundred extra trolley-trucks they aren't using following a failed experiment

Tht's awesome!  I doubt even Jungle Jim would buy one of those!  :-D

 

^But were they diesel or biodiesel?

I'm happy to debate, but not in a chaotic format like this.

 

I see Jake and his DJ friend have said their radio program will respond to our rebuttal.  Expect a more organized and detailed list for them to refute on the air in the next day or so, to be published at The Beacon.

 

Again, keep telling everyone that you are the experts and the rest of us aren't as smart as you.  We'll see how that strategy pays off at the ballot box.

 

By the way, apparently I have read more than you think I have.  I just don't understand what some of you are talking about.  For example, one of you keeps talking about subsidies to the bio-fuel industry whenever I ask about government subsidies to development (why hasn't anyone stated a dollar amount yet?).  But why do you wish to talk about subsidies to bio-fuel?  I'm not talking about subsidies to King Coal.  It's a red herring, dropped in the  middle of accusing me of dropping red herrings.  Very weird.

 

My weekend free time is up. It's been real, guys.

http://daily.sightline.org/daily_score/archive/2009/02/10/how-transit-oriented-development-works

 

How Transit-Oriented Development Works

Posted by Eric de Place

02/10/2009 02:30 PM

And why TOD is good for economic justice and the environment.

 

 

Please also check out the responses and who made them. Some of them, including "Anna from Housing Consortium" might lead you folks in Cincinnati to some guest speakers or interviewees for radio talk shows to counter your local NAACP's illogically backward thinking.

We'll see how that strategy pays off at the ballot box.

 

You know as well as I do that this won't pass on a ballot measure, regardless of your little tirade against it.  We already know that there are enough misinformed people out there to vote it down based on the idea that it will "raise their taxes".  There is a whole other subset of people that will vote against it because they think black people will use it to attack them.  As far as i'm concerned you are about as insignificant to me as either of those before mentioned groups. 

 

Continue your little mission, and claim victory if and when it gets to a ballot measure.  Just know that it has NOTHING to do with you.

1.  Show me a streetcar plan that does not put out more CO2 than gasoline.  My numbers were for straight gasoline -- the worst of the worst, and it's still better than coal.  Bio-fuels are better, especially depending on the mix.  Switch grass and grease is better than corn, for example.

 

If you care so much about CO2 emissions (which we will realize was a fad in 15 years or so, but I'll save that for the global warming thread), lobby the coal industry to adapt clean-coal plants that capture the CO2 emissions and utilize them in algae growth which can contribute to bio-fuels.  Being against the streetcar because of coal emissions is such a roundabout way of finding an excuse it's almost laughable.

 

2.  Show me, in concrete terms, any example where development followed a rail line WITHOUT government subsidies for that very development.  If you cannot do this, stop insisting that the development was due EXCLUSIVELY to the rail line.  We can bring development with subsidies alone.

 

This is impossible because government subsidies are already in place in OTR and would, obviously, remain in place.  This is the case in many areas that have recently developed streetcars.  They are basically a concrete, physical manifestation of investment in a neighborhood, while subsidies exist on paper. 

 

3.  I keep saying that, for me, there are three key concepts for sustainability:  environmental, economic, and social.  We touched on the first, and briefly on the second.  I think justifying an expenditure in the millions of dollars should be juxtaposed with the kinds of services the City keeps shutting down -- like health clinics for the poor, or swimming pools in poor neighborhoods.  I think basic services like these are part of our moral responsibility.  And I'm not sure how to justify the price tag of this plan when I know how these other things get the ax.  You may be tempted to tell me that, at some undetermined future time, the streetcar will have made it so there is enough development to feed back into the tax base to fund these very things.  I've heard that story before.  With Convergys.  With the stadium tax.  I think people struggling don't want to wait around for The Next Big Fix to come during some undetermined future time.  The truth is that time doesn't come, time and time again.  This is also the story people on the ground hear when collecting signature

 

We have a different basic understanding of the responsibility of government.  Whatever your moral beliefs be, the government derives its power from the Constitution ultimately.  Many of the social services the city has been providing have a negative effect on what is commonly accepted as the social aspect of the sustainability ideology.  I will keep it at that, as to not get too off topic.

I'm happy to debate, but not in a chaotic format like this.

 

...

 

My weekend free time is up. It's been real, guys.

 

 

Was that a Flounce? 

 

 

>I see Jake and his DJ friend have said their radio program will respond to our rebuttal.  Expect a more organized and detailed list for them to refute on the air in the next day or so, to be published at The Beacon.

 

I don't understand where are the numbers?

 

 

>I'm not talking about subsidies to King Coal.

 

I don't understand where sitation please?

 

 

>But why do you wish to talk about subsidies to bio-fuel?

 

I'm confused subsidy Chris Bortz Nick Spencer.

 

 

>By the way, apparently I have read more than you think I have.

 

Biodiesel Trolley Convergys Matt Damon!

 

 

>Again, keep telling everyone that you are the experts and the rest of us aren't as smart as you.  We'll see how that strategy pays off at the ballot box.

 

Should I be prevented from giving it?  I'm confused?

I see Jake and his DJ friend have said their radio program will respond to our rebuttal.  Expect a more organized and detailed list for them to refute on the air in the next day or so, to be published at The Beacon.

 

Uh oh, taestell.  I think dean just threw the gauntlet down!  Hopefully Jeffrey will be the one writing that list.  He actually seems interested in discussing the merits of the proposal.  "The Dean" clearly is not.