This whole thing with the charter amendment has me flabbergasted. I have a hard time thinking through the logic that doesn't come back toward conspiracy theory. I mean back Wenstrup, push a group of candidates for the council election. It's like the stupid bug that used to infest City Council has gone systematic.

 

Is this really a battle for control of the black middle class? The Mallory's are a pretty dominating political family. Who are their enemies? Tillery? Reece? Are there some old West End Community Council battles on display here? Does Mallory have statewide enemies from his time in state legislature?

 

I can't see the downtown business crowd opposing this - PG seems fully onboard. 5/3rd is just trying to stay in business. Kroger's old boss is/was a big kahuna in 3CDC. What would the big law firms have to gain by opposing it?

 

What angle might Uncle Carl and sons have? They are getting QCS. Castellini made good money on the Banks and the Reds surely would benefit - think of the Opening Day Parade with whole team riding the streetcar to the stadium.

 

There are bitter west siders about the West End/Price Hill debacle. I don't have answers but those are the sorts of questions we need answers to.

What I find utterly baffling is seeing COAST, the local NAACP, and the local Green Party all in bed with each other over this issue. In NYC or almost any other city, the NAACP and the Greens would be the ones screaming the loudest for improved mass transit through poor neighborhoods.

 

Here in Cincy, it's the extremes against the middle, like seeing Rush Limbaugh team up with Al Sharpton and Ralph Nader to oppose something that Obama is doing with broad support.

 

I think The Dean™ and his Green Party friends are mainly a bunch of clueless attention whores (sort of like those WTO protesters who take to the streets wearing whale costumes), but Smitherman and COAST seem to have something going on that's more than just purely a marriage of convenience.

While the local Green Party is opposed to this for representation issues and clearly state that they're for light rail, the local Sierra Club is in favor of the project.  Given the history of both organizations locally I would say that the Sierra Club is a bit more respected with local environmentalists than the Green Party which barely manages to field realistic candidates in local elections.  And outside of that they don't do much else.

I thought someone posted a link to a blog awhile back that had some speculation about why Smitherman might be opposed?

 

Still, the NAACP argument would be stronger if they provided a project list of what would be hit or delayed due to streetcar funding.  The strongest argument on this is whether this will be a big boondoogle.

 

The ridership numbers for the low side are probably the realistic ones, which would mean fares around $3 to $4/trip. Would you pay that to ride a streetcar from downtown to Findlay Market?

 

 

 

 

 

A

Aside from hidden agendas the argument against the streetcar does have some good class/race justsification.

 

The line is an expensive "economic development" initiative.  Expensive to build and expensive to use.

 

In this case economic development means gentrification of OTR, pushing the poor (and black) residents out to make way for a predominentlay white middle and upper-middle-class population.  So one can see whay groups with a base in or or who support the blacks &/or the poor would oppose it.  As Ive shown fares will be high (assuming there is in O&M subsidy), so this would be a costly ride for people on lower income.

 

Its interesting no one is making these arguments, though the NAACP sort of is, behind the prioritization/allocation issue.

 

...the local Sierra Club is in favor of the project.

 

That's encouraging. The Sierra Club is arguably the oldest and most respected of American environmental groups, and I hope they'll be active in fighting this stupid charter amendment.

 

I thought someone posted a link to a blog awhile back that had some speculation about why Smitherman might be opposed?

 

The Phony Coney has a post that implies Smitherman's family has their hand in some real estate development that could have potentially received funding from the sale of the Blue Ash Airport if it weren't for the streetcar project. That would explain a marriage of convenience between COAST and the local NAACP unit over this particular issue, but Smitherman and Finney seem to have a pretty close relationship that goes beyond opposition to the streetcar. Some blogs have reported a $3000 donation from the local NAACP to COAST, and that Finney is providing pro bono legal representation to the local NAACP.

 

The ridership numbers for the low side are probably the realistic ones, which would mean fares around $3 to $4/trip. Would you pay that to ride a streetcar from downtown to Findlay Market?

 

I think I remember reading somewhere recently (sorry, can't remember where) that the streetcar fare would most likely be about $.50. IMO, a low fare is more important to the project's success than trying to maintain some arbitrary farebox recovery ratio. If the city wanted to really be progressive, they should consider making the streetcar free, at least for certain time periods such as during weekends. The project's primary financial benefits will be in the form of increased development along the route (which means more jobs, more sales tax revenue, and more property tax revenue), not from the farebox revenue.

I believe the fares being studied are free, 50¢, or $1.  There are some problems with making the fare free in some zones, because it discourages people from paying in the non-free zones.

Didn't Leslie Ghiz introduce a measure in the proposal to require the streetcar fare to be no lower than Metro's rates?  If so, now that she doesn't support the project, can we just throw that out?

What's the base Metro fare? It can't be any more than $2. I don't think charging the same fare as Metro would be a major hinderance to ridership, although cheaper is obviously better.

 

I agree that having fare zones would be problematic; things like that are difficult to enforce unless you're dealing with very low ridership, or if you have a grade-separated subway system with fare gates for entry and exit. The best solution is a simple, flat fare that applies to the entire route, with reduced-fare transfers available to/from Metro and TANK. If they want to make the streetcar free on Saturdays and Sundays to encourage off-peak ridership and bring people downtown on weekends, I'd be all in favor of it.

I just want modern "Metrocards" with either stored value or unlimited rides for a flat weekly or monthly cost.  Then, retrofit all the Metro buses to use the same system.

>Still, the NAACP argument would be stronger if they provided a project list of what would be hit or delayed due to streetcar funding. 

 

They stop short of saying that the streetcar project will take money from the city's employee pension fund, because they know that's a lie, but they certainly insinuate it.  All city money for this project will come from the capital budget.  It's impossible for any specific capital project to affect city services unless the capital budget is explicitly expanded to do so, and that's never been on the table.   

 

I'll add that one big advantage to making the streetcar free (aside from the obvious benefit of not having to pay to ride it), is that people would begin to see transit as a public service and a means to encourage urban development, rather than this ridiculous libertarian idea that it's somehow supposed to be a profit-making venture in itself.

http://cincinnati.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/stories/2009/05/25/story2.html?b=1243224000^1832459&t=printable

 

New Cincinnatians for Progress aims to stop constant referendums

Business Courier of Cincinnati - by Lucy May Senior Staff Reporter

Bruce Crippen | Courier

 

As far as Rob Richardson, Bobby Maly and Joe Spren­gard are concerned, the streetcar ballot initiative isn’t about the city’s $200 million streetcar proposal, not at all.

 

The ballot language would require a majority vote of the people before Cincinnati city government could proceed with any kind of passenger rail service or planning throughout the city. And that, they argue, could stop economic progress dead in its tracks.

 

“We can’t limit the ability of the city to even entertain different forms of transportation,” said Richardson, a lawyer who worked locally on Barack Obama’s presidential campaign. “This is really about being a city that’s economically competitive.”

I just want modern "Metrocards" with either stored value or unlimited rides for a flat weekly or monthly cost. Then, retrofit all the Metro buses to use the same system.

 

Agreed. That's the direction almost every other major transit system (NYC, Boston, Washington, Chicago) is moving... I was actually a little shocked to learn that Metro didn't already have something like that. To give it some local flavor, call it a "Piggyback Card" or something like that, with one of Jim Borgman's flying pigs as its mascot. Structure it so that it can be used on the streetcar, Metro, TANK, the Eastern Corridor, and any future light rail or subway system.

Good to see Cincinnatians for Progress getting some local ink.

 

From their latest blog:

 

Today the proponents of an anti-progress charter amendment made a series of disingenuous announcements on their petition gathering effort. The group, composed of the same old naysayers who constantly bash Cincinnati and try to impose their special interests on the rest of the City, has attempted to portray the charter amendment as a referendum on the streetcar proposal. This anti-progress charter amendment is about much more than a streetcar. It is so poorly and broadly drafted that it prohibits any improvement or investment in passenger rail in Cincinnati without an expensive and time consuming public referendum—including delays and stoppages to the proposed 3C rail in Ohio, the Eastern Corridor and the high speed inter-city rail being proposed by The President. It creates a significant barrier to progress that will handcuff our City government, send jobs and economic development to other cities and stifle transportation alternatives.

 

The anti-progress Charter Amendment is another dangerous amendment to the city’s charter, the city’s Constitution, and will eventually lead to proposition style government, which has failed miserably in California. For more information, contact Joe Sprengard at 513-309-5947 or Bobby Maly at 513-260-3463 or Robert Richardson 513-569-8393.

 

For more information on the Cincinnatians for Progress plan to keep our city moving in the right direction, please visit http://www.cincinnatiansforprogress.com/.

>Jmech - interesting name included in this group . . .

 

He's got a bit less hair than when I last saw him:

http://www.kmkconsulting.com/who_we_are/Sprengard.html

 

I think what is going to happen is that the streetcar advocates aren't even going to be the most visible when it comes to fighting this charter amendment.  The possibility of the 3C service stopping at the city limits is now possible, and there are an awful lot of people who are going to get fired up who wouldn't have otherwise.     

 

 

City Manager Dohoney discussing the streetcar project:

http://www.wlwt.com/video/19526517/

There is an annual O&M cost associated with this in a range of $1.9M,  $2.2M, and $2.4M...not including inflation?  If the fare is free this will have to be eaten.

 

Given that the study has rideship projections, on can figure in a $1 and $2 fare to see how far away the fares would be from covering the O&M costs.

 

 

The economics of this is fascinating.  Some streetcar numbers.  These are based on the 2007 HDR study linked upthread.

 

The issue is the operating and maintenance costs.  How to pay for the ongoing operations of the line.  The study had three O&M number in table 2.1;  $1.9M, $2.2M, and $2.4M.  I use the lowest number and imply three inflation rates.  We have been hovering around 2.5% to 5% in the recent past, and the higher 7.5% rate is from the 1970s.  Some over at the Recession thread are expecting higher inflation so lets show that here. 

 

 

 

So we have a range. 

 

Now lets look at some ridership numbers. Appendix A has some ridership numbers.  They have a 3100 lower number, a 4850 central number, and a 6600 upper number, and some growth rates.  I took the lower, central and upper growth rates an applied them to the lower opening year rider number to get a possible range.  I think the lower opening year number is probably conservative and realistic.

 

I multiply the daily rider number by 365 and then by the two fares that where mentioned on this thread, $1.00 and $2.00  I think .50 cents & “free” are unrealistic.

 

Here are the run for different traffic growth rates…and I show a break point where inflation overtakes revenue for the $2 fare.

 

 

 

 

Another assumption here is that the initial construction cost is 100% subsidized by TIF and grants. There is no capital costs figure in on these graphs;  what’s shown is straight O&M.

 

As you can see the $1 fare always requires some subsidy.  And the $2 fare would, too, eventually, unless it increases with inflation.  The question always is “where does the subsidy come from?”  With TIF the answer is easy as the bonds are paid back via property taxes.  Theoretically the streetcar will generate economic activity aside from increased property valuation.  Things like more residents and shoppers and workers of various types.  The operating subsidy could, in theory, be paid for by increase in income and sales tax volume due to the quickening of the economy in the basin.

 

 

 

 

Some of the fare "revenue" will occur as a result of transfers from Metro and TANK, when trips originate there and are continued on the streetcar.

 

And similarly, fare "loss" will occur when trips originate on the streetcar and are continued on Metro and TANK.

 

Treaties between Cincinnati Streetcar, Metro and TANK will be needed to sort all of this out.

 

And, in my view, if the streetcar relieves Metro of providing service, then Metro should pay Cincinnati Streetcar for that.

 

Assuming the streetcar at least gets to Findlay Market to start and later to Peebles Corner and Knowlton's Corner, it would be logical to transfer passengers from 44-passenger Metro buses to 130-passenger Cincinnati Streetcars at these points and send the buses back to the neighborhoods to get more passengers while avoiding downtown traffic. And it would be good for downtown traffic too -- one streetcar taking the place of three Metro buses.

Assuming the streetcar at least gets to Findlay Market to start and later to Peebles Corner and Knowlton's Corner, it would be logical to transfer passengers from 44-passenger Metro buses to 130-passenger Cincinnati Streetcars at these points and send the buses back to the neighborhoods to get more passengers while avoiding downtown traffic.

 

This sounds a bit like the old interurban-streetcar relationship, where there wasnt a single-seat rider into downtown. The reason for that was technological but the effect was the same: Ride in from outlying areas and transfer to a streetcar to take you into the city.

 

 

Some of the fare "revenue" will occur as a result of transfers from Metro and TANK, when trips originate there and are continued on the streetcar.

 

That study does lay in some capture rates for people using the streetcar instead of buses or cars. 

 

I am going to run some projections using the higher starting year daily rider number from the HDR study.  It's hard to forecast the future, but if there is a long trend to higher density/re-centralization due to higher gas prices, this would mean a larger pool of riders coming from the area served by the streetcar due to higher density residential construction (filling in the empy space in OTR and downtown, building conversions, and higher density replacement buildings) and recentralization of business. 

 

 

 

Additionally there are advertising and stop patronage sources of revenue to be considered. 

 

    Queen City Metro gets about 4% of its revenue from advertising, a small amount of its operating budget.

 

    I wonder if it's really worth it at all, especially since those wrapped buses with advertising on the windows cut off part of the view from inside the bus, making the ride less pleasant.

 

    Furthermore, the targeted nature of many of the ads only reinforces the stereotype that buses are for poor people.

^

 

I hope they don't wrap them. I could see where we'd let a business "own" a streetcar in the sense of naming it for them in exchange for a large contribution to the project. But consumer advertising, I dunno.

I've never seen a problem with bus/transit wraps.

 

I think there's a huge difference between a dedicated advertizing structure (like a billboard) and putting advertizing on an existing surface (a building wall, a bus, a bus stop shelter).

 

The former is a visual blight which clutters the landscape and negatively alters the urban environment. The latter - I think - can serve an an enhancement to existing structures and vehicles.

I'm not a big fan of wraps, as they block the views from inside the vehicles, and my not-so-inner socialist objects to public property being commodified into a rolling billboard. A few tasteful ads in appropriate locations are fine, as is a sign to the effect of "This streetcar stop is sponsored by Procter & Gamble", but I get nervous when transit providers see their mission as selling advertising space rather than moving passengers.

Procter is spelled with an "e".

 

Wish there was a streetcar.  It will be hell trying to park for the game with "Taste of Cincinnati" going on.

 

 

I stand corrected about the spelling of P&G's name. My point about advertising still stands, though.

Well, Jeffre and The Dean™ have apparently seen the light and (sort of) withdrawn their support of the NAACP/COAST-backed charter amendment, even as they continue to oppose the streetcar project itself.

Who else thinks that the Beacon boys didn't bother actually reading the language of the petition until today?

[raises hand]

It all starts to crumble now.

 

After riding Cleveland's RTA Red Line today...I really hope we get the streetcars and start to rethink regional light rail.

Cleveland has roughly double the transit ridership that Cincinnati's Queen City Metro & Tank have. Although they have slightly higher bus ridership, it's the rail ridership that puts them well above Cincinnati.  They have around 40,000 daily ridership on rail alone, and their rail lines have less than ideal routings and zoning in Shaker Heights that prevents dense TOD's along two of the lines.   

 

Portland's light rail system now has over 100,000 riders per work day and 300,000 total rail, bus, and streetcar riders.  That's 4-5 times what Queen City Metro & Tank attract.  But down there at Ollie's Trolly on Thursday, you had local political dinosaur Tom Luken using phrases like "dreamers" to describe rail advocates.  Someone like Tom Luken is too old to get on an airplane and see Portland for himself, but the rest of them don't have that excuse.   

 

The issue now is that so many influential people from around the country have visited Portland and seen what's possible in a short period of time and now the facts are indisputable. Portland took a huge risk with its light rail system and another huge risk with its modern streetcar line, and both have proven to be undeniable successes.  The fact that Portland is totally isolated 2,000 miles away is the reason why light rail and streetcar haven't spread more quickly, and it's certainly no coincidence that Seattle was the next city to build modern streetcar.  It's 3 hours from Portland, so say Indy or Columbus or Louisville had a massively successful rail system -- the whole midwest would be following their lead because you couldn't act like they don't exist, in the way that people here can pretend that Portland doesn't exist.   

 

 

Cleveland has roughly double the transit ridership that Cincinnati's Queen City Metro & Tank have. Although they have slightly higher bus ridership, it's the rail ridership that puts them well above Cincinnati.  They have around 40,000 daily ridership on rail alone, and their rail lines have less than ideal routings and zoning in Shaker Heights that prevents dense TOD's along two of the lines.   

 

Portland's light rail system now has over 100,000 riders per work day and 300,000 total rail, bus, and streetcar riders.  That's 4-5 times what Queen City Metro & Tank attract.  But down there at Ollie's Trolly on Thursday, you had local political dinosaur Tom Luken using phrases like "dreamers" to describe rail advocates.  Someone like Tom Luken is too old to get on an airplane and see Portland for himself, but the rest of them don't have that excuse.   

 

The issue now is that so many influential people from around the country have visited Portland and seen what's possible in a short period of time and now the facts are indisputable. Portland took a huge risk with its light rail system and another huge risk with its modern streetcar line, and both have proven to be undeniable successes.  The fact that Portland is totally isolated 2,000 miles away is the reason why light rail and streetcar haven't spread more quickly, and it's certainly no coincidence that Seattle was the next city to build modern streetcar.  It's 3 hours from Portland, so say Indy or Columbus or Louisville had a massively successful rail system -- the whole midwest would be following their lead because you couldn't act like they don't exist, in the way that people here can pretend that Portland doesn't exist.   

 

 

 

I disagree with the above statement.  Van Aken (the blue line) is lined with apartments and condos nearly the entire route, from Shaker Square to Warrensville.  Even the two blocks behind are middle class/upper middle class neighborhoods, that ride the train.

 

Right now there is a TOD project at one of the busier station, Lee Road.  Those apartments were built as the line was being built.

 

The Shaker Line (the green line) runs in front of mansions, and the three blocks, north and south of the line is nothing but mansions, so there is a density issue.  This line is used more for those commuting downtown for work and for service workers to get to their jobs.

 

The Red Lines routings today, do match where the population is.  When built it made sense, today not so much.

Thought of the Day: Say, did President Obama ever get around to answering Chris Smitherman's letter?

I'm not a big fan of wraps, as they block the views from inside the vehicles, and my not-so-inner socialist objects to public property being commodified into a rolling billboard. A few tasteful ads in appropriate locations are fine, as is a sign to the effect of "This streetcar stop is sponsored by Procter & Gamble", but I get nervous when transit providers see their mission as selling advertising space rather than moving passengers.

 

I don't like wraps because they cover the windows.  As long as they stick to advertisements on the painted surface, I'm fine with whatever.  Not ideal, but if it helps get the streetcar built, it's a small price to pay for Cincy to finally open up to rail transit.

 

Well, Jeffre and The Dean™ have apparently seen the light and (sort of) withdrawn their support of the NAACP/COAST-backed charter amendment, even as they continue to oppose the streetcar project itself.

 

Good for them.  Even though we disagree (pretty much completely), it's always good to see someone re-evaluate their stance.  I honestly don't understand how they could have supported adding something of this nature to a city charter, but I'm glad to see that they rethought that position, whatever their motivation.

 

Thought of the Day: Say, did President Obama ever get around to answering Chris Smitherman's letter?

 

LOL!  Maybe he signed their petition!

 

  "Phrases like "dreamers" to describe rail advocates."

 

    A plan without funding is just a dream. Portland was able to come up with the funding. So far, Cincinnati has not been able to, even though we had plans as far back as 1975, not to mention the uncompleted subway and an extensive streetcar history before 1950.

 

    The Eastern Corridor, the Kingsport Light Rail, the Metro Moves, and a number of other plans have all fallen by the wayside. The Over-the-Rhine loop was, in my opinion, the best plan that has been presented in a long time. Why? Because it was small enough to be manageable. It is my opinion that connecting this plan with a plan to expand to the U.C. area made it unmanageable.

 

    Cincinnati DOES have an example of rail that does not get much mention: the airport train. Granted, it is a short system, but people DO use it. Why do they use it? It is the best option. It is faster than walking.

 

    How did the airport train get built? Well, it was owned by the airport, and the airport board decided to build it. There was no tax levy, no ballot issue, and no advocates or opposition group. There certainly were engineering cost estimates and feasibility studies. In short, there was leadership.

 

    A loop in Over-the-Rhine is a tough sell in part because there are many property owners. If those owners could organize, maybe it would happen.

 

    Or maybe if U.C. would be the lead advocate, it might happen. For years U.C. has been looking for a way to connect the east campus to the west, and in the 1990's there was talk of a pedestrian tunnel underneath the sprawly mess of motorways at Jefferson and M.L.King. A  rail line which just one vehicle that went forward and reverse on a single track with just two stops would probably be viable, and it might even be simple enough to be automated, which will save tremendously on operating cost.

 

    Or, a streetcar from U.C. to Knowlton's Corner might be viable. Buses on that route are often overcrowded, and I've seen people turned away.

 

    Either of these routes might be better than a route between downtown and U.C., and might get more support than a route through Over-the-Rhine.

 

    A neighborhood is either stable, improving, or declining. It is easiest to invest in an improving neighborhood. Investing in a declining neighborhood is a tough sell. Folks on this board will tell you that Over-the-Rhine is improving, but the general opinion is that it is declining. The U.C. area is definintely improving.

 

   

 

     

I don't know if this has been posted here yet, but the nycsubway.org site has a nice page about the Portland streetcar, with a brief history and over a hundred photos.

 

I thought this tidbit was interesting:

 

Streetcar operations and construction are funded by fares, an annual contribution from TriMet, a special taxation zone along the route, car and station sponsorship, and parking meter revenues. The special taxation district was created by business owners along the route whom actually volunteered and petitioned to be taxed.

 

Portland Streetcar

 

ETA: world.nycsubway.org has descriptions and thousands of photos of subway, light rail, streetcar, and commuter rail systems all over the world.

The fact that Portland has a streetcar is no reason Cincinnati should.

^Did you stay up late thinking that up?  What other stuff do you have at the ready? 

Spare me your criticism.  Portland is the weakest example you have.

I love the fact that the anti-transit people say that not enough data or information has been gathered for the streetcar.  Then when you point out the fact that more than one economic impact study has been done, numerous case studies and visits, ridership analysis, operating costs, construction costs, etc they quickly then say that those reports are somehow flawed and can't be trusted.

 

It's a win, win for them.  They just keep saying more information and studies are needed until they successfully delay the project or surround it with so much contrived doubt that it collapses under its own weight.

 

Portland is a fine case study to use given that its the closest system to what is being proposed here in Cincinnati.  Their urban form is remarkably similar to Cincinnati and the route being proposed here is very similar to what was built in Portland.  Obviously there are demographic differences between the two cities and one has a heavy amount of bicyclists and a light rail system.  These things have been adjusted for in the comparisons and noted accordingly.  No one is projecting an exact replica of what has happened in Portland, or Kenosha, or Tampa and so on.  Each are different cities with different variables...and these have been accounted for.  I don't know what else you really want at this point, care to share DanB?

 

It's a win, win for them.  They just keep saying more information and studies are needed until they successfully delay the project or surround it with so much contrived doubt that it collapses under its own weight.

 

 

Yep, that's what they do: discredit, dissemble, delay. Meanwhile, I think it's interesting that in the case of our region's highest transportation priority, a replacement of the Brent Spence Bridge, no one has even bothered to calculate the Present Value of that project's Net Benefits. It would make an interesting comparision.

Portland also has an NBA franchise.  I guess we should get one too! 

^That's not the same thing and you know it, but I'll ask the same question.  After the numerous studies that adjust for the differences between the various other cities examined, what else could be done to better study the matter at this point?  What is needed from your perspective to make a reasonable analysis, or is there anything?

 

The fact is that Cincinnati didn't say, "oh Portland has this and Portland is cool so we should do it too."  What happened is that there has been extensive research into making rail transit reality in Cincinnati over the past several decades and through that analysis we have looked at a variety of case studies which is pretty typical for anything you study.

 

    In my humble opinion, the argument about the Over-the-Rhine streetcar loop is this:

 

    Over-the-Rhine does not presently have the population base to support a streetcar.

 

    The feasibility study has shown that IF Over-the-Rhine were re-developed, then Over-the-Rhine WOULD have the population base to support a streetcar.

 

    Furthermore, the streetcar would be a factor in helping the development of Over-the-Rhine.

 

    Assuming that the streetcar were built, and Over-the-Rhine is simulataneously re-developed, then everyone would be happy, and the residents of Over-the-Rhine would support the streetcar.

 

    But these future residents are not there NOW to support the streetcar.

 

    You can't build something on the assumption of future support, unless someone with cash on hand is willing to take the risk. So far, no one has come up with the cash; not the City of Cincinnati, not the streetcar fans, not the property owners, not the feds or any other government jurisdiction, not the University of Cincinnati, and not some corporate sponsor.

 

    Maybe a route in some other area might get more support, or maybe the Over-the-Rhine loop, as short as it is, is still too long.

 

    The ideal route from a construction cost, operations, and maintenance standpoint is one of ultimate simplicity. The airport didn't try to build a route from the airport to downtown. They didn't even try to build a route connecting their terminal to their parking lots. They built a route connecting their concourses. It is straight-line simple. It is automated. It is free. People use it.

 

      The feasibility study for the Over-the-Rhine loop is founded on the assumption that if you build it, they will come. Maybe they will, and maybe they won't. I don't know. We won't know unless we build it. But at least we can assume that the streetcar will be a success if the assumptions are met.

 

    I can't say the same for the U.C. extention. Correct me if I'm wrong, but we don't even have a feasibility study. If there is one, I haven't seen it. Tying the Over-the-Rhine loop to the U.C. extension made the project enormously more complicated, not just in technical details but in the nature of the political support. U.C. may, in fact, be willing to spend some cash to improve access to their campus; U.C. is probably less likely to spend some cash to subsidize improvements in Over-the-Rhine.

 

      Why don't the Urban Ohio forumers do it the old fashioned way and form a corporation, raise funds, and build the streetcar? There is enough talent on this board to get the job done. Equipment manufacturers will help you with the technical challenges. That's the easy part. The hard part is getting the support.

 

    A plan without funding is just a dream.

 

   

"What else could be done to better study the matter at this point?"

 

Just build it, or build a smaller project.

 

Build a streetcar from the Broadway Commons parking lot to some point downtown. Build just a few blocks. Cut the cost down from $100 million to $20 million or less. See if it works.

 

Build a streetcar from the Boathouse to the football stadium. There is already a right-of-way available. Think of it as a parking shuttle. Certainly people will pay $2.00 to ride the streetcar if they can save $12 on parking.

 

Build a circulator from one end of Fourth Street to the other.

 

Build a circulator from downtown to Newport over the L&N bridge.

 

Build a circulator along the Riverfront in Covington.

 

Build a short line from U.C. east to west campus.

 

Save costs by towing a diesel generator. Upgrade to overhead electric wires later.

 

There are lots of opportunities for short routes. Maybe the Over-the-Rhine loop is already to large to build as a first step. If it is successful then everyone will want one. If it's not successful, then we aren't out $100 million.

 

 

 

Hey DanB, a friendly suggestion for another Mencken quote for your sig line, just for context:

 

“A cynic is a man who, when he smells flowers, looks around for a coffin.”

- Henry Louis Mencken

 

People can disagree with an economic analysis on the grounds that it does not benefit them personally in the same way.  We are assuming a lot when we assume that maximizing society-wide net economic benefits is an objective that everyone has bought in to.  My main problem with the detractors is that they can't be honest, and simply say that they don't like the streetcar proposal because they personally like their car and want to continue riding on quality asphalt, and think that benefits for society are pointless to discuss, cause society doesn't deserve them as much as they do.

I like the way you think, but then again, I haven't been drinking the streetcar Kool-aid.

^Why is it "drinking the kool-aid?"  Why is it not that many people have done the research, looked into the detailed reports and come up with their own conclusions on the topic?

 

Have you read the numerous reports, visited other cities with streetcars and/or rail transit or done any research on the matter?  If you have, where specifically have the Cincinnati Streetcar reports, case studies and data gone wrong?  How could they be improved upon and how should this be done?

 

I look forward to hearing some constructive criticism.  Otherwise it sounds like you've just drunk the anti-streetcar kool-aid being passed around by the 700 WLW folks and others.