Randy, in the real world, all the studies mean nothing until the work is done.  Again, its $100 million with the hope it will regenerate a neighborhood and increase the property values for Mr. Schneider and those he represents.

 

Sort of like P&G doing a study for a new product.  All the data will say that such and such will be the greatest selling product since sliced bread.  They spend the money and then find no one buys the product.  Happens all the time.

 

Jim,  I'm not against it because it doesn't benefit me, actually I would be all for it with the right circumstances.  I like some of the ideas proposed by "8th and State".  Something smaller to start, where the cars would be packed and people would be screaming for it to be expanded.

 

    The feasibility study assumes a number of NEW residents that will be drawn to Over-the-Rhine because of the streetcar. This is a weak point in the study. It is an assumption that cannot be verified prior to construction.

 

    I do not have any problem with the study. The assumptions are clearly stated.

 

    If you support the streetcar, what you are saying is that you believe that new residents will move to Over-the-Rhine because of the streetcar.

 

    For those who do not believe this, it is difficult to support the streetcar, even though streetcars are effective in other places.

 

   

 

 

 

   

Sort of like P&G doing a study for a new product.  All the data will say that such and such will be the greatest selling product since sliced bread.  They spend the money and then find no one buys the product.  Happens all the time.

 

Yea, and other times, the product is a wild success.  Its called 'risk.'  And the streetcar in Cincinnati is an exceptionally calculated risk.  What are you proposing...steady state because things are too 'risky?'  That mindset is what plagues Cincinnati and the Midwest and only holds us back.  We must do things to make the city better...doing things involve taking risks, making decisions, trying new things.  If you don't know that, you don't know anything. 

What are you proposing...steady state because things are too 'risky?'

 

Do you even bother reading?  Some of the suggestions by Eighth and State would be perfect.  Why do other ideas scare you so?

Randy, in the real world, all the studies mean nothing until the work is done.  Again, its $100 million with the hope it will regenerate a neighborhood and increase the property values for Mr. Schneider and those he represents.

 

Well thanks for enlightening me about how the "real world" works...the kool-aid I've obviously been drinking is starting to wear off now with this enlightenment.  I'd also like to thank you for dodging my question for the second time.

 

Sort of like P&G doing a study for a new product.  All the data will say that such and such will be the greatest selling product since sliced bread.  They spend the money and then find no one buys the product.  Happens all the time.

 

Err, not quite.  The studies conducted regarding the streetcar weren't done by the streetcar proponents.  The economic study was challenged by many, including yourself, and has since been verified by a third party as being accurate in its findings.  This hardly compares to internal market studies done by a consumer products company on one of their own products.  Try again.

 

    It is easier to risk other people's money than one's own.

 

    Certainly we live in a society that is part socialist. Government provides a lot of services where the cost is spread among all. Our government is less socialist than the governments of many European countries.

 

    The Over-the-Rhine streetcar is a socialist concept. That is not necessarily bad. If it truly works, providing a net benefit to all, then it should be built. Many infrastructure projects have a positive net benefit. It is a calculated risk, and the feasibilty study has attempted to estimate the cost and benefit.

 

    What it comes down to is the assumption that new residents will move to Over-the-Rhine because of the streetcar. The feasibilty study states this assumption. If you believe this assumption, then you will support the streetcar. If you don't belive this assumption, that doesn't necessarily mean that the entire study is bad. It just means that you think that the assumptions used in the study are not valid, and therefore, the results of the study are not valid.

 

    If you believe this assumption, you should be willing to risk your own money, not someone else's.

 

    Asking someone who does not believe that the streetcar will provide a net social benefit to participate in a plan to fund the streetcar is a tough sell. Please do not fault them for their beliefs.

 

   

 

 

 

   

 

Err, not quite.  The studies conducted regarding the streetcar weren't done by the streetcar proponents.  The economic study was challenged by many, including yourself, and has since been verified by a third party as being accurate in its findings.  This hardly compares to internal market studies done by a consumer products company on one of their own products.  Try again.

 

Thank you for proving my point.  You don't have any idea how the real world works.

 

Err, not quite.  The studies conducted regarding the streetcar weren't done by the streetcar proponents.  The economic study was challenged by many, including yourself, and has since been verified by a third party as being accurate in its findings.  This hardly compares to internal market studies done by a consumer products company on one of their own products.  Try again.

 

Thank you for proving my point.  You don't have any idea how the real world works.

 

How did I prove you point?  Are the two actually the same, if so please explain how.  Also I would like to say since you don't know me, what I do for a living, or who I am as a person that you don't make generalizations and assumptions about me or my understanding of the world.  I think if you did know any of the above that you might actually be surprised at my understandings of the "real world."

I think its pretty clear there is a pent up demand in urban, downtown living in this city.  This can be seen in the success of the Gateway Quarter and the fact that something like 90% + of apartments in downtown are occupied  The only problem is the majority of what is out there is out of most peoples price range.  What the streetcar does is allow some units to be built with only 1 parking space per unit or maybe 0 per unit, making projects much more feasible for the developer and affordable for the buyer/renter because the additional $50,000 cost of a structured parking space is no longer a part of the cost to buy.  So I think it is a reasonable assumption that more people would move to OTR if there was a streetcar. 

 

Err, not quite.  The studies conducted regarding the streetcar weren't done by the streetcar proponents.  The economic study was challenged by many, including yourself, and has since been verified by a third party as being accurate in its findings.  This hardly compares to internal market studies done by a consumer products company on one of their own products.  Try again.

 

Thank you for proving my point.  You don't have any idea how the real world works.

 

How did I prove you point?  Are the two actually the same, if so please explain how.  Also I would like to say since you don't know me, what I do for a living, or who I am as a person that you don't make generalizations and assumptions about me or my understanding of the world.  I think if you did know any of the above that you might actually be surprised at my understandings of the "real world."

 

And by DanB stating that you don't undestand the real world, there is an assumption by him that he does.  I wouldn't take this assumption as fact, as everything he has said on this board points to the contrary. 

Randy, you make your whole world an open book by what you post.  You think you know everything, you think you are the expert on everything.  You won't even consider someone else's opinion because the "studies" tell you so.  In your world, every architect of the 50's through 80's was wrong, every planner was an idiot.  You alone have all the answers, and can fix everything.

Randy, you make your whole world an open book by what you post.  You think you know everything, you think you are the expert on everything.  You won't even consider someone else's opinion because the "studies" tell you so.  In your world, every architect of the 50's through 80's was wrong, every planner was an idiot.  You alone have all the answers, and can fix everything.

 

A place like OTR is his oyster.  There is nothing wrong with that.  Just because its the object of negativity for you doesn't mean you have a better understanding of the real world than he.  It simply means he is an optimist and you are not. 

Doesn't make my opinion any less valid than his.

Doesn't make my opinion any less valid than his.

 

Fine, then admit his isn't any less valid than yours, something you claim by saying he has no understanding of the real world. 

 

But having said that, what is your opinion based off?  What real world experience or example can you cite that gives validity to your point of view with regard to the streetcar?  Randy's point of view atleast has underpinning with regard to the numerous feasibility studies conducted, examples of successful streetcars in other cities, and general market trends toward urban, sustainable living. 

^Sadly, several of us have been asking DanB for specifics for quite a while now and have gotten little besides "my opinion is valid".  I'd love to hear more about a rail system he would actually support or how he would (realisitically) improve the current streetcar plan, but I don't expect that we will.

Randy, you make your whole world an open book by what you post. You think you know everything, you think you are the expert on everything. You won't even consider someone else's opinion because the "studies" tell you so. In your world, every architect of the 50's through 80's was wrong, every planner was an idiot. You alone have all the answers, and can fix everything.

 

This is not true, and once again, if you actually knew me you would know this.

 

My perspective on life is to base my opinions on sound logic and information at my disposal. At this point, regarding the streetcar, I base my stance on the best information made available. So far we have several studies and reports that allow someone to come up with their own opinion and I have done so. I am unapologetic for doing the necessary research to come up with my opinion that differs from yours. I have asked a number of times if you have read the reports and done your own research that differs from the conclusions that have come up here. If you have I look forward to hearing about them.

 

In the mean time I feel confident in my position based off of my formal education, personal experiences/travels and the information I've read in related reports like GO Cincinnati, CPAP, Streetcar Feasibility Study, Streetcar Economic Report and similar reports done elsewhere used as case studies and benchmarks.  Have you read these reports?  Have you traveled to other cities that have operating streetcar systems?  What is your formal education?  I am an open book and I put my information out there for people like you to challenge...and by simply saying that I don't understand the real world or am somehow drinking the kool-aid without providing any evidence to support your claims doesn't do the trick.  Like I said, try again.

    DanB said:

 

    "I like some of the ideas proposed by "8th and State".  Something smaller to start, where the cars would be packed and people would be screaming for it to be expanded."

 

    Sounds specific enough to me. Plus, I like the fact that he appreciated my ideas. Thanks, DanB. 

    DanB said:

 

    "I like some of the ideas proposed by "8th and State".  Something smaller to start, where the cars would be packed and people would be screaming for it to be expanded."

 

    Sounds specific enough to me. Plus, I like the fact that he appreciated my ideas. Thanks, DanB. 

 

Really isn't specific.  But what is the route he is proposing, why is the current one too big, what are some examples of other places that have taken a similar approach?  What is the basis for thinking this way?  This is the issue I have.  If you are going to naysay and demand your opinion be considered valid, then you must have valid arguments, valid facts, and valid reasoning as your basis to your opinion.  This is how the real world works. 

Here they are again:

 

  A route from the Broadway Commons parking lot to some point downtown.

 

  A route from the boathouse to the football stadium, on existing right-of-way.

 

  A circulator from one end of Fourth Street to the other.

 

  A circulator between the U.C. east and west campus.

 

  A circulator along the Riverfront in Covington.

 

  A circulator between Downtown and Newport over the L&N bridge.

Well thanks for the repeat, but that wasn't my point...at all. 

 

But....what is the basis of these routes?  Are there a lot of economic development opportunities along these lines, TOD opportunities maybe? 

^^I'm not sure what the point of many of those routes would be.  The ones that make more sense than the others aren't all that cheap as you mentioned as being one of the primary benefits.  For example, running a line from Downtown Cincinnati to Newport would probably cost around $50M at the low end.  A Nky circulator between Covington and Newport would start around $60M.

 

Why run a streetcar from the Montgomery Inn Boathouse to the football stadium?  Why run a streetcar from one end of Fourth Street to the other?  I understand the rationale behind the other routes, but these I just don't get.  These are the smallest and most inexpensive of the ones you presented, but seem to also offer very little in terms of going from one point to the next.

 

You cite that the OTR routing for the current proposal is purely based on population gains in that neighborhood and I would say that's only true in part as there are current destinations along the route through OTR that will generate a base ridership number.  The other main criticism I thought was that the current route doesn't connect enough, so what is the rationale behind going smaller and connecting even less?  Is it just that it's less money?

 

    The basis of these routes is that they are buildable and manageable, hopefully for under $100 million, and will attract a higher number of riders in proportion to construction and operating cost.

 

    The Over-the-Rhine loop feasibility study has these numbers:

 

    3.9 miles of track

    18 stops

    6 vehicles

    1 maintenance facility

    Operating cost $2.0 to $2.8 million annually.

    4,600 daily riders at $0.50 fare.

    Construction cost with inflation to 2010 is $102 million.

 

    Using these numbers, the fares will cover about 40% of the operating cost.

 

    Now, alternatively, one of these other routes might have these numbers, which I am making up:

 

    1 mile track

    3 stops

    2 vehicles (one operating, one spare)

    maintenance facility

    2000 daily riders at $0.50 fare

    Cost $20 million

    Operating cost $500,000 per year.

 

    In this case, the fares would cover 70% of the operating cost, and construction costs would be one fifth as much. It will be much easier to come up with $20 million than $100 million. A short line has a much greater chance of being built, and will provide much needed data to use on any later lines.

 

    The boathouse to football stadium route is basicly already there! Just finish the trackwork and put a vehicle on it. What have we got to lose?

 

    As for economic development, improved access can only help. There are plenty of parking lots pretty much everywhere.

   

The economic study was challenged by many, including yourself, and has since been verified by a third party as being accurate in its findings.

 

 

Is this is the HDR study?

 

 

^You can download the report here:

http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/city/downloads/city_pdf34212.pdf

 

If you want any of the other reports or other pieces of information, there is a full list of everything right here:

http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/pages/-17762-/

But, yeah this is risky.  Still I think the Findlay Marekt to the river and back is a good starter line.

 

What it comes down to is the assumption that new residents will move to Over-the-Rhine because of the streetcar. The feasibilty study states this assumption. If you believe this assumption, then you will support the streetcar. If you don't belive this assumption, that doesn't necessarily mean that the entire study is bad. It just means that you think that the assumptions used in the study are not valid, and therefore, the results of the study are not valid.

 

I think the OTR focus is too narrow.  This transit line is in downtown and The Banks as well as OTR, so one can see it serving housing and office space downtown, too.  There is also a futures aspect of rising fuel prices leading to a demand to live close to work.  This would lead to higher rate of new riders in the out-years of the feasibility study, rather than the a low slope they show beyond the first 6 years or so. 

 

 

 

I think the focus of interest among many of the proponents which could assist with the funding is the Uptown area and its linkage to the CBD.  I'm surprised the City has not moved to complete the alternatives analysis study for the Uptown streetcar that was authorized by the City Council last year.

 

In terms of generating trips in the near term the Univerity of Cincinnati and immediate surrounding area are viewed as more likely to sustain the streetcar than OTR.  That's why the "uptown connector" was added to the initial phased late in 2008.

 

 

Is there any thing preventing the "uptown connector" from being built first?

^Probably not, but it would be an awfully short route on its own.  Would uptown to OTR alone generate enough ridership?  I'm not an expert on either area or UC, unfortunately.

From the UC evaluation of the HDR study:

 

"Some financial aspects of the streetcar

proposal are not fully addressed. It would

be helpful to have a more thoroughly

developed pro forma for the system’s

operations, as this is a vital consideration

for its long term viability. for example,

ridership revenues generally cover no

more than about half of the total operations

costs, so careful planning needs to

be given to funding operations."

 

 

 

^Probably not, but it would be an awfully short route on its own. Would uptown to OTR alone generate enough ridership? I'm not an expert on either area or UC, unfortunately.

 

So make it not just an extension, build UC to downtown first.  Make the OTR circulator the EXTENSION.

^--- So there you have a recommendation from DanB.

 

    On another note, I just found some specs for Portland's Street Car. Interestingly, they called it a "Light Rail Streetcar"

 

• System opened: July 2001

• Route length: 3.0 miles (March 2005)

• Stations: 44 (March 2005, total, both directions)

• Weekday ridership: 5,600 (2003)

• Vehicles: 7

• Total cost (original, 2001): $54.6 million for 2.4 route-miles – ca. $23 million/route-mile

• Total cost (extension, 2005): $15.8 million for 0.6 route-miles – ca. $26 million/route-mile

 

Vehicles – Skoda-inekon (2001)

• Fleet size: 7 (March 2005)

• Width: 8 ft 1 in (2460 mm)

• Height: 11 ft 3.5 in (3440 mm)

• Length: 66 ft (20130 mm)

• Weight: 63,500 lb (28800 kg)

• Maximum operating speed: 42 mph (70 kph)

• Maximum gradient: 9%

• Acceleration: 3.0 mphps (1.3 m/s/s)

• Deceleration: 3.0 mphps (1.3 m/s/s)

• Minimum horizontal curve radius: 60 ft (18 m)

• Passenger capacity: 30 seated, 127 standing

 

 

Sorry, I forgot the source. Here it is:

http://www.lightrailnow.org/facts/fa_por-stc-data-01.htm

Personally, a streetcar serving only OTR and downtown would not be profitable or generate that much ridership given that the route that it serves is currently underdeveloped, features loads of abandoned properties and travels through very undesirable areas. One can cite all of the studies they wish, but people are generally not going to ride the segment of the line that generates no interest to them -- i.e. the northern half of OTR near McMicken. There just isn't anything there worth going to, with the exception of Findlay Market.

 

Give it a few years, more time in this dismal economy and housing market, and you'll have significant growth along the line, more so if there is the Uptown connector. A streetcar, or some transit connection up the hill, would probably generate significant ridership gains between downtown/OTR and uptown.

 

Going on a project based solely on studies is not a sure-fire way to win voter's minds -- and that of a council. We all know that the Riverfront Transit Center, with its studies, has failed as a transportation hub -- and while potentially usable in the future, it can only be used for light rail (and not high speed rail). The two stadium's, despite their cost-revenue studies, suck the tit of Hamilton County taxpayers bone dry more so because the sales tax revenue projections were flat-out incorrect (and too optimistic). Then there is the Tower Place Mall issue, Glencoe, etc.

 

I agree with Dan: build a line from downtown to uptown, and create a OTR circular. The downtown-uptown loop would go through the heart of OTR. If we could only build the two phases of Phase 1 together at the same time :)

I don't understand what people are suggesting about going from downtown to uptown without going through OTR.  Is it that you would just prefer to not have the parallel tracks and just do a single line straight up the hill?  Because if that's the case my understanding is that you would still have just as much tracking because the whole "suicide tracking" options tend to be avoided at all costs.

 

The "circulator" is between OTR and downtown.  They are not separate because functionally they would circulate people between the two areas...just like an uptown circulator would circulate people between Clifton Heights and Corryville, or east and west campuses, or wherever.

 

So once again, I'm all for doing a larger system, but what I thought I heard from you guys was that a smaller system that generates higher ridership would be better.  This is where the downtown to uptown route suggestion came in, but you can't get to uptown (from downtown) without going through OTR...unless you ran the line up Gilbert then across Taft/McMillan, but I don't think that's what you guys are suggesting.

Thank you Sherman!  I've actually said this days ago, for those of you who say I have no suggestions:

 

 

I NEVER said to run it from Clifton to the base of the hill.  Where do you get this stuff?  Right now, there are not enough residents in OTR, and certainly not enough patrons for businesses to spend $100 million on a loop through OTR.  I guess you guys think its would make sense to drive downtown, park at Fountain Square or even the banks, then ride the streetcar to Findlay Market.  I don't. 

 

Build the streetcar to Clifton and back, development will occur along its path, then extend it east, west, and a loop around OTR and downtown.  That would get my support.

 

UO has a few thousand members.  that's not enough votes to carry anything, let alone vote Leslie Ghiz out of office.

I don't understand what people are suggesting about going from downtown to uptown without going through OTR.  Is it that you would just prefer to not have the parallel tracks and just do a single line straight up the hill?  Because if that's the case my understanding is that you would still have just as much tracking because the whole "suicide tracking" options tend to be avoided at all costs.

 

The "circulator" is between OTR and downtown.  They are not separate because functionally they would circulate people between the two areas...just like an uptown circulator would circulate people between Clifton Heights and Corryville, or east and west campuses, or wherever.

 

So once again, I'm all for doing a larger system, but what I thought I heard from you guys was that a smaller system that generates higher ridership would be better.  This is where the downtown to uptown route suggestion came in, but you can't get to uptown (from downtown) without going through OTR...unless you ran the line up Gilbert then across Taft/McMillan, but I don't think that's what you guys are suggesting.

 

No one suggested that. What Dan and I mentioned, is a loop from uptown to downtown via OTR, and if that is successful enough, then a dedicated OTR circular (e.g. one that is east-west) could be developed. A line from two major population and destination centers -- downtown and the UC area, would generate a lot of interest currently more so than parts of OTR. Give or take a decade or so.

Randy, spend some time actually reading the thread.  I've said it over and over again.  Downtown to Clifton and back.  This makes Downtown and Clifton the destination, not OTR.  Of course it has to go through OTR. 

So then you both are in favor of the current plan that includes the connection to uptown then?

 

 

No, I am not.  I am in favor of a downtown to Clifton and back loop.  One day, the circulator through OTR.

The only difference between what you're saying and what is proposed is that instead of cutting across 12th street, once hitting OTR, the streetcar would just continue a direct motion towards uptown.  In the end that's the same amount of trackage and about the same travel time.  The thing you want is for it to go from downtown to uptown at first making those the two initial endpoints - that's fine.

 

What I think you're misunderstanding or where we're miscommunicating is that the route you're specifying, through OTR to get to uptown, is somehow different because it's not.  I'm assuming you think it's a special circulator through OTR since there are the parallel tracks...these will exist even in your scenario though...so what am I missing here?

   

    Of the several possible routes, the shortest route from uptown to downtown is likely NOT going to go near Findley Market, which is the part of Over-the-Rhine in worst shape and has most of the "development opportunity."

Option B is what would happen with your scenario.  Roughly 6.88 miles of tracking, costing around $151 million.  This brings you from downtown to uptown using the Walnut and Main orientation so that you can access The Banks on the bridges over FWW already built to handle such systems.

 

Option A is the current proposal assuming the same connection to uptown.  Roughly 7.92 miles of tracking, costing around $174 million.  The only difference here is the lack of what you call the OTR circulator.

 

Option A - Option B

 

 

    I like option B much better.

 

    Option A has 10 - count 'em, 10! - more sharp angle turns of about 90 degrees. The track length may not be much different, but the turns are going to be problematic and significantly affect construction and operation.

 

    It's a shame that this route wasn't anticipated in the design of the riverfront area. The Walnut/Main couplet could have terminated in a half circle to facilitate the streetcar turning around. The way that Mehring Way connects I do not quite understand.

 

 

That's it.  That's what I would wholeheartedly support.

im not seeing a dramatic difference.  certainly not a big enough difference to get all worked up over.

Alright!  I'm glad we're finally on the same page now.  Visuals always seem to help.

 

In the end it doesn't seem like we're all that far off.  Eigth and State seems to have operational concerns that are valid and will be addressed during the detailed engineering phases, and DanB wants to see a more direct route from downtown to uptown.

 

I think we all want a fairly direct connection between downtown and uptown, and we also I think agree that the system needs to be able to operate without much headache.  I do think there is something to gain by going to Findlay Market, Brewery District, Washington Park and Music Hall...but there is also something to hitting up the north Main and Walnut streets.  Option B also is a bit cheaper and potentially easier to work with operationally.

 

Anyone else with thoughts on the merits of these two specific alternatives?

 

  1 mile of track and 10 bends are pretty significant.

I agree with the 1 mile of track, but I'm not sure the bends are all that big of a deal as jmeck pointed out to us earlier in the thread.

I don't see how "Option B" would be much cheaper than the current proposal plus Uptown circulator.  And both options travel through OTR... so I'm just not understanding how people can be opposed to the current proposal and in favor of Option B.  There's just not that big of a difference.