Population change = births - deaths + immigration - emmigration.

 

The streetcar isn't going to change the birth or death rate. The best we can hope for is that it will increase the net immigration. Since the present trends indicate a reduction in population state wide beginning in 2018, increasing population by construction of a streetcar is going to be an uphill battle.

 

OTR may increase, sure, but not the City of Cincinnati overall.

 

Well the recent Census estimates have the entire City of Cincinnati as seeing a 0.6% increase in population (I think metropolitan area is around 6% growth).  While this is not any kind of real growth, it does indicate a stable population base.  So if the rest of the city maintains this current trend, and we can grow some of our most under-populated neighborhoods we will increase the population overall.

 

  Prove it. The last Census estimates I saw show a decline in the City of Cincinnati. I am using the decennial Census, from 1990 to 2000. The current trend is DOWN.

 

  And please don't compare the original Census estimates to the results of the Census challenge. You can't show a change accurately using two different methods.

 

    The key to the success of the streetcar is attracting NEW residents. If someone moves from say, Westwood to OTR, that's not a new resident.

 

    I don't doubt the benefits of the streetcar. I don't doubt that OTR is showing signs of improvement. What I doubt is that the streetcar will attract enough NEW activity and population to make up for losses elsewhere.

And please don't compare the original Census estimates to the results of the Census challenge. You can't show a change accurately using two different methods.

 

Can you successfully challenge the challenge?

 

    For all I know, the challenge may be accurate. The U.S. Census is said to be off by as much as 30%. That's not very comforting.

 

    What I have said before is that the population and the population change are two different concepts.

 

    I'm not concerned so much about the actual population. What I want to know is whether it is increasing, decreasing, or stable.

 

    So, one group of people took a census in 1990. The same group of people took a census in 2000. The 1990 population was higher than the 2000 population, so that shows a decrease.

 

    The Census challenge estimated a new population, which happened to be a little higher than the current estimate. This does NOT show an increase. In order to prove an increase, one would have to take more than one Census using the same method. If the official 2000 Census was wrong, the official 1990 Census was probably wrong, too. You can't compare the official 1990 Census or any estimate based on that census with the challenge because they used two different methods.

 

    It's like asking whether or not the river is rising. I don't care how deep it is; I just want to know if it's going up or down. If you measure it in two different places, you get two depths but it doesn't tell you what you want.

 

    I wish the best for Cincinnati. I really do. However, I think that there are people on this board that are unrealistically optimistic. The streetcar project is going to be a tougher sell than it's made out to be.

 

    The feasibility study projects a certain amount of activity associated with the streetcar, and a certain increase of population in the area. Fair enough. It does NOT attempt to predict the population of the entire city in the same time period.

 

    Cincinnati has lost 200,000 people in 50 years. That is HUGE. Adding 10,000 people to OTR is not going to change this trend, especially if most of those 10,000 people come from other places within the city.

 

    The city needs NEW residents, and lots of them. Where are they going to come from? The real world is not SimCity, where if you build it, they will come.

 

    We have another thread for Cincinnati population trends if you want to continue there.

As has been stated repeatedly on Urban Ohio, Cincinnati lost 50,000 people from the flattening of the West End.  Another 50,000 residents have been lost due to residential properties being overtaken by UC, the hospitals, office space, street widenings, etc.  The remainder were lost due to smaller family sizes due to the introduction of birth control pills and legalization of abortion.  Over-the-Rhine and what remains of the West End are the two residential areas where the people really were "lost".  There are vacant properties in Walnut Hills and Fairmount as well, but those populations were never as large as OTR.   

 

That said population doesn't necessarily matter because residents are a drain on city resources, especially those who don't work.  If Cincinnati loses 50,000 people on welfare to Colerain Twp but gains 25,000 people who make over $100K...That is HUGE. 

 

 

 

Beyond the significant structural reasons for population decline, one must consider that a development that likely makes the city more amenable to a younger demographic (and city has trended older than the national average for a long time) would redound to our benefit in due time. Many of those folks won't necessary stay in OTR for a couple generations - though some may - but they may be more likely to take their family to Clifton or Paddock Hills or PRidge or KHeights or Mad-ville or wherever, which means the equation starts to look a little different births begin to outrun deaths by greater margins and voila. I'd say compared to many of our peer cities losing a mere 250k should be considered a manageable decline rather than a HUGE loss.

 

  Agreed.

   

does Barry Horstman also work for COAST??

 

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20090704/NEWS01/907050345/Transit+center++Bust+or+bargain

 

Unbelievable. 

Want to get the Enquirer's attention.... start asking the question of the COAST folks....."We know what you're against...but what are you FOR?"  This may seem simplistic, but the best strategy is to put THEM on the defensive.  So far, I'm seeing a lot of reactive instead of PRO-active posts.  Take the offense and make the other guys defend themselves.....and not just on blog posts.... but in wider, more public forums.

 

Another good question? "Why do you (COAST) not want Cincinnatians to have transportation choices?".... perhaps they would like to see the status quo remain with their "constituents" continuing to pay high fuel prices and be trapped into driving because they have no other option?  Aren't those who are the most poor or even middle income of their supporters most likely to be adversly affected by a transportation system that risks becoming ancient and increasingly unaffordable?

 

Turn their arguments back on them.

Prove it. The last Census estimates I saw show a decline in the City of Cincinnati. I am using the decennial Census, from 1990 to 2000. The current trend is DOWN.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/census/2009-07-01-citypops_N.htm - 0.6% increase from 2000 to 2008.  These are just estimates, but what it shows it not a declining city, not a growing city, but a stabilizing city.  It shows that the '90s might have been the last decade of decline for Cincinnati as it now begins to level off.  We'll all see in 2010 I guess.

does Barry Horstman also work for COAST??

 

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20090704/NEWS01/907050345/Transit+center++Bust+or+bargain

 

Unbelievable.

 

Glad to see that the Enquirer finally got around to ripping off this two-month-old Queen City Discovery post:

 

http://queencitydiscovery.blogspot.com/2009/05/cincinnatis-other-abandoned-subway.html

I'm all for transportation options, I just don't want someone telling me Cincinnati must have the 20 million per mile option because no one will ride the 15 million per mile option!

I used my rental property address as my residence when I signed.

 

Yeah DanB, you sound like you're wide open to transportation options!  :roll:

That was only the first time I signed!!

I'm all for transportation options, I just don't want someone telling me Cincinnati must have the 20 million per mile option because no one will ride the 15 million per mile option!

 

I don't believe anyone is telling you anything.  A proposal was drawn up that included data and findings to recommend an end result.  You don't have to agree with this (which you obviously don't), but this is what we're working with.  If you feel it's better to pursue a system that isn't ADA compliant, has lower capacities, a rougher ride and an overall less enjoyable riding experience then that's fine.

Randy, if it was just about transportation, then the cheaper version should be acceptable.  But according to the proponents here, its not just about transportation.  Its about having the fanciest possible system.  Like little kids at Christmas wanting the name brand toy, not the knock-off.

And you'll be the first one complaining your tax dollars are being wasted when wheels need replacing after six months, or rails after one year....

Do you all think this anti-streetcar initiative has a chance?

Yes, especially when inaccuracies are repeated so often they become second nature, starting with your use of the words "this anti-streetcar initiative."

>does Barry Horstman also work for COAST??

 

Tom Luken loves to hate the Transit Center.  Notice these guys don't pick on the a conspicuous part of FWW that hasn't been finished -- the ramp from 3rd St. to I-75 north.  Why aren't they beating their chests over that waste of money? 

 

The Transit Center was conceived as the downtown terminus of Lawrenceburg and Milford commuter rail, and possibly intercity rail.  Obviously it would make a much better station than the "Boathouse" 3C's station, and as a respectable station will help attract ridership to those commuter lines if they are ever brought into operation. 

 

Where they messed up was in finishing it with the staircases, elevator, interior tile, etc.  I think they should have built it but left the walls bare concrete and used it for regular workday parking until rail happened.  Currently they allow parking along the entrances, but they allow hundreds of potential parking spots to go unused.   

starting with your use of the words "this anti-streetcar initiative."

 

I must not have gotten the memo.  This initiative isn't directed at the streetcar?  Am I missing something?

^ It requires any spending of public funds on rail transit to be subject to a city wide vote.

starting with your use of the words "this anti-streetcar initiative."

 

I must not have gotten the memo.  This initiative isn't directed at the streetcar?  Am I missing something?

 

The initiative is directed at preventing spending on all forms of passenger rail

But according to the proponents here, its not just about transportation.  Its about having the fanciest possible system. 

 

You're the one who's been pushing for a route from Clifton to the river, when most posters in this thread would have been happy with a humble loop through downtown and OTR, with expansions later if the system is as successful as we hope it will be. 

 

Also, how is something like ADA compliance "fancy"?

DanB's job (and I do suspect job) is to keep making ridiculous, contradictory statements in order to draw out every rail-proponent's argument for use by whatever anti-rail group he works for.  So don't respond to him.   

All - we need some backup here.  Every comment except one is anti-streetcar.  Please help sway these people.

 

If you're not a member of linkedin, sign up and join the CincinnatiUSA Regional Chamber page, and scroll down to the 5th thread under "discussions".

 

http://www.linkedin.com/groupAnswers?viewQuestionAndAnswers=&gid=149230&discussionID=4780270&sik=1246810397302&trk=ug_qa_q&goback=%2Eana_149230_1246810397302_3_1

 

I'm all for transportation options, I just don't want someone telling me Cincinnati must have the 20 million per mile option because no one will ride the 15 million per mile option!

 

This kind of corner-cutting attitude is why the American auto industry is bankrupt, while German manufacturers continue to flourish even under a dismal world economy. Some people want everything at the Wal*Mart price, and then wonder why there are no jobs in this country -- we can't make stuff here at the price the "cheapskate majority" demands. And few of our products are demanded in first-world nations because they are so budget-oriented.

^Don't forget, life's all about how much crap you can cram into your enormous house!  :-D

 

    Just wondering - where do these "historic" trolleys and PCC cars come from? Are they all antiques from the 1930's or older that somehow survived and got refurbished, or are there any modern manufacturers?

Most are older ones that survived and got refurbished. I'm unaware of any that are newly-built.

 

Philadelphia rebuilt some old PCC trolleys for the Girard Avenue line and made extensive modifications to them so they'd have air conditioning and be ADA-compliant, but by the time they did all that, there was hardly anything left of the original trolleys except for the body shell. I wonder if it would have almost been cheaper to order brand-new streetcars off-the-shelf, or at least use a few of their existing trolleys for that line.

By the way, in case anybody is wondering, here's the difference between a trolley and a streetcar. A trolley uses a trolley pole to collect power from the catenary; a streetcar uses a pantograph. A trolley is a type of streetcar, but a streetcar is not necessarily a trolley. (And if it has rubber tires and an engine, it's not a trolley, period. It's a bus.)

 

ETA: Cincinnati's original streetcars had two wires and two trolley poles because local naysayers of the time were convinced that the negative return current (normally carried through the running rails in almost every other streetcar system in the world) would pose a safety hazard and contaminate the groundwater. Their concerns were baseless, of course, but the 2-wire system made the streetcars significantly more difficult to maintain and operate, and made it incompatible with Northern Kentucky's extensive single-wire system.

You're the one who's been pushing for a route from Clifton to the river, when most posters in this thread would have been happy with a humble loop through downtown and OTR, with expansions later if the system is as successful as we hope it will be. 

 

Also, how is something like ADA compliance "fancy"?

 

Right, because I am more interested in it providing transportation than going nowhere through OTR.  No one every mentioned that the $15 million option could not be ADA compliant, so please do not put a label on me.

 

DanB's job (and I do suspect job) is to keep making ridiculous, contradictory statements in order to draw out every rail-proponent's argument for use by whatever anti-rail group he works for.  So don't respond to him.   

 

Yes, don't have a conversation with someone who just happens to disagree with you. 

You're the one who's been pushing for a route from Clifton to the river, when most posters in this thread would have been happy with a humble loop through downtown and OTR, with expansions later if the system is as successful as we hope it will be. 

 

Also, how is something like ADA compliance "fancy"?

 

Right, because I am more interested in it providing transportation than going nowhere through OTR.  No one every mentioned that the $15 million option could not be ADA compliant, so please do not put a label on me.

 

We've mentioned many, many times in this thread that the historic trains are not ADA compliant. (I'm assuming from your wording that the $15M version does not use the Skoda trains.)  Even if we didn't, just look at one!  There's no way you could get a wheelchair on there without heavy modifications.  That's one of the main benefits of the new Skoda trains.  You vaguely accused streetcar supporters of wanting the "fanciest possible system".  If you weren't referring to the benefits of Skoda vehicles, what were you referring to?  And if you were referring to Skoda vehicles, what's a cheaper alternative?  We're happy to hear criticism, so long as it's actually constructive. 

 

I agree that the route to Clifton is important, but it's also extremely costly, so it seems a little silly for you to accuse streetcar proponents of being unwilling to compromise on the cost of the system, when you have been arguing for a much more expensive route all along.

Don't forget that most older transit systems in the US aren't ADA compliant and really haven't ever come under any fire for it... New York City's MTA being the primary example.

 

I'm not picky about the cars, if we can just get tracks in the ground.  I also believe the uptown route is integral to the success of the streetcar; I'm optimistic that OTR route would be a success, but I'm basically positive that the uptown route would be.. and that is no matter what type of train is running.

I'm not picky about the cars, if we can just get tracks in the ground.

 

Agreed.  Just get it up and running.  We can decide if the cars need an upgrade at a later date, though I'd prefer the Skoda ones if possible.

ADA compliance isn't optional; it's federal civil rights law, and is a condition for any federal funding.

 

Older systems like the NYC subway aren't ADA-compliant because they were built before ADA was passed. As they renovate stations or order new railcars or busses, the new work is required to be ADA-compliant. (And yes, the MTA comes under lots of fire when elevators or wheelchair lifts aren't working.) The MTA also spends a ton of money providing paratransit service so that some level of accessibility can be achieved.

So if you used historic cars, wouldn't those fall under the same category as the NYC subway since their date of manufacture and term of service pre-dates the ADA?  I'm not necessarily arguing for that; I'm just interested in any avenue that leads toward Cincinnati finally getting rail transit.

^ They're being used in other places, so I'd have to say yes.  The actual physical construction wouldn't be out of compliance with the ADA (since it's only rails and infrastructure) and I don't see how the act would reach into the realm of legislating the usage of used vehicles.  Purchasing older cars will be an option.

 

I don't want to come off wrong, I personally thing the Skoda cars are worth the cost and believe both the OTR and uptown segments should be built from the get go.  I'm just open to any ideas that would shave the cost down a bit.

If you're using historic cars and not modifying them for ADA compliance, then you aren't building mass transit infrastructure. You're building a theme park ride, and you won't get a dime of federal funding for it.

 

The NYC subway analogy doesn't apply, because Cincinnati is attempting to build a brand-new, modern transit infrastructure. Putting a bunch of old-timey trolleys on the rails is not an option, and it would play right into the hands of people like Smitherman who claim the city is spending millions of dollars to build a "choo choo train".

 

As I noted before, Philadelphia had to make extensive modifications to their PCC cars before they could be used on the new Girard Avenue line. Tampa and Kenosha may have some arrangement for getting wheelchair users onto those cars, or they may simply have parallel bus lines with wheelchair lifts. But as far as I know, those systems are being marketed as tourist attractions, not part of a viable mass transit system.

>Don't forget that most older transit systems in the US aren't ADA compliant and really haven't ever come under any fire for it... New York City's MTA being the primary example.

 

The New York Subway suffers all kinds of problems due to its antiquated design besides hit-and-miss ADA compliance.  There are actually two totally independent subway standards which means about half of the rolling stock is incompatible with half of the stations due to platform specs.  There are also a fair number of curved subway and commuter rail stations where people occasionally fall through the gap between the train and platform.  Because the trains are incredibly long (600ft.), stations are huge structures and that has limited the system's ability to expand into new areas of the city.  They still run the huge trains overnight because apparently it's more work to break trains into half-lengths than it's worth.   

The "newer" sections of the NYC subway actually have similar specs as modern systems like the Washington Metro and MARTA. That is, trains typically consist of up to eight 75' long X 10' wide railcars. The station designs, though, tend to be very claustrophobic and not very well-suited for ADA compliance. My employer does a decent amount of business helping the MTA and PATH modernize their stations, and it's not easy work.

 

(I actually prefer the MTA's practice of running full-length trains at all times. For years I lived in Chicago, and it was maddening to have to run down half the length of the platform to catch a train, and then be packed like sardines onto that train at 11 PM because they had cut it down to only two or four cars. The CTA must spend a ton of money in manpower each year building up and breaking down their trains, and given that they're always financially strapped, that's the first expense I would slash. But we're getting off-topic here....)

 

Bottom line is, a brand-new transit system must be ADA-compliant. Older systems like the MTA and CTA have somewhat of an excuse, but even those systems get hit with lawsuits for non-compliance, and are having to spend millions of dollars per year upgrading their infrastructure. Here in NYC, the cost of upgrading one station for ADA compliance is often several times the proposed cost of the entire Cincinnati streetcar project.

My only comment is that legally no infrastructure would be built that is out of compliance so there wouldn’t be anything out of accordance with the ADA.  I don't think it's a good idea, but I don't think there are any legal ramifications.  If it were to come to it and the price had to be stripped down somewhere, I wouldn’t be opposed to this. 

 

I've lived in NYC the past two years half of the time while on co-op through UC, so I'm fairly familiar with the system. There are some stations that are seemingly impossible to bring to ADA standards.. anything with the curved platforms that were mentioned.  The cost of the new South Ferry station to overcome that barrier is a good example of what you two are talking about.  This is a parallel to how difficult it would be to retrofit used streetcars; it would be better to start new…

 

Umm, yes there are legal ramifications for failing to comply with ADA. The Americans with Disabilities Act is a federal civil rights law, not a federal civil rights suggestion. For a brand-new transit system that's supposedly an example of a modern, Portland-style streetcar, there's absolutely no legal, ethical, political, or financial reason for it not to be ADA-compliant. As somebody with a couple good friends who are disabled and who would like to rely on public transit if it were a viable option to them, I can't believe we're even debating this issue.

 

In terms of finding ways to cut costs on the project, I'm sure the project team led by Parsons Brinckerhoff is in a far better position to suggest cost savings than a bunch of people on an internet discussion board with limited technical knowledge of the project.

ADA is a law with very clear and specific design dimensions. And as Living in Gin notes, it is a civil rights law that the federal government actively enforces. Anything new not designed to comply with ADA will be dismantled and must be rebuilt to comply with the law. And it will be done at the project sponsor's expense.

The NYC subway's lack of full ADA compliance means they have to still run buses with chair lifts directly over many of the subway routes.  The buses of course go places the subway doesn't, too, like the M125 (I think) that runs from LaGuardia Airport over the Queensboro Bridge to Harlem & Columbia University.     

 

ADA compliance has been a big motivator for at-grade light rail, since many elevated or underground rail stations require 3+ elevators to reach the mezzanines and platforms.  ADA compliance is part of the reason why Cincinnati's subway stations would be rebuilt if the tunnel is ever used for light rail.  The other big reason is for low platforms compatible with the rest of any new start rail system.  Low platform is the way to go.   

 

For any system that includes street-running segments, low-platform is the way to go. For a system that's fully grade-separated or otherwise has no street-running segments, then a high-platform design offers advantages in terms of increased passenger capacity and a simpler design for the rolling stock. If/when Cincinnati ever gets around to building a regional rail system, I can see advantages and disadvantages for either approach.

 

For ADA compliance, though, the only thing that really matters is that the platform height and the car's floor height are the same (regardless of wether they're high or low) and that there's less than a 2" gap between the door sill and platform edge. For the streetcar, it goes without saying that it will be of a low-platform configuration.

For new retail buildings, ADA requires that wheelchairs have ample space to rotate 180 degrees.  I'm not certain if this also applies to new train stations but I imagine it would.  This isn't a huge deal, but it does mean you can't make things too compact.

People don't understand that low platform was a major technological achievement made possible by smaller motors and one that was perfected by Skoda in their modern streetcars.  Because they travel at a lower speed, smaller wheels are used, allowing lower raised portions for the wheelsets.   

 

Light Rail suffers the stigma of looking bulky and that stems from the first-generation high platform systems in Baltimore, Buffalo, etc.  Portland's light rail is low platform, but on their older vehicles you have to walk up a steps immediately.  Light rail trains built since about 2000 are all low platform, but the ends of the cars are raised seating areas because thats where the motors and wheel sets are located.

 

Also "low platform" streetcar and light rail stations are basically just a sidewalk that's about 14" off street level, so just a few inches higher than a normal curb.  When I visited Portland the term "ADA Transparent" popped in my head, because there is no conspicuous area or gizmo for the handicapped.     

Umm, yes there are legal ramifications for failing to comply with ADA. The Americans with Disabilities Act is a federal civil rights law, not a federal civil rights suggestion. For a brand-new transit system that's supposedly an example of a modern, Portland-style streetcar, there's absolutely no legal, ethical, political, or financial reason for it not to be ADA-compliant. As somebody with a couple good friends who are disabled and who would like to rely on public transit if it were a viable option to them, I can't believe we're even debating this issue.

 

I think you're missing his point.  He's not talking about building new, modern Skoda-style trains.  He's just asking if truly historic cars (not new ones that look historic) would be grandfathered-in on a new streetcar system, assuming that the city could obtain some cheaply.  The system is new, but the trains pre-date the ADA.  Not being a lawyer, I have no idea where the line is drawn on pre-existing infrastructure in such a situation.  Clearly, this would be less than ideal, but if we had to compromise by going with vintage streetcars and phasing in Skoda trains over time, I'd choose that option over the system not getting built at all (and I'm not saying that it would ever come down to that).

A lack of ADA compliance is cited by Portland as reason for removing their vintage streetcar from weekend operation.  Many, perhaps over 1,000 disabled people in the Portland area have relocated to apartments and condos along the streetcar line.  So since so many people have come to rely on the Skoda streetcars, the single vintage car turned into quite a problem.  The cars run about every 10-15 minutes, which means in a worst-case scenario someone in a chair could end up waiting close to a half hour not only on their way to point B, but on the way back as well.