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).

 

Kind of difficult to do considering the cars last for several decades/almost indefinitely if properly maintained 

There's about a million reasons why using historic cars would be a bad idea, which I've outlined in my posts above. They would not be grandfathered in under ADA, because they would be part of a brand-new system that is obligated to meet ADA requirements. If the railcars aren't ADA-compliant, then it doesn't really matter how compliant the rest of the infrastructure is.

 

In addition:

 

1) Any historic cars remaining would likely need extensive restoration work before they could even be considered for passenger service. I used to volunteer at a railroad museum that restores old streetcars and subway cars, and it's incredibly expensive, painstaking work, and a team of volunteers can easily spend over a decade restoring a single car. Replacement parts often no longer exist, and must be fabricated from scratch. If a part fails, then the car goes back into the barn for another decade or so. Philadelphia tried that approach, but basically ended up having to completely build modern streetcars within the body shells of old PCC cars. The upfront cost of a modern Skoda-style vehicle may be greater, but it also comes with a warranty, skilled maintenance workers trained for that particular vehicle, and a ready supply of replacement parts. If you need a new computer to run Photoshop, do you buy a brand-new iMac with AppleCare, or do you take an old Commodore 64 out of the attic and try to hack it to death?

 

2) Even if it were possible to acquire and restore historic cars in a cost-effective manner, the newly-restored cars would have a poor ride quality and lack modern safety features and air conditioning. While nobody doubts the nostalgic value of historic streetcar fleets, such cars would be inappropriate for modern-day transit use. The NYC subway occasionally runs vintage trains for special events, but people would be screaming bloody murder if they had to ride to work everyday in a train with lousy suspension, no modern safety features, and no air conditioning.

 

3) One of the biggest arguments that COAST, Smitherman, et al have been using to oppose the streetcar project is that the city is supposedly spending millions of dollars to build a "trolley" or a "choo-choo train", which they characterize as a tourist gimmick that residents will never ride. The project's advocates in the city and in the blogosphere have been hammering back at that argument, pointing out that the proposed streetcar is a modern, comfortable system with a proven track record in Portland and Seattle, and designed to serve a real purpose as key part of the city's transit infrastructure. Imagine the slap in the face to streetcar supporters, and the propaganda victory handed to COAST & Co. if the city were to, in the name of pinching a few pennies, actually decide to turn the system into a "Ye Olde Zinzinnati" theme park attraction instead of a modern transit system. Good luck trying to get funding for any upgrades or expansions to the system. The voters would laugh any such proposal out of town, and they'd be right to do so.

>The NYC subway occasionally runs vintage trains for special events, but people would be screaming bloody murder if they had to ride to work everyday in a train with lousy suspension, no modern safety features, and no air conditioning.

 

Recently they ran a 1940's vintage train on a workday on the A line to celebrate the anniversary of the song "Take the A Train", complete with a jazz band on board.  Those old trains still have bare light bulbs (easily screwed out and stolen) and probably a rough ride.  Apparently the noise level was so much higher than a current train that the jazz group couldn't even be heard. 

 

The Skoda vehicles are about as loud as an electric golf cart, and the ride is at least as smooth as the moving walkways at airports. 

Kind of difficult to do considering the cars last for several decades/almost indefinitely if properly maintained 

 

Agreed, but my thought was that if you could somehow cheaply obtain 2 or 3, then these could be retired as money for new Skoda trains could be secured, not as they experience mechanical failure.  These could then be used for the occasional special event, donated to a museum, or sold to another city.  I've ridden the Skoda trains many, many times, and I've always agreed that they're a much better alternative.

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.

 

I'm an architect and fully aware of the ADA guidelines.  The last house UC and Habitat for Humanity partnered up on was fully ADA compliant, and I designed the thing.

 

If the cars were built prior to the ADA, and all new construction met the standards, I don't see how any law would be broken.  Although it could end up being something a court has to decide.  Again, I don't think it is a good idea, but could be presented as an alternate item, something to give us a price range rather than the current high-estimate-so-we-can-come-in-under-budget price.  I just want to see a dollar value that could be saved.

 

I have no problem letting the pros debate the fine points of reducing cost, they just haven't done it yet, and the cost per mile as is is one of the things that's hurting our case. 

Obtaining old streetcars isn't the problem, assuming you can find any. If somebody has a rusted hulk of a streetcar sitting out in a field somewhere, chances are they'll give it to you for free. The problem is that this is the condition they'll typically be in when you find them:

 

 

Every penny that gets spent trying to fix up something like that is one less penny you'll have for modern rolling stock.

 

I wouldn't have a problem with Cincinnati eventually obtaining and restoring a vintage streetcar for special use, but that should be done once the modern vehicles are up and running, not as a substitute for them.

^Because that's clearly what we were referring to.  :roll:

I wwas wondering if we could get a whole fleet!!!

I would like to see us get one for the Opening Day Parade

I have almost 12 years of professional experience in the architecture business, and I'm currently overseeing design and documentation on over $250M worth of transit retrofit projects in the NYC area. Under no circumstances would historic streetcars be grandfathered in under ADA. I'm not sure how much more clear I can make that.

^Because that's clearly what we were referring to.   :roll:

 

Then what would you be referring to? A historic streetcar that's somehow already fully-restored and ready for service? Of the few that remain, they belong to museums or other transit agencies who would be loathe to sell something that they've invested years of sweat equity into restoring and maintaining. I doubt they'd be willing to sell them at any price.

 

These aren't like used cars, where you can just walk into a dealership or scan craigslist for a deal. There are precious few historic streetcars remaining out there, and the numbers are getting smaller. The ones that aren't already spoken for look like the one in the photo. And even that one is spoken for.

Running used, non compliant streetcars is not illegal because it's done elsewhere.  I can read what you're writing, I just don't understand how it could be completely impossible to preserve and re-use older cars when it's being done elsewhere.  There are dozens of reasons why it's a bad idea, I just don't see the legal reason you're stating.

^Because that's clearly what we were referring to.  :roll:

 

Then what would you be referring to? A historic streetcar that's somehow already fully-restored and ready for service? Of the few that remain, they belong to museums or other transit agencies who would be loathe to sell something that they've invested years of sweat equity into restoring and maintaining. I doubt they'd be willing to sell them at any price.

 

These aren't like used cars, where you can just walk into a dealership or scan craigslist for a deal. There are precious few historic streetcars remaining out there, and the numbers are getting smaller. The ones that aren't already spoken for look like the one in the photo. And even that one is spoken for.

 

We were obviously speaking hypothetically, not about some specific rusted-out hulk.  Supposing you could cheaply obtain a few cars in good condition, possibly from a city that is upgrading to Skoda trains, would it even be legal to do so?  That's all we asked from the beginning, and you went on long diatribes about "theme park rides" and how you couldn't believe we were even "debating" the issue.  (I put that in quotes, because there is no actual debate, as everyone here agrees the Skoda cars are the better alternative.)  You finally did answer the question, and for that I am grateful.  I just wish it had happened before this thread was filled with 2 pages of bickering and personal attacks.  Maybe we need a mod to clean this up a bit.

Let's not get personal and keep the discussion on topic please.

 

I've enjoyed reading all the posts the past few days, especially the ones about breaking up the trains (or not) on the NYC and Boston subways. Now I can seem smart next time I'm with a bunch of rail junkies.

 

One of the most interesting discussions was on the re-population of Cincinnati and whether it would be new growth or simply redistributed growth from outlying City of Cincinnati neighborhoods.

 

I agree that if all we're doing is moving people from College Hill or Madisonville into Downtown and Uptown, then that wouldn't be a gain for Cincinnati -- although I do think the City of Cincinnati would benefit from a lot of the spending of these transplanted Cincinnatians that now goes to, say, Kenwood and Tri-County.

 

I have some personal knowledge here. I've lived in downtown Cincinnati more or less forever. Not since the flatboats came down the river from Pittsburgh, but for a pretty long time. And in that time, way more than half my neighbors have not only come from outside the City of Cincinnati but also from outside the region and the State of Ohio. I suspect the same thing is true in Uptown. It's clear there is a trend of Americans' moving back to the cities in search of more compact, walkable communities. In Cincinnati, those kinds of places are in Downtown, Uptown, Newport, Covington and a few nieghborhoods with viable business districts like Price Hill, Northside, Clifton, Hyde Park and Oakley. All of those places are already identified on the city's streetcar map. So the City is simply responding to a growth market by investing in a particular type of infrastructure, the Cincinnati Streetcar, that supports investment in neighborhoods where people want to live, work, shop and play in a much smaller geographic footprint. It's very logical. And a shrewd use of Cincinnati's capital.

 

I see the discussion on vintage or replica cars has been back on the table, and I just wanted to add dessert to the menu. One thing that hasn't been mentioned is the passenger capacity of modern streetcars. The ones we're looking at for Cincinnati can carry 130 to 170 passengers, way more than you could get on a vintage car designed to carry perhaps 50 or 60 passengers. Transit agencies spend about 75% per cent of their money on drivers, mechanics and their benefits, so you want to spread the labor cost over more passengers if you can -- hence the larger capacities. Plus, our streetcar line, unlike Seattle's, Portland's or Tacoma's, serves two major sports arenas, several concert venues, the center of regional employment and one of the largest employers in the state of Ohio, the University of Cincinnati. I suspect we'll need the extra capacity for peak pushes once the network is robust.

 

Finally, some history on the Riverfront Transit Center. I know something about it because it was conceived at the apex of the late-1990's era of intense work on Fort Washington Way, the Great American Ball Park and regional transit planning. I had a foot in all three camps.

 

The effect of the new FWW was to narrow the "trench" where I-71 and US 50 are today to half its former width, from 750 feet to 375 feet or so. The land formerly given over to highway right-of-way was then available for civic purposes. The Freedom Center, GABP and PBS all got some of it. The Banks and its streets and parking will use the rest of it.

 

No one wanted another super-elevated Riverfront Stadium with its windswept plaza where all the game-day buses used to hang out. There was a strong consensus to bring the buildings down to the riverfront's natural level of life and bring their walls out to the curbs like you have in a real city.

 

But what to do with the buses? Imagine if all those buses just parked at every curb throughout the Banks and in the new riverfront park during game days and special events. Cincinnatians would hate that, and planners would have been criticized for their shortsightedness.

 

The surplus land given up by the narrowed freeway had an incredible advantage for regional public transportation: here, in one fell swoop, transit planners could claim a piece of the trench for the future. There were two ways of dealing with the trench, which soon became a fifteen-foot deep gulch stretching across the south frame of the CBD just north of where the Banks is under construction today: fill it with dirt and build Second Street atop the fill; or use the gulch made available by the highway give-up for the area for special-event buses to unload and load.

 

Anyone knows that excavating such a space across the span of a major American city's CBD, even if access to such a space were available, would cost $100's of millions today. It would have to be a very deep tunnel, avoiding utilities that are now two centuries deep in the streets and parking garages that go several stories underground.

 

Cincinnati got all this new space for a 3,000 foot transit tunnel under its downtown free for the asking. But to make use of it, we had to build Second Street over an 85-foot wide structural span. This was almost half the cost of the Riverfront Transit Center. The nice finishes you see on the inside were, in the grand scheme of things, not material to the final cost. Sure we had to build expensive elevators and ventilation, but those systems don't incur much in the way of costs unless the Center is in operation.

 

So why does Tom Luken bring this up? Here's why: light rail opponents know that the Riverfront Transit Center is now the one certain way to get electric light rail from the northeast suburbs into downtown Cincinnati via Gilbert, Eggleston and Riverside Drive and on to the airport. I'd much prefer that light rail travel on Main and Walnut downtown and north through a tunnel to UC. But at least we now a clear path for light rail if the Mount Auburn Tunnel never happens. And with a streetcar connection on Main and Walnut passing over the Riverfront Transit Center every ten minutes and on to within three blocks of every significant downtown and OTR destination, it would work pretty well.

 

So this is why Luken has to demonize it. The Riverfront Transit Center took care of an immediate problem -- what to do with special-event buses? -- and provided a bullet-proof, long-range solution for regional light rail which Luken has fought for years. We now have a route. Five-dollar gas will increase the demand for it.

 

Light rail from Downtown to Tri-County, Blue Ash and Milford could be on the Hamilton County ballot as soon as 2012 if we defeat the COAST ballot initiative. If the COAST issue passes, planning for any kind of rail-based transit within the city limits ends after the results of the November election are certified.

 

If the COAST ballot issue passes, what happens when township residents, fed up with $5.00 gas, vote to build light rail to the suburbs while city voters, 25% of whom don't have access to a car, vote against it? Anyone care to think that through?

 

"Suppose you could cheaply obtain a few cars in good condition..."

 

That's the problem. They simply aren't available. If you know where we could find some, please step forward.

 

Otherwise, starting a system with old equipment to save money would be reasonable. The ADA requirement could be met by initiating an on-demand system with specially equiped buses or vans along the same route.

 

Some of Cincinnati's old PCC cars went to Toronto. Used streetcars were cheap in those days, because so many transit agencies were switching to motor buses. Many of Cincinnati's old cars were still in serviceable condition were simply scrapped. It was hard enough to get rid of PCC cars, much less Brills or Cincinnati cars.

Nice post John.

 

I think I started the old vs new discussion, by accident of course!  I merely stated I didn't understand what was wrong with a $15 million/mile system vs the $20 million/mile.  That started everyone condemning me for wanting old cars.  For the record, I really didn't know what the differences were, but no one took the time to explain.

It’s an Anti-Passenger Rail Amendment

http://cincystreetcar.wordpress.com/2009/07/07/it%e2%80%99s-an-anti-passenger-rail-amendment/

 

Great post. Hopefully Cincinnati voters will be wise enough to ensure this odious charter amendment never sees the light of day.

From the latest Cincinnatians for Progress email:

 

Christopher Smitherman has attacked Cincinnatians for Progress, claiming that by opposing the Anti-Progress Charter Amendment we are supporting "Jim Crow."  Don't believe us?  Check it out for yourself here.

Smitherman is completely unhinged. And people still take him seriously why?

The group " Cincinnatians for Progress" just started 3 months ago to stop the Cincinnati NAACP from collecting signatures legally. The message is clear even if you do things legal we are not interested in "African Americans" being at the table.

 

How do so many grammatical and typographical errors make their way into a final published "press release"?

>Smitherman is completely unhinged. And people still take him seriously why?

 

The traditional media *have* to get quotes from him, since he is leading this effort (and the waterworks effort).  That's how traditional journalism works, and that's why traditional journalists get depressed -- because at some point they realize they're just messengers in the game. 

The group " Cincinnatians for Progress" just started 3 months ago to stop the Cincinnati NAACP from collecting signatures legally. The message is clear even if you do things legal we are not interested in "African Americans" being at the table.

 

How do so many grammatical and typographical errors make their way into a final published "press release"?

 

If you think that's bad, you should read the letter he sent to the President. 

On this forum, we have "trolls."  In the real world, we have Smithermans...

So this is why Luken has to demonize it. The Riverfront Transit Center took care of an immediate problem -- what to do with special-event buses? -- and provided a bullet-proof, long-range solution for regional light rail which Luken has fought for years. We now have a route. Five-dollar gas will increase the demand for it.

 

Light rail from Downtown to Tri-County, Blue Ash and Milford could be on the Hamilton County ballot as soon as 2012 if we defeat the COAST ballot initiative which would end all city participation in planning for light rail or acquiring the land for it.

 

If the COAST ballot issue passes, what happens when township residents, fed up with $5.00 gas, vote to build light rail to the suburbs while city voters, 25% of whom don't have access to a car, vote against it? Anyone care to think that through?

 

Excellent, thank you!!  This explains the wording on the ballot...I thought "passenger rail" (of whatever form) was just collateral damage, but it sounds like a broader agenda in play here.

 

Im just suprised there is such opposition.  I had the questions about paying the operating costs,  but some of this is just knee-jerk reaction. 

 

 

 

John, that was a great write-up.  Have you thought about writing something similar to the Enquirer?  Something of intelligence actually explaining to people the consequences of the ballot is sorely needed

^

 

Thanks. But it would be better if others used these arguments in letters to the Enquirer. We need new and more voices in this.

here's my letter...not holding my breath to see it in print:

 

I'll resist the urge to quote the old adage about opinions.

 

So let's start with this:

 

Every newspaper has a point of view, a perspective if you will, on the issues covered within its august pages.  That said, however, the obvious slant of the Enquirer's recent coverage last week of the streetcar debate, as well as the unblinking loyalty to the proposed Charter Amendment, borders on the absurd.  Throw in Sunday's double whammy of an obviously planted, ill-timed, above-the-fold, misguided, non-news "gotcha" piece on the Transit Center, coupled with a mean spirited and unfunny attempt at "week in review"-style satire at the expense of the streetcar initiative, and one has to wonder whether Tom Luken won the "Guest Editor of the Week" contest. 

 

First of all, subjective opinions are fine if they are presented as such on the Op Ed page.  Sure, dust off Bronson, wind him up and let him bloviate ad nauseum on the evils of ersatz New Deal profligacy and government-funded boondoggles.  I can already see the heads in Delhi, West Chester and White Oak nodding in agreement. 

 

What is problematic, however, is when those opinions masquerade as actual "news" pieces, as evidenced by "reporter" Barry Horstman's recent spins last week as the Smitherman-COAST house organ.  The unquestioning fealty and deference afforded by the Enquirer to the misrepresentations, misleading petition effort and outright lies being spewed forth by the Anti-Rail cabal is bewildering at best. First of all, let's just take an easy one:  while the proposed amendment's language would affect the proposed streetcar, calling the amendment a "streetcar amendment" is an outright misrepresentation.  The proposal would force a vote on all right-of-way acquisition for all passenger rail, not just the streetcar (hello 3-C Rail!). As such, this is "an amendment to limit all rail transportation in Cincinnati," and not simply "the streetcar issue." 

 

If you do nothing else than clarify this point, all of western civilization, not to mention Cincinnati, will benefit greatly.

 

Look, I understand that it's easy to go to Smitherman and Finney for a juicy, teabag-ready quote that will play well with your readership in Butler and Warren counties et al.  What is unfortunate, however, is that there is seemingly no effort to go past what is being spoon-fed to you by COAST and the NAACP, not to mention the absence of any countervailing point of views.  There are much better stories here, available with a modicum of effort (hint: ask a question).  It's preferential to simply parroting the Finney-Smitherman sound bites, and, at least in the opinion of many, it's absolutely critical to the future of Cincinnati.

 

Up until now, I have resisted the urge to jump into this particular fray.  Last week's abysmal coverage, however, left me no choice.

 

Looking forward to better work in the future.

^ Excellent letter.

 

I think it's interesting to note how the city's rail plans are being vigorously attacked by Old Media like AM radio and newspapers, while (in general) being vigorously supported by New Media blogs and online news outlets. There seems to be a very clear generational gap at work, and even if this particular charter amendment passes, the long-term future isn't looking good for aging Baby Boomers fighting tooth-and-nail to preserve a mythical "Ozzie and Harriet" auto-centric worldview.

Randy has an excellent blog post that, while not specifically aimed at the streetcar project, has some good insights about the way this issue is being covered by the Enquirer. A couple comments in response to that article raise good questions.

 

Cincinnatians for Progress has sound motives, but it will take more than preaching to the choir on their blog and press releases to defeat the charter amendment. What is the group doing to get their message out into the mainstream media in order to counter the lies and spin being put forth by the Enquirer, WLW, etc.?

 

I can write a letter to the editor like anybody else, but I'm just one guy who currently lives in New York City. Something from Mayor Mallory or an official spokesperson from CfP would carry far more weight on the op-ed page and in the airwaves. How about getting somebody like Congressman Steve Driehaus or Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood to weigh in on this issue, and publish it?

 

What is CfP planning to do in order to get out the vote on Election Day? Is there an effort underway to get CfP members to phone bank voters, or go door-to-door in city neighborhoods, to make sure this amendment never sees the light of day? I think lots of people here would love to help out, but the grassroots energy needs to be effectively guided and directed. Look at how Obama ran his campaign. Like him or not, nobody can deny that he built an incredibly effective grassroots campaign. We need to emulate that model.

 

Finally, as others have said, the proposed charter amendment has far wider implications than just the streetcar, as opposed to just being a "streetcar petition" as repeatedly mischaracterized COAST/Smitherman/Bronson et al. Unfortunately, it doesn't help remedy that perception when most of the discussion on UO about the charter amendment takes place on the "Cincinnati Streetcar News" thread. Would it not make sense to have a dedicated thread to discuss strategies for defeating this ballot measure, and make it a separate discussion from the streetcar itself? I'd be happy to start such a thread, but I don't want to get slapped down by a Moderator for doing so.

From Mark Mallory's Facebook page:

 

Vice President Joe Biden to visit Cincinnati THIS Thruday, July 9, 2009

I have 25 tickets to give away to the first people to contact my office at 513-352-3250 by 6 pm today.

 

"Impact of Economic Recovery Stimulus Package"

 

Vice President Joe Biden will be coming to Cincinnati for the first time since his election, to give a speech on the impact of the Economic Stimulus Package.

 

Space is Limited!! Be among the first to see Vice President Biden address the citizens of Cincinnati!!

 

I have 25 tickets to give away to the first people to contact my office at 513-352-3250 by 6 pm today.

 

Doors open at 8:30am and the speech begins at 10am

 

Think Biden will come bearing federal stimulus money for the streetcar? One can only hope.

Think Biden will come bearing federal stimulus money for the streetcar? One can only hope.

 

I'd settle for a quote or soundbite regarding the proposed anti-passenger rail amendment; but that's probably too much to ask.  Good god if there's a Q&A segment we can only hope.

Well, I guess we can stop worrying about what Peter Bronson will write in the Enquirer about the streetcar.

Well, I guess we can stop worrying about what Peter Bronson will write in the Enquirer about the streetcar.

 

The departure of Enquirer editorial page editor David Wells is way more significant. He's been an opponent of rail transit in Cincinnati for years, a real problem for us. Early on, he bought into the notion that rail is an elitist form of transit. A lot of ultra-liberals share that view. They just haven't thought it through.

 

For at least ten years, the Enquirer has zigged when it should have zagged. The publishers bet heavily on sprawl, relying mostly on auto and real estate advertising, and now the chickens have come home to roost.

 

I definitely don't wish ill for the Enquirer. It still has a franchise and is potentially a real asset for Cincinnati. But our paper of record really needs an attitude adjustment.

I'm glad to hear about the departure of Wells and Bronson. I wrote an op-ed to Bronson's anti-rail piece so I guess his leaving the paper means my response probably won't run. Too bad.

Early on, he bought into the notion that rail is an elitist form of transit. A lot of ultra-liberals share that view. They just haven't thought it through.

 

I'm always baffled when self-described liberals decide to oppose rail transit (The Dean™ being another prime example), especially rail transit that serves low-income neighborhoods. Elitist? They should spend a few days here in NYC riding the subway around town. That would quickly disavow them of any notions that rail is an elitist form of transit. Meanwhile, people of Bronson's ilk remain convinced that only crack addicts and homeless people ride trains. I look forward to riding the streetcar with some of these elitist, latte-sipping homeless crackheads.

Think Biden will come bearing federal stimulus money for the streetcar? One can only hope.

 

I'd settle for a quote or soundbite regarding the proposed anti-passenger rail amendment; but that's probably too much to ask.  Good god if there's a Q&A segment we can only hope.

 

If there's "somebody who knows somebody" that can pass along what is happening here in Cincinnati with the local NAACP and their anti-rail charter amendment, please do so.  It's well known that Biden is a huge Amtrak fan, and with Cincinnati's centralized location, this amendment could pose a serious problem connecting major cities (unless Cincinnati is simply bypassed, which would be disastrous for us).  Maybe he'd make mention of what a bad idea passing such a charter amendment would be for the future of this region.

I'm sure Mallory will have a chat with Biden while he's in town. At least I'd hope so.

I would estimate that Joe Biden has almost zero political capital in Cincinnati.

I don't think Biden or anybody else in the Obama Administration is in a position to do anything about the internal workings of the NAACP. However, I wouldn't mind seeing them lend a hand in making this stupid charter amendment go away. Maybe they could send Rahm Emmanuel to town for a few days to put Chris Finney's nuts in a vise or something.

 

I like Biden, even though he's a walking gaffe machine. It will be interesting to see what he has to say tomorrow.

^The best thing anyone on this blog could get from Obama/Biden is the example from their presidential campaign.  Volunteer with Cinccinnatians for Progress and target voters, go to their doors, and talk to them about how important this issue is for Cincinnati.  A bunch of parties and happy hours aren't going to get this thing passed, voter contact will.

LK, if you want passenger rail in Cincinnati, or even if you don't but believe that these go/no-go transportation project decisions belong to the representatives you elect, then you want to ask voters to vote AGAINST this measure.

 

I sure hope that confusion isn't used to cloud this issue. No one wins in that situation.

I've been tempted to try and organize a Conservatives for Mass Transit group to oppose the measure.  At very least, maybe a Facebook group.  Anything to show that there are supporters of mass transit on both sides of the fence, and to get the word out about how, from a conservative standpoint, all it does is add red tape and inefficiency to a government that is already large and not very efficient.  The other key point being that the price in comparison to costs of highways and roads isn't much.

^

 

I've never been able to square the current Republican opposition to rail with Republicans' historical leadership on infrastructure issues. Recall:

 

* Lincoln and the transcontinental railroads

* Teddy Roosevelt and the Panama Canal

* Herbert Hoover and western dams

* Eisenhower and the Interstate Highway System

* Reagan and the modernization of our nation's airports

 

Somehow, most of the current crop of Republicans never got the memo.

Today's GOP leadership has largely been hijacked by neocon extremists who view any non-military government spending as "wasteful government spending". With the exception of Saint Reagan, the other Republican presidents on that list would be thrown out of today's GOP for being too liberal.

The late Paul Weyrich had some great arguments for rail/transit in his oft-cited work "Does Transit Work? A Conservative Reappraisal" that became a manifesto of sorts for conservatives who were willing to ignore the "think tanks" and take up transit's cause:

 

http://www.apta.com/research/info/online/weyrich2new.cfm

^ Thanks for that link, I'll print it out and read it on the subway on the way home this evening :)

 

I consider myself very conservative, but more of a Libertarian than a Republican.  In other words, I have a problem with a lot of government spending, but infrastructure is definately something that is best provided by the government and is vital to supporting the economy.  I think there are a lot of conservatives that will be open to that point, and if not they should be able to oppose the ballot measure on principal; as I said all it does is add inefficiency to our local government.  I plan to get more involved with the effort when I get back to Cincinnati in September.

No mention of the streetcar or rail at Biden's speech today.  Ironically, the very site on which the event was held was an abandoned rail right-of-way. 

Here's some photos of the COAST crew at a recent tea party, note the posters in the background:

 

 

 

"Sign the Streetcar Petition"

 

I also love how on www.wedemandavote.com they're STILL claiming the green party supports them and this is for the benefit of HAMILTON COUNTY voters. Last time I checked, didn't the Green Party retract their support of the charter amendment?