Cincinnati's system is exceptionally axial with downtown as the focus. Many population centers tend to be beyond Metro's reach and the local economy is exceptionally multi-nodal with most nodes poorly served by Metro if at all. Example, it is a long arduous process to get from Pleasant Ridge to the hospital/university area. It is a neighborhood filled with nurses, social workers, and the like and traveling anywhere but downtown from PRidge is painful.

^Maybe, I never seen a metro bus in Blue Ash.

I think having the region split between two major transit agencies doesn't help matters, either. Cincy is the only city on that list that sits on a state line, with a substantial portion of the metro area spilling over into the neighboring state. The thought of having to make a transfer and pay two fares to get from Point A in Northern Kentucky to Point B in Ohio could be a big deterrent. Yet another reason why TANK and Metro need to be consolidated into a single regional transportation authority, as I've advocated on several occasions.

^Maybe, I never seen a metro bus in Blue Ash.

 

The #4 Blue Ash.

 

  There is a bus route to Blue Ash but the route and frequency leaves a lot to be desired, as do many of the Metro routes at the far end of the route. Most of Blue Ash isn't served at all, unless you want to walk two miles on a 6 lane motorway with no sidewalks.

 

  Ride any bus from downtown to the end of the line and back and you will find that the ridership is higher closer to the core.

 

    Functionally, I don't think the relationship between Metro and Tank hinders riders as much as the radial layout. Going from point A in Hamilton County to point B in Hamilton County can be just as bad if there are transfers downtown.

 

    I know someone who rides access buses, though, and access doesn't go to Covington.

 

   

Honestly, without a major investment in a kind of rail that brings serious reorganization of the economic geography of the region, I don't mass transit have much chance at success in Greater Cincinnati.

Blue Ash would explode with residential high rises If it could build a streetcar itself. Looping around the major employers. The Blue Ash airport is a gold mine for that kinda construction. I wish planners in this area would think of the big picture for just ONCE. It already has an underused rail line that could be used for Light Rail.

An interesting local spin on the transit vehicle manufacturing discussion that does not receive much attention is that Siemens manufactures most of the electric traction motors used to power their transit vehicles in Norwood.

Can anyone tell me why the NAACP, of all organizations, is opposed to the streetcar project? It would go right through OTR and stimulate more business and activity in that region.

In any other city, the NAACP would be the among the most fervent supporters of improved mass transit that serves underprivileged neighborhoods. But local NAACP honcho Chris Smitherman is bitter political rival of Mayor Mallory, and can be counted upon to provide knee-jerk opposition to anything Mallory proposes, even if it means entering into a marriage of convenience with far-right anti-government extremists in the exurbs. Smitherman has apparently packed the local NAACP leadership with his own hand-picked cronies, and has turned a once-proud civil rights institution into a political action committee designed to serve his own political ambitions.

Cincinnati Residents Produce T-Shirt Promoting the Cincinnati Streetcar

 

Cincinnati, OH– Three Cincinnati residents have designed and produced a “Cincinnati Streetcar” T-shirt to raise awareness and support for the project. The proposed streetcar would connect the Cincinnati riverfront to the Uptown neighborhoods surrounding the University of Cincinnati, providing transportation between the city’s two primary employment centers and spurring economic development along the streetcar route.

 

The shirts were unveiled this weekend at Over-the-Rhine’s “Second Sunday on Main” event, where nearly 50 shirts were sold in less than five hours and dozens more were sold at Findlay Market over the weekend.

 

“We see how the city would benefit from the proposed streetcar, and felt this would be a great way to gain some visibility and keep the conversation going,” says local artist Jody Bunn, who designed the shirts. “We wanted to find a way to speak about the benefits from a citizen’s standpoint.”

 

The shirts, featuring a streetcar icon, and emblazoned with the words “Cincinnati Streetcar” are available for $15 each at a number of local retailers, including Park + Vine, Mustard Seed Boutique, and Historic Findlay Market. Proceeds from the sale of the shirt will be reinvested into additional streetcar advocacy efforts by the group.

 

“We have been thrilled by the response so far,” says Brad Thomas, founder of the website www.cincystreetcar.com.  “The positive comments and desire to get the word out really goes to show that, despite a few vocal naysayers, the people of Cincinnati really do want to move forward with new forms of transportation that will create jobs and strengthen our neighborhoods.”

 

 

Notice the wording of the title on this article.  The Enquirer refuses to accurately represent the proposed charter ammendment.  The title would lead one to believe Strickland opposes bringing streetcars to Cincinnati.  Ridiculous.

 

 

Strickland: streetcar initiative potentially detrimental

Posted by benfischer at 7/15/2009 1:45 PM EDT on Cincinnati.com 

 

Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland first learned of the potential Cincinnati city charter amendment to require voter approval on a streetcar and other future passenger train projects today, and he's dubious.

 

Strickland, in Loveland to talk about the state budget, was careful to not explicitly take a position on the possible initiative, but said it could potentially exclude Cincinnati from a regional effort, to the city's detriment.

 

http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?Category=blog02&plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3aec38bb2b-982e-46ba-819a-da01a547e8eaPost%3a56bde57a-df4f-436c-bde8-4f9901ccd3d3&sid=sitelife.cincinnati.com

 

The comment section has the author explaining that it isn't his fault that ballot initiatives are confusing and that he article explains. He says he isn't responsible for what portions people read of his blog.

 

The problem with that is that even the headline is subject to journalistic ethics. If the headline is misleading and FALSE, doesn't it have to be changed?

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20090714/NEWS0108/907150343/1168/NEWS0101/Battle+looms+over+rail+petition+language

 

Battle looms over rail petition language

 

By Barry M. Horstman, July 14, 2009 [email protected]

 

Having worked for months to gather enough signatures for a proposed charter amendment to require voter approval of Cincinnati's streetcar plan and future rail programs, petition backers are worried about a new challenge: their opponents will get to pick the wording that goes on the ballot.

Heh... That's an interesting twist. And once again, Smitherman proves that he can't wipe his own ass without asking Chris Finney for permission.

 

So what happens if City Council doesn't act on the matter at their August 5th meeting, and the ballot language doesn't make it to the county elections board on time? Does it simply die, or does it get deferred to the following election cycle? Maybe it's time for City Council to start playing hardball.

 

Meanwhile, Ben Fischer is getting an earful in his comments section. Good.

This doesn't directly relate to the streetcar (it deals with the Anti-Passenger Rail Amendment):

 

http://cbustransit.blogspot.com/2009/07/could-cincinnati-derail-ohios-plans.html

so did I miss something ( I have been out of the country) or have COAST and the NAACP successfully gathered enough signatures?  Is this official? 

This issue obviously affects the entire state and region, not just Cincinnati. From a legal point of view, is there anything that can be done at the state level to nullify this charter amendment? Like some sort of language built into 3-C Corridor funding bill that explicitly grants Ohio municipalities the authority to act on the measure without requiring a local vote? I'm no attorney, but there has to be some legal work-around if this thing passes.

"I'm worried they'll try to confuse the public or twist the wording to their advantage..."

- Chris Smitherman

 

Wait, so it's not ok for city council to do that, but perfectly fine for him and finney to do that? Smitherman is such a tool.

They have enough signatures.  Whether or not they are all legitimate city residents is another story.  I'm hoping that there are a lot of out-of-city names on that list. 

 

Also, it appears that the Enquirer's blogger has changed the title of his post.  It's still inaccurate, as it says "streetcar" when the petition is anti-passenger rail, but at least it no longer reads like the Governor opposes the streetcar project.

I wonder if Smitherman's butt ever gets sore from having Finney's hand up there all the time?

 

so did I miss something ( I have been out of the country) or have COAST and the NAACP successfully gathered enough signatures?  Is this official?

 

COAST/Smitherman claim to have enough signatures, but it hasn't been officially certified yet.

"The City, and its various Boards and Commissions, may not spend any monies for right-of-way acquisition or construction of improvements for passenger rail transportation (e.g., a trolley or streetcar) within the city limits without first submitting the question of approval of such expenditure to a vote of the electorate of the City and receiving a majority affirmative vote for the same."

 

If they really do want to make the language clear, they only need to remove the part that is in parenthesis: (e.g., a trolley or streetcar).  That's what is deceptive about it.

I bet the members of this forum could find some creative ways to re-word that amendment so as to ensure a "no" vote.  :evil:

Wouldn't state funds be used to purchase the right-of-way and build the 3C?  Doesn't the amendment only prevent the city from spending money on it?  It's really only limiting to the streetcar initially, and any commuter rail in the future. 

Wouldn't state funds be used to purchase the right-of-way and build the 3C?

 

I'm sure the city would be asked to throw in some money, even if it is only a marginal amount.  If not for the rail improvement itself, then probably for stations/stops, or something along those lines.  Even if they only asked for $2, it would have to go to a vote.

The state might be able to purchase the right-of-way, but the city wouldn't be able to replace a light bulb in Union Terminal without spending half a million dollars for a referendum on the matter.

Cities may also be asked to pay for some or all of the construction or renovation costs of providing or expanding their station facilities so they can be served by 3-C Corridor trains, or passenger rail services to Chicago (note that Indiana is seeking federal funding for advancing the development of the federally designated Chicago - Indianapolis - Cincinnati route). Even if the state and/or feds pay the up-front costs, any additional improvements or modifications would likely be done by the city, which is ultimately responsible for stations according to Amtrak policy. If a city won't be able to accept this responsibility, I highly doubt Amtrak would give it a station. But I think an official comment from Amtrak would be a worthwhile part of the discussion over this ballot issue.

In what part of The Enquirer did the Horstman article run?  I checked their site and it was not on the front page.  If COAST/NAACP just got two front page articles, why did this one not make the front page?

 

Also, Nate Livingston uncovered this problem about a month ago.  Council is supposed to approve language /before/ signature gathering commences. You've got to wonder if COAST/NAACP did this on purpose (waiting until they had the signatures), just so that the battle over the language could have its own news cycle. 

Here's Livingston's take on the matter.

 

He seems to have a sound argument (based on my layperson's interpretation of what he's wrote and the cases he's cited). I wish some people in the city and county government would grow a spine and fight to defeat this amendment on legal grounds. Maybe Livingston has too much baggage to be taken seriously by City Council, but it would be nice if he weren't the only person raising these issues.

Read the rest at: http://cincystreetcar.wordpress.com/2009/07/16/re-envision-cincinnati/

I think trying to derail this amendment (no pun intended) shouldn't rely on attacking the language or legality, just getting the facts out to the public.  If people know it wasn't just about the streetcar, if they knew it massively decreased government inefficiencies, that is would prevent 10's of millions of state funding from being used in the city (and thus it would go to other parts of the state instead) then they might think twice about their vote.  We should try to win over the public, not get COAST on a technicality.  That would make the entire streetcar movement look bad, in my opinion.

In what part of The Enquirer did the Horstman article run?

 

It's in the Politics/Government section on the website.  It's in this category on the main page of the "News" and "Enquirer" sections, but you are right, it's not on the main Cincinnati.com page.

^

 

Why am I not surprised that it was relegated to the back pages of the print edition?

I think it was B6

For being an supposedly "unbiased" news source, the Enquirer sure makes it painfully obvious that they want this charter ammendment to pass.  From refusing to call it anything but the "streetcar issue", to burying positive news about it in the back of the paper.  What a joke!

I think trying to derail this amendment (no pun intended) shouldn't rely on attacking the language or legality, just getting the facts out to the public.

 

I disagree about the legality. If what COAST and Smitherman is doing is illegal, then there must be consequences. The court system is the place where the legality of their petition needs to be determined, but somebody needs to at least make the challenge. If nobody challenges tactics that are clearly illegal, then City Council may as well shut down the government and hand the city over to Chris Finney. Even if this charter amendment fails, what's to stop Finney from using illegal tactics to push through some future ballot initiative that's even worse? Finney is a thug with a law degree who will use any means possible to impose his agenda, and the city needs to use any means possible to resist that effort.

 

Meanwhile, I agree that the city and those who care about it need to make a convincing case to the public as to why this charter amendment is such a bad idea. This is a battle that needs to be fought on multiple fronts.

Its the American way to make amendments and levies as confusing and difficult to read when they are put on the ballot.  By the time the average voter reads it, they don't know whether a yes vote supports the issue or is a vote against it!  That in itself doesn't make it illegal!  If you think something illegal is going on, than challenge it or just drop it.  Prove I'm not living where I said I was when I signed it!

Its the American way to make amendments and levies as confusing and difficult to read when they are put on the ballot.  By the time the average voter reads it, they don't know whether a yes vote supports the issue or is a vote against it! 

 

That's true.  I know several Ohioans who thought they were voting against the smoking ban, but accidentally voted for it.

 

Prove I'm not living where I said I was when I signed it!

 

So what you're saying is, despite your repeated assertions on this board that you would support light rail, you actually oppose it, since the petition you signed would make it exponentially more difficult to embark on any passenger rail project.

...Council is supposed to approve language /before/ signature gathering commences. You've got to wonder if COAST/NAACP did this on purpose (waiting until they had the signatures), just so that the battle over the language could have its own news cycle. 

 

Agree.  There is a reason the law calls for review of the ballot language BEFORE gathering signatures.  Council has a legal responsibility to clarify the ballot.  Perhaps instead of removing the parentheis, they could extend the items listed in the parenthesis to include inter-city rail, subways, inclines, etc etc...

I'm not sure that it was deliberate, as it could backfire on them in a major way if some judge throws the entire ballot measure out because the language was never approved by the City Council as required. COAST/Smitherman would certainly have plenty of egg on their faces if that happened, and then they'd be back at square one.

Perhaps instead of removing the parentheis, they could extend the items listed in the parenthesis to include inter-city rail, subways, inclines, etc etc...

 

I don't necessarily disagree, but that would be a dangerous play, since those forms of passenger rail would go from merely implicated to explicitly defined if this should somehow pass.

 

There's no way the state or Feds will contribute anything if Cincinnati is contributing nothing. There would be City-paid improvements to Cincinnati Union Terminal and to acquire right-of-way for another main line through the Mill Creek Valley.

 

  Today the City Manager sent a memo to city employees asking them to save money. Specifically, he said to print black and white instead of color, and to replace color copiers with black and white ones. Education programs for city employees are being cut, as well as almost all travel outside of the city. The number of city vehicles is being reduced.

 

  We all know that the city is in trouble financially. The city doesn't have extra money laying around to build a streetcar. I'm just sayin'.  :-o

 

There's no way the state or Feds will contribute anything if Cincinnati is contributing nothing. There would be City-paid improvements to Cincinnati Union Terminal and to acquire right-of-way for another main line through the Mill Creek Valley.

 

Actually, the stimulus for which the state is seeking to start-up 3-C service doesn't require a non-federal match. However.... The likelihood that Amtrak would serve a station without its host city or other local government committing to its ongoing maintenance is highly unlikely.

 

I don't want to belabor this here. If you or anyone else wants to discuss the intercity passenger rail implications of the ballot issue, please take it to the 3-C thread so we can keep this topic more focused.

Eigth and State Your right!  Let's leave those blocks and blocks of vacant buildings in OTR vacant. 

How will that mentality translate to extra taxes in city coffers????????

 

That is a very suburbanite republican thing to say! 

 

Get out of Cincy (for once) and go visit some city that has rail.  You'll See and you may learn something in the process!!!!

 

We are digging our own grave so long as this city depends entirely on automobiles!!!!!

  Today the City Manager sent a memo to city employees asking them to save money. Specifically, he said to print black and white instead of color, and to replace color copiers with black and white ones. Education programs for city employees are being cut, as well as almost all travel outside of the city. The number of city vehicles is being reduced.

 

  We all know that the city is in trouble financially. The city doesn't have extra money laying around to build a streetcar. I'm just sayin'. :-o

 

Something tells me that office supply money and infrastructure money aren't interchangeable and thus don't come from the same account.  It's not quite the same as a budget-conscious individual watching his spending so that he can still afford cable. 

^ Agreed. Capital budgets and operating budgets are two completely different animals. This is why New York City's MTA can continue construction work on the Second Avenue Subway even as the agency is forced to cut service and raise fares to cover deficits in its operating budget.

 

I'll admit it still looks bad from a PR point of view, but it's not as if scrapping the streetcar will suddenly make it possible to print color copies.

I'll admit it still looks bad from a PR point of view...

 

True.

No matter which part of the budget the funds come from, it all originates from the pockets of tax paying citizens (I know this is COAST's point all the time, but it is valid).

 

The argument here is that there is plenty of wasteful spending done by the government.  Infrastructure such as the streetcar doesn't fall under that catagory, misuse of office supplies does.  Governments can spend taxpayer dollars wisely and invest in something that has a payback, or it can throw it down a black hole with no chance of any return (many of our social programs).  I'm not the first to say that there isn't enough to go around, and it would be great for the city to cut some costs elsewhere while investing in the streetcar.

>If what COAST and Smitherman is doing is illegal, then there must be consequences.

 

At what point does The Enquirer's misleading coverage of the "streetcar" vote become election fraud?