^ Yeah, that's basically what I was talking about. I think that would work well on Central Parkway, for something like a CUT <-> Casino line. CP could use another road diet, anyway.

 

Another thing I was suggesting is that there could be a separate signal system for the streetcars for this stretch. That way there is no conflict with left-turning vehicles when the streetcar wants to go straight, or straight-moving vehicles when the streetcar wants to turn. The light could be red for cars, and "green" (or whatever symbol is used) for the streetcar.

 

I suppose simple turn arrows are also an option, to keep cars from turning, but a separate signal may be necessary for when the streetcar is turning. Otherwise, you could have a car and the streetcar going the same direction, both turning from different lanes into the same lane, which seems quite dangerous to me.

At one in the morning

>I don't get it. I thought the city was already set on a route up Vine Street to Uptown. Are we talking about the same thing?

 

I mean the next step for expansion of the streetcar in the basin.

 

j-Meck seems like he is under a lot of stress lately.

 

  Well, he's writing a book, you know, and I want to buy it!

 

  According to the Siemans website, they now have an electric tram vehicle with regenerative brakes that can run without overhead wires.

 

  http://www.mobility.siemens.com/mobility/en/pub/urban_mobility/rail_solutions/tram.htm#content-zone

 

  So much for all those ugly overhead wire issues!

 

    I don't know how this works. I doubt that any vehicle can run an entire route continuously only on stored electric energy. But this technology allows only part of a route to be electrified. In Cincinnati, if the uphill vine street portion was electrified, the vehicle may be able to regenerate enough electricity on the downhill portions to power the rest of the route.

 

   

 

    Here's a website that provides technical specs for the streetcar vehicles used in Portland and Seattle.

 

    http://www.inekon-trams.com/superior_low-floor_tram_tech_specs.html

Regenerative braking has been around a while, and is now pretty much a standard feature on any electric rail system. Even when the streetcar is going downhill or decelerating to a stop, it still needs the overhead wire to feed power back into the electric system. Most electric rail vehicles have batteries that allow the train to operate a very short distance without the overhead wire (or third rail), but this is mainly to prevent the vehicle from becoming "gapped" and stall out, such as at a grade crossing where the third rail doesn't extend across the street. Sure, the streetcar could coast down the Vine Street hill for a short distance, but you still need electric power to run the air compressor for the brakes as well as lights, HVAC, etc.

 

If you ride the Chicago 'L' to the outer reaches of the Brown and Pink Lines, you'll notice the lights flicker and HVAC cuts out momentarily whenever the train crosses a street at grade. This is less of an issue on a system with overhead catenary, such as the streetcar, since there's less of a need for gaps in the system.

  ^---Siemens claims that their vehicle can run without wires on stored power from regenerative brakes.  They didn't say for how far. They also didn't say how they are storing power. Batteries are one way to do it, but they add a lot of weight. But they clearly say that their vehicle can store power from regenerative brakes without a wire.

 

    Historically, there have been electric streetcars that were powered by batteries under the seats and charged at night. There have also been gravity railroads that were powered by the load rolling downhill; empty cars were hauled uphill by full cars running downhill. This only works when the load is moving in only one direction, such a between a mine and a market.

 

    If the streetcar up Vine Street is built, some form of energy counterbalance should be considered. Regenerative brakes that send the energy back to the wire might be the simplest. If the Siemens vehicle really could run on wires on the uphill track of Vine Street only, it could potentially save a lot of catenary.

 

 

When you build the first fixed rail transit system in the region in 61 years, no need to reinvent the wheel.

When you build the first fixed rail transit system in the region in 61 years, no need to reinvent the wheel.

 

I think you mean we should use new technology but not necessarily bleeding-edge tech. But that's not really what you said. Am I wrong?

Actually, I kind of like the overhead wire.  It lets me know where the line runs from a distance of several blocks.  I always thought that I would hate an overhead wire until I actually saw one in person.  It's not loose like the wires hanging between telephone poles.  It's a clean, taught cable that doesn't really detract from the environment at all. 

 

I'd rather stick with the technology that has been proven all over the world than go with a bleeding edge solution in the near term.  Let someone else be the guinea pig for now, and if it works, upgrade the streetcar system down the line.

^

I'm with Jimmy_James. Go to the PICS section of www.protransit.com and look at the wires. These were taken with a high-resolution camera under all kinds of skies.

 

They're only noticeable on turns.

The catenary in Dayton is actually kind of cool. It doesn't feel cluttered at all, I was surprised.

When you build the first fixed rail transit system in the region in 61 years, no need to reinvent the wheel.

 

I think you mean we should use new technology but not necessarily bleeding-edge tech. But that's not really what you said. Am I wrong?

 

Correct.  Use new but proven technology.  We may still open before Tuscon due to this fact.

Survey USA poll May 18-19: Cincinnatians oppose streetcar 2:1

 

Might want to review and Comment

 

Click here: http://cincinnati.com/blogs/politics/2010/05/23/get-your-streetcar-poll-crosstabs-here/

The demographics for the answers is interesting.

 

From what you can infer in just looking at question 1, not all young professionals -- many of whom have been supposedly in love with this proposal, are in support of the streetcar project. A greater proportion, by a large margin, believe it is a waste of taxpayers money. Looking at the income distribution, which is unfortunately not more detailed, these supposed young professionals aren't really backing the proposal.

 

For question 2, if the fares were set at a dollar, you may get more young professionals riding the streetcar for that fare, but it drops off considerably the higher the age and the higher the income.

 

No demographic seems to approve the borrowing of the $64 million. And no demographic seems to agree that seeking funding from the general fund or a tax assessment is the best route. Most believe that local businesses (along the route, I assume) and fares should cover operational costs.

 

And there is still a lot of skepticism that the streetcar will even be built, according to question 5.

 

I know a lot of these "young professionals" made appearances at city hall, and have pushed the streetcar online and through social media, but I wonder if it really mattered much in the end. I think that these blogs and postings really help form the opinion of many young professionals, or those who are already going to jump on board with transit in general, but I am curious if it does much to convince those outside of this particular demographic?

It's the Enquirer, what do you expect?  Did they make any effort to get this survey out to people who aren't normal Enquirer readers?  If not, there's you explanation right there.  Also, some of the questions are a bit loaded.  The one about "would you ride at this or that fare etc" is somewhat irrelevant since many people, even those who support the project, would be unlikely to ride it simply because they don't live in its service area.  Also, as the one comment on the final poll reveals, how would the reaction to borrowing money for this project compare to other projects?  Some people think private enterprise should pay for everything, some thing the Feds should.  People just tend to think local funds come more directly out of their own pocket, so they're more resistant to it. 

^Also, using the term "borrow" instead of "issuing bonds" makes it sound very personal, and like it's something that the city doesn't do all the time.

I don't doubt that there isn't some sort of bias. For question 2, they should ask what their tolerance on fares was, not limit it to just one generalized number.

I think these results show a few things.  A)  There is still a lot of ignorance about where the funds come from (capital vs general funds).  B) Issue 9's defeat cannot be based on the streetcar alone as other rail projects, bad wording of the amendment may have played a greater role in its defeat than just the streetcar.

 

My initial suggestion is that streetcar supporters have got to do more on educating people about this issue.  But upon thinking about it further I wonder if streetcar projects in other cities generated the same scope of negative reaction prior to construction?  If I remember correctly they did not have popular support in many cities where they were implemented initially and then support was won once the concept was proven to work.  I think its tougher to sell the concept to Cincinnati because of it's conservative population.

One interesting thing to note is people with an income lower than $40k were significantly less likely to approve of using bonds for funding than the people who made more, who would actually foot more of the bill.

One interesting thing to note is people with an income lower than $40k were significantly less likely to approve of using bonds for funding than the people who made more, who would actually foot more of the bill.

 

Given the fact that the bonds are backed by City tax revenue, the largest portion of which is provided by the payroll tax, which effects all workers and residents at the same rate (it is not graduated), wouldn't the people with a lower income actually be footing more of the bill relative to their income than wealthier folks?

Just got off the phone with someone who knows a lot about polling. He says the Enquirer is really parsing the results of this poll.

 

Here's the gist of his take: 24% of Cincinnatians think it will revitalize the city's core, while another 20% say its a risky project but that it ought to be built. That's 44%. Another 48% think it's a waste. He says for a project that's not built, which the public understands very little because they have nothing to compare it to, being only four points down in the poll is pretty good. Plus 7% are not sure. And there's a 4% margin of error.

 

Here's another thing that pops out at me: 19% of Cincinnatians think they would use the streetcar almost every day. Besides water, sewers and streets, do you think 19% of Cincinnatians can name another City of Cincinnati service they expect to use every day. I can't.

 

Someone wrote me earlier: "Looks like the Enquirer has declared war on the streetcar."

Yeah, if that is the poll that they used... it is the most misleading poll out there. To me, it seems like anyone can vote on the poll. To me, residents of Cincinnati are City of Cincinnati Citizens. This poll implies that everyone is voting on it. That's crap. I hear the arguments left and right saying the entire region should have a say in a city project, but if that was the case then I should have a say in derailing the wasteful Bypass 4 widening, or installing a CFI at Beechmont and Five Mile. I paid my taxes that subsidized those projects, and I must accept that I don't really have a control over where those taxes go. The same should hold true for workers of Cincinnati that live outside of the city. If they truly want to have a say in how the city moves forward, here's a novel idea - Move to the City. If I want to have a say in how the city of Hamilton moves forward, I'll move to Hamilton. Until that time, they can use the accumulated taxes that they got from me how they wish, and I won't have a say in how they do it. City issues need to be left to city residents. Otherwise, you get BS polls like this one that have residents of Indian Hill or Liberty Township having a say in something that they really aren't an expert on. They just want their large lots, cul de sacs, and wide roads. City residents need and often want something  different.

Wow, they flat out lied. Is anyone surprised? You could ALSO say from this data:

 

1) One third of all respondents plan to ride the streetcar at least once a week. Really? ONE THIRD? 60,000 riders A DAY? Twelve times more than the projections?

 

2) Cincinnati is actually split on the streetcar in general, 48% to 44%, with 7% undecided. Within the margin of error.

 

So, the Enquirer has lied. Most don't oppose the streetcar. Most approve or are undecided. They've flat-out lied about their own data, and then published it right there for you to see.

 

An honest headline would have read "City residents split on Streetcar" with a subheading "Oppose city bonds 2:1."

 

 

 

 

The way things are going in the world of print media (and with the Enquirer/Gannett in particular) I'll be shocked if the Enquirer even still exists by the time the streetcar opens to the public. Their entire business model has become a -- shall we say: boondoggle -- and the ultimate irony is that the streetcar will be operating successfully for a long time after the Enquirer has gone out of business.

I called 1-800-876-4500 to cancel our Enquirer subscription of over thirty years, but whaddaya know?, they won't take cancellation orders on Sundays.

 

I guess cancellations are so numerous there these days, they can only handle them Mondays through Fridays.

^They want to charge you for that one extra day.... 1.50 or so is a lot in the newspaper business these days.

Sadly, the subscription charge for the print edition barely covers the cost of delivering the paper. Their real money comes from ad revenue, which you'll notice largely consists of suburban car dealerships.

It's time to hit 'em where they actually care - their pocketbooks!  Please share your comments about this topic here where I plan sharing with Enquirer leadership:

http://www.urbancincy.com/2010/05/cincinnati-enquirer-abandoning-city-interests/

It's time to hit 'em where they actually care - their pocketbooks! Please share your comments about this topic here where I plan sharing with Enquirer leadership:

http://www.urbancincy.com/2010/05/cincinnati-enquirer-abandoning-city-interests/

 

Agreed.  And for us out-of-towners, what's the best way to avoid supporting them via their website.  Do they get paid every time an ad gets clicked, or are the ads price by Cincinnati.com hits?

There is so much good grass roots reporting of development stories in the city these days that I haven't been to Cincinnati.com on a daily basis in about two years. I say good riddance.

^ Same here. Sites like Building Cincinnati, UrbanCincy, and Soapbox are rapidly making the Enquirer obsolete.

It's time to hit 'em where they actually care - their pocketbooks! Please share your comments about this topic here where I plan sharing with Enquirer leadership:

http://www.urbancincy.com/2010/05/cincinnati-enquirer-abandoning-city-interests/

Randy, I'd say "Virginia-based" in the first para.

Well, they changed the title of the article...it now reads "Poll buoys streetcar foes"

 

wonder why they changed it?

This was a third-party polling service, not some web-based Enquirer poll. The Enquirer feeds them a set of questions and they use an automated system to call out, and the individuals punch buttons into their phone to give a response. The polling is not inaccurate; the questions, though, are baited.

 

As for why all reputable polling services require a landline phone, is because a landline phone is controlled by one carrier (e.g. Cincinnati Bell, for Cincinnati) and that it is connected to a physical address and individual. Mobile phones are not, and contact can be easily spoofed, especially with pre-pay phones. And Internet-based calls, such as Google Voice, add instability that no major polling service will call your mobile.

 

    I got a phone call the other day:

 

    "Hello, this is _______ from _______. We are a public opionion survey company and we would like to ask your opinion. We are not selling anything. This survey will take 20 minutes. Do you have time?

 

  "20 minutes! Gee, that could take awhile. Ok, go ahead.

 

    "Do you or anyone in your family work for a newspaper, TV, or radio station?"

   

    "No."

 

    "Do you write a blog, or participate in internet discussion forums?"

 

    "Yes."

 

    (Sounding surprised) "Is that a yes? You said that you do write a blog or participate in internet discussion forums?"

 

    "Yes, I do."

 

    "This is the end of the survey. Thank You for your time." (hangs up.)

 

 

Well, they changed the title of the article...it now reads "Poll buoys streetcar foes"

 

wonder why they changed it?

 

This appears to be a new story. The first three six paragraphs are basically handed to Tom Luken. It's disgusting, but more so it is sad. The streetcar is either going to be in the bag by November or it won't, there's nothing the other team can do at this point, and this kind of coverage will be seen in retrospect as desperate and dishonorable.

You know what I think? I think the Enquirer has realized that every time this issue heats up, it really drives its web traffic, and they don't want that to go away. I mean, look at the Comment counts on any streetcar article -- some exceeding 1,000. Once construction starts, all of that will stop.

 

I suspect they are egging-on the opponents to launch a petition drive just for that reason. It's a no-lose situation. The publisher hates the streetcar. I hear that's where the opposition, not so much in the newsroom, so it's heads she wins, tails she wins. Whatever the outcome, it sells (some) more papers, but also gives them a story of robust web traffic to push to their advertisers. In a way, we aid and abet that story.

Here is the poll methodology, from what I can tell it looks like it was only home telephones:

 

 

 

About the Poll: This poll was conducted by telephone in the voice of a professional announcer. Respondent households were selected at random, using Random Digit Dialed (RDD) sample provided by Survey Sampling, of Fairfield CT. All respondents heard the questions asked identically. The pollster's report includes the geography that was surveyed; the date(s) interviews were conducted, the number of respondents who answered each question and the theoretical margin of sampling error for each question. Where necessary, respondents were weighted using the most recent US Census estimates for age, gender, ethnic origin and region, to align the sample to the population. In theory, one can say with 95% certainty that the results would not vary by more than the stated margin of sampling error, in one direction or the other, had the entire universe of respondents with home telephones been interviewed with complete accuracy. There are other possible sources of error in all surveys that may be more serious than sampling error. These include: the difficulty of interviewing respondents who do not have a home telephone; the refusal by some with home telephones to be interviewed; the order in which questions are asked; the wording of questions; the way and extent to which data are weighted; and the manner in which specialized populations, such as likely voters, are determined. It is difficult to quantify the errors that may result from these and other factors. Research methodology, questionnaire design and fieldwork for this survey were completed by SurveyUSA of Clifton, NJ. This statement conforms to the principles of disclosure of the National Council on Public Polls.

http://cincystreetcar.wordpress.com/2010/05/24/enquirer-poll-cincinnati-streetar-to-make-22440207-in-profit-per-year/

When Not-News Goes Bad: The Enquirer's Dumb Streetcar Poll

 

Judging by the sheer number of responses in the Cinblogosphere yesterday, the chances are pretty good you’ve already seen this.  If you know TCM, however, you know that we  can’t resist a bit of commentary on the matter.  First things first: yesterday’s Enquirer paid to have a poll done, and then said that this poll means something.

 

It doesn’t mean much of anything, truth told.

 

 

cont.

The average age of a home phone user is higher than the general population.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/05/study-excluding-cellphones-introduces.html

Brad, I don't think anyone argues with that but no reputable polling company will use mobile phones, much like pre-paid phones, for the basis of accountability. The polling company wasn't flawed; it was the Enquirer's questions that they submitted that were.

Enquirer has another story up:

 

http://cincinnati.com/blogs/politics/2010/05/24/what-theyre-saying-about-the-streetcar-poll/#pluckcomments

Brad, I don't think anyone argues with that but no reputable polling company will use mobile phones, much like pre-paid phones, for the basis of accountability. The polling company wasn't flawed; it was the Enquirer's questions that they submitted that were.

 

But the very concept of "no reputable polling company will use mobile phones" is flawed. Even the most perfectly crafted poll is flawed if it is not random and representational.

Enquirer has another story up:

 

http://cincinnati.com/blogs/politics/2010/05/24/what-theyre-saying-about-the-streetcar-poll/#pluckcomments

 

Politics Extra is impossible to find for the average reader on the front page. I don't even consider what they post here to be "published."

Here's a graph from the link I posted above:

"Cellphone-only households are different from their landline-using counterparts. They tend to be younger, poorer, more urban, less white, and more Internet-savvy. All of these characteristics are correlated with political viewpoints and voting behavior."