So does this decision mean if I am on Council and my road is up for repaving that I have to recuse myself from that vote?  I mean everyone gains from the new pavement but maybe I use it a little more?    

 

To use streetcar opponent's logic: 

 

Why can't we just have an election on the issue?  What are you so afraid of?  Let's have the city vote on whether your street gets repaved.  That's the only way.

It deserves its own post:

 

The Enquirer's Streetcar Numbers Don't Add Up

By Kevin Osborne

 

For supporters of Cincinnati’s proposed streetcar system, it was the final straw.

Having discussed privately among themselves for the past few months what they viewed as unfair, lopsided coverage of the streetcar debate by The Enquirer, the lead story in the newspaper’s May 23 edition brought their simmering anger into public view.

 

And in a big way.

 

Splashed across The Enquirer’s front page Sunday in a font size usually reserved for the declaration of war or World Series championships was the headline “Poll: Most Oppose Streetcars.”

 

The article’s tone was quickly set by its breathless, cleverly worded first paragraph: “Cincinnatians overwhelmingly oppose the proposed $128 million streetcar project, objecting 2-to-1 to City Hall’s plan to borrow tens of millions of dollars for a plan widely viewed as a waste of taxpayer money, an Enquirer poll shows.” Or did it?

 

http://www.citybeat.com/cincinnati/article-20742-the-enquirers-streetcar-numbers-dont-add-up.html

^ I think landline-only is flawed, but I don't think you can accuse them of skewing the demographics if they did indeed get a representative spread. They say they did. I'm not really sure how.

 

Otherwise, I think your post summarizes the hypocrisy that a lot of people on UO are angry at.

 

Some anecdotal evidence on the landline only thing.  There were 10 letters to the editor about the streetcar from people who live in City limits in today's Enquirer.

 

4 of 10 are listed in the phone book (and this includes counting a Jason Caskey as a Jim Caskey)

 

6 of 10 are not listed.

 

Nationally, 78% of houses have a landline but among this admittedly too small sampling of our supporters only 40% do (and that might by 30% if I got the wrong Mr. Caskey).

I have a landline. It isn't in my name though. Though we don't really use it. We just have it because we have Zoomtown DSL.

"favorable paving treament"

 

An extra layer of asphalt? Brick? Cement?

 

I think its just a funny phrase.

 

 

 

My pavement's better than yours!!  Honestly, this project has way more impact than a street resurfacing bid and the argument that this benefits some more than others, although true still should not apply to Bortz.  There is no direct interest, only possible residual interest.  Does this mean everyone along the streetcar corridor shouldn't have voted on Issue 9?  I would think that the only direct benefit is if Bortz tried to designate direct stops on the line in front of his properties.

I just wrote another letter. You guys should, too. Let's keep it up, one a day.

 

[...]

 

What has the Enquirer done to help get that message out?  Quote Tom Luken repeatedly (as recently as Monday) as some voice of reason?  Really, the Enquirer could do a lot more to get a balanced message out if they wanted to.  Not pro or against, but basic information that would allow rational, sentient beings to make an informed decision.  They actually did this in the Forum coverage prior to the Issue 9 election, and it was quite successful in getting the message out.  But far and away their coverage of choice are hit pieces, bereft of substantive content, which instead give us rambling rhetoric from Granpa Luken with zero in the way of a counter from the other side.  All while cloaking it in their noble goal of simply asking the "hard questions."  Seriously...who asks "hard questions" of the opponents?  They get away with absolute flat out lies and when has the Enquirer ever asked a "hard question" of them?

 

And they then have the gall to criticize streetcar supporters for not communicating better?  It's difficult to get the message out when you're pushing a Skoda up Sycamore with Tom Luken and Margaret Buchanan on the roof with bullhorns shouting at you to turn around.  Sorry, that dog won't hunt.

 

If they are so interested in seeing the proponents message get out there better, maybe they should be a bit more pro-active...devote a column a week to a pro/con.  Or perhaps let a streetcar blogger be part of the co-opted realm of the Enquirer subsumed blogosphere.  It is disingenuous to say "you're not doing enough to get the message out there," and then thwart that message at every turn.

 

Sorry Enquirer.  Not good enough.

 

Nail. Hammer. Head.

I might have missed this from 1 of the earlier 340 pages on this topic, but have any big companies stated their approval or disapproval of the plan?

 

I know the casino owner wants it.  I can't recall P&G or any other fortune 500 company speaking out in favor or against it along with the reds/bengals...

I might have missed this from 1 of the earlier 340 pages on this topic, but have any big companies stated their approval or disapproval of the plan?

 

I know the casino owner wants it. I can't recall P&G or any other fortune 500 company speaking out in favor or against it along with the reds/bengals...

 

Steve Leeper's (3CDC) quote in today's City Beat was good to hear.

 

[...]

 

What has the Enquirer done to help get that message out? Quote Tom Luken repeatedly (as recently as Monday) as some voice of reason? Really, the Enquirer could do a lot more to get a balanced message out if they wanted to. Not pro or against, but basic information that would allow rational, sentient beings to make an informed decision. They actually did this in the Forum coverage prior to the Issue 9 election, and it was quite successful in getting the message out. But far and away their coverage of choice are hit pieces, bereft of substantive content, which instead give us rambling rhetoric from Granpa Luken with zero in the way of a counter from the other side. All while cloaking it in their noble goal of simply asking the "hard questions." Seriously...who asks "hard questions" of the opponents? They get away with absolute flat out lies and when has the Enquirer ever asked a "hard question" of them?

 

And they then have the gall to criticize streetcar supporters for not communicating better? It's difficult to get the message out when you're pushing a Skoda up Sycamore with Tom Luken and Margaret Buchanan on the roof with bullhorns shouting at you to turn around. Sorry, that dog won't hunt.

 

If they are so interested in seeing the proponents message get out there better, maybe they should be a bit more pro-active...devote a column a week to a pro/con. Or perhaps let a streetcar blogger be part of the co-opted realm of the Enquirer subsumed blogosphere. It is disingenuous to say "you're not doing enough to get the message out there," and then thwart that message at every turn.

 

Sorry Enquirer. Not good enough.

 

Nail. Hammer. Head.

 

I suspect you will probably see a version of that again at some point in the not so distant future.

In general the issue still has a majority but with Laketa Cole resigning next month, its imperative that a replacement is found that also maintains that balance.  I'm sure they have already taken this into consideration.

 

The two possible replacement will vote for the streetcar.

Washington DC almost doomed their streetcar system today, but apparently the Council put the money back into the budget.  Anyway, some prankster put this ad up on Craigslist...

 

http://washingtondc.craigslist.org/doc/bfs/1760480562.html

 

Washington DC almost doomed their streetcar system today, but apparently the Council put the money back into the budget. Anyway, some prankster put this ad up on Craigslist...

 

http://washingtondc.craigslist.org/doc/bfs/1760480562.html

 

 

I like the paint scheme on those

 

http://www.thedctraveler.com/files/2006/11/dc-circulator.JPG

 

already in use on Circulator buses. 

 

 

It would have blown my mind if Gray successfully cut the DC streetcars from the budget. It's already under construction! I see the Benning Rd line every time I ride the Orange Line in from New Carrollton for kickball or broomball or other fun events! It blew my mind that they'd axe something well under construction, and I am glad that the masses in DC spoke up and brought fire and brimstone to Gray's proposal! Also, yeah, the Circulator's design is quite nice.

 

I hope Cincinnatians can pull off the same thing in the event someone tries to pull 11th hour chicanery like Gray in DC tried. Even better, may nothing similar to what occurred today in DC happen to this project.

^ Agreed. We can't let up until our streetcars are actually in revenue service. Imagine the field day COAST, et al would have if they could point to a half-completed streetcar system along with the half-utilized RTC, half-completed subway, and half-demolished Union Terminal. It's only a boondoggle if it fails.

If you didn't see today's print Enquirer, the physical editorial page had a much different impact than could be felt online.  I really sensed The Enquirer backpedaling while trying to cover its ass.  I'd go as far as to suspect someone from the corporate Gannett office got a call from someone big in this town, then spanked this hack staff they've got running The Enquirer. The way they reported that poll was blatantly unethical, then calling streetcar supporters "religious" was a bunch of BS.   

 

Meanwhile, we'd all like to know how much they spent to have that worthless poll conducted -- how many staffers could they have sent on one of John Schneider's trips for that amount?  At present no one on their staff has any idea what they're talking about.  It's the blind leading the blind. 

 

j-Meck, you should send in some of that commentary as an LTE.

*Post Katrina New Orleans is in this cohort, data APTA 2008

^ And what is Cincy's rank?

 

Edit: I see on your blog it is 32nd.

New Urbanophile article about transit:

 

FTA Administrator Peter Rogoff Delivers Tough Love to Transit Advocates

FTA Administrator Peter Rogoff, in a recent address that drew heated debate, gave some tough love to transit advocates by telling them to get over their infatuation with rail, and to focus on maintaining and operating the system we’ve got vs. expanding it.

Rail vs. Bus

 

Here’s Rogoff on rail:

 

    Supporters of public transit must be willing to share some simple truths that folks don’t want to hear. One is this — Paint is cheap, rails systems are extremely expensive. Yes, transit riders often want to go by rail. But it turns out you can entice even diehard rail riders onto a bus, if you call it a “special” bus and just paint it a different color than the rest of the fleet. Once you’ve got special buses, it turns out that busways are cheap. Take that paint can and paint a designated bus lane on the street system. Throw in signal preemption, and you can move a lot of people at very little cost compared to rail.

 

    A little honesty about the differences between bus and rail can have some profound effects. Earlier I pointed out that our new estimate for the deferred maintenance backlog for the entire transit universe is roughly $78 billion. But you should know that fully 75 percent of that figure is to replace rail assets….. Communities deciding between bus and rail investments need to stare those numbers in the face. Some communities might be tempted to pay the extra cost for shiny new rails now. But they need to be mindful of the costs they are teeing up for future generations.

 

Read more: http://www.urbanophile.com/2010/05/27/fta-administrator-peter-rogoff-delivers-tough-love-to-transit-advocates/

 

Hopefully, arenn will stop by and relate it to his support for the streetcar.

I do support the streetcar. The cost seems modest as these things go. It's basically a starter type system.

^ Haha, right on cue. Do you get "trackback" notifications or something?

 

I remembered that you support the streetcar. I was just wondering how you'd relate it to the post, which obviously is a little bit opposed to rail start-ups.

 

In addition to being a relatively modest cost, it serves an already densely built-up area and one which is experiencing a resurgence, so I think it stands out in a number of ways from some random new rail service.

Oddly enough, Rogoff's statement about painting buses a different color and calling it something else is actually true... The ridership on the DC and Charm City Circulators is pretty solid and there are a lot of people that you wouldn't necessarily think would ride a regular bus. It's rather weird that the bias constant for a different color bus with a different name is lower than that of a regular old fleet bus. However, it is also worth noting that at least with the DC Circulator they tend to follow future streetcar routes.

 

Rogoff must also take into mind that busways do not have the development benefits that fixed rail systems do. That's not to say that fixed rail systems necessarily cause development (See Baltimore's Light Rail System), but cheap busways do not give the same permanent feeling that a fixed rail system can. It's much cheaper to remove that busway and revert it back to cars than it is to shut down a rail operation. Rail costs are rail costs. People in cities that have rail love rail. While Maryland is massively cutting back road spending, it anted up the Metro funding it threatened to withhold after massive protest. When the public wants something, the government will find a way to provide. That includes the finding the additional costs of a fixed rail system.

 

Besides, are roads really that cheap? Maybe you'd see ton of deferred road maintenance if the gas tax didn't subsidize... oh wait! The gas taxes DON'T subsidize fully the costs of roads! Thank God for the new era of deferred road maintenance even with a dedicated tax that many transit systems do not have!

 

 

^ "Are roads really that cheap?"

 

It seems like Rogoff is comparing the cost of running a bus network minus road infrastructure, with the cost of running rail networks with associated infrastructure.

 

If that's the case, it's not really a fair comparison. It is harder, of course, to extract what share of road costs a bus network should be responsible for, but that cost is certainly not zero.

...But it turns out you can entice even diehard rail riders onto a bus, if you call it a “special” bus and just paint it a different color than the rest of the fleet...

 

The point he misses with this statement is that rail fans don't hate buses.  They recognize that buses have an important role to play in a comprehensive transit system, but they also recognize that buses alone make for a very poor transit system.  In fact, I'd imagine that "diehard rail riders" are FAR MORE likely to ride buses than rail opponents who claim that bus service is the end-all-be-all of mass transit, so I'm not exactly sure what he's trying to prove with that statement.  Just more of the same old "just paint lines on the street" argument, but as TraderJake pointed out, you then totally bypass the developmental benefit that rail brings.

It seems like Rogoff is comparing the cost of running a bus network minus road infrastructure, with the cost of running rail networks with associated infrastructure.

 

Exactly.  We're still paying for the roads that buses use, only in many different ways that are harder to track. 

When the subway and streetcars were killed in Cincinnati, it was advertised that buses would use the expressways instead and that service would be better than rail could have ever provided.  Well, that hasn't really happened, because the first attempt to create something like Metro was to be funded by a county property tax but was voted down.  What did pass was the city-based Queen City Metro, which is funded by a city earnings tax, and due to legal and financial reasons simply cannot use the expressways in a large way.  Yes, I know there are some park-and-rides, but service outside city limits is sparse.

 

Tom Luken, back during Issue 9, bragged that "we got that done in 18 months", meaning formation of Queen City Metro.  That was yet another lie, since when I looked it up it was upwards of a 10 year process which included the failed countywide system.  Further, since the "metro" has expanded way, way beyond city limits since the early 1970's, Metro's funding in no way permits the kind of public transportation network the region needs. 

 

 

 

 

I agree with Rogoff in part. If the ultimate goal is retrofitting America for cheaper, denser living, a Curitiba-style busway down Beechmont Avenue with the associated transit-enabling zoning changes would be a better way to do that than a brand new rail line.

 

I rode the bus in Chicago every day. Buses serve density, but they do not make density. Rogoff insists that it is more important to repair the system we have than create new systems. It is so obvious that this statement relies entirely on the belief that our current system isn't a failure, that you almost overlook it. Americans see buses on many occasions in which the bus is a total mismatch to the environment, while rail lives in urban happy land. No wonder the bus is a pariah. But the goal is to live efficiently and that includes density. If in the last 50 years buses have not promoted density but rail has, then investing in the cheaper option isn't going to get the job done at all.

Also most of the growth in transit use in the U.S. has come on the rail side. Most of this growth (shown below by Gadling) is from new commuter/regional rail services, with a small contribution from intercity rail (Amtrak) that has seen ridership grow from 19 million to 29 million per year. Source of data is from the Federal Railroad Administration....

 

 

  "It was advertised that buses would use the expressways instead and that service would be better..."

 

    The Metropolitan Master Plan of 1948 suggested loading and unloading lanes alongside the expressways. Buses wouldn't have to leave the highway, and passengers would walk in from surrounding neighborhoods.

 

    Since a lot of the traffic exists on the local roads at suburban interchanges, this really wasn't a bad concept. Of course, by the time the interstates were built, this concept had faded away. Today, the buses lumber along Reading Road, Montgomery Road, Colerain Avenue, Hamilton Avenue, etc, stopping every block or two, while cars zip down the freeway without stopping. No wonder people drive!

The Master Plan of 1948 was a total sham.  It wasn't a plan, it was propaganda.  Most plans aren't actually plans.  They're political stall devices or stalking horses. 

^---- A plan without a source of funding is just a dream. Sure, the 1948 plan had a lot of propaganda in it, but some of the concepts in the 1948 plan actually got built.

 

 

  Just saw this in another thread. We have a "young professional" looking for a place in or near downtown Cleveland who wants either a modern apartment or an old apartment rehabbed to modern standards with "Granite, Stainless, and Hardwood." He is willing to pay $1200 per month. He works at a hospital.

 

  This is just what we need in Over-the-Rhine, right? YP's with lots of money to fill some of those rehabs or new construction. The streetcar will take him to his job at University Hospital.

 

    Here's the problem:

 

    "I have a car, but I want the walkable atmosphere."

 

    An urban area will tolerate some cars, but cars in any number will make the area unwalkable. Where are you going to park them all?

 

  Just saw this in another thread. We have a "young professional" looking for a place in or near downtown Cleveland who wants either a modern apartment or an old apartment rehabbed to modern standards with "Granite, Stainless, and Hardwood." He is willing to pay $1200 per month. He works at a hospital.

 

  This is just what we need in Over-the-Rhine, right? YP's with lots of money to fill some of those rehabs or new construction. The streetcar will take him to his job at University Hospital.

 

  Here's the problem:

 

  "I have a car, but I want the walkable atmosphere."

 

  An urban area will tolerate some cars, but cars in any number will make the area unwalkable. Where are you going to park them all?

 

the planning commission is currently reviewing a 50% parking reduction within 2 blocks of the line and no mandatory parking if the parking for a building would be under 5 spaces after the 50% reduction

 

    ^---- Regardless of what the planning commission says, the impression that I get is that young professionals want private parking spaces.

 

    Look at ads for apartments in the city and see how many of them advertise off-street parking.

 

    Sure, it's possible to live without a car, especially in areas with transit. Furthermore, cars can be rented for trips. But how many young professionals WANT to live without a car?

 

    If the streetcar brings all the development that the proponents call for, then expect it to bring a lot of cars as well. That's not necessarily bad, but I don't think it's what the proponents had in mind.

The sooner car sharing services make their way into the culture, the better. California is looking to allow people to share their cars with others for cash. Something like Zipcar is a more likely possibility.

 

I don't know another answer for this. While the appeal to live downtown is not hard to see becoming mainstream, going car-free is. Permit-only parking on certain streets can help the situation a bit, I guess. Underground lots are too expensive to build all over.

If they want parking and are willing to pay enough for it, there may be ways to resolve that. I've read of vintage buildings that were structurally not economically salvageable and were razed with the facades either preserved standing in place and restored, or dismantled and reconstructed elsewhere, to front new structures, including parking decks. That might provide private, secure parking without compromising the historic character of the area.

 

^---- Regardless of what the planning commission says, the impression that I get is that young professionals want private parking spaces.

 

Look at ads for apartments in the city and see how many of them advertise off-street parking.

 

Sure, it's possible to live without a car, especially in areas with transit. Furthermore, cars can be rented for trips. But how many young professionals WANT to live without a car?

 

  If the streetcar brings all the development that the proponents call for, then expect it to bring a lot of cars as well. That's not necessarily bad, but I don't think it's what the proponents had in mind.

 

This is definitely an area where the market will take care of itself. If putting fixed rail transit down and adjusting the zoning doesn't end up being a game-changer, I don't know what else would. There's not much further that I personally would feel comfortable putting tax dollars towards, transportation-wise. Certainly not parking garage subsidy or the like.

 

Luckily there is still quite a bit of on-street capacity even as close as 13th street. People sometimes underestimate on-street capacity, but when I had my car in Lakeview, I could reliably park it on a street within 3 blocks of my house.

Sure, it's possible to live without a car, especially in areas with transit. Furthermore, cars can be rented for trips. But how many young professionals WANT to live without a car?

 

Many do, just not in this town.  It's grown without rail transit for too long, and everyone has a parent or sibling that lives far out in the 'burbs.  Living totally car free here would make trips like that impossible or a complete pain in the rear.  Where you're going to see vehicle reduction is among couples.  Instead of 2 cars, they'll have 1 that they basically park and forget.  It seems like you could have a garage for people like this several blocks from the line.  It wouldn't be much of an inconvenience if they only drive once every week or two anyway.

 

If they want parking and are willing to pay enough for it, there may be ways to resolve that. I've read of vintage buildings that were structurally not economically salvageable and were razed with the facades either preserved standing in place and restored, or dismantled and reconstructed elsewhere, to front new structures, including parking decks. That might provide private, secure parking without compromising the historic character of the area.

 

There's one of these next to Powell's books in downtown Portland.  Driving up its steep ramp is pretty harrowing, but it looks much better from the street than a typical parking garage.

 

  We've got a great big parking garage at the banks.

 

  In theory, a person could live in Over-the-Rhine and ride the streetcar to the banks to pick up his car when he needs it. But how many people do you think are actually going to do that? Cars are seen as a door-to-door service.

 

    Even if couples and families have one car instead of two or three, that's still one car more than what Over-the-Rhine was originally built for.

Several years ago my car was totaled by a drunk driver (not me!), so I moved to Lincoln Park (a neighborhood in DC) and never replaced my car.  I joined Flexcar which eventually became Zipcar and I never looked back. 

 

Currently, Cincinnati lacks a lot compared to DC transportation-wise:  1.  rail network  2.  carsharing  3.  frequent public transit to regional transportation hubs (e.g., airport, Amtrak).  The Cincinnati streetcar line is the first step forward in building such a network.  It will not and can not be perfect as a 1-line streetcar between UC and the Banks.  Pointing out that it won't remove as many cars from the streets as a well-developed network means you (or whoever) has unrealistic expectations for what 1 line can do. 

 

I don't think anyone is fooling themselves to think that this line will keep 100% of new OTR residents from bringing cars with them.  As OTR stands right now it can withstand a few more car-owning residents.  At least they are residents!  And when a cross-town line gets built or perhaps one that services Covington and Newport or perhaps even [gasp] commuter rail to CVG materializes, then we can start thinking about sincerely reducing the parking space requirements...to levels much lower than what are being proposed/instituted now. 

 

The whole argument comes off to me as a canard.  If the concern over parking is satisfied, another as-yet unmentioned concern will materialize until the issue is discussed and studied to its death. 

There is also the garage being built under Washington Park, the Gateway Garage, and plans for a garage at Mercer Commons. Those garages, coupled with street parking and small surface parking should suffice for the time being.

 

As far as young professionals wanting/not wanting a car, I think it's entirely dependent on the city they are in.  When I lived in DC I was car free and had virtually no limitations between the Metro, cabs, and zipcar.  Now I live in Los Angeles, however, and have lived here car free for a year and a half, and I will soon be bringing my car out here.  While I can get a lot of places on transit here, LA is still ruled by the car, and the best parts of the city (West Side) are not reached by rail, and I feel I need a car to fully experience and appreciate LA.  I think the same would be the case in Cincinnati.  Living in OTR would enable me to vastly reduce how much I use my car, as I could walk or take the streetcar to basically anywhere Downtown or OTR, as well as select locations Uptown.  However to fullly take in the city I would have to have access to Hyde Park, Mt. Lookout, Clifton, Northside, Mt. Adams, and even some suburban locations such as Kenwood and Mariemont, and I think only a car could provide that.

 

  We've got a great big parking garage at the banks.

 

  In theory, a person could live in Over-the-Rhine and ride the streetcar to the banks to pick up his car when he needs it. But how many people do you think are actually going to do that? Cars are seen as a door-to-door service.

 

Even if couples and families have one car instead of two or three, that's still one car more than what Over-the-Rhine was originally built for.

 

Not sure what you're getting at with this train of thought? Plenty of neighborhoods in America weren't intended for cars. If a YUP buys a place with no parking spot, then he buys it. If he doesn't, he doesn't. Mercer Commons will be the first large-scale project in OTR, and it tucked a garage into the block. Any future large scale project will likely do the same.

 

I see what you're getting at with the whole "OTR is but a fragment of walkability in a non-walkable metro area." I just don't see what any of us can or should do about it other than promote more transit. So, why worry about it?

Hopefully someday the garage at Mercer Commons can become a big courtyard, but until then it serves a purpose. It's not like having that garage detracts from the walkability of the neighborhood. Certainly not to any large degree, anyhow.

 

  Well, the premise of the streetcar is that increased property values will make up for the cost of the streetcar. Increased property values depend on more people moving in to Over-the-Rhine.

 

  Nationwide, more young people are buying houses in suburban areas than in cities. So, the trend isn't in favor of the streetcar.

 

  If some young people do move to Over-the-Rhine, I expect most of them to bring their cars. There will have to be space to park all of these cars; this space will have to be dedicated to cars instead of more people.

 

    So, maybe the property values won't increase as much as hoped. That's all I'm sayin'.  :-)

 

   

 

  Well, the premise of the streetcar is that increased property values will make up for the cost of the streetcar. Increased property values depend on more people moving in to Over-the-Rhine.

 

  Nationwide, more young people are buying houses in suburban areas than in cities. So, the trend isn't in favor of the streetcar.

 

  If some young people do move to Over-the-Rhine, I expect most of them to bring their cars. There will have to be space to park all of these cars; this space will have to be dedicated to cars instead of more people.

 

So, maybe the property values won't increase as much as hoped. That's all I'm sayin'.   :-)

 

 

 

It's funny that you think if more young people are currently buying homes in suburbs, that constitutes a trend.  A trend involves changes over time.  If more people, young and old, were not currently buying more suburban houses, then suburbs would simply collapse cause thats where most of the homes are.

 

Most of the people I know don't want to get along without a car, they want to get along using a car a lot less than they do now.  They'd be happy to try not having one, if transit options were spectacular and all their friends lived within walking or transit distance.  We all realize that will take time measured in decades.

 

 

 

    Suffice it to say that young professionals are not flocking to Over-the-Rhine at the moment, though there are some.

 

Suffice it to say that young professionals are not flocking to Over-the-Rhine at the moment, though there are some.

 

Suffice it to say that there is a definite trend of more people moving to OTR at the moment.  I suppose that every flock needs to start with a few birds.

Today again, on my walk to Findlay, I noticed the curious event of small hoards of 50-100 persons on guided walking tours of OTR, @ $15 a head.  Cameras in hand, young and old.

 

How times change.  Someday relatively soon they will extend the tour using the streetcar and get to see changes that right now can't even be imagined.