January 5, 201312 yr It's my position that the Cincinnati Streetcar is more of a Symbol than a transportation improvement. I actually spent two solid days writing the post at the link below. Do please read it before responding since my position is a lot more complex than the slightly intriguing statement that is this thread's title. http://cincymap.org/blog/the-streetcar-4-symbolic-transit/ I'd love to start a good discussion here. I'm dying to be proven wrong! Or at least to come to a new understanding of how this project won't put Cincinnati's transit in a slightly pathetic light for the next couple of decades. Best, Nate Hey Nate, it's AJ! Welcome to UrbanOhio! I'm glad you brought this debate here because there are plenty of people who are quite knowledgeable and love to debate the project. I love you analysis of the project, but while I agree that Vine Street would've been a better option it's simply too late to change that. And while it's true that buses and streetcar are essentially the same conveyance of tansportation, the general public still makes that distinction HUGE. Call it naive or inexplicable, but it's been proven time and again. We're just capitalizing on that demand.
January 5, 201312 yr To be honest, I'm not super knowledgeable about the whole story regarding the Cincy streetcar, but it is fascinating to watch this whole streetcar process unfold, and I can't help but notice many parallels to the many fights over the years regarding the subway. Precisely which "fights" over which "subway" and in what "years" do you refer to? Is this a "joke" comment?
January 5, 201312 yr WKRC "No streetcar until at least April 2016" http://www.local12.com/news/local/story/No-Streetcar-Until-At-Least-April-2016/XL5P_spfqEiRKfHBK2OtsQ.cspx Home : News : Local News No Streetcar Until At Least April 2016 * Video * Sliding Scale Set Text Size Small Set Text Size Medium Set Text Size Large Set Text Size X-Large Print Story Published: 1/04 4:30 pm Share Updated: 1/04 7:44 pm When discussions began, we were told the new streetcar system would be ready for riders as early as this spring. Today city leaders are talking about a new timeline -- with the first rides not taking place until April of 2016. Local 12 News Reporter Tiffany Wilson explains what caused the setback. Machinery crawls up and down race street today, making way for water lines that will allow for the streetcar's construction. But there's a lot of other work that needs to be done. So just when will you be able to take a ride? If it was left up to mayoral candidate John Cranley -- the answer would be never. And at the very least, he wants to halt all work until after November's election. City spokesperson Meg Olberding admits two referendums, new designs and ongoing Duke negotiations have slowed the construction schedule. But she says there's no turning back now. "All of the pieces to build the streetcar are in motion and far along, we are building the streetcar, the administration has been told to build the streetcar, we are building it." Dispatch "Cincinnati's Streetcar delayed until 2016" http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2013/01/05/streetcar-project-now-delayed-until-2016.html Two ballot measures drafted by streetcar opponents slowed the process, even though Cincinnati voters rejected efforts to scuttle the project. WLWT "Streetcar Project delayed again" http://www.wlwt.com/news/local-news/cincinnati/Cincinnati-streetcar-project-delayed-again/-/13549970/18017722/-/13on9l4/-/index.html WCPO "Streetcar Project Delayed again, More Streetcar Opposition" Cranley says Duke Dispute should have been settled. And mayoral candidate John Cranley is calling for the plans to come to a complete stop. Cranley said he feels the city shouldn't have moved forward with the project by ordering five streetcars without resolving the $20 million dispute with Duke Energy regarding the relocation of power lines before construction begins. "It shows contempt with the taxpayer." Cranley said. "They haven't resolved Duke. They could end up moth balling these streetcars for two or three years and paying for storage." Cranley also said he takes issue with the fact that the city originally said that half of the money would come from the federal government, but now the city is paying for 80 percent of the project.
January 5, 201312 yr From a circa 2007 Cranley bio: Cranley has also led efforts to redevelop the urban core by creating tax increment financing districts. He has also worked to expand and keep affordable public transit and to pass a clean air law. During his tenure, Cranley has been the most outspoken and effective leader in getting more cops hired and on the street to fight crime. Does anyone know what this is in reference to? Here is the link: http://www.smartvoter.org/2007/11/06/oh/hm/vote/cranley_j/bio.html On the Metro part he was involved in fare hikes when Metro hadn't had any in years. I remember this being a fairly contentious issue. Metro claimed they were behind in maintenance etc because they had not had steady fare hikes in the past. I think, like Tom Luken, he wanted to strangle Metro. http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/stories/2005/01/24/daily39.html "According to information from Metro, Council members John Cranley and David Crowley, SORTA Vice Chair Lamont Taylor and Metro CEO Michael Setzer met Jan. 26 to work on a proposal. The parties agreed that Metro's plan to increase fares within the city of Cincinnati to $1, in Hamilton County to $1.50 and in Clermont County to $2 would be allowed to be implemented sometime after Feb. 1. In exchange, Metro would cut its proposed increase in Access service for persons with disabilities by half. The fare would only rise to $1.50 in Zone 1 and $2 in Zone 3." And, of course, the police chief didn't want any more cops.
January 5, 201312 yr No one cares about the PUCO thing? Isn't that an at least temporary clearing of the primary source of delay of the project? There had been murmurings about Duke moving forward with things. PUCO is probably the reason, ja? I thought it was big news.
January 5, 201312 yr ^You posted that at 3am, I haven't been on until now. I think that is huge news, personally. And I agree with your assessment that this is probably why Duke is being more cooperative with the city. Thanks for pulling that up! And in response to Nate, I really wish the Streetcar would have gone up and down Vine the whole way. If they didn't want to make Vine a two-way through downtown, I would have liked a simple Vine/Race route. I was not involved in the planning process, and quite frankly it is too late to change the route. They would have to re-engineer almost the entire route and the utilities that GCWW has moved would be wasted. The city would be on the hook for paying those costs. In my opinion, simplicity and efficiency are the most important aspects of public transportation and the current route does not achieve that to the extent I would like. Since this is the plan that we have, I am supportive of it, though. It definitely isn't terrible or a waste of money, but it could have been done a little better in my opinion.
January 5, 201312 yr ^You posted that at 3am, I haven't been on until now. I think that is huge news, personally. And I agree with your assessment that this is probably why Duke is being more cooperative with the city. Thanks for pulling that up! And in response to Nate, I really wish the Streetcar would have gone up and down Vine the whole way. If they didn't want to make Vine a two-way through downtown, I would have liked a simple Vine/Race route. I was not involved in the planning process, and quite frankly it is too late to change the route. They would have to re-engineer almost the entire route and the utilities that GCWW has moved would be wasted. The city would be on the hook for paying those costs. In my opinion, simplicity and efficiency are the most important aspects of public transportation and the current route does not achieve that to the extent I would like. Since this is the plan that we have, I am supportive of it, though. It definitely isn't terrible or a waste of money, but it could have been done a little better in my opinion. I think the PR side from the city was prepared to battle COAST and the tea party loudmouth opponents. What I don't think anyone anticipated was the record amount of misinformation and blatant opposition fed by the large media companies in the region mostly 700wlw. The Enquirer has been wavering from side to side on this issue(telling voters not to support smitherman's ballot initiatives twice) but now is ramping up the anti streetcar propaganda to new levels as of late. Unfortunately the city was caught flat footed in that regard and it has allowed complete falsehoods like "Why cant we just dress a bus up like a trolley" and "Use the money to spend on police/fire" ridiculous statements to continue to fester. Just read the facebook posts about the streetcar on the Enquirer, WLWT, WKRC, and the rest. It's just one talking point from 700wlw/COAST/Smitherman/Cranley after another from outraged suburbanites Meanwhile the media companies have refused to dig deeper into the characters they are consistently quoting. Chris Smitherman has been a cancer in this community for years. He is vengeful, says ridiculous things not based in truths, and only does something to benefit his career. He implied that private water companies could taint black communities with syphilis http://www.cincinnatibeacon.com/index.php?/contents/comments/3296/ and had to be restrained from attacking a woman at city hall just in 2011. His bodyguards were giving throat slashing gestures at that same city hall meeting. http://metro-cincinnati.org/?p=2183 He made an empty threat on the gay community http://www.citybeat.com/cincinnati/blog-570-smitherman-warns-gay-community.html Tom Luken is mentally losing it and has said the streetcar system will cost "Billions". Enough said Mark Miller has no job and tweets outrageous things even going so far to imply that the streetcar is 'worse than 9/11'. http://cincinnati.com/blogs/politics/2011/09/12/coast-leader-apologizes-for-insensitive-911-reference-in-streetcar-tweet/ He also can't pay his bills. He supported the stadium deals Chris Finney also supported the stadium deals. He said it wouldn't cost us a nickel. http://www.citybeat.com/cincinnati/article-20058-coast_finney_helped_create_stadium_mess.html He also smacked his butt and told David Pepper to kiss his ass during a meeting. "You’re trying to smear my name because you’re a rich, fucking asshole.” http://citybeat.wordpress.com/2006/10/03/heimlich’s-mentor-has-cussing-fit/ . He's also has his problem with the gay community http://www.cincinnatibeacon.com/index.php/contents/comments/thinking_about_gay_cincinnati_and_christopher_finney/ . John Cranley voted in favor of the streetcar twice in 2008 and has publicly benefited from investments made by the city for his pet projects that he hates so much. And on and on and on. NONE of the opponents have any moral ground to stand on, yet the Enquirer/700wlw continue to prop them up as informed and unbiased professionals in the field. Regardless, they know the end is near. For the first time in years, COAST has tweeted that the streetcar will be built. Cranley said as much recently as well.The only one still in delusional land that he will stop it is Smitherman
January 5, 201312 yr ^ahahaha, in the Youtube screenshot Luken is all, "Please, people, don't build this thing" while the guy in the tan suit prays.
January 5, 201312 yr The guy in the tan suit on the left is former City Councilman Tyrone Yates http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrone_Yates and the guy on the right is former SORTA board member Stephan Louis who was awarded that seat after leading the effort against MetroMoves and currently works as a handyman and Larosa's delivery driver.
January 5, 201312 yr ^You posted that at 3am, I haven't been on until now. I think that is huge news, personally. And I agree with your assessment that this is probably why Duke is being more cooperative with the city. Thanks for pulling that up! I said that because there were a few posts after mine but no one mentioned it. The media doesn't seem to notice, either, as it hasn't been reported on. Maybe Sunday? Monday? Maybe never.
January 5, 201312 yr ^Probably never. City Beat (possibly Business Courier) may acknowledge it. The Enquirer will pretend like it never happened.
January 5, 201312 yr I don't think that decision actually solves the issue. I think they can still say we don't have to pay, the only difference is now the idea of Cincinnati residents paying MORE is gone. The actual issue was that they were asking PUCO to allow Duke to let the City of Cincinnati CHOOSE whether it wanted to pay for the costs itself, or make residents pay through a rider. The City may still have to pay themselves, but what is clear is that it is no longer possible for a Cincinnati only rider to be created. Can someone confirm or deny this?
January 6, 201312 yr Also interested to hear from Eighth and State. This is my take on it: Duke Energy is a regulated utility, subject to the laws of the State of Ohio. The Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) is the part of the state government that regulates the public utilities. Thus, Duke Energy is submitting a request to PUCO. Note that they are NOT submitting a request to the City of Cincinnati. Specifically, Duke requested that PUCO allow a tariff to cover relocation of utilities for "mass transportation projects initiated by governmental subdivisions." Duke wants to charge the city in one of two ways: 1. The municipality (City of Cincinnati) should have the option to pay Duke to relocate the utilities, or 2. Duke can raise utility rates in that municipality to cover the cost of relocation. PUCO is made up of a staff and a board. The staff reads the request and makes a recommendation. The board (I presume) votes to support or deny the recommendation by the staff. In this case, the staff recommended that Duke NOT be allowed to charge the municipality by either method. The reasons for their recommendation are given in the report. The Board (to my knowledge) has not made a decision. Assuming that the board approves the recommendation, then Duke cannot charge a special tariff to City of Cincinnati residents. As CincyGuy said, the recommendation still doesn't specify who will pay the cost of moving the utilities. It just says that Duke can't recover the cost by raising rates on customers within the City of Cincinnati. What is the next step? I don't know. I don't think Duke is any any hurry whatsoever to jump in and do the work.
January 6, 201312 yr The irony is that COAST has been tweeting & posting on their blog urging people to write & call in opposition to Duke's request, which has actually aided the City of Cincinnati's position. As to whether Duke can pass the utility relocation costs on to all of its ratepayers in the County/region, I'm guessing that option will be politically unfeasible for Duke. My read is that this is a victory for the City assuming the full PUCO board upholds the decision. In the end however the issues between the City & Duke may still need to be litigated.
January 6, 201312 yr It's my position that the Cincinnati Streetcar is more of a Symbol than a transportation improvement. I actually spent two solid days writing the post at the link below. Do please read it before responding since my position is a lot more complex than the slightly intriguing statement that is this thread's title. http://cincymap.org/blog/the-streetcar-4-symbolic-transit/ I'd love to start a good discussion here. I'm dying to be proven wrong! Or at least to come to a new understanding of how this project won't put Cincinnati's transit in a slightly pathetic light for the next couple of decades. Best, Nate Hey Nate, it's AJ! Welcome to UrbanOhio! I'm glad you brought this debate here because there are plenty of people who are quite knowledgeable and love to debate the project. I love you analysis of the project, but while I agree that Vine Street would've been a better option it's simply too late to change that. And while it's true that buses and streetcar are essentially the same conveyance of tansportation, the general public still makes that distinction HUGE. Call it naive or inexplicable, but it's been proven time and again. We're just capitalizing on that demand. Howdy AJ. Thanks! :-) Is that ethical though? I mean, I'll be the last to call myself a pragmatist(and I've literally been exploring idealist philosophy lately), but can we morally bank on a scheme that doesn't make as much sense as some other alternative just because it's popular? I say "we" here as in the polis, it's government and us, it's attentive citizens. Streetcars are more popular there's no doubt, but to me that doesn't make logical sense, only emotional sense. But then maybe I only mean "we" as in us urban planners(which narrows the group quite a bit!). Maybe I'm feeling a bit like this thing has gone off the tracks because the planners, or perhaps merely the politicians sometimes wrapped in the garments of planning, have been advancing pragmatic arguments alone, when I feel like that's a job mainly for populists and politicians. It's the job of planners to say that a streetcar doesn't (edit: That was a bit strong: quite, "doesn't quite make" )make logical sense here, and for politicians if they feel it necessary to over-rule them. I think I might be feeling angsty because I think everyone's given in to the pragmatic argument to the extent that few other developed arguments are heard(except silly or self-interested ones that come from the suburbs). I totally hear you, but I'm cringing a bit over the lack of more diverse debate. It just feels somehow...too shallow a base for what could be such an important project. -Nate
January 6, 201312 yr ^Bullocks, we've had 6 years of debate about the streetcar. And where are these urban planners who are saying that a streetcar doesn't make logical sense here?
January 6, 201312 yr bike756, I disagree. It connects a ton of amenities with rail transit, which is preferable by choice riders to bus transit. It is a huge compliment to the walkability of the basin. When extended Uptown it will be a huge compliment to the bikeability of the urban core. (Walk bike on, walk bike off...unlike buses which may even have full racks.) I realize it's not ideal because the route meanders, but it connects a lot of dots with only one major blip in the path (around Central Parkway). You can complain about the oneway streets, but a) buses are also subject to them, and b) if you are not on a tight schedule or you are mobility-impaired, you can just ride the thing around the top or bottom of the loop anyway. For people looking to retire and grow old downtown it would be a godsend. For tourists it's an easy-to-read way of seeing a large portion of the sights. Your view of rail's impermanence is way off-base. There are a ton of abandoned tracks, but those tracks were only abandoned over a long stretch of time. Developers are only concerned with the time period in which it takes them to turn a profit. The chances of newly laid tracks being abandoned in that time window are very, very low. Even if you personally disagree, I think you would be in a small minority and the perception of investors, not you, is what counts. That's actually a really good point about the timeline developers will need to justify a project. I really hadn't thought of that before. Though I will point out that while the rails might not be likely to go anywhere in the next 30 years, it not unlikely that service could be cut to unreasonably low frequencies or short operating hours due to low ridership, political unpopularity, or "tight budgets". But then perhaps the perception of proximity would still be enough to attract tenants. If we accept that argument though, what does it say about our ambitions for the neighborhood in 30+ years? Are we hoping for (relatively)disposable development?I guess in my best case scenario, by then the increased density of the Downtown area(helped in part by the streetcar) could justify a more meaningful transit project with a different alignment, maybe even a subway! I could definitely see this making more sense if something like that were part of a longer game plan. Regarding the bikeability: Except that it's tracks will be a danger to cyclists, particularly when wet. Perhaps danger is a strong word, but steel tracks are a lot harder to maneuver around than...well not steel tracks. It's hard enough crossing freight tracks at a 45 degree angle that I don't even want to think about changing lanes across parallel tracks at 20mph on main st. But yeah, the lack of need for racks will be an improvement for those going up Vine.
January 6, 201312 yr ^Bullocks, we've had 6 years of debate about the streetcar. And where are these urban planners who are saying that a streetcar doesn't make logical sense here? I edited my reply, actually was going to before I saw yours, to say "doesn't quite make sense". I really don't want to say it's entirely silly. But where are they? I think there are a lot of us. I think we're mostly keeping quiet for pragmatic reasons(ie, we actually like transit a lot and don't want to get down on something people are excited about for once) and because we realize it's past the point of no return politically. Also, like I said, or rather corrected later, it's not entirely silly, just substantially less than ideal, given a range of other similarly possible transit options. It's certainly not a 'bad' plan by any stretch. The consensus that I personally feel from the planners I know is, if I may summarize it so succinctly: "It's not ideal, but oh well. People are excited about it."
January 6, 201312 yr That's ridiculous Nate, if numbers of urban planning professionals were opposed to the streetcar system they would have piped up at some point over the past 6 years. You are simply projecting your own opinions. In fact urban planners have lauded the development of streetcar systems across the nation.
January 6, 201312 yr The planned streetcar route is the best plan. What this Elm/Race streetcar route does unlike Vine St. is it encourages redevelopment in the very lowest valued part of the entire neighborhood, maximizing the public's ROI. The valueless blocks between Elm and Central Parkway would see no attention with a streetcar built on Vine. Meanwhile Vine will rise in value either way. Also, the mental image of the parallel streetcar tracks stopping at either end of Findlay Market is a very strong one. It maximizes the public's exposure to Findlay Market, which is a city-owned operation. People say they want government to act like a business, and in this case the city is improving transportation to and visibility of one of its assets.
January 6, 201312 yr Is that ethical though? I mean, I'll be the last to call myself a pragmatist(and I've literally been exploring idealist philosophy lately), but can we morally bank on a scheme that doesn't make as much sense as some other alternative just because it's popular? I say "we" here as in the polis, it's government and us, it's attentive citizens. Streetcars are more popular there's no doubt, but to me that doesn't make logical sense, only emotional sense. But then maybe I only mean "we" as in us urban planners(which narrows the group quite a bit!). Maybe I'm feeling a bit like this thing has gone off the tracks because the planners, or perhaps merely the politicians sometimes wrapped in the garments of planning, have been advancing pragmatic arguments alone, when I feel like that's a job mainly for populists and politicians. It's the job of planners to say that a streetcar doesn't (edit: That was a bit strong: quite, "doesn't quite make" )make logical sense here, and for politicians if they feel it necessary to over-rule them. What makes sense here is what is popular, or what is statistically likely to work best to achieve stated goals. Maybe the lure of rail over bus is not "logical", but it is factual. It's the planner's job to understand what people will ride (or what will spur investment, etc.), not to make judgments about whether or not it makes sense for people to have those inclinations. "Sense" be damned. Those judgments are what would be unethical: trying to force your own sense of what people should want upon the public. If we accept that argument though, what does it say about our ambitions for the neighborhood in 30+ years? Are we hoping for (relatively)disposable development? I think we have to rely on the developers understanding what is appealing about the neighborhood, and seeing a development that is harmonious with those appeals as potentially more successful than a lesser quality development. Also, this is what we have zoning laws and review boards for. Not that this system is perfect, by any means. But I think if you are worrying about the "disposability" of development on all these hypotheticals, you're getting beyond what a transit planner can really do. Regardless of the reasons a developer chooses to invest in a certain location, this disposability factor will always be an issue: they're always looking to make the quickest bucks possible. I guess in my best case scenario, by then the increased density of the Downtown area(helped in part by the streetcar) could justify a more meaningful transit project with a different alignment, maybe even a subway! I could definitely see this making more sense if something like that were part of a longer game plan. I definitely see the downtown streetcar loop as a small but significant portion of a larger system. It's not a light rail system, and that's fine. It's a pedestrian accelerator for getting around downtown, and not so much out of it. Remember all the 3C critics complaining about how you wouldn't be able to get anywhere upon arrival in the city? Though the streetcar doesn't go to Union Terminal, it helps answer the question of how you get around when you arrive in Cincinnati without a car. It connects a lot of things. And it's not a bus, which 3C riders would be less attracted to. Regarding the bikeability: Except that it's tracks will be a danger to cyclists, particularly when wet. Perhaps danger is a strong word, but steel tracks are a lot harder to maneuver around than...well not steel tracks. It's hard enough crossing freight tracks at a 45 degree angle that I don't even want to think about changing lanes across parallel tracks at 20mph on main st. But yeah, the lack of need for racks will be an improvement for those going up Vine. I get the sense you've never visited Amsterdam. We've had this discussion before in this thread. I am very experienced with cycling around, next to, over, etc., streetcar tracks in an urban environment, and I am thoroughly unswayed by the concerns you express. Seriously, there are too many cities with streetcars and insanely high bike mode share providing counterarguments to these concerns. While it's definitely possible to wipe out on streetcar tracks, it's empirically not a practical concern. I edited my reply, actually was going to before I saw yours, to say "doesn't quite make sense". I really don't want to say it's entirely silly. But where are they? I think there are a lot of us. I think we're mostly keeping quiet for pragmatic reasons(ie, we actually like transit a lot and don't want to get down on something people are excited about for once) and because we realize it's past the point of no return politically. Also, like I said, or rather corrected later, it's not entirely silly, just substantially less than ideal, given a range of other similarly possible transit options. It's certainly not a 'bad' plan by any stretch. The consensus that I personally feel from the planners I know is, if I may summarize it so succinctly: "It's not ideal, but oh well. People are excited about it." I think it is hard to say if a Vine Street route would be better. Since this partial route has to serve as the flagship for rail transit's possibilities, there is a lot of pressure to make it work as a stand-alone line. I certainly see the argument that a more direct route is better as a piece of a streetcar system, but I think a linear line going up and down Vine or up and down Vine/Race would seem too simplistic standing alone. You would cut down on the number of things directly or near-directly served, and without any turns there would be this feeling of "that's it??" for people giving it a test ride. If the route were built with the idea of it being the best possible piece of a larger route, but the partial route failed to feel substantial on its own, the extensions might not happen. I wish someone would start collecting signatures to put a county transit tax on the ballot to build HamCo's segment of airport-to-Kings Island light rail. Would be nice if some polling or even focus groups could be done to figure out things people like and words people respond to. Take a card out of Chris Finney's deck and fill the ballot language with buzzwords that sell.
January 6, 201312 yr That's ridiculous Nate, if numbers of urban planning professionals were opposed to the streetcar system they would have piped up at some point over the past 6 years. You are simply projecting your own opinions. In fact urban planners have lauded the development of streetcar systems across the nation. Well, I don't know what to say...those are surely different urban planners from the ones I talk to regularly.
January 6, 201312 yr ^ I'm not optimistic that light rail will get to CVG anytime soon. The biggest obstacle is that passing a dedicated tax for transit is unconstitutional in Kentucky. That's why TANK is a creature of the judge-executives in Kenton, Campbell and Boone Counties. TANK has to rely on the good graces of the judge executives for year-to-year funding. You'd never be able to get Fed funds without a dedicated local revenue stream for financing capital and operations. The other thing is, there isn't a lot of demand for higher-level transit service at CVG. When economists modeled airport ridership in the late-Nineties -- back when we had almost 600 flights a day -- the ridership was vanishingly small. Sure there were always a lot of people in Delta's terminal, but most of them were originating from and destined for someplace other than Cincinnati. I think O&D ridership at CVG was estimated at around 2,000 riders per day, mostly airport workers. They ran the model again and again, with varying assumptions, and the ridership just wasn't there even if there were a way to finance the project.
January 6, 201312 yr I have taken the TANK airport express bus several times. I don't think I ever saw another air passenger on the thing. Once in awhile it was jammed with airport workers but usually near empty.
January 6, 201312 yr I apologize for taking us off topic. Thanks for the analysis, Eighth and State. And for the clarification about the PUCO board. Apparently there are rumblings about Duke and the city coming to an agreement. I hope this is the case.
January 6, 201312 yr >I think it is hard to say if a Vine Street route would be better No, it's not. See my previous post. Slightly faster, yes, and about 800 feet less track, but the eventually there will be a much faster tunneled route built between UC and Downtown which will not be redundant with this streetcar line. The A and B this streetcar line is connecting is not Government Square and the University of Cincinnati, it is Findlay Market and Government Square. >CVG A line to CVG would only make sense if the airport is not the terminal station and there's something significant beyond it. But there isn't and I don't think we should be encouraging sprawl in Boone County.
January 6, 201312 yr ^ I get that, though I admit I sort of forgot the details of why the route was chosen since it was basically settled. But it's a two-sided coin. On the one hand, there are riders to consider. If the streetcar serves to replace the Uptown-to-Downtown segment of some bus routes, which it certainly has the potential to do, having to meander through OTR reduces the quality of service to riders. On the other hand, it increases development potential and arguably makes for a better pedestrian accelerator in the basin since it connects a different set of amenities. It also connects to more (developable) flatland with the jog to the west, since the taper of the hillside truncates the walkable/developable land to the east. Your assertion that those blocks between Elm and Race would be neglected without the streetcar is plausible but not as certain as you state it. But the fact that Vine will develop regardless is indisputable IMO, so it's a reasonable argument. Re: CVG Notice I did not advocate for light rail to CVG, but for the Hamilton County portion of this line. That means from Downtown up 71.
January 6, 201312 yr Re: CVG Notice I did not advocate for light rail to CVG, but for the Hamilton County portion of this line. That means from Downtown up 71. Rereading your post, yes, I see that you limited your advocacy of the I-71 LRT to the Hamilton County segment. But that brings up something else that's been on my mind. Are Ohio counties still the best building block for higher-level transit? I doubt it. County government has always been about, and perhaps increasingly so, getting away from the city. I mean, just look at our county commissioners' positions on many things, the fact that all of SORTA's county board appointees voted against modifying the streetcar operating agreement, those sorts of things. Township government is inherently anti-urban, even though some townships are increasingly urban and beset with problems that cities are best able to deal with. With respect to I-71 light rail, Norwood is deeply anti-rail, and Deer Park hated MetroMoves so much that it mobilized to campaign against LRT. Sycamore Township? Dusty Rhodes? These days, almost anywhere in the urban/rural-divided America, the correct building block is the incorporated city, town or village -- places where density and services are valued, not campaigned against. A little known fact of MetroMoves is that Mariemont, Woodlawn, Lincoln Heights and Wyoming all voted for LRT in greater percentages than the City of Cincinnati did. So if you want LRT, you start with Cincinnati, and then try to partner up with adjacent incorporated jurisdictions. To me, that means the I-75 chain of cities, where the problems are getting much worse and where heavy trucks will overwhelm even the widened I-75 by 2025 or so. I think it's an earnings tax in the cities along I-75 for whatever cities want to participate. And for a Cincinnati-sponsored LRT or rapid streetcar along the Wasson Line that Fairfax, Mariemont and Terrace Park can buy into at first or later if they want. If we want rail here sooner rather than later, we're going to have to put each alignment together piece-by-piece. The time for a grand vision has come and gone here. At least for the rest of this decade.
January 6, 201312 yr I was responding to the continual calls for a line to CVG, not to anything specific somebody posted here. Interesting to note that the incredibly expensive Metro extension to Dulles Airport underway in Virginia is planned to go past the airport: http://www.dullesmetro.com/stations/index.cfm.html ...as does the recent BART extension to SFO: http://www.visitingdc.com/images/san-francisco-bart-map.jpg ...also there are long-term plans to extend BART to downtown San Jose so in the future there will be 2-way traffic to the airport. We have no such hope here, although of course we could have if the airport had been built in Warren or Butler Counties. >If the streetcar serves to replace the Uptown-to-Downtown segment of some bus routes, which it certainly has the potential to do, having to meander through OTR reduces the quality of service to riders That doesn't matter because as I said everyone knows that eventually a light rail network will be built which will connect UC and Downtown and the only way anyone's been able to figure out how to connect those areas is with a tunnel under the hills. Possibly a streetcar tunnel could be built instead, which would offer similar time savings, but that's not worth discussing until a dedicated city or county transit tax appears. As for the downtown/OTR route, I believe the selected route is the best route. So far as how to get to UC, there are obviously more ideal ways to do it than on the Vine St. hill. Up until early 2011 we had the money to build it up the hill but not to build a tunnel, and we would have been a fool to have turned down that opportunity, because it could easily be 10 more years before a transit tax is passed.
January 6, 201312 yr Re: CVG Notice I did not advocate for light rail to CVG, but for the Hamilton County portion of this line. That means from Downtown up 71. Rereading your post, yes, I see that you limited your advocacy of the I-71 LRT to the Hamilton County segment. But that brings up something else that's been on my mind. Are Ohio counties still the best building block for higher-level transit? I doubt it. County government has always been about, and perhaps increasingly so, getting away from the city. I mean, just look at our county commissioners' positions on many things, the fact that all of SORTA's county board appointees voted against modifying the streetcar operating agreement, those sorts of things. Township government is inherently anti-urban, even though some townships are increasingly urban and beset with problems that cities are best able to deal with. With respect to I-71 light rail, Norwood is deeply anti-rail, and Deer Park hated MetroMoves so much that it mobilized to campaign against LRT. Sycamore Township? Dusty Rhodes? These days, almost anywhere in the urban/rural-divided America, the correct building block is the incorporated city, town or village -- places where density and services are valued, not campaigned against. A little known fact of MetroMoves is that Mariemont, Woodlawn, Lincoln Heights and Wyoming all voted for LRT in greater percentages than the City of Cincinnati did. So if you want LRT, you start with Cincinnati, and then try to partner up with adjacent incorporated jurisdictions. To me, that means the I-75 chain of cities, where the problems are getting much worse and where heavy trucks will overwhelm even the widened I-75 by 2025 or so. I think it's an earnings tax in the cities along I-75 for whatever cities want to participate. And for a Cincinnati-sponsored LRT or rapid streetcar along the Wasson Line that Fairfax, Mariemont and Terrace Park can buy into at first or later if they want. If we want rail here sooner rather than later, we're going to have to put each alignment together piece-by-piece. The time for a grand vision has come and gone here. At least for the rest of this decade. This seems like a very sensible approach, taking things a bite at a time instead of trying for the whole enchilada. Build the streetcar. If it's a success, push for an extension to a nearby area that wants it. One step at a time.
January 7, 201312 yr >If the streetcar serves to replace the Uptown-to-Downtown segment of some bus routes, which it certainly has the potential to do, having to meander through OTR reduces the quality of service to riders That doesn't matter because as I said everyone knows that eventually a light rail network will be built which will connect UC and Downtown and the only way anyone's been able to figure out how to connect those areas is with a tunnel under the hills. Possibly a streetcar tunnel could be built instead, which would offer similar time savings, but that's not worth discussing until a dedicated city or county transit tax appears. As for the downtown/OTR route, I believe the selected route is the best route. So far as how to get to UC, there are obviously more ideal ways to do it than on the Vine St. hill. Up until early 2011 we had the money to build it up the hill but not to build a tunnel, and we would have been a fool to have turned down that opportunity, because it could easily be 10 more years before a transit tax is passed. I always picture light rail following the path of the freeways, commuter rail along the river and up to Hamilton through Glendale, Wyoming, Hartwell etc...and streetcars on the hills between. Metro is also aggressively pursuing BRT with the first route going from Downtown to Uptown and on to Kenwood.
January 7, 201312 yr >If the streetcar serves to replace the Uptown-to-Downtown segment of some bus routes, which it certainly has the potential to do, having to meander through OTR reduces the quality of service to riders That doesn't matter because as I said everyone knows that eventually a light rail network will be built which will connect UC and Downtown and the only way anyone's been able to figure out how to connect those areas is with a tunnel under the hills. Possibly a streetcar tunnel could be built instead, which would offer similar time savings, but that's not worth discussing until a dedicated city or county transit tax appears. As for the downtown/OTR route, I believe the selected route is the best route. So far as how to get to UC, there are obviously more ideal ways to do it than on the Vine St. hill. Up until early 2011 we had the money to build it up the hill but not to build a tunnel, and we would have been a fool to have turned down that opportunity, because it could easily be 10 more years before a transit tax is passed. I always picture light rail following the path of the freeways, commuter rail along the river and up to Hamilton through Glendale, Wyoming, Hartwell etc...and streetcars on the hills between. Metro is also aggressively pursuing BRT with the first route going from Downtown to Uptown and on to Kenwood. One positive side note that this 'controversial' streetcar has brought out is the astounding amount of bi-partisan support for light rail in the city. I've talked to tea partiers, conservatives, moderates, democrats and liberals and a surprising amount of them really want light rail.
January 7, 201312 yr Haha. I was going to post that but refrained. I'm constantly hearing people say why are they spending $100 million on a streetcar that goes only a few blocks they should spend that on light rail. The only problem with that is, a light rail line of any significance (Downtown to Kenwood) is going to Push a billion dollars. Then the Colerain Township guy who said "I'd rather just have light rail Then a streetcar" will strongly oppose it as it's a waste of money that doesn't help him. Sigh.
January 7, 201312 yr ^It would push a billion if built the right way. That's why I've been saying for some time that if we push for a transit tax it should be a big one so that we can at times bypass the federal match process. This allows us to build what is appropriate for Cincinnati instead of an adaptation of what the federal match process will fund. Second it speeds up the process by 5~ years. It also needs to be a big revenue source so that more than one line can be built. People in Mt. Washington and Price Hill aren't going to vote to build one line that doesn't come anywhere close to their homes.
January 7, 201312 yr Just read the first 4 of Nate Wessels 8 part character assassination of the streetcar. It's chalk full of opinion and misinformation. First off, I can't actually tell if Nate is advocating to change the current plan (which would show an incredible lack of understanding on how the FTA, construction schedules, grants, etc. work) or if he's just pining about what he would do differently and attempting to build greater opposition to the streetcar in the mean time. COAST would have a field day with bizarre comparisons like a "streetcar is high heels". My first issue is he's viewing the streetcar as a bus that needs to go from point A to Point B. if you take out his insistence that the streetcars sole and primary purpose should be to move people as fast as possible from UC to the center of downtown, nearly all of his argument falls apart. Additionally, no one seems to realize that only the Main & Walnut FWW bridges have sacrificial slabs. The city estimated something like an extra $10 million per bridge to add tracking there. Another key point he makes is Something to the effect of, it's too confusing to tell newcomers to take the streetcar To UC if it makes turns. That doesn't make any sense, as once you're on the streetcar you don't care how many turns it makes, you would just get off at the exit titled UC. Again though, his whole argument is that the main purpose of the streetcar is going as fast as possible up to UC. Then he has a bizarre attack on a non city created streetcar map that I think a poster on this forum made himself (the one that shows possible future extensions & made up ligjt rail and high speed rail etc) and follows it up with one of the most annoying opinion article tactics of asking a bunch of random questions that clearly a simple map politely made to show made up possible routes doesn't explain. He takes a map from 2009 and attacks it for not including a casino extension, which certainly he would have attacked for being a deviation from the downtown to UC plan. Each post seems to end with, this is a stupid project and 6 years after the map was released I'm going to suddenly point this out that we are wasting money. Comments like "watch out Portland we're going to start flirting with your girlfriends" really give COAST some new ammunition. Great job! Overall, the entire argument seems to be living in some magical fantasy world that ignores political realities, doesn't understand how FTA approval works (if he is genuinely advocating for changes), adds in tons of opinion but implies its fact, ignores that Portlands streetcar fails almost all of his tests, and adds silly catch phrases and winky faces to "soften" attacks on building a streetcar. Somehow the Portland streetcar is a holistic approach to economic development but Cincinnati's is not? Again, just random inferences in no way based in fact. He then even admits that there's almost no likelihood we would make Vine 2-way in Downtown. So it would have to be split there. Knowing that the estimated cost is $10 million per bridge to add Sac Slab to 400 feet of a bridge it would make more sense to do main & walnut. Or fine, even vine & walnut with a giant $10 mill 400 foot addition. So supposedly the whole plan is bad because only the OTR portion is split, since in reality CBD will always be split. That's pretty crazy. To say an entire project is bad because 8 blocks of it I don't like. My biggest frustration is that nearly all his criticisms apply equally to Portland, Seattle, Atlanta, and Tucson streetcar lines but Nate is in denial on the real issue here. Nate just needs to admit it. The real issue is that he is not a fan of the concept of a modern streetcar! That's what this is really about. He either wants busses that go straight and as quick as possible between major destinations, or perhaps a large light rail line, but not an urban circulator that meanders people through key development and entertainment districts in a timely fashion. That's fine! There are plenty of people just like you Nate who don't believe in urban circulators anywhere. But don't try to hide it as, I don't like CINCINNATI's urban circulator plan. By your own words you would have huge issues with all of the others currently in existence.
January 7, 201312 yr >it's too confusing to tell newcomers to take the streetcar To UC if it makes turns. I haven't read the blog post but subways make all kinds of turns underground. People don't care how they get there, they just know that the train goes where it says it's going to go. Speaking of which, when I lived in Boston, the average person was afraid to venture off the T lines and use the buses. If you are familiar with the city's layout, Central Square in Cambridge is only one mile from Kenmore Square, but people would routinely take the red line two miles downtown then the green line two miles back out rather than take the #1 bus, which connected those two points directly. People prefer rail to buses, period, even if it's slower.
January 7, 201312 yr I stop following Nate's Facebook page after he began ranting about the streetcar. IMO, he's much better at graphic design than at transportation planning.
January 7, 201312 yr A line to CVG would only make sense if the airport is not the terminal station and there's something significant beyond it. But there isn't and I don't think we should be encouraging sprawl in Boone County. Florence ranks pretty high in commercial offices, after Downtown, Blue-Ash, Tri-County, and Sharonville. One of the previous light rail plans had a line from Downtown through Covington, with a branch to the airport and another branch to Florence, basicly following the interstates. An alternate alignment could include the airport and Florence on the same line. A park-and-ride at Florence would probably be extremely popular. I still think that a light rail line through the airport to Florence has a lessor ROI than other lines, obviously.
January 7, 201312 yr COAST at it again http://cincinnati.com/blogs/politics/2013/01/07/city-no-houses-lost-to-fire-because-of-brown-out-companies/
January 7, 201312 yr Author Last time I was in Portland I borrowed a bike from my hotel and went over to the eastern loop which had been completely constructed but had not yet started revenue service. The bike was a Schwin or something, so it had the tires that were slightly bigger than a road bike but by no means a mountain bike or anything. I tried riding across the tracks fast, slow, at different angles, letting the wheel get stuck in the track, trying to get it out, and what I realized is that while the tracks pose some hazard to cyclists, you can safely cross them at a 15 degree angle. I rode for several blocks in between the tracks and had no problems doing so. We'll need some education for cyclists but the danger posed by the tracks is somewhat overblown. [also during that trip there was a moment where there was a light rail train, two cyclists, a bus and a car all stopped next to one another at the same time, i was a fan]
January 7, 201312 yr Enquirer chimes in about PUCO The utility is battling Cincinnati officials about covering the costs to move utility lines to make way for the planned streetcar. Duke says the proposed increase doesn’t include potential costs to Cincinnati customers to cover streetcar costs the utility insists rate payers shouldn’t cover. http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20130107/BIZ/301070149/PUCO-staff-Minimal-rate-increase-Duke
January 8, 201312 yr http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/blog/2013/01/dozens-of-construction-companies-weigh.html Dozens of construction companies weigh streetcar bids More than 60 contractors downloaded bid specifications on the Cincinnati streetcar project, a sign that the city can expect competitive pricing on the installation of rails, relocation of utilities and construction of a streetcar maintenance building. “We’re probably only going to have a handful of prime contractors bid it, but there will be a lot of subcontractors,” said City Engineer Don Gindling. Among the factors increasing interest is the city’s 18 percent inclusion goal for disadvantaged business enterprises, a designation that typically yields opportunities for smaller construction companies. Among those expected to bid as prime contractors are Messer Construction Co. of Cincinnati, Kokosing Construction Co. of Columbus, and Kiewit Corp. of Omaha, Neb. The city has a Feb. 8 deadline for bids on the $125 million streetcar project. Gindling expects a general contractor to be named by April. ......... Naturally there was a typo: The city recently completed a $33 billion bond issue to fund the streetcar project and pushed back its start date to April, 2016.
January 8, 201312 yr Interesting that the rendering shows a streetcar in front of Parvis Lofts on Vine - somewhere not on the route.
January 8, 201312 yr Cranley was on 550 this morning saying that since the city is getting the streetcars 2 years early that they'll probably store themin the Transit Center. He also sounded hungover and/or heavily medicated.
January 8, 201312 yr Cranley was on 550 this morning saying that since the city is getting the streetcars 2 years early that they'll probably store themin the Transit Center. He also sounded hungover and/or heavily medicated. Brian Thomas also stated he can make a better argument for the expensive toilets being proposed than the streetcar
January 10, 201312 yr For the past two days COAST has been pimping another appearance by Frivolous Finney on Brian Thomas' radio show at 7:05am this morning to discuss the streetcar yet again. I take it that Finney was a no-show, as Thomas sent out this tweet at 7:19am: Brian Thomas @brianthomas1 No idea what happend to Chris Finney - @GOCOAST. Someone send out a search party. @55KRC 7:19 AM - 10 Jan 13 · Details What a crying shame.
January 10, 201312 yr Maybe he got http://blockedbythebridge.com/wp-content/themes/TheSource/images/light/logo.png[/img]
Create an account or sign in to comment