It depends on what your definition of progress is.

^ The 1950s version of "progress" involved everyone driving everywhere. It sure turned out great!

You're right. It has been just fine.  The most mobile generation in history.

^

 

Not anymore. The measure of Vehicle Miles Traveled has fallen since at least 2004. And other measures of mobility have been falling for many years. For example, the percentage of Americans relocating to another state in any given year peaked in 1951 and has steadily fallen since.

 

We no longer go to the moon or fly supersonically from New York to Paris. Nor can you go by train many places anymore.

So, does anyone have any feeling as to whether the City is taking the stance that this ballot initiative will happen, and they are just gearing up for the campaign against it? Or are there still funding efforts underway? The lack of info as to what's happening is very disconcerting. I personally, have never been approached about putting the Anti-Progress Amendment to the voters, but I presume that is because I hang out in places which would directly benefit from the streetcar.  8-)

The COAST crowd seems eager to bring back the mythical "Ozzie and Harriet" glory days of the 1950's. Funny how they ignore the fact that a Republican administration was embarking on the largest transportation infrastrure project in US history, and that we could afford it because the top marginal tax rate was 91%. And Ike warned about the rise of the military-industrial complex.

 

Fine, I say. Bring back the progressive tax rates of the 50's, slash the bloated military budget, and we'll be able to afford nationwide high-speed rail and give every city the mass transit system it needs.

You're right. It has been just fine. The most mobile generation in history.

 

At the cost of having any real sense of place or distance, as well as the destruction of rural areas for subdivisions of cheaply built houses.

If this charter amendment passes, is there any way it could be struck down by the courts, or repealed by a subsequent charter amendment?

 

I wonder about that too.  Even setting the streetcar itself aside, the wording of this amendment seems to have no place in a city charter.

^

 

Not anymore. The measure of Vehicle Miles Traveled has fallen since at least 2004. And other measures of mobility have been falling for many years. For example, the percentage of Americans relocating to another state in any given year peaked in 1951 and has steadily fallen since.

 

We no longer go to the moon or fly supersonically from New York to Paris. Nor can you go by train many places anymore.

 

But I can drive anywhere in this country within a matter of days, both safely and comfortably!  Families no longer need to be separated by distance.

Families used to expect live within a couple blocks of each other - at worst they might live across town or the next town over. Why is it a good thing that people are spread so far and wide?

 

Unlimited opportunities.  Where are you from?

Just because you're lucky enough to be able to drive anywhere you want doesn't mean everybody else is, and just because you wish to drive everywhere you want doesn't mean everybody else does. Nobody is coming to take away your car, and nobody is saying we should shut down the interstate highway system. The whole idea behind the streetcar (and mass transit in general) is to provide more transportation choices, not less.

I am all for a good comprehensive streetcar plan.  I just don't agree with the current plan, and the assumptions being made on this thread.

I am all for a good comprehensive streetcar plan. I just don't agree with the current plan, and the assumptions being made on this thread.

 

What assumptions?  Many of the posts I've seen have been from people who have either looked at the study or been to another city that had a good system.

 

Nobody is coming to take away your car, and nobody is saying we should shut down the interstate highway system. The whole idea behind the streetcar (and mass transit in general) is to provide more transportation choices, not less.

 

Exactly.  I have also heard the argument that people enjoy their cars and are perfectly happy driving them.  That's fine.  However, people in this region don't have much choice and drive out of necessity.

I never said anything about the streetcars or trains taking away my car.  I was just commenting on the benefits of our highway system.

 

The assumptions being made include ones that paint Cincinnati as any other city with a streetcar.  Cincinnati is a unique place.  There is no telling what may or may not occur here. 

 

Another, is the arguement against having specially designed buses traveling the proposed route.  The arguement against says that people WILL NOT ride buses because of the typical bus passengers.  Then who will be on the streetcars if not your typical bus passenger?

 

 

The assumptions being made include ones that paint Cincinnati as any other city with a streetcar.  Cincinnati is a unique place.  There is no telling what may or may not occur here. 

 

The estimates from the study were conservative and tailored to Cincinnati.

 

Another, is the arguement against having specially designed buses traveling the proposed route.  The arguement against says that people WILL NOT ride buses because of the typical bus passengers.  Then who will be on the streetcars if not your typical bus passenger?

 

I would say the argument against having the specially designed buses travel the proposed route is that it's not an apples-to-apples comparison.  I don't think doing such a study would prove anything. 

 

I think several people on here have and do ride the bus on a regular basis.  However, I do think people prefer a rail system no matter who the passengers are.  I've several people say that the bus systems is confusing, but a rail system would be great.

There would be nothing confusing to anyone who rode a bus that only traveled the specifically proposed route at the proposed frequency.

Another, is the arguement against having specially designed buses traveling the proposed route.  The arguement against says that people WILL NOT ride buses because of the typical bus passengers.  Then who will be on the streetcars if not your typical bus passenger?

 

I'm guessing that both you and Winburn are unfamiliar with the current rubber-tire trolley that runs on our downtown streets over a specified path much of the year.

 

 

I've seen this running along downtown streets as recently as last week.  I believe there is the Holly Jolly Trolley used during the holiday season, then there is the summer time one sponsored by Procter & Gamble and also the option for those looking to charter their own trolley session.

 

In the end this is not a new alternative or option being presented.  It is the same old song and dance from the people who don't want to see things change here in Cincinnati.  You've got your car, the buses and a rubber-tire trolley all at your disposal.  All that is being asked for now is something that is a rail alternative...I believe we have exhausted all of our rubber tire alternatives.

There would be nothing confusing to anyone who rode a bus that only traveled the specifically proposed route at the proposed frequency.

 

This is my first post here on UO, so here it goes.

 

DanB, I have ridden buses in places like Louisville, Lexington, Cincinnati, and Cleveland. I have also ridden the subway in NYC, DC's Metro, and even Cleveland's rapid. Bus transit in no way can compare with the ease, reliability, and simplicity that is provided by rail. Sure, some of it is psychological, but then again isn't your transportation choices loosely based on a collection of subjective values? (And your ability to pay for it)

 

Which begs the question, since when is having to pay an average of $8000 a year on a car so you can function in a car-based society, 'freedom'? It is tyranny if you ask me. You may want to pay that, but I don't. I don't want this to conversation to degenerate into something silly. I want to know what you think would give many people in Cincinnati the opportunity to live a "car-reduced" life. To me that is the streetcar.

 

I think the streetcar proposal is a great step towards Cincinnati launching itself back into the minds of Americans as a first-class city.

The Zoo has a train and a rubber tire shuttle.  Look at the line for the train and how many people get on it each time.  The train goes in a  flat circle and it comes back to the same spot without any other stops. Then look for the  rubber tire shuttle.  It has many drop off points and hills and serves as transportation from one part of the park to the other.  I guarantee the train will be packed or very full and the shuttle (if you can find it or the route) will be nearly empty or "out of service" due to low #'s of riders.  This same scenario applies to a streetcar vs a rubber tire trolley. PLUS our streetcar will have many stops to world class destinations, unlike the train at the Zoo.  :wink: 

^I had actually thought of that zoo example before, but I haven't been there in so long I didn't know if they still have the trams.  I'm sure they still have that train.

 

DanB, why do you care so much about this topic, or other topics on this site?  You don't live within city limits and clearly have no interest in participating in city life to a degree greater than you currently do, which is apparently zero considering you add no photos or inside scoops.

 

>I am all for a good comprehensive streetcar plan.

 

No you're not. 

 

>I just don't agree with the current plan, and the assumptions being made on this thread.

 

Who's paying you to troll this site?

^

 

A common tactic of rail opponents is to say, "I like rail. I just don't like this particular plan."

 

It's used in rail campaigns across the country all the time.

 

 

 

 

 

The assumptions being made include ones that paint Cincinnati as any other city with a streetcar.  Cincinnati is a unique place.  There is no telling what may or may not occur here. 

 

That is ridiculous.  How in the world is Cincinnati any more or less unique than any other city?  With that kind of thinking, how could you propose any new project?  And furthmore, what would be the point of studying anything?  Well, we're so unique, nothing that has been proven to work in another city could possibly be seen as applicable here!  Seriously?

^ Sounds like that lame "But this is 'Murica!" thing that conservatives throw at people any time they propose the use of successful ideas from any other country here -- as if the only good ideas are thought of here.

Good job, just try to discredit anyone who disagrees with you.  I'm sure you have all the inside scoop, and know all the answers.

Your arguments are being discredited because they've repeatedly been proven to have no credibility. All we've seen so far from you are a bunch of stale, worn-out arguments that have been raised and then proven wrong on almost every other comparable urban transit project.

 

Maybe people would take you more seriously if you actually offered constructive solutions that address your criticisms of the project, rather than sit on the sidelines and throw potshots (and then whine about supposedly unfair treatment when people respond in kind). It's easy to criticize somebody else's idea, but what are you brining to the table as an alternative?

 

And yes, many people here do, in fact, have the "inside scoop" because of their professional expertise in urban planning, design, and transportation issues, and we do, in fact, know many of the answers. Get used to it.

Will you sign my petition?

Will you sign my petition?

Dan, behave!  :whip:

I'm pretty sure a before and after of streets that had streetcars alone would show the need.

Another, is the arguement against having specially designed buses traveling the proposed route.  The arguement against says that people WILL NOT ride buses because of the typical bus passengers.  Then who will be on the streetcars if not your typical bus passenger?

 

People that will not ride buses WILL ride Streetcars for a variety of reasons.

 

A professor of mine formerly lived in Chicago, a city with no stigma regarding mass transit.  When she moved to Cincinnati, she assumed the same applied here and rode Metro to a job interview downtown.  During the interview chit-chat, the topic of 'where she parked' came up, and she admitted she rode the bus.  At the end of the interview, the interviewer actually said something to the effect of, "You're an impressive candidate, but it really bothers me that you rode the bus here."

 

When she told me this story, I couldn't believe the interviewer would be so frank and straightforward on that issue, especially directly to her face.

 

What do we get out of this story?  Person A (the interviewer) thinks riding the bus is unacceptable.  Therefore, Person B (my professor) -- who WOULD otherwise ride it -- is discouraged from riding the bus.  Until you can convince all of the Person A's out there that mass transit is okay, a lot of Person B's won't ride either.

 

Sorry, but a rubber-wheeled trolly isn't going to turn Person A on to mass transit.

 

When GM picked on mass transit riders, calling them "Creeps and Weirdos," why did they chose to use a picture of a bus?  Why not a picture of a Skota streetcar or the NYC subway?

 

And while we're on the topic of ridership, ask someone who has seen the Streetcar in person, and they will tell you that people will (1) ride the streetcar for short distances that they would otherwise walk, and (2) wait for a Streetcar even if there if a bus heading for the same destination departing from the same stop.

It's a moot point really. Our cities went downhill when cars were made the priority. Before then, streetcars made downtowns and neighborhoods much more walkable, brought development, and aside from the choice of the streetcar you also had buses and cars. Now if you look at the dozens of cities that have implemented streetcars it's been a boon for transit and development, just like it was before. The only downside is where it's not well-implemented and is geared for tourists, not for practicality.

The only downside is where it's not well-implemented and is geared for tourists, not for practicality.

 

And that's my problem with the first loop through OTR.  There cannot be enough ridership of paying customers to make this first loop to nowhere payout.

 

 

And that's my problem with the first loop through OTR.  There cannot be enough ridership of paying customers to make this first loop to nowhere payout.

 

The first line will run from the University of Cincinnati to the Riverfront.

If I were a vendor at Findlay Market, I would be extremely upset every time someone says that the streetcar goes nowhere.

Your definition of "nowhere" includes thousands of residents, UC, 2 stadia, Coloseum, Aronoff, Music Hall, thousands of office workers, Findlay Market.  Heck if that is nowhere, where else should the first line go?

I think DanB just has a fundamental misunderstanding of one of the main things streetcars are intended to do -- repopulate cities. Sort of like the old baseball saying, "hit 'em where they aint'."

 

We could, I suppose, send the streetcar to Hyde Park. But what good would come of it? Think Hyde Park needs a lot of improvement?

John, I bet you stand to make a lot of money if the city builds you a streetcar.  Not that there is anything wrong with that, I just think you should be up front about your investments instead of pretending you are doing it for the city of Cincinnati.

Sure. I own one building on the streetcar line that represents a tiny fraction of my net worth. It's always 100% leased. There's little, if any, personal upside for me.

 

So you lost the bet.

 

Where do you live, Dan?

Sure. I own one building on the streetcar line that represents a tiny fraction of my net worth. It's always 100% leased. There's little, if any, personal upside for me.

 

So you lost the bet.

 

Where do you live, Dan?

 

An mental institution!  Isn't it obvious?  LMAO  (sorry, I couldn't resist that  :-D )

The suburbs of course!  MTS, I'm keeping a rubber room open for you!

And that's my problem with the first loop through OTR. There cannot be enough ridership of paying customers to make this first loop to nowhere payout.

 

What about all the UC students living in Uptown that could take it downtown?  Not only to festivals, sports events, muesums and theatres, but also commuting daily to an internship downtown or a weekly trip to Findlay Market for groceries?

 

What about all of the UC commuter students or faculty members that already have parking passes on campus?  Maybe instead of driving home right after class, they could hop on the Streetcar and head downtown for entertainment, food, or shopping, without the hassle and cost of parking downtown.

 

What about couples commuting from the suburbs, working at two different locations in Uptown or Downtown?  Now, instead of two cars, they can carpool, pay for one parking pass, and the other can ride the Streetcar from there to work.  Maybe they could even ride the Streetcar and meet for lunch, and then ride it back to their jobs.

 

Oh, and what about that big group of people who might considering moving to Downtown, OTR, or Uptown and living a car-free or less car-dependent lifestyle if the Streetcar made it an option for them to do so?

Your definition of "nowhere" includes thousands of residents, UC, 2 stadia, Coloseum, Aronoff, Music Hall, thousands of office workers, Findlay Market.  Heck if that is nowhere, where else should the first line go?

 

I keep wondering that as well.  DanB, you've said a couple of times that you support light rail or a comprehensive streetcar system.  Assuming that's true, where would YOU put the first line?  Or would the whole system need to start construction at once, as opposed to a phased approach?  This isn't a "gotcha" question.  I'm legitimately curious about what it would take to get you to support a rail plan, since you claim to like the idea in theory.  So, where are we going wrong and how do we go about a "better" rail solution?

Question that I'm not looking for DanB to answer:  Have they decided on the Skoda model for the Cincinnati Streetcar?  If so, why?  Given the fact that Skoda already serves Portland, should Cincinnati consider going with another manufacturer, like Alstom, that has no American headquarters, in order to lure them here a la Toyota?

The suburbs of course!  MTS, I'm keeping a rubber room open for you!

 

If I am remembering correctly from other threads, you really don't live far from city limits.  And by saying that, I mean that even YOU would stand to benefit from a healthy and growing Cincinnati and/or Hamilton County.  Future lines have the potential to come up as far as the neighborhood I think you live in.  That would be great for property values all around you.     

 

Would you have a problem with that plan?

 

They have to start somewhere, and it has to be downtown!  You may never go, but that doesn't mean that nobody else won't!

 

 

Question that I'm not looking for DanB to answer:  Have they decided on the Skoda model for the Cincinnati Streetcar?  If so, why?  Given the fact that Skoda already serves Portland, should Cincinnati consider going with another manufacturer, like Alstom, that has no American headquarters, in order to lure them here a la Toyota?

 

I'm not sure about that, despite the fact that most of the discussion has been under the assumption that the rolling stock would be by Skoda. IIRC, Bombardier has expressed interest in the project. Alstom, Kawasaki, and Siemens would also be possible contenders.

 

I'm not sure if headquarters location would be a big factor, as Kawasaki and Alstom have been building hundreds of NYC subway cars despite not being headquartered here. They do, however, have manufacturing plants in the US where the cars are being assembled.

Below is a picture of the first American-made modern streetcar being delivered to Portland Streetcar last Friday morning.

 

This car was built in Clackamas, Oregon by Oregon Iron Works under license from Skoda. I've talked to people at OIW about their process, which is entirely different from the Skoda cars made in the Czech Republic that have been used for several years in Portland, Tacoma, Seattle and soon, Washington D.C.

 

The European cars are shop-built, one at a time. No two are exactly alike. The OIW cars are built to more precise specifications in more of an assembly-line method. They claim the result will be streetcars that are more reliable and durable.

 

A friend of mine advises to let some other city buy the first few OIW cars and see how well they do before considering purchasing a whole fleet of them.

 

HERE'S THE VIDEO -- http://portlandtransport.com/archives/2009/05/streetcar_deliv.html#more

I thought there was a thread for this type of stuff but I can't find it. It seems getting a grant from this for the streetcar would be a good fit.

 

May 15, 2009 – Discretionary Transportation Grants Available

 

U.S. Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood announced $1.5 billion in Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) grants. Applications must be submitted by September 15, 2009. These grants will be awarded competitively to projects that have a significant impact, can create jobs, and provide economic benefit to distressed areas. Those eligible to apply include state and local governments, transit agencies, and port authorities. For additional information: www.dot.gov/affairs/2009/dot6909.htm

 

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

Secretary LaHood: TIGER Discretionary Grants Will Target Major-Impact Transportation Projects, Job Creation

 

U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood today announced the availability of $1.5 billion in TIGER (Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery) Discretionary Grants for capital investment in surface transportation projects. Grants will be awarded on a competitive basis to projects that have a significant impact on the nation, a region or metropolitan area and can create jobs and benefit economically distressed areas.

 

“TIGER discretionary funding will open up the door to many new innovative and cutting-edge transportation projects,” said Secretary LaHood. “This is exciting news and I believe that these projects will promote greater mobility, a cleaner environment and more livable communities.”

 

The grants can range from $20 million up to $300 million to support high impact transportation projects. Secretary LaHood can waive the minimum grant requirement for beneficial projects in smaller cities, regions or states. The U.S. Department of Transportation will require rigorous economic justifications for projects over $100 million. To ensure responsible spending, the department will require all fund recipients to report on their activities on a routine basis.

 

The solicitation published in the Federal Register today provides clear criteria for the department to make merit-based decisions on the new discretionary program.

 

Primary selection criteria include contributing to the medium- to long-term economic competitiveness of the nation, improving the condition of existing transportation facilities and systems, improving the quality of living and working environments through livable communities, improving energy efficiency and reducing greenhouse gas emissions and improving the safety of U.S. transportation facilities.

 

The Department will also give priority to projects that are expected to quickly create and preserve jobs and stimulate rapid increases in economic activity, especially projects that will benefit economically distressed areas.

 

Applications for TIGER discretionary grants must be submitted by September 15, 2009, from state and local governments, including U.S. territories, tribal governments, transit agencies, port authorities and others. Comments on the criteria must be received by June 1, 2009. The Federal Register notice can be accessed by clicking here(dead link).

 

 

As a UC alum, I always complained that there wasn't an easy way to get students downtown.  We always took cabs, but they were expensive and far from convenient.  The bus routes weren't very good and didn't have good hours.  I always thought they needed UC buses that would transports students only.  That was before, at least to my knowledge, any discussions on streetcar.  I didn't even know what streetcars were until I started traveling to Portland.  I would have loved to have streetcars taking students from Clifton to Downtown.  The potential there is through the roof.  I can't even imagine how many students would have taken a streetcar downtown.  Not only that, I can guarantee you that a lot of students that lived off campus and at home would have moved to Clifton for that reason alone.

I always thought they needed UC buses that would transports students only.

 

The Bearcat Transportation System is around for the sole purpose of transporting students only.

Sherman, Ram23, Rando and I finished off a case of Three Kings and some other drinks on Saturday night on the roof of a Vine St. apartment building before walking down to the U.S. Bank Arena. Sure would've been nice to take the streetcar instead of stumbling to the Cyclones game!