Tampa did it. Jacksonville has preliminary plans to do it. You'd just have to get rid of an on-street parking lane and put in a couple inches of concrete median. Certainly, getting rid of a couple hundred  on-street parking spaces downtown or in OTR would be worth a cheap, effective streetcar?

 

Bi-directional merging into double tracks in Tampa.

 

Notice the tiny, unobtrusive barrier protecting the streetcar RoW from traffic.

 

No barrier needed through an intersection.

 

Again, I understand this is not an ideal scenario. More tracks over more blocks is better. Modern streetcars are better than historic ones. But we have to keep in mind that COAST could succeed in killing the entire thing. Whereas if reasonable cuts are made, the streetcar could be built with the money we have now, and there's nothing the anti-transit people can do to stop it.

 

I guess it's a matter of priorities. Do you want an ideal system that may or may not happen, and may or may not get started for years? Or do you want a true starter system that goes to the same basic places - although slightly slower, rougher, and lower capacity - that can be built with today's available money ....

Some good news from Cincinnatians for Progress:

 

We Did It!

 

Yesterday we challenged you to help us raise $1,000 so we could report over $35,000 in our first financial report, which ended June 30th.  The response was overwhelming - we raised nearly doubled our goal!  Yesterday alone we raised $1,830.00!  In one day!  You should be proud.

 

Our campaign is built from the support of Cincinnatians from all walks of life across the city.  94% of our donors have given $100 or less.  This kind of support and excitement, especially for a new organization, just hasn't happened in Cincinnati politics.  To raise that kind of money in 3 months, and that much in 1 day is not how things usually work in Cincinnati.

 

Republicans, Democrats and Charterites are behind Cincinnatians for Progress because we all understand the grave consequences for our City if the Anti-Progress Charter Amendment passes.

 

Because of your overwhelming response yesterday, we will have more resources to dedicate to our campaign to inform Cincinnati voters of the dangerous implications of the Anti-Progress Charter Amendment.  Our tremendous grassroots support will energize Cincinnati voters, and prove to the media and potential donors that our team is equipped to WIN in November.

 

Together we will keep Cincinnati moving forward.

 

Thank you for your commitment and dedication to Cincinnati.

 

Rob Richardson, Joe Sprengard and Bobby Maly

Co-Chairs, Cincinnatians for Progress

^JoeL, the thing is that these groups will oppose any plan that is put forward.  You could trim and cut what is being proposed now into an inferior product and still receive the opposition.  They are interested in keeping Cincinnatians behind the wheels of their cars and stuck in the past.

Chamber opposes anti-streetcar measure

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20090701/BIZ01/307010015/Chamber+opposes+streetcar+vote

 

The Cincinnati USA Regional Chamber said today it opposes putting the Cincinnati streetcar proposal up for a public vote.

 

The Chamber says the language of the proposed referendum, which would be an amendment to the city charter, is "extremely broad and would impede the city’s ability to compete effectively."

 

The amendment would “prevent the expenditure of monies by the city for right-of-way acquisition or construction of improvements for passenger rail transportation without first submitting the same to a vote.”

^ still calling it the "streetcar proposal" i see...

Well, it is a proposal. There is still no guaranteed funding or financing, no guaranteed expectation that it will actually be under construction.

^JoeL, the thing is that these groups will oppose any plan that is put forward.  You could trim and cut what is being proposed now into an inferior product and still receive the opposition.  They are interested in keeping Cincinnatians behind the wheels of their cars and stuck in the past.

 

But with a cheaper plan, their opposition is irrelevant, since funding is mostly lined-up.

 

Does the fact that we could build a streetcar line from The Banks to the edge of UC for around $50-$60 million dollars not even remotely interest anyone here?

With respect to single-tracking with sidings in the street ...

 

    "Tampa did it. Jacksonville has preliminary plans to do it."

 

I'd want to know how their streets compare to our 66-foot building-face to building-face typical street widths in downtown Cincinnati. Theirs look to be pretty wide in the photos.

 

I don't think these vintage streetcars are getting anywhere near the daily ridership average of 1,100 passengers per track-mile that the modern systems are getting.

^JoeL, the thing is that these groups will oppose any plan that is put forward.  You could trim and cut what is being proposed now into an inferior product and still receive the opposition.  They are interested in keeping Cincinnatians behind the wheels of their cars and stuck in the past.

 

Agreed. Even if Cincinnati were buying one additional Metro bus instead of building a streetcar line, COAST and their dittoheads would still be opposed to it. They're not opposed to the streetcar per se; they're opposed to the idea that government should ever do anything to improve the quality of life for its citizens. Many of them are opposed to the idea that government even exists, in any form.

 

There's no point in even trying to compromise with such people; they'll still be vehemently against whatever you try to do, and you'll end up with a timid, half-baked project that's designed to fail. Then, when you later try to build some new project, they'll point to the first project's failure as justification for opposing the new one, and so on. Sound familiar?

 

I can think of a number of American cities that look at their failed, partially-built transit systems with regret. But can anybody name a single American city that overbuilt their public transit system and regretted it?

Daily ridership average is going to have everything to do with the route and the city, not the rolling stock.

 

If you want to say that historic cars get lower ridership, that's fine - but you'll be using apples-to-oranges statistics because many of the historic lines (like Tampa or Ft. Collins) are aimed at tourists and not commuters.

 

But I think it's patently false to suggest that a streetcar system all of a sudden wouldn't be worthwhile just because it had cheaper used cars, instead of shiny modern ones.

 

Amidst all their lies, one of COAST's arguments is that streetcar supporters don't have much interest in accountability for how much money we want to spend. They paint us as people who just view government money as "free" without making any sacrifices for cost savings. Let's not make COAST accidentally correct.

I can think of a number of American cities that look at their failed, partially-built transit systems with regret. But can anybody name a single American city that overbuilt their public transit system and regretted it?

 

Yet if people were serious about reducing the lane-mile cost of the streetcar - not only could we build it despite COAST's objections - but we could build more miles with the same money.

 

Not to sound like a broken record here, but other cities have built at $15 million per lane-mile. Other cities are proposing lines at around $15 million per lane mile. Other cities have gone bidirectional. Other cities have chosen historic rolling stock at 10% the cost of modern stock.

 

I refuse to believe that the current $25 million per mile "loop" is somehow the only option with the "urban" seal of approval here.

 

Again, it's great if the city somehow pulls off this system. But it sure sounds like this is headed for yet another Cincinnati project that gets delayed or killed entirely. Perhaps it's because both sides have a penchant for taking the "all-or-nothing" approach? Look in the mirror guys. There's nothing wrong with a cheaper system, if that's what it takes to get a starter line running.

 

Well, it is a proposal. There is still no guaranteed funding or financing, no guaranteed expectation that it will actually be under construction.

 

Yes, I meant that the Enquirer is still referring to the anti-passenger rail measure simply as the streetcar measure.  Even though they clarify in the text, the headline is misleading.

^ I wouldn't be against cheaper rolling stock up front.  If the line were longer, the full sized modern trams would be better, but so long as the initial Downtown/OTR loop is the only phase built at startup, I don't see why people couldn't settle for cheaper cars.  Is the infrastructure any different, or could switching from older cars to modern system be done without any construction needed (when later phases are added in)?

Exactly, and I think that it may be a compromise that the streetcar proponents may have to make -- especially in an economy as rough as this and with a city and county both going into the red. When people think of the pressing issues that face Cincinnati, they don't want to hear about a streetcar with a $25 million/mile proposal; they want to read about the jobs and jails that were eliminated over the past year. If this proposal can be more in-line with the proposals and realities of other cities, such as Portland and Jacksonville, in terms of cost control and financial reality, then there may be a compromise.

 

Construction costs have sharply declined in the past year. Xavier University is currently very much under-budget with their campus expansion (I am not authorized to say by how much), but it is enough that we can build a new dormitory with the savings and tear down one building. The Banks is also under budget, and so is QCS Phase 1. I'm not for sure how the streetcar is still figuring $25 million/mile when there is cost savings to be had.

 

That was a point that was brought up, BTW, at the last COAST meeting. I think it is appropriate and wise to respond to the cost control issue instead of blowing it off.

 

I don't think these vintage streetcars are getting anywhere near the daily ridership average of 1,100 passengers per track-mile that the modern systems are getting.

 

Follow the money.

Buffalo would be the example of a city that overbuilt its mass transit system. I agree that we can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good or in this case accomplished.

I would argue that the Buffalo system is a prime example of the dangers of under-building a system. It was intended to link the Amherst campus of the University at Buffalo to downtown, but was never extended that far. As a result, very few people have any reason to ride it. Now the naysayers can point to it and say, "Ha! It's a failure. We told you so!"

 

The benefit to the Uptown extension of the Streetcar is that you have a huge ridership base at each end of the line, like two anchor stores at either end of a mall. Cut off one of the anchors, though, and the mall dies.

Yet if people were serious about reducing the lane-mile cost of the streetcar - not only could we build it despite COAST's objections - but we could build more miles with the same money.

 

My point is that if you make that particular point irrelevant, they would have another reason not to like it.  It's a losing battle where you continue to compromise and accept a lesser product.

 

I refuse to believe that the current $25 million per mile "loop" is somehow the only option with the "urban" seal of approval here.

 

If you plan for a higher than expected capital cost, then you'll be in better shape financially once it is all said and done.  Hamilton County went the other direction when selling the stadiums and the half-cent sales tax to the voters and we're still paying the political price for that today.

 

There's nothing wrong with a cheaper system, if that's what it takes to get a starter line running.

 

I agree, but that's not what this is about.  COAST and the NAACP aren't against this project for its cost.  They're just against the project.  The route's too big, the route's too small, the rolling stock isn't right, the economic benefits are too small, the economic benefits are too big and will displace people, the area's too dangerous, etc, etc, etc.

 

After a while you just have to realize that they're not for the project no matter what you do.  Many of the people who say this proposal is too small, say the light rail proposal in 2002 was too big.  Those same people saying they like the idea of light rail to serve commuters better, are the same people who voted it down a few years ago.

 

After a while you just have to realize that they're not for the project no matter what you do. Many of the people who say this proposal is too small, say the light rail proposal in 2002 was too big. Those same people saying they like the idea of light rail to serve commuters better, are the same people who voted it down a few years ago.

 

 

Ain't that the truth! Whatever the plan is, they always have a different plan.

You're lucky if they even have an alternate plan at all, other than saying "no" to your plan. They have no ideas of their own; they only live to crap on other peoples' ideas.

Once a system is actually in place and creating Redevelopment, will these narrow minded clowns then realize!

 

But they'd rather wait for gas to hit $4 again and THEN consider streetcars and or light rail after other cities are already up and running! 

 

The people of this region need to get their heads out of their &%$ and priorities straight because we are getting blown away by other cities half our size who actually appreciate how rail can transform a city.  We have one of the largest collections of F500 companies.  This SHOULD have been done in the 90's!!!

This SHOULD have been done in the 90's!!!

 

This should have been done in the 30's.

Buffalo's light rail budget was blown when five of the line's six miles were forced to be built as a subway due to neighborhood opposition to surface running.  Originally there was to be no tunneling whatsoever, a much longer trunk line, and several branches.  Still, it attracts 23,000 daily riders, which is double TANK's total ridership, and roughly 1/3 of Queen City Metro's.  There is no single bus line in Cincinnati that comes close to attracting the per-mile traffic that Buffalo's light rail subway does.

Once a system is actually in place and creating Redevelopment, will these narrow minded clowns then realize!

 

It reminds me of the debate over redeveloping Fountain Square a few years ago.

Hell, people were opposed to the Roebling Suspension Bridge when it was being proposed. The naysayers were convinced it would impede river traffic, create a safety hazard, cost too much, etc., etc. The most voracious opponents were the ferry operators who knew the bridge would doom their monopoly on transporting goods and people across the river.

 

They succeeded in mandating that no piers could be placed in the river (hence, the then-novel suspension design), and they blocked the bridge from aligning with the street grid of Cincinnati and Covington even though Covington's grid was laid out to match Cincinnati's with the express purpose of making bridges easier to plan and build. The bridge was designed to fail, but fortunately, it managed to prove the naysayers wrong.

 

I guess some lessons need to be re-learned by each generation.

The bridge charter moved the bridge alignment off the street grid in order to force the bridge company to buy private property for the approaches on both sides.  This was done under the premise of maintaining public right-of-way for cargo being moved to and from Public Landing, but the real reason was to intentionally raise the cost of the bridge.  This nonsense haunted the bridge company when the northern approach was extended to reduce the grade around 1900 and for the Dixie Terminal streetcar ramps, which had to be built elevated over private property instead of run at-grade on public streets.     

Once a system is actually in place and creating Redevelopment, will these narrow minded clowns then realize!

 

It reminds me of the debate over redeveloping Fountain Square a few years ago.

 

I truly believe that once the successes of the first line are realized, every neighborhood will then be clammering for their own extention.

If I remember correctly, cities like Vienna and Prague run old style streetcars on the same track as modern streetcars.  If I had a choice I would definitely choose the modern streetcar but I would always take the first one that came anyway.  Obvious differences are the smoother rides, more space, and ease of entry/exit in a modern streetcar.  The older ones always had steep stairs to climb up, narrow aisles to stand and walk in, and an obtrusive seating style (forwarding facing seating two across rather than most of the seats with their backs up against the walls). 

 

If I remember correctly, cities like Vienna and Prague run old style streetcars on the same track as modern streetcars.  If I had a choice I would definitely choose the modern streetcar but I would always take the first one that came anyway.  Obvious differences are the smoother rides, more space, and ease of entry/exit in a modern streetcar.  The older ones always had steep stairs to climb up, narrow aisles to stand and walk in, and an obtrusive seating style (forwarding facing seating two across rather than most of the seats with their backs up against the walls). 

 

 

I don't think anyone is opposed to special "vintage" trollies running on the same tracks as the modern streetcar once it is finished.  But the current plan is specifically emphasizing modern streetcars because we don't want opponents to act like this is a throwback gimmicky system... even though the opponents are doing that anyway with their "trolly" and "choo-choo" language.

^ Exactly. And keep in mind that while the older rolling stock has some nostalgic value, chances are it doesn't have air conditioning, and it's not ADA-compliant.

 

The whole point of the project is to be a modern transit system, not a hokey "Ye Olde Cincinnati" tourist trap.

One question that several have asked and that remains unanswered:

 

Why is the cost of the Cincinnati streetcar system much higher than that of Portland, Tampa, Jacksonville and other U.S. cities -- in terms of per mile trackage construction? It can't be solely rested on "the developers are overstating the cost" in order to give the appearance that it was under-budget when it's all said and done.

Well, it is a proposal. There is still no guaranteed funding or financing, no guaranteed expectation that it will actually be under construction.

 

Yes, I meant that the Enquirer is still referring to the anti-passenger rail measure simply as the streetcar measure.  Even though they clarify in the text, the headline is misleading.

 

I wrote an email to the author of the article, i'll let you all know if he responds (not holding my breath):

 

Hello Mr. Holthaus,

 

I was just reading your article on the Chamber expressing their opposition to the amendment by COAST/NAACP about the future of rail in the city but one thing struck me about the wording.  The title to the article and specific wording by you within the article refer to the amendment as a "streetcar" proposal.  The thing about this is that the streetcar, to my knowledge, is not directly mentioned or scrutinized within the proposed charter amendment.  Instead, they refer to rail in general.  I think it is the responsibility of the Enquirer and its reporters to not express stories in a biased manner and create news, rather than just report the news.  If there is anything that one would think would be biased reporting, it would be in favor of something that would be beneficial to the future of the city, which is obviously not this amendment.  People may have their problems with the streetcar, and that is fine, but if they are not fully educated and mislead about all that this amendment involves, it could be catastrophic for our city.  I hope that you respect my concerns and will consider improving the accuracy of your wording in the future.

 

With all respect,

Sherman, there is a lot of money to be made by having an expensive system built.  Follow the money.

I wouldn't say that it is a scheme necessarily to make it appear as coming in under budget, but rather seems to be a strategy of planning for the worst and hoping for the best.  Too many times we have seen our leaders overstate benefits and understate costs.  This project is doing the exact opposite so that it does a better job at protecting the public's resources.  I can certainly appreciate that given the burn that still exists over the stadium sales tax issue.

Maybe the Enquirer is just making me paranoid now, but on the front business page online is the title, "Chamber opposes streetcar vote".  Take out the word "vote" to the occasional glancer of the page and now you've got someone who believes that the Chamber opposes the streetcar.  Done on purpose?

I wouldn't say that it is a scheme necessarily to make it appear as coming in under budget, but rather seems to be a strategy of planning for the worst and hoping for the best.  Too many times we have seen our leaders overstate benefits and understate costs.  This project is doing the exact opposite so that it does a better job at protecting the public's resources.  I can certainly appreciate that given the burn that still exists over the stadium sales tax issue.

 

Thanks for the clarification Randy. I'll probably cover this issue in a later blog post when I get my figures in order, but I understand where you are coming from on that -- and why Cincinnati is really not a unique case. Being burned royally for the stadiums and for other items that have failed to live up to their hype, but it's no different than many other cities. I just hate to hear what is really a legitimate argument from COAST in this particular instance -- how do you really explain that to an average taxpayer? Or how do you explain that to the average taxpayer who may not understand the complexities of the financing issues involved -- in light of a major jail being closed, county and city budgets being slashed and so forth? That's my curiosity -- to spread the word to the average Joe six-pack (grins).

DanB, there is a lot MORE money to be made by having expensive transit systems NOT built in Cincinnati and elsewhere. Follow the money...car companies, labor unions, oil companies, tire companies, concrete companies, insurance companies, radio stations, etc., etc., etc. 

 

Here is the history of Portland running vintage streetcars on its modern streetcar track and light rail lines:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portland_Vintage_Trolley

 

 

>in terms of per mile trackage construction

 

The Skoda vehicles are expensive because they are large (much larger than a bus) and very well made (will last at least twice as long as a bus).  Because they are larger than old streetcars, the shop facilities need to be larger, and because they are heavier than old streetcars (and have heat and air conditioning), they draw more current and so require a more robust electrical system.  My guess is that the Tampa streetcar is less than half the weight of the Skoda vehicles, meaning less concrete and lighter weight track is used. The Skoda vehicles also have regenerative braking, which adds to capital costs but reduces electric bills.  All this adds to higher route mile costs.   

 

Philadelphia recently rehabbed some old circa 1947 PCC streetcars with air conditioning and regenerative braking at a cost of $1.3 million per streetcar.  My guess is that price included not just the cost of machining new parts, but machining plenty of spare parts for many years to come.     

 

 

Sherman,

^that is by route mile, so divide by 2 for per track mile costs

Curious, after reading an article in Building Cincinnati, how much does say the City of Cincinnati spend on various road projects in a given year?  What about in say the past two years? How do other various road projects compare to the cost of the streetcar?  For instance Waldvogel Viaduct project is indicated to be $64 million with $50 million in State & Federal dollars.  Why no stink there? Why are not people up in arms about the City spending $14 million total in this tough economy?  I can't imagine this project is going to be a huge boost to new development and increased tax revenue which I agree should be priorities when speding capital dollars (and that I think, along with two different independent studies, the streetcar does). Maybe the Waldvogel just needs replaced so the money needs to be spent and I don't disagree but I feel we are being handicapped by people who just like to complain.

 

http://www.building-cincinnati.com/2009/07/cincinnati-makes-decisions-on-waldvogel.html

 

 

I think the most recent capital budget passed had around $146 million in road spending

 

 

Waldvogel Viaduct is getting replaced because it is beyond antiquated and is in horrible shape. Cincinnati has enough problems keeping its roads in decent condition whatever one thinks of the streetcar.

Waldvogel Viaduct is getting replaced because it is beyond antiquated and is in horrible shape. Cincinnati has enough problems keeping its roads in decent condition whatever one thinks of the streetcar.

 

Which is a reason to build the streetcar.  You have a systemic imbalance of 333,336 people paying to upkeep a road system built for a city of over half a million. we need to redensify and repopulate the city and the streetcar will help do that.

  ^--- If I were to bet, I think Cincinnati will show a declining population DESPITE the streetcar.

 

    Even if Over-the-Rhine gains 50,000 people, Westwood, Avondale, Mt. Airy, College Hill, Saylor Park, Bond Hill, and the other first ring suburbs will lose more than that.

 

    In my humble opinion, the only way that the streetcar will attract NEW residents is for people to move from other parts of the state to Over-the-Rhine. If they move from, say, Westwood to Over-the-Rhine, the city won't gain any new residents and therefore won't gain any new tax revenue.

 

    Cincinnati's budget is in trouble.

 

    Also, the reason why people don't complain about the cost of highways such as the Waldvogel Viaduct is because the funds are already appropriated. There is no reason why the City of Cincinnati couldn't cut other programs and come up with the money to fund the streetcar today except for politics. The road people want to protect their own budget, and the health department wants to protect theirs, etc.

  ^--- If I were to bet, I think Cincinnati will show a declining population DESPITE the streetcar.

 

I'll take you up on that bet.

 

In my humble opinion, the only way that the streetcar will attract NEW residents is for people to move from other parts of the state to Over-the-Rhine. If they move from, say, Westwood to Over-the-Rhine, the city won't gain any new residents and therefore won't gain any new tax revenue.

 

Actually many of the people moving into newly renovated residential units in Over-the-Rhine are people relocating here for jobs.  One of the many selling points of modern streetcar lines is that they attract a certain demographic (talented young professionals among others).  People in this demographic are leaving Cincinnati in a greater number than they are moving here.  We need to keep our talented young people here, and attract new talent from the outside.  The streetcar will help on both of those fronts.

Fellow Cincinnatian,

 

As you may know, a coalition of naysayers has recently announced they have collected enough signatures to place a charter amendment on the fall ballot that would prevent the City from making any investments in all forms of passenger rail without a popular vote.  This ballot initiative threatens Cincinnati’s ability to receive federal rail funding and may result in Cincinnati being bypassed by President Obama’s High Speed Rail Plan and Governor Strickland’s Cincinnati-Columbus-Cleveland rail corridor. 

 

I am writing to you today to ask you to contact the Cincinnati Enquirer and tell them to accurately report on the Anti-Passenger Rail Amendment.  In recent articles the Enquirer has been calling this Amendment the “Streetcar Measure” or the “Streetcar Issue” when the reality is that is will affect all passenger rail—not just the streetcar.

 

It is inaccurate and misleading for the Enquirer to call the ballot initiative the "Streetcar Issue" when it would permanently affect all passenger rail.  A ballot initiative that affected all highways would not be called the "Norwood Lateral Issue," nor would an initiative that affected all parks be called the "Eden Park Issue." 

 

Please contact the Enquirer and tell them to accurately report on this issue.  Write a letter to the editor [email: [email protected]] , write an email to the reporters who use the term “Streetcar Issue” and carbon copy (cc) their editor, comment on the Enquirer’s website, or write a blog post about this inaccurate reporting. Don’t have a blog? Pass this on to someone who does. 

 

Here is a list of who to contact at the Enquirer:

 

Julie Engebrecht, Barry Horstman,

Deputy Managing Editor Reporter - Transportation

E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected]

 

Jane Prendergast, David Holthaus

Cincinnati City Politics Reporter Reporter

E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected].

 

Thank you for your time and effort on this critical issue that could affect generations of Cincinnatians to come.

 

Sincerely,

 

 

/s/

Brad Thomas

Founder www.cincystreetcar.com

 

 

Nice job sending that out Brad.  I still haven't received a reply to my email I sent a few days ago

All Aboard Ohio is sending Brad's action alert to our database of supporters, totaling nearly 2,000 people.

 

The impact of this anti-rail ballot issue will be felt nationally and will effectively put a wall around the City of Cincinnati, through which regional and national passenger rail services may not pass. I would expect 3-C Corridor trains to travel no further south than Sharonville, further isolating Cincinnati's residents who can least afford to drive (23 percent of the city's households have no car). If I was a low-income Cincinnati resident, I would be absolutely furious at Smitherman.

 

What a shame. One of the greatest fights the NAACP has fought was the battle to keep cities from getting demolished by freeways while trying to preserve their local transit systems. They recognized back then that railroads and transit systems sow the urban fabric, while highways shred them. So rail/transit gets stonewalled while highways get a pass by this chapter of the NAACP? I'll bet Smitherman's predecessors are rolling in their graves. The local NAACP's actions which contradict everything we know about how various forms of transportation affect the prosperity and quality of life of cities and their citizens. I hope the citizens of Cincinnati reject the local NAACP president as discrediting the good works done by those whose shoulders he now stands upon.

Unfortunately Smitherman, as leader of this issue, is called for quotes by the Enquirer.  Wednesday's article in the Enquirer made him look like a hero. 

"If I were to bet, I think Cincinnati will show a declining population DESPITE the streetcar."

 

"I'll take you up on that bet."

 

Well, the streetcar has to be built for this bet to be valid. I am NOT going to bet whether or not the streetcar will be built.

 

  I will grant you that the streetcar attracts a certain demographic. My point is that the rest of the city has a lot of old people that are presently not being replaced with younger ones.

 

    Population change = births - deaths + immigration - emmigration.

 

    The streetcar isn't going to change the birth or death rate. The best we can hope for is that it will increase the net immigration. Since the present trends indicate a reduction in population state wide beginning in 2018, increaseing popluation by construction of a streetcar is going to be an uphill battle.

 

  OTR may increase, sure, but not the City of Cincinnati overall.