Last I knew, he was working in Columbus and then was hired as a point-man of the casino initiative.  Makes me wonder who, if anyone, he is trying to curry favor with.

^They are talking about Tom Luken, the father, not Charlie Luken, the son.

Someone, I can't remember who, told me Tom Luken has two goals he still wants to achieve in his life:

 

1. End capital punishment in Ohio.

 

2. End any chance that rail will ever be built in Cincinnati.

 

The latter probably explains his leadership of the Pro-Issue 9 campaign.

Nipped that little convo in the bud. On topic, please. Feel free to discuss that level of politics and religion in urbanbar.

I hope this doesn't take the discussion off track, but I just found this interesting tidbit about anti-rail state Senator Shannon "Tweety" Jones and Charles Luken....

 

http://bororeport.blogspot.com/2010/03/shannon-jones-campaign-contributions.html

 

Jones said she raised a lot of money from utility interests: “because I’ve taken the time to learn the policy and develop relationships,” she said. “I have always worked hard on the public policy side and the campaign side and I comply with campaign finance laws.” …

 

... FirstEnergy also has the largest contingent of Statehouse lobbyists among utilities, currently with 16 Statehouse lobbyists including former Cincinnati Mayor Charlie Luken...

I am loving these yuppie guys.  They are hitting the nail on the head.

Who you calling a yuppie?

All, ODOT's Transportation Review Advisory Council recently issued its draft list of recommended projects to receive funding in the 2010-2014 period. On that list are a number of projects that may be of interest to you (see the Draft 2010-2014 TRAC List at http://www.dot.state.oh.us/trac/Pages/Default.aspx). These are the passenger rail-related projects and their recommended amounts of state funding (and purpose of funding):

 

• 3C “Quick Start” Passenger Rail – no state funding sought for constructon (proposed ranking in TRAC list is to allow ODOT to advance project pending other approvals such as from the State Controlling Board);
  
• Cincinnati Fourth Main Rail and Cincinnati Union Terminal – $1 million (for preliminary engineering and environmental documentation so the project can be eligible for federal construction funds);
  
• Cincinnati Streetcar, Phase 1 – $15 million (for share of total construction costs estimated at $128 million -- note that this project received the highest TRAC score, 84, of any on the draft list).
  

 

Please submit your comments on any or all of these projects, especially for 3C! Comment period closes at the end of the business day, Monday May 3rd. The TRAC is tabulating pro/con comments, so yours can be as simple as “I support/don’t support x” and list the title of the project as underlined above or as listed on the draft list.

 

Submit your comments via email to: [email protected]

 

Or by regular mail to:

 

TRAC

Attention: Ed Kagel - TRAC Coordinator

Office of Systems Planning and Program Management

1980 West Broad Street

Columbus, OH 43223

 

Thank you for participating in this important process!

Is it okay to write one email in support of all three, or will that throw the tabulators for a loop?

Absolutely. Every project in the TRAC's draft list (not just the passenger rail/transit) could appear on the final list.

 

You're the second person who asked me that. It's OK to demand more, Ohio!  :wink2:

I didn't mean "can we only pick one to support?", but rather "should I write three emails, instead of one?".

Upon Completion, the Cincinnati Streetcar will serve the most Fortune 500 Companies of any modern streetcar in the country. http://cincystreetcar.wordpress.com/2010/04/23/five-fortune-500-companies-along-the-streetcar-route/

 

Thanks Thomas.  We could rehash that map a dozen times and prove that it will serve the most ____ in the country over and over.  I have NEVER seen a better transit proposal in any city over the past 15 years and there's simply no way this route can fail...unless we wait too long to build it.

 

 

I still wish they'd lop off that last bit to Henry Street, cut it back to Findlay so the trip from downtown to UC doesn't spend five blocks going in the wrong direction. 

Like This?

Yes

I still wish they'd lop off that last bit to Henry Street, cut it back to Findlay so the trip from downtown to UC doesn't spend five blocks going in the wrong direction. 

 

That extra block or two gets you a whole lot of development potential.  The Renner/Mohawk hillside has lots of potential for new single family housing.

 

I don't remember if I've heard this answered or not, but in the future when the UC/Uptown loop is built, will a streetcar go from downtown all the way up the hill, through Uptown, and back Downtown?  I always assumed there will be a transfer to the new loop at some point, but will that be at the bottom of the Vine St hill @ Findlay or at the top @ UC?

 

It seems that having the OTR/downtown loop go all the way to McMicken and overlap with the Uptown/UC loop with the transfer @ Findlay Market would be the best for maximizing foot traffic.

It's still "just one or two blocks to the streetcar" though.  Does it really need to be directly on the line?  I don't think so. 

I think the Cincinnati Park Board might need to start thinking of ways to maximize Innwood Park to take advantage of its location on the line. Not necessarily for development, but this could become one of the first stops for tourists to the city.

I know it's way too late in the game to be proposing new routes, but I've always wondered how easy it would be to run up Ohio Ave to Vine St.  After walking around on Google Streetview, it seems like it's be pretty straightforward and would only require the construction of a standard bridge for Clifton Ave and the demolition of one building on Vine St.  Here's a quick drawing:

 

^Why is the Drop Inn Center located on that map next to Roodwood Pottery?  Does Google Maps know something I don't?

 

I agree about Inwood Park.  Same with Vine Street Elementary (current Rothenberg) site.  Seems when that is redevelopet that a pull-off or transfer area could be developed for the uphill leg.

 

Agree with McMicken.  The most distressed area in OTR is Mowhawk Pl / McMicken intersection.  And tehere is lots of developable land on the hillside, and every block further away shrinks the effect area.

I think anyone who spends any amount of time in that North Findlay area has to honestly say that having the streetcar go one block further north from Findlay Street to Henry Street won't make a bit of difference.  I understand that the models say "development happens two to three blocks away" but practically speaking one block isn't going to make change the known unknown amount of people willing to enter this space after the Streetcar is built.  There are is a certain group of enthusiasts who will respond to initial development in that area and only an increase in the comprehensiveness of the system, the safety/cleanliness of the area, and the amount of livable buildings will take us beyond these pioneers.

 

Nevertheless, if they need to put a car barn anywhere along the route the one story building at Henry and Elm would be a great potential site since it is a large lot occupied by a building with no historical relevance whatsoever.  I say this with no knowledge whatsoever about what type of space is actually required for the car barn.

 

I truly think that a double tracked Findlay Street closed to cars and existing only for bicycles and pedestrians would really be a great experiment to see if a closed street like that would be viable.  There's very little on it right now (so we can see how much development we can expect), it's got high name rec because of the Market (even though the Market House is on Elder), it is a straight shot through the West End to Dalton Street post office and thence to the Museum Center if we choose to move that way in the future, and there is a ton of empty space (that parking lot on the north side of the Market) for new construction.  It's win-win-win-win-win-win.  Those last two wins were because we need a connection to Vine and I was able to incorporate so many wins into one scenario.

 

 

Nevertheless, if they need to put a car barn anywhere along the route the one story building at Henry and Elm would be a great potential site since it is a large lot occupied by a building with no historical relevance whatsoever. I say this with no knowledge whatsoever about what type of space is actually required for the car barn.

 

 

That is one of the locations being considered.

I think anyone who spends any amount of time in that North Findlay area has to honestly say that having the streetcar go one block further north from Findlay Street to Henry Street won't make a bit of difference.  I understand that the models say "development happens two to three blocks away" but practically speaking one block isn't going to make change the known unknown amount of people willing to enter this space after the Streetcar is built.  There are is a certain group of enthusiasts who will respond to initial development in that area and only an increase in the comprehensiveness of the system, the safety/cleanliness of the area, and the amount of livable buildings will take us beyond these pioneers.

 

I don't disagree with the importance of all those things, but if we're trying to maximize the development potential we need to stretch it as far as possible.  I think the hillside has the potential to develop before the rest of the Brewery District.  I know it's probably a moot point as Henry seems to have been selected as the northern limit, but I would actually keep the route to McMicken.  Those extra blocks do matter, especially if your house is up (steep) hills.  I don't think we'll see an extension of the line out McMicken anytime soon, so this is our one shot for the next decade(s). 

 

  "I know it's way too late in the game to be proposing new routes..."

 

  It's not too late to make changes until it's built. Granted, there is a lot of sunk cost in developing a route, but at this point all we have is a line on a map. I'm still not confident that this line will actually be built. We haven't spent the big bucks yet.

 

    Sometimes people will fight for changes, or fight to preserve an idea, just to save face.

 

    Personally, I like the route up Main and Walnut all the way to MickMicken that doesn't even go to Elm Street. It's 12 blocks shorter and saves ten 90-degree bends!

I disagree with the notion that the system should be extended for "development potential" when it compromises operations. I'll just leave it at that.  However, I believe the reason McMicken was cut off in favor of Henry Street was because the turn from Elm to McMicken is too sharp. 

I don't disagree with the importance of all those things, but if we're trying to maximize the development potential we need to stretch it as far as possible.

 

I think the concerns that some have with this idea is that if you stretch it to far and try to get it to do too many things, then it isn't going to do anything well.  Let's remember that this project exists to connect the businesses on thomasbw's map with Washington Park, Music Hall, Findlay Market and thence upward to Clifton/Pill Hill/Uptown.  If hillside development was the priority of this project it wouldn't shift to the Elm/Race axis and would instead simply go all the way up the Main/Walnut access to McMicken like Eighth and State wants.

 

I think the hillside has the potential to develop before the rest of the Brewery District.  I know it's probably a moot point as Henry seems to have been selected as the northern limit, but I would actually keep the route to McMicken.  Those extra blocks do matter, especially if your house is up (steep) hills.

 

There strikes me as being two ways to maximize the value of those hillside properties- 1) make single family homes with a lot of attached garages a la Mt. Adams or 2) make duplexes and triplexes that attract younger folks who don't want a car.  The problem with scenario two is current builders don't really build that way, and we've got so much underused capacity in that area south of McMicken.

 

There's any number of areas of the City that could stand to be re-developed.  There are houses for sale in Price Hill and Westwood for $100,000-$300,000 that would be selling for $600,000-$800,000 if they were in Hyde Park or Clifton.  But it takes time and lots of money to develop that cachet.  As great as the hillside is around McMicken is (and it's really great) having the streetcar end at McMicken isn't going to turn it into Prospect Hill, let alone Mt. Adams.

 

I don't think we'll see an extension of the line out McMicken anytime soon, so this is our one shot for the next decade(s).

 

I think you're right.  But I think we should realize that a streetcar line that really intended to develop that hillside would have to travel the length of McMicken both ways, not simply spur to a tiny section of the hill.  Thankfully the current route doesn't preclude that development from happening in the future.

I disagree with the notion that the system should be extended for "development potential" when it compromises operations. I'll just leave it at that. However, I believe the reason McMicken was cut off in favor of Henry Street was because the turn from Elm to McMicken is too sharp.

 

Agreed.  And there are fairly intuitive routes that seem to maximize development without compromising operations.  Which is why I think Findlay Street is a no-brainer as an east-west corridor.

 

I truly think that a double tracked Findlay Street closed to cars and existing only for bicycles and pedestrians would really be a great experiment to see if a closed street like that would be viable.

 

Best new idea of the year so far.

LK should be on city council or something.

If the building at Henry is being considered for a car barn, perhaps that's a good reason for looping it up one block to that location?

If the building at Henry is being considered for a car barn, perhaps that's a good reason for looping it up one block to that location?

 

that loop doesn't have to be revenue track

Hmmm...perhaps they couldn't work out the left-turn signal phasing by having it make a left at Findlay and Vine?

Ethic issues???? Come on i know the people are smarter than this?

 

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20100427/NEWS0108/4280369/Bortz+defies+ethics+panel

Methinks old man Luken is getting pretty desperate. It's a shame the Enquirer has seen fit to give him a platform to spew his incoherent ramblings.

 

Funny how streetcar naysayers are convinced the project will be a failure, and in the next breath they're full of faux outrage about all the property owners who will benefit from the streetcar's construction.

But of course nobody at the state level who pushes against transit funding ever has a vested interest in highway construction. That would be impossible to prove.

 

A straw man argument, my apologies. :(  But the hypocrisy was too tempting for me.

Methinks old man Luken is getting pretty desperate. It's a shame the Enquirer has seen fit to give him a platform to spew his incoherent ramblings.

 

Funny how streetcar naysayers are convinced the project will be a failure, and in the next breath they're full of faux outrage about all the property owners who will benefit from the streetcar's construction.

 

This is the exact same thing that got me flustered from the last council meeting ...

 

If the route is going to be a failure and opponents see it as a waste of money with no return on investment wouldn't they state the opposite?

 

If they're stating it will create tax-generating revenue (from property owners/developers/investors) wouldn't they be for that?

 

Sounds like a suicide statement to me.

 

 

--Whoops, I totally double-posted an article. UnusualFire what the hell are you doing up at 3AM on the Enquirer?--

 

I personally think his ethical standing is unclear, as there have been numerous precedents set for both staying on and for abstaining. The Enquirer, in its thinly veiled opposition to the project, clearly thinks he's in the wrong, or they wouldn't have "obtained" the information for this story and published it a year after it actually happened, and they certainly wouldn't have quoted Tom Luken more than Bortz himself in the article, even giving him the last word.

^Agreed.  Also, while I understand the OEC's position, I worry about whether we should be discouraging successful individuals from participating in local government.  I definitely see the potential for abuse, but shouldn't we want highly qualified people, who are invested locally, with a strong sense of community, shaping the region?

^ Yes but that's a broadly applicable ideal that you could use for just about anything. It just sounds good when it's your project.  :-P

 

 

^I get the sense that in 2012 when the Streetcar is up and running, opponents will hope it fails. That to me is disturbing.

Hearing the streetcar may be getting a slug of unexpected money in a couple of weeks.

Seeing how the Enquirer has chosen to run a steady barrage of anti-streetcar hit pieces in its "news" and editorial sections, I thought I'd share a letter to the editor I wrote to them last week that they (so far) have not published:

 

As a resident of Westwood, as a young professional, and as an incoming graduate student at UC, I am writing to thank City Council for their courageous vote to fund the streetcar. I recently moved back to my hometown of Cincinnati after many years of living in Chicago, Philadelphia, and New York City, where I commuted daily on various forms of rail transit. I have visited Portland and seen firsthand the economic benefits of their streetcar and light rail systems. Even notoriously auto-centric cities such as Houston and Phoenix have embraced rail transit. I chose to move back to Cincinnati because this city is doing great things, and with the streetcar as the beginning of what will hopefully become a regional rail system, Cincinnati is poised to do even greater things.

 

Those who insist a bus can do a train's job have obviously never ridden rail transit, and are obviously unaware of how Cincinnati's population decline directly coincided with the city's ill-informed decision to do away with streetcar service in the 1950's. And to those who point to our infamous subway: It isn't a boondoggle because it was built; it's a boondoggle because it has never been allowed to be completed.

 

Most importantly, this is not just a downtown or Over-the-Rhine issue. As the streetcar spurs economic development and increased property values along the route, the entire city will benefit. A healthier downtown and OTR mean more resources to improve public schools and public safety in all of Cincinnati's neighborhoods, including places like Westwood and Madisonville. Improved public transit options in Cincinnati will bring direct and indirect benefits to the entire region. Failure to improve public transit will further harm the entire region. The question isn't whether we can afford to build the streetcar; the question is whether we can afford not to build it.

^ Terrific

But of course nobody at the state level who pushes against transit funding ever has a vested interest in highway construction. That would be impossible to prove.

 

A straw man argument, my apologies. :( But the hypocrisy was too tempting for me.

 

The Enquirer's criticism deserves scorn for two reasons: 1) the fact that Towne has intimate dealings with the City on any number of development deals, and has for at least two generations of Bortz', so that there are probably plenty of instances where Towne has directly and singularly benefited from official action that Chris Bortz (or Arn before him) has ruled on, at least during some portion of the process.  The Streetcar doesn't benefit one property on the route more than any other.  I'm sure Bortz' have voted for funds that go to Metro that pass by their properties as well, so why not complain about that?

 

Second, isn't an article that claims the Streetcar will materially benefit a member of actually an article in support of what the Streetcar components claim it will do?  Does The Enquirer realize that it is endorsing the theory of the Streetcar as an economic development tool?

5:55am on April 29, 1951 the last Cincinnati Streetcar went off service, ending rail transit in Cincinnati. 

 

It will return in two years.

Mallory pushes back streetcar vote

By Barry M. Horstman, Cincinnati Enquirer, April 28, 2010

 

Hours after potential conflict of interest issues raised questions about a city councilman's ability to vote for the Cincinnati streetcar project, Mayor Mark Mallory on Wednesday postponed plans to approve the first sizable local investment in the proposed $128 million system.

 

Without explanation during Wednesday's council meeting, Mallory deferred action until at least next week on a council committee's recommendation to approve $2.6 million for preliminary expenses for the Downtown-to-Uptown streetcar project.

Funny how the enquirer tries to pat itself on the back and make it seem that this postponement was in response to its article about Bortz, while Mallory states that the reason the vote was postponed was so he can have 6 yes votes to show to the federal government.

 

So now they are not only printing biased and ignorant articles about development and downtown, but are actively trying to sway the reader from the truth. This is journalism?

Funny how the enquirer tries to pat itself on the back and make it seem that this postponement was in response to its article about Bortz, while Mallory states that the reason the vote was postponed was so he can have 6 yes votes to show to the federal government.

 

So now they are not only printing biased and ignorant articles about development and downtown, but are actively trying to sway the reader from the truth. This is journalism?

 

Wrapping it all up in a bow with a Tom Luken quote was kind of the appropriate drool of icing on the faux-cake

I'm increasingly convinced that Cincinnati would be better off with no daily newspaper at all, rather than the yellow journalism that passes for news in the Enquirer rag.

So now they are not only printing biased and ignorant articles about development and downtown, but are actively trying to sway the reader from the truth. This is journalism?

 

Is it any more disinjenuous than intentionally withholding a winning vote to make it look better at a later date?

 

What is disingenuous about that? Especially when he is totally honest about the reason?