I really can't see anything disingenuous about it. A supporter of the funding was absent and they are allowing the vote to be cast. If he was postponing it to a day when he was sure Ghiz and Monzel could not be present, that would be disingenuous.

This is a C.Y.A. move by the mayor.  No one knows how far the ethics implications would affect this project and Bortz's support is critical for the project regardless of it's outcome.  If I was on council and approved a major highway system next to my property would the same apply for me?  I am sure they would result that the benefit is incidental to construction but not a direct contribution to the increase in property value.

 

A conflict of interest arises if there is a direct benefit from the outcome of what is being voted on.  Cranley's resignation stemmed from his involvement with a specific development project that was associated with the city.  The streetcar is for the public investment for public use and benefits everyone like other infrastructure projects , not an approval of a project for a for-profit company.    The difference is everyone can ride the streetcar, just like everyone can drive on a road.

The fact still remains that they didn't receive the last round of federal funding due to a lack of commitment shown by the city. At least that's what they say they were told. So it seems reasonable to take the 6 votes if you can get them.

 

It can work doubly as a "C.Y.A." move, as well. So much the better for the mayor, I suppose.

I wonder if Mallory might be hoping that one of the GOP folks running for Hamco Commissioner will resign when they win the primary next week and he could get a more pro-transit GOPer (I can dream right?)

I strongly doubt that, they'll keep their seat until the general would be my guess.

This is a C.Y.A. move by the mayor.  No one knows how far the ethics implications would affect this project and Bortz's support is critical for the project regardless of it's outcome.  If I was on council and approved a major highway system next to my property would the same apply for me?  I am sure they would result that the benefit is incidental to construction but not a direct contribution to the increase in property value.

 

A conflict of interest arises if there is a direct benefit from the outcome of what is being voted on.  Cranley's resignation stemmed from his involvement with a specific development project that was associated with the city.  The streetcar is for the public investment for public use and benefits everyone like other infrastructure projects , not an approval of a project for a for-profit company.    The difference is everyone can ride the streetcar, just like everyone can drive on a road.

 

Completely agree with this statement and the comparison to Cranley really illustrates the problem with the supposed benefit Bortz and Towne receive from the Streetcar.  Cranley resigned before voting on approving TIF money for a project he stood to benefit from financially.  That money was zero-sum and project specific- money spent on one project means that it can't be used for a similar project.

 

The Streetcar route was not decided by Council (though they approved it) and the funds benefit all property owns along the route equally.  There's nothing more beneficial about this project than allocating funds to repave the exact same roads.

 

I'm mostly surprised that the feds look this closely at projects like these, that they would be concerned enough to look at the size of the vote and potential conflicts of interests and aren't focused solely on quantitative things like local funding match and projected ROI.

 

I wonder if Mallory might be hoping that one of the GOP folks running for Hamco Commissioner will resign when they win the primary next week and he could get a more pro-transit GOPer (I can dream right?)

 

I doubt Mallory is thinking much about that.  I also doubt that either Ghiz or Monzel will resign if they get the nomination.  But I'd be surprised if a post-November Republican appointee wasn't pro-streetcar.  The businessmen aren't outnumbered by the culturals at the QCC.

 

  "Liberal Leslie endorsed tax-raising Democrat David Pepper. And she said...'Just because I'm a Republican, doesn't mean anything....' She voted to fund the $185 million dollar trolley.

 

  Chris Monzel will fight to stop the wasteful spending of YOUR tax dollars. That's why he voted against funding the trolley."

 

    Copied from mailed campaign material. UO'ers should take heart in that the streetcar has become a county campaign issue, and judging from this material, the streetcar has become the most important campaign issue.

 

    Also, there's a beautiful photo of a streetcar that Liberal Leslie voted against. You would think they would purposely use a poor photo, or a historic streetcar, but this one is a beaut.

 

   

I received a mailer from Ghiz talking about how Monzel tried to expand the streetcar by $52 million. 

 

I have also received three or four mailers from Ghiz that mentioned Monzel approved money for spending on mannequins. Actually, every mailer from Ghiz has mentioned mannequins.  Apparently profligate mannequin spending is the most pressing issue facing this county.

 

Don't know if anyone caught this, but this Cincinnati.com ethics piece against Bortz and the streetcar was posted on the front page for well over a day and it is still on the front page under most commented for almost a week...http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20100427/NEWS0108/4280369/Bortz-defies-state-ethics-advisory-on-streetcar-vote

 

Bortz's rebuttal to the accusations, a letter in which he responded to the ethics violations allegations, was on the front page for less than an hour before being buried and has now been removed...

 

Something fishy is definitely going on.  I wrote to Bortz and am writing to the enquirer now

 

Sorry for the double post, apparently I hit the wrong button

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

 

Umm...John, Details please!  How did no one else ask about this post yet?

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

 

Umm...John, Details please!  How did no one else ask about this post yet?

 

Because John doesn't like to elaborate on such things.  :-P

 

Don't know if anyone caught this, but this Cincinnati.com ethics piece against Bortz and the streetcar was posted on the front page for well over a day and it is still on the front page under most commented for almost a week...http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20100427/NEWS0108/4280369/Bortz-defies-state-ethics-advisory-on-streetcar-vote

 

Bortz's rebuttal to the accusations, a letter in which he responded to the ethics violations allegations, was on the front page for less than an hour before being buried and has now been removed...

 

Something fishy is definitely going on.  I wrote to Bortz and am writing to the enquirer now

 

Sorry for the double post, apparently I hit the wrong button

 

I got a response from a member on Bortz's staff and they are aware of the problem.  I wrote to the enquirer and naturally no response.  However, I just noticed Bortz's letter clarifying Luken's "ethics accusations" has been hidden under the NKY opinion page...Naturally there is no way for anyone in the general public to be aware of it unless one searches the entire website for it.  http://nky.cincinnati.com/article/AB/20100430/EDIT02/4300355/I+am+not+ignoring+advisory+panel+on+streetcar+issue

 

Gotta keep calling out Cincinnati.com on their half truths, COAST like tactics, and mediocre reporting.  I don't mind if they are blatantly bias as long as they report both sides of the argument in a well researched way

Since this is from Chris Bortz and is of his opinion, and not original research by the Enquirer, I am reposting the commentary in its entirely.

 

I am not ignoring advisory panel on streetcar issue

By Chris Bortz • April 30, 2010

 

The front-page article in Wednesday's Enquirer, "Bortz vote disregards ethics panel" (April 28), might lead some readers to conclude that I am deliberately ignoring an official ruling of the Ohio Ethics Commission by advocating for the Cincinnati streetcar project.

 

Nothing could be further from the truth.

 

Last summer, I requested an advisory opinion from the Ohio Ethics Commission about whether I could participate in the streetcar debate. Such opinions are highly technical and are based upon my role as a public official, my business and family interests, and a literal reading of Ohio law. This opinion was not a formal ruling by the commission, as The Enquirer headline erroneously suggested, but advice provided by a single staff attorney.

 

The Ohio Ethics Commission has not held hearings or investigated this issue.

 

While advisory opinions are not to be taken lightly, Ohio law does not require me to abandon my own judgment or the judgment of the City Solicitor. In addition to consultation with the City Solicitor, I also engaged two other attorneys who are well versed in such matters. All three did their research and concluded that I have no conflict of interest.

 

Ohio's ethics law is designed to prevent elected officials from using their positions to unfairly benefit their families or themselves. But these rules are not designed to limit participation by elected officials in large-scale infrastructure investments that might incidentally impact family members, in addition to thousands of other citizens. In fact, the Ohio Ethics Commission has ruled that such literal interpretations would "effectively render it difficult or impossible for a political subdivision to undertake infrastructure improvements."

 

The staff attorney advised me that I should not participate in the streetcar discussion because I own a small share of a restaurant and my father owns property along or near the proposed route. But applying this standard to City Council as a whole would paralyze the body when it comes to economic development and other major infrastructure improvements across the city.

 

For instance, it is well known that Vice Mayor Roxanne Qualls owns a condo a block away from the proposed route. Mayor Mallory's father owns a home less than three blocks away from a proposed connector to Uptown. Former Vice Mayor Jim Tarbell, who voted on the streetcar while a member of Council, owned a business along the proposed route. Under the staff attorney's reasoning, none of these dedicated and committed public servants would be able to participate in the streetcar debate.

 

Every year we appropriate millions of dollars to rehabilitate streets and sidewalks all over the city and to operate a bus system whose routes crisscross the city. It has been demonstrated that public parks create a positive property value impact. So a member of council who lives near a park can't vote on the Parks Department budget?

 

The advisory opinion even conflicts with prior Ohio Ethics Commission rulings. The commission has concluded that an elected official has no conflict if the benefit to their property is not "selective, differential, or in disproportion to the benefit provided to other property in the political subdivision, or the portion thereof receiving the improvements." In other words, if everybody in the project area is treated equally, there is no ethical transgression. The streetcar project is expected to benefit property value for downtown and uptown businesses and residences. No one is getting special treatment.

 

I would ask fair-minded citizens to consider the circumstances. The fact that this advisory opinion was resurrected (and mischaracterized) on the eve of a crucial vote is certainly no accident. It constitutes the politics of personal destruction at its worst. Simply put, don't we want our elected leaders to have a stake in the community? Don't we want business owners and homeowners to run for office?

 

I am passionate about our city, as is my family, and I believe deeply in its potential. After years of analysis and debate, I believe building a streetcar system will help us realize some of that potential. Many critical questions still need answers so that this public infrastructure investment produces the promised return, not just on property values but mobility benefits, emission benefits, parking and travel savings, and intangible benefits related to making our city more attractive, vibrant and livable.

I'm unable to "Recommend" the article. I've clicked and clicked. Nothing. The Enquirer really wants to keep this buried...

If you have a Facebook or Twitter account, or a blog, share the letter. Get it out there.

I'm unable to "Recommend" the article. I've clicked and clicked. Nothing. The Enquirer really wants to keep this buried...

 

They appear to have moved it back to the main "cincinnati" part of the website instead of NKY, but is only accessible after searching.  So to recap what the Enquirer did:

 

Earlier this week(Either Monday or Tuesday) - Luken's(and presumably COAST's) hit piece ethics charge against Bortz stays on the front page in headlines for more than a day.  It gets moved to the "most commented" section of the Enquirer front page to be viewed by all up until early this afternoon. 

 

Two days ago - Bortz responds to defend himself in a letter to the Enquirer.  Less than 1 hour later, his article disappears from the front page to the archives where one can find it only if they search. 

 

Yesterday/This morning - The article is removed in its entirety.  Clicking on the link takes you to a "We're Sorry" page. 

 

Late this morning - the Bortz response is put in the NKY Opinion section for approximately an hour before being removed. 

 

Early this afternoon - Now the response is put in the "archives" on the Cincinnati part of the website again where one can view it only after searching for it...Still buried

 

Also, it's important to note that there is still no response from the Enquirer...

 

 

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

 

Umm...John, Details please! How did no one else ask about this post yet?

 

Because John doesn't like to elaborate on such things. :-P

 

Just think it's best not to talk about these things until they're signed, sealed and delivered. By mid-May ...

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

 

Umm...John, Details please!  How did no one else ask about this post yet?

 

Because John doesn't like to elaborate on such things.  :-P

 

Just think it's best not to talk about these things until they're signed, sealed and delivered. By mid-May ...

 

See?  :lol:

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

 

Umm...John, Details please! How did no one else ask about this post yet?

 

Because John doesn't like to elaborate on such things. :-P

 

Just think it's best not to talk about these things until they're signed, sealed and delivered. By mid-May ...

 

Haha.  I just got an email response from Councilman Bortz I think regarding the same thing you are referring to John...I don't want to post for fear of jinxing as well

I posted Bortz's piece on Enquirere Executive Editor Tom Callinan's Facebook page, just to keep the dialogue going.  You do know that it now shows up in the online Opinion section of the Enq.

http://nky.cincinnati.com/article/AB/20100430/NEWS0108/5010366/0/NEWS0103/Ethics-panel-asked-to-investigate-Bortz

 

Ethics panel asked to investigate Bortz

BY BARRY M. HORSTMAN • [email protected] • APRIL 30, 2010

 

A former Cincinnati mayoral and City Council candidate has asked the Ohio Ethics Commission to investigate whether Councilman Chris Bortz violated state ethics laws by voting on the proposed streetcar despite his family's property interests on and near the proposed route.

 

If the commission opens an inquiry, a decision that could be made this month, the fact that Bortz ignored an ethics panel staff attorney's advice to not take an active role on the streetcar issue could leave him facing sanctions that include removal from office, Ethics Commission officials said Friday.

 

Click on link for rest of article.

Justin Jeffre. Perfect. What a mockery.

Are you kidding me?  I bet Jeffre was a supporter of Issue 9 as well. (Just google searched it and found out that he is anti-streetcar for some unknown reason.)

 

Justin Jeffre, a political activist perhaps better known as a former 98° band member, asked the ethics panel to investigate Bortz's involvement on the streetcar issue - in particular, his recent vote for $2.6 million for planning and other preliminary expenses.

^ I believe Jeffre was also against the Fountain Square renovation.  I think he's a member of the Green Party, which is really puzzling as to why he's against the streetcar.

^ To me, he seems like a bitter has-been who misses the spotlight.

It's a testament to the strength of the streetcar proposal that it's being viscously opposed by the lunatic fringe on both the right wing and left wing, but strongly supported by a broad range of people in the center as well as the city's business community.

This is absolutely ridiculous. The Enquirer is coming very close to outright lying about the details of this issue. They are treading close to slander. There is too much legal precedent on the side of Bortz, even if it were to come to that. Someone is using this in attempt to throw a temporary wrench into the streetcar approval.

The Enquirer is probably just trying to uncover a big story for readership.  I guess this is what passes as investigative journalism at our shitty paper...

I happened to find "Hybrid Funiculars", the Innsbruck Hungerburgbohn. Do a search for this. Could this be something for Cincinatti.

Hunberburgbohn means "hunger fortress bean."  Which is kind of funny if you think about it.  An article about the funicular railway is here:   

 

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

This is absolutely ridiculous. The Enquirer is coming very close to outright lying about the details of this issue. They are treading close to slander. There is too much legal precedent on the side of Bortz, even if it were to come to that. Someone is using this in attempt to throw a temporary wrench into the streetcar approval.

The enquirer is desperate.  They are trying every which avenue to try and get this project buried. 

 

Take a look at some of these letters the enquirer approves.  These are all listed in order from most recent to older. No omissions.  The order which you see is the exact order they are listed:

 

"Bortz proves panel's point with rebuttal" (May 1st - Sharonville)

"Streetcars not worth our money" (May 1st - Finneytown)

"Why is council pushing unwanted streetcar?" (April 28 - Sycamore Township)

"Motorized Trolley an option" (April 28 - Hyde Park)

"Let trolley company provide trial run" (April 27 - Indian Hill)

"Streetcar spending example of Irresponsible City Council" (April 27 - California OH)

"Problems with streetcar proposal"  (April 27 - Mt Washington)

"How streetcars maneuvered during Flood" (April 26 - White Oak)

"Who benefits from the streetcar?" (April 26 - Price Hill)

"Fund transportation improvements privately" (April 22 - Sharonville)

"Why not try a streetcar experiment?" (April 21 - Mt Lookout)

"City dumped streetcars long ago, for good reason" (April 21 - Union Township)

"Cincinnati can't afford a streetcar" (April 21 - Amelia)

"Streetcar Magic and costs" (April 20 - West Chester)

 

So from April 20th until the present, the enquirer has published 13 negative letters against the streetcar, with 1 that's neutral. 

 

Combine this with the rash of anti-Bortz articles and the timeframes/erasing of the Bortz rebuttal from last week, and one can see the desperation from the Enquirer.  If we are hearing about potential good news, the enquirer is certainly hearing about it as well which means the next couple weeks they will continue try every which tactic to destroy the project and its supporters credibility.  Get ready

Look at the display ads and inserts in the Saturday and Sunday print edtions. The Enquirer is selling cars and sprawl, and repopulating our city runs counter to its economic interests. I think it's as simple as that.

Look at the display ads and inserts in the Saturday and Sunday print edtions. The Enquirer is selling cars and sprawl, and repopulating our city runs counter to its economic interests. I think it's as simple as that.

Yea, the same thing is true with the Dayton Daily News.

The enquirer is desperate.  They are trying every which avenue to try and get this project buried. 

 

Take a look at some of these letters the enquirer approves.  These are all listed in order from most recent to older. No omissions.  The order which you see is the exact order they are listed:

 

"Bortz proves panel's point with rebuttal" (May 1st - Sharonville)

"Streetcars not worth our money" (May 1st - Finneytown)

"Why is council pushing unwanted streetcar?" (April 28 - Sycamore Township)

"Motorized Trolley an option" (April 28 - Hyde Park)

"Let trolley company provide trial run" (April 27 - Indian Hill)

"Streetcar spending example of Irresponsible City Council" (April 27 - California OH)

"Problems with streetcar proposal"  (April 27 - Mt Washington)

"How streetcars maneuvered during Flood" (April 26 - White Oak)

"Who benefits from the streetcar?" (April 26 - Price Hill)

"Fund transportation improvements privately" (April 22 - Sharonville)

"Why not try a streetcar experiment?" (April 21 - Mt Lookout)

"City dumped streetcars long ago, for good reason" (April 21 - Union Township)

"Cincinnati can't afford a streetcar" (April 21 - Amelia)

"Streetcar Magic and costs" (April 20 - West Chester)

 

So from April 20th until the present, the enquirer has published 13 negative letters against the streetcar, with 1 that's neutral. 

 

Combine this with the rash of anti-Bortz articles and the timeframes/erasing of the Bortz rebuttal from last week, and one can see the desperation from the Enquirer.  If we are hearing about potential good news, the enquirer is certainly hearing about it as well which means the next couple weeks they will continue try every which tactic to destroy the project and its supporters credibility.  Get ready.

 

It's funny how so man of the anti-streetcar LetEd pieces are from outside of the City.

 

But the really weird thing is how The Enquirer keeps pushing this issue.  I'd say that for the vast majority of the disinterested electorate, this issue is over, they realize the streetcar will be built, and they are fine with it (mostly in the sense that they aren't thinking about it).  The X factor in the Streetcar vote was the African-American community in Cincinnati, and the successful No on Nine campaign has mooted the issue.  The only danger to revitalize this issue is if they don't get the federal money allocated before the next local election cycle, but that seems unlikely.

The Enquirer used to have a motto: "The Paper with the Power to Get Things Done"

 

Perhaps it's been now changed to: "The Paper with the Power to Get Things Undone"

Hunberburgbohn means "hunger fortress bean." Which is kind of funny if you think about it. An article about the funicular railway is here:

 

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

 

A less confusing translation would be "the Fort Hunger Railway"

This is absolutely ridiculous. The Enquirer is coming very close to outright lying about the details of this issue. They are treading close to slander. There is too much legal precedent on the side of Bortz, even if it were to come to that. Someone is using this in attempt to throw a temporary wrench into the streetcar approval.

The enquirer is desperate. They are trying every which avenue to try and get this project buried.

 

Take a look at some of these letters the enquirer approves. These are all listed in order from most recent to older. No omissions. The order which you see is the exact order they are listed:

 

"Bortz proves panel's point with rebuttal" (May 1st - Sharonville)

"Streetcars not worth our money" (May 1st - Finneytown)

"Why is council pushing unwanted streetcar?" (April 28 - Sycamore Township)

"Motorized Trolley an option" (April 28 - Hyde Park)

"Let trolley company provide trial run" (April 27 - Indian Hill)

"Streetcar spending example of Irresponsible City Council" (April 27 - California OH)

"Problems with streetcar proposal" (April 27 - Mt Washington)

"How streetcars maneuvered during Flood" (April 26 - White Oak)

"Who benefits from the streetcar?" (April 26 - Price Hill)

"Fund transportation improvements privately" (April 22 - Sharonville)

"Why not try a streetcar experiment?" (April 21 - Mt Lookout)

"City dumped streetcars long ago, for good reason" (April 21 - Union Township)

"Cincinnati can't afford a streetcar" (April 21 - Amelia)

"Streetcar Magic and costs" (April 20 - West Chester)

 

So from April 20th until the present, the enquirer has published 13 negative letters against the streetcar, with 1 that's neutral.

 

Combine this with the rash of anti-Bortz articles and the timeframes/erasing of the Bortz rebuttal from last week, and one can see the desperation from the Enquirer. If we are hearing about potential good news, the enquirer is certainly hearing about it as well which means the next couple weeks they will continue try every which tactic to destroy the project and its supporters credibility. Get ready

 

That is pretty disgusting.

 

A less confusing translation would be "the Fort Hunger Railway"

 

But that would be spelled Hungerburgbahn.  ;) 

 

The trick with funicular railways (perhaps most?), is you need a destination at either end (not just transit connections).  Unfortunately, at the bottom of Mt. Adams is a spaghetti bowl of freeway. 

While searching for something unrelated, I found an article that is highly relevant to our never-ending discussion about the maximum grade the streetcar will be able to negotiate, as it relates to the Vine Street hill:

 

Light Rail Now! MythBusters Weblog (Scroll about 3/4 of the way down.)

 

Myth:

 

Buses can run on steep grades, but light rail cars are limited to grades of 6%.

 

Reality:

 

Rubber-tired vehicles such as buses have incrementally better traction on dry pavement, but significantly lower traction in wet, icy, or snowy conditions. Furthermore, electric light rail transit (LRT) railcars – including streetcars (trams) – are capable of negotiating much steeper grades than is commonly assumed and included in system designs.

 

In general, it advisable to minimize grades on any new transit system as much as possible. However, where necessary (to access critical sections of a city, to contain costs, or for other reasons), LRT can handle grades as steep as 12% (depending on vehicle design, motor power, and other technical capabilities). Here are some examples:

 

[...]

 

· Boston – C-Commonwealth Avenue streetcar line has a gradient of more than 8%.

 

· Portland – MAX LRT system has a 7% grade on the ramp leading from Second Avenue onto the Steel Bridge.

 

· Little Rock – River Rail streetcar line between Little Rock and North Little Rock climbs a gradient of 7.8% on the approach to the Main St. bridge over the Arkansas River.

 

· San Francisco – grades of 9% on the J-Church and L-Taraval streetcar lines of the Municipal Railway.

 

· Pittsburgh – Route 52-Arlington has a grade of 10%, routinely negotiated by modern Siemens and CAF articulated interurban-type railcars.

 

Historically, some American electric surface railway lines negotiated even steeper gradients. For example, transportation engineer and transit industry veteran Edson L. Tennyson, PE (a technical consultant to the Light Rail Now Project) recounts that Pittsburgh's Route 21-Fineview streetcar line had 12 percent grades. Ed, who notes that he worked for Pittsburgh's transit company between1947-1949, emphasizes that – despite Pittsburgh's somewhat daunting climate conditions – the Route 21 streetcar "ran if anything else ran."

 

For what it's worth, I think somebody earlier in the thread determined that the average grade of Vine Street is about 6.5%.

Average grades don't matter. The ruling grade does. And it's not just the slopes, it's the curves too, and the combination of them that matters. And some of the examples above use much lighter vintage-type equipment.

 

I dunno if it's because of the grade or for safety reasons, but the Portland Red Line's eastbound climb up onto the Steel Bridge ramp is very slow, nothing you'd be willing to put up with for a mile of travel.

Average grades don't matter.

 

Maybe so, but I also pointed out that Vine Street's slope is very consistent as well, and that's what's important.

Could anyone estimate a deadline date where we are positive that the streetcar WILL be constructed by 2012? Is there a funding date that we are watching out for?

Could anyone estimate a deadline date where we are positive that the streetcar WILL be constructed by 2012? Is there a funding date that we are watching out for?

 

I don't think its possible for anyone to give an accurate estimate on that.  However, if we land enough TIGER funds this year in addition to the TRAC funding and any other sources we've applied for, its definitely going to happen.  By 2012?  That's a good question, but I doubt it will be done by then.  I would guess it would at least get started by early 2011 as long as we secure funding by the end of the summer/early fall.

Average grades don't matter.

 

Maybe so, but I also pointed out that Vine Street's slope is very consistent as well, and that's what's important.

 

If modern streetcars are going to have travel and maintenance problems with relatively steep grades, then that is a huge argument piece for the pro-bus people, COAST, etc.  I thought John or someone had claimed earlier in the threat that 9% was the max grade the Scota cars can handle, so I don’t see why Vine St. would present a physical problem in that regard.  It would be great to get the manufacturer of the cars to guarantee or provide some warranty with regards to any issues due to the slope, if they do in fact claim they can handle 9%.

 

That said, I take the N/W train in NYC every day and there’s a sharp 90 degree turn at what seems to be a 3-4% grade, and it can feel like a roller coaster when the occasional driver decides to take it at a high speed. 

 

I am totally happy to wait until the engineers make a final determination. All I can say is I'm far from the only person who has doubts about Vine Street, for a number of reasons.

 

Remember, just because something is possible doesn't mean it is desirable.

To use an argument from the 3-C thread...if it works in all these other places, why wouldn't it work here? 

There is only one place where modern streetcars are used on a steep, curving slope, one that's less step and much shorter than the Vine Street hill. And it doesn't work very well. It's not a comfortable ride.

 

The objective, in part, is to be car-competitive.

So far nothing I've seen suggests that this project is intended to be car-competitive.  Bus-competitive maybe, but the main point of the project is as a development tool.  For it to be car-competitive it would take as straight a run as possible, most likely only on Vine Street, at least north of Central Parkway, with other vehicular traffic severely limited on that route. 

 

Besides, aren't the Boston, Pittsburgh, and Portland examples Living in Gin gave above modern enough?  Muni may not be, and I don't know anything about the Little Rock system, but come on.  If people can put up with all these hills on buses, they can deal with them on streetcars. 

So far nothing I've seen suggests that this project is intended to be car-competitive. Bus-competitive maybe, but the main point of the project is as a development tool.

Reflect upon the irony of those two sentences for a while.

Could anyone estimate a deadline date where we are positive that the streetcar WILL be constructed by 2012? Is there a funding date that we are watching out for?

 

I don't think its possible for anyone to give an accurate estimate on that. However, if we land enough TIGER funds this year in addition to the TRAC funding and any other sources we've applied for, its definitely going to happen. By 2012? That's a good question, but I doubt it will be done by then. I would guess it would at least get started by early 2011 as long as we secure funding by the end of the summer/early fall.

 

 

Does anyone know if they plan to open streetcar in mini-phases?  For example, if they start construction at The Banks and move north, they could open the Downtown portion of the loop, then OTR, then Clifton.  Or will they build all of the track first, and then open all of Phase I at once?