"How does "what happened to Price Hill and Westwood in the last 30 years" have anything to do with a streetcar line proposal?"

 

  True story that I heard from an Elder grad:

 

  "I went to Elder, my Dad went to Elder, and my Grandfather went to Elder, but I'm not sending my son to Elder. The crime in that neighborhood is gotten so bad that it isn't safe anymore."

 

    Another story:

 

    "I know people who sold their houses for a $60,000 loss in Price Hill."

 

    Price Hill didn't suffer a gradual decline over many years. Price Hill declined very fast - just about a decade. The reason is very clear - folks who were displaced from Laurel Homes by the City West development moved to Price Hill.

 

    Another one, this one not from Price Hill:

 

    "We've got kids at our school who don't have the ability to pass the state test, no matter how much effort we teachers put into them. They all come from one Section 8 apartment complex."

 

    City West is of course heavily subsidized by the city, and very much praised on this board. But, the other side of the coin is that Price Hill suffered a mighty blow. The long time residents are not happy about this.

 

    In addition, the long time residents know that the West Side will be the LAST to get improved transit service of any kind. They are sick and tired of being ignored by the city government. They are not necessarily against the streetcar, but they are suspicious of anything that happens in another neighborhood.

 

    The first ring suburbs are really hurting.

 

But none of these anecdotes have anything to do with a streetcar plan.  I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at.  Some neighborhood has to go first, and the biggest bang for you buck is CBD/OTR/Clifton.  You can't build 52 streetcar lines simultaneously to keep everyone happy (and actually, I'm sure that would do the exact opposite).

 

 

I think the leadership on the west side tends to be fairly predictable (Republicans and Democrats who act like Republicans), but the population is a lot more varied than west siders themselves think it is. We had a lot of immigrant families on our street when I was a kid, and Protestants and Appalachians certainly outnumbered Catholics.  Most if not all west side Catholic schools have declining enrollment and some are facing closure.       

 

I gave a talk at a West Side high school last week, and if that experience is any indication, the young generation has vastly different ideas about the city than their parents and grandparents.  I attribute popular culture, which has been celebrating city life since the 1990's, whereas when I was a kid beaches and surfing were the end-all be-all. New York City was portrayed in a very negative way, ala Taxi Driver and mafia movies. 

 

West siders also have nobody but themselves to blame for not pursuing the C&O light rail line in the 1970's.  They were going to get light rail transit before any other area of Cincinnati and a major TOD where Glenway Crossing Shopping Center is now, but they shrugged it off, probably because it was associated with Carter. 

 

Two negative letters on Cincinnati.com today. I have to ask, is anyone writing positive ones?

 

Having worked at a daily paper I know how they operate but if the Enquirer is wantonly rejecting letters that go against its point of view then that's a huge problem.

I'd imagine some of it is due to the fact that the streetcar is increasingly looking like it will be a reality soon.  Angry people write more letters than happy people, so the Enquirer may actually be publishing an accurate ratio of negative to positive letters.  Or they may be completely biased and presenting a skewed representation of what they are receiving.  Tough to say.

^ I think the opponents have simply activated their email list.

This morning the SORTA Board unanimously passed a resolution for Metro to be the operator of the Cincinnati Streetcar.

Does that carry any weight?

The City Administration approached Metro for them to operate.  This resolution will allow Metro and the City to come up with an operations plan.

Yonah Freemark has a piece on the Atlantic Article and the Cincinnati Streetcar- http://americancity.org/columns/entry/2295/

Just in case anyone wants to see the full press release. This will probably help the project win federal funds -- having a relatively stable organization with experience in transit operations be the proposed streetcar operator. Beats having Joe's Screen Door Repair and Streetcar Co. (with apologies to Bob Newhart) be listed on the federal application....

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

 

May 18, 2010

SORTA VOTES TO OPERATE STREETCAR

City of Cincinnati and SORTA partner on operating plan, outreach

 

CINCINNATI – The Southwest Ohio Regional Transit Authority board of trustees today voted to authorize the transit authority to serve as a partner in developing an operating plan for the streetcar system and ultimately to serve as the operator of the Cincinnati streetcar if an agreement can be reached.  SORTA operates Metro transit and Access paratransit services in Greater Cincinnati.

 

The decision is subject to the City of Cincinnati and SORTA entering into a mutually agreed upon operating plan and working together on a comprehensive community engagement program. The SORTA board will vote again after the completion of these processes to make a final decision on the operation of the streetcar.  The City will also review these before finalizing a decision on the operator.

 

There are several advantages to the City/SORTA streetcar partnership:

 

·        As the designated recipient of federal transit funding for the Greater Cincinnati area, SORTA can assist in leveraging federal grant dollars for the project and can serve as the conduit for those funds. 

 

·        The streetcar operating plan can be closely coordinated with Metro bus service to maximize efficiency and reduce costs.

 

·        Metro’s proposed university transit center can be developed to serve as a connection point for the streetcar, Metro service, and the many shuttles in the uptown area.

 

“The streetcar is a city economic development tool of regional importance, but it’s also a transportation mode that must be integrated with current transit service and operated efficiently and effectively,” said Melody Sawyer Richardson, chair of the SORTA board.  “SORTA will bring extensive transit expertise and understanding to the project, as we work with the city and the community to develop the best possible streetcar operating plan.  The City Manager has assured SORTA that his recommendations for funding will not include taking City earnings tax revenue that SORTA receives to operate Metro and Access.”

 

“With more than two-thirds of the funding for the streetcar system in place, we are in a good position to further develop the operating plan for the streetcar system’s long-term sustainability,” said City Manager Milton Dohoney, Jr.  “We are glad to pull on SORTA’s transportation expertise and resources to make that happen as quickly as possible.”

 

SORTA operates Metro and Access non-profit, tax-funded public transit services, providing about 19 million rides per year in Greater Cincinnati. 

 

#    #    #

What is the university transit center?

I hope they are not referring to the Zoo bondoogle.

 

  Now you're talking. This is the biggest piece of news regarding the streetcar since the feasibility studies came out.

 

 

 

Now you're talking. This is the biggest piece of news regarding the streetcar since the feasibility studies came out.

Seriously? Can you explain why this is so incredibly significant? It seems so mundane to me.

 

How could it be bigger than the funding?

  Queen City Metro has a $70 million annual budget, 300 some vehicles, two maintenance facilities, hundreds of employees, and a long history. They have survived wrecks, strikes, bad winters, high fuel prices, and more. They have a professional planning team, a public relations person, a human resources department, a customer service line, a website, a special line of vehicles for disabled, and more.

 

    Previously, it was assumed that the City of Cincinnati Department of Transportation and Engineering would operate the system. I've got nothing against our good friends at City Hall, but did you think that they were prepared to operate a streetcar? (These folks at City Hall do assist Metro with their infrastructure requirements.)

 

    We are looking at a system that costs some $120 million to build, and $3 million per year to operate. Considering interest and inflation and using reasonable projections, it's going to cost $150 million to operate this system over the next 50 years. That's right - operations costs are going to be more than construction costs!

 

    I've been saying all along that operations costs are a big deal. If there are $60 million or whatever of capital funds lined up, that's only 30% of the way there. Not only does SORTA have operations funds on hand, but they presumably also will have some stake in the design.

 

    I have also been saying all along that 90 degree turns are problematic. I'm not saying that it can't be done, but that they will increase both construction and operations cost. Hopefully, SORTA will have the sense to get it right the first time. Operations costs MUST be minimized to make the streetcar successful!

 

  Plus, if they market this right, it could be said that QUEEN CITY METRO is going to build and operate a streetcar between downtown and uptown. This has entirely different connotations than the City of Cincinnati building a streetcar.

 

    As we have discussed already, Cincinnati property owners get a tax bill from the City of Cincinnati. Cincinnati workers get an earnings tax taken out of their paycheck. Suburban residents get a bill from Cincinnati Water Works, Cincinnati Bell, and the (former) Cincinnati Gas and Electric Company. People do not understand how governments work, and to hear that CINCINNATI is constructing a streetcar in Over-the-Rhine brings up a lot of resistance, because it is perceived to be their tax money, wheter it really is or not.

 

    If QUEEN CITY METRO builds a streetcar, who is going to complain? No one pays taxes to QUEEN CITY METRO, although Metro collects some state and federal funds, and is supported by the city.

 

    METRO recently started running big, articulated buses on Reading Road. Where were the NIMBY'S, the letters to the editor, Smitherman and COAST? METRO didn't advertise that they were going to do it (at least I wasn't aware of it,) they didn't hold an election, and they didn't argue about endless studies. They just did it.

 

    Ideally, Metro will reduce service on some of the other lines between uptown and downtown, saving enough operating cost from their existing budget to pay for the streetcar operation, establishing a strong rider base right from the start,  and providing faster service for the customers all at the same time. WIN WIN WIN

 

Now I'm excited.   

 

   

^

Metro is not going to build or own the Cincinnati Streetcar. It will be a City of Cincinnati asset.

 

Metro drivers will operate the vehicles and (perhaps) maintain them.

 

That's it.

I think this is worthwhile posting here. This type of financing might have more applications for later phases of the streetcar. The first phase serves as the "floor model" for investors....

 

June 2010 ATLANTIC MAGAZINE

Here Comes the Neighborhood

By Christopher B. Leinberger

 

...How would the private funding of public transit work? Most states already have laws in place that allow local groups of voters to create “special-assessment districts,” in which neighborhood property owners can vote to fund an upgrade to infrastructure by charging themselves, say, a onetime assessment, or a higher property-tax rate for some number of years. If a majority of the property owners believe they would benefit from the improvement, all property owners in that district are obligated to help pay for it. These districts can vote to fund new transit as well (potentially, the transportation-financing agency could even receive a minority-ownership stake in the district’s private property in return for building new transit). In the late 1990s, property owners paid for a quarter of the cost of a new Metrorail station in D.C. using this approach; after the station opened, an office developer told me he believed his investment was being returned manyfold.

 

However, this sort of private payment for infrastructure is relatively new in the U.S., and is growing slowly. Organizing these communities of course takes time, and cities and towns have barely begun to publicize their potential.

 

We could hasten the process by making a much-needed change in federal transportation law. The federal government typically provides 20 to 80 percent of the money for local transportation projects (with local and state governments paying the rest). Yet federal funding of projects that involve private partners is extremely rare—in large part because federally funded projects typically take years to approve, and private developers usually can’t tie up their capital waiting for the government wheels to turn. Over the past few years, private corporations and foundations in Detroit raised $125 million to help build a light-rail line, and have been working for some time to secure federal funds to complete the project. Fixing federal transportation law to expedite transit projects would allow faster development at lower public cost.

 

READ MORE AT:

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/06/here-comes-the-neighborhood/8093

 

  "Metro is not going to build or own the Cincinnati streetcar..."

 

  Metro didn't build or own Government Square, some park-n-ride lots, or numerous bus shelters either. The City did. I know that, and you know that, but the average person doesn't know, and doesn't care.

 

    If the streetcar is BRANDED correctly it has a lot better chance of success, in my humble opinion. If the drivers wear METRO uniforms, the streetcar carries the METRO logo, and the streetcar shares the same call center, schedules, maps, etc, that METRO uses, then it might as well be owned by METRO as far as the average rider is concerned.

 

  There's a picture of a streetcar on Metro's web site.

 

  If I see a picture of a streetcar on a bus schedule, I will be impressed.

Metro bus board acts to run streetcars

By Barry M. Horstman, Cincinnati Enquirer, May 18, 2010

 

The agency that oversees Metro buses Tuesday took a significant step toward one day also running the proposed Cincinnati streetcar, a move that would streamline financial planning and operations for the two transit systems.

 

By a unanimous vote, the Southwest Ohio Regional Transit Authority (SORTA) authorized the transit board to work with City Hall in developing an operating plan under which SORTA ultimately would operate the proposed $128 million streetcar, assuming an agreement can be reached.

It also means the budget for operating the streetcar will be tied to the bus system's budget. This could be good or bad, but the bus system has been experiencing big fare hikes and service cuts lately.

 

I dunno, I'm still not convinced it's a big deal. I guess it's a good thing, as someone needs to run it, and SORTA has experience (although, again, they've been in some trouble).

 

BTW - Thanks for the long explanation, Eigth and State.

 

BTW2 - Why can't you just spell 'Eighth' correctly in your name? Character limit?

 

 

 

 

 

 

  Metro didn't build or own Government Square, some park-n-ride lots, or numerous bus shelters either. The City did. I know that, and you know that, but the average person doesn't know, and doesn't care.

 

If the streetcar is BRANDED correctly it has a lot better chance of success, in my humble opinion. If the drivers wear METRO uniforms, the streetcar carries the METRO logo, and the streetcar shares the same call center, schedules, maps, etc, that METRO uses, then it might as well be owned by METRO as far as the average rider is concerned.

 

I agree with this.  I tend to think this is an unfortunate development, since the systems are meant to accomplish different things.

 

  Metro's budget is $94 million per year, according to their website. ( I said $70 million before. My mistake.)

 

  If Metro can cut and/or consolidate just 3% of the current budget, they should be able to come up with the funding to operate the streetcar. If they can cut and/or consolidate just 3% of the current budget WITHOUT a net loss in service, then all will be well. If the streetcar more than makes up for any service losses elsewhere, then all the better.

 

    IF the streetcar can carry 90+ people with just one operator, and IF the line is laid out so that the streetcar doesn't have to stop for traffic, or at least not often, then it is very well possible that the streetcar can gain a net benefit with no net increase in operations cost.

 

 

 

   

City solicitor wants ethics panel to consider impact of streetcar project

THE ENQUIRER • MAY 18, 2010

 

"Cincinnati's solicitor wants the Ohio Ethics Commission to consider how big a transportation project the proposed streetcar would be before deciding whether Councilman Chris Bortz has a conflict of interest.

 

John Curp asked the commission for an advisory opinion, noting in his letter several prior cases in which the commission found it OK for officials to vote on projects unless the project would give the official a particular benefit for himself or herself, rather than a broad benefit to many people who live near or own property near a project. A project as big as the streetcar, Curp wrote, would create wide-scale benefits to many...."

 

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20100518/NEWS0108/5190356/Bortz+vote+on+streetcar+reviewed

  "The systems are meant to accomplish different things."

 

  What, the streetcar is for yuppies and Metro buses are for the urban poor?

 

  Two of the board members of SORTA, Melody Richardson and Jim Tarbell, have a stated goal (on their web site) of redevelopment of the city.

 

 

  Metro is long overdue for some route changes. Maybe the streetcar project will get things started.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The last time Vine Street Hill got new streetcar rails<br>

Seems someone has suddenly been energized today!

Eighth and State, I truly am glad that you are happy about Metro possibly operating the streetcar system.  I also tend to think it is a positive development.  Not so much because Metro is the ideal operator, but because it just seems too strange to have Metro running the buses and then have nothing to do with the Streetcar.

 

However, I personally use Metro, and have a negative opinion of them as a transit agency, from a rider perspective.  This is based on my experience with other transit agencies in other cities.  So I hope they don't screw this up.  A few examples of what I mean, again, from a user's perspective.

 

- They have one of the worst web sites I've seen for a major city transit agency.  In 2010 this is NOT a small deal, and the fact that they haven't recognized the need to put resources into this area makes me think they are disconnected from reality.  The fact that the board hasn't taken them to task for this makes me question their commitment and judgement.  Go to sorta.com right now, and find the system map.  When you get too frustrated and want the answer, let me know.  Their trip planner is kludgy and finicky and slow.

 

- Sorta thinks that this is 1940 and a bus station is a pole with a red stripe on it.  Visitors always laugh when I tell them this, and think I am kidding.  In well run places where working people rely on the bus system, bus stations should have signs saying which buses stop there, and they should list the scheduled times and show a map.  They should use signage that is prominent and that can be noticed from 100m away.  Again this is not a small deal.  It would be better to have fewer bus stops that are more informative and well marked.

 

- Metro requires coins or bills or a monthly fare pass.  I need to request and pay additional for a "transfer" across "zones" that few people understand.  I can not buy an unlimited day pass or 2 day pass or a week pass.  All of this can and should be made easier and more transparent.  I should have a card that I can put money on and fares should be automatically deducted, just as one example.  Valid transfers should be free and automatically determined, based on end to end distance and not a fixed geographic zone. 

 

- They seem to reject potentially productive relationships with large employers, such as UC, Children's, P&G, etc.  It took them forever just to come up with a fare card for UC students and staff.  My understanding is that negotiating with them on these agreements is very difficult.  Before the fare card you had to show your UC ID.  The fact that they ultimately found out they were losing revenue shouldn't have been a surprise.

 

- They do not embrace technology or its potential.  Finding out via a text or web site where your bus is should be simple at this point. 

 

- As already mentioned, their routes are antiques.  I wonder how their consultants analyze data to understand the potential demand for routes that they might design.  They simply don't seem proactive in the least.  In Seoul, for example, the mayor of that city declared that all of the routes would be optimized to be better coordinated, to reflect changing demographics, and to work with the extensive subway system.  People complained but it was done.  Metro seems to have no stomach for systemic review and change.

 

Again, I think this is on balance a good thing; a necessary development.  But my biggest hope is that by agreeing to be on the hook for a successfully operated streetcar line, they are forced to raise the bar on their entire operation.

       Ideally, Metro will reduce service on some of the other lines between uptown and downtown, saving enough operating cost from their existing budget to pay for the streetcar operation, establishing a strong rider base right from the start,  and providing faster service for the customers all at the same time. WIN WIN WIN

 

If you had a choice between the streetcar and the bus for the same trip, why would anyone take the bus? Sounds like a good plan to me.

 

  Mr. Uber - I'm with you. I've had my share of hours on Knowlton's Corner in the rain, standing in a Metro Bus having to fight like a pig to get off the bus, and stuck in the back of a bus with a bunch of rowdy teenagers throwing chicken bones on the floor.

 

  I hope for the best. Jim Tarbell is on the board now, so maybe things will get better.

 

  "I wonder how their consultants analyze data to understand the potential demand for routes that they might design."

 

  I can answer that, because I talked to a Metro planner once. The answer is that they may analyze data, but they don't do anything with it. They do not have the resources to start new routes. To increase service in one place, they have to cut it somewhere else. Since it is very difficult politically to cut service, it is also very difficult to make improvements.

 

  This planner told me that there was a bus route that only carried one or two passengers. They employed spotters to prove it. Yet, one of those passengers rose such a fuss about potential service cuts, that City of Cincinnati city council didn't have the political will to authorize a cut in service. As long as the City of Cincinnati contributes funding and has a majority control of the board, stuff like this is liable to happen. Private companies that turn a profit are influenced less by political issues.

 

  It may not be possible to operate METRO without a subsidy, but I bet that a good route overhaul could improve the revenue/cost ratio a great deal.

 

 

 

 

  I'm on a roll tonight. Here's an excerpt from page 22 of the Metro Moves plan from 2002.

 

  "Uptown Streetcar

  Track miles: 7 (all in Hamilton County)

  Number of stops: 31

  Estimated riders per day: 5,000

  Estimated cost: $120 million

 

    The Uptown Streetcar route would connect downtown Cincinnati to the Uptown area via the Vine Street corridor and serve the University of Cincinnati, Children's Hospital, the Cincinnati Zoo, the EPA, Veteran's Hospital, the UC Medical Center, and other medical facilities. It also would provide a link from those stops to the I-71 light rail line at Martin Luther King Jr. Dr. and in downtown Cincinnati."

 

    The planned route at that time was the Vine / Walnut couplet to McMillan, and Vine Street the rest of the way to the Zoo, and a little beyond. There's no zig zagging backwards through Over-the-Rhine.

 

  Mr. Uber - I'm with you. I've had my share of hours on Knowlton's Corner in the rain, standing in a Metro Bus having to fight like a pig to get off the bus, and stuck in the back of a bus with a bunch of rowdy teenagers throwing chicken bones on the floor.

 

  I hope for the best. Jim Tarbell is on the board now, so maybe things will get better.

 

  "I wonder how their consultants analyze data to understand the potential demand for routes that they might design."

 

  I can answer that, because I talked to a Metro planner once. The answer is that they may analyze data, but they don't do anything with it. They do not have the resources to start new routes. To increase service in one place, they have to cut it somewhere else. Since it is very difficult politically to cut service, it is also very difficult to make improvements.

 

  This planner told me that there was a bus route that only carried one or two passengers. They employed spotters to prove it. Yet, one of those passengers rose such a fuss about potential service cuts, that City of Cincinnati city council didn't have the political will to authorize a cut in service. As long as the City of Cincinnati contributes funding and has a majority control of the board, stuff like this is liable to happen. Private companies that turn a profit are influenced less by political issues.

 

  It may not be possible to operate METRO without a subsidy, but I bet that a good route overhaul could improve the revenue/cost ratio a great deal.

 

 

 

 

It is difficult I'll agree, but places do it.  The fact that Metro can not figure out how to change routes, or to find needed funds to implement improvements that would ultimately improve their bottom line, indicates to me that they don't understand the political dimensions of their own problems.  Frankly their livelihood depends on it, and still they can't put together a coherent *system wide* analysis and plan a way to negotiate with the public.  I can not recall one progressive transit issue that Metro has pushed.  They burn soybeans; easy.  They build a new government square terminal; easy.

 

This sort of planning is done routinely by competent organizations.  You develop metrics with public input, you gather data and do analysis to develop potential options, and then vet these with the public.  You iterate and rely on the power of being forthright and honest with the technical details.  It's hard, but frankly Metro hasn't even tried, at least from the public's perspective.

Jim Uber: I agree with you on your concerns with Metro.  I'm hoping that they start to shape up once ridership increases and people start to demand better service in all areas (including their website, bus stops, etc..)  This all depends on the transit riders actually getting involved though.  We need to be more vocal with our demands and let them know we're not happy with these things.  In cities with real transit systems citizens routinely speak up when they aren't happy with certain aspects of the service.  That doesn't seem to be the case with Cincinnati (yet). 

 

  Why not get a job at METRO and see what you can do? Or maybe start attending SORTA board meetings?

 

  I think a short tunnel section at Calhoun and another at MLK would do wonders to make the streetcar FAST. The streetcar should not have to stop for traffic, ever.

 

  I just found this in the Official Plan of the City of Cincinnati, adopted by the City Planning Commission, 1925.

 

  "The best scheme for permanent relief north of McMillan is a short tunnel under Jefferson Avenue from the intersection of McMillan and Vine to about Charlton."

^I still don't know how the hell it's going to get up the hill to Uptown without things rolling down the aisles and people hanging onto the poles.

Take one of the buses that goes up Vine or Clifton or any other steep route and see. 

 

  Why not get a job at METRO and see what you can do? Or maybe start attending SORTA board meetings?

 

I like my job; just wish the Metro folks would do theirs better.

 

But attending SORTA meetings is a good idea.  I've attended meetings where SORTA reps spoke, but not a SORTA board meeting.  I'll look into it.

Your first suggestion, if you go: Please ask them to think of a name other than SORTA.

I agree with this.  I tend to think this is an unfortunate development, since the systems are meant to accomplish different things.

 

I'm not wild about Metro taking this over either.  On the other hand, having Metro and TANK simultaneously drives me nuts, so I'm glad there won't be a third transit entity within a mile of my house!

- Metro requires coins or bills or a monthly fare pass.  I need to request and pay additional for a "transfer" across "zones" that few people understand.  I can not buy an unlimited day pass or 2 day pass or a week pass.  All of this can and should be made easier and more transparent.  I should have a card that I can put money on and fares should be automatically deducted, just as one example.  Valid transfers should be free and automatically determined, based on end to end distance and not a fixed geographic zone. 

 

I couldn't agree more with your critiques of Metro, particularly this one.  Transit should be as easy as possible for people to use.  Let's say if I'm walking somewhere that's 7-10 blocks away, and I'm running late.  A bus going that direction pulls up as I'm walking by.  I wasn't planning on taking the bus, so I may not have any change or small bills.  If I have a card in my wallet that lets me just hop on, I'd definitely do so to make up time.  If I don't, that's a lost fare to Metro.  Seriously, how is it possible at this point that they don't have a user card that allows them to bill me monthly?  Totally agree about the 2-day and weekly passes as well.  Those would be big with travelers.

The planned route at that time was the Vine / Walnut couplet to McMillan, and Vine Street the rest of the way to the Zoo, and a little beyond. There's no zig zagging backwards through Over-the-Rhine.

 

I'm not necessarily against going straight up Vine instead of to Music Hall, but I think there are two major problems with the comparison you're making. 

 

1) The Metro Moves plan had a completely different agenda than the streetcar plan.  It was focused on being regional, and moving people from point A to point B efficiently.  The current streetcar plan is designed to have a local impact, making the immediate area more walkable, not necessarily to get someone from a garage at The Banks to the gate of the Zoo.  So it's okay to have it meander through neighborhoods to hit more destinations, because hardly anyone will be riding the thing from end to end. 

 

2) This plan was voted on in 2002, but was conceived even earlier than that.  The outlook for OTR has changed drastically over the last 10 years, so it's understandable transit plans drawn up today might look different than one that was proposed immediately after the riots in OTR.

The planned route at that time was the Vine / Walnut couplet to McMillan, and Vine Street the rest of the way to the Zoo, and a little beyond. There's no zig zagging backwards through Over-the-Rhine.

 

I'm not necessarily against going straight up Vine instead of to Music Hall, but I think there are two major problems with the comparison you're making.

 

1) The Metro Moves plan had a completely different agenda than the streetcar plan. It was focused on being regional, and moving people from point A to point B efficiently. The current streetcar plan is designed to have a local impact, making the immediate area more walkable, not necessarily to get someone from a garage at The Banks to the gate of the Zoo. So it's okay to have it meander through neighborhoods to hit more destinations, because hardly anyone will be riding the thing from end to end.

 

2) This plan was voted on in 2002, but was conceived even earlier than that. The outlook for OTR has changed drastically over the last 10 years, so it's understandable transit plans drawn up today might look different than one that was proposed immediately after the riots in OTR.

 

I led the MetroMoves campaign, and the two comments above are very succinct. In the early part of this decade, there was a fair amount of hostility against rail by the owners of new businesses on OTR's Main Street, a few  of which have now become the streetcar's biggest backers. They mainly had problems with the scale of the trains and the wires, since forgotten after several trips to Porltand over the years.

 

But JimmyJames is right, laying tracks through OTR was then mainly seen as the fastest way (via the Mt. Auburn tunnel) to get to U.C. When the tunnel went away and the alignment shifted to the Deer Creek Valley, the streetcar was subsituted in its place. My opinion then was, and is, that U.C. is too important of a destination not to be served directly by mainline trains.

 

The idea of "urban circulators" was never in the MetroMoves conversation. Should have been.

Whether strictly an "urban circulator" versus a more competent mode of mass transit, the reality of the current plan is that the connection to Uptown SUCKS.  The whole plan is treated like two separate lines that happen to converge near Findlay Market, and it needlessly punishes anyone going between Uptown and Downtown with an excessive number of turns and reversals. 

 

I can forgive the split one-way route, even though it's bad transit planning, and I can forgive the zig-zagging route, even though it's bad transit planning, but I can't forgive the entirely boneheaded route to Uptown (from Uptown is OK in comparison) just to get a few more blocks of supposed development.  In all honesty, the way the gas and energy prices are going, and with the separate but complimentary move away from a car-dominated landscape, I think we're going to see the benefits of having a streetcar line extend well beyond its own route.  You won't need to have the tracks right there in front of a place to get the benefits of it, so it shouldn't be run down every dead-end to try to extend its reach at the expense of operations.

You won't need to have the tracks right there in front of a place to get the benefits of it, so it shouldn't be run down every dead-end to try to extend its reach at the expense of operations.

 

I don't think that it's doing that.  Personally, I'd prefer to see separate loops that do not cross (one for downtown, one for uptown), connecting to stops along a much longer lightrail line.  Unfortunately, that's not what's on the table, and the uptown connector was forced into Phase I.  Starting small with a downtown loop made a lot more sense to me.

Whether strictly an "urban circulator" versus a more competent mode of mass transit, the reality of the current plan is that the connection to Uptown SUCKS.  The whole plan is treated like two separate lines that happen to converge near Findlay Market, and it needlessly punishes anyone going between Uptown and Downtown with an excessive number of turns and reversals. 

 

I can forgive the split one-way route, even though it's bad transit planning, and I can forgive the zig-zagging route, even though it's bad transit planning, but I can't forgive the entirely boneheaded route to Uptown (from Uptown is OK in comparison) just to get a few more blocks of supposed development.  In all honesty, the way the gas and energy prices are going, and with the separate but complimentary move away from a car-dominated landscape, I think we're going to see the benefits of having a streetcar line extend well beyond its own route.  You won't need to have the tracks right there in front of a place to get the benefits of it, so it shouldn't be run down every dead-end to try to extend its reach at the expense of operations.

 

-Since we do not yet know all the operating details, perhaps all trains will not travel on the same route?

 

-Past analysis of development activity and land values near transit shows that values tend to fall off with increasing distance such that the clearest impact is only one or two blocks from a station, especially for finely grained transit like streetcar. Thus, since the city is pushing the streetcar as a development catalyst first and mobility improvement second, there is clear rationalization for the "zig zag."

 

-I do agree with you that a direct route from the zoo to the river would be ideal for mobility. But even if you drove a straight line from A to B, it would still be blown out of the water by LRT, which I hope we get someday.

 

So no, it's not necessarily "bad transit planning."

I can forgive the split one-way route, even though it's bad transit planning, and I can forgive the zig-zagging route, even though it's bad transit planning, but I can't forgive the entirely boneheaded route to Uptown (from Uptown is OK in comparison) just to get a few more blocks of supposed development. In all honesty, the way the gas and energy prices are going, and with the separate but complimentary move away from a car-dominated landscape, I think we're going to see the benefits of having a streetcar line extend well beyond its own route. You won't need to have the tracks right there in front of a place to get the benefits of it, so it shouldn't be run down every dead-end to try to extend its reach at the expense of operations.

 

The best thing about the plan is that there so far isn't anything the plan that isn't good to have.  Having streetcars on the Main/Walnut axis makes sense.  Having them on the Race/Elm access makes sense (the only thing I think is a mistake is the split between CP and 12th- I think both ways on CP lining a middle esplanade would be best).  The fact that the route in its initial offering is jankety doesn't mean that a quicker connection (say up Main/Walnut to McMicken and then to Vine) couldn't happen after Phase 2.

 

The reason housing the Streetcar under SORTA concerns me is that the plan has many constituent parts that need to be implemented fully for it to work in the right manner and capture the revenue from the development to operate the Streetcar and expand the system, and I fear that the bus system may siphon off revenue for itself, revenue that comes from Streetcar inspired development.  It's too early in the life of the Streetcar to get it to pay for things other than itself.  The Streetcar is about densifying the City and Metro is about accessing the region.  It's for this reason I believe they should be funded distinctly.