Mark Miller's interviews about his tweets are going to be aired on channel 12 and ONN tonight for those interested. 

 

KJP - I've been wanting one of those human-powered rail vehicles for years. I was thinking about that when I wrote that above post. Where is that railroad?

 

The Whitewater Valley Railroad in Indiana has a day where owners of private railmobiles are allowed to take them on the railroad. Seems like fun.

 

For reference, I read about one of the early railroads - it may have been the Baltimore and Ohio - that tried to operate a railroad as if it were a canal, with private owners hauling their own wagons on their own schedules over a railroad, and collecting tolls for that privelage. Of course it failed, because railroad technology does not allow two vehicles to pass in either the same or opposite direction on the same track; only central control will solve the traffic problem.

 

You still didn't answer my question: where in Ohio can I put flanged wheels on my automobile or wagon and drive it on a public railroad?

You still didn't answer my question: where in Ohio can I put flanged wheels on my automobile or wagon and drive it on a public railroad?

 

I'll answer it: Nowhere. For the same reason you're not allowed to ride a bicycle on I-75, and the same reason you're not allowed to drive your car on the tarmac at CVG.

 

And what does your rhetorical question have to do with the ballot language? Jack squat. Because as everybody here except you seems to understand, it's about public ownership, not public access.

I think this is one of the better comments from the Enquirer that I've read in a while: "Stupid is as stupid does. More proof this streetcar nonesense brings out the idiots."

Christ, even Mark Miller's horrendous gaffes get turned into COAST press releases by the Enquirer.

 

Just where IS rock-bottom with these people?

 

Sorry if I can't explain it better. The point of the rhetorical question is that I can't think of a single example in Ohio of a public railroad right-of-way. But I do think that those human-powered rail vehicles are cool.

 

The OASIS line is not a public right-of-way. If it was, there should be a documentation for it, dedicating it for public use. If you think that the OASIS line is a public right-of-way, I challenge you to find documentation for it.

 

Now that I think about it, "dedication" was the word I was looking for. From dictionary.com: (bold is mine)

 

Dedicate:

to mark the official completion or opening of (a public building, monument, highway, etc.), usually by formal ceremonies.

 

And while I'm at it,

 

Public:

1. of, pertaining to, or affecting a population or a community as a whole: public funds; a public nuisance.

2. done, made, acting, etc., for the community as a whole: public prosecution.

3. open to all persons: a public meeting.

4. of, pertaining to, or being in the service of a community or nation, especially as a government officer: a public official.

5. maintained at the public expense and under public control: a public library; a public road.

 

Definition 3, I think, is the one that applies here. Others think that definition 5 applies, and I can understand why they would think that. 

 

All of this only matters if the ballot passes. As was said upthread, if the voters of Cincinnati want to build commuter rail on the OASIS line, they would be smart to defeat this ballot and thus avoid the question. But I still think that if the ballot passes and the definition of "public" went to a court decision, the court would unquestionably allow commuter rail on the OASIS line. Claiming that the OASIS line is a "public right-of-way," in my humble opinion, is just ridiculous. After all, the City of Cincinnati routinely pays compensation to SORTA for utility work that crosses the OASIS line.

 

 

Did you not read Brad's post?  He is a lawyer as is Judge Mark Painter (his column, incidentally, is not accessible online anymore).  Legal definitions are not the same as dictionary definitions.  All of this right-of-way stuff was determined early in the history of railroads and utilities, so over 100 years ago.  I have spent a few afternoons of my life looking at Ohio state laws year-by-year, and you see great swells of new laws for canals, then railroads, then modern roads & automobiles, etc.  After about 10 years of a dozen new laws per year per new technology, it settled down to a trickle. 

 

The scumbags at COAST probably had this ballot language lying around two years ago ready to go, making us wonder what they have planned for their next anti-streetcar ballot issue.     

 

 

I still haven't seen any real evidence to support Eighth and State's narrow definition of 'public right-of-way'. Absent any laws quoted which unambiguously state that the word 'public' (in context) refers to use rather than ownership, I won't be convinced the broader definition is invalid. Quoting a dictionary definition of 'public' is silly and proves nothing whatsoever.

 

If you're so sure of yourself, 8&St8, you must have solid evidence. So why are you holding it back?

Counter argument:  just because there's a road that can accommodate any kind of vehicle used by the general public, does not make it a public road.......

 

 

And there are a few publicly owned railroad corridors in the State of Ohio, including a really big one owned by the City of Cincinnati. ;-)

Because any light rail right of way owned by the City or SORTA is a public right of way...

 

I disagree with this. The word "public" in "public right-of-way" refers to use as well as ownership. To tell whether a place is a public right-of-way or not, it is necessary to find documentation for it in the public records. Lacking documentation, a court will make the decision. If it is public right-of-way, the documentation will say "This strip of land is hereby dedicated for public use" or something to that effect. The words "public" or "public use" should be in the documentation. If it doesn't say "public," then it's not a public right-of-way.

 

Purchase of land by a public agency does not make it a "public right-of-way." It also has to be dedicated as such.

 

You must have solid evidence. So why are you holding it back?

 

Because it took me this long to find it. Here you go. First, a couple of examples.

 

This is from the City of Cincinnati Municipal Code, Article 7 Section 8:

 

"All instruments of dedications of lands for public use shall be submitted to the commission and approved thereon in writing by it before they  may be offered for record...,

No street, alley, way, or other public ground shall be accepted by the city as a public street, way, or ground, unless the plat and location thereof shall have been submitted and approved..."

 

While not a definition, at least I found an example in context - from the Municipal Code, no less - that associates the words "public use" with "public street, way, or ground."    Incidently, this ordinance establishes that a "public street, way, or ground" must be documented.

 

Here are some more from the municipal code:

 

"The public recreation commission...shall maintain the public landing for the specified purpose of encouraging the use of the city of Cincinnati as a port of call on the Ohio River."

 

"The grant to occupy the streets, lanes, and public grounds of the city of Cincinnati for the purpose of erecting and maintaining poles..."

 

"No grant shall be made to occupy the side of any street, lane, alley, or public place..."

 

And here's one that shows that "public" is NOT the same as "publicly owned":

 

"Whenever the commission shall have made a plan of the city or any portion thereof, no public building, street, boulevard, parkway, park, playground, canal, riverfront, harbor, dock, wharf, bridge, viaduct, tunnel and publicly or privately owned public utility, or part thereof, shall be constructed..." Evidently, the word "public" in "public utility" refers to something else other than ownership, as a public utility can be either publicly or privately owned.

 

Finally, here's the definition:

 

 

(drumroll, please......)

 

 

Ohio Revised Code 4939.01 E Municipal Public Way Definitions

 

:speech:

(E) “Public way” means the surface of, and the space within, through, on, across, above, or below, any public street, public road, public highway, public freeway, public lane, public path, public alley, public court, public sidewalk, public boulevard, public parkway, public drive, and any other land dedicated or otherwise designated for a compatible public use, which, on or after the effective date of this section, is owned or controlled by a municipal corporation. “Public way” excludes a private easement.

 

 

So a "public way" must be both dedicated for public use AND publicly owned. I was right about the use part, but wrong about the ownership part. My apologies.  :oops:

 

I still maintain that the OASIS line is NOT a public right-of-way, because it has not been dedicated for public use.

 

The transit center and subway ARE public rights-of-way because they exist below a public street, contrary to what I said before. (Apologies.)  Whether use of the subway or transit center qualifies a rail vehicle as a streetcar is another question that I'm not going to take on at this time.

 

Vine street is unquestionably a public right-of-way.

 

I-71 and I-75 have me puzzled for the moment. 

 

I do the work so you don't have to. This board wears me out sometimes.  :-)

 

 

 

 

Ohio Revised Code 4939.01 E Municipal Public Way Definitions

 

:speech:

(E) “Public way” means the surface of, and the space within, through, on, across, above, or below, any public street, public road, public highway, public freeway, public lane, public path, public alley, public court, public sidewalk, public boulevard, public parkway, public drive, and any other land dedicated or otherwise designated for a compatible public use, which, on or after the effective date of this section, is owned or controlled by a municipal corporation. “Public way” excludes a private easement.

 

...

 

I still maintain that the OASIS line is NOT a public right-of-way, because it has not been dedicated for public use.

 

Sounds like the moment the Oasis Line would be "dedicated or otherwise designated" to be used for light rail, it would no longer be allowed to be used for light rail.

 

Thanks for finding all that. I really do appreciate it! But I feel it confirms our fears, rather than refuting them.

Two lawyers > The guy using Google.

 

We can sit here and nit-pick of every word for the rest of this year, but everyone's missing the key point. This is exactly what COAST wants, what "public-right-of-way" refers to is irrelevant at this time. In the event that this garbage amendment should pass, this kind of arguing would be done through lawyers and courts and hamper the project for years to come. I don't know why they even put the ten year ban on it, it would take ten years of legal battles just to figure this stupid thing out.

 

Doesn't matter what language Finney wrote for it, doesn't matter if you even support the streetcar - this amendment is misleading and all around just bad governance.

 

"Dedicated for light rail" is not the same as "Dedicated for public use." Just sayin'. And don't forget about the other conditions, that for it to be banned it has to be a "streetcar," and funded by the city. But I agree that this proposed amendment is just dumb.

 

It reminds me of the proposed federal balanced budget amendment. So you want the budget to be balanced? Then balance it, for crying out loud! We don't need a constitutional amendment to get it done. We just need the political will to do it.

Oy.

^^ Public transit vehicles would seem to be a public use, but if you want to dispute that it requires more legal research. It seems even less plausible than your previous position, though.

 

Where is it stated the thing banned must be a streetcar? That's exactly what it avoids by using the term 'streetcar system', which is given a broad definition, instead of using 'streetcar'. It is defined by COAST in the amendment to mean "a system of passenger vehicles operated on rails constructed primarily in existing public rights of way" -- it has nothing to do with the legal definition of streetcar. That's precisely the sleight we've been complaining about all along. <- dirty tricks

 

It is interesting that the ballot language has clarified that it is primarily a restriction on the city, which the petition did not. However, it does restrict the city from appropriating money from other sources. This is a significant change from the petition, and brings questions in my mind about how far it is acceptable for the board of elections to change the wording of a ballot initiative.

Ya-- eighth and state, you're entire argument failed.

 

All you've proved, is that before a rail plan can be implemented, a city owned right of way must be dedicated for public use and, ta-da then it would be banned by this amendment.

Here's my question, if they really wanted to ban a streetcar, why not just say streetcar or use the existing (and accurate) legal definition of a streetcar?

 

Keep in mind in 2009's Issue 9 this same group stated they were trying to stop the streetcar but used it as a stalking horse to try to effectively ban all rail.

This whole thread should really be called "Cincinnati Streetcar Discussion".  There is very little "news".

Or, more accurately, "Decoding anti-streetcar rhetoric", because that, again, is entirety of this issue.  Years(!) ago, someone said no person who is familiar with the facts of this proposal opposes it.  Yet years later, the public is still unaware of the facts because the local media can perpetuate its "controversy" by keeping the public in the dark. 

 

It's easy to see when the big money who has an interest in the city's perception orders the Enquirer to write a positive story, but these stories number just a few a year, and go unnoticed by the public.  The public believes what is repeated, and the anti-streetcar rhetoric has been given an hour of air time for every minute of support.  I would love to see the hit count on the city's streetcar-related web features -- I'd bet it's damn close to zero.  People aren't just too lazy to go to council meetings, they're too lazy to log off facebook for a second and read the city's official documents. 

Is this newsy enough for ya?

 

The Housing-Value Bonus for Rail Transit: 10, 20, Even 50 Percent

by Angie Schmitt on September 12, 2011

 

How much extra would you be willing to pay to live near rail transit?

 

For Minneapolis residents along the Hiawatha rail line, that convenience is worth tacking on an additional 10 percent to housing prices. Chicagoans near the Midway transit line are willing to pay about 19 percent extra. And in Portland, folks are willing to fork over an additional 31 percent for an abode within one-quarter mile of a rail transit station along the Westside extension line.

 

The Center for Housing Policy recently completed a comprehensive review of the existing research on housing prices and proximity to rail. According to dozens of studies over decades, a rail station within a short walk can add 6 to 50 percent to home values.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://dc.streetsblog.org/2011/09/12/the-housing-value-bonus-for-rail-transit-10-20-even-50-percent/

THIS JUST IN:

 

<b>New Conservative Attack: Rail Raises Property Taxes!</b>

 

IDIOTSVILLE - Local conservatives note that the rise in housing values for homes along rail lines also leads to higher property taxes.  "Here in Idiotsville, we pride our selves on our low taxes. These socialists have used rail as an excuse to bring in more tax revenue by tricking people with higher property values" said local conservative leaders Ima Fuhl.

 

See more on Page 12/

Is this newsy enough for ya?

 

The Housing-Value Bonus for Rail Transit: 10, 20, Even 50 Percent

by Angie Schmitt on September 12, 2011

 

How much extra would you be willing to pay to live near rail transit?

 

For Minneapolis residents along the Hiawatha rail line, that convenience is worth tacking on an additional 10 percent to housing prices. Chicagoans near the Midway transit line are willing to pay about 19 percent extra. And in Portland, folks are willing to fork over an additional 31 percent for an abode within one-quarter mile of a rail transit station along the Westside extension line.

 

The Center for Housing Policy recently completed a comprehensive review of the existing research on housing prices and proximity to rail. According to dozens of studies over decades, a rail station within a short walk can add 6 to 50 percent to home values.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://dc.streetsblog.org/2011/09/12/the-housing-value-bonus-for-rail-transit-10-20-even-50-percent/

 

Well yea, for places like Chicago, DC, New York where housing costs, scarce parking and long commutes make this obvious, but I wouldnt exactly put Cincinnati in that same category...

 

Oh like, right here....  (and not that Cincinnati is the same as Buffalo or Cleveland, but would be closer to that category than the places the story talks about.)

"weak market cities with poor transit and relatively traffic-free highways — like Buffalo, New York — may see little price appreciation around rail transit stops. In these cases, rail transit has little inherent advantage over highway travel."

 

 

Cincinnati streetcar project faces new hurdle from Cincinnati City Council

 

Plans to build a streetcar line in Cincinnati will face a new roadblock Wednesday when Cincinnati City Council meets.

 

Four Republican councilmembers are proposing an ordinance to stop $28 million in bonds from being issued, so those debt payments can go to repairing roads and streets in the city.

 

The councilmembers, Leslie Ghiz, Anne Murray, Wayne Lippert and Charles Winburn, say as much as $2 million in additional road repairs can be made if the bond issue for the streetcar was scrapped

 

Cont

 

Boondoggle!

Another day, another attack. I've never seen a city so dead set against progress.

No wonder Chiquita is leaving.

This is why I've been saying it's CRUCIAL to donate to candidates who support the streetcar! Several people on this forum keep saying it's done, nothing to worry about from the council side- 

 

Please, TODAY consider a $25 donation to either Cincinnatians for Progress regarding the No on 48 campaign,

 

or to a pro-Streetcar candidate since it's crucial we elect more of them, not just keep the 4 we already have!

 

Keep:

Quinlivan

Qualls

Thomas

Wendell

 

Elect:

Simpson

Seelbach

Flynn

Riveiro

Hollan

Atkinson

 

Please contribute $10 or $25 to any of these people.  OR volunteer for them, or something. The streetcar issue can still be killed by council if 1 more conservative gets on after Nov. 8.

 

 

 

BTW-  Charlotte has a great light rail line, of which the downtown portion rides along the street.

This is why I've been saying it's CRUCIAL to donate to candidates who support the streetcar! Several people on this forum keep saying it's done, nothing to worry about from the council side- 

 

Please, TODAY consider a $25 donation to either Cincinnatians for Progress regarding the No on 48 campaign,

 

or to a pro-Streetcar candidate since it's crucial we elect more of them, not just keep the 4 we already have!

 

Keep:

Quinlivan

Qualls

Thomas

Wendell

 

Elect:

Simpson

Seelbach

Flynn

Riveiro

Hollan

J. Allen

 

Please contribute $10 or $25 to any of these people.  OR volunteer for them, or something. The streetcar issue can still be killed by council if 1 more conservative gets on after Nov. 8.

 

 

 

 

Here's where to contribute to defeat the Finney Amendment = Issue 48: http://cincinnatiansforprogress.com/Donate.asp

 

Also, who is "J. Allen?"

^ sorry- Jacqueline Allen is a candidate who is running, but I meant Kathy Atkinson, another candidate who supports the streetcar.

 

Neither of those women have a chance at winning, but I didn't want to be the one to decide who you should contribute to by leaving out any streetcar supporters.

^ Maybe use Wendell Young's last name.

Smitherman is claiming he has the full endorsement of the FOP and that they support his anti-rail amendment.  Any truth to that?

The fishwrap is reporting that Hamilton County Commissioner and ,"Son of the Suburbs" Monzel is pushing to restrict using any of MSD's funds for the streetcar construction.

Smitherman is claiming he has the full endorsement of the FOP and that they support his anti-rail amendment.  Any truth to that?

 

He has been endorsed by FOP, and FOP is officially against the streetcar.

Smitherman is claiming he has the full endorsement of the FOP and that they support his anti-rail amendment.  Any truth to that?

 

He has been endorsed by FOP, and FOP is officially against the streetcar.

 

I figured they were against the streetcar, but what about his amendment?  How can the FOP support Smitherman after all the chaos he caused when he was at council? 

I don't know their official stance on Issue 48- and Smitherman made the "I won't fire a single police officer" pledge along with all other FOP endorsed candidates. That's good enough for them!

The fishwrap is reporting that Hamilton County Commissioner and ,"Son of the Suburbs" Monzel is pushing to restrict using any of MSD's funds for the streetcar construction.

City Beat reports:

Monzel's Motion May Backfire on MSD

"In fact, if Monzel's proposal is successful in stopping the sewer improvements, it likely will cost MSD more to construct them later, city staffers said."

 

http://www.citybeat.com/cincinnati/blog-2386-monzels_motion_may_backfire_on_msd.html

Monzel's proposal stated: “MSD may not spend any funds, from any source whatsoever, on planning, design, or construction of any improvements or modifications to its facilities, or any other facilities to accommodate construction of the city’s streetcar system.”

 

And he just reused the idiotic ballot language.  What a tool. 

Si Leis was just on 700wlw.  Said to Bill Cunningham that he "hates Chris Finney and COAST because they oppose everything that's good for the community". 

 

Obviously he's bitter about the jail tax being defeated.  That goes a long way toward explaining his support of the streetcar.

The fishwrap is reporting that Hamilton County Commissioner and ,"Son of the Suburbs" Monzel is pushing to restrict using any of MSD's funds for the streetcar construction.

City Beat reports:

Monzel's Motion May Backfire on MSD

"In fact, if Monzel's proposal is successful in stopping the sewer improvements, it likely will cost MSD more to construct them later, city staffers said."

 

http://www.citybeat.com/cincinnati/blog-2386-monzels_motion_may_backfire_on_msd.html

 

It makes me so mad that the enquirer, of course, didn't properly explain why the city asked MSD to do this work now.  They were simply being curteous and trying to let MSD know that if they want to make these improvements at a later date its going to be more difficult and expensive.  Makes complete and total sense to do this work now BEFORE the tracks are laid.  GOD I HATE THE ENQUIRER

So the city just lays tracks over the sewers and when MSD has to replace or work on its sewer, then MSD gets to pay for rebuilding all the affected trackway too including a bypass track to maintain streetcar service while sewer work is underway.

 

Good thinking there, Chris. Will probably cost three or four times as much. This strikes me as the kind of thing that's going to come back and bite someone.

So the city just lays tracks over the sewers and when MSD has to replace or work on its sewer, then MSD gets to pay for rebuilding all the affected trackway too including a bypass track to maintain streetcar service while sewer work is underway.

 

Good thinking there, Chris. Will probably cost three or four times as much. This strikes me as the kind of thing that's going to come back and bite someone.

 

This is something I've always thought of when the huge, overblown cost estimates for utility relocation are tossed around, and the question of "who pays?" is perpetuated.  If the utilities don't want to pay for relocation of their assets, fine, but when service time comes they can expect to work in a manner that does not interrupt service on the tracks that were thus laid down over top those utilities.

That doesn't sound too unlike what's going on with the gas lines right now.  The city paves a street, then just two or three years later Duke comes in and replaces the gas lines, but since the road is so new the city makes them repave a whole lane, if not the entire street, rather than just the two foot strip they worked on.  I figure there's some animosity from both camps on this kind of thing.  Those narrow strips are patched horribly, and the city has every right to expect that if a utility comes and messes with brand new pavement that they'd better put it back right, but there's certainly a lack of proper planning and coordination here.  Still, it can also be seen as a way to get a few extra years of paving surface for free as well.

 

Some cities (or at least smaller towns anyway) get it right.  They say "ok, we're going to completely rebuild Main Street, bury all utilities that aren't already underground, do streetscaping, new lighting, the works.  All you utility companies, get your shit together and repair/replace whatever you need to do NOW before the road is finished, because if anyone has to dig it up after the paving is done, you're going to pay a big fine on top of fixing the pavement perfectly."  After all, it doesn't matter if all the sewer, water, gas, and electric is brand new and good for another 50 years if then the phone company has to come and dig a bunch of holes.  It only takes one underground utility needing to do work to ruin a good new street.  Best get it done when the time is right. 

Si Leis was just on 700wlw.  Said to Bill Cunningham that he "hates Chris Finney and COAST because they oppose everything that's good for the community". 

Obviously he's bitter about the jail tax being defeated.  That goes a long way toward explaining his support of the streetcar.

I think you're also seeing the difference between old school Republicanism & the new school, drop out, I already know all I need to know Republicanism we have today.

^--"Some cities (or at least smaller towns anyway) get it right..."

 

That's a good argument for smaller units of local government instead of one big metro government, but that's a subject for another thread.

 

In the case of the streetcar, the utility companies are all confused. Is it really going to happen, or not? Duke doesn't want to actually do the work until they are certain that the streetcar is actually going to get built. At the same time, the streetcar folks are waiting to hear from Duke when the utility work will be done. This is the problem with all the uncertainty - it leads to more uncertainty. It's usually a safe bet that the project will actually get built if it gets funded, so that's the threshold that utilities usually use. Again, it all comes back to funding.

This is an actual case of the nebulous "uncertainty" Tea Party types are usually complaining about. It makes things tough for businesses who might make decisions based on something being one way or the other. So economic activity is disrupted. In this case, it's been the Tea Party types causing uncertainty for 3 years or so. Without the persistence of a small but vocal group, the matter would have been settled 2 years ago.

 

On a related note, my father is not a streetcar advocate by any means (though he is not exactly against it, either). However, he is disgusted by having to vote on the issue again. Really disgusted. He'll be voting against Issue 48 primarily for this reason. I think it would be wise for Cincinnatians for Progress to press this issue: didn't we already vote on this? Isn't it abuse of the system to vote on the same thing, year after year?

 

"Say NO to abusing democracy. Vote NO on Issue 48." -- something like that. Maybe make the language more folksy?

This is an actual case of the nebulous "uncertainty" Tea Party types are usually complaining about. It makes things tough for businesses who might make decisions based on something being one way or the other. So economic activity is disrupted. In this case, it's been the Tea Party types causing uncertainty for 3 years or so. Without the persistence of a small but vocal group, the matter would have been settled 2 years ago.

 

On a related note, my father is not a streetcar advocate by any means (though he is not exactly against it, either). However, he is disgusted by having to vote on the issue again. Really disgusted. He'll be voting against Issue 48 primarily for this reason. I think it would be wise for Cincinnatians for Progress to press this issue: didn't we already vote on this? Isn't it abuse of the system to vote on the same thing, year after year?

 

"Say NO to abusing democracy. Vote NO on Issue 48." -- something like that. Maybe make the language more folksy?

 

Great point, I believe there are many that feel the way your father does.  The average Cincinnatian hates duplicity (and outright stunts) with a passion, and I think this will help the good guys.

I listen to 550's Brian Thomas almost every morning while driving to work, since his show is a steady parade of the who's who of local politicians who have built careers on tricking old people into voting for them.  After another extending razzing of the "trolley to nowhere" by the host, a caller called in asking "why don't they use that there subway?".  Thomas responded with factual inaccuracies, despite MY HAVING BEEN ON HIS SHOW last December to speak on this exact subject. 

 

I had some belief when I was writing the subway book that it would at least slightly change the public dialog, but even those who have read it or parts of it are simply ignoring the facts and continuing with the old rumors.  So I think we can complain about the facts of the streetcar not getting out there, but the real fact is that too many quite simply will not be swayed by facts.  It really illustrates how strong the mid-century automobile industry propaganda was, that it can still, generations later, be so powerful.

 

 

 

Guest Column: Could the streetcar be the GTO of public transportation?

Written by Jim Grawe (co-founder of the Covedale Neighborhood Association)

 

Few subjects cause more spirited debate than the proposed streetcar. Those opposed like to say, "The city should be run like a business! We don't need a streetcar! Who's going to ride it? Why go to the expense of building it when buses work well enough? Why not make a bus look like a streetcar?"

 

To me, having lived on the conservative West Side my entire life, this practical viewpoint has merit. Besides, I'm a suburbanite, and a "car guy" - a proud owner of a 1966 Pontiac GTO - so it's hard for me to identify with the concept of public transportation, much less understand its value as an economic generator. But, as I reflect on the origin of the GTO, I wonder, "Could the streetcar be the GTO of public transportation?"

 

Cont

^ Can anyone summarize for those of us who don't like to click on Enquirer links (at least not this week)?