Well, what is the holdup with the operating agreement? If that's the sticking point, get it done.

 

Good god ... someone should make a movie/documentary out of this entire saga. :drunk:

Actually I am writing a history of the project, but is currently just a timeline.  I have saved a lot of newspaper clippings, podcasted talk radio, and have taken my own photos at events.

I've never seen a recent project have to jump through so many hoops and obstacles.  What is it with this region?

 

I think you need some context. Many rail projects have had to jump through at least as much as this. The 3C project has been killed seven times over 40 years already. The Second Avenue subway in New York City has been dead/alive/dead/alive for 80 years. Houston's rail project was declared illegal by Congress (thanks to Rep. DeLay). Seattle's was a battle for decades. So was Phoenix's. And Dallas'. And... get the picture?

 

Consider these GOP platform planks which have false and misleading foundations.....

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,7852.msg638387.html#msg638387

I've never seen a recent project have to jump through so many hoops and obstacles.  What is it with this region?

 

I think you need some context. Many rail projects have had to jump through at least as much as this. The 3C project has been killed seven times over 40 years already. The Second Avenue subway in New York City has been dead/alive/dead/alive for 80 years. Houston's rail project was declared illegal by Congress (thanks to Rep. DeLay). Seattle's was a battle for decades. So was Phoenix's. And Dallas'. And... get the picture?

 

Consider these GOP platform planks which have false and misleading foundations.....

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,7852.msg638387.html#msg638387

 

In 2008 I was an ardent John McCain supporter (he brought Palin on and I was less enthusiastic, but still voted for "John Wayne McCain"), in this coming election my feelings and views have shifted totally. One of the biggest issues for me is the GOP's blatant disregard for mass transit, public transit and alternative energy. I think it says a lot about their old school, backwards thinking on other issues. It amazes me that the streetcar has gone through this many issues cause by the opposition when in reality you'd think Mass Transit would be a bipartisan issue given how it benefits everyone. It's a shame, thank God America seems to be pushing mass transit in spite of the GOP's nonsense.

 

Maybe if we build a Chick-Fil-A on the streetcar line?

Now-deceased uber-conservative Paul Weyrich was a huge rail supporter.  Unfortunately his arguments never really gained much traction among his constituency. Just read what he said in 2000. His characterization of opposition now is not much different than today. 

 

Rail opponents often use bizarre arguments based on calculations that will not hold up in the marketplace of ideas. They claim, for example, that all light rail systems are failures. They contend that most light rail riders are just forced onto LRVs from buses and so the bus systems are destroyed in the process of building LRT. They say that LRT has failed to spur economic development.

http://www.lightrailnow.org/news/n_000004.htm

From the Horstman article:

 

"It remains the city's position that Duke is responsible under state law for performing and bearing the full cost of the relocation work." - Dohoney

 

Dohoney is at least acknowleging that state law, as opposed to the municipal code or something else, is what governs the Duke relocation issue. I just wanted to point that out, given our previous discussions about whether or not the state law applies.

 

"The city is investigating potential legal remedy." - Dohoney

 

Uh oh.

 

 

Has anyone said anything about municipal code superseding state law?  I haven't seen it. 

Let me get this straight...

 

Duke claims moving the utilities eight feet away from tracks would require $18.7 million.

 

Duke agrees with the city that three feet is required. Now Winburn says relocating the utility could cost $20 million... That's some sassy math.

 

Also, Horstman claims that operations would start in late 2014, but the memo he quoted says the operations would begin summer 2015. Did he not read the whole memo?

Has anyone said anything about municipal code superseding state law?  I haven't seen it. 

 

Yes, on this board, a couple hundred pages back. Someone was claiming - I can't remember who - that the City of Cincinnati was governed by a different set of rules because of the city charter or something.

If the state sets a law, the City can set a law that goes BEYOND that law.  The City can set laws that go beyond the state law, thereby superseding a smaller law (City can require helmets while state law says you don't need one).  BUT if the State law says something is required, the City can't say it's not. 

 

Basically, the City can increase regulation, but not lessen it.

The heavy equipment has moved into position and it looks like the Blue Ash Airport buildings will be history by Friday, next Monday or Tuesday at the latest.  The original hangar is covered in tributes to the airport, but also about 4-5 anti-streetcar/Mallory/Cincinnati bits, none of which advertise any familiarity with the facts. 

 

Also, yesterday (Wednesday) Brian Thomas had a guest who wrote a book on the credibility problem of bloggers.  Basically the book was a right wing effort to smear the internet, generally, and blogging specifically.  The message was clear: beware of the internet and keep listening to talk radio.  But then today (Thursday), Thomas had another guest who is leading "beginning" and "intermediate" blogging classes in West Chester, and Thomas encouraged everyone "out there" to start their own blogs.

 

You can't make this stuff up, people. 

The job of a talk radio host is to either inform or incite.  Sports jocks do both, but hosts of more general forums don't inform because there isn't any money in it.  The internet has facts.  People tune in to radio to be entertained, and 700 has taken that edict to bat.  If certain hosts at The Flamethrower started spouting facts, assuming producers would allow this, the members of that show would be out of a job due to low ratings and disgruntled meddlers in the 'burbs.  COAST would proclaim 700 as the voice of the devil and probably sue them.

If the state sets a law, the City can set a law that goes BEYOND that law.  The City can set laws that go beyond the state law, thereby superseding a smaller law (City can require helmets while state law says you don't need one).  BUT if the State law says something is required, the City can't say it's not. 

 

Basically, the City can increase regulation, but not lessen it.

 

No, the city often (90%+ of the time) cannot go beyond state law.  The case law is complex, but generally if the state has laid out a scheme then the city cannot vary that scheme by requiring more or less.  For instance, the city cannot make it a requirement to have a spoiler on your car in order to use city roads (even if there were no commerce clause implications). 

 

Your example doesn't prove the point you offered.  The state has NO law requiring a helmet, therefore the city is free to act.  If the state had a law spelling out certain situations where a helmet was required, the city would be powerless to add situations that also required a helmet. 

Wasn't sure if it would be better to post this here or on a light rail thing.  Saw this on enquirer website.

 

Titled advandtages of light rail, though it doesn't talk about advantages of light rail, but more addresses some of the "disadvantages":  access to stations and cost of building stations.

http://communitypress.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/C2/20120829/NEWS/308290013/

 

It made me remember that I saw an article recently on some blog, I can't remember which one.  It was about something called like rapid streetcars or something, Europe has been doing this alot.  It was where there are streetcars that have a max speed of 40-50 mph and they can move back and forth between streets and their own right of ways.  I was thinking maybe this could be a good solution for us.  Or at least an option to consider.  Does anyone else know more about these?

Once upon a time, we built real subways. Then they said we could no longer afford subways, so they started building light rail. Now they say we can no longer afford light rail, so they're talking about BRT and "rapid streetcars". Funny how our expectations for rail transit keep getting defined downwards by policy makers.

Once upon a time, we built real subways. Then they said we could no longer afford subways, so they started building light rail. Now they say we can no longer afford light rail, so they're talking about BRT and "rapid streetcars". Funny how our expectations for rail transit keep getting defined downwards by policy makers.

 

Well said.

WLW back on the rampage.

 

Darryl Parks in for Scott Sloan: Calling City Hall and streetcar supporters thugs for going after Duke. Did say they agreed to the 3' but still insisting it'll cost $20M according to sources.

 

Dan Carrol in for Bill Cunningham: Chris Finney on at 1:06PM.

The overcompensating one 700wlw is putting it into overdrive today.

 

A desperation Carroll urged everyone to cease with the project.

 

The overcompensating one 700wlw is putting it into overdrive today.

 

A desperation Carroll urged everyone to cease with the project.

 

Carroll also railed against the big bad city going against "a good corporate citizen like Duke Energy."

 

WLW is so over-the-top I don't even know how their diehard listeners can do anything other than take everything they say with a huge grain of salt.

 

And who is Dan Carroll anyway? Last I knew he was anchoring 6 a.m. weekend newscasts on Fox 45 in Dayton - the absolute last step before you're out of the TV business altogether. And aren't news anchors supposed to be unbiased?

^ He's moved around a lot. Started here as a helicopter weatherman for Fox 19, I think.

 

Duke Energy a good corporate citizen? Wonder how many listeners bought that.

^ He's moved around a lot. Started here as a helicopter weatherman for Fox 19, I think.

 

Duke Energy a good corporate citizen? Wonder how many listeners bought that.

 

Bet parks or Carroll didn't bring up dukes 44million dollar severance pay to their CEO for a hard 1 days work

Once upon a time, we built real subways. Then they said we could no longer afford subways, so they started building light rail. Now they say we can no longer afford light rail, so they're talking about BRT and "rapid streetcars". Funny how our expectations for rail transit keep getting defined downwards by policy makers.

 

The issue is an insidious one.

 

light rail began as a inexpensive alternative to "expensive" heavy rail Streetcars are light rail.  when they began to add heavy Rail features to light rail they became just as expensive as heavy rail. 

 

The issue of mission creep and failure to understand the limitations of each rail mode gets you the green line in Cleveland, which had most of the cost of heavy rail but lack the maintence and durability advantages of heavy rail.

 

in the beginning the LRT ansetor the interurban, never had dedicated platfroms throughout the route, it wias more cost effective to operate in road ROWs in higher density areas, and defualt to dedicated high speed ROW in less Dense/ lower land cost areas. 

 

modern LRT never left the dedicated ROW and as a result had the same ROW cost as heavy rail.  By using things like "platfoms" and stations instead of curbs, you again increase to parity with Heavy Rail.

 

there is an issue of gold plating of transit projects.  When the absolute requirement is dedicated ROW and double track, with fancy stations, and premium rolling stock. the need to value engineers projects to remove amentities that do not add value or stray from the original goal of project.

 

this back to basics thinking gets you back to the original interurban and the original streetcar concepts.

 

Thus the Rapid Streetcar concept.

 

The reaction to the demise of the Streetcar, was to get them out of the street, Using exsting 1950s technology led to heavy Rail, which proved too expensive for all but the largest cities to afford.  Which led to the the invention of Light Rail in the 1980s as a less expensive alternative to heavy rail.

 

 

I think everyone on this board already knew this, but I just got it confirmed in a personal conversation last night.

 

I know a guy who is a friend of some of the radio personalities. He didn't tell me if he was paid to do this or not, but he has called in to radio talk shows with fake stories to provide entertainment content and to "get people riled up on slow nights." He says that someone from the station would call him and tell him what they needed, and then he would call the station back as a listener and make up stuff. Most of the stuff was rooted in reality but was exaggerated.

 

So I guess the moral is, don't believe everything you hear on the radio.

Once upon a time, we built real subways....

 

It's not just because policy makers are "dumbing down" the rail system; it's also because there is just so much more stuff in the way these days.

 

Heavy rail track on a graded right-of-way costs about $1 million per mile. Why, then, is the Over-the-Rhine loop a $110 million+ project? It's because there is so much stuff in the way that has to be moved. Of all places in Cincinnati to build rail, we picked one of the most expensive places. Streetcar lines are supposed to be less expensive than light rail, heavy rail, or subways, but that depends on the route. A subway in undeveloped land could well be less expensive than a streetcar in an established street with lots of utilities. A light rail line on an existing abandoned railroad right-of-way may be less expensive than the Over-the-Rhine loop.

 

I have said that I am not opposed to this project, I just wish we had picked a different route. Yes, the Cincinnati Streetcar as proposed today has a lot of development potential, but it also has a high price tag, maybe even higher than light rail or heavy rail on an easier alignment. All of this development potential means nothing if it doesn't get built.

 

 

 

 

 

Once upon a time, we built real subways....

 

 

 

I have said that I am not opposed to this project, I just wish we had picked a different route.

 

 

 

Such as?

LOL Has anybody seen Windburns media release today? He wants his $10 Million rubber tired Trolley toy running and is asking City Council to halt all Streetcar activities.

LOL Has anybody seen Windburns media release today? He wants his $10 Million rubber tired Trolley toy running and is asking City Council to halt all Streetcar activities.

Why doesn't he use the Indianapolis trolley bus as a model?

8th & state has the worst argument.  Please, lay out your route.  On google maps, and explain why it would have been better.

 

Please. 

 

Let me guess, West Chester to Mason?

Once upon a time, we built real subways....

 

 

 

I have said that I am not opposed to this project, I just wish we had picked a different route.

 

 

 

Such as?

COASTs streetcar plan

 

Start at Applebee's beechmont avenue

End at tgi Fridays kenwood.

 

Attractions in between:

-Newtown flood plain

-Old man with fanny pack yelling at clouds blaring open arms by journey on walkman

-an old farm

-mariemont police station

-Indian hill mansions

-Madeira US Bank

-Clearchannel HQ including 700wlw the overcompensating one

I think everyone on this board already knew this, but I just got it confirmed in a personal conversation last night.

 

I know a guy who is a friend of some of the radio personalities. He didn't tell me if he was paid to do this or not, but he has called in to radio talk shows with fake stories to provide entertainment content and to "get people riled up on slow nights." He says that someone from the station would call him and tell him what they needed, and then he would call the station back as a listener and make up stuff. Most of the stuff was rooted in reality but was exaggerated.

 

So I guess the moral is, don't believe everything you hear on the radio.

Clear Channel pays people to do this, too.

 

WLW exists these days for one sole reason: Ratings & Revenue. That is all. Every thing else be damned.

Straight up Vine from Second to Taft is 2.2 miles.  Why was Phase 1 restricted to the basin instead of trying to get up the hill first and adding loops in the basin later? 

Straight up Vine from Second to Taft is 2.2 miles.  Why was Phase 1 restricted to the basin instead of trying to get up the hill first and adding loops in the basin later? 

 

Originally one of the things that set the project back was the plan to include what we now call "Phase 1 (urban circulator)" and "Phase 2 (connection up the hill)" all together as one initial phase. Gov Kasich's pulling of state funding curtailed plans and instead we're moving forward solely with Phase 1 and eventually Phase 2 in the future.

8th & state has the worst argument.  Please, lay out your route.  On google maps, and explain why it would have been better.

 

Please. 

 

Let me guess, West Chester to Mason?

 

I have suggested some alternate routes on this board already and took a lot of flak for them. And no, I am not picking West Chester to Mason. No route is perfect, but some are more affordable than others.

How are some more affordable than others? We're currently debating the utility relocation costs for the existing route, so how do you know cheaper alternatives?

I think everyone on this board already knew this, but I just got it confirmed in a personal conversation last night.

 

I know a guy who is a friend of some of the radio personalities. He didn't tell me if he was paid to do this or not, but he has called in to radio talk shows with fake stories to provide entertainment content and to "get people riled up on slow nights." He says that someone from the station would call him and tell him what they needed, and then he would call the station back as a listener and make up stuff. Most of the stuff was rooted in reality but was exaggerated.

 

So I guess the moral is, don't believe everything you hear on the radio.

 

I remember when Eric Deters was fired from 700WLW he wrote a rant explaining how some of the more well-known callers ("Richard from Indian Hill" comes to mind) were made up.

 

I think there needs to be a 700WLW Streetcar Discussion drinking game. Drink any time when:

 

-The streetcar is referred to as a "trolley" "choo-choo-train" or "toy"

-When the suggestion is made that they should go to BRT or "trolleys with wheels like they have in Kentucky."

-When it is said that building the streetcar will limit public safety and other city services.

 

You would have been pretty drunk this afternoon. Any other suggestions?

Allright, LIG's comment on how we used to build subways made we wonder how we got here. Here are some old plans and things from my library, which only contains a fraction of what is out there. Looks like after the historic streetcars and interurbans disappeared, talk of rail was revived in the 1970's, with bigger and bigger plans up through about 1997. After 1997, plans for rail were toned down, finally resulting in the current streetcar plan.

 

Three of these were purchased for good money, one was given to me by a generous employee of Queen City Metro, and the rest were picked out of garbage cans, which kind of gives a hint of how much value was placed on them.  All of them are interesting.

 

 

The 1907 Kessler Plan for Parks and Parkways, as reprinted in American Heritage. This plan advocated, among other things, separation of traffic, and resulted in construction of Victory Parkway, Columbia Parkway, and Central Parkway, which are still mostly free of commercial trucks - and streetcars!

 

The Official Plan of Cincinnati, 1925. Overcxrowding of streets was a big theme of this work. They wanted to widen Fifth Street!

 

The 1948 Metropolitan Master Plan of Cincinnati and Hamilton County was the forerunner of the interstates. It says that buses should remain "temporarily" until everyone could afford a car.

 

The Exclusive Guideway Transit Element of 1976 is my favorite. It advocated a transit line from Downtown to Norwood through U.C. via ML, and others to Cheviot and Covington. This volume has lots of good public opinion survey.

 

The Transportation 2000 plan of 1978 was just a plan on how to make a comprehensive plan for transportation and other things. I couldn't find anything useful in it, other than the fact that OKI was getting into transporation in a big way at that time.

 

Teh Coordinated City Plan, Volume I and II, from 1988 had a full range of planning activities including housing, recreation, etc. The top priortity was industrial development. There is one page about buses, and one paragraph about bicycles. This work starts with an ominous population trend line, showing a decrease from 503,998 in 1955 to 423,671 in 1976.

 

OKI Regional Transportation Plan from 1981 talked about the full range of modes from buses to bicycles, and listed the same two rail lines to Norwood via MLK, and Chviot, but no Covington, from the Exclusive Guidway Plan. Then, it recommended lots of highway improvements in the far suburbs.

 

A Transit Develolpment Strategy for Hamilton County, 1981 to 1985 by SORTA was all about Queen City Metro buses and didn't include any rail at all.

 

The I-71 Cooridor Transportation Study Busway Alternative of 1988 advocated a special highway for buses only parallel to I-71, including what appears to be a deep tunnel under Mt. Auburn. This plan had a detailed alignment based on the new CAGIS.

 

Looking Ahead: 2020 Metropolitican Transportation Plan, OKI, 1997, update of a 1993 plan which I don't have, talked about all the modes: automobile, motor bus, airline, bicycle, trains (including the 3C line!) Recommended rail transit included radial lines from downtown to Fort Wright, Alexandria, Cheviot, Hamilton, Mason, and Middletown, all for $2.9 Billion in 1997. (Wow!)

 

The Kingsport Corridor study Technical Proposal of 1994 was not actually a study, but a proposal by a consultant, Burgess & Niple, advertising their ability to perform such a study. This proposal is 3 inches thick, printed. "Sometimes I think that we exist to keep consultants in business." - Bruce Koehler, OKI.

 

Metro Moves Regional Transit Plan, 2002, advocated an agressive bus expansion and regional rail plan, but not as aggressive as the 1997 plan. This is the first place I know of where the proposed Cincinnati Streetcar in its current form, or nearly so, was mapped. So, it's been on the drawing board for 10 years now. 

 

Not everyone on this board agrees with me, but you can't say that I don't contribute anything useful.  :wink:

 

^That's all really cool stuff, but I was curious to hear what other routes you suggest could be more affordable.

^That's all really cool stuff, but I was curious to hear what other routes you suggest could be more affordable.

 

Seconded. List your route. Put up or.....

How are some more affordable than others? We're currently debating the utility relocation costs for the existing route, so how do you know cheaper alternatives?

 

The primary construction issue with the current streetcar proposal is utility relocation issues. In this way, construction of a streetcar is similar to construction of any other utility, such as a sewer, water main, gas main, etc. The basic rule of thumb is that the more stuff that needs to be moved out of the way, the more it's going to cost. Utilities always look at underground records when considering alternative alignments for new utilities, and adjust alignments accordingly. Of course, a water main is more flexible than a streetcar line, becaues the water main doesn't have to be coordinated with traffic. Anyone who works in the industry at Duke, Water Works, MSD, Cincinnati Bell, etc., could have said right off the bat that the proposed Downtown and Over-the-Rhine loop was going to be extraordinarily expensive.

 

In fact, right after the 2007 feasibility study was published, I talked to someone in the industry, and he said that they didn't budget enough to relocate the utilities - not even close.

 

The Over-the-Rhine loop can still be done, IF there is enough money in the budget to do it. I contend that the City just doesn't have the money; it is going to cost way more than ~$110 million, more like $250 million. That's the heart of the problem. Another possiblity might be to use a smaller rail vehicle that doesn't require such heavy tracks, more like a historic streetcar than a modern one, or shorten the route, or pick a different route, or even "gasp" use rubber-tired buses instead of rail. In any case, I don't think the City can afford to build the streetcar as it's currently planned with the budget they have, and Dohoney in his memo hinted so himself.

 

 

It's always "I've talked to this person" or "This person in the industry told me this." I'm glad you have so many friends in the industry. However, the people who matter - Duke and the City - contend different things. Just because your friend tells you something doesn't make it true. People have their own biases. I'll leave it to the city and Duke to come up with an agreement. Diplomacy (which is really what this is) is a fickle art and an agreement will be reached.

 

And you still haven't listed your route. When you do, also feel free to explain why it would be cheaper AND have the same economic impact. We're all still waiting...

^Back up that $250 Million claim. And I still didn't see you post you're alternative route. But I did see a great deal of concern trolling.

How are some more affordable than others? We're currently debating the utility relocation costs for the existing route, so how do you know cheaper alternatives?

 

The primary construction issue with the current streetcar proposal is utility relocation issues...

 

 

Again, you didn't answer the question! You're throwing out fickle and nonsense numbers with no sources except for "someone you know." Please point out these cheaper, alternate routes you mentioned.

 

Do you write a blog for some special interest group? You seem to be using their talking point playbook. Do we really need to rehash the bus argument?

^Methinks his "source" is Mark Miller.

How are some more affordable than others? We're currently debating the utility relocation costs for the existing route, so how do you know cheaper alternatives?

 

The primary construction issue with the current streetcar proposal is utility relocation issues. In this way, construction of a streetcar is similar to construction of any other utility, such as a sewer, water main, gas main, etc. The basic rule of thumb is that the more stuff that needs to be moved out of the way, the more it's going to cost. Utilities always look at underground records when considering alternative alignments for new utilities, and adjust alignments accordingly. Of course, a water main is more flexible than a streetcar line, becaues the water main doesn't have to be coordinated with traffic. Anyone who works in the industry at Duke, Water Works, MSD, Cincinnati Bell, etc., could have said right off the bat that the proposed Downtown and Over-the-Rhine loop was going to be extraordinarily expensive.

 

In fact, right after the 2007 feasibility study was published, I talked to someone in the industry, and he said that they didn't budget enough to relocate the utilities - not even close.

 

The Over-the-Rhine loop can still be done, IF there is enough money in the budget to do it. I contend that the City just doesn't have the money; it is going to cost way more than ~$110 million, more like $250 million. That's the heart of the problem. Another possiblity might be to use a smaller rail vehicle that doesn't require such heavy tracks, more like a historic streetcar than a modern one, or shorten the route, or pick a different route, or even "gasp" use rubber-tired buses instead of rail. In any case, I don't think the City can afford to build the streetcar as it's currently planned with the budget they have, and Dohoney in his memo hinted so himself.

^Preserved for posterity.

^That's all really cool stuff, but I was curious to hear what other routes you suggest could be more affordable.

 

Seconded. List your route. Put up or.....

 

I've gone through this already, but since you insist...

 

How about a streetcar on Clifton from Ludlow to McMillan? The street is wide, there are not as many utilities to deal with, and it will have instant ridership. Many extensions and connections are possible. It will take some traffic away from the buses that already use that corridor, on the heaviest-used part of the line, freeing them up for service elsewhere. Or, instead of a streetcar, build bi-directional light-rail on an exclusive right-of-way, taking away one lane of traffic on Clifton. It could even be diesel to save the cost of overhead wires, with the possibllity of electrifying it in the future. The distantce from Ludlow to McMillan is a little over 1 mile.

 

Destinations include:

Ludlow business district

Good Sam hospital

Deacones hospital

University of Cincinnati west campus

Hughes Corner and McMillan business district

 

Bus connectiions include the 17, 19, 38X, 51, 31, and 36. Four of those lines presently use Clifton Avenue and could be diverted elsewhere to increase coverage or decrease travel time. I like the idea of diverting the 17 to Jefferson and Vine to pick up University Hospital and at the same time decrease travel time between Downtown and Northside.

 

There are many more examples of alternate routes. Downtown and Over-the-Rhine are certainly worthy desitinations, but there is no rule that says they have to be served first. If fact, it may be prudent to start small on something easy and work up to a rail project that reaches downtown.

 

^That's all really cool stuff, but I was curious to hear what other routes you suggest could be more affordable.

 

Seconded. List your route. Put up or.....

 

I've gone through this already, but since you insist...

 

Again, I'm not seeing how these are cheaper or what data points to that this would prove to have cheaper utility relocation. Why are these more "affordable?"

 

And why wouldn't you want to serve downtown, the center of the city and the largest center of people during business hours and events? That's where you should start your ridership.

^Justify your $250 million figure 8th. We're waiting.