the enquirer just likes to b*tch. maybe we should just write letters complaining that we don't have a streetcar and what a horrible city that makes cincinnati then they would publish it.

Rookwood moving to OTR

BY LISA BERNARD-KUHN | [email protected]

 

 

OVER-THE-RHINE – Grand plans are in store for an 80,000 square foot building near Findley Market that is expected to be the new headquarters for The Rookwood Pottery Co.

 

Martin Wade, owner of the recently reopened Grammer’s restaurant in Over-the-Rhine and financial partner of Cincinnati restaurateur and chef Jean-Robert de Cavel, finalized a more roughly $500,000 deal Monday to purchase the 106-year-old building at 1920 Race St.

 

Wade said he’s been inspired by the work and plans of Cincinnati artist Chris Rose, who purchased the remaining assets of the original Rookwood Pottery from Michigan collector Art Townley in July 2006.

 

 

"It’s one of the gratuitous things. He was looking for bigger space, and he’s passionate about Over-the-Rhine,” said Wade, who owns more than a dozen pieces of property in the downtown neighborhood. “We perceive this to be something that will be good for the city and great for Rookwood.”

 

The building, which is about one block north of Findley Market, once housed the food service company of Frank J. Catanzaro Sons & Daughters.

 

The Catanzaro business to Lockland in 2000, and the property has sat vacant since then.

 

Rookwood, which has worked from building on Glendora Avenue in Corryville for the last two years, hopes to move into the building by July, Wade said.

 

George Verkamp and Christine Schoonover of Huff Realty represented Wade and the Catanzaro family in Monday’s sale.

 

Verkamp said he’s been working with Rose for two years to find the right property for the pottery company.

 

“It’s proximity to Findley Market, and the street car line that we’re all banking on, makes this an absolutely magnificent location for Rookwood,” Verkamp said.

 

Excerpts from an interview with Steve Hampton, Byron Mike Morgan, and Greg Hardman from the Pulse of the City

 

Past, present and frothy future

By Zachary Petit

[email protected]

 

 

 

What is the status of beer developments in Cincinnati right now?

 

Hampton: BarrelHouse (Brewing Co.) is still going along there; Greg is doing his thing and continuing to build up his brands (Samuel Adams) has a very successful brewery. There's still a lot of that knowledge here in the city, and it would be great to capitalize on that some more.

 

 

Martin: I actually own property up on Elm Street the old Christian Moerlein home and office building. The potential of the district really is unlimited. We're trying to kind of calculate the best way to proceed with it. The streetcar is kind of driving our timeframe, but we're going to do what's going to be best for the Brewery District and to kind of recognize the history of the area.

 

What's kind of the ideal 10-year plan for building up the Brewery District in Cincinnati?

 

Hampton: In 10 years, we have a streetcar system not just one loop that's circulating people within the neighborhood Findlay Market is thriving; the bigger brewery buildings have been converted to condos, some of them are housing industries again; some of the industries that are there are still there and have grown; there's a great mix of unique businesses that can both be productive businesses but also are a tourist draw in terms of being very unique there's a lot of street traffic, and it's a true mixed-use, walkable neighborhood.

 

 

What kind of different paths do you want to take to get there?

 

Hampton: We're continuing to fight for the streetcar, which is moving along. It will be a really big piece of that development potential, but we're seeing that already. We're starting to see more business; we've got the Cliffside Condo redevelopment that's happening at McMicken Avenue. I think it's just promoting it and showing people the potential there.

 

Morgan: The streetcar is huge, and what a lot of this city doesn't get and even some people on City Council don't get is that it's necessary for the redevelopment of Over-the-Rhine. It's necessary not because "Oh, it's a streetcar and it's cool," but it's necessary because Over-the-Rhine was not built for cars. Even though we have demolished a shameful amount of it, you still can't get enough parking to accommodate the amount of housing that's there.

 

I really like that last piece.  Right on the money!

Morgan: The streetcar is huge, and what a lot of this city doesn't get and even some people on City Council don't get is that it's necessary for the redevelopment of Over-the-Rhine. It's necessary not because "Oh, it's a streetcar and it's cool," but it's necessary because Over-the-Rhine was not built for cars. Even though we have demolished a shameful amount of it, you still can't get enough parking to accommodate the amount of housing that's there.

 

^ The most important part of that interview.  OTR wasn't built with autos in mind, so how can we expect it to be vibrant and successful in the automobile age if there isn't an alternative transit method available?

 

 

 

Also, I saw the following post in the Columbus Streetcar thread:

 

The Ohio Rail Development Commission has also endorsed the Streetcar Plan and thanked the Mayor for his support of restoring rail passenger service in the 3-C Corridor and an eventual tie-in with the Streetcar and (hopefully) light rail.

 

While I'm glad to hear that the Ohio Rail Development Commission supports the Columbus Streetcar, I don't remember hearing anything about the ORDC endorsing the Cincinnati Streetcar.  Did I just miss it, or has it not happened?  If it hasn't, getting an Ohio organization from outside Cincy to officially endorse the Cincinnati Streetcar might make for a very positive article in the Enquirer and quell some of the negative sentiment that is out there.  Does anyone know someone at the ORDC?

While I'm glad to hear that the Ohio Rail Development Commission supports the Columbus Streetcar, I don't remember hearing anything about the ORDC endorsing the Cincinnati Streetcar.  Did I just miss it, or has it not happened?  If it hasn't, getting an Ohio organization from outside Cincy to officially endorse the Cincinnati Streetcar might make for a very positive article in the Enquirer and quell some negative sentiment.  Does anyone know someone at the ORDC?

 

Yeah, I was very curious about that too.  John, has ORDC endorsed the Cincinnati streetcar plans?

^ They haven't endorsed.

 

There were some folks in town a few weeks ago, and we looked at a couple of sites. The one that intrigues me the most is by Lunken airport that has a rail connection to Evendale. It would enable passenger rail to avoid the freight congestion in the Mill Creek Valley (remember -- passenger trains in this country often have to wait for freight to pass, not good). It could be connected to downtown by a streetcar running on the Oasis Line along Eastern Avenue.

Fascinating possibility, though west-siders wouldn't be very happy, unless they could get picked up somewhere before Glendale.

 

Agreed on the point about OTR needing the streetcar because it is a completely pre-car neighborhood.

Fascinating possibility, though west-siders wouldn't be very happy, unless they could get picked up somewhere before Glendale.

 

Agreed on the point about OTR needing the streetcar because it is a completely pre-car neighborhood.

 

Oh, don't worry about us! (Westside)   We have already shot ourselves in the foot by developing our main line into crap.  Glenway Crossing......etc.

 

That Oasis line sounds very interesting though, especially by AVOIDING the Mill Creek Valley to get North.

Earlier today Chris Monzel talked with Brian Thomas on

Brian's 55KRC morning show.  If you didn't hear the

broadcast, here is a link to the discussion:

 

http://www.55krc.com/cc-common/podcast.html

 

And following is the email I sent to Brian Thomas in response:

 

 

Brian,

 

Your interview with Chris Monzel was heard by streetcar supporters today, who sent the link to me. Allow me to fill you in on some important details.

 

The idea of connecting UC with downtown in the first build is nice if you can do it, but it's not essential for the success of the project. As presently conceived, the 3.9 mile Cincinnati Streetcar would be the longest first phase of a modern streetcar ever built in the United States. So it's already a pretty ambitious project. To go to UC from the get-go would require us to achieve in one phase what it's taken Portland four phases and six years to achieve. That's pretty tough. Monzel is wrong that we absolutely have to connect a university or a hospital to make the first leg successful. Portland didn't connect Portland State in the very first phase. Once construction started, that leg was added by change-order. Neither of the other two cities with modern streetcars, Tacoma and Seattle, connect to their universities. I haven't heard a single person in Uptown complain because the first leg of the streetcar isn't going there.

 

The Present Value Benefit/Cost Ratio for the 3.9 mile segment between 2nd and Main and 20th and Elm is 2.7 to 1.0. This finding was arrived at by the same transportation economists who estimated the B/C ratio of widening I-75 through Hamilton County at 1.13 to 1.0. So if the downtown segment of the streetcar is only half as successful as the biggest transportation project currently on our drawing boards, it would still offer a higher rate of return than widening I-75. The reason is that the streetcar's benefits are sustainable -- they rise over time while the highway becomes congested after a few years.

 

Portland's streetcar misses the center of its downtown by five blocks, and it travels through a formerly (and partially still) low-rise industrial area similar to Over-the-Rhine for many, many blocks. Our streetcar line will pass through the center of regional employment and serve two major sports venues. Portland's doesn't. Our alignment serves many performing arts venues. Portland's serves one. Night and weekend ridership is "found-money" for these kind of systems.

 

Good Samaritan Hospital in Portland is a smallish hospital, sort of like, say, Deaconess in Cincinnati. In no way does it resemble any of our major hospitals.

 

In terms of population, Cincinnati is much denser than Seattle or Tacoma and is equal in density to Portland.

 

This isn't merely a plan to connect Findlay Market with downtown, although that's an added benefit. There's an amazing amount of high-quality building stock north and west of the Findlay Market -- that's what we're trying to get to. That area is not walkable to downtown. The idea is to try to attract people who want to live downtown without or with fewer cars. Streetcars do that. In Portland, they're able to sell condos along the streetcar line with much less than 1.0 parking spaces per unit, so they're cheaper to build and more affordable. In Cincinnati, developers ask the city to subsidize the parking for condos. What's equitable about that?

 

The first phase goes through the The Banks and serves our next large redevelopment site, Broadway Commons.

 

Monzel says he doesn't want taxpayer money to support the operations. In a perfect world, neither to I. But, do people pay for the streets they use by the mile or by the minute? Do I pay to enter Eden Park? Does the Cincinnati Fire Department ask for your Visa card when they come to put a fire out at your house? The Cincinnati Streetcar is a public amenity. If highways had to meet the same standard, there wouldn't be many new ones. Look at the outcry over charging tolls on the new Brent Spence. How come those folks don't want to pay their own way. Food for thought.

 

Thanks for listening,

 

John Schneider

 

^ That's an excellent letter.  I'll be interested to see if he gives you a genuine response. 

Excellent John.

Everyone needs to send a letter or email, or call or fax, to Vice Mayor Crowley telling him you support Phase I of the Cincinnati Streetcar and urging him to support a route from findlay market to the banks

 

Vice Mayor David Crowley

801 Plum St. Rm 350

Cincinnati, OH 45202-1979

Phone: (513) 352-2453

Fax: (513) 352-2365

[email protected]

 

Letter sent --

Dear Vice Mayor Crowley,

    I am writing to you because I want to urge you to support Phase I of the Cincinnati Streetcar.  I have attended many council meetings now and I have been quite proud of your support thus far.  Now that a real turning point is upon us, it is important that we move forward prudently and continue the momentum Downtown and in Over the Rhine.

 

    I understand the desire that any streetcar system reach Uptown and the University, however, I have to question the push to do it all right away with the financing and studies of each part of the system as intricately tied as is currently proposed in Councilmember Qualls’ motion.  There are several reasons why this seems to be a quite imprudent and unnecessary tie in. 

 

    The proposed circulator through the CBD and OTR, as it currently stands at 3.9 miles, will already be the longest first phase construction of a modern streetcar line in history.  This alone should give us pause to consider adding greater complexity to the first phase, especially considering that other cities, such as Atlanta, have scaled back their first phase plans to make them more manageable.  Secondly, the transportation studies which have been done on the commuter travel between Uptown and Downtown do NOT show significant travel between these two locations.  The Uptown Transportation study, which council member Cranley was involved in, indicated as much.  I encourage you to talk to councilmember Cranley to get the actual numbers of commuters between Uptown and Downtown.  Anecdotally, I ride the roads between Uptown and Downtown every day during rush hour and there just isn’t a significant amount of travel on these routes.  This indicates that the connector, standing alone, is at very best only a minor improvement to the currently planned circulator until the uptown circulator is completed.  Further, its a VERY expensive minor improvement, that will inexorably delay the construction of the CBD/OTR circulator, if the requirement is that it must be fully studied before the serious engineering of the CBD/OTR circulator can commence.  Finally, just in terms of how the financing is to be secured, it makes sense to approach all three parts of the desired system independently — each of these parts (CBD/OTR circulator, Downtown – Uptown connector, Uptown circulator) has different funding options and different needs.

 

    What we have now is a plan on the table, with an idea of how to fund it, and some data that indicates it will be a success.  We already have investors on the ground buying property and developing properties.  These developers are counting on that streetcar line because OTR cannot become a viable neighborhood without it, it just can’t support the parking necessary if there is no quality transport between OTR and downtown.  I cannot stress this enough, the CBD/OTR circulator can and will be a success standing on its own.  The data from the Uptown Transportation Study indicates as much.  The tie in to Uptown is not necessary for the CBD/OTR circulator to be a success, and the data tends to indicate this.  Further, the data also indicates that an Uptown circulator can be a success on its own.  Finally, the data indicates that while a connector between the two areas would draw some ridership, it won’t draw nearly as much as either circulator.

 

    Everyone who has been pushing for this streetcar project understands that the best winning scenario is to build several circulators, that are interconnected.  Each circulator and each connector makes the system as a whole incrementally better.  However, to tie our hands on one until the planning and funding for another is completed does us no benefit.  Do we do other types of planning and funding this way?  Did we say that the work on the Price Hill incline district cannot commence until we study and find funding for all the other potential incline districts? 

 

    I urge you to consider the history of such streetcar projects and the transportation studies before making your decision about whether to require a connector to Uptown in the first phase.  The history and the studies indicate that it will be of little benefit until the Uptown circulator is built, and further, we can study the connector and begin the serious engineering on the CBD/OTR circulator simultaneously.  I respectfully urge you to consider that it is not necessary to tie the planning and construction of a Downtown project to the funding of an Uptown project.

 

Sincerely,

Christopher St. Pierre

Very Good!!

^ Yes, great!

Response from Crowley's office.  It was sent via email so in the end, who knows if it was all read or considered.

 

Thank you very much for providing your detailed comments in support of the streetcar. As you indicated I am a supporter of the streetcar. Presently Council is in the process of working through many serious issues regarding the financing plan and the initial scope of the route. As we continue our discussions I will certainly keep your support in mind.

 

David

keep them coming

Letter sent --

Secondly, the transportation studies which have been done on the commuter travel between Uptown and Downtown do NOT show significant travel between these two locations.  The Uptown Transportation study, which council member Cranley was involved in, indicated as much.  I encourage you to talk to councilmember Cranley to get the actual numbers of commuters between Uptown and Downtown.  Anecdotally, I ride the roads between Uptown and Downtown every day during rush hour and there just isn’t a significant amount of travel on these routes.  This indicates that the connector, standing alone, is at very best only a minor improvement to the currently planned circulator until the uptown circulator is completed. 

 

Absence of proof is not proof of absence.  Additionally, if you imposed the same criterion to the Downtown/OTR circulator you would see light travel amongst the various attractions.  Ironically, this is one of the points that Cranley raised in his series of questions regarding the downtown circulator.  The flaw in your/Cranley's logic being that if you don't provide easy, safe, and efficient transport between 2 regions then people won't travel between those regions. Metro's bus service hardly provides efficient transport throughout uptown and certainly not between downtown and uptown.  To the extent that it does provide such service, it requires a definite level of sophistication about the lines that is not readily acquired by the average citizen.

 

 

The existing studies quantify the amount of commuter traffic between those regions.  This is not an absence of proof, it is a presence of proof. 

 

As far as circulation between the attractions on the OTR/CBD circulator, I don't have in front of me any studies indicating what that level of traffic is presently, but one of the stated goals is to increase the current circulation (through neighborhood development, increasing residents, and making that very circulation easier and more convenient).  With merely a connector, and no circulator in Uptown, all you provide is a connection from a very narrow part of Uptown (wherever the terminus of the connector is).  This type of connector, absent a presently existing Uptown circulator, does nothing but provide an up to down commute, serving nowhere near the entire commuting base of the Uptown area.  Given that that base is small based upon the study numbers, how does it make sense to build this connector link as part of the first phase? 

 

The logic doesn't presume that if you don't provide easy, safe, and efficient transport between two regions that people WON'T travel between them.  It does however presume that if you provide easy, safe, and efficient transport between two regions that there will be MORE public transit travel between them, and more circulation between them in general.  Does this same logic apply to building a connector between Uptown and Downtown, well yes, it does.  But ONLY once the Uptown circulator is working and the Uptown portion of the line can serve that whole area effectively. 

^ I got thinking about this "connector" last night after reading about The Banks groundbreaking.  Maybe Qualls is simply hedging against a possible future delay with an investment in the connector.  What I mean is, perhaps she's seen enough projects in this city get endlessly delayed and is trying to make sure that we aren't breaking ground on the uptown loop 10 years from now by securing this line that will be almost totally useless without 2 loops to connect.  The logic being that even if the OTR loop is somehow disappointing, city council will likely vote to build an uptown loop to avoid looking like idiots with a connector that doesn't go anywhere.  Just a thought.

^ I got thinking about this "connector" last night after reading about The Banks groundbreaking.  Maybe Qualls is simply hedging against a possible future delay with an investment in the connector.  What I mean is, perhaps she's seen enough projects in this city get endlessly delayed and is trying to make sure that we aren't breaking ground on the uptown loop 10 years from now by securing this line that will be almost totally useless without 2 loops to connect.  The logic being that even if the OTR loop is somehow disappointing, city council will likely vote to build an uptown loop to avoid looking like idiots with a connector that doesn't go anywhere.  Just a thought.

 

That is certainly part of it given that she is saying she wants "gaurantees"(hedge)

 

My only gripe is that this is a VERY expensive guarantee/hedge.  Further, by insisting that it is studied, fully planned, funded, etc, before ANY work can commence, its even MORE expensive and delays progress on the ground where forces are already in motion.

 

If it really is a hedge (which I think is possible), then what really is needed to move forward is the sense that the CBD/OTR circulator can succeed on its own.  The only way the hedge makes sense is if there is a real fear that the first phase circulator will be an abject failure.  I don't think that fear is the least bit well grounded.

^ Totally agreed.  Personally, I don't care if they build that connector or not, provided that we don't delay the OTR loop unnecessarily.

Why am I thinking that "chance.mcgee" is a Cranley staffer?

Yeah, a staffer of one ilk or another would not be suprising to me at all.

The existing studies quantify the amount of commuter traffic between those regions.  This is not an absence of proof, it is a presence of proof. 

 

As far as circulation between the attractions on the OTR/CBD circulator, I don't have in front of me any studies indicating what that level of traffic is presently, but one of the stated goals is to increase the current circulation (through neighborhood development, increasing residents, and making that very circulation easier and more convenient).  With merely a connector, and no circulator in Uptown, all you provide is a connection from a very narrow part of Uptown (wherever the terminus of the connector is).  This type of connector, absent a presently existing Uptown circulator, does nothing but provide an up to down commute, serving nowhere near the entire commuting base of the Uptown area.  Given that that base is small based upon the study numbers, how does it make sense to build this connector link as part of the first phase? 

 

The logic doesn't presume that if you don't provide easy, safe, and efficient transport between two regions that people WON'T travel between them.  It does however presume that if you provide easy, safe, and efficient transport between two regions that there will be MORE public transit travel between them, and more circulation between them in general.  Does this same logic apply to building a connector between Uptown and Downtown, well yes, it does.  But ONLY once the Uptown circulator is working and the Uptown portion of the line can serve that whole area effectively. 

 

No one travels between Earth and Mars, therefore no wants to go Mars.  Therefore, we shouldn't explore options to improve transit between Earth and Mars.  Obviously, such an argument is flawed, because people do want to go to Mars.  Such travel just isn't easy, safe, or efficient.

 

More directly, you are contending that the data shows people don't travel between these two regions, therefore people don't want to travel between those regions.  Thus, you maintain, we should not consider the connector urgent because there is little demand.  My argument is that your interpretation the data is flawed, because where people travel is contingent upon the opportunity cost of traveling between two regions.  Right now that opportunity cost is relatively high, and that is what the data reflects.  Building a streetcar would lower the opportunity cost of such trips between these regions.

 

Jimmy_James:  I think that is exactly correct

 

John Schneider: I wish I got paid to debate massive public policy proposals. 

chance, I am not sure I am following you as you stop short of analyzing the entire risk.  Cost sure, but what of the risk of time or worse yet having the entire project turn into a no go?  Sometimes you have to get to the moon before you go to mars.

chance, I am not sure I am following you as you stop short of analyzing the entire risk.  Cost sure, but what of the risk of time or worse yet having the entire project turn into a no go?  Sometimes you have to get to the moon before you go to mars.

 

To continue the moon analogy:  We went to the moon, then stopped and let manned travel beyond the exosphere languish for 30+ years.  Now we want to go to Mars.  Unfortunately, since we let the technology lapse, we basically have to reinvent the wheel with space exploration beyond near earth orbit.  So ultimately, our failure to commit to going to Mars and going only to the moon was a colossal waste of time, money, and effort.

 

In similar fashion, if we only have a firm commitment to the downtown/OTR circulator with an understanding that we will go to uptown, well, we may just get stuck with a system that doesn't do much.  That's why it makes more sense to have a highly detailed plan upfront that secures a firm commitment to uptown. I really believe uptown and its population is key to the streetcar's success. Honestly, I believe that is where the initial segment should be built. It can be great in OTR, and OTR needs it, but I don't think it will show much return on its investment being limited to OTR. But given the reality on the ground, we need to commit to doing uptown in phase 1.

But the point is we went to the moon first, not straight to Mars.  Lets do something that is obtainable in the near term.

No, what I am saying is that we shouldn't consider the connector urgent until it can actually serve the need.  With a connector but no circulator it can at very best serve a miniscule fraction of whatever the need may be.  Further, the best proxy current need is our existing transportation studies.  Given that our current studies show little commuting traffic between uptown and downtown, if this is a "hedge" its a very expensive hedge for little return until the uptown circulator is built.

 

To use your mars analogy, is it urgent to build a mars supply base on the moon if we can't meet the "need" to get to mars yet?

 

I don't have time to fully think all of what u say through at this moment, but I also worry about the conflation of need and desire.  (Sorry, on blackberry so pls excuse abreviations and typos)

Chance: Your analogy makes no sense. His "moon" represents the initial phase. In that sense, we haven't been to the moon yet and why reinvent a perfectly good wheel that has proven to work well for other cities, especially when it's more viable? Consider this analogy: In a better world we would all be driving electric cars, but manufacturing all cars as hybrids would be a step in the right direction. We wouldn't want to let gasoline run out completely before we take start taking steps to improve efficiency, would we?

Ok I think I see where you are coming from chance. 

 

My opinion, for what little it is worth, is that an uptown circulator would be better for transportation uptown than the downtown circulator will be for transportation downtown.  I think the downtown circulator will be better for development downtown than the uptown circulator will be for development uptown.

 

I understand the need to hedge for uptown construction.  I just think the connector is a sledgehammer when we need a cobblers hammer.

 

One more round and I will let it go.  If JFk would have gotten in front of the American people and said lets go to Mars or lets say the stars then we would still be working on the project here on earth to this very day.  He set a high, yet attainable goal, and by accomplishing this goal inspired people to reach further.  Unless you think that the OTR/CBD route will be a failure, then we to will be inspired to achieve the next step and not stop until we do.  Success of phase I is the guarantee and the impetuous for phase II. And the limitation of phase I is the hedge against a possible larger failure.

Michael, what I read from his posts is that he does think cbd/otr will be a failure or at least not much of a success.  This seems to stem from skepticism about the development potential created by streetcars and a focus on the transpotation aspects of streetcars ("a system that doesn't do very much").  You and I (I think ;)) see it from the other way.

 

I've enjoyed this little back and forth...

I will let chance speak to his belief here but lets assume you are correct then why spend more on something that you believe will fail, or not achieve the desired outcome?  that would be throwing good money after bad.  This is one of the reasons you phase a project in the first place is to limit risk.  If anything, the moon/mars analogy helps clarify this.

My point exactly a several posts back... If one circulator would be a failure how will connecting it to another make it a success?  Answer - a transportation centric, instead of a development centric, view of streetcars.  It doesn't need to be an either or proposition.

 

The real beauty of streetcars? They are good at both...

 

Damn this tiny keyboard!

 

If JFk would have gotten in front of the American people and said lets go to Mars or lets say the stars then we would still be working on the project here on earth to this very day.  He set a high, yet attainable goal, and by accomplishing this goal inspired people to reach further. 

 

 

Perfectly stated.

Right, streetcars do both transit and economic development.  But the economic development portion relies on the transit being a success.  I think without uptown, the downtown will be a marginal system and will be an argument against expanding the system.  I get that it spurs economic development, but I think the spur it gives to economic development is fairly overstated.  Especially since OTR will be fully developed with or without a streetcar.  The only change that a streetcar effectuates is the timeframe.  Instead of taking 25-30 years to fully develop, it may take  15-20 years.  Meanwhile all that new development in OTR is tax abated and TIF'd all to hell, so the net increase in the tax base isn't realized for 50 years.  The only positive benefit from the tax base is going to be from the earnings tax, and I doubt that is much off of bartenders and sales associates. So there goes the economic development argument, except the potential to lure talent here.  But if we develop fully anyway, there goes that argument. So ultimately we're left with transit. Anyway, I'm rambling but my belief is that uptown is where the real need exists for the streetcar, and the real benefits. 

 

Also, to forestall the inevitable OTR wasn't built for an automobile age.  Consider, the cost of development is going require rents exceeding $1/sq.  Are you telling me that YPs who can afford that and want to live in OTR are not going to have a car? At all? And the only people that are going to check out these new venues are going to be located in OTR are going to be patronized only by OTR residents? If not, where will these folks park?  Loads of new parking is going to have to be constructed with or without the streetcar.

 

The way I see it, the benefit of the streetcar is it will allow uptown students to check out OTR w/o a car and then get them invested in the city. So, in short, as a non-OTR resident I don't see the intrinsic value of a downtown circulator w/o a connection and circulator in Uptown.  It would be like the Portland streetcar shorn of its light rail system.

^ I get the feeling from reading chance.mcgee's posts that he simply thinks that uptown is more important than downtown.  I'm making a huge assumption here, but I'm guessing that he both lives and works or lives and attends school there. 

 

I tend to have the opposite opinion, that downtown is more vital than uptown, if only because it is more centrally located in the areas that we are trying to reach via streetcar.  A downtown loop connects downtown and OTR immediately.  It also makes additional connections to the West End, the East End, NKY, and uptown a possibility as soon as the downtown loop is completed.  If the uptown loop was to go first, we'd still have to wait for a downtown loop before we can feasibly begin planning the other phases.  For expediency's sake, we have to begin with the downtown loop (with/without the uptown connector) now. 

 

We have every indication that the downtown loop will be a success.  Could an uptown loop be an even bigger success?  Maybe, but not so much bigger that we should delay the whole project while we figure that out, because we can build the downtown loop first and still do all the studying we need on the uptown loop concurrently.  It doesn't delay the uptown phase at all.  Basically, even if an uptown loop does have more potential (which I don't believe is true), that doesn't make the downtown loop any less necessary or a worse investment.  A good investment doesn't stop being good just because a potentially better investment exists.

 

If JFk would have gotten in front of the American people and said lets go to Mars or lets say the stars then we would still be working on the project here on earth to this very day.  He set a high, yet attainable goal, and by accomplishing this goal inspired people to reach further. 

 

 

Perfectly stated.

 

Bad analogy guys!  We got to the moon and realized there was nothing there, and no place to go from there, so we never went back.  Let's hope all those riders don't just go to the moon (OTR) and decide not to go back!

But the economic development portion relies on the transit being a success

 

This is true, but the economic development can and will begin well before transit is a success.  Along any proposed line.  I have already talked to many who are investing and building along the proposed circulator downtown.  Again, anecdotal evidence, but this is my perspective (I only keep qualifying with anecdotal evidence because I understand what weight anecdotal evidence has in a scientific/factual arguments - when I say this it is merely to qualify my opinion with my perception of reality, not to offer evidence in general)

 

Also, to forestall the inevitable OTR wasn't built for an automobile age.  Consider, the cost of development is going require rents exceeding $1/sq.  Are you telling me that YPs who can afford that and want to live in OTR are not going to have a car? At all? And the only people that are going to check out these new venues are going to be located in OTR are going to be patronized only by OTR residents? If not, where will these folks park?  Loads of new parking is going to have to be constructed with or without the streetcar.

 

But how MANY cars will they need to have, that is the question.  It will drastically reduce construction costs (and of course environmental impact) if the building can proceed with a < 2 cars per household presumption.  We can only really attain full development (while retaining its architectural character) of OTR, naturally conceding some new parking, if we can reduce the average cars per household to the 1  - 1.5 level.

Also, to forestall the inevitable OTR wasn't built for an automobile age.  Consider, the cost of development is going require rents exceeding $1/sq.  Are you telling me that YPs who can afford that and want to live in OTR are not going to have a car? At all? And the only people that are going to check out these new venues are going to be located in OTR are going to be patronized only by OTR residents? If not, where will these folks park?  Loads of new parking is going to have to be constructed with or without the streetcar.

 

Well, I'm a YP living in Newport, and if I didn't have to drive to Florence for work everyday, I wouldn't own a car.  Other than work, everything I do is within walking distance of my house or within reach of the SouthBank Shuttle.  If there was a streetcar in OTR and I lived there and worked downtown, there's no way that I would own a car.  But I think I'm the rarity.  The big idea is to get young couples and small families to own 1 car instead of 2.  That would be very doable for a couple that lives in an OTR condo, with at least one of them working downtown. 

 

 

Especially since OTR will be fully developed with or without a streetcar.  The only change that a streetcar effectuates is the timeframe.  Instead of taking 25-30 years to fully develop, it may take  15-20 years. 

 

OTR isn't anywhere near fully developed, and stating 25-30 years without streetcars is being very generous.  Without either an attractive form of mass transit or major demolitions & construction of parking garages, OTR cannot develop fully.  The roads and the parking physically can't handle it without one or the other.  As a fan of both rail and turn of the century architecture, I desperately hope to see streetcars return to OTR rather than see more buildings razed for parking lots.  Dense, pre-auto neighborhoods tend to thrive with mass transit and languish without it.  They simply weren't designed to have parking for every person living in every building.  So unless you have some alternative out there to driving, neighborhoods like OTR just aren't as viable as they once were.

^ I get the feeling from reading chance.mcgee's posts that he simply thinks that uptown is more important than downtown.  I'm making a huge assumption here, but I'm guessing that he both lives and works or lives and attends school there. 

 

Yeah, this is right.  It may just be that I'm biased, but from my perspective uptown is more crucial than downtown.  Until recently I lived in Clifton and the majority of my life has been connected to the uptown area.  Its entirely possible if I had more connections to downtown and OTR, I would hold the opposite view.  Not saying anyone is biased but we all tend to get how our own little piece of land works, and be blind to elsewhere. That being said, I really don't get downtown/OTR w/o uptown.  Anyway, I gotta meet some friends out in the sticks. I might be around tomorrow.

I generally have had a similar experience as chance and a pretty substantial level of alienation with OTR post-riots.

 

Fundamentally, there is a sense that downtown/OTR can't really sustain the streetcar on its own. I'm especially worried that one of our Fortune 500 HQs leave and take a few thousand workers with them. If I couldn't get Uptown, I'd still want a really close to happening Phase Two - Covington or Newport or even the East End. The scary part of the Uptown Connector is the physical issues with getting up the hill and not having the hill fall down. This isn't a problem with heading to NKY. I'd put it back on the Suspension Bridge to connect with the Stadiums and Banks. No grade issues. Unfortunately, KY has less money for this than Ohio.

 

John Schneider: I wish I got paid to debate massive public policy proposals. 

 

 

Who does get paid for doing that, besides city council members and their staffers? In which case, you are.

Worth reading, if you haven't already:

 

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,14971.msg273484.html#msg273484

Not that it matters....

 

Bad analogy guys!  We got to the moon and realized there was nothing there, and no place to go from there, so we never went back.  Let's hope all those riders don't just go to the moon (OTR) and decide not to go back!

"CNN.com has published an Associated Press article, Lunar enthusiasts promote moon as first step to Mars, which reports on the Foundation's Return to the ..."

 

Bad timing on shooting down the moon analogy yet isn't the mars analogy even worse as we have never even set foot on it even after 40 years of space exploration?

Response from Crowley's office.  It was sent via email so in the end, who knows if it was all read or considered.

 

Thank you very much for providing your detailed comments in support of the streetcar. As you indicated I am a supporter of the streetcar. Presently Council is in the process of working through many serious issues regarding the financing plan and the initial scope of the route. As we continue our discussions I will certainly keep your support in mind.

 

David

 

I sent an email to him today and got the same reply 

 

Bad timing on shooting down the moon analogy yet isn't the mars analogy even worse as we have never even set foot on it even after 40 years of space exploration?

 

Yeah, but they aren't going to do it with the Apollo lunar mudules that they used 40 years ago!!

Yeah, this is right.  It may just be that I'm biased, but from my perspective uptown is more crucial than downtown.  Until recently I lived in Clifton and the majority of my life has been connected to the uptown area.  Its entirely possible if I had more connections to downtown and OTR, I would hold the opposite view. 

 

Cool.  Glad to hear I didn't unfairly characterize you.  Didn't mean to imply bias, it just seemed like that was where you were coming from, that's all.