Hot News!
• Bearman Cartoon: Freestore Foodbank Blogger Challenge
Contact Us
v mail, fax: (214) 481-6464
e mail: click here
On today's date in The Beacon archives, we published:
•Lobbyists Hack Your Elections: The OEJC Calls for Voting Systems Recall, Return, and Refund, Part I (2007)•Trickle Down Justice (2007)
•Coming this week: Buy Nothing Day! (and Boycott MTV) (2007)
•Updates on the BOE “Situation” (2007)
•UC Student Groups March to President Nancy Zimpher (2006)
Events
 |
|
|
Saturday, October 13, 2007
A Streetcar Named Boondoggle
Posted by Michael Earl Patton
A few days ago I took the opportunity to see the presentation at City Hall for the proposed new streetcar line from Fountain Square to Findlay Market and back. The line was hyped as being a catalyst for growth, and the backers estimated strong growth here based on five other cities. The projected cost was $84 million to $102 million, depending upon if construction were to start now or in a couple years. Examination of the data showed that the hyperbole was like that of a circus barker and the cost was extreme.
Here are the data, as given on a chart at the presentation, of the number of new housing units that were developed because of a new streetcar line. These housing units are within a certain distance of the new line, and not just anyplace within the city.
Portland (Oregon): 1,500 new housing units/yr
Tampa: 175/yr
Little Rock: 216/yr
Tacoma: 206/yr
Kenosha: 68/yr
Cincinnati (estimated): 314/yr
One wonders why the cities chosen are all far from Cincinnati. Why wasn’t there a comparison with, for example, Memphis, with its streetcar line? Note also that Portland stands way above every other city and pulls up the whole average. Is there something other than a new streetcar line that may explain this?
PORTLAND
Actually, there is. Portland is known for its restrictions on sprawl. Even before the streetcar, Portland was praised for increasing its urban density because of Urban Growth Boundaries, beyond which housing development was tightly restricted. So people built new housing in Portland because there were few other options.
From U.S. Census Bureau data (http://www.census.gov) we see solid growth during the ‘90’s, that is before the streetcar line was built. The density, that is, the number of people living in the city per square mile, went up by a robust 12%.
1990: 3,508.1 people per square mile
2000: 3,939.2 per square mile
This means tens of thousands of people were already coming to Portland, looking for a place to live. They did not come to Portland because of the streetcar—they had been coming for years before the streetcar line was completed in 2001. At best one can claim that they came to the area served by the streetcar line instead of some other area. But they probably would have come to Portland in any event.
Cincinnati is different. It is losing population. More people are leaving than coming. There are plenty of places on the market for newcomers.
So if Portland were removed, then the chart would look like this:
Tampa: 175 new housing units/yr
Little Rock: 216/yr
Tacoma: 206/yr
Kenosha: 68/yr
Cincinnati: 314/yr
What a minute! How can the estimate for Cincinnati be so much above all the other cities? 314 new housing units per year? The average of the above cities is only 166, about half as much. Except for Kenosha, the systems all cover about the same area (some have single-track lines, but the area covered is still about the same), so that doesn’t explain the difference.
LITTLE ROCK
The next most “successful” city is Little Rock, which completed a system in 2004. Their system cost $20 million for a 2-mile line in 2003; the proposed Cincinnati system will cost about $100 million for a 4-mile line. Their cars cost $750,000 each; ours will cost $3.5 million each. It is also noteworthy that their system crosses the Arkansas River to connect Little Rock with North Little Rock.
Another thing worth noting about the Little Rock streetcar system is that a short extension, built after the initial system was constructed, goes to the Clinton Presidential Library. This library cost $168 million, opened in 2004 (the year after the streetcar line opened), and is a tourist attraction in its own right. The streetcar did not cause the presidential library to locate in Little Rock—if anything, it was the other way around. Once again, the comparison is between apples and oranges.
Although Little Rock had been growing in population during the 1990’s, it had accomplished this by annexation of surrounding areas. The population density had been going down. From U.S. Census Bureau data:
1990: 1709.1 people per square mile
2000: 1576.0 per square mile
Of the examples given, Little Rock probably comes the closest to Cincinnati. It is these two that have been experiencing urban flight. Both are separated from another urban area by a major river.
But Little Rock built its system to connect the area across the river, quite unlike the Cincinnati plan. It also cost much, much less than the Cincinnati proposal. Finally, growth may have been the result of the Presidential Library, not the streetcar.
TACOMA
The next most “successful” story is Tacoma, Washington. Unlike Cincinnati, Tacoma’s population has been growing. Here are the recent population density data:
1990: 3676.9 people per sq. mile
2000: 3864.9 per sq. mile
Tacoma’s streetcar line opened in 2003. Lots of growth was happening in Tacoma even before the streetcar opened, and it is too much to say that the streetcar line caused the growth. Another difference between Tacoma and Cincinnati is that their line connects several destinations that have a high number of visitors and users: the commuter rail station with the Tacoma campus of the University of Washington, the museum district, and the theater district.
A final difference is that the Tacoma line isn’t really a streetcar line, but a light rail line. It has fewer stops per mile and is more like a train than a streetcar.
TAMPA
The NEXT most successful city is Tampa. Here, too, the city had been enjoying solid growth before the streetcar service started.
1990: 2576.6 people per square mile
2000: 2707.8 per square mile
The Tampa streetcar service started in 2002. Given the fact that there was solid growth in the decade before, it is too much to attribute further growth to the streetcar. It probably would have happened anyways. But two things to note: 1) 62% of the capital costs (track, construction, and cars) were funded by the state and federal government, NOT by local taxpayers, and 2) the hours of operation start at 9 o’clock in the morning or even later, which means that this is a streetcar line for tourists.
(An officer of the court told me recently that he’s heard a saying from some of the inmates: “You enter Cincinnati on vacation and leave on probation.” It’s not likely that Cincinnati will grow its tourist industry anytime soon.)
KENOSHA
The claim for Kenosha, Wisconsin, was an improvement of only 68 housing units per year. That is due to the Harbor Park development that was planned in conjunction with the streetcar line. In other words, the streetcar line did not cause the development of the housing units—they were planned before the streetcar line was built.
There are other things to note about it. The Kenosha system was built for much less than the others , even adjusting for inflation and its shorter length. It also has its own right-of-way for much of its length so it does not compete with traffic there. The proposed Cincinnati line would run completely in the street and partially block traffic every time it stopped to pick up or drop off passengers. Finally, most of the capital costs were funded by the state and federal government.
CONCLUSIONS
The examples given by the streetcar proponents are not evidence that the proposed line from Fountain Square to Findlay Market will spur development. In 3 of the 5 cases cited the cities had strong growth even before the streetcar line was installed.
In Kenosha, Wisconsin, the streetcar line was installed in conjunction with a large development. It also cost far less than Cincinnati’s line would, even adjusting for inflation.
In Little Rock, perhaps the closest to Cincinnati’s situation, the streetcar line was built while the Clinton Presidential Library was being designed and built. Further, the line connects two downtown areas across the Arkansas River from each other. It goes to a convention center and the library. A similar line in Cincinnati would connect the Kentucky entertainment district with Cincinnati’s Fountain Square and perhaps the Red Stadium and the Convention Center. Which is totally different that the line being proposed. The
Little Rock line also cost far less than the Cincinnati line would.
Conclusion: the streetcar line as proposed should be called the Boondoggle Line.
• Share This Article!
Listen to this article
|  |
Register
Anonymous comments are allowed, but you can create an account above to stamp your name and to avoid typing the anti-spam code.
If you are not familiar with our rules for leaving comments, click here! The Cincinnati Beacon is not responsible for the contents of any comments. Comments do not represent the views of the moderators of The Cincinnati Beacon.
14 Oct 2007 at 06:47 am | #
MEP Rocks!
You did a lot of research within a few days. When I first read about the proposal I thought it seemed too expensive for a commuter line. Your analysis of the streetcar proposal is brief but thourough, addressing alternate explanations for the claims made. On a side note, dont we still have the Downtowner buses that run for like 25 cents? Surely the Downtowners could expand their route to Finley if necessary, costing the city a lot less than $100 million. If council is not able to critically think through this proposal and see it is nothing but BS, then they all need to go back to Jr. High and start over.
14 Oct 2007 at 07:58 am | #
Simple, the 3CDC needs the $ they’ll get in kickbacks in the 2.75 million for each streetcar.
14 Oct 2007 at 08:01 am | #
This is public transportation for the 3CDC and Towne Properties condo development project. Who owns the majority of properties on the streetcar line? The whores giving our city away in exchange for campaign cash are disgusting. The Boondoggle line needs to go to Great American Ballpark, Paul Brown Stadium, The Purple Bridge, Convention Center and Fountain Square for a start and to complete the circuit should include the Slave Center. This mass transportation “Big Fix” serves 4% of Cincinnati’s 52 neighborhoods. This is more public money going to private pockets. I object.
14 Oct 2007 at 10:26 am | #
First of all, I don’t know why anybody would want to live near a presidential library.
It is too late, now, to do anything about the conspiracy of auto manufacturers, oil & rubber companies that resulted in the dismantling of our rail systems. A good metropolitan transit system can greatly benefit our town, however, by helping people get around without burdening them with the expense of individual automobile ownership, insurance & maintenance costs.
A dedicated transit system connecting the entire downtown area is a good idea. I did not attend the last meeting. The last route I saw recommended went from the riverfront (and proposed Banks) to McMicken.
MEP, I don’t know why you would want to invest local tax money into sending Ohio dollars to Kentucky and subsidize the millionaire’s sports complexes.
The proposed streetcar line is primarily for residents - not tourists & entertainment purposes.
People are already moving into the area that would be served by the proposed streetcar line.
Having improved, dedicated transit through the area would help to offset the cost of development, in OTR particularly, by eliminating the necessity of $10,000 - $16,000 parking spaces that would also destroy the ambience of the OTR region.
It would also relieve the area businesses of having to provide a lot of expensive parking spaces for employees and customers.
It would provide people with easy car-free access to the larger neighborhood of “Downtown” from the Banks through the CBD & up through OTR.
The bus designs are terrible for wheelchairs, walkers, baby carriages, granny carts, blind people and, really, anybody over 5’6”. The streetcar designs are much better for this.
A dedicated busline on the proposed route would make more sense but the bus should be designed more like the streetcar (not the dumb buses that look like old trolley cars). The short dedicated route would avoid delays that occur on longer routes.
The investment in the new tech doesn’t make sense compared to just using the old tech and redesigning the layout of the buses to accommodate wheelchairs, walkers, baby carriages, granny carts & such.
Streetcars only follow short routes, necessitating frequent, time consuming layovers (that are very inconvenient in inclement weather). Extensive bus support would still be needed. Why not just invest more intelligently in buses ?
The region of the proposed route is not large & relatively flat. We could promote bicycle usage in the area with better, more secure bicycle parking. Putting tracks in the road will make bicycle riding more difficult if not more dangerous. remember that this area is extensively patrolled by bicycle mounted police.
A monorail over the river connecting Cinti & NKY entertainment centers would be cool. Jungle Jim ?
14 Oct 2007 at 12:09 pm | #
This is ludicrous! instead of spending millions of dollars to tear up our streets, in order to install rails for a streetcar, that will only travel from fountain square to Finlay Market. Why not purchase the same style of streetcar that runs on wheels instead of tracks. This will save us millions of dollars in construction cost, for tearing up the streets to install rails. That type of streetcar can be driven anywhere, just like our current public transportation.
14 Oct 2007 at 02:24 pm | #
This came up during the presentation, and the response was that bicycle riders are intelligent enough to avoid streetcar tracks. They emphasized that the streetcar rails are easy to cross with a bike, but of course, it can trap a bicycle wheel pretty easily if one is riding in the same lane as a streetcar. I saw their answer as being rather flip since the question has to do with safety. They were making the street less safe for bicyclists, yet they didn’t care.
They also said that motorists won’t mind being stuck behind a streetcar as it loads and unloads passengers. Unlike busses and streetcars in at least some other cities, the proposed line would have the streetcars go down a traffic lane. They would not pull over, as do busses, to load and unload passengers. The streetcar stops would have “bump-outs” where the curb would be extended to the streetcar line.
I and at least one other person suggested that one uses trolley busses, as in Dayton. This suggestion was met with derision, saying that it would be too easy to change a trolley bus route, unlike a streetcar route where the tracks would actually have to be relaid. Seriously, this was the prime objection. One of the claims for the streetcar line is that it would force the city to commit to the area of the line. If the streetcar line fails, then the city would have to try something else rather than write off its investment. As Anon #3 stated, this seems to benefit certain favored real estate developers.
A trolley bus line is much cheaper than a streetcar line. It looks like no one has put in a trolley bus line in this country in decades, although I did read San Francisco is considering changing some of its diesel bus routes to trolley busses. The reason is that they are much, much quieter than diesel busses and far less polluting. I couldn’t find any information on their noise compared to streetcars, but I remember streetcars as making metal-to-metal contact noise (wheel on rail), unlike trolley busses. Another advantage is that trolley busses DO pull over to the side as they load and unload passengers. And, if there is a small obstruction in the road, they can go around it.
14 Oct 2007 at 04:53 pm | #
Michael,
Please stop making sense. Our new condo dwellers need this service so they will not have to walk a few blocks to get fresh produce. We can let them have a $100 Million for the project because they are civic leaders. The fact that it serves only 4% of Cincinnati neighborhoods and that Councilmember Bortz’s family will benefit greatly has nothing to do with this “Big Fix’ scheme. 3CDC has representative government but the people don’t.
14 Oct 2007 at 07:05 pm | #
We should be looking at trolley busses as another possible option. I believe we should have all of our options on the table whenever we talk about a project that is as expensive as this one is.
We need better transportation ASAP, but why rush into the first plan without shopping around for the best bang for our buck?
Increasingly people are using biodiesel, grease cars and even vegetable oil as greener alternatives to electric cars. (Some are getting free fuel from local restaurants that normally have to pay to get rid of their cooking oil. That’s great for the economy and the environment.)
We don’t see the pollution coming out of a tail pipe, but coal is used to create our electricity and it isn’t as environmentally friendly as these alternatives. We should be looking to produce and support new green industries here for a lot of reasons.
I think flexibility in the transportation system is a positive thing. If trolley cars on wheels can move people around more efficiently, inexpensively and more sustainably then that’s what we should do. We’ve certainly got to get more creative about the way we move people around this city.
14 Oct 2007 at 09:13 pm | #
Gee, I did I imply that I WANT to do that? I’ll have to be more clear next time.
Anyways, the millionaire sports complexes are there. I voted against them, but not enough of us did. And I did not name a certain complex that is used only about 10 times a year.
My point was that the Little Rock streetcar line was laid out completely differently than the proposed line for Cincinnati. Economics aside for a moment, a streetcar line connecting the entertainment district in Northern Kentucky with the Reds stadium (it’s on the way to the other stuff), Fountain Square, downtown hotels, and the Convention Center actually would make some kind of sense. Conventioners to the city would be the first to give up a car if they didn’t need one, and walking to Northern Kentucky is a bit too far. If the line were to be done, I would expect Northern Kentucky to pay their share. They would have the entertainment area, and Cincinnati would have the hotel and convention center. Both sides would gain from increased visitor traffic.
The line would also come into use during various festivals and parties in the park, such as the Cincinnati Oktoberfest and the later one in Kentucky. It would help play up the riverfront on both sides of the Ohio. It is a huge asset, and we don’t make enough of it.
As for cost, it seems from the examples that federal and state funding is available. The line described above would be more difficult in that it involves two states, but I don’t see why it couldn’t be done. After all, from a funding standpoint this may be the perfect time. The I-71/75 bridge is going to be replaced and/or supplemented, and that project involves similar cooperation but on a much huger scale. Maybe the streetcar—or trolley—project could be done in parallel to it.
But I really don’t expect that this concept will go anywhere. I only made it to point out the differences between hype and what was actually done elsewhere.
16 Oct 2007 at 09:39 pm | #
From this article
Not an expert on what a downtown special assessment district. Is that just a fancy term for tax dollars? Which in general I am fine with but wasn’t the reason the film commission’s funding was cut was b/c there was a belief that it didn’t sustain itself even though it too consistently had a positive ROI.
Guess I’ll have to wait for more info to be released on specifics before I come down either way but suprising there isn’t more on the website of those proposing this.
17 Oct 2007 at 01:05 pm | #
Gee, I felt like I was the only one in the city that had sense enought to ask questions about this proposal and research to find out exactly what the people selling this idea are not telling us. I took on some people from another blog that supposedly had a working history and knowledge of this, and they felt it more necessary to attack my character and integrity rather than answer my questions even though I backed my research up. I have spent a great deal of time researching this because as a planner, I knew the general public wasn’t getting all of the facts, just enough to make us think its a great deal in case it comes to a vote.
Portland’s streetcar runs at a yearly deficit according to both the TriMet and Metro departments of Portland. What I do not understand is how Cincinnati Council Members believe that a system the same size as Portland’s that will cost closer to 2.7 million yearly to run (Portland’s current Operational costs) will be a success here when we have almost exactly half the population for ridership and none of the economic development in place that Portland had before the line opened in 2001? (That economic base came from a $6 billion shot in the arm with its Max light rail system as well as some substantial land annexes that made up the city within the Urban Growth Boundary. Portland also averages about 8500 people per day (M-F) on the line, the last estimates I saw for Cincinnati ridership was about half of that.
Also, I am not sure who will be riding this and for what purpose? Portland also had a very safe and walk-able environment in place around the entire line, and it was mainly in-fill economics that the system has provided. This is a transportation system for people already in place, not an end all tool for economic development that is being reported.
They also keep saying how much parking space this will eliminate, have they forgotten that the majority of workers downtown do not live there? Where are they planning on moving all commuter the parking to?
Also, the price to ride the streetcar in Portland is $1 outside the Central Business District - remember they run at a deficit, yet our proposed fares will be .50?
Lastly, claims that this will develop Over the Rhine are ludicrous. Portland’s Pearl District (supposedly similar to OTR - but actually a warehouse district more like our Brewery Distrct), was developed before the line opened. Other things contributed to that which I can go into later if necessary, not the streetcar.
I would suggest that anyone that can show up at the Cintas Center at Xavier Saturday November 3 from 9 - 12 and start asking these tough questions. At one of the Econ Dev Committee meetings I attended last spring, all I heard was the words making a legacy for ourselves tossed around. Well folks, I am not convinced that a $102 million flop is a legacy I want to deal with as a citizen in Cincinnati, especially given our track rer\cord for successful devleopment.
BRAVO Michael Patton, you are dead on with your summations. There is a reason why so many are keeping mum/neutral on the topic. On the flip side, I am not sure how any returns on investment are made from this when there is no economic base to support it to begin with.
17 Oct 2007 at 06:11 pm | #
The only “economic boon” will be to the developers and corporations who get a “piece of the action” from 3CDC. Does the $102 million include the kickbacks?
18 Oct 2007 at 07:38 am | #
I am sure that the $102 million is an estimated total cost for the initial line condsidering the total costs of Portland’s line, although I haven’t seen a line item cost sheet or proforma. I am also sure that a portion of the line is supposed to be paid for thru additional taxes on the existing businesses along the line. However, if the building is empty, where will the additional money come from?
It is amusing that 3CDC and Towne have a boatload of empty space along the proposed first route, plus their obvious silence on the project. I believe that they might be attempting to bring more people in with this streetcar by offering a smart new transport system around town, the trouble with this scenario is that many people cannot afford the upscale pricing of these condos. I also believe that Councilman Bortz needs to exclude himself on any vote on this because of what looks like an obvious conflict of interest regarding his/family history with Towne.
What we have here is a classical catch twenty-two.....we need the people for the streetcar for it to be successful, we need more affordable housing to get the people. In the meantime we are treading water. Until this scenario is resolved there will be no “boon” to anyone. We simply have too much work to do first to make this proposal anywhere near a success.
18 Oct 2007 at 08:59 am | #
Cheryl0047;
Could you provide a link to this other site where they attacked your character and refused to answer your questions? I really want to see the details of this prosal hashed out in more detail. Thanks.
18 Oct 2007 at 11:36 am | #
Comment number 12 makes absolutely no sense.
You imply that the central business district and Over the Rhine are owned by 3CDC. So you don’t think that businesses like the Findaly Market will benefit from the streetcar? You don’t think that there will be any additional investment along the line? You don’t think that this will be a tool to improve the livability of the CBD and OTR?
The author of that comment needs to seriously educate his/herself.
18 Oct 2007 at 11:55 am | #
Cheryl, could you link to the comments you are talking about on the other site. I am interested in getting detailedd arguments from all sides. Thanks.
18 Oct 2007 at 12:47 pm | #
Actually, Michael has been selective with the facts. I am sure since he obviously did his homework on streetcars, Michael knows (but doesn’t mention) that the Little Rock, Kenosha and Tampa streetcars are historic streetcars quite unlike that modern streetcars being proposed for the city of Cincinnati. Not only does this explain the difference in cost, but also the difference in potential. Modern streetcars have much greater capacities and amenities compared with the streetcars of old. Furthermore, the areas being serviced by the Cincinnati plan have more potential, and in many cases more current density and development opportunities than the lines of these other smaller cities.
As for trolley cars, all economic and ridership studies have shown a relative failure (as opposed to a relative success for all all current streetcar systems). They are not streetcars, and do not carry the potential economic benefits that streetcars do. The worst performing streetcar system in the US still experiences approximately an economic impact nine times larger than the initial cost. I think we have the potential to do better than Little Rock, Tampa and Kenosha.
18 Oct 2007 at 09:53 pm | #
Sean,
You are right. We have the potential but with a condo developer in charge of economic development all we get is condos and a toy trolley to make him richer. Way to go Chris. Show your true colors, shmuck
18 Oct 2007 at 10:11 pm | #
Mark Allen/scprideandms: As you don’t live in Cincinnati, you don’t even live in Ohio-you live in Alexandria, KY-why are you even on this topic? I love how all of these people who don’t live here keep chiming in on things which are none of there damm business.
Cheryl D. Crowell, Portland’s system is much larger than Cincinnati’s proposed system, so it’s not really an accurate comparison. Here’s the thread that Cheryl D. Crowell referred to.
18 Oct 2007 at 10:30 pm | #
Yes, I was aware of it, and also thought it was irrelevant. But I did provide links to descriptions of the oher streetcar systems for people who wanted to know more.
First, the streetcar proponents say they are inspired by the Little Rock, Kenosha, and Tampa systems. That was their choice of cities, not mine. The only city that used modern streetcars in the list given was Portland (Tacoma actually uses light rail). As I and Cheryl0047 noted, Portland does not compare at all to the Cincinnati situation. One major reason is that Oregon restricts development outside the Urban Growth Boundaries.
Second, why would anyone need a high capacity streetcar to go from Fountain Square to Findlay Market? Even the proponents admit that their primary aim is to grow the market.
Third, the trip is short, which implies that the capacity needed would be smaller. One doesn’t use a Jumbo Jet to fly from Cincinnati to Dayton.
Fourth, I have ridden in a lot of different streetcars, of all different ages. We are talking a 2-mile trip, max. Don’t oversell the amenities. This isn’t a trans-Atlantic flight.
Fifth, if Sean has indeed done his work, he would have seen that there is a ready market for used streetcars. That means that Cincinnati could start out with cars that cost a small fraction of those proposed and upgrade once the traffic develops—if it develops.
Sixth, planning for a city transportation system should be based on estimates grounded on real examples, not just “feel-good” characteristics. This should be completely different than shopping for a sports car. Unfortunately, from here it looks like the city is behaving like it is shopping for a new sports car.
18 Oct 2007 at 10:42 pm | #
Please provide links to information on U.S. cities that have invested in new trolley bus lines over the last few decades. I searched, but could not find one. All I could find was a description that San Francisco was considering replacing some diesel bus routes with trolleys. And, of course, some descriptions of existing lines.
This business of streetcars partially blocking traffic while they load and unload should not be underestimated. Just ask a few drivers how they would feel about waiting for a minute or so. It’s not always possible to go around, as experience with downtown busses quickly shows. The busses there cannot always pull over because of some other bus, from a different line, at the bus stop. Now imagine that bus blocking traffic EVERY TIME.
Streetcar lines CAN, of course, be designed so that they do not block traffic at streetcar stops. But the Cincinnati proposal does not do that.
19 Oct 2007 at 07:13 am | #
to Michael Earl Patton:
It really sounds like you are reaching in your arguments. I have not seen you dispute the economic impact that the streetcar would create. You are worried about bicycles getting stuck and traffic congestion. Bicycles and traffic! The streetcar is public transportation, which has the potential to reduce traffic congestion.
The streetcar will generate investment because it is fixed. When a transportation system rides on rails, there is no doubt where it runs, unlike the complicated bus system that we currently use. More importantly, the city is finally showing a concrete commitment to a neighborhood that unlimited potential. This is the type of investment that is necessary to spur future development. Over the Rhine is already changing and the streetcar will push the neighborhood over the edge.
Look at the big picture instead of picking at certain (largely) insignificant facts to try to get elected to council. Your approach makes you sound childish and it is clearly politically motivated.
19 Oct 2007 at 07:24 am | #
Mark Allen/scprideandms: As you don’t live in Cincinnati, you don’t even live in Ohio-you live in Alexandria, KY-why are you even on this topic? I love how all of these people who don’t live here keep chiming in on things which are none of there damm business.
You are right I don’t have the right to voice my opinion in a city where I don’t live (but do spend 10 hrs a day in if onlyt for my paying job and mission work), so I’ll stay out of it from now on and leave the big issues to residents.
19 Oct 2007 at 10:04 am | #
The other site is Urbanohio.com, you’ll have to type in Cincinnati Streetcar which will bring up 47 pages of dialog on it. My responses and arguments are on pgs 46-47.
I was also told right off the bat from someone on that site that Portland measures it’s system differently, therefore the Cincinnati system was the same size as Portland’s, unless I read it wrong. I have not found any info so far that backs this up.
In answer to the Findlay Market scenario. People will ride the system as long as they feel safe to do so. I am not sure that the numbers of people living downtown and traveling to Findlay market is substantial enough to warrant a streetcar. If anyone has ridden the Portland streetcar at high traffic time, one would realize that convenience is not in the cards. I walked back to the CBD faster than the streetcar got there one afternoon.
Also, the streetcars being proposed for Cincinnati do not climb grades steeper than 6%, most grades up our hills are about 12%. So other cars will have to be used in the long run and what does this mean after we have spent $102 million for the infrastructure of the sleek quiet models being proposed?
My Questions:
1) The numbers regarding returns on investment in the Streetcar Proposal seem to be based on the dynamics of the City of Portland. While they look impressive what are the numbers based on the City of Cincinnati as it stands today? In other words, if we were to invest $102 million in this project right now, what is the bottom line return in this city as it stands today without any additional economic base? These numbers would indicate the worse case scenario and can we maintain a successful system if things do not change at all?
2) What is the target rider-ship for the Cincinnati Streetcar and where are we primarily transporting them to and from? Does the Streetcar Proposal meet a need that is currently not being met and if so, what are the indications of this?
3) What will be the motivation to get people out of other modes of transportation and onto the streetcar in the first place given that Cincinnati currently does not have the rider-ship base that Portland had to begin with, or an established wealth of economic base, as well as safety and walk-ability issues still representing challenges.
4) What will make this mode of transportation more convenient than others currently available given the dynamics present today in downtown Cincinnati?
5) Is there a Plan B? Can we perhaps initiate a route that will address the above issues on a smaller scale first that could be a resounding success and then add other routes? By initiating a smaller scale system that could transport people to and from the places they are already going could it then initiate enough economic base infill along that line to offer both proof of success and the positive force that could open and spotlight opportunities for other routes?
Portland Streetcar History*
The City of Portland, Oregon is noted for the dramatic revitalization of its downtown core.
In the 1960s, Portland, like many other cities throughout the U.S., was threatened by loss of residents, businesses and capital. Suburban housing developments, shopping areas, and business parks were draining the vitality from the city center.
Today, however, Portland’s central city is one of the most admired in North America. Many things contributed to this turnaround, but
one key factor was an emphasis on transit and cooperative planning for transportation and land uses.
Some examples of changes in the 60s and 70s that led to Portland’s status as a highly livable city are:
• Establishment of TriMet, a public regional transit agency with new buses and a 12-block downtown transit mall
• Elimination of a freeway along the Willamette River where a popular public park now sits
• A decision not to build a freeway that would have destroyed housing in established Portland neighborhoods, and
• State and local support for MAX, the regional light rail service which now links suburban communities more than 33 miles apart to each other as well as to downtown Portland. A 5.5-mile spur to the Portland International Airport opened in fall of 2001 and a 5.8-mile spur opened north to EXPO in May 2004..
The Portland Streetcar system is one more important transportation decision that has enhanced Portland’s vitality while helping the city accommodate new residential and business growth.
*(http://www.portlandtransport.com)
The following charts were put together from several documents. Several sites are listed below regarding this information. I apologize that my charts didn’t copy properly.
CBD Demographics Portland Cincinnati
Population
1990 9,528 3,838
2000 12,902 3,189 (count challenged)
2006 20,000 estimated 7,784
City Center
Square Miles 1.8(Fareless Square Area) .8
Racial Comp,
African American/Caucasian 90/10 50/50
Occupancy Rates 89% 87.5%
Condos 828 423
Rental 7,327 3,718
Median Income $67,900 $29,554
Median Housing Rate $201,000 $121,000
Median Gross Rent $696 $524
Initial Streetcar Investment
Miles of Track 2.4 3.9 proposed
Cost $56.9 Million $102 Million proposed
Yearly Operations Cost $2.7 Million $2.0 - $2.8 Million
Operations Funding:
Tri Met $1.6 Million ???
Parking Meter Revenue $.8 Million ???
Sponsorship/Fares/Promos$.3 Million ???
Fares All Zones: $2. Zone 1-3: $1,
Free on the Square $1.50, $2.50
(Bus, Max, Streetcar) $1 on the Square
$.50 Riverfront
Parking Shuttle
(Bus)
City Portland Cincinnati
Population 1990 437,319 364,040
1997 503,760 340,311
2000 529,121 331,285
2006 539,950 302,610
Household Units 1990 198,308 169,012
2000 237,307 166,012
2006 251,348 166,591
Owner Occupied 1990 99,206 59,172
2000 124,767 57,715
2006 134,101 55,442
Renter Occupied 1990 88,062 95,170
2000 98,970 90,380
2006 100,830 75,617
Median Home Value
1990 $59,200 $61,900
2000 $154,900 $93,000
2006 $266,800 $123,800
Time Line of Events in Portland:
1971 – 1980; Considerable Land Annexation
1973 Portland adopted land use planning laws that:
1) Set urban growth boundaries
2) Encouraged wise use of urban land
3) Protected natural resources
Coordination of three levels of planning:
State, Regional and City
1978 Initiated plans for Max Light Rail system, which has poured $6 Billion of development revenues into the region along its lines to date.
1980 Demolished and relocated I-405 Ramp from abandoned warehouse/ light industry district north of downtown Portland, opening an opportunity for development. This area is now known as the Pearl District.
Local artists began filtering into the low rent area for loft style studio space
1981 – 1990; Considerable Land Annexation
1986 First MAX Light Rail line opens.
1990 Portland and Suburbs become more economically integrated when apartment expansion set in place by the Metropolitan Housing Rule allows low income residents, formerly concentrated in the central city, freedom of choice to live wherever they want.
Feasibility Study initiated for Streetcar Line in Downtown Portland
1991 – Present; Considerable Land Annexation
1994 Hoyt Street Properties bought 34 acres in the Pearl District for mixed-use development.
2000 Brewery Development Company purchases five blocks in the Pearl District for redevelopment.
2001 First Streetcar Line opened for transport
Cincinnati Downtown Residents Council Meetings and 2006 City Report
City of Portland Annexation Map, Planning Bureau
Downtown Cincinnati, Incorporated City Reports
Portland Metro Meetings
Portland Planning Commission Document Library
Portland Regional Planning Commission Document Library
http://cagis.hamilton.com
http://www.census.gov
http://www.cincinnatichamber.com
http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov
http://www.cincyusa.com
http://www.downtowncincinnati.com
http://www.hamiltoncountyauditor.gov
http://www.ilivedowntown.com
http://www.metro-region.org
http://www.portlandonline.com
http://www.portlandtransport.com
http://www.sorta.com
http://www.trimet.org
19 Oct 2007 at 10:10 am | #
”..3CDC and Towne have a boatload of empty space along the proposed first route,...they might be attempting to bring more people in with this ...many people cannot afford the upscale pricing of these condos.... Bortz needs to exclude himself on any vote on this because of...conflict of interest ... “
I don’t think Towne owns any vacant property downtown/OTR, nor do they own anything within a block or two of the proposed initial route. If I am wrong, let me know.
19 Oct 2007 at 12:11 pm | #
Why does it take hours for a post to show up on this blog?
19 Oct 2007 at 02:53 pm | #
"Sixth, planning for a city transportation system should be based on estimates grounded on real examples, not just “feel-good” characteristics. This should be completely different than shopping for a sports car. Unfortunately, from here it looks like the city is behaving like it is shopping for a new sports car.”
Unfortunately, mass transit is going head to head with new sports cars. No one will ride it if we cannot match the cleanliness/comfort and “new” feeling. Furthermore, our terrain calls for a modern system if we ever hope to go up the hill and get the thousands of people working and going to school at UC, Children’s, University, etc.
Even throwing the Portland system out, I just have to ask myself - Would a FIXED public transit system running through the heart of the city, bringing a greater ability for car-free urban living be better for the city, employers, and the environment? I say yes, but that is just my opinion. It’s about time we did something to get people out of their cars and into our beautiful urban core.
19 Oct 2007 at 03:28 pm | #
Q: Why does it take hours for a post to show up on this blog?
A: Because they don’t want a real debate, or they are afraid that someone is going to make fun of Justin Jeffre.
Cheryl,
Your research shows very little except that Cincinnati is NOT Portland. We know that. Streetcars have been used successfully in Cincinnati before and they will be used again.
Let me address your concerns:
1) Cincinnati is not Portland. Transportation projects are meant to spur investment, they are not themselves revenue generators. The revenue generated will be from increased property value, investment, and tourism NOT from ride fares.
2) The riders are the residents in the lower bowl. Residents in the CBD and the greater CBD will be connected to Findlay Market, the CBD, and the riverfront. There is demand from the current residents that will be filled. There is also a tremendous opportunity to spur development in the long neglected Over-the-Rhine.
3) There is no current downtown shuttle loop that residents and tourists can use. This is the niche.
4) It is a fixed asset with a fixed route. It will not change. This investment will spur development along the route because it is not flexible. Also, there is currently no Over-the-Rhine - CBD - Riverfront bus loops!
5) This is the small scale. Other neighborhoods have been clamoring for a streetcar since the time of proposal. UC President Nancy Zimpher publicly stated that she wants a streetcar to run to the university. There have been rumblings of reconstructing the Price Hill Incline for an incline district. Both Newport and Covington residents have begun preliminary planning of their own. This is the beginning!
19 Oct 2007 at 03:45 pm | #
What? I am disputing the economic impact. When I went to city Hall to hear the presentation and talk to Michael Moore, I kept hearing about how streetcars had caused growth in Portland, Tampa, Tacoma, Little Rock, and Kenosha. I wrote this column challenging those assertions. The one exception I allowed was possibly Little Rock, which was the only city of the five that was also experiencing urban flight. But even in Little Rock there is a possible alternate explanation, and in any event its streetcar line is nothing like the one proposed for Cincinnati.
So, there are no examples for a streetcar line that could be used as justification for a $102 million investment. Cincinnati would be doing this without any evidence that it would, in fact, work.
There are many other possibilities that were dimissed out of hand—one of them was trolley busses. Backers of the streetcar just pooh-pooh the traps for bicycles the tracks create or the fact that they partially block traffic every time they stop to pick up or discharge passengers.
Cheryl0047 has done a lot of research on Portland and streetcars, e.g., “Also, the streetcars being proposed for Cincinnati do not climb grades steeper than 6%, most grades up our hills are about 12%.” This is huge challenge. How can anyone propose a streetcar line to Uptown if it can’t climb the grade (Cheryl, would a trolley bus be able to make this grade? My guess is that it would.)
But just to make things clear, I am not saying trolley busses are the answer. First the question has to be framed. Several, even many, possible solutions must be examined. With streetcars one jumped to the answer based just on “feel-good” sentiments.
I keep bringing up trolley busses because they have most of the advantages of streetcars and they cost less. Which, the backers of streetcars keep saying, is actually a disadvantage. The whole point seems to be to have a system that WOULD cost a lot.
19 Oct 2007 at 03:50 pm | #
Mike, if you paid attention you would notice that people make fun of us all the time here. We monitor comments because sometimes anonymous trolls make really racist comments, or threats of violence etc. We usually let people make all the stupid comments they want.
We do ask that people try to stay on topic and refrain from having conversations with themselves. This is a place for real debate, so thanks for being patient.
19 Oct 2007 at 04:25 pm | #
Additionally, Mike, we work during the day. We do not wait by the computer, constantly checking for comments. We approve them when we get a chance.
19 Oct 2007 at 05:31 pm | #
6% grade or 12%, what’s the difference? The cars aren’t going uphill anyway, unless someone raised the altitude of Findlay Market in the last week or so. The only thing that Cheryl Crowell has ‘researched’ is the art of the cut & paste job. MEP isn’t an expert on anything, save for the art bitching.
19 Oct 2007 at 07:25 pm | #
the grade up vine street is 6.8%
vine in otr is about 625 ft; mcmillan and vine is 845 feet and there are 3245.1 feet between them.
19 Oct 2007 at 10:07 pm | #
This is a point which others have brought up before. Before I buy a car, I always test drive it or a comparable vehicle first. Why not try a shuttle for a while and see what demand there is right now? Advertise it, mark the route well (that’s always been a problem), maybe even paint a line down the street to show where the shuttle goes. If one route doesn’t work, try another. At least there would be the beginning of some real numbers for analysis.
We might as well be holding a sceance for all the analysis done so far by the streetcar proponents. (Maybe that explains the $20 million contribution from Duke in the financing proposal. Certainly Duke didn’t exactly seem enthusiastic about the idea when they were contacted by a flesh-and-blood person.)
20 Oct 2007 at 07:28 pm | #
If you look on the Urban Ohio debate, you will see that the hill issue has been discussed quite a bit. The streetcars could make the grade up Vine or possibly West Clifton, as well as Gilbert to Peebles corner, depending on the size of the motor in the cars.
This 2 mile (4 mile round trip) route has been selected because of the easy grades, the way it connects far ends of the basin, and for ease of future connectivity or extensions. This configuration could be extended to Clifton or Newport and could integrate well with separated grade rail to XU or other various neighborhoods.
One important part about this route, is that it hits the very north of OTR, which is very vacant and has tons of potential. I think the studies showing lots of return on investment, are assuming that development will happen in this area specifically if a fixed rail line is built. We could argue back and forth about how to prove that this will happen, but to me it seems obvious that it would spur development in this blighted area.
This proposal is just a begining. County-wide light rail was defeated by ballot several years ago (although it passed in urban districts). I believe the thinking is that we start small with a route that hits lots of important sites, don’t ask for a tax, don’t ask for help from the Feds, and show that Cincinnati is committed to offering other kinds of public transit. Success breeds success. If it fails as the writers on this blog believe, then, at least we only did 2 miles, not 20.
21 Oct 2007 at 02:32 pm | #
I realize the importance of public transportation and I have been greatly concerned about the supply of oil being squeezed. There will be some kind of electrically-powered mass transit in Cincinnati in the next several years, even if it is just downtown or by the river.
I am afraid, though, that this proposal will fail spectacularly and stop further movement to that system. The promises have been too rosy, the cost is too high, and the disadvantages belittled. Probably 200 miles of streetcar, light rail, or trolley bus line would be needed for minimal coverage of Cincinnati, not counting the areas outside the city limits. At $25 million per mile that would be $5 billion. That cost is based on the cost of the proposed streetcar line. For light rail the cost would be considerably higher. For a trolley bus line it would be a lot less.
The “sexiness” of the streetcar line has appeal only until the novelty wears off. One must define the problems to be solved. I would rate the coming oil squeeze very high. I would also rate the cost as important, along with the ability to operate without blocking other traffic, not causing hazards for bicyclists, low noise and pollution. Finally, the first project must have the best chance of succeeding.
As for the proposed line, it does address the oil squeeze problem and noise and pollution. The negatives are its very high costs (made worse by not even applying for federal funds), blocking traffic, and hazards for bicyclists. Without a good precedent on which to base its possible success, I would rate its chances as low.
We in Cincinnati have been through this before—new Bengals stadium, new Reds stadium, new schools, new Fountain Square, 3CDC, and so on. Now it’s the streetcar line (and a new jail, which is a separate proposal). So far I’ve not heard any streetcar proponent brag about some other costly project and its success as a precedent.
21 Oct 2007 at 06:14 pm | #
My apologies, I have been out of town and I must have rushed to send out a couple of responses as they have not shown up. I do not believe I called anyone names or made derogatory statements??????
Jamiec #25 I stand corrected, 3CDC and Towne have a boatload of “space” along the initial route. Although I do not believe that Towne Properties are 100% leased, Town owns the following: 700 Walnut Building, Shillito Center, The Gramercy, The Groton Lofts,The Greenwich, Gano Alley Building, Fountain Place. Since the streetcar affects a 1500 foot walkable range around it, these buildings sit right along its route. I’ll be happy to list 3CDC’s if you’d like those as well.
Mike #28 Thank you, my whole point was EXACTLY that Cincinnati is not Portland, therefore a feasibility study based on Portland’s growth and cookie-cuttered onto Cincinnati dynamics does not work unless we have a major fluke happen. I suppose after all we have been through, we are due one of those????? $102 million is an awful lot of money to spend on that kind of a chance.
MEP #29 - We may be getting ahead of ourselves, I think the question needs to be asked though. There are streetcars that climb steeper grades than the 6% indicated, however, they are different than the cars being proposed for the initial line. With this in mind, it seems the proposal has indicated traversing the inclines at some future point which means buying these other cars. I am not an engineer and therefore I would like to know if these hill climbing streetcars need a different type of infrastructure (Portland’s hillclimber has tracks up and back right next to each other if I remember right)AND if so, will we need to lay more track to get the low to the ground models out of the way of the little engines that could? If we are planning for the future, then we really need to plan for the future.
CincyCapell #32 I am a researcher and planner, and yes I cut and pasted from my own working report instead of writing the whole thing over. There also was a string of references at the end which has now grown to twice that size. I do not speak without educating myself first, I do not write without references, and if I directly utilize information it is cited. I did all of those.
John Rosen #33 I think we have a descrepancy:
“Vine Street and Clifton both have ruling grades in the range of 9%.” - Reply#322 http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php?topic=9.300
When I get home I will look up my notes that state it was closer to 12% if I need to?
CityKin - #35
While the streetcar can initiate some development, to expect OTR to have massive turn around because of it is not realistic, there needs to be more community dynamics going on and those are not currrrently in place. It would be a happy outcome should a turnaround happen with the streetcar, we cannot overlook the fact though that we still have unfortunately no highly walkable community in OTR and the perception of safety is still a very real issue. I lived downtown for a year and there are times that even I would not be in OTR, that definitely affects economic development opportunity there now and will affect the ridership of a streetcar as well. Portland had these issues dealt with before their groundbreaking, we do not have the same dynamics going on presently.
21 Oct 2007 at 09:06 pm | #
I was researching the maximum slope an ordinary streetcar can handle when I came across this article from the Globe and Mail in Toronto:I’m Still Battling the Streetcar Tracks The story is about a young singer and her experience with a small, 50cc, scooter. The point is that people in Toronto obviously know exactly what she’s talking about. Trapping one’s bicycle or scooter wheel in a streetcar rail is easy to do.
21 Oct 2007 at 11:43 pm | #
Mr. Patton;
You say oil dependence is a problem but are opposed to a start in the direction towards electric transit. You say the costs are too high, but the streetcar is the cheapest rail option. Rail along the river? Why? Just because there is rail right of way does not mean that people will ride it there. Rail should hit the places where there is density. Places like downtown, OTR, Clifton, Evanston. You say we need 200 miles of rail but that is totaly unrealistic, and perhaps that is your point.
Look, this proposal is for people who live here and work here. It is not for commuters. That was voted down by the county and would be voted down if it was proposed again.
I guess, I would ask if not this proposal, what? Are you supporting a trolley bus? Electric with rubber tires, like Dayton? Or are you proposing more studies?
Of course, the point is not that it costs a lot, the point is: defined easy to understand regular route, grade entry, super smooth ride, with bikes and wheelchairs able to roll on, and 4’ wide front and back doors that open on both sides of the car, and stops that digitally state the number of minutes to next car arrival. All of these things combine to make it a system that people like myself, who have other options, will use. You may want people like myself to use a trolley bus, but it just won’t happen, at least to the same degree.
For example. I wanted to go down to the riverfront this afternoon with my kids and their bikes. I had about two hours before my son’s soccer game. Walking from OTR, with two kids, takes about an hour. Buses turn around at 5th street. We ended up staying inside. The point of the streetcar is to encourage walking, thereby expanding the useability of the basin.
Another example. I live 5 blocks from Findlay Market. Believe it or not I often drive there, even though it can be hard to find a parking space on Saturdays. Walking with 50lbs of groceries in a cart can be done, but it is a lot harder than you think with 2 kids and bad weather. There are buses that run up Elm, but it isn’t worth the hassle to get a stroller or shopping cart on. Additionally, the timing of the routes is confusing, and it would cost me 6 bucks to take the bus up there and back with 2 kids. Buses serve a different need. I hear that time to next car is sent to mobile devices. I would use this function.
I do not want this for it’s novelty. I want it because I live here, and I will use it.
I know you say blocking traffic and bicycle hazards are a major concern, but I would ask, how would you get to places like Music Hall and Findlay Market without being in traffic? Tunnels?
Cheryl, I agree that this alone will not revitalize OTR, but, completly disagree that this is not a walkable community. I am not sure what community dynamics you think need to change in OTR to make it suitable for public transit to work here.
22 Oct 2007 at 09:11 am | #
”.. I do not believe that Towne Properties are 100% leased, Town owns the following: 700 Walnut Building, Shillito Center, The Gramercy, The Groton Lofts,The Greenwich, Gano Alley Building, Fountain Place. Since the streetcar affects a 1500 foot walkable range ... “
A city block is about 660’. The only building you list within 2.25 blocks of the route is the Walnut building. I am not sure what Fountain Place is, so maybe I am wrong, but really the point is that this argument started because you said Bortz should recuse himself from voting on this because it will increase his rental in his vacant buildings. However Dean and MEP believe that the streetcar will be a complete flop anyway. Would a flop increase your rentals?
I do find it annoying that every comment on this blog takes hours to be reviewed and posted. It has made a discussion that should have happened over one afternoon, take 4 days, and results in people cross posting. Why can’t you allow instant posting and go back later and remove really offensive posts like 99% of bloggers do.
22 Oct 2007 at 10:17 am | #
The streetcar proposal is nothing but a 100 million dollar Amusement Park Ride for the rich and famous. A trolly car type bus will serve the same purpose without spending millions of dollars in tearing up the streets and installing tracks.
22 Oct 2007 at 10:31 am | #
I wouldn’t call the data I have seen so far a “study” so much as a sales pitch. I want a proper study done.
The costs ARE too high, even if the streetcar option is selected, based on what other cities have paid and the fact that federal funds will not be used. I am not opposed to a start in the direction towards electric transit, I am opposed to THIS start. The so-called study is a sham. As I said in #36, I am afraid that a spectacular failure here will half further progress for years.
First, there are ways of routing and placing the lines that would not block traffic as much. But these drawbacks of the streetcar line were not even considered, being dismissed out of hand. That is another reason why I say no study has yet been done.
Second, as I have mentioned above, trolley busses do not have these disadvantages. They may not appeal to railfans, maybe they don’t have the tourist appeal, but that goes back to the question as to who the customers will be. (Though if dozens of cities put in streetcars and only a handful put in trolley busses, that equation may invert.)
And how much will the streetcar cost? And CityKin right about the confusing bus schedule—but why would one think that the streetcar schedule would be better? Other cities have the time postings for the busses right at the major bus stops. Gee, how hard can that be?
I suggested rail along the river because that was what Little Rock had done, and that was the only city of the five examples given that had urban flight, just like Cincinnati. If the rail along the river turned their riverfront and downtown areas around, then it would be worth a look here.
A proper study would show if it would make sense. I think, from what I have looked at so far, that there is a far better chance of success than with the OTR proposal. I think there is a better chance of a river line operating on its own right-of-way for much of the distance. That would increase speed and lessen hazards.
The fact that the I-71/I-75 bridge and approach will be redone in the next few years should also be considered. There is a real opportunity to do such a line now. That opportunity will not exist in a few years.
22 Oct 2007 at 12:02 pm | #
#39 CityKin - well, if you were in Portland it would cost you $6 (RT - $1 each way) to do the same trip to their Riverfront with the kids on the streetcar line based on your description. Our proposal outlined $.50 each way, IF, they can hold that cost after it’s built. considering what has been proposed I will be very surprised if they can pull that off.
#40 Jami - The Gano Alley Building is on Walnut across from the Aronoff and Fountain Place I believe is where Tiffany’s and the former Palomino restaurant is, and The Groton Lofts (above the former RedFish Restaurant) and Shillto Buildings are at the corner of Race and 7th, two blocks away from Walnut, the proposed initial route. I brought up the 1500 foot walkability issue designated by the American Planning Association, and the proposal shows at least a three block area if I remember right - I am not at home where my notes are and this is coming from my currently over-taxed memory. Ethically speaking there is enough “gray” area with this that Bortz, as a Councilman, needs to watch his step.
22 Oct 2007 at 12:09 pm | #
In Portland a ticket is good for unlimited trips for two hours.
22 Oct 2007 at 01:11 pm | #
What kind of study would you propose? The aim of the streetcar is to stimulate growth in the neglected neighborhood of Over-the-Rhine and to provide a transportation solution for residents. The current study forecasts future investment in Cincinnati made because of the line. It uses the only baseline that is available: comparable results from other implementations, but it is a study tailored to Cincinnati.
This suggestion makes absolutely no sense. There is not a critical mass of people that live along the river, nor is there housing stock or investment potential along the river to justify such a line. Running a line from the commericial district downtown to the industrial districts along the river makes no sense.
Furthermore, the speed of the streetcar is a non-factor. It is a downtown loop, not a high speed light rail solution. The aim is not to provide transportation to those in the suburbs!
22 Oct 2007 at 01:41 pm | #
#44 - that’s true, except I am not sure you can take two kids on an adventure for less than two hours time and have it be pleasurable for all. I have four children and four grandchildren, watching the meter run is not my idea of a fun trip.
22 Oct 2007 at 01:46 pm | #
peacebeun2u
Michael Earl Patton,
What part of trolly bus (or streetcar bus) don’t you understand? There are buses that are designed and look like streetcars or trolly cars. However, they don’t require tracks or electricity just gasoline like any other bus.
Why is that so hard for you to comprehend? Let’s be honest a bus designed like a streetcar would serve the same purpose as a streetcar (transportation) without the added expense, and at the same time providing you the same visual appeal as a streetcar. At the end of the day, the primary reason for this streetcar is its visual appeal.
22 Oct 2007 at 02:01 pm | #
The last few comments leads me to believe that there may be some confusion on Light Rail Vs. Streetcars. The system that was referenced in Portland was a light rail line for $6 was referencing the light rail line (I think).
Here are some key distinctions:
Sreetcar
System Characteristics
Operates at street level in mixed traffic
Operated as a single rail vehicle
Cost per mile: $25 million (approximately)
Simple stop design (no bigger than a bus stop)
Stops are located approximately every 1/5 mile
Operates safely in high pedestrian areas
Emphasizes accessibility and connectivity over speed
Vehicle Characteristics
Passenger capacity: 127 (35 seated / 92 standing)
Length: 66 feet, Width: 8 feet, Height: 11 feet 3.5 inches
Percent low floor: 50
Low floor height: 13.8 inches
Doors: 2 double-parting and one single-parting doors per side
Track gauge: Standard (4 feet 8.5 inches)
Bi-directional travel
Maximum operating speed: 43 miles per hour
Accommodates wheelchairs and bicycles
Light Rail
System Characteristics
Operates in exclusive right-of-way
Operated with multiple rail vehicles linked together
Cost per mile: $65 million (approximately)
Large station platforms (approximately 300 feet in length)
Stations located approximately every 1/2 mile
Operates in high travel demand corridors
Emphasizes speed and travel time savings
Vehicle Characteristics
Passenger capacity: 164 (68 seated / 96 standing)
Length: 93 feet, Width: 8 feet 9.5 inches, Height: 12 feet 5.6 inches
Percent low floor: 70
Low floor height: 14 inches
Doors: 4 bi-parting passenger doors per side
Track gauge: Standard (4 feet 8.5 inches)
Bi-directional travel
Maximum operating speed: 55 miles per hour
Accommodates wheelchairs and bicycles
22 Oct 2007 at 03:50 pm | #
peacebeun2u,
Buses that are dressed as Streetcars do not provide the same result as electric Streetcars.
The reason that the city is pursuing the streetcar is to encourage new investment in the neighborhoods. A Streetcar Line is a fixed line that shows concrete investment in the area of the city. In the past, the city has used dressed up buses as downtown shuttles. The free-of-charge downtown commuter shuttle in the 1990’s is a good example of this. The shuttle was short lived; it was cut in a budget crunch. The streetcar shows a CONCRETE investment in a neighborhood that has long been neglected. This kind of commitment (along with the recent additional sheriffs patrols) shows investors that the city is committed to the neighborhood in the short AND long term. Buses have not shown to have the financial impact that streetcars or light rail have economically on an area.
Also, the streetcar is more environmentally friendly than a dressed up bus. It is a progressive choice. Besides polluting the air with exhaust and noise, the trolley bus does not relying on oil or gasoline to run. Although they are both public transportation options, they do not function the same at all.
22 Oct 2007 at 03:56 pm | #
MEP;
If the bus-trolley had grade entry, timers at the stops, and smooth ride, but was powered by electricity just like a streetcar, then the only cost savings is the rail, right? granted a bus on a catenary, has some flexibility to move around an accident for example, but the rail is what makes it possible to have at-grade entry and smoother ride. Also am by no means an expert, but I read that the street cars have an extended lifespan compared to a typical bus. If you want an electric, bus, you still have the expense of the catenary. I think the at-grade entry system is significant, apparently you don’t. I think we will have to agree to disagree on that point.
22 Oct 2007 at 04:11 pm | #
#48 Mike - Ridership on the Streetcar, MAX Lightrail, and Bus system are all the same in Portland at $1.00 per ride outside the free on the square area.
Specifically, an adult two hour pass in Portland is $1.75 - 1 zone and 2.05 - all zones for the two hour pass, IF you are outside the free on the square area. It is $1.40 per student or youth. The pass is timestamped at time of purchase. http://trimet.org/fares/index.htm
Therefore in answer to #44 I revise my statement: A two hour pass for 1 adult and 2 children riding would cost $2.05 + $2.80 = $4.85 from Pearl District to Riverfront - equivalent of OTR to Riverfront (about a twenty minute Streetcar ride dependent on traffic) and as long as you were back on board and heading home within that two hour period no further cost would be implemented.
An all day pass is $4.25.
It will be interesting to see what fares Cincinnati ends up with.
22 Oct 2007 at 10:07 pm | #