Hot News!
• Tea Party leader gets grilled by NAACP membership
On today's date in The Beacon archives, we published:
•Smitherman still saying the issue is about a “streetcar” (2009)•More on Amy Goodman’s Arrest and the Struggle for a Free Media (2008)
•Journalist Amy Goodman Unlawfully Arrested At RNC (2008)
•Seizing Illegal Guns—Thinking About 2% (2007)
•Information or Advertisements? (2007)
•Nick Lachey: “I have never supported George W. Bush.” (2007)
Contact Us
v mail: (513) 685-0678
e mail: click here
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
EcoWorld on Opposition to Streetcars
Posted by The Dean of Cincinnati
EcoWorld, a web magazine promoting “Nature and Technology in Harmony,” makes several claims against rail based mass transit within inner-cities. They make the point that light rail inter-city transit makes a lot of sense, but that navigating the twists, turns, and traffic of urban driving is best accomplished through something that runs on wheels. They also remind us that cars are not likely to disappear, and the technology that powers them is likely to improve and become more efficient. So, they’ve concluded, while light-rail for inter-city transport is the best idea, EcoWorld supports things like trackless trolleys for urban environments. They even support something currently in the design phase, a flexible vehicle that can run both on tires and rails called “The Bladerunner” (featured to the right).
From EcoWorld:
First of all, anything that helps to move mass transit off of urban rails and back onto roads is a good idea. Despite persuasive light rail scams that have helped - along with public employee pensions - to pretty much bankrupt scores of major American cities, there is rarely a sound justification to build light rail. A combination of roads and busses can offer cost-effective, relatively low maintenance solutions to mass transit, using one conveyance - the road - that accepts a variety of vehicles from individual automobiles to busses to trucks. No rail corridor can ever hope to match the versatility of roads, which is why rail passenger transit should be emphasized, perhaps, in fast intercity modes and within extremely high density cities, but cannot be easily justified in other circumstances.
Here is an excerpt from an item on Green Public Works projects in California:
The car, the most liberating personal transportation system ever conceived, is within a tantalizingly few years of becoming completely green. Cars will be totally recyclable, ultra-safe, non-toxic, smart, use clean and sustainable fuel, and have no ecological “footprint” whatsoever. Instead of making war on the car, we must simply make room for it. Wider boulevards, wider freeways, more parking structures. Instead of adding trolley tracks, create more lanes for vehicular traffic. The idea that mass transit - except perhaps in the case of high-speed rail - can’t be fulfilled on roads is ridiculous. Many practical schemes already exist, such as busses and taxis, or are emerging, such as share-cars and autopilot, that will allow abundant, unclogged roads to deliver mass transit more comprehensive than ever before. The tragedy is that by developing light rail and maintaining roads, neither is done well. Roads are far more versatile than light rail, and we need to rebuild and expand all of them.
While this thinking does not exactly address the needs of urban-dwelling young professionals who want to get everywhere they need to go without owning a car, one must wonder if their needs really trump things like roadway usage—or whether an all-of-the-above solution can provide comprehensive mass transit while saving money.
My fear is that the $200 million rail based streetcar plan is being implemented via a hurry-up offense that has failed to solicit public input and that has refused to be open to various alternatives. The City’s commitment of $60 million and rising for this plan is troubling, if we consider that lower cost alternatives can provide more comprehensive transport options—moving more people to more places. This is not a totally novel concept, either, as places like Louisville have seen great successes.
Cincinnati’s political leadership loves to turn its back on certain sectors of the population, while bowing down to the corporate-laden interests of the favored-few and the well-connected. Any mass transit options implemented by the City should not fall into this divisive framework. Some wonder how the City’s leadership, for example, can declare war on poverty while spending tens of millions on trying to cater to the “psychology” of rails and YP population development. Rather than playing mind-tricks, neglecting the least among us, and hoping that the current vision is not another Berding(haus)doggle like the stadium deals, we should look to save money, improve transit, and develop the City as a whole.
I have still failed to hear a convincing argument why more money for less transportation built on expensive rails is a good idea—at least no arguments that aren’t based on intangibles, like “psychology,” or “permanence.” I fear these are the slippery foundations of those who espouse a dogmatic, blind allegiance to one idea, refusing to see the benefit of others.
• 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.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5 License.
31 Dec 2008 at 10:51 am | #
How soon before we get those magic cars? 10 years? 15? 50? I’m pretty sure that based on the estimates in the 1950’s we should have flying cars right now. I’m a little bitter that we don’t.
Is your opposition to rail in general or is it just to the fact that the planning for this project has not been as open as you would like? You are coming across as being very much against rail.
31 Dec 2008 at 11:10 am | #
Are you just going to roll out all the myriad of possible transit options? Next up jetpacks and monorails.
31 Dec 2008 at 11:11 am | #
I did not say we should get those—but the concept itself is predicated on the notion that inter-city rail is good, and intra-city rail is bad.
Now, I’m open to anything right now— but I’m not going to support rail-based streetcars just because.
I’ve been told they spur development. But I have shown examples where a simple tire trolley can spur development. So that argument does not hold.
I’ve been told this is about creating sustainable neighborhoods people don’t need to leave, and for which cars are not necessary. But I have shown that other options can save money and create even more transportation in the urban core and beyond.
I’ve been told that rails are good because people can actually see the track. But I have shown that a color-coded painted line on the road accomplishes the same thing.
Then, the streetcar advocates went for the “intangibles,” saying rails provide for a “psychology” that makes people want to live near them. Well, the intangible game is easy to play. I think the psychology of having more options and more comprehensive transit is more appealing, and would make more people want to live here. Let’s stick to tangibles.
I will support the streetcar if I can be presented with a rational argument that makes sense which explains why a cash-strapped City should spend so much on this single option. And I expect arguments to consider the counter-arguments already presented. For example, don’t tell me that new development will bring a new tax base that will save the City. We’ve seen that trolleys can do the same thing, so that would be a circular argument—taking us right back to the top.
31 Dec 2008 at 11:23 am | #
From #3:
It is not the same thing. People invest private dollars along a streetcar line, not because they can see the rails, but because the rails are there to stay.
31 Dec 2008 at 11:36 am | #
No, they invest because of government subsidies and tax abatements, and population density.
Rails are there to stay? Then where are the ones from the early 20th century? Getting rid of rails is one application of asphalt away.
31 Dec 2008 at 11:53 am | #
“we should look to save money, improve transit, and develop the City as a whole.”
So, what specifically do you reccomend the city do instead of trying streetcars that will accomplish the goals you stated above? Streetcars do all but save money. And the money that is spent on streetcars has been proven to come back many times over in economic development.
It seems to me that not trying the streetcars is a riskier option than just going ahead and building them. There are so many examples of how good modern streetcar systems are for cities that its hard to find any good reason why not to give it a shot. Obviously if we just keep spending money on widening roads, fixing potholes and buying a few new buses we’re going to be left with the same old result we have now: congested roadways, a so-so downtown, and a very difficult time attracting and holding on to new residents and businesses.
What’s the big risk in spending some money on an investment that’s been shown to be very beneficial and profitable in many other cities? What are people so afraid of?
And why would we waste our money on fake trolleys without rails that might spur a little extra economic development when we can just go ahead and get the real thing that has a much much higher potential for good return and future benefits? It sounds to me like you are just looking for an argument for the sake of arguing.
Your idea that fake trolley’s are just as beneficial is weak. And you say you want a good rational argument for why we should spend this money on this one option, streetcars, now? Its simple! They have been PROVEN catalysts for sparking development and stability among many other benefits. Fake tire trolleys are not proven, perhaps they sort of worked a little bit in some places, but not nearly to the same degree as in places like Portland. Cincinnati has a real chance at moving itself into the new century in a good position to be competitive for jobs and attracting new residents and businesses. Why screw it up and shoot down the only progressively minded proposal we’ve seen this city have in years?
Plus do tire trolleys carry the same future potential for expansion to regional light rail as a streetcar system? No. Streetcars and rail transit are a step forward into the future. Cincinnati needs this system to become a reality. Without it I, and many people like me, see no real hope for this city becoming anything more than it is now in the future.
31 Dec 2008 at 12:00 pm | #
“Rails are there to stay? Then where are the ones from the early 20th century? Getting rid of rails is one application of asphalt away.”
Rails are there to stay. Painted bus lines are not.
Where are the ones from early 20th century? Come on, use your brain. Does Ford, Chrysler, and GM ring any bells? They dissappeared when everyone went suburban and automobile crazy post WWII. The inner city was left to rot and highways were thrown down at warp speed. Now there is a growing trend all over the country and throughout the world for people seeking an inner city lifestyle with easy, permanent rail transit as an option for getting around instead of using your car for everything. People are now realizing the benefits of such systems and living in an urban area that their baby boomer parents did not. Cincinnati will be left behind without rail transit in the future.
31 Dec 2008 at 12:18 pm | #
I didn’t say, “Why aren’t there streetcars anymore.” I’m just pointing out that rails are NOT permanent. If they were permanent, we’d still have them. They are, like anything, subject to the political and budgetary whims of the moment.
This is a classic either-or fallacy. You presume that either people use cars, or they live in a city with rail-based streetcars. However, comprehensive mass transit could be implemented with improved trolley service downtown, also connecting downtown to uptown. This would provide even more transit for the target area.
You seem to believe that people would avoid a City with comprehensive transit, opting, instead, for a city with less options just because they are on rails. That is an incoherent stance. How does this thinking operate? “I wanted to live in a city where I don’t need a car. City X has great downtown transit, but it runs on wheels. So I’m going to City Y where I can get less places on the transit system, but the transport is on rails!” That does not make sense.
I have not advocated for maintaining the status quo. The status quo, right now, is a metro bus system that services outer neighborhoods into the County and beyond with routes to places that come downtown. However, there are no real options for providing people with intra-downtown transit—like the streetcar route. But the streetcar route does not need to be serviced only by rails. It could be serviced with grease powered tire trolleys, for example. This would bring benefits as have been described by officials in Louisville, where their trolleys brought downtown development and excitement for the urban core. These have been so successful, that First Friday Trolley Hops have revitalized the arts district.
Also, you have totally failed to explain how adding rails to downtown roads eases congestion. You claim that congestion is a problem, buy you don’t seem to recognize that streetcars will just add obstacles to the roadways. If the streetcar will ease congestions, please explain and provide evidence.
Trolleys are not “my idea.” They are used elsewhere, and in Louisville they have been a boon.
Streetcars are not a “PROVEN” catalyst. Unless you have a city where development followed streetcars without subsidies, tax abatements, and other enticements. Further, Cincinnati is nothing like Portland, in terms of density, sprawl, and so forth. Why use them so frequently as the flagship?
I have posed the idea that inter-city light rail makes sense, but intra-city rail transit does not. See the EcoWorld citations above.
31 Dec 2008 at 12:36 pm | #
Dean,
You believe that the EcoWorld website has the answers? Well, if that’s the case then we’re going to see even more sprawl and the death of downtown. As i stated earlier, we’re not as close to these magic cars as that article seems to think.
Rail is more permanent in that while there is a greater up-front cost, the maintenance is less than on a fleet of busses that have a much smaller lifespan than the streetcars.
Also, would a new bussing system downtown cause any problems with SORTA? It seems that if the city were to replicate what was already there it might cause some issues with the partners in SORTA. I understand that the streetcars may take away riders from SORTA, but at least it’s a different mechanism.
31 Dec 2008 at 12:42 pm | #
As I already explained, I’m not advocating for the “Bladerunner.” But the concept embodies the idea that roads are better for congested inner-cities, rails for inter-city travel.
Please show me.
31 Dec 2008 at 02:06 pm | #
Some correspondence as part of The Beacon’s ongoing community service research:
EcoWorld’s response:
31 Dec 2008 at 02:26 pm | #
Dean, you’re right, i can’t show that to you, and i made the mistake of posing that as a statement rather than raising it as a question.
I am not a huge fan of the streetcar concept. But, i do believe in light rail and the effectiveness of a comprehensive transit system that includes it. While a bus can last around 12 years or so (from what i’ve read) a light rail car can last 60. I’ve been hoping that this small loop will be expanded into a light rail system. Of course, the proposed NAACP ballot measure (in my opinion) makes it unlikely that we’ll get a light rail system any time soon.
As I have said (and now Ed Ring says) that recycled grease just isn’t available in the amounts needed to run a system.
I also believe that getting a rail system will help getting people out of their cars and reduce the carbon footprint in the area. Mr. Ring makes the point that coal isn’t that dirty (which is contrary to most of what i’ve read). I’d be interested in reading more on that before i come to a conclusion. But, i imagine that it’s still cleaner than everyone making trips in their cars.
31 Dec 2008 at 02:27 pm | #
I looked at Duke’s Website, and for $57,500 a year, we can run the streetcar (at a 7.9 mile build out) on wind power from a farm in Indiana. Using my electric bill to determine the per kWh price, it would be $45,801 a year to run it off of coal. For $11,698 extra a year, you can make the streetcar zero CO2.
31 Dec 2008 at 02:32 pm | #
Ring seems to be speaking of grease as not plentiful enough as a general source for transport—as in if everyone had it for their cars. Savannah has shown it CAN be done for public transit.
Anyway, where was City leadership in finding, publicizing, and holding hearings on all these options? Where were the studies on all the options? Do they exist? Where are they? Why wasn’t City leadership having this conversation instead of us right now? This is their job, right? Why are we doing it?
That’s why I said City leadership should find out what the objections are of the NAACP, who will force this onto the ballot and perhaps kill it. Perhaps their objections are totally reasonable! Perhaps there is still time for the City to show the kind of leadership they should have already displayed!
Or, will it just be business-as-usual in Cincinnati—which means no discourse, no options, and mud-slinging diatribes from dogmatists and their elected idols, beholden to the favored few and the well connected..
31 Dec 2008 at 02:34 pm | #
Interesting find, Brad. Now is that how it will be? Who is in charge of this decision?
31 Dec 2008 at 06:52 pm | #
The article you cited contained this paragraph:
“Most areas, California in particular, have room for more roads, and the solution to traffic congestion is to have wider roads and lower density suburbs - precisely the opposite of the conventional wisdom.”
The past fifty years have shown us that low density suburban sprawl has severe ecological consequences including pollution, traffic congestion, and loss of farmland. It also increases the distances everything must travel which resulting in greater C02 emissions.
31 Dec 2008 at 06:56 pm | #
He also says cars are becoming more eco-friendly, and eventually they will have no carbon imprint. If that is taken as a given (and that site DOES take this as a given), then your point about carbon and roads and cars would be nil.
But that is not the point. I am not trying to agree with everything on that site, nor am I obliged to. I found a point that has a bearing on our current talk, so I’m not interested in derailing the strand with unrelated side notes.
The argument is that congested urban areas should have eco-friendly transit options that are more flexible for moving around. Rail should exist to link inter-city lines.
This is a point I have not seen debunked, and it seems totally rational.
31 Dec 2008 at 07:22 pm | #
You’re comparing the permanence of paint, to steel rails?
Really?
Really???
01 Jan 2009 at 09:42 am | #
No, I am not.
01 Jan 2009 at 12:12 pm | #
JFD #18:
Jason#19
Good, then I guess you would agree a painted line is not as permanent as a steel rail. That being the case, in order to change the route or remove the rails, it would take significantly more time and money, than to simply paint over the old lines and paint new ones elsewhere.
If your worried, the system could be undone to the detriment of the citizens, as it was back in the 50’s; I would be happy to sign a petition for a charter amendment, requiring a vote of the populace, to move or remove the system.
01 Jan 2009 at 12:17 pm | #
Hire an attorney, draft petition and ballot language, print petitions, collect thousands of signatures, get this on the ballot, and then I’ll be willing to talk to you as if you mean anything.
Until then, you are in the peanut gallery.
01 Jan 2009 at 01:42 pm | #
From#21:
No, for now I’m willing to see whether your efforts to derail a major component of Cincinnati’s future succeed or not.
01 Jan 2009 at 02:53 pm | #
I haven’t collected a single signature. Not one. All I’ve done is explore options and host a community discussion.
Though, when I suggested streetcar advocates reach out to the NAACP, you responded wrathfully. What’s wrong with reaching across the proverbial aisle?
02 Jan 2009 at 09:55 am | #
From #23
As the de-facto, chief propagandist for NAACP/Smitherman, I wouldn’t expect you to do any of the grunt work.
02 Jan 2009 at 12:20 pm | #
Exactly. I’m sure Smitherman and Finney (Finnerman) aren’t out collecting signatures either. Everyone has their job and the Beacon does theirs well.
02 Jan 2009 at 02:12 pm | #
Sue, you should try to become better informed. Just for the record President Smitherman has spent countless hours collecting signatures for every NAACP ballot initiative and I have no doubt that he will do the same for our recent petition. Your ignorance is appalling considering your constant rants.
02 Jan 2009 at 02:48 pm | #
Finney collects signatures too, but cincysuz doesn’t let facts stand in her way. And JFD fails to understand how people can agree with the NAACP and president Smitherman. He thinks they should just try to bad mouth the man no matter what he does for the community like he does.
02 Jan 2009 at 06:54 pm | #
From#27:
Justin, I understand you and Jason agree with Smitherman, and approve of the skewed direction he is leading the NAACP in. Why do you deny, the three of you work in concert?
02 Jan 2009 at 09:18 pm | #
Do we work together on things that we agree on? Yes. Does that mean we are propoganadist for him? No.
04 Jan 2009 at 02:16 am | #
#28 people that show up for naacp meetings agree and disagree. vote according to their information and views. more discussion than at chiapet meetings.
can you be asked about the in concert work you do with bortz’s office? understand that you and a few buddies agree with bortz, and approve of the skewed direction he is leading with information on the trolley. are there other matters he directs you in?
05 Jan 2009 at 01:12 am | #
From #30:
No, Jenny, not at this, time.