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
Monday, March 02, 2009
Will the Streetcar Be As Permanent as the Skywalk?
Posted by Michael Earl Patton
Photo courtesy of here.
Proponents of the streetcar claim that a major benefit is the fact that the rail infrastructure will be permanent. That supposedly means that once millions of dollars are spent tearing up the streets and putting the rails in, that developers would know for a certainty that City Hall would not change its mind and tear them out. For some reason these proponents never bring up the Cincinnati Skywalk system as an example of a previous multi-million dollar attempt to better allow people to move around downtown.
The Skywalk is a system of pedestrian bridges that link together the Convention Center, hotels, parking garages, stores, and office buildings. The bridges were covered and often enclosed. People could move around with some protection from the weather and without fighting the street level traffic. It used to run all the way from the Convention Center to the Atrium Two Building and then over Fort Washington Way. But three vital bridge segments have now been demolished and what remains—still used—is segmented. It no longer extends over Fort Washington Way, either.
As late as 1984 city officials were trying to expand the Skywalk. It fell victim to a changed City Hall vision of what downtown was supposed to look like. They now wanted people down in the streets, with the traffic, and patronizing the street-level merchants. Demolition was not always passively accepted, however. In 2007 the Hamilton County First District Court of Appeals upheld a $3.5 million jury verdict for damages, to be awarded to the owners of the Atrium Two Building (Cincinnati Business Courier, April 13, 2007). And this was just for damages because of the loss of the segment over Fort Washington Way.
This first picture shows the stub that crosses over Race Street and stops. This second picture looks out over the new Fountain Square from where the Skywalk used to cross over. Now these pedestrians have to go down onto the Square and into the weather. An important side point: from time to time one will hear of the increased pedestrian traffic on Fountain Square after the renovations. This increased traffic includes the people who used to cross over Fountain Square by using the Skywalk. They are now on the Square only because that segment was torn down.
The “permanent” Skywalk, in the language of City Hall, apparently means 20 - 30 years. Why would the streetcar be any different?
The final two pictures (here, and here) show two Skywalk maps that were in the Convention Center. Most of the Skywalk maps that I examined were like the first picture. They had 1) East being up and 2) still showed the segment over Fountain Square as intact. I did see a couple maps correctly depicting the missing segment and at least one with South being up, as seen in the first map. Having North to the top is, of course, the normal way to depict a map, unless there is a strong reason to do otherwise. I did not see such a Skywalk map. And there is no excuse, after all this time, to have so many maps still showing the disappeared segment over the Square.
Having Skywalk maps flip-flopping their orientation as one moves along, sometimes with East as being up and sometimes with South, but never North as is conventional, can only cause confusion. But don’t look to City Hall for help—they apparently cannot agree as to which way is up.
• 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.
02 Mar 2009 at 09:07 am | #
From Main:
From Main:
Michael, thanks for pointing out one more reason to support Streetcars. You clearly understand how the addition of Streetcars will dovetail into the removal of the Skywalk to help create a vibrant street scape!
Your words say no to Streetcars, but your logic says YES! Thanks for your unintended support!
I’m not sure what the connection is, between the little rant about maps, and anything else.
02 Mar 2009 at 10:30 am | #
Jason,
You seem to imply that Cincinnati cannot successfully implement any capital project to the betterment of the city. Are you against all Cincinnati capital projects? Are you suggesting the HDR study done for the streetcar and validated by the Economics department at UC somehow compares to all past failed projects done by Cincinnati (in this case the skywalk)? Couldn’t the same be said about an untested, unstudied diesel powered rubber wheeled trolley system? Should we just stop funding all projects intended to improve the city and give it to the non-profits for the sake of social justice? What is your agenda that is causing you to post every other day more and more ridiculous claims in an attempt to derail (no pun intended) the streetcar project? What’s next, the environmental effects of mining iron for the rails? Is all this a joke, or are you looking for a position opposite Bill Cunningham?... Ben….
02 Mar 2009 at 10:36 am | #
I smell a straw-man argument here. I mean the sky-walk and the Street Car are two very different concepts being instituted by two different councils. I do not think we can count the skywalk against this council simply because they did not put it in.I also do not think one can argue against the streetcar which would move people between the two largest employment centers with a downtown only skywalk. Many effective arguments can be made against the streetcar but I just don’t feel convinced this is one.
02 Mar 2009 at 11:50 am | #
Are you kidding me??!! You’re trying to compare the streetcars to those god awful skywalks??? First, it is well known that the skywalk systems failed miserably because they discourage people from engaging themselves in the urban environment. They force people to stay indoors and away from the “streets”. They were built during a time when people didn’t understand or appreciate the importance of a healthy, walkable, livable, entertaining urban core. They are perhaps the worst thing a city can do to try to boost business around a downtown area.
“Why would a streetcar be any different?” asks the beacon…
Are you really that retarded or are you just trying to get retarded people to think like you?
I can’t even stand to waste my time trying to answer that question for you because I know you’re not going to read the response with an open mind.
You guys are unbelievable sometimes. Amazing.
02 Mar 2009 at 01:13 pm | #
This is certainly a stretch.
While we’re at it, can’t we directly tie the failure of the bengals franchise of late to the city as a whole and then to the streetcar proposal? Or maybe the Reds lack of home run hitter this year to the lack of people in downtown?
You clowns never fail to amaze me. When will you start enjoying your life instead of hating where you live?
02 Mar 2009 at 01:41 pm | #
Of course it’s not guaranteed to be permanent. What about the streetcar that the city used to have which was shut down and torn out of roads in the early 50’s?
02 Mar 2009 at 02:18 pm | #
It is important to remember that permanent doesn’t mean indestructible. I-75 is ‘permanent’ but it is possible that it could be torn up. The Carew Tower is ‘permanent’ but it could be demolished.
Think of it like tattoos. They are permanent but they can be removed. It is painful, time consuming and expensive, but they can be removed.
02 Mar 2009 at 03:46 pm | #
OTR-Ben, the article wasn’t written by the Dean. If you look at the top you will see Michael Earl Patton’s name. It is a joke to presume that anyone who doesn’t buy all the arguments made by streetcar proponents must be looking for a job with Bill Cunningham. Get serious!
If the best you can do is hurl third grade insults that waste people’s time by clogging up our site then don’t bother to hit the submit button next time. If you grow up and have a real point please feel free to post something that adds to the discussion.
getbackcincy, Jeff Berding and Roxanne Qualls were instrumental in selling voters on the Bengals stadium deal which was a massive boondoggle. We think that these “Big Fixes” need to be examined closely. We love our city enough to do the hard work of asking tough questions and digging for answers. And we work to give voters a choice on these issues. What have you done for our city?
02 Mar 2009 at 04:10 pm | #
Um, it should have been mentioned here that the early 2000’s saw a large amount of activity from urban planners around the country that pretty much panned Skyway/Skywalk systems as an urban failure (even such as the one in Minneapolis).
The theory was to have a vibrant urban experience, you need to have people on the street, which supports street-level storefront business location, rather than limiting the “prime space” to interior building atria and lobbies. The theory is that the skywalks result in keeping people inside through their entire downtown travel, thus reducing the competetiveness of other “unconnected” downtown property. So, storefronts in smaller buildings, or non-corporate centers end up always playing second fiddle to the big, corporate behemoths that the skyway directs its users through. The Skywalks effectively take people off of the street and direct them from one controlled environment to another.
The Skyway was deemed, in effect, to largely be a hand-out to corporate malling types, to the disadvantage of smaller mom-and-pop boutiques and land owners. Conversely, a system such as the streetcar is designed to keep people on the street, but extend their range of travel, without creating the business hierarchy that the Skywalk system created.
This article is irony, in real-time.
You always bring this up. Perhaps if The Banks had actually been developed on time, the stadium deals wouldn’t have become such a turd. The theory behind the deals was pretty contingent upon the actual surrounding business district being built.
02 Mar 2009 at 04:58 pm | #
When I saw this submission from Michael Earl Patton, I thought it had one, obvious, particular point: namely, that the Skywalks are an example of “permanent” investment that can become “temporary” with changing trends and political will.
It is an expensive investment that, with a change in trends, became quite costly. Much of the system is still in tact. Is it coming down? Should it? What about that great big bridge to no where when you first enter the City from the (dreaded) highway?
I am not impressed that streetcar advocates paid UC to get a study with the conclusions they want. I am interested, however, in a couple things.
1. Sustainability—in terms of ecological, economic, and social sustainability.
2. Logical thinking—the debate should be framed around premises that make sense. The alleged “permanence” of rails needs to be discarded. Don’t talk about business investments, either, as if the rails have a cause-effect relationship unless you can explain away the massive government subsidies that have always accompanied rail development.
02 Mar 2009 at 05:07 pm | #
Justin,
I stand by my questions. Bill Cunnigham has guests too, but ultimately Jason posts articles that are intended to support his goals (and stoke his ego). If he was serious about the streetcar discussion, he would post the real reasons he, the NAACP and Green Party are against the streetcar - gentrification. He is against public subsidies that benefit the majority of Cincinnatians and are intended on creating a green, sustainable downtown/OTR. Since most people do not share his worldview, he posts increasingly bizarre anti-Cincinnati populist diatribes. If he was serious about helping our city he would be working to make sure the gentrification in OTR is done responsibly.
Big projects do have a bad track record and this project should be thoroughly analyzed. My problem lies in these ridiculous red herrings that Jason posts on this site. Is the mere $120K a year in electric it would take to run a rail system for an entire year anti-environment even if the electricity were bought from clean energy credits? Is the streetcar project doomed to fail because decades ago some group thought the skywalk would be good for the city (by that argument no big project would be successful)?
Until there is some honest discussion I’m calling Jason out… Ben….
02 Mar 2009 at 05:14 pm | #
No matter how you slice it, the stadium deals were bad by any standard. And over-priced condos on the Banks wouldn’t have really helped that much. I’m glad that idea has been reconsidered.
02 Mar 2009 at 05:27 pm | #
Mr. Haap, are you alleging that unnamed streetcar advocated bribed Dr. George M. Vredeveld, Jeff Rexhausen, and G. Irem Yelkanci in order to produce a false report that validated the streetcar?
02 Mar 2009 at 05:32 pm | #
I would like to point out my previous post was edited.
02 Mar 2009 at 06:01 pm | #
Your content was not edited. That’s an automatic thing that happens when you type my birth name. I go by “The Dean.” Why do you disrespect that, especially on my home turf?
Brad, of course I am not making any such allegation. I am offended that you would make such an allegation about my motives.
I do think that streetcar advocates paid for the report, and I do think the report gave positive findings. I do think that there is merit to the findings in that report, but I also think that such findings are subject to politics. In other words, I believe that there are other organizations that would issue opposite findings if they were hired: not by virtue of the fact they were “hired,” but because of political persuasions influence interpretation.
For example, conservative organizations will issue reports that show the benefit of charter schools. Liberal organizations will show how they hurt the public schools. Which is true? Conservative economists blast Obama’s stimulus plan; liberal ones may herald it as a great program. Which is true? Is the banking crisis the result of Bush’s policies, or Clinton’s? Depends on who you ask.
The report plays a role in the debate—but it is not necessarily gospel just because it exists. Fallible appeals to authority based on the existence of that report are really just empty rhetoric. The report is not necessarily final truth just because it exists.
Obviously, I don’t have a budget for funding alternate studies. The truly interesting, and more honest approach, would be to fund reports from those with a known difference of philosophy, so we could compare and contrast.
02 Mar 2009 at 06:08 pm | #
OTR-Ben, what does Bill Cunningham have to do with anything? The Dean didn’t post this article and we have often posted opposing views on many issues. I personally invited Brad Thomas to write about the streetcar here months ago. He is a much stronger and more articulate advocate than you are.
The Dean isn’t a spokesperson for the NAACP or the Green Party, the Green Party has put out its own statement about its position and the NAACP has also made their own statements. We have posted their statements about the streetcar here.
He never said that and while a majority of Cincinnatians would pay for a streetcar that doesn’t mean they would get the benefits of it. We support improving transportation downtown, uptown and all throughout the city. We reject the idea that a streetcar is the only way or even the best way to do it. Cincinnatians will get to vote on the streetcar.
I’m not sure you understand what his world view is, especially since you have compared him to Bill Cunningham. I also don’t think you understand what most people’s world views are. I don’t understand what you mean by “bizarre anti-Cincinnati populist diatribes”. Please explain that one.
I’m not sure that gentrification is necessary or responsible. Please explain what you mean by making sure the gentrification in OTR is done responsibly.
Before I go any further let me explain this again. The Dean DIDN’T POST THIS MICHAEL EARL PATTON POSTED THIS. It clearly says so at the top.
02 Mar 2009 at 06:33 pm | #
Two Questions:
1. If you prefer to be called the Dean and you have something on the website automatically change posts that use a name you don’t like to be called, why doesn’t it change the posts to say “The Dean” instead of “My Main Man”?
2. Are the opinions expressed by “The Dean of Cincinnati” the opinions of a human being or of, as the front page of the Beacon states, a ‘fictitious character’?
02 Mar 2009 at 06:49 pm | #
1. Because I think “My Main Man” sounds funnier after “Jason.”
2. Are you serious?
Can we get back to content, please?
02 Mar 2009 at 06:55 pm | #
1. Fair enough however I wrote your surname, so I suppose it changes both your given name and surname.
2. Yes
Back on topic,
Are you implying that the University of Cincinnati exerted undue influence on Dr. George M. Vredeveld, Jeff Rexhausen, and G. Irem Yelkanci in order to have them produce a report that favorable towards the streetcar?
02 Mar 2009 at 07:08 pm | #
No. Thank you for allowing me the clarification.
02 Mar 2009 at 07:10 pm | #
Am I correct in remembering that the UC report was funded? If so, by whom?
02 Mar 2009 at 07:12 pm | #
From final page:
02 Mar 2009 at 07:13 pm | #
Are you implying that Dr. George M. Vredeveld, Jeff Rexhausen, and G. Irem Yelkanci produced an inaccurate report?
02 Mar 2009 at 07:19 pm | #
I’m very happy that the streetcar keeps coming up on your site. Every time it does I see lots of streetcar supporters responding and only the publishers and a few others against it. Please keep it up in a few more months we’ll have our on the correct side (in my opinion) of this issue.
On Editing, even if your site automatically changes Mr. Mi Mane Mann’s (Mr. Haapy) name it’s still editing. By the way, I did the name change myself this time, you may have noticed.
The streetcar is ecologically responsible because it uses less energy per person to move people about when compared to either bus’s or autos. It will also save hundreds of buildings from demolition, by promoting their reuse, a big part of sustainability.
It is economically sustainable because it is the most efficient mover of people on a per person cost. It costs less per person to move people by street car when accounting for total capacity and total cost. Beats both buses and cars energetically (less power per rider) and spatially (more riders in less total space). Streetcars have a longer service life than bus’s no mater the bus’s power plant. We need a break-out of time/cost for bus’s and streetcars, accounting for upfront and operation costs. Who wants the job? Mr. Haapy, please suggest a non partisan individual.
It is socially responsible because it promotes denser urban living and not one person must be dislocated for the streetcar to be built. Public transport promotes mingling of social/economic strata. Poor people riding the streetcar will not be deemed “creeps and Weirdos” because they will have options other than the bus or hitching a ride with Jason and Justin.
As always happens when nice things are built, the price of nearby property will be driven up and current owners will want to sell for profit or upgrade to bring in higher rents, let ‘em. Perhaps the city can keep a number of units equal to the current OTR population as lower income rentals/homes by developing their current city owned vacant buildings for that purpose. Or require that new developers make a certain percentage of low rent/cost homes as part of their properties. This percentage can be set so that the area still has the same number of low income housing units as it currently does while making an enormous number of new market rate properties available.
Okay, I’ve shoot my wad, your turn.
02 Mar 2009 at 07:38 pm | #
Were the previous streetcars permanent 50 years ago? Oh wait, the Bort$ didn’t own property along the tracks or have a representative on city council to be its cheerleader.
02 Mar 2009 at 07:50 pm | #
My Mane Mann, Logical Thinking.
It is logical to note that development happens where transportation arteries are located. Look at highway off ramps and development along commuter train routes.
From an aerial vantage you can see bubbles of development along transportation corridors. I’ve seen an impressive photo of Toronto’s new development that clearly shows how projects cluster at train stations. Across our own country development has occurred where our once famous railroad routes traveled. All development occurs where transportation allows, Rivers, Roads, rails, and these days airports.
I understand the argument that there is still public money given to developers but that must be looked at as an investment rather than a hand out because society plans on recouping that capital via the successful development. Those who get the money see it as an investment, those who don’t call it a hand out. Name me one large project that has been done ten years without capital input from the City/state/Federal government? Corporations pay taxes and expect to get someting for it, not that I think it’s entirely right. The constitution was not created to serve corporations.
Totally off topic but… thinking about that last sentence, If it were up to me I’d have the following added to all corporate charters (from the UtiliKilts Website).
* A corporation is socially, environmentally, and economically responsible.
* A corporation seeks to influence others, thus influencing society as a whole.
* A corporations profits are not measured solely by the current bank balance, but also by how it impacts the societies it operates within.
* A corporation must make a vigilant effort to construct a profitable, sustainable, and transparent business class or corporation type having 7th generation values that will provide for the needs of all members in an egalitarian manner. Focused aspects of such an organization may include; a new definition of what is a livable wage and what is a maximum pay cap and may create a ratio between the lowest and highest wages.
02 Mar 2009 at 08:48 pm | #
Let me affirm that I, not the Dean, wrote the article. It was my idea and I even took the pictures.
The permanency of the Skywalk / streetcar is relevant because it is one of the major arguments against busses—whether diesel, as we have now, or grease-powered, as has been proposed by Justin, or electric trolley busses as they have in Dayton. This last has been my continuing suggestion. They are much cheaper to build and maintain than streetcars, cost the same to operate, are quieter, go to the curb to pick up passengers, and can make the tight turns easier. They can maneuver to avoid obstacles; streetcars have to wait until the obstacle is cleared. Busses don’t have slots in the streets to catch bicycle tires and women’s shoes. There is plenty of experience with electric trolley busses. But repeatedly the objection is made that they could be moved while streetcar tracks, once they are in, won’t be. Well, I question that.
02 Mar 2009 at 09:10 pm | #
Brad,
Are you suggesting that no other people may have opinions on this, especially should they be given funding to provide a report, too?
Chris,
No. Not all BTUs are equal. Coal generated BTUs for electric streetcars puts more carbon in the atmosphere than biofuel.
Who will be paying? (And why don’t they in Portland?)
The streetcar advocates are, by and large, part of the urban pioneers who seek to displace the urban poor.
Is that the plan? Would urban pioneers want to live along side those who “don’t have any living options?”
02 Mar 2009 at 09:22 pm | #
I am not. You are certainly welcome to your opinion. I am asking these questions to better understand your opinion.
In furtherance of better understanding your opinion, I am curious if you believe that Dr. George M. Vredeveld, Jeff Rexhausen, and G. Irem Yelkanci produced an inaccurate report?
02 Mar 2009 at 09:36 pm | #
I don’t know that ensuring lower income housing has been put forward. How about you and me pushing for it? Whether or not it’s part of the streetcar issue.
Let’s get 3cdc to make a solid commitment to ensuring there is affordable housing in their projects to. Of course when we start taking like this it nearly always tends to leads toward government money being used. Where will we take it from?
Private citizens don’t want to put out their money without a decent return and you can’t afford to build low income housing without subsidies.
I can tell you that a building I would like to rehab has eight units and I want to make 3 of them housing voucher units. I don’t have the funds to do a project like that but I’m working on it, and I don’t want any subsidies.
02 Mar 2009 at 09:43 pm | #
Chris Wiedeman, most corporations don’t pay their taxes, especially the big ones. They do make large campaign contributions, dominate our economy, society and politics though. I don’t want to derail this topic so I’ll comment on your off topic comment in the open thread.
02 Mar 2009 at 10:00 pm | #
Uh, “implying” is too weak of a verb. Take a look at my article from last year,
http://www.cincinnatibeacon.com/index.php/contents/comments/uc_study_approves_streetcar_boondoggle/
UC Study Approves Streetcar Boondoggle.
(Technically the question was directed at the Dean, but it’s my article at the top and my position on this has been public for several months.)
02 Mar 2009 at 10:03 pm | #
Better Yet! Why dont we finish “The Subway” that was started so many yrs ago! Guess they couldnt come up with the funding to finish it?
02 Mar 2009 at 10:17 pm | #
Chris Wiedeman, while I may not totally agree with you, I have to applaud you because you are the first streetcar advocate to talk about environmental, economic and social sustainability (you use the term responsibility but I think we’re talking about the same idea). This is a good way to evaluate a project and I hope we can see future discussions addressing this concept.
02 Mar 2009 at 11:03 pm | #
The Beacon crew still refuses to visit Portland, despite round trips only being $200. If they did visit Portland, within minutes their arguments would be shattered. Since its 2001 opening the Portland streetcar, at approximately 4 miles in length, has attracted THOUSANDS of new apartments and condos, upwards of 50 buildings the size of the new condos at 4th & Central, and 15 towers the size of The Ascent. Much, much more than is planned at The Banks. There is some development outside walking distance from the streetcar line, but the most and highest quality development in the walkable parts of the city has all happened along the line. It’s a spectacular, undeniable success, and there’s no reason to believe it won’t do the same thing for Cincinnati.
The Cincinnati Streetcar has substantial support amongst politicians and the major companies because they, unlike The Beacon, have visited Portland and have seen it for themselves. The Beacon remains defiantly ignorant of the issue. If this fails because of you and the NACCP, at some point you guys will have reason to visit Portland and you will see it for yourselves and have to come to terms with the fact that you were wrong—totally wrong. No streetcar supporter is stopping you guys from going out there. Nobody’s stopping you from going out there and taking your own photos. But good luck taking photos of vacant buildings along the line, because there aren’t any, and of empty streetcars, because they’re only empty at 6am when they come out of the garage.
03 Mar 2009 at 01:53 am | #
Which biofuels? Or is this to infer all have the same environmental impact?
And, even if we discount the fact that electric grids can be upgraded easily to adapt to different power sources, if this is getting into a discussion about the role of electric vehicles (and not just for this project, but the future of our city), it should at least be mentioned that a smart charging system, one that charges at off-peak hours does not necessarily mean more coal burning now:
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/04/plug-in-hybrid-cars-co2-emissions-electricity-energy.php
“A study on plug-in hybrids by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory shows that if charged at night, off peak, the vehicles might not put much additional strain on the grid. That’s because coal plants cannot be shut down and restarted rapidly, so they generally don’t stop producing at night. So while it is true that a plug-in hybrid charged by coal-generated electricity would generate more CO2, the alternative might be to burn burn that coal anyway and get zero miles out of it. Plug-ins could actually make the grid more efficient by putting more of the electricity generated to productive use.”
I am having a bit of difficulty finding a comparison of CO2 output for biofuel vehicles vs. electric, does the Beacon have one?
03 Mar 2009 at 02:09 am | #
Justin,
I don’t believe I’ve actually heard your opinions on this topic. You seem to address many topics by many commenters, but not the streetcar. I guess I’m mostly just curious since The Dean and MEP have had plenty to say on the topic.
03 Mar 2009 at 07:01 am | #
Provost,
My bad for not having a few hundred extra bucks for flight tickets, no matter the price, then money for a hotel, and money for food, and not to mention time off work. Why don’t you offer to take me, on your dime, at my convenience?
Sean, that is a great point about night-time plug-ins. Is there any plan to run plug-in, battery operated streetcars? Also, our region is unlikely to get any alternate energy sources. We don’t have the wind, the expanses of space for a solar farm, a dam for river power. Are you thinking nuclear?
03 Mar 2009 at 10:36 am | #
As long as you are going to make this claim, you need to include the BTUs for generating the Biofuels (growing/harvesting the crops), the fertilizer and pesticides used (and the BTUs to generate them), the (typically) non-biofuel BTUs used to transport the crops, then transport the processed crops, then transport the biofuel, as well as the BTU’s used (many of which are also Coal-sourced) during each stage of the process to produce the end result of biofuel.
You have also been ducking the issue for a long time (at least three articles) regarding alternatives to coal for electric generation, as well as the governor’s plan. As long as you are talking hypotheticals (like “grease trolleybusses”), you have to consider the hypothetical that our coal-sourced electricity can be replaced by alternative sources here, such as solar and wind.
We have the wind, but not at the ground level like most wind-popular states. The tech is being developed for windmills of a height suitable for the winds of western Ohio (and other states). Additionally, we’ve got plenty of space here and sunny days to make solar power viable. Even if not, we could always purchase the power from elsewhere.
03 Mar 2009 at 10:45 am | #
I Chris Wiedeman pledge to GIVE the character of The Dean of Cincinnati (or his surrogate Justin Jeffery) $25 to pay for a portion of a trip to Portland so that “it” (the character) can see for it’s self how and why streetcars would be good for Cincinnati. I make this pledge conditionally, requiring that the character receive additional pledges to cover the cost of a flight and a reasonably priced hotel (try the Jupiter - Great live music scene) and purchase “it’s” own food, a fictional character can’t eat that much, wink, wink.
The trip can be planned as the character wishes but must include reps. from the City of Portland, at least one developer of a property along the streetcar route along with advocates for the underprivileged. Mr. John Schneider would likely be most happy to assist the character of the Dean in arranging this trip.
On the topic of permanence, Mountain tops were once considered permanent. I’m sure The Beacon understands the argument for permanence but merely chooses to ignore it. I think that The Beacon will find that most if not all the streetcar supporters believe in Social, Environmental and Economic sustainability/responsibility we just have differing ideas on how to reach those goals. We’re opponents on an issue, not enemies!
03 Mar 2009 at 01:04 pm | #
I took a reporter and a professional photographer to Portland last week, and a videographer followed us around most of the day. Several hours of video were shot by two indiviudals, and about 1,500 stills were taken. My guess is that you’ll be seeing a lot of candid and undeniable images, compiled independently, over the next several weeks.
The reporter also interviewed Portland’s mayor and others. We were joined at dinner by an expert on the nature of carbon footprints and an architect who attested that Portland was a prety crummy place twenty years ago. One of the dinner guests had worked up some new numbers suggesting the Portland’s ROI from the streetcar is much higher that what’s been talked about, even recently, in Cincinnati.
Many of the uninformed comments that regularly appear on this blog would seem foolish to anyone who made the trip. It’s amazing, with information so readily available, that they continue to be repeated.
Before the transit campaign in 2002, I invited the principal light rail opponent—who is now aparently tight with the streetcar skeptics who post here—to come along on one of the trips to Portland to see for himself, without cost. I would pay his way. His answer was, I recall, that he couldn’t because he “would lose credibility with his supporters.” And so it goes, even today.
03 Mar 2009 at 01:37 pm | #
Dean, how much do you care about the issue? If you don’t care enough to plunk down the $500 to take a weekend trip out there, then shouldn’t you be paying attention to people who have actually been there instead of just imagining things? You keep telling people to “do their research”, but you won’t so what it takes to be informed on this issue.
Almost everyone on council has been there, Milton Dahoney has been there, and reps from P&G, 5/3, US Bank, etc. have all been there either on their own or on trips organized by the Alliance for Regional Transit. It’s not a coincidence that Seattle, due to its proximity to Portland, was the first city to open a line on Portland’s model. For everyone in the midwest, Portland is an obscure city that they wouldn’t visit before San Francisco, Seattle, or LA, but it’s undeniably the model for successful mass transit in a mid-sized American city. You speak of the “next big fix”—downtown Portland does not have a stadium or sports arena and doesn’t have a convention center—they’re across the river and almost out of sight of downtown. The Portland streetcar runs from a former abandoned rail yard to a former shipyard. Downtown is in the middle. What is proposed for Cincinnati will run from the region’s two most active areas—downtown and UC/Hospitals, through a largely empty area (Over-the-Rhine). The ridership is already there in the Cincinnati plan. Portland by contrast took a huge risk by building a line from one empty area to another and it worked because there was a huge unmet demand for people who wanted to live in walkable neighborhoods and either not own a car or leave their car parked in a garage most of the time. Cincinnati has a similar unmet demand—and we’re losing those people either in the form of brain drain or people who refuse to relocate here.
03 Mar 2009 at 03:39 pm | #
I understand the Mr. Patton believes the UC report to be inaccurate, but do the other members of the Beacon’s staff believe that Dr. George M. Vredeveld, Jeff Rexhausen, and G. Irem Yelkanci produced an inaccurate report?
03 Mar 2009 at 06:21 pm | #
Because I don’t have extra money and time to take a vacation means I must willingly allow my tax dollars to go to a boondoggle? Please.
Brad, Are you calling Mr. Patton’s review inaccurate? If so, which part?
03 Mar 2009 at 06:22 pm | #
Are you saying Michael Earl Patton did not tell the truth?
03 Mar 2009 at 07:00 pm | #
I wrote “I understand the Mr. Patton believes the UC report to be inaccurate, but do the other members of the Beacon’s staff believe that Dr. George M. Vredeveld, Jeff Rexhausen, and G. Irem Yelkanci produced an inaccurate report? “
to which the response was:
and
I have not conducted an evaluation of Michael Earl Patton’s evaluation of Dr. George M. Vredeveld, Jeff Rexhausen, and G. Irem Yelkanci’s evaluation of the HDR economic feasibility study, so I cannot answer this question at the present.
However, initially you stated,
So I will ask you for the fourth time, do you believe that Dr. George M. Vredeveld, Jeff Rexhausen, and G. Irem Yelkanci produced an inaccurate report?
03 Mar 2009 at 07:08 pm | #
Today’s headline
Climate Activists Block Gates to D.C. Coal Plant
In Washington, D.C., more than 2,000 activists blocked the gates of a coal-fired power plant on Capitol Hill Monday in what was described as the largest display of civil disobedience on the climate crisis in US history. Police made no arrests. Days before the protest, congressional leaders said they want the Capitol Power Plant to drop coal and convert to natural gas. Protesters at the plant on Monday included NASA scientist James Hansen, the writer Wendell Berry and over 1,000 students who had attended the Power Shift conference on climate change.
03 Mar 2009 at 08:33 pm | #
Justin:
One of my brothers was there. We’re glad there have been no arrests! Thanks for the post.
Maybe I’ll see if he’s interested in writing about it…
03 Mar 2009 at 09:40 pm | #
John Schneider (post #41) is that you from OKI Regional council of Govt.
Hello.
Jason Haaps. I have to see how this works. How did you give your website the hookup?
I’m fine with Dean, just want to see how the name change thing works.
03 Mar 2009 at 10:28 pm | #
I have no idea whom he’s talking about. I do talk with other doubters about the streetcar. It’s impossible not to since there are so many. But “tight” on this issue is a word I would apply only to Justin and the Dean. And what’s wrong with them expressing their opposition on their own site?
I have said it before, but it bears repeating. I lived in a city with streetcars for a year and used them daily. I loved them. I have ridden streetcars in several cities—both modern streetcars and older ones. I like them all. But this plan is ill-conceived, ridiculously over-priced, and over-hyped. Today, streetcars come into their own when a significant portion of their route is dedicated to their use. They are 19th century technology, and at the time they were the best urban transportation that was available. They were fitted into a downtown and OTR that had already been laid out, and it was a tight fit even then. If one wants to know what a neighborhood looks like that was developed because of streetcars, go to Oakley. OTR was built densely because before there were streetcars, most people had to walk.
My position would probably be different if we were talking about light rail, but we’re not. The streetcar will bomb and that will kill any chance for real improvement for twenty years.
03 Mar 2009 at 11:12 pm | #
Are you really sure you want to get into mountain-top removal and the toxic coal ash spills? The fact is our electricity is generated from coal. Duke doesn’t have much in the way of alternatives. I wrote about that recently.
03 Mar 2009 at 11:22 pm | #
John Schneider, please tell us exactly which comments are uninformed. Comments like this don’t seem to do anything to inform anyone. We are happy to engage you in a discussion. You ran away from the last debate. Please tell me why a bus or Trolley couldn’t move people around the same route. Thanks!
04 Mar 2009 at 03:58 am | #
“Today, streetcars come into their own when a significant portion of their route is dedicated to their use. They are 19th century technology…”
So the diesel engine invented in the 19th century or the electric bus, invented 75 years ago is better because they are new technology?
You are wrong that streetcars must have dedicated path to “come into their own”. The reason streetcars are so successful is exactly because they operate close to sidewalks and storefronts and are part of the pedestrian system.
You say this is too expensive, but the separated grade system (which you “might” support), would obviously be much much more expensive.
MEP, you say you have lived in cities with vintage streetcars and have riden modern streetcars. Do you mind citing which modern streetcars?, because the ones I have ridden have not been separated from traffic except for short stretches. Streetcars operate perfectly fine in 4 lane, 66’ wide one-way streets like Cincinnati/Portland. That is what they are made for.
“I ... used them daily. I loved them.” Can you express the same love for Dayton’s electric buses? The tight front door, the steps, the waiting in line to put your money in the basket, being tossed down the aisle as you try to find a seat? I ride buses pretty regularly and appreciate them but I could never really say I loved them.
04 Mar 2009 at 05:18 am | #
For the millionth time, the streetcar line proposed for Cincinnati will use hardly any electricity. Each individual streetcar will only use as much electricity in a year as a McMansion cul-de-sac.
>The streetcar will bomb and that will kill any chance for real improvement for twenty years.
The modern streetcar, even if it is only half as successful in Cincinnati as in Portland, will fundamentally transform Over-the-Rhine and therefore fundamentally transform this city. It will transform its self-image and its image to outsiders. The much cheaper 4-mile streetcar line in Portland did more to transform downtown Portland than did the 30+ miles of light rail that converge at Pioneer Square.
04 Mar 2009 at 11:37 am | #
“getbackcincy,...We love our city enough to do the hard work of asking tough questions and digging for answers. And we work to give voters a choice on these issues. What have you done for our city?” - Justin Jeffre
I’ve decided to live an economically, socially, and environmentally sustainable life in the downtown core, rather than continue the insanity that is a car dependent lifestyle. A car dependent lifestyle is in no way economically, socially, or environmentally sustainable.
What have you done other than cry foul at every progressive development that makes an economically, socially and environmentally sustainable lifestyle possible?
04 Mar 2009 at 01:14 pm | #
Please name one.
04 Mar 2009 at 02:25 pm | #
You’ll never get a real answer to this. The intimation has been repeated on almost every article posted here regarding transit, with absolutely no corroborating information.
Maybe The Dean doesn’t have deep enough pockets to visit Portland or do the research himself, but the NAACP does, and COAST does, and I am sure that the WeDemandAVote coalition, if they are interested in quantified arguments rather than hearsay, could band together the money to at least send one representative to Portland or commission their own investigation of the allegations made against the streetcar studies.
I haven’t seen an inkling of interest in backing up these allegations with substantial evidence.
Sure, have at it!
Maybe you can tell me how many mountains are going to be chopped off in the future to harvest coal for our electricity, or perhaps how many toxic coal ash spills are likely to occur from our coal sources.
As far as alternatives go, Duke can always purchase power from renewable sources using the pilot program that they started last year. Additionally, Duke will pay energy credits to anyone generating power on their end using renewable sources (such as solar panels on your roof), which reduces the demand for coal-generated power, and results in more of the “consumed energy” of the public being generated by renewable sources.
Anyhow, none of us like coal all that much, but a crap-ton of coal power plants were built around here back in the day when we (the general American public) didn’t know better. One Nuclear plant was even built here, botched, and then retrofitted to be coal instead.
We do have the space, here, to build solar farms if we fund such things. We can provide wind power here (albeit more expensively than Texas or California). We can even provide hydro power here (though with similarly disastrous environmental results).
My point here is that your obsession with the source of electricity to power the streetcar is basically a Red Herring:
You’ve refused to pursue supporting your case for trolleybusses when challenged with their ability to move the same amount of people (a claim that even Charlie Winburn’s trolleybus proposal contradicts). We already answered this question: They don’t mass-produce busses that large.
You’ve refused to support your argument that they won’t climb the hills when evidence was presented that our hills are not too steep for modern streetcars. There are quite a number that actually can climb a grade as steep as 9%. Seriously, you are against the streetcar for too high of a cost, yet you suggest an Aerial Tram (more costly, less people moved) as a better alternative?
You’ve refused to support your argument that it diverges from MetroMoves when it was shown that MetroMoves included a very similar streetcar line recommendation.
You’ve refused to support your argument that it will fail by actually not trying to find examples of such a proposal actually failing. Where are they? Why are those stories not articles on the beacon? Why is a single “mall circulator” the best example of a trolley-bus circulator that you could find?
You’ve refused to support your defense of Smitherman’s inflated cost estimate by actually not finding real examples of the project’s cost even being reported that high, or providing supporting evidence for Smitherman’s claim. Yes, his “3-4 miles around the downtown area” was actually only referring to the initial loop, making his cost claim even more outrageous. How do I know this? Because “3-4 mile loop” (the preferred alternative is 3.9 miles) has been the terminology used in literature from the studies. Until you provide real, substantiated evidence to the contrary, I will contend that you are wrong. You only want him to be right.
You have also argued against the BioDiesel “pollution” challenges advocating for a “grease bus” transit system. Pray tell, how do we get such a hypothetical beast mass-produced very quickly? We can only plan on technologies that do exist, not on ones that do not exist yet. Some people make “grease cars”, nobody mass produces “grease busses”. I find it highly contradictory that you make this argument, yet insist upon claiming that Duke energy does and always will only produce coal-based electricity. The truth is that our (Cincinnati’s) electric supply is much closer to being supplied with renewable sources (already, some is) than this hypothetical grease-bus infrastructure is to being a solution, so it makes more sense to pursue the greening of our electric supply than to attempt to front the R&D costs of a grease-bus transit system.
And now, once challenged with the prospect that part of the production and supply-chain for your fuel alternative also includes non-renewables, you bust out with your argument about the mountain-top cutting and the toxic coal-ash spills.
For the coal-ash spills: These are an environmental disaster, the fault of which is the management of the coal site. I could make the exact same argument of ground-water contamination due to pesticide or fertilizer spills, cross-field genetically-modified crop germination or disease, and any other number of hazardous results of the not-quite-so-clean agricultural industry in this country.
For the mountain-top removal: This is problem to be solved with legislation. It costs more to not remove the mountain-top, so it is done for cost reasons. If the argument is that this will be a fact of life for the coal-harvesting industry, then what makes you so sure that your “grease busses” won’t just be replaced by normal diesel busses for cost-cutting reasons? If this procedure is made illegal through legislation (many places have), then it becomes a non-issue. Would you then support the streetcar? If not, then why make the argument in the first place?
04 Mar 2009 at 03:31 pm | #
The Streetcar. You all had problem with Fountain Square as well. I’m sure somewhere in here you have articles against the development in OTR. Don’t you ever get tired? Life is short.
04 Mar 2009 at 03:37 pm | #
Trolleys and busses can do the same thing, can’t they?
Coleman, you missed the point. You want to talk about the pollution involved in shipping and producing bio-fuel, but you fail to acknowledge the pollution involved in transporting coal and turning it into energy. Duke is just now getting into alternatives and the reality is a majority of their energy will come from Dirty Coal and Nuclear for the foreseeable future.
I’m all for solar, wind power and geothermal etc. Why do you say hydro power would have similarly disastrous environmental results? I assume you’re talking about dams, but please explain.
I never said trolleys move the same number of people as a streetcar. I don’t think we need busses that large. But there’s a real simple and inexpensive way to find out. We could start running a bus on the exact same route. Why don’t Streetcar advocates support doing that?
I never said that streetcars can’t go up a hill. I said it can be problematic. Why are you pretending that I said things I didn’t say when I’ve already clarified this?
It seems to me that one of the main arguments for a streetcar is that it changes the image of a city, tourists would want to ride it etc. If that’s what we’re really going for then the Aerial Tram is much cooler. There are only two of them in the country, it has ROW, and it has a much bigger wow factor because it would show off our city’s historic district and river etc. It would certainly get our city more attention than a streetcar could.
And I don’t think it would really cost anymore than Phase II, but I don’t know for sure. John Schneider also thinks it would be better than running a streetcar up Vine. In Portland they run every 5 minutes and hold 79 people.
I said that it is good that the ballot initiative is causing a real discussion about mass transit throughout the city because there’s a lot of ways we could move people around our city and we need to improve our transit system in a lot of ways. (Including Light Rail).
Show me where I made such an argument. I said I supported Light Rail and so does the NAACP. This is not Light Rail. As for costs, what will the operation costs for the first ten years be?
Any diesel engine can be easily converted to run on grease. There’s no need to mass produce some new technology. Besides we’re only talking about a short line, though Phase I has recently expanded. Grease is a waste product that restaurants produce. They usually have to pay to get rid of it. I don’t think you can honestly make the same argument about polluting drinking water. A streetcar can run on grease too and I see nothing wrong with discussing it as a potential energy source.
04 Mar 2009 at 03:53 pm | #
getbackcincy, I supported the Light Rail plan and even worked on the campaign. I’ve worked on a number of ballot initiatives to give voters more choices. I don’t think we need a streetcar to make it easy for people to get around town. I didn’t support privatizing our public square and giving away 40 years worth of garage revenue which will cause an increase in all our city owned garages. Do you know how much revenue the city gave away?(Raising parking rates isn’t a good way to encourage people to come downtown.) You live downtown and that’s nice.
04 Mar 2009 at 04:14 pm | #
and you don’t so that pretty much sums it up. You won’t DIRECTLY benefit in your eyes so why not bash the idea?
04 Mar 2009 at 05:12 pm | #
Wrong getbackcincy, I would DIRECTLY benefit from it in my eyes. I would also benefit from a trolley or bus running the same route, but this isn’t about me personally.
04 Mar 2009 at 09:01 pm | #
So I will ask you for the fifth time, do you believe that Dr. George M. Vredeveld, Jeff Rexhausen, and G. Irem Yelkanci produced an inaccurate report?
04 Mar 2009 at 09:10 pm | #
One, because this is a no win situation for streetcar proponents. If there is no interest in the route, opponents will see that as a sign that a streetcar will not work. If there is interest, the argument will be made that the demand was met at a lower cost.
Two, because it is difficult to compare two different forms of transit. It would be impossible to set new highway routes (or a light rail route for that matter) by running a bus from one side to the other as these are traveled differently. Highway engineers know and plan for development along the route, which makes the highway busier, creating more development, etc. West Chester and Mason would not have developed as stops on a regional bus line, but did develop as highway exits. So it is with streetcars and buses. Two different forms of transit with two different development patterns, making it difficult to infer who would ride and where investment would occur.
04 Mar 2009 at 10:04 pm | #
Actually, according to the folks who led the light rail campaign, Justin Jeffre’s involvement was quite minimal and he disappeared as November approached.
04 Mar 2009 at 10:26 pm | #
No, I clearly said that for the 19th century that was the best that was available. The diesel bus and electric trolley bus were invented because of the problems with the streetcar. They came later, as citykin noted, because they were better.
No, I clearly said that a significant portion of their route should be just for streetcar use. I never said nor implied that the entire path has to be so dedicated.
I used streetcars in Munich, Hamburg (since replaced with diesel busses), Lisbon, Stuttgart, Frankfurt (a.M.), and Zurich. I’ve been in Amsterday and New Orleans and observed those streetcars but don’t specifically remember riding them so I won’t claim those two. I’ve ridden the cable car in San Francisco. I’ve ridden the subway in Washington, the Tube in London, and the Metro in Paris. I’ve ridden the S-Bahn and U-Bahn in Hamburg. I’ve ridden the rubber-tired subway in Mexico City. I’ve also ridden the subway in Berlin, but not since the Wiedervereinigung. Due to the special circumstances of the Cold War it was not a good example.
Back to streetcars. The portion of the routes that were in the denser-populated areas generally had dedicated rights-of-way or were in pedestrian-only zones. Not all of the streetcar route has to be for its exclusive use—I never said that and I would thank you for not making stuff up about what I did say. And it is possible for a streetcar to have none of its route for its exclusive use. I merely pointed out my (and others) observations that if it does, it works a whole lot better than if the streetcar always has to fight traffic. Remember, it is on rails so any obstruction can tie up the whole line.
Another point: Most of the streetcar routes that I have observed were basically straight or had only gentle curves. I certainly cannot remember one twisting and turning like this bent figure-8 system that is proposed. It was a tight fit for streetcars to make the turns a hundred years ago. With this super-streetcar it would be even tighter. I bet the darned thing does some contortions to make the turns in OTR. Probably has to switch lanes like a semi-truck and will likely get into accidents a lot because of that.
Again, no. That is not the pattern in most of the cities that I have observed, except when they ran in pedestrian-only zones. Those zones, of course, did not have sidewalks and the streetcars would run close to the middle of the pedestrian street, plaza, or mall. And if streetcars did run close along the sidewalk there would be no room for trucks loading and unloading of merchandise for those shops.
At the neighborhood summit the session on form-based codes passed out conceptial pictures of a wide, tree-lined street, with a broad median strip with flowers and grass, and streetcars running along the curb lanes. They allowed absolutely no room for parking or for truck loading and unload in front of the stores. And the street looks at least twice as wide as anything in Over-The-Rhine. It is a fantasy.
04 Mar 2009 at 11:43 pm | #
I second the motion.
05 Mar 2009 at 12:32 am | #
I volunteered my time to help produce a video and I went out in the community, but if they want to blame other people for the weak campaign they ran that’s fine with me. I’m simply saying that I actively supported the Light Rail campaign-so people who pretend I’m “anti-rail” or “progress” have no idea what they are talking about.
I’m certainly not taking credit for running that campaign though. I actually never even mentioned working on the campaign until recently after I was wrongly accused of being “anti-transit” by people who think writing anonymous comments attacking people personally is serious activism.
BTW, what exactly have you done to bring Light Rail to the region anon? Please don’t pretend a streetcar is Light Rail. As a matter of fact, I’m not sure that the streetcar portion of the plan helped us get Light Rail at all.
05 Mar 2009 at 02:04 am | #
The modern streetcar in Portland has revolutionized transit planning for mid-sized cities. Everyone in planning, engineering, and politics travels there to see it for themselves. The modern streetcar format has been so successful that construction of the new downtown light rail in Portland was controversial—many wanted it to be built as modern streetcar instead. It would have saved tens of millions and allowed less modification to the streetscape.
In 2002 modern streetcar was unproven in the United States because Portland’s line only became operational months earlier and much of the explosive residential growth along its course had not yet broken ground. The modern streetcar portion of the Metro Moves plan helped reduce capital costs sufficiently to plan for a county-wide system, instead of just the I-71 & Mt. Auburn Tunnel line that was studied in the late 1990’s.
Portland has also done a fantastic job proving that surface-running light rail in a business district cannot only save hundreds of millions in tunneling costs, but actually have the advantage of keeping more people at street level. They have implemented it there much more successfully than other surface-running lines in Baltimore, Dallas, and elsewhere. The idea of rebuilding the downtown portion of Portland’s original MAX light rail underground as a subway has been tossed around but most think the operational advantages do not outweigh the advantage of all the street activity. I agree, because I’ve been there and seen it with my own eyes.
The decisive technical issue is that surface light rail *cannot* climb the Vine St. hill (it could only climb Reading or Gilbert, well away from UC), but modern streetcar can. It must travel through a tunnel to reach UC directly, and such a tunnel would cost at least $100 million. I’ve spoken to the actual designer of that unbuilt tunnel (they went so far as to drill rock samples), and you all could too if The Beacon Bunch would travel to Portland.
05 Mar 2009 at 09:08 am | #
I answered this already. See my comment #32. The article covering the subject appeared months ago. Read my article, “UC Study Approves Streetcar Boondoggle” for details.
05 Mar 2009 at 10:38 am | #
So I will ask you for the sixth time, do you believe that Dr. George M. Vredeveld, Jeff Rexhausen, and G. Irem Yelkanci produced an inaccurate report?
05 Mar 2009 at 11:54 am | #
MEP, You have ridden the trams in Zurich along their winding hills and streets amidst car traffic, but still say they cannot work well on our GRID? You loved them in other cities, but would rather have a Dayton, OH type electric bus?
if streetcars did run close along the sidewalk there would be no room for trucks loading and unloading of merchandise for those shops. NOT TRUE AT ALL. You know where they run. If you read the current proposal, you know it eliminates only 18 parking spaces. To quote yourself I would thank you for not making stuff up.
05 Mar 2009 at 12:40 pm | #
If you all would travel to Memphis you would see a rust belt economy, similar to ours, and the struggles they are having. We have a declining population and a city that developed because of the river and the early wealth it brought. Cincinnati was the machine tool capitol of the world. Thanks to the corporate greed that is history so if you look to Fourth Street for your salvation - you’re screwed. Build an amusement ride for Chris Bortz and Company and you’ll get the returns produced by the stadium, convention center, gateway I,II,III,IIII or fountain square.
05 Mar 2009 at 04:04 pm | #
-Our population is growing.
-The convention center had an economic impact of $44 million last year.
-The Stadia were county projects.
-Fountain Square is much more lively than it was before the renovation and surrounded by new shops and restaurants.
-The gateway projects have reduced the amount of crime in southern Over the Rhine and brought new businesses and homeowners into the city.
-Fourth Street didn’t come up with the current streetcar plan, it was initially developed by a grassroots effort of the Brewery District, some architects and the Alliance for Regional Transit.
05 Mar 2009 at 04:49 pm | #
Uhm, I like those overall returns, especially w/ The Banks finally underway.
As for Paul Brown stadium, you can argue that both the county and team management are to blame for that debacle. As for the Reds stadium, well at least we got a vote on that one. I was for the BW Commons proposal, but everyone else was for the riverfront deal. That was our (the public’s) choice, so we all agreed (through democracy) to live with the consequences of that decision.
Maybe we are still putting money into these projects (on the deficit end of the eqn.), but both teams cause significant local revenue generation (especially when Cleveland or Pittsburgh visit), and as long as those teams remain here those returns continue to creep further in our favor.
05 Mar 2009 at 05:06 pm | #
First, Cincinnati does not have the critical mass of Portland.
Second, the success of Portland’s streetcar is exaggerated. The streetcar zealots fail to tell the whole story and they attribute everything positive in Portland to the streetcar. As one person offered the analogy that the rooster claimed responsibility for each new day.
I am now in Oregon and will be for a few weeks, so could you tell me where I should be looking or who I should be talking to in order to get the enlightenment that you infer will come with a trip to Portland? While I have ridden the buses here, I have yet to ride that silly streetcar after seeing it for years.
Convictions are, indeed, a greater threat to truth than ignorance.
Oh, on that tunnel idea, we German’s have a real tunnel-making machine that can do that tunnel for far less than 100 million. But, then I must ask whether a demand exists in Cincinnati for such a tunnel when so many are leaving Cincinnati? I hope you do not believe that a tunnel and or a trolley or light rail will keep people from leaving Cincinnati? If that is the case then, Sie sind ein Dummkopf.
Dieter Schmied
05 Mar 2009 at 06:29 pm | #
When attempting to make a point, it helps if the facts used to reason said argument are actually true, and not false.
When you make up facts (such as, “so many are leaving Cincinnati”), then you already have proven your reasoning to be divergent from reality. Why should any of us believe what you say?
05 Mar 2009 at 07:35 pm | #
Brad, I believe that the Dean answered your question very early on when he said the report was not “gospel” so do not keep repeating the same question over and over again. It’s obnoxious, especially after you brushed of the Dean’s response about Michael Earl Patton’s analysis of the report.
If you care to rehash the discussion that was had here at the Beacon about the UC report please review Michael’s article UC Study Approves Streetcar Boondoggle. I think he raises some very legitimate questions and issues that the study failed to address.
I’m sure there were studies done by “professionals” and so called experts before the city put in the Skywalks and before they got rid of Cincinnati’s old streetcars, wouldn’t you agree? And yes, I beleive the streetcar does go up to UC and was paid for by streetcar advocates.
As the Dean said when he answered your question “The report plays a role in the debate—but it is not necessarily gospel just because it exists. Fallible appeals to authority based on the existence of that report are really just empty rhetoric. The report is not necessarily final truth just because it exists.”
I would like for you to read that article and address the points Michael Earl Patton raised if you’re going to continue to try to tout the report as gospel.
05 Mar 2009 at 07:56 pm | #
First of all the UC Study states
“That’s what this report was commissioned to do. UC’s Center for the City asked the Economics Center for Education & Research to evaluate
the studies already on the table and to draw some conclusions on the validity of those studies. In short, to “check the math” on the suggested benefits and test their credibility”
The UC Center for the City describes itself as:
“Mission
The Center for the City at the University of Cincinnati is a window of opportunity for the community and for UC students, faculty, and staff who wish to engage in community interaction and participate in innovative mutually beneficial partnerships.”
I don’t know if these are the “streetcar advocates” who paid for this report, it looks like the UC Center for the City commissioned the report.
But even if this study were paid for by streetcar advocates, are you alleging that the bias of those who funded the report was somehow transferred to Dr. George M. Vredeveld, Jeff Rexhausen, and G. Irem Yelkanci’s report?
Or are you arguing that Dr. George M. Vredeveld, Jeff Rexhausen, and G. Irem Yelkanci were inherently biased when they drafted the report?
05 Mar 2009 at 08:16 pm | #
I don’t know if they are biased or not, but I do think that there were some flaws with their report that Michael Earl Patton summarized very well. Are you going to read his article or not? If not, then I’m not interested in hearing anymore about their report from you or anyone else that hasn’t read it. I’ve provided a link already.
05 Mar 2009 at 08:25 pm | #
I looked at the report and the facts and did my analysis accordingly. The question of whether or not they were inherently biased is not relevant. Their analysis is deeply flawed.
05 Mar 2009 at 08:40 pm | #
Do I really have to explain that trucks are wider than most cars? And modern stretcars are wider, too? A parking space for a car would not leave room for a truck, especially a truck with side mirrors.
05 Mar 2009 at 08:59 pm | #
^
Really?
There’s an old saying among economists: they are poor engineers. Somewhat compensating for this, engineers make very poor economists, as Michael Earl Patton has shown us. His analysis of the two economic studies of the Cincinnati Streetcar shows a fundamental understanding of how projects are evaluated. He confuses finance with economics, and it goes downhill from there.
Let me take a few minutes to bring Mr. Patton’s economics training up to about where college sophomores in the field are today.
Patton claims UC’s assessment of the city’s streetcar study agrees that it will achieve a return of at least 160% over 35 years. But that’s not what it says at all. It says that if the entire stream of future costs and the entire stream of future benefits are discounted to their present value on Day One of the project, then the value of all the future benefits will be 1.6 times the value of all future costs. Not in 35 years, but on Day One. It’s as if Mr. Patton and I walked into a bank at 9:00a and opened an account by depositing $1.00 and then returned a few minutes later to close the account which had now grown to $1.60. And that’s the 10% least probable outcome. There is also a 10% chance that our $1.00 deposit could be worth almost $4.00 on Day One. The median expected result is that it would grow to $2.70. That is an astonishing rate-of-return. Highways regularly approved at 1.1 to 1.0; they barely cover their costs. I bet the new Brent Spence Bridge won’t be anywhere near the streetcar’s rate-of-return. So far as I know, no one has even bothered to calculate it, and it’s our region’s top transportation priority. Ironic, that.
Patton also says that “unlike busses [sic], the streetcar will stop in the middle of the streets to pick up and unload passengers, blocking a lane of traffic each time.” The streetcar operations have been extensively vetted by Cincinnati’s traffic engineers, generally a tough bunch to satisfy. The streetcar actually boards and de-boards much faster than a bus because it has six doors, four of them oversized for boarding disabled persons in a matter of seconds. Don’t take my work for it. Go to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xL7QEQuRqq0 and see for yourself. It’s not a problem.
Patton turns his nose up at the present value of $35 million in benefits to low-income persons because they will have cheaper ways of getting around because of the streetcar. Does he know that almost no city in the country spends a greater share of its disposable income on local transportation than Cincinnati residents do? Some low-income families in this city who have to rely on taxis a lot spend up to 40% of their income just getting around. Seems unbelievable, but it’s true. I personally think it was short-sighted of the economists to only count the cost-of-mobility savings accruing to low-income riders. Lots of middle and high-income riders will benefit too. Their savings will go to purchasing more and better housing, retail goods, college educations, better health care – all kinds of local spending that will stay here instead of ending up in Japan and Kuwait.
Cheryl Crowell … whatever became of her? Oh, now I remember, her whole analysis that Cincinnati was understating streetcar operating costs came undone with her realization that Cincinnati was calculating its operations based on one-way track miles rather than the way she figured Portland does it: on two-way route miles. The numerator was really about the same, but Cincinnati’s divisor was twice what Portland used. The result was that the cost per mile of Cincinnati’s operations was understated by half. She finally realized the error of her ways, and no one has ever heard from her since.
Here’s a breathtaking statement by Patton: “There is such a thing as the time value of money.” Correct. And the economists discounted all the future streams of costs and benefits over time by the riskless cost of money (if there is such a thing these days). They used, I recall, a 4% discount rate, which is (was) the rate on a long-term government bond. The thinking is, if we can’t beat the riskless cost of funds, the government should leave its money in the bank.
Randal O’Toole? The forestry graduate posing as an economist who makes a living trying to tell people that everything they hear about Portland never happened, even if they have seen it with their own eyes? Here’s the funny thing about O’Toole: in 24 trips leading people out to Portland, I’ve met exactly two people there who have ever heard of him. My take: O’Toole is so off-the-wall in his criticisms of Portland that he could never say what he says in Portland because people there know better. I think the Oregonian actually had an article to this effect in the last year or two. He’s a gifted writer, but there’s nothing there. He is an ideologue.
Is the Urban Growth Boundary the reason for Portland’s success because it artificially boosts Portland’s population density? Here’s the problem with that reasoning: Cincinnati is actually more dense – today, without an UGB – than Portland is after 39 years with one. You could look it up. End of story.
The up-zoning around the streetcar line? Sure, that happened. Portland had this abandoned railroad yard a mile from downtown where nothing was happening, and said to developers, “we’re going to permit much larger buildings here because they will be connected to downtown by the streetcar.” The market responded. The result: Portland’s Pearl District, recently named the best new neighborhood in America. Probably 8,000 people living today where no one lived ten years ago. This is failure?
And all those incentives that O’Toole says Portland had to give to get all that development? Last week, we heard there was now (unconfirmed) $5 billion of it along the streetcar line. Here’s how O’Toole comes up with his calculation of the subsidies Portland had to give: he counts the fact that the city built streets and sidewalks where none existed – is that a subsidy? Portland State built some new buildings and the art museum expanded. He calls these “subsidies.” Portland took down a bridge about the size of the Western Hills Viaduct that cut diagonally across the Pearl District and made it undevelopable. Is that a subsidy or a decommissioning of an obsolete city asset? To O’Toole, that’s a subsidy.
I’ve said enough. Except this: knowledge without understanding is not wisdom.
06 Mar 2009 at 06:12 am | #
John, I wonder why you insist on the personal attacks against Mr. Patton? You even seek to criticize his spelling of the word “busses” with your use of “[sic],” and in so doing you seem blissfully unaware that the word actually has two spellings.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/busses
I mention this because lurking in the midst of your self-proclaimed superiority is such a simple error! And not just any error, but an attempt on your part to belittle Patton over spelling, but the error is your own! What other simple oversights have you made in your hurried and haughty “analysis”?
Other than that, you do raise some points, so I hope Mr. Patton will respond to you. Perhaps the back-and-forth between each of you can be a separate item…
Understanding without knowledge is dogmatism.
06 Mar 2009 at 10:26 am | #
On Mr. Patton’s Article
I read Mr. Patton’s article and was prepared to write something about it, but John beat me to it so I will not repeat what he wrote.
Mr. Patton’s largest oversight was failing to take into account that the numbers in the report were presented at their Net Present Value with a four percent discount rate.
So Mr. Patton’s claim:
fails to take this into account.
If that $100 million was invested at four percent interest over 35 years with a four percent discount rate (what was used in the study) the result would be $100 million in NPV on the investment.
On Bias
You may feel the study was inaccurate. You may feel there were certain oversights that were made. You may question the methodology.
For example Mr. Patton wrote:
The Dean wrote:
But I believe it is inappropriate to insinuate that Dr. George M. Vredeveld, Jeff Rexhausen, and G. Irem Yelkanci were biased when you have no evidence of such bias.
06 Mar 2009 at 11:47 am | #
You missed a perfect opportunity to also mention that, while SORTA’s current inner-city fare is $1.50, the Streetcar has been analyzed at $0-$0.50-$1.00 per trip, with the relative return, ridership, and merits of each. That alone would be exceedingly helpful to any lower-income riders. It is also likely that we’ll see at least one other SORTA increase, or route cutback again before the thing gets built.
06 Mar 2009 at 12:59 pm | #
Mr. Schneider,
Your condescending attitute is great cover for your ineptitude and it is being repeated since your insinuation of the Dean being unprepared during your first debate. This leads me to believe that you cannot convince anyone using facts so you therefore must resort to baffling them with BS and in NEOCON fashion attempt to discredit those who disagree. You sir have traded reality for something more intellectual. Let the people decide by voting on this project if it is so wonderful.
Please refrain from the personal attacks as it only serves to display your ignorance.
06 Mar 2009 at 02:28 pm | #
“Please refrain from the personal attacks as it only serves to display your ignorance”- looks like a personal attack to me.
How can you even argue with what John just said? You pull out a spelling mistake? What about the facts? I would like a repsonse to the facts!
06 Mar 2009 at 05:05 pm | #
Schneider wrote:
Citation, please?
06 Mar 2009 at 05:07 pm | #
How much money in subsidies will be given in Cincinnati to realize the projected development? Why won’t people like Schneider address this straightforward question?
06 Mar 2009 at 05:14 pm | #
John, look up density figures for specific areas along the streetcar route. Northwest Portland, for example, has substantially more people than both downtown and OTR combined. So broadly defined population density over entire municipal areas is less relevant than densities along the routes.
For example, what does the population of Madisonville have to do with the Cincinnati Streetcar? It adds to the Cincinnati population density, but has no bearing on the particular issue at hand.
06 Mar 2009 at 05:15 pm | #
Brad, are you suggesting that we are biased?
I just want to reach a logical conclusion based on what is ecologically, economically, and socially sustainable. Do you disagree with that goal? Does that make me biased?
Those are objective standards against which the plan can be measured.
06 Mar 2009 at 05:40 pm | #
Yes John, that is unbelievable. And what is even more unbelievable is that this is happening along the proposed streetcar line. I really have trouble believing that. Instead of just alleging that I have “an uninformed opinion” please show me that this is a fact and not just your opinion.
06 Mar 2009 at 09:05 pm | #
And we are supposed to trust economists instead??? Look at the stock market, the economy, and all the failed banks. Maybe an engineer doing a conservative analysis would have done better. After all, that is Mr. Schneider’s criticism—that I was too conservative with my numbers.
There’s a joke among scientists (my first degree was in physics): that astrology was invented by economists to make their own field look scientific in comparison.
06 Mar 2009 at 10:17 pm | #
Actually, my article covered several different aspects:
1. I said that if the streetcar blocks traffic, then it isn’t legit to claim a benefit for reduced congestion. Since I first wrote that I found out that this streetcar makes wide turns, like a semi, and has to cut across a lane in order to turn. The effect on traffic will be even worse than I first thought.
2. I questioned how one can claim a large benefit for low-income people when the object is to upscale OTR, resulting in that it is beyond their affordability.
3. I questioned the operating costs. The projected ridership varies wildly depending upon whether it is free, would cost 50 cents, or would cost a dollar per ride, decreasing with increasing fares. And the amount of the required subsidy also varied wildly, depending upon fare charged. At the time of the study the bus fare was a dollar, so the current fare of a dollar-fifty was not evaluated. The ridership would doubtless be even less in that case.
4. I stated that the operating costs for the first few years was used as the basis for operating costs decades into the future. That is bogus since it is the common experience that repair and maintenance costs rise over time. There will come a time when the rails are worn and have to be replaced and the streetcar wheels will have to be re-trued. (When that time came in Dayton they replaced their streetcars with electric trolley busses.)
5. I did talk about the time-value of money. I will look at the numbers again and give my results.
6. I talked about Democracy, specifically:
7. I also pointed out that alternatives were not discussed.
8. Not pointed out in my earlier article is the fact that our city council, as evidenced by the Skywalk, is ready to abandon a project when the fashion changes.
9. Also not pointed out is that our city can’t even get a simple thing like a map correct. Or even consistent.
10. The question of truck loading and unloading is one that I hadn’t considered before the streetcar backers emphasized that it would run “close” along the sidewalk. But it should be looked into more. A bus can go around a truck that may be sticking out a little. A streetcar cannot.
The only point in question is the 5th one.
06 Mar 2009 at 10:30 pm | #
Mr Schneider,
Regardless of how smart you think you are we all have one thing in common. We cannot see the future. Relying on the past in order to project the future is like driving down the street, with your eyes firmly fixed on the rear view mirror. It would be wise for you to start all your spreadsheets and presentations with “I think” or “My best guess is” or “Maybe”. Cities are like snowflakes or people. No two are alike and yet they are the same. Change the thinking and you change everything. Show us some evidence that this project might work and convince the people of the other 49 neighborhoods that rhis is good for them. The way you denigrate others appears to show your confidence, and Con is short for confidence. Show us you are more than a Con-Man. All the other schemes have been a con job and haven’t produced the results promised.
It’s OK to say Carl wants a streetcar and we get to pay for it.
06 Mar 2009 at 10:31 pm | #
With respect to the percentage of disposable income spent by Cincinnati’s low-income families on transportation, I may have been too conservative in placing it at 40% of disposable income, a figure I’ve heard many times over the past decade. It appears that the correct percentage may actually be higher.
The following study puts the percentage at 30% to 63%, depending or whether you live in an employment cluster like downtown or uptown, or somewhere else, and also depending on whether one’s income is less than $20,000 or between $20,000 and $35,000. See:
http://www.nhc.org/pdf/chp-pub-hl06-cincinnati.pdf
I mean no malice to Michael Earl Patton. However, he did sign his critique of the UC economists’ work with the notation that he held a “Master’s Degree in Aeronautical Engineering from the University of Cincinnati.” To me, his doing so was intended to add weight to his critique, even though his engineering training is remote from the subject he was evaluating. While holding himself out as an expert on the subject, his analysis of the UC economists’ work was primitive and unscholarly. I hold a Master’s Degree from UC too, with a concentration in economics. It would never occur to me to append my degrees to a blog posting in order to enhance its credibility, as Mr. Patton did. I called him on it.
06 Mar 2009 at 11:31 pm | #
Okay, the Portland streetcar has 6 doors, but 3 are on one side and 3 on the other. Cincinnati is not talking about boarding and unboarding on both sides at once. That would mean one side is stepping into traffic.
So, we are comparing 3 doors against 2, and the streetcar is about twice as big as a bus. Given acceleration and deceleration times, the time involved seemed to me to be about the same as the modern busses that are used on our Metro routes.
As I have said above (#66) I have ridden a lot of different streetcars and what I saw wasn’t anything that different. The Portland video shows wide streets and pedestrian plazas. What does that have to do with OTR? I may not have ridden the streetcar in Portland, but I wonder if the streetcar backers have been to OTR.
I also noted gentle curves. Again, how is that going to work in OTR? Because the streetcar is so long, it needs gentle curves. This is totally unlike the old streetcars which were much shorter. The only way is for the streetcar to hog the entire street while it goes around a corner.
And, as I have pointed out before, the metal-on-metal noise is significant.
07 Mar 2009 at 08:19 am | #
Mr. Schneider,
I just looked at that report you linked. On what page does it mention that poor people spend that much money riding taxis?
Also, are you suggesting the streetcar will serve those who do not have transportation options?
Finally, why won’t you address my other questions—about the subsidies, and the neighborhood-specific density comparisons between Cincinnati and Portland?
07 Mar 2009 at 01:03 pm | #
Doesn’t appear that portland is an example we should be following. This didn’t make the main stream media…surprise.
Shall we continue to believe the experts funded from the suites of the fourth street gang. “Fool me once blah, blah, blah” GWB
http://bojack.org/2007/09/portland_a_city_deep_in_hock_1.html
07 Mar 2009 at 02:02 pm | #
>also noted gentle curves. Again, how is that going to work in OTR? Because the streetcar is so long, it needs gentle curves.
The Skoda vehicles are double-articulated. The curves are a non-issue. There is one curve in Seattle that switches lanes before turning, but this is because it has to make two turns on either end of a very short block. We would not have that situation here.
>This is totally unlike the old streetcars which were much shorter.
Shorter but not articulated. The ends often swung out, depending on the specific design, and they were not ADA compliant.
>The only way is for the streetcar to hog the entire street while it goes around a corner.
The entire line to Findlay Market will have eight 90 degree turns. None of them will be downtown. Six will be in OTR, two on The Banks. Do you really think traffic volumes are such in OTR that streetcars will cause any more obstruction to vehicular traffic than a bus?
>And, as I have pointed out before, the metal-on-metal noise is significant.
Really? How would you know if you haven’t heard the Portland or Seattle systems for yourself? Certainly, some older systems around the world create noise while turning, but it is quite minimal with the modern streetcar. I walked the entire Portland line, which has several 90 degree turns, and none of them created unpleasant noise, and none of them created noise that compares at all with a typical bus. They create a very mild white noise that can be heard from about a block away, but it is again nowhere close to the noise created by a bus. Also, 4-way crossovers create no noise either.
07 Mar 2009 at 03:49 pm | #
Surely you are aware of the metal on metal noise of the brakes on buses, which get noisier as time goes on. Beyond that, there’s the hissing noise of the air-brakes, as well as the general noisiness of a diesel engine (which is noisy even on current buses).
I’ve lived in the city almost all of my life, and I’ve gotten used to sounds much worse than any of the streetcar lines I’ve heard. I grew up hearing the Queensgate Railyard noises every night, as well as ambulance sirens with relatively high frequency, and the sounds of buses stopping (hissssss) and then accelerating (vroom vroom), not to mention other children playing outside, all the other traffic of poorly maintained vehicles (no mufflers, squeaky brakes).
Are you serious?
08 Mar 2009 at 07:22 pm | #
I appended that comment about from where I got my degree because it is standard practice to note where there might be a conflict of interest.
I did not append all my degrees to the post—only the one from U.C. I actually have 4 college level degrees and am a licensed professional engineer. If I had wanted to “enhance” my credibility, I would have noted at least those. John Schneider should not pretend to be a mind-reader.
08 Mar 2009 at 07:37 pm | #
No, the curves are a big issue. From the Cincinnati Streetcar Feasibility Study, which is on the city’s website, pp. 13-14:
The streetcar is somewhat flexible, but as the video (#83) shows the inside starts moving like a snake. People could be injured if it flexed too much.
08 Mar 2009 at 07:48 pm | #
The noise level of the streetcar has been used many times by its supporters. I don’t have actual decibel levels, but they might be quieter than a diesel bus (hybrid busses might be another matter), at least outside. But they do make noise, and that was my point. A study of interior noise levels might show diesel busses are quieter on the inside. Certainly the noise seems less annoying.
Also, I have noted before that electric trolley busses do NOT have this metal-wheel-on-metal-rail noise.
08 Mar 2009 at 07:54 pm | #
This thread has gotten very long, and I will have to spend time on a couple other projects for the next few days. I will write again on the topic. The subject of curves and blocking traffic, for example, demands more treatment. And I will look at the numbers again for payback. Streetcar backers will have more opportunities to comment in the future.
I will not be able to respond to any futher comments on this thread.
08 Mar 2009 at 09:42 pm | #
RE: MEP #104 and Jake the Snake Provost…
BUSTED!
08 Mar 2009 at 10:31 pm | #
Hey Dean, did any of those streetcars look full to you?
09 Mar 2009 at 03:00 am | #
>The streetcar is somewhat flexible, but as the video (#83) shows the inside starts moving like a snake. People could be injured if it flexed too much.
An engineer in Portland described to me that originally they had a problem with small children getting caught behind a particular handlebar in the articulation joints. Nobody was injured but it caused the children to get upset. This problem was solved by removing the original bars and replacing them with a new design which prevents children or anyone else from being able to get caught between the bars and the articulation joints.
>but they might be quieter than a diesel bus (hybrid busses might be another matter), at least outside. But they do make noise, and that was my point.
There are countless examples in Portland where the streetcars and buses share the road. When side-by-side, the mild electric golf cart sound of the streetcars is overwhelmed by the buses while idling, accelerating, or braking.
>I have noted before that electric trolley busses do NOT have this metal-wheel-on-metal-rail noise.
Should Dayton dismantle its electric bus system because it is powered by coal?
24 Apr 2009 at 08:30 am | #
What did the first Electric Streetcar do?
24 Apr 2009 at 02:31 pm | #
Q:
What did the first Electric Streetcar do?
A: FAILED
24 Apr 2009 at 02:46 pm | #
Maybe you should look at outlying communities such as Oakley, Bond Hill, and College Hill. The rapid growth of Cincinnati during the time of the original streetcar doesn’t indicate “FAILED” to me.