Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Imagine if, in your 20 year old house, your roof started leaking, a couple of windows broke out, birds were getting in the attic, and the paint was flaking off.
Rather than fixing everything as best as you can afford, you take out a second mortgage on the property, sell off both your cars, sign away an annuity, and sell the family dog in order to buy that extra-special double-glazed window... between the kitchen and the living room. Nevermind that it was the outside windows that needed replacement, the paint was peeling, and the roof was leaking.
That's the streetcar - the window between the kitchen and the living room. Cincinnati would be far better served if it actually spent the money all around the city - in the neighborhoods which have been neglected by this City Council so it could favor development in OTR.
But I suppose there's a nice new window between two interior rooms.
That's an interesting point and I think it speaks to where Chemistry Guy lands on the subject. I think we can all agree that transportation funding has a huge impact on urban (and sub/exurban) form and that when we are making these $100 million + investments, we should think of the big picture. We should think in longer terms than 20/30 years commercial lending cycle and really think about what we are doing. In short, we should plan.
I don't see the streetcar as actively making the situation worse as I do with the large exurban highway investments (and municipal water/sewer investments for that matter). I don't think it is the best way to spend $100 million (or whatever the total is), but I think it at least makes some sense.
Personally, I'd spend the money on burying power lines, resurfacing roads, and upgrading bus service. Boring, fixing-the-windows kind of stuff.
That's an interesting point and I think it speaks to where Chemistry Guy lands on the subject. I think we can all agree that transportation funding has a huge impact on urban (and sub/exurban) form and that when we are making these $100 million + investments, we should think of the big picture. We should think in longer terms than 20/30 years commercial lending cycle and really think about what we are doing. In short, we should plan.
I don't see the streetcar as actively making the situation worse as I do with the large exurban highway investments (and municipal water/sewer investments for that matter). I don't think it is the best way to spend $100 million (or whatever the total is), but I think it at least makes some sense.
Personally, I'd spend the money on burying power lines, resurfacing roads, and upgrading bus service. Boring, fixing-the-windows kind of stuff.
Hensleya1's post you quoted also speaks to exactly where I land on the subject.
That's an interesting point and I think it speaks to where Chemistry Guy lands on the subject. I think we can all agree that transportation funding has a huge impact on urban (and sub/exurban) form and that when we are making these $100 million + investments, we should think of the big picture. We should think in longer terms than 20/30 years commercial lending cycle and really think about what we are doing. In short, we should plan.
I don't see the streetcar as actively making the situation worse as I do with the large exurban highway investments (and municipal water/sewer investments for that matter). I don't think it is the best way to spend $100 million (or whatever the total is), but I think it at least makes some sense.
Personally, I'd spend the money on burying power lines, resurfacing roads, and upgrading bus service. Boring, fixing-the-windows kind of stuff.
I don't quite understand your position on water/sewer investments. Are you saying all water and sewer investments should occur on the absolute minimum plots of ground so the lengths of the water and sewer lines are a minimum? Is this going to equate to minimum costs of both investment and infrastructure maintenance? If that is taken to its natural conclusion we would all live in high-rises on minimal plots of ground. The one glaring example which comes to my mind is the Gold Coast of Chicago. I doubt whether those people are paying any less for their water/sewer service than anyone in Cincinnati.
I still vote for Cincinnati to get off their dead ass and complete the first phase of the streetcar. Only then can anyone have hindsight to evaluate its effectiveness. But maybe that is what they are concerned about, the voters may throw them out of office before the final numbers come in. If their convictions are truely it is a sound economic endeavor, why is it not moving forward?
^ Really? Where were you all when this project was first announced in 2006???
In 2006 I was finishing graduate school and had never heard of a streetcar project. The first time I heard it discussed was as part of the economic stimulus package in 2009. The first time I commented on it several years ago I had this to say:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chemistry_Guy
Wilson I agree with your opinion on this topic, but I have a different reasoning. I don't think that anyone's plan is specifically to grow government and put more people on the federal payroll. Instead, I think that the government's strategic plan is to become less dependent on sending all of our money overseas to make our geopolitical enemies rich by buying oil. Oil wealth is very different than industrial wealth because it concentrates money in the hands of individuals that don't have shareholders or trustees that they are beholden to so they can dump billions into politics, which usually means making life difficult for democracies. If engineers found a way to synthetically make gasoline cheap enough to compete with Arab or Venezuelan crude I think that the mass transit and green energy subsidies would dry up in a heartbeat.
A few years ago I worked at a Department of Energy lab, and there they definitely didn't mince words. They talked about alternative energy being the Manhattan project of the 21st century, using technology to defeat our enemies and preserve our way of life. I am really not exaggerating.
Regardless, I do not think the streetcar plan was an effective use of resources, and I am generally a big fan of mass transit and rail transit in particular. I could list a dozen reasons why, but the weather is too nice outside to stay in side and type any longer.
I don't quite understand your position on water/sewer investments. Are you saying all water and sewer investments should occur on the absolute minimum plots of ground so the lengths of the water and sewer lines are a minimum?
I think it depends. Water/sewer extensions are the first step that allow development of any density. I think there should be a development fee when new developments come on board that consider the amount of public infrastructure required per unit and that should be paid at the time of unit sale and held in an a municipal account until the time comes to upgrade those services.
When you extend 100,000 feet of public infrastructure to serve 200 new homes, that will be expensive in the long run. When you have to raise taxes to pay for the replacement infrastructure, the resident can just throw up his hands and move farther out where the development cycle is 30 years behind.
I think it depends. Water/sewer extensions are the first step that allow development of any density. I think there should be a development fee when new developments come on board that consider the amount of public infrastructure required per unit and that should be paid at the time of unit sale and held in an a municipal account until the time comes to upgrade those services.
When you extend 100,000 feet of public infrastructure to serve 200 new homes, that will be expensive in the long run. When you have to raise taxes to pay for the replacement infrastructure, the resident can just throw up his hands and move farther out where the development cycle is 30 years behind.
Are cities authorized to collect such fees (taxes)? The Ohio Supreme Court ruled that townships cannot collect them.
^ Really? Where were you all when this project was first announced in 2006???
I was right here, and I voiced my opposition from the beginning. But citizens aren't always heard, and there are plenty of people who don't agree with me. Hence the thumbs-up at the ballot box.
That's an interesting point and I think it speaks to where Chemistry Guy lands on the subject. I think we can all agree that transportation funding has a huge impact on urban (and sub/exurban) form and that when we are making these $100 million + investments, we should think of the big picture. We should think in longer terms than 20/30 years commercial lending cycle and really think about what we are doing. In short, we should plan.
I don't see the streetcar as actively making the situation worse as I do with the large exurban highway investments (and municipal water/sewer investments for that matter). I don't think it is the best way to spend $100 million (or whatever the total is), but I think it at least makes some sense.
Personally, I'd spend the money on burying power lines, resurfacing roads, and upgrading bus service. Boring, fixing-the-windows kind of stuff.
Hi progmac--
Bingo!
While you and I may differ on increasing highway capacities in the suburbs (I'm a proponent simply because that's where the population has trended in recent decades, and not developing them would be foolish and invite Cincinnati's population to move elsewhere), you hit the nail on the head pretty good: the money is far better spent on resurfacing roads, and to paraphrase former mayor Giuliani's policies, to fix all the broken windows.
Cincinnati has always searched for some "silver bullet" to turn itself around: The overpriced stadium, the (empty) riverfront transit center, the casino that isn't meeting revenue expectations, and the streetcar.
The answer in turning the city around lies in the people - changing and upgrading one person, one business, and one house at a time. It seems like that a lot of posters here are convinced that as soon as the streetcar is built, all the smiling yuppies will hop on board, crime will disappear overnight, and all the city's woes will come to a magical and complete end. Because they've been sold to just like the city council sold us in the past about all the other monumental failures, without addressing the problems right under their noses. It's why you have the NAACP and COAST - two divergent groups as there ever could be - united in opposition to the streetcar.
Work on the people, work on the neighborhoods, work on the houses one at a time. It's how any community is built. Not by a silver bullet.
^ You go through such contortions to make everything follow your script, I can't tell if you are uninformed or trying to misinform everyone else.
Those "silver bullets" the city is "always searching for" -- the stadium (a county deal), the transit center (part of an interstate project; empty due to people such as yourself demanding it not be put to use), the casino (a state deal; its existence mandated by the state constitution) -- remind me how these are all city ideas. Remind me, too, of how they sit in a vacuum as silver bullets. They all work in conjunction, ironically connected by the streetcar, disproving your own silver bullet claim about each of them and the streetcar. The Banks, 3CDC, the casino, the Eastern Corridor rail line, Smale Park, the Fountain Square renovation, and a number of other projects both public and private, combine with the streetcar so that none of them are a silver bullet but together they are undeniably transformative.
The facts on the ground are that the downtown area has been improving exponentially over the past 5+ years, and that is the context in which one should view the streetcar project. It's not a silver bullet in a vacuum. It's meant to complement, cement, and accelerate the momentum of what's already happening.
I was in town recently, with several people who are there very infrequently, and believe me, jaws were dropping. I know mine would have, were I now following all these developments from afar. Still, it's incredible to see up close, rather than just reading about or seeing pictures.
I find it strange that you trickle-down types won't accept that high-end, high-density housing, and things that increase its prevalence, are major positives for the city.
It's also hypocritical to advocate for highway expansion due to population trends when the streetcar is also supported by population trends. More people are moving into the city center -- developers can't build housing fast enough. Businesses are explicitly stating that they have opened in the basin partly due to anticipation of the streetcar.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
