2013 Election (Cincinnati, Mason, Washington: transport, estimated, suburban)

[GManorborn]

Originally Posted by Ohiogirl81

Civics 101: "Tea party suburbanites" don't vote in city elections.

I think we've seen this discussion before; when jbcmh81 refers to "suburbanites" he's talking about city residents who have suburban views ("I just don't get the suburbanite mentality of even city residents"), not residents of the suburbs.

[bertwrench]

Originally Posted by hensleya1

Fact of the matter is, Cincinnati doesn't want the streetcar. Outside of a very loud and vocal minority in OTR/CUF/CBD, nobody else wants it. They've flooded the editorial pages of the Enquirer and other media outlets, they're loud, they're obnoxious, and they're certainly passionate in their belief. But it doesn't change that they're a very small minority.

It depends on who you talk to. I know firsthand of YOUNG people (recent college graduates) who have moved out of Cincinnati because it doesn't offer the things a larger city does like public transportation. There is a growing population of young people that desire what larger cities have to offer including better public transportation. If Cincinnati is to continue its growth and attract young people to its core, it needs to invest in permanent public trans.

My concern is that all I hear coming out of Cranley et. al.'s camp and those who support him like you is the growth policy of NO, which is NOT going to spur growth. If you are anti-streetcar, what are your and Cranley's ideas for attracting young people and businesses to the city? Saying no to any type of risk is not going to get it done. It doesn't work in the private sector and it won't work for Cincinnati. Ideas please.

[GManorborn]

Any community that doesn't have good mass transit will be dependent on individual transit, essentially cars. This usually results in a built environment that tailors itself to the car; wide roads (and lots of them), parking lots, sprawled residential areas, etc. Essentially, Mason. That population density will result in continued loss of population for a community that is built out, both because there will be fewer residences, and because if given the choice between a Mason house in Mason, or a Mason house in the city, most people (perhaps even myself) will choose the Mason house in Mason, or (as I have) choose some other city.

I don't think trying to replicate the suburb in the city works very well. I've lived the past 20 years in Utah, and in the last few years, we've torn down three failed downtown suburban style malls ( two in Salt Lake, one in Ogden) and replaced them with more "Main Street" style development. We've also added miles of light rail, commuter rail, streetcar, and bus rapid transit. It makes for a nice place to live. Cincinnati needs to give it a try.

[Komeht]

It is one thing to oppose rail transit. Sometimes a very misguided thing - but not all rail projects are equal of course.

It is quite another to shut down a project that:

1. Has been approved and funded,
2. Has received federal support to the tune of millions of dollars,
3. Has been under construction for months,
4. Has incurred substantial commitments,
5. Will cost million upon millions to undo what has been done,

AND

6. Will result in ZERO return on the investment for the taxpayers you are supposedly trying to protect,

AND

7. Will impair ANY ability to receive federal funds for ANY project in the foreseeable future,

AND

8. Will likely put the City of Cincinnati into litigation for years and year.

AND

9. Has put Cincinnati on the very top of the list of cities that millennials WILL NOT MOVE TO.

Well done Mayor Cranley, well done.

[Man About Town]

I know. It just amazes me how a much smaller metro like Salt Lake City has as much passenger rail as it does and how pro-rail Utah seems to be. SLC is a much smaller metro than Cincy too. Unless Cranley and the new city council want to push for a more comprehensive regional rail plan (you know, like the failed MetroMoves plan from 11 years ago), what's their excuse?

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by Man About Town

I know. It just amazes me how a much smaller metro like Salt Lake City has as much passenger rail as it does and how pro-rail Utah seems to be. SLC is a much smaller metro than Cincy too. Unless Cranley and the new city council want to push for a more comprehensive regional rail plan (you know, like the failed MetroMoves plan from 11 years ago), what's their excuse?

Please understand - this can NEVER happen after shutting down this project. Cincinnati cannot do this without Federal funding. There will be NO federal funding in Cincinnati for any project for decades to come. Every application stamped "City of Cincinnati" on the cover will go immediately to the bottom of the pile of a very long list of cities competing for FTA dollars.

Cranley is committing the City of Cincinnati to a course of no major transit investments for a lifetime.

[Man About Town]

Originally Posted by hensleya1

jbcmh81--

Because all those tea party suburbanites from West Chester and Mason voted for John Cranley in Cincinnati's mayoral election, right?

Fact of the matter is, Cincinnati doesn't want the streetcar. Outside of a very loud and vocal minority in OTR/CUF/CBD, nobody else wants it. They've flooded the editorial pages of the Enquirer and other media outlets, they're loud, they're obnoxious, and they're certainly passionate in their belief. But it doesn't change that they're a very small minority.

Oh please! The only ones who have been loud and obnoxious are the people who DON'T want the streetcar. Repeat, DON'T want the streetcar. Like Cranley, Smitherman, the COAST folks, etc. And now they will cripple Cincinnati financially for years because they will have to go to court over all the money that's already been spent on the project. But maybe that's what they (and you) really wanted all along.

[Man About Town]

Originally Posted by Komeht

Please understand - this can NEVER happen after shutting down this project. Cincinnati cannot do this without Federal funding. There will be NO federal funding in Cincinnati for any project for decades to come. Every application stamped "City of Cincinnati" on the cover will go immediately to the bottom of the pile of a very long list of cities competing for FTA dollars.

Cranley is committing the City of Cincinnati to a course of no major transit investments for a lifetime.

You are right. This is going to cost them big time. They might even have trouble getting Federal money for other infrastructure improvements like roads and highways.

[Chemistry_Guy]

If it keeps the out of town posters and their ilk from moving here it is $100 million well spent in my book.

[kjbrill]

Originally Posted by Chemistry_Guy

If it keeps the out of town posters and their ilk from moving here it is $100 million well spent in my book.

The out of town posters have absolutely no reason to be here other than to express some personal philiosophy which means Absolutely Zero to anyone who lives in Cincinnati. Tell them all to go home, find some subject to post where they live, and leave Cincinnati to Cincinnatians!