Jump to content
richNcincy

Cincinnati: General Transit Thread

Recommended Posts

I think it would be great  to have a couple of light rail cars shipped down from cleveland or some other light rail city, park them at the tunnel entrancel to the subway so all the people driving south or north on I-75 can view them when they are sitting in traffic and make them think that they don't have to be slaves to the automobile.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hehe I know what you mean.You can see the tunnel going southbound. There is about 300FT or so where you can place a few rail cars, so both northbound and southbound can see them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would get people talking....kids would say look mom!! look dad!! a passenger train!! and adults would have to do a doubletake. put some full size paper cutouts of us urbanohio posters sitting in the train reading a paper, talking, laughing.. :yap:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everytime I see those tunnel entrances I get pissed-off when I realize how close Cincy came to getting rapid transit.  Its not like it died in the talking stage...they actually had the right-of-way aquired, tunnels constructued, trackbed graded and ballasted and stations built, before the project was killed, supposedly due to cost overruns?

 

Heck, by that time the major construction costs had most likely already been incurred.

 

The Cincy rapid transit, if built , opens alot of "what might have beens", like a rapid transit extension up to the GE Plant in Evendale via old canal r-o-w, rather than the constrution of a limited access highway (that became the Mill Creek Expressway), or completion of the loop to downtown from the Norwood end-of-the-line.

 

Oh well.  If theres any consolation Louisvilles light rail plan is also dead (which might be a good thing as the Louisville plan didnt make too much sense).

 

Are there any plans to revive the light rail concept in Cincy? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Possibly, by putting a measure only on the city of Cincinnati's ballot, where the last measure actually passed. That would mean building it only within the city limits. Perhaps if light-rail were built in Cincinnati-proper, other surrounding communities would adopt a me-too attitude. That's how Cleveland's Red Line got built, when West Siders wanted their own rail line (the route they selected left much to be desired, however).

 

KJP


"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It all came down to money..a major reason were the houses up near the mockbee and mcmicken were having structural problems because of the construction of the subway, homes were caving in and cracking and the city had to pay for the losses..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

www.easterncorridor.org


"You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The other day I said I was going to move to a city with rail transportation. I said this without thinking about it at all.  Then I realized how awesome it would be to be able to take the train.  Thats all.  I just would love to be able to ride a train to the games or mall and stuff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone know the EARLIEST date that light rail could come back on the ballot?  I think I heard from a reliable source that it would be 2008. (hope not).  BTW, you guys have all seen pro-transit.com, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the earliest would be the fall of 2007.  I thought the federal funding for these projects came up every five years and the last vote on this was fall 2002.  I don't think many of these rail initiatives pass on the first try.  It was just dissapointing how large the margin of defeat was. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, these guys crawled out of the whole they've been in for a couple of years and the chairman of the Alliance for Regional Transit posted an editorial in the 7/10/05 Enquirer:

 

 

PHOTO: John Schneider is chairman of the Alliance for Regional Transit ().

 

Light rail is I-75 answer

By John Schneider

Guest columnist

 

The Enquirer's June 26 Special Report headline says it all: "I-75: Years of orange barrels." Years and years of construction, then a few years of relief, then back to where we are now, except with double the number of trucks.

 

True, Hamilton County residents defeated light rail by a wide margin in November 2002. But in that loss were some interesting nuggets for the future. For example, the city of Cincinnati neighborhoods located alongside I-75, taken together, actually voted in favor of light rail. It's a fact - you can look it up. These are the folks who have to live with the truck noise, the diesel exhaust and the reduction in property values that accompanies highway widenings. They will bear heavy environmental costs and receive few benefits from the bigger and better I-75, and they want alternatives.

 

Issue 7 also won in the broad area from Downtown through and around Uptown - our region's two largest employment centers. Many of those wards voted in the 60 percent range or better in favor of better public transportation.

 

Click on link for article.

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050710/EDIT02/507100315/1021/EDIT

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, why build the light rail up I-71 instead of I-75?  Seems that I-75 would be a much better route, because it goes through the center of the metro and could grab the most people to ride.  If it ran up to West Chester, I would take it to go downtown or even tri-county.  But if this doesn't happen, I dont know why a commuter train isn't considered.  They are bigger, but it seems that rail lines run to many northern and eastern suburbs, so I think diesel trains might be more cost efficent because we can use already existant rail lines.  Then rehab Union Terminal, and send shuttle buses into downtown, Queensgate, and Northern Kentucky.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^Why not both! An I-71 route could connect Kings Island, Mason/Deerfield, Blue Ash, Kenwood Mall, Rookwood, Xavier, U.C., etc. to each other as well as Downtown and N.Ky.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

one argument for building along 71 is the amount of commuter traffic on 71.  75 carries the most truck traffic, which is a main cause of congestion.  building the line along 75 would only alleviate this to a limited extent because the trucks will remain.  On 71, there is more potential for reducing the traffic, which is mostly commuters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand the I-71 deal, but my main question is, why not use existing tracks and create a diesel commuter train?  Seems easier to do instead of laying all new track. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ True i have even seen old right of way that was turned into bike trails or  some sorts that could be used also. If you ever get an old map look at all the old rail lines that goes through the metro. At lot of this could be done with out taking a business or a single home except where the stations may be located.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly, I have seen the maps and near the tracks are some large pockets of people.  I don't know the cost of running diesel commuter trains, but I could guess we could get 2-3 trains cheap from Amtrak!  Also, I think instead of using Union Terminal, is there enough room down on the riverfront to put in a line?  I thought I saw plans with light rail and commuter trains both on street level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know much about it myself, but from what I gather some of the rail experts around here might tell you that there are a host of problems with trying to get commuter service running on tracks that are being used by freight trains.  (And I don't know if those are the tracks you're talking about, either.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My question then is, how do cities like Chicago, Washington D.C., New York run all of their commuter trains?  I would be willing to guess that a schedule could be worked out if the region really wanted to do this type of thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually attended the meeting OKI held on Pete Rose way a few months ago and I know it was brought up here (3C Corridor) ... does anyone know what the update is on that whole discussion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not a combination of the two? A Light-Rail streetcar type system to run inside the city and its surrounding areas and a commuter service out to the suburbs and places like Kings Island and the airport. The two could be connected by a central station and travelers could transfer from one to the other. They could even build a big train station downtown to handle high-speed rail to places like Dayton, Cleveland, Columbus, Indianapolis, Louisville and Lexington.

 

I wonder what the feasibility of building electric rail for the commuter part? Then you can build the track along the highway like they want and have high-capacity commuter while laying part of the groundwork for electric high-speed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If 2-3 round-trip commuter trains were operated per weekday, it may not conflict with freight train operations (except along the busiest stretch of jointly operated NS/CSX tracks through the Mill Creek valley). A third track was added along much of that 4-mile stretch, but if 2-3 round-trip commuter trains were added, a fourth-main track might be needed. However, that might be the only section where additional track capacity could be required.

 

Yet, 2-3 trains in each direction would have a limited impact on traffic congestion on parallel interstates. That being said, so will any effort or option, including added lanes. Highway traffic, like water, seeks its own level. Ultimately, even with just 2-3 trains, Cincinnati would be setting in place another mode to handle travel growth and begin readjusting commuting and development patterns. If more trains were added, more of an impact could be made, but would conflict moreso with freight train traffic. More track capacity will be needed.

 

Also, bear in mind that if any commuter rail service added to an active freight rail corridor, the freight railroads will require liability insurance of at least $200 million, and perhaps as much as $500 million. While that doesn't mean an outright expense of that amount, it would have to be reflected in operating costs. Unless, of course, Amtrak is the chosen contract operator of the commuter service; Amtrak has the requisite liability insurance. Many other contract operators who say that can run a commuter service often can't because they don't carry enough liability insurance.

 

KJP


"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if anybody has seen this, but iRhine had an article on a visit to Portland and the writer's experience with light rail there.  This was published on 7/11/05:

 

 

Weighing How We Move: Cincinnatians in Portland

Destination Over-the-Rhine

by Dyah Kartikawening, iRhine

 

A visit of a group of Cincinnatians to Portland , Oregon provides a thriving example of how light rail transit system can promote urban revitalization and a healthy region. The Alliance for Regional Transit consists of individuals who are interested in supporting the development of public transportation in this region. For several years around 225 people have gone to Portland in groups to experience the benefit of public transportations and light system. Last May, 27 people participated, mostly from Cincinnati, but also from Austin, New Orleans and Columbus.

 

TriMet, Portland's transit agency, is one of the best public transit system named by the American Public Transit Association. Everyday, TriMet bus or MAX (Metropolitan Area Express, Portland's light rail) transport about 300,000 people to go to work, to run an errands or visit friends and family, without the hassles of traffic and parking. Most light rail riders in Portland are choice riders, who chose to ride light rail although they have cars or chose not to own cars. Todd Littman at the Victoria Transport Policy Institute found that cities with large, well-established rail systems have higher per capita transit ridership, lower average per capita vehicle ownership and annual mileage, less traffic congestion, lower traffic death rates and lower consumer expenditures on transportation.

 

The group focused on the effect of Portland 's light rail system on the greater community. They spent time with three speakers who are involved in the neighborhood development and listened to Portland 's story of transit-oriented development over the last twenty years. Among the speakers were as John Carroll, a board member of the Portland Streetcar, David Knowles, the former of City Planning director of Portland and Charlie Hales, vice president and national director of transit planning for HDR Engineering and former Portland City Council.

 

"The light rail system has changed Portland." said John Schneider, a founding member of DCI and its first transportation committee chairman . "New small businesses, restaurants and shops are thriving along light rail transit stops. Light rail also promotes pedestrian use that increase 'eyes-on-the-street' and helping to increase safety."

 

"Cincinnati has similar economic challenges as Portland did. Portland's transit system proves the benefits as well as the feasibility of light rail in Cincinnati. "said Clinton Stahler, a professional pilot who has been living in Cincinnati on and off for most of his life with intermittent periods in West Palm Beach , Florida, Columbus and abroad. Light rail encouraged downtown revitalization by connecting one community to the other, helped people to move easier to reach jobs, shopping centers, and schools. Many things were possible to achieve by using light rail to facilitate the development. Stahler strongly recommends this experience to anyone who is interested in community improvement of any kind whether they are supportive of a possible rail project in Cincinnati or not.

 

Three years ago in Cincinnati, SORTA proposed MetroMoves plan that would connect light rail system with buses services failed on the ballot . The plan would increase the Metro bus service that connect to 26 transit hubs occupied by businesses tailored to each community needs. John Schneider mentioned that the plan for Cincinnati should follow doable steps that could introduce light rail to citizens. Cincinnatians who have traveled to Europe, or other cities in the country such as San Francisco, New York City, etc, know how convenient public transportation is.

 

"It could be a light rail from Riverfront to Clifton ," said Cincinnati Councilmember James Tarbell, who joined the group to Portland in May. He noted to the highlight of development around uptown that trying to connect riverfront and Clifton would be a good start to develop light rail system.

 

The rise of fuel cost, parking problems and highway congestions are solid reasons to consider alternative methods of transportation. Many other cities with a smaller region compared with Cincinnati have had light rail for many years such as Salt Lake City UT, Buffalo NY and Sacramento CA; while Charlotte NC is currently building a light rail line. Developing our region means connecting our neighborhoods from downtown to the suburbs. John Schneider mentioned that the success of light rail system did not lay on the city size nor residential density, but travel density. In Cincinnati, connecting Northern Kentucky and downtown Cincinnati would be a good start to develop the line.

 

Our region is growing and spreading. Currently there are many initiatives directed to solve highway congestions such as I-71 and I-71 improvements. Many of these decisions will affects our neighborhoods, either growing or continue shrinking. The Ohio Department of Transportation has been working on a plan to improve the I-75 corridor. One of the alternatives was to add one more lane on the I-75 to reduce congestions. "I don't think adding a lane on an already crowded highway is a good option," said Councilmember James Tarbell who also visited Portland last May.

 

The Brookings Institution studied that from 1993 to 1996, Cincinnati lost 0.6 percent or 1,597 of its jobs. Meanwhile the surrounding suburbs'job base grew by 12,4 percent or 54,221 jobs. Connecting Over-the-Rhine and other inner city neighborhoods with the suburbs with reliable and accessible public transportation will help people to access jobs. In their co-authored book, Regional City , Peter Calthorpe and Wiliam Fulton note that a "Regional City" is a collaboration between governments in city centers, outer suburbs and inner or older suburbs that shares common-fate as a region, to work together in enhancing regional competitiveness. Could improving our public transportation be a good start?

 

Unlike Cincinnati, Portland citizens didn't vote on their first light rail line on the ballot. Portland's MAX (Metropolitan Area Express) Blue Line was its first rail line. The primary east-west light rail line, serving as the spine of the current system, was created with the funding from federal government that was originally planned for another highway lane.

 

Portland's introduction of light rail to its citizens has proven successful. The next thing they know, light rail ridership has risen, and by the time they were ready to develop more rail route, the citizens already valued the effectiveness and benefits of light rail. Currently Portland is developing the Portland Mall Revitalization Project that will bring light rail downtown and extend the transit to connect with Milwaukie, OR.

 

For Over-the-Rhine, a light rail system will only enhance the character, giving people more opportunities to walk the neighborhood, stop at surprising places they may have never seen before, shops at a variety of local shops and support small local businesses, while bringing back the character of the neighborhood that was first built for pedestrian use. Over-the-Rhine used to have street cars in 1940s; the remaining line can be found on Elm Street in front of Music Hall. John Schneider mentioned how easy it is if we develop downtown without including cars in it. In Over-the-Rhine and downtown, cars would stay within parking lots 95% of the time or more.

 

The Alliance for Regional Transit will visit Portland again on October 21, 2005. If you're interested in going, please contact John Schneider at johnschneider@protransit.com.

 

http://view.amplifyi.com/?ffcd16-fe8d1574776c0c7477-fdf71577776c017977117376

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These are things I have known and taken for granted about light rail for years. I've used rail transit systems in seven or eight North American and about as many European cities (and I haven't even been to NYC). These systems form an integral part of a city's transportation system and areas surrounding major stops/stations hum with activity. The benefits becomey obvious after riding only a couple times.

 

What gets me is that so many people in the midwest just don't understand this. I guess the main reason they don't get it is because they haven't used rail transit before. So I agree with Tarbell, we just need that one starter line and attitudes will change. It's happening in Minneapolis as we speak.

 

I once saw this brief comparison of U.S. cities:

 

Cities with existing or planned rail transit:      Every city larger than Cincinnati, and many smaller ones*

Cities without existing or planned rail transit:  Cincinnati and some smaller ones

 

*Counting Detroit's People Mover

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Exactly.  When this went before voters, I thought it was way too ambitious.  They also made the mistake of lumping in a revamped bus service, which should have been presented as a seperate issue.  I think an Eastern Corridor line would be an excellent start, and I believe that other communities would start begging for it eventually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is, ballot issues to build transit lines are often intended to build something near where everybody lives, so that no part of the metro area feels left out. But that gives voters sticker shock, especially when the city doesn't have any rail transit to begin with. They don't know whether it will work in their city or not, even if voters do have experience with rail in other cities. So what's the sense in voting for higher taxes for something that has no track record (pardon the pun) in their community?

 

Get a starter line and use "creative financing" to help pay for it. Denver and Portland started small and, once that had a rail line that proved itself, the big projects came later -- especially in Denver, where voters last year approved funding for a $4 billion expansion of their rail system.

 

KJP


"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Sacramento started with a small, bare-bones line (it was actually single tracked in parts, with sidings), and then expanded the system.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh how I dream of light rail in my city.  I wish I could take the train around the metro and not touch the car.  Grasscat, thanks for the article it was a great read!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

San Diego also started with a very basic light-rail line. It was single-tracked with passing sidings, and built on a former freight railroad line. Since then, their system has blossomed. The light-rail lines alone carry as many people per year as the entire Cleveland RTA rail AND bus system (about 50-55 million) -- and that's the busiest transit system in Ohio.

 

KJP


"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few years ago I read a pretty devestating criticism of Portland's first line and the nonsense that went into construction of the west side line.  Many forces are at play in the "success" of the city and the system which have little to do with its construction, specifically people seeking refuge from the high costs of living in San Francisco and Seattle.  I suspect a well-funded PR campaign is behind the whole impression that Portland is this magical city of the future.  As evidence, why is a group of Cincinnati leaders flying there to see their system when a much more relevant comparisons exist in Pittsburgh, Cleveland, and especially St. Louis?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

San Diego also started with a very basic light-rail line. It was single-tracked with passing sidings, and built on a former freight railroad line. Since then, their system has blossomed. The light-rail lines alone carry as many people per year as the entire Cleveland RTA rail AND bus system (about 50-55 million) -- and that's the busiest transit system in Ohio.

 

KJP

 

Well, not quite. According to 1st Q 2005 ridership http://www.apta.com/research/stats/ridershp/riderep/documents/05q1rep.pdf

Cleveland RTA rideship for the total system is 14,100,000, and the San Diego LR line (San Diego trolley) is 6,600,000.

 

http://www.ntdprogram.com/ntd/NTDData.nsf/2003+TOC/Table19/$File/Table+19++Transit+Operating+Statistics+-+Service+Supplied+and+Consumed.pdf

Shows for 2003, RTA unlinked trips at 59,642 and passenger miles at 259,872, and for San Diego LR Unlinked Trips 25,175 and passenger miles at 159,356

 

I'm not arguing the success of San Diego's LR line (up 6.8%), and the numbers show it. But I had to denounce your obviously false claim that one mode in a western city could carry more passengers than an ENTIRE system in a large midwest city.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I stand corrected. A book I had read about West Coast light rail systems, dated from the 1990s, mentioned that San Diego transit carried 55 million people per year. Given the purpose of the book, I had incorrectly remembered that as being for the San Diego trolley network. Rather, it was for the entire MTS (bus and rail).

 

I found that, in 1980, the first year the trolley (what they call their LRT) began operating, the total MTS system carried about 35 million people. Transit ridership grew to 55 million in a little more than 15 years. It's interesting to note that, since then, ridership on the total transit system has gone up even more...

 

According to the Transport Research Board, annual ridership on the MTS was over 84 million in FY 2001, with about 65 percent of the ridership attributed to the fixed route bus system consisting of 92 routes, and 35 percent to the two light rail lines.

http://computing.breinestorm.net/transit+board+metropolitan+diego+development/

 

And, by the way, to the other poster, I don't agree using Cleveland or Pittsburgh as models for Cincinnati. They may have light-rail lines, but they don't have an emphasis on TOD and promoting other transit-supportive land use around rail stations. It's starting to happen, but nothing yet worth showing off.

 

A better example might be St. Louis -- which has similar demographics and topography to Cincinnati. Plus, there is an active effort to promote TOD around stations. Check out:

http://www.cmt-stl.org/ISSUES/stltod.html

 

KJP


"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish Cincy tried to phase in LR, instead of going for the Taj Mahal right off the bat. Use the existing rail line along the 1-71 corridor (roughly parallels Montgomery Road).

 

Inre Pittsburg, how sucessful are thri busways?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: KJP's comments on San Diego, I think I remember reading that San Deigo's system was completed ahead of schedule, under budget and without federal funds, and almost immediately far exceeded all ridership projections. It has been offered as the greatest success story in US transit development.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I found that, in 1980, the first year the trolley (what they call their LRT) began operating, the total MTS system carried about 35 million people. Transit ridership grew to 55 million in a little more than 15 years. It's interesting to note that, since then, ridership on the total transit system has gone up even more...

 

don't be overly impressed. the population of san diego and it's metro area sky rocketed over those 15 years. thus transit ridership increased correspondingly.

 

yet another example of a city on the rise while metro clevo flat lines -- argh!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

San Diego has some SERIOUS problems, that Light rail won't help. 1.5 billion city pension deficit ,Skyrocketing housing costs.Illegal immigration, etc. To me i think Cleveland is in better shape than San Diego.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

don't be overly impressed. the population of san diego and it's metro area sky rocketed over those 15 years. thus transit ridership increased correspondingly.

 

But I do think we should be impressed at how they built their first line.

 

And, just because a city grows, doesn't mean its transit ridership automatically grows as well. See Columbus for further info. How it grows is more important, despite San Diego's recent problems.

 

KJP


"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

columbus did not boom like san diego has and continues to do. tho not true in every case ie. columbus as you say, the ridership did grow as the pop did in sd. also, they have added on in those years, with more to come this year (as i recall). and thats not even counting the caltrain commuter train (aargh ohio needs this service asap!).

 

it's true we should take note of the fact that they are expanding service and creating connection loops. but be careful, we should not compare how the sd lrt trolleys 'go somewhere' as they are all modern and new so that is not quite fair. kick only ourselves over the dearth of tod growth, esp around the wfl rapid route. ahh cleveland has a lot of jewels in the rough to be rediscovered and transit is only one of them so i keep the faith!

 

i've been all over sd on many occasions. i like some of it but at best it's just ok. i would never live there.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a thought the other night when I was driving around.  To assist with financing light rail, Cincinnati could allow businesses to build less parking if they by credits to lower the number of parking spaces required by zoning laws.  (This is assuming that laws like this exist in Cincinnati---other cities i have lived in have these type laws) For example, a office building might require 1.5 spaces for every excepted occupant.  The builder developer could pay a  parking credit to not have to develop as many parking spaces and loer the ratio to .5 spaces per occupant.  This would lower the development costs, land costs and long term maintenance costs making it attractive for the devlopers/builders. 

 

In order for this to work, Cincinnati would have to have a fully developed mass transit plan in place before this idea coudl really take off.  The benifits would be less large parking lots (i.e. walgreens would have no excuse but to build next to the street, denser building, and more land that could be used for people instead of cars.  The cost to develop downtown would be lowered since garages cost more than surface lots.

 

If you think about the costs to build a parking space (I want to say $2000 a space for surface lots and up to $20,000 a space for parking garage, if a credit was sold for $1000 for each space reduced, a lot that had 600 spots redcued to 200 would make $400,000 for the light rail fund.  Money could be racked up pretty quick to provide a portion of the funding for light rail. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a very good idea...you're right about parking requirements in the zoning code.

 

Unfortunately, it seems about everyone with power in this city is too myopic and narrow minded to think of city buildng without gaping parking lots for the beloved automobile

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone know why Light rail was not pushed this year with gas being $3 a gallon and a winning bengals team..lol

Really though, it's been 3 years. Is there an limit of a few years, where you can't bring a losing ballot back to the public for a vote?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone know why Light rail was not pushed this year with gas being $3 a gallon and a winning bengals team..lol

Really though, it's been 3 years. Is there an limit of a few years, where you can't bring a losing ballot back to the public for a vote?

 

They spent quite a chunk of change supporting the proposal last time (to the point where they brough in an example train to show people), and it was defeated soundly.  I think the backers don't think the support is there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember hearing in 2002 the federal money that would be used to match local funds only comes available every five years.  So I think it will come up again in 2007.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone have thoughts and ideas on what doomed the issue before and what it will take to pass a light rail issue?

 

(I know it's been talked about in various threads, but I'd be interested to see a discussion dedicated more exclusively to the issue... although I could be forgetting some thread out there with this topic.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone have thoughts and ideas on what doomed the issue before and what it will take to pass a light rail issue?

 

(I know it's been talked about in various threads, but I'd be interested to see a discussion dedicated more exclusively to the issue... although I could be forgetting some thread out there with this topic.)

 

Personal Opinion:

 

I think, in general, people in Cincinnati haven't spent a lot of time in a city where mass transit is a way of life, such as NYC, SF, Chicago, etc.  They associate mass transit with the Metro Bus.  I think the population tends to be a little timid.  In this city the bus tends to be transportation for those who can not afford cars.  It has a stigma about it.  I believe that if everyone in Cincinnati who has never ridden a subway or train was forced to spend a week in a place where it was commonplace, they would be convinced of the benefits and it would have a much better chance at passing.

 

Obviously I am generalizing - but I honestly know people who have grown up on the west side of town, and have never bothered to go to the east side.  They like their car-based, parking lot, world and don't see a need for it to change.  They may not know how nice it is to be able to walk to the station, hop on the train and end up at a ball game or the theater and not have to worry about parking or having a few drinks.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Too bad.  I was wondering if this could be pitched to suburbanites more, somehow.  Say, if the line extended pretty far out, like to Kings Island or Lebanon.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...