People have been pretty happy about the defeat of the "anti-rail" proposition 9 that was on the Cincinnati ballot last month. And they should be happy because the proposition would not only have had a negative impact on the area's economic infrastructure, passage would have been an international embarrassment, right up there with the meter stuffing grandma (if you remember her).
I'm just a tea party in reverse. I've been working downtown, but I don't live there. So I'm willing to be taxed without being represented. The real tea party was about representation, not about taxation (if you remember the real tea party). So I'll have to represent myself. Maybe it's time to stop being superior to COAST ( http://coast-usa.blogspot.com/ ). That's not really much of an accomplishment (sort of like kicking an empty can) and this isn't just another cross-town shootout. Is it?
Now would be a good time to start talking about how to achieve a real, valuable public transit solution for Cincinnati. It took Portland over 30 years (and $billions) to build its light rail system (they have a trolley too). We don't have a commuter rail system on the roadmap (yes I know) and we haven't begun to try to understand the model of community and government involvement, vision and cooperation that's required to build a system that works for the whole area. Not just for soapbox city.
It's sort of clear that the trolley would be an important influence in the development of the Vine Street corridor between UC and Downtown. Of course, the initial phase doesn't include the UC link. But as hard as it seems to have been to get people to understand the value of the trolley, it's going to be a lot harder to get the many organizations that govern the inner and outer reaches of "tri state" to understand the "business value" of commuter rail. That's a problem, because that's where the real value will be.
Business Courier ( http://cincinnati.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/stories/2009/08/10/editorial1.html ) forecasts a 25% commercial vacancy rate for the Central Business District. If you want to attract the kind of people and businesses that can fill the vacancies, take risks, diversify The City's business base and put an end to the ever expanding, empty center, donut model of progress, all participants will have to understand and buy into the part that public transit plays. That includes the inner and outer burbs, especially if you want to have a chance at financing new infrastructure. As far as I can tell , very few of the suburbs have a clue about how their relationship to downtown is critical. That includes those that understand what's happening to them ( http://thenewmetropolis.com/a_crack.html ) as development and investment continues to creep outward. It even includes communities located along existing railroad rites of way.
And that's just commuter rail. How about intercity? Which do you think would bring more "quick start" value to Cincinnati? A 6 1/2 hour ride to Cleveland ( http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/Rail/Programs/passenger/3CisME/Pages/3CDocs.aspx#EA ) or a 4 1/2 hour ride to Chicago?
So now that the coast is clear, isn't it time to start talking about the hard stuff?
Early failures will make future wins difficult or impossible.
How about some uses case? How would different kinds of riders use the trolley? Commuter rail? Intercity rail? What's the real benefit for each?
Monday, December 14, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
The Cincinnati Streetcar will run to the University of Cincinnati in its first phase. Here is a link to a presentation by the City of Cincinnati on the Streetcar: http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/noncms/projects/streetcar/docs/streetcar-green.pdf
And here is a link to pretty much everything you would want to know about the Cincinnati Streetcar: http://cincystreetcar.wordpress.com/2009/11/08/not-convinced-cincinnati-would-benefit-from-streetcars/
The quickest response I can give to your last series of questions is this:
Streetcars (trolleys) would have an immediate impact on the areas in which they exist. Meaning that their ridership base will either be living, working or playing within a short distance of the line. In urban areas this allows for larger zones of areas where one does not need an automobile to make their desired trip (i.e. Riverfront to UC...btw, a connection to Uptown is in phase 1). From there the spinoff activity around the lines would create a rising tide for the larger economic sea in the region.
Commuter rail is the easiest one to identify. This would serve commuters on a daily basis and make the trek to/from work that much easier without the fear of traffic congestion or accidents. It would also immediately reduce costs for both users and non-users alike as riders would benefit from less gas, insurance, parking, and maintenance expenses while non-riders would benefit from time savings and improved safety due to less congestion on the roadways.
Intercity rail would then tie these two systems in with a larger regional connection that could enable travel within regions of the country without the use of an automobile or the high expense of a short distance air flight. These travelers would consist of the same demographics as those using airlines right now, but would also expand the reach to those who can not afford an expensive plane ticket, or are affraid of the flying for whatever particular reason.
In the end, all of these 3 modes of rail travel are about creating additional choices for the transportation consumer. Choices and competition breed better services, prices and end results for the consumers and in the day and age when the price at the pump continues to fluctuate and our roads continue to become more congested while also going bankrupt, an alternative is sorely needed.
That was a sort of an aside in my post. But thanks for pointing it out. However, the document that you referenced doesn't really make a final determination about where the trolley will go. And on on slide 24, the connection to UC is shown as the "Uptown Extension" as opposed to the "Phase One" route which seems to end quite a bit short of the target. I hope you're correct about the route.
Thanks Randy. I think you've nailed them all.
But how would those benefits fit into the lives of the kind people that you need to support these initiatives? How would the investment make the area more attractive to new businesses and new people? How would it help the communities that would be tied to downtown? How would it work for people who play downtown and work in the burbs? How would it work for people who make the reverse trip? What kinds of new businesses would we expect to see? Why? What kind of new people and demographic patterns would we expect to see? Why? How would transition to rail change quality of life? How would this transportation network be of value to the inner and outer suburbs that are now seeing.. or will soon see the exodus of business and taxpayers to the expanding ring of development? How wold you sell it to the suburbs?
I think that there may also be more to intercity rail than cheaper tickets and fear of flying. Maybe a merging of economies and cultural resources that would enhance the attractiveness of all of the cities served? I would ride to Chicago at the drop of a hat to see a Chicago Symphony concert. And I would hope that folks in Chicago would love the extraordinary orchestra and new music ensembles that we have here. Much more convenient than the hassle of flying (probably more energy efficient too).
Here are answers to about half of your questions:
Q: But how would those benefits fit into the lives of the kind people that you need to support these initiatives?
A: There are numerous benefits to public transportation. To the individual you have increased mobility, more transportation options, and saving money that would otherwise be spent on taxis, gas, depreciation, etc. But public transportation also creates benefits that accrue to the public at large. Everyone benefits from less congestion and cleaner air, so even if you don’t ride public transportation you benefit.
Q: How would the investment make the area more attractive to new businesses and new people?
A: For new businesses, rail transportation represents a permanent infrastructure investment. Bus routes can be changed very easily just by printing a new schedule and painting an orange stripe on a lamppost. But because rail is fixed, it will not move. This allows business and homebuyers to make a long term decision (for example a 30 year mortgage) based on this community asset. Having permanent high quality public transportation also reduces the amount of parking required for new housing. In an urban area where parking is very expensive, cutting the parking ratio from 2 per unit to 1 per unit can be a big help in making housing more affordable and accessible. Another way it helps business is by bringing in customers. The streetcar is expected to have over 1 million riders its first year. That is an additional 1 million customers who will go buy your business. Finally the streetcar, and all transit, put more people on the street, creating more activity and deterring criminal behavior. We can’t put a cop on every corner, but if we have large numbers of people on active streets, those extra eyes deter crime.
Q: How would it help the communities that would be tied to downtown?
A: Better access to the region’s largest employment center and the entertainment and cultural options of downtown. Another way is revitalizing the neighborhood business districts (“NBDs”)of these communities. Our NBDs sprung up around our old streetcar lines and inclines because they created centers of activity for these communities. And modern streetcar and light rail lines will do the same.
Q: How would it work for people who play downtown and work in the burbs?
A: The Streetcar would allow someone coming in from the suburbs to park once at use the streetcar to access the various destinations. For example someone could park at fountain square, have dinner and take the streetcar to Music Hall for the Opera. Or someone could park on 8th street for free. Have dinner at Arnolds and then ride the streetcar to the Reds game and not have to pay $10+ for parking by the stadium
Q: How would it work for people who make the reverse trip?
A: For people who work downtown but live in the suburbs, the streetcar will allow them to get to meetings, go to their doctor in Uptown, or drop off documents at the courthouse without ever needing to get in their car. It would also let people use their work parking space to attend events. Someone could park at their normal space at the Kroger building and take the streetcar down to the Riverfront for Tall Stacks or the Fireworks.
Q: What kinds of new businesses would we expect to see? Why?
A: Any number of new businesses would arise due to the permanent investment and increased traffic. Business that would service the growing residential population of the urban core would be one type.
Those are great points as they apply to a streetcar, downtown and one nearby community. But wouldn't most of the points have more value (and more chance of support) for commuter and intercity rail?
Say I'm an Art Director at a downtown firm but I'm not ready to raise my kids there. So I'm living in Cleremont, Madeira or Loveland. Would the streetcar work for me? Wouldn't it be a bit slow? Same for a football fan living in the same places.
Suppose I live downtown and I want to go to a restaurant in Mason. A two hour round trip would not be very attractive.
Suppose I own a consulting firm in Chicago and I'd like to move some of my resources to Cincinnati (because The City and suburbs got their acts together and made the area more attractive for people who expect the type of mobility that some cities provide). Wouldn't it be nice to know that I could hop on a train when I need to work with my Cincinnati coworkers and clients?
Suppose I'm a consultant based downtown and I'd like to develop relationships with clients in Chicago.
I'm not knocking the streetcar. I just don't think that it alone will be enough. And if it fails to provide value and it's not part of well communicated long term vision, it'll just be a weight that the COAST people and the tea party will hang on any future efforts to improve public transit in Cincinnati.
Bottom line, I think that you have to get the interest and support of businesses and the suburbs (where the tea party lives) in order to pull this off. Debating the snow worthiness of buses vs streetcars is not a good approach.
I think virtually every streetcar supporter would agree that we should build light rail, commuter rail and intercity rail as well as the streetcar. If you look at the route map on the Cincystreetcar blog, the map shows all those other forms of transit as well: http://cincystreetcar.wordpress.com/route/
I agree. I agree. I agree :-)
But it's people who don't support the streetcar (and maybe even the people who hate the streetcar) that have to be won over in order to get the kind of social and political support that is crucial for achieving the kind of expensive and long term regional (e.g. downtown, the rest of Cincinnati, the burbs including Northern Kentucky) public transit system that I think we both agree would be very valuable to our area. I'm sure that there are people who'll always be against everything on a philosophical basis (I'm being kind). But I feel that most people would support transit if they understood its value in a very concrete and direct way.
Great conversation on here. It is certainly refreshing to hear legitimate points argued passionately but respectfully.
You said "most people would support transit if they understood its value in a very concrete and direct way." I wholeheartedly agree. Unfortunately, there aren't many sound-bite clips that succinctly capture why public investment in public transportation benefits all. Numerous quips and succinct phrases are used as justification for why transportation shouldn't work in Cincinnati, but rarely do those arguments hold up when scrutinized. The pro-transportation arguments are nuanced, and the general public simply doesn't want to take the time to inform themselves about it.
I say that not as an insult to the under-informed, but rather as an admission that our complex arguments probably won't take hold in our current society. The pro-transit arguments need to lose some of their depth for the sake of brevity and easy comprehension. In addition, they need to demonstrate quickly and clearly that many of the succinct anti-transit arguments are flawed for one reason or another.
David,
That's right. The benefits are nuanced and all you have to do is look at the health care reform mess to see what happens when communication is ineffective. It seems as though Cincinnati's alleged prowess as a marketing center should help with this. Where are the marketing wiz-kids with scenarios that resonate with each kind of potential supporter?
Another roadblock - one that no one seems to want to acknowledge - is that a lot of outreach to surrounding governments and businesses will be required. At the moment, the only passion for transit seems to be coming from downtown (well I seem to remember Clermont talking about lite rail). That's gotta change. And the change would have to come from significant folks within the governments in question. Is there an official Tristate or even a Greater Metro Area organization that's working on this?
The Alliance for Regional Transit has been making the case for light rail in Cincinnati: http://www.pro-transit.com/
Here is OKI's rail plans: http://www.oki.org/elements/PDF/Transportation/2030RTP/2008_Plan_Update/Chapter_09.pdf
Post a Comment