Following posts at Cincinnati Blog, there was a celebration of a completely different manner on Mainstrasse Thursday night: The Cincinnati Man’s celebration for the winner of our “Best Bar” tournament at Mainstrasse Village Pub. There were many beers of many varieties consumed, and you’re not finding many of them at that crap corner store you call a beer cave. We’ve got a few pics of the upstanding, wholesome fun that we had. Debauchery? None such, because everyone at the Pub is well-behaved, intelligent and maybe a little depressed about the impending Bengals season. But we’re not holding that against anyone. That plaque you see in a few of the pics? We’ll post a clearer one in a while.
[nggallery id=9]
Posted: August 31st, 2009 | Author: Wes Crout | Filed under: Tournaments | Tags: Best Bar in Cincinnati, Mainstrasse Village Pub | 1 Comment »
Sure, TCM is pretty much pro-streetcar. It’s our opinion, generally speaking, that it’d be silly not to be. This article from yesterday’s Enquirer, though, makes me wonder whether there are any really good anti-streetcar arguments.
The piece points out that logic (and COAST) would dictate a potential dissonance between Metro ridership and streetcar ridership, especially along the Downtown-to-Clifton corridor (duh). There are three elements to the exchange that Barry Horstman addresses here, and only one of them make sense. Shall we?
Pro-streetcar: Chris Bortz says, “I think the streetcar would attract new riders, not take ones away from the buses.” This is something that we can’t possibly know for certain. Surely, the streetcar would attract some new riders, but it’d likely take some away from Metro as well. It seems unavoidable, doesn’t it?
Anti-streetcar: Tom Luken says, “They really have a way of glossing over any of the possible problems, don’t they?” He goes on to point out that pro-streetcar people are “fools.” You know, because that’s how you have a rational debate.
On to your sensible position, which comes from none other than Metro itself: “We really see it being more complementary than competitive,” said Sallie Hilvers, Metro’s chief administrative officer. “We’d work with the streetcar operator to make sure we coordinate schedules so that the services don’t overly duplicate each other.” The story goes on to say that “even if the streetcars produce a drop in Metro ridership, buses could be redirected to other routes needing additional service.”
As far as I can tell, the only real anti-streetcar argument does nothing but end up sounding wishy-washy, and that’s that the studies that are being depended upon come from other cities that, while comparable in size, isn’t comparable in pessimism and a peculiar talent for digging in the ol’ heels, metrics that are difficult to account for. That pessimism is what you’re seeing come out of the anti-streetcar crowd, and really, there’s not much more to their arguments than “I don’t think this will work.” Is that good enough? In truth, probably not.
True, though, the money that’s being promised in the long run simply might not develop, though that’s no reason to avoid the risk. You know, because the return, even if it’s not as awesome as what’s been stated (and really, can it be?), it still outweighs the chance that the money doesn’t materialize. The fact remains that, regardless of money, the streetcar has some utility to it, and it’s worth having for the mere fact that it’s gonna be useful.
Any other good anti-streetcar arguments that don’t solely come from pessimism? Drop ‘em in the comments.
___________________
Photo credit:http://www.flickr.com/photos/beansoup67/ / CC BY 2.0
Posted: August 31st, 2009 | Author: maoglone | Filed under: News | Tags: chris bortz, Cincinnati, Cincinnati Streetcar proposal, streetcar, tom luken | 2 Comments »
