Gratuitous lists

October 7th, 2014

In response to a gratuitous question posed by a potential flatterer, I respond drunkenly:

“What needs fixed in Cincinnati? What would you change? Give me a bulleted list of projects. Things a person might actually do. Transportation related. And do it by tomorrow.” (I paraphrase)

…so susceptible an ego.

I write these things for you too, my readers, because I think an honest word is worth at least four silences — and because of point two: treat people like they’re capable of an adult conversation and perhaps they will be. Whether you care to surpass my bombast or surcease it, I’ll see all comers to the debate.

3 responses to “Gratuitous lists”

  1. Nate Wessel says:

    Sober light-of-the-morning me has ammendments and injunctions:

    The first point won’t work unless there is a plan to get better people appointed. I do beleive Cranley will have binders full of people who don’t ride transit that he can appoint.

    Regarding the point about stop consolidation: my claim at the end that it would help a great many people is subject to empirical verification. I suspect it would, but can’t yet say that certainly.

    Regarding QCB: Not that they don’t have vehicular utility cycling somewhere on the agenda already. But it needs to be at the top, and that probably places bike advocacy much closer to other forms of transportation advocacy.

  2. thebillshark says:

    I’m definitely one of the OTR set but what do you think of this streetcar plan for uptown? What would you think if the uptown rotes in the plan were bus instead of streetcar?

    https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/70250228/The%20Uptown%20Five%2009302014.pdf

    • Nate Wessel says:

      My biggest criticisms are:
      1. I think they don’t make much sense, even all on their own, unless they run much more frequently than every 10-13 minutes. But then you’re either finding new operating money (from where?) or taking it from somewhere else (ought you?)
      2. I see no reason why these proposed lines particularly should be using streetcars if transportation is our main goal. I’m not anti-streetcar, nor am I anti-hammer when we’re facing a screwdriver problem. If economic development is the goal, we may just as well spend the money on pretty much anything. Dig ditches with it. If that’s the goal state it up front and let’s consider a ferris wheel and other fun toys that people like. If it’s a transport thing, the order is routes, service levels, and rights of way first, and only after should we find the best vehicle.
      3. It’s disturbing that the existing network is only shown on one of these maps. I see a needless separation of modes here that indicates that you aren’t thinking holistically. If you are, which you may be, show me why the system that’s working now should be wholly disregarded.
      4. No mention of schedule coordination with existing services? Wouldn’t it be better to compound headways where possible?
      5. Huge opportunity costs, political and fiscal.