dlp

Does ODOT publish the scores for projects under TRAC? If so, where? I can't seem to find them on the ODOT website.

Maybe this has been covered elsewhere, but this temporary Amtrak service on the Oasis line would be mutually exclusive with the proposed Eastern Corridor service, wouldn't it? You can't have DMUs on the same line as diesel locomotives, right? Or does that prohibition only apply to diesel-pulled freight? Obviously this is true of either station location on the Oasis line, but could be another reason to stop in Sharonville.

The Enquirer is reporting that ORDC changed the location of the temporary Cincinnati station. http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20090922/NEWS01/909230349/1055/NEWS/Lunken+temporary+site+for+3-C+station "...the Lunken site, located about one mile from the airport terminal..." Anyone know the specific location they are talking about?

Note that projects are still moving forward - just under different funding source. From ODOT's press release: "ODOT remains committed to working with local leaders on these three important large-scale projects and will use non-stimulus funds (both state and federal) to invest in the continued planning and design, dollar-for-dollar, as committed to by the department in its March announcement." http://www.dot.state.oh.us/news/Pages/ODOTsStimulusInvestmentsspurringmoreConstruction-RelatedJobs.aspx

Re: NYC argument above - note that all those NYCDOT assets are free (Brk, Manh, W'burg, Qboro, Hrlm Rvr bridges; SI Ferry). I'm not sure that NYCDOT has the authority to collect fares/tolls. I seem to recall in all the past discussions of East River bridge tolls/congestion pricing, the assets would have to be transferred (in some way) to MTA. (I'm LIG's and MTS's inverse - used to live in Manhattan and work with those agencies. Now live in Cincy.)

Re: bridge width - current plan seems to be 6 lanes for the new I-75 bridge - 6 lanes x 12' + 2 x 10' shoulders + 2 x 2' for railings = 96'. Depending on the type of structure, it could get a bit wider (if the roadway travels through a cable-stay tower for example). Re: Bridge type - Suspension doesn't make sense for span length in question. Cable-stayed would make sense if they want to clear span the river (no piers in the water). They would save money by putting piers in the water (shorter spans) but would eliminate cable-stayed as a cost-effective design. But that would also open up extradosed (cross between cable-stayed and concrete segmental) as a viable type. Another truss is certainly a cost effective option. With piers in the water, another option is a gantry-launched concrete segmental, which could minimize impacts on the ground. Re: Design competition - It likely comes down to money. Based on what happened in Louisville, I would expect that, at a minimum, there is some kind of public input opportunity. Personal opinion: True design competitions would likely draw out all the star-chitects, which are only going to increase the cost and we've all seen how well KY and OH are doing on finding the $$ for the project.

Couldn't find it on the City's website. Is it only available through that subscriber-based RFP service?

I have to admit, I haven't looked at the section of 75 in Atlanta, but in general, standard lane widths are more important where there are curves in the road and where there are high truck volumes. I think much of 71 is too curvy for 11' lanes to be deemed safe by the feds.

According to Cincinnati Enquirer, the state Controlling Board approved money for the study. http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/AB/20090323/NEWS0108/303230036/ Anyone know who the "California-based consulting firm" is?

^ At one point there was a plan to build a new stadium for DC United over there, but I haven't heard much about that recently. The AWI does, however, have some pretty substantial plans, likely turning the area into a new destination. But yes, as of now, it's a long way from much of anything...

The location was decided on by DC City Council, and they chose the least already-advantaged neighborhood up for streetcar service. Anacostia is Marion Barry's Ward, and he (as well as others) lobbied for it. It was a very political decision. While the location is within Anacostia (above description is certainly accurate) and within Marion Barry's council district (Ward 8), the streetcar, originally planned as light rail, was in the works before Barry got back onto the Council (2004). The Anacostia Waterfront Initiative was in the works well before 2004 - see http://www.planning.dc.gov/planning/cwp/view,a,1285,q,571105,planningNav_GID,1708.asp for the November 2003 plan. Of course given Barry's power in that city (he definitely represents "his people") it's possible he was pulling some strings to get this thing done, but I really think that this was the work of a very progressive planning department (at least at the time) that saw an opportunity to remake an underutilized resource.

Regarding DC's planned system - I don't know that it's a good comparison to Cincinnati. The first phase of the DC system is contained entirely within Anacostia and does not connect to the CBD (it doesn't even cross the river at this point). While it includes 'plans' for expansion across the 11th Street bridge into the Capitol Hill area, at this point, it's really part of a massive redevelopment plan for the Anacostia Waterfront. At this point, it's primary function is as a feeder to the existing Metro system.

Not sure if Streetcar-automobile accidents have been raised as a concern, but should you have some time and want to feel more informed, the FTA's TCRP just released a report on the state of the practice for minimizing LRT-automobile accidents. http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_syn_79.pdf

Agreed - there are lots of economies of scale in service provision. That's one of the reasons why I'm sure that the project is a net benefit to the city budget. Just want to make sure folks don't start throwing around inflated numbers (like those highway planners like to do... [toungue partially in cheek]).

Minor caution against the recent tax generation math. Remember that 10,000 new residents come with lots of needs (other infrastructure, services, etc.) that must also be paid for out of that revenue. Don't get me wrong - I'm sure the streetcar results in a net positive in terms of the city budget, but I would caution against using such quick-and-dirty numbers in public to support the project. (Those calculations start to remind me of the ones that suburban politicians throw out to justify approving massive new subdivisions, without accounting for the fact that roads have to be upgraded and that (surprise!) the owners of those new 4 BR houses have kids that need to be educated.) As far as the job generation numbers, I would assume that they are only showing "direct" jobs (engineers, contractors, laborers, etc. required to physically build the infrastructure), not the indirect jobs (secondary real estate development, restaurant workers, etc.). In the case of the streetcar study, 100 FTE's seems about right ($50,000 salary x 2.5 overhead multiplier x 100 FTE = $12.5M). That should cover environmental/design costs for the project. I think others on the list have hit on it, but I would prefer that the stimulus target projects that will generate both short-term (the engineering/construction jobs required to build the project) and long-term job creation. Will fixing potholes actually draw new businesses/development to Cincinnati? I suppose that needs to be done, but as long as you're going drop $800B into the country, let's get some real transformation out of it.