jjakucyk

I wouldn't be so sure about the tree size. Most tree roots actually don't go all that far down, they spread out laterally. Yes some trees to grow a long tap root that goes way down, but most stay closer to the surface than you'd expect. Also keep in mind that trees don't have an infinite life span, so the ones they leave are that much closer to expiring anyway.

It's actually a strip of grass between the path and the concrete sidewalk. I thought it was next to the road too, but it isn't.

Upgraded to what though? Asphalt really is the best material for a bike path.

In the long run it doesn't matter much who leases the retail spaces at first, since they can always change. The important thing is that we have some good urban buildings going in (regardless of the criticisms on the architecture itself, the building typology is excellent). Tenants come and go, but the buildings will last for decades, and that's what's important.

What's the alternative though? I think maybe a Cincinnati-Dayton line might be doable because of the many established rail corridors and relatively short distance, but that's it. The Cincinnati streetcar is an example of how scaling back and focusing locally can work better after the broad-reaching (and thus slave to suburban interests) Metro Moves plan died. Still, I don't see how you can do the same for a long-distance passenger rail plan since it still has to go through the suburban and rural areas where there's no support. The fact that those places may not care isn't so much of a factor, but that the cities that are being served (even being tax exporters) can't really afford to do such a project themselves.

Construction has never stopped people like this before. Even successful operations probably won't convince them. At some point you just have to let them play in their little corner of the sandbox, just be sure to keep them in that corner where they can't do much harm.

I grew up in Highland Park, and real estate ads would always put "walk to train and shopping" in the listing if they could. The two usually go hand-in-hand as the shopping would of course usually be near the train station. Still, for all those people who say transit and walkable commercial areas are "teh evulz!" then why would real estate brokers advertise it, and in a very affluent suburb no less!? ;)

I don't disagree that a Vehicle Mile Tax might be a better way to go, but that kind of tax doesn't encourage people to purchase more efficient vehicles. The volatile fluctuations of gas prices might end up making the point moot, but it could hit very hard and abruptly. We may end up with both a VMT and a gas tax, so electric vehicles don't get a free pass on the roads, without also penalizing those who choose efficient compact gasoline cars over SUVs. Maybe if the VMT was indexed to the vehicle's EPA mileage and CO2 ratings, with different rates for road wear based on weight, plus for emissions and pollution externalities, then it might make more sense.

That Austin Road situation sounds like the absolute worst kind of hyper-subsidized precarious edge development. All these tax abatements to draw companies away from other areas while creating no net growth, and also no guarantees that the companies won't jump ship to the next greenfield once the abatements end. It's really quite sickening.

We absolutely can and should have both systems. Europe has a lot of railroads, but there is no lack of highways either. What we can't afford to do is build a whole bunch of whiz-bang brand new high-speed bullet lines on brand new alignments. We have a lot of underutilized and abandoned rail out there that should be put back to good use. It won't take a bunch of land grabbing, and it uses existing technology. We also can't afford to keep widening our highways for increasing passenger traffic, and rebuilding them more frequently due to heavier truck traffic. Having both highway and rail infrastructure in place allows them both to serve their best use while preventing the other from becoming overburdened. The way to look at 3-C is as an alternative to widening I-71, which I guarantee would cost a lot more than $400 million dollars.

The point is that the train company can't capture any of that value. So even if it created billions of dollars in new development, they'd still be operating at a loss by relying on nothing but fares. In the past, railroad and transit companies made a lot of money through real estate, where the presence of their rail line increased the value of that land markedly and spurred development. Many streetcar and railroad suburbs were developed in this way, with the transit service used as a loss leader for the real estate deals. Once the land was sold off, or the company forced to divest itself of "unrelated businesses" (such as happened with the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 which required electric utilities and electric railways to split up), then they couldn't operate those services as loss leaders anymore, they were just losses, so they got cut and now most of the previously serviced areas have depressed values. Now we have a situation where nobody in the private sector wants to build these systems since they can't generate profit on their own, and they can't capture some of the value of the increased development. The public sector doesn't want to invest in these projects either, because of NIMBY opposition to development and public resistance to the subsidy, despite the increased value and thus tax revenue the development brings. The added value just sort of disappears into the vastness of the government bureaucracy so nobody can really see and measure it, to prove the relationship with the transit service.

There's a story about a CL&N train that couldn't get up the hill between Norwood and Kennedy Heights because of soap/grease on the rails. There were also a number of times that ice and frozen sand containers prevented streetcars from making it up Clifton Avenue. In fact the hill up West Clifton seems to have hosted the majority of runaways and losses of control. However, in many cases they managed to prevent a major accident through use of emergency brakes or other heroic measures. The majority of the problems seemed to stem from brake failures, motors burning out, or the incompetence of the motorman. Also, since most of these stories come from the early part of the 20th century, their definition of "careening" was a lot slower than how we'd describe it. That said, yes there were lots of accidents involving buggies, pedestrians, and later with automobiles and streetcars. There weren't really any "rules of the road" back then, and there were SO MANY streetcars around that it's not unlike the high numbers of automobile accidents we see today just because of sheer numbers.

The important part of the equation is how many of those road "sections" are or aren't critical to keeping the rest of the road open? Bridges are the most expensive maintenance item on the roads, but they're also some of the most critical too, since the loss of one bridge can make miles and miles of road completely useless. Overpasses could probably be condemned or demolished and simply bypassed by a surface connector, or even a circuitous routing around existing ramps, but bridges over rivers are much harder to do without.

Or Hiawatha

I don't know that we'll get to the point where many highways are abandoned wholesale, but I can certainly see a major relaxing of standards. The requirements for paved shoulders on interstates has gotten pretty absurd for instance. Just look at the widened I-75 in Butler County. It's a 12 lane road but with only 8 usable lanes with full size right AND left shoulders. It says something when you can fit all the through lanes of the existing road on just one side of the new highway during construction. Top it off with the the concrete median barrier and attendant storm drainage, and you have a very expensive road. I believe a full size left shoulder is required when there's just three lanes each way. We already can't afford to build and maintain roads like this, and we're going to be even less able to as time goes on. So what will that look like? As I said at the beginning, I don't think we'll see wholesale abandonments of many roads, but a definite scaling back. Those shoulders will probably just be left to deteriorate. They may revert to gravel or grass. I wouldn't be surprised to see maintenance of the travel lanes shift to more of a lane-by-lane basis, where the more heavily traveled right lane is resurfaced while the not-so-bad passing lane is left alone for a few more years. This already happens on some roads, but I suspect it will become more prevalent. Many of those underutilized rural divided highways will probably lose their left lane and shoulders to deterioration, with passing zones maintained at regular intervals. Even with this, among other cutbacks like tearing down street lights or converting signalized intersections to stop signs (something very prevalent in the decimated areas of central Detroit) we still have so many roads that it probably won't make a huge difference to a lot of people that don't travel long distances by car or truck frequently. You may not be able to go 60 mph on a rutted gravel road, but it takes much MUCH less work to maintain a 30 mph surface.

Maybe even all the riverside cities. If everything from Ludlow to Dayton was part of Cincinnati the population would be over 400,000. It's no wonder we have such an awesome skyline.

I wouldn't fret too much over the specific stores that come in, especially at the beginning. The important part is that there's good retail space in a mixed-use area. The chains can come and go, and as the buildings age a bit, the spaces will become more affordable to local businesses.

They're going to have to change Vine's configuration in some way anyhow, since I believe it's only 36' from curb to curb, and that's not sufficient to maintain four lanes since a shared streetcar lane needs to be 11' or 12' wide if I recall. That really only leaves room for one shared lane each way plus a permanent parking strip along one side. The remaining space is only really sufficient for a bike climbing lane. Either way, so what? In this country public transportation and all other modes of travel have been completely subjugated by the automobile for the past 60 years. It's not too much to ask to allow the streetcar to rule ONE street out of the thousands we have. This mindset of "how will it impede traffic flow" needs to die, because for too long that's been the only consideration, and it's been systematically destroying the places where we live and work.

I have the neighborhood boundaries on my transit map at http://homepage.mac.com/jjakucyk/Transit1/map.html Does that get you what you need?

Based on the conceptual engineering document ( http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/city/downloads/city_pdf39904.pdf ) which is the most specific layout I've seen, the track is going to run in one of the middle two lanes through OTR. It kind of weaves around in downtown, but on Elm Street this means it runs basically right on top of the historical location of the outbound track. The layout could certainly have changed some since this document was prepared, but it's all I've seen.

If only it were that simple: How Facts Backfire

From a practical standpoint, it just doesn't seem feasible. The issues of access for fire rescue vehicles and egress requirements to meet building codes are onerous enough as it is. To satisfy that they'd likely have to leave the roadway section of the bridge open for fire trucks. That leaves little room for much in the way of a building on the pedestrian and rail spans, and the pedestrian span may not even be wide enough for a code-compliant hallway. I don't think the outdoor walkway/"fire lane" would be tolerated for a hotel with people walking by all the time. Then there's the issue that it's a Kentucky bridge, but large vehicles can only access it from the Ohio side. Some rebuilding of the approach next to NOTL would need to happen to allow fire trucks from Newport to get onto the bridge. I could go on, but the whole thing just sounds like a complete code nightmare, and for good reason.

Indeed, I currently have little desire to visit Columbus or Cleveland because I hate driving I-71 (or any interstate highway for much length). I might consider it as a weekend trip if I could do it by train though. There's a lot of people out there who hate driving for long, but also don't like flying or just can't afford it. Trains are perfect for those medium-distance trips that are painful drives but rather short flights. This is an argument to refute the people who say "who'd take a train from NYC to LA?" The answer is nobody, that's exactly the kind of distance planes are right for. You also wouldn't likely take the train from Dayton to Springfield, but those middle distances of 100-500 miles or so is exactly where trains are perfect.

Issue 9 was a City of Cincinnati issue, not even a Hamilton County, let alone a State of Ohio issue.

It reminds me of how Apple Computers was always referred to as "beleaguered" in the late 90s. There's something ugly about these "B" words.