jjakucyk

I guess when I said "milk their history" I was referring more to the remaining architecture and streetcars or cable cars. Those are tangible things that get no respect here, and which continue to be tossed aside.

http://www.cmw.osfc.state.oh.us/guest/photonoedit.cgi?1120014+2010-03 That's pretty awful. At least they do have a decent entrance/exit on the north side, but it's still held way back off the sidewalk. There's lots of room to build on if they need to in the future. It doesn't surprise me though, there's "a few pieces of flare" on the front, but the rest is just plain schlock. It's better than the new Pleasant Ridge School though, that's an abomination, a total F-U to the community. The old school was classy, a real "city" school. The new one is just cheap suburban crap. When they fix up old schools, they really do them up right (Hughes is looking awesome for instance). Still, they're just as bad as UC when they decide to redline a building. They let it completely fall to pieces in order to force the need for a new one.

When I first came here and saw neighborhoods like Mt. Adams, Columbia-Tusculum, and Fairview, I thought "wow, this is like a little San Francisco." The terrain, architecture, and overall urban layout is very similar, though at a smaller scale. Coming from Chicago, I've been amazed that I can find virtually no similarities between both urban and suburban vernacular architecture in both cities. Even Indianapolis has a lot more Chicago type buildings. Over-the-Rhine is unlike anything in the midwest, it's more evocative of Baltimore, Philadelphia, Boston, or parts of NYC, and that's no accident. Cincinnati's rank as the 6th largest city in the country came in 1850 when it was on par with those other places, and it remained in the top 10 until after 1900! The top 10 numbers from 1850 are quite interesting: New York City: 515,000 Baltimore: 169,000 Boston: 136,000 Philadelphia: 121,000 New Orleans: 116,000 Cincinnati: 115,000 Brooklyn: 96,000 St. Louis: 77,000 Spring Garden District (PA): 58,000 Albany: 50,000 Other cities that Cincinnati gets compared to were barely on the map at the time: Pittsburgh: 46,000 Louisville: 43,000 San Francisco: 34,000 Chicago: 29,000 Columbus: 17,000 Cleveland: 17,000 Indianapolis: 8,000 Now, to be fair, little from the 1850s remains, but it's interesting to see how things had changed by 1900: New York City: 3,437,000 Chicago: 1,698,000 Philadelphia: 1,293,000 St. Louis: 575,000 Boston: 560,000 Baltimore: 508,000 Cleveland: 381,000 Buffalo: 352,000 San Francisco: 342,000 Cincinnati: 325,000 Pittsburgh: 321,000 New Orleans: 287,000 Louisville: 204,000 Indianapolis: 169,000 Columbus: 125,000 So back in the mid 1800s, Cincinnati's peers were New Orleans, Philadelphia, Boston, and to a lesser extent Baltimore and St. Louis. By the turn of the 20th century, it was still New Orleans, but also San Francisco, Buffalo, and Pittsburgh. Things get muddy as you get to the present, because of the disparity between the incorporated city and its metro area. The fate of some cities have brought them back down to levels more on par with what they were 150 years ago. Baltimore and St. Louis for example greatly surpassed Cincinnati in the 20th century, but they've since crashed to where they're a lot more like Cincinnati than they used to be. I'd argue that St. Louis' growth parallels that of Chicago's more than Cincinnati's, and its downfall is similar to Detroit's. Cleveland [edit-I originally said Columbus accidentally] seems to be more like a smaller Detroit than anything else in its growth and decline. Indianapolis and Columbus are a lot like each other, and while Louisville is another river city it's more the size of Indianapolis and Columbus. Ok, so this is getting off-topic, but here's what I see in all this. Cincinnati's "kindred spirit" if you will, seems to be New Orleans. Both grew at the same time, and have a similar riverboat history. Pittsburgh has a lot of similarities terrain-wise, and Baltimore has similar dense row house neighborhoods. San Francisco is more alike than it might seem at first, but it's just at a much larger scale. The thing is, New Orleans, Baltimore, and San Francisco milk their history for all it's worth, and Cincinnati doesn't even respect what it has, let alone flaunt it. If Cincinnatians could get behind some aggressive historic architecture preservation, tours, and neighborhood "experiences" then we'd have a real winner. It'll be a tough sell to closed-minded locals, but we need to stop looking at neighborhoods like OTR as a liability and see them for the huge opportunities they really are. The French Quarter would pale in comparison to a restored OTR, especially if the brewing history and culture was played up.

Speaking of the connection to the existing parks, I wonder if they'd have any intention of reusing the old railroad right-of-way. I believe they turned it into sort of a river walk in 1986 when the railroad was abandoned, and I'll bet that's when those dated red lights were installed. Either way, there is a natural pathway, and it could be opened up to the "grass triangle" while still keeping the sidewalk along Mehring Way.

It's not regressive when, like in Europe, you use the extra tax revenue to fund alternatives to roads, like 3-C, that are more useful for those without cars. Yes, that requires even more gas taxes, but really, our use of the stuff is so out of control we need to start ratcheting it down as soon as possible. Of course then you get people complaining that the road users are subsidizing transit use. You can't please everyone.

Most people probably balk at numbers like this, but when I hear it I think "that's ALL?!?! Well why the hell aren't we doing this NOW?"

Also keep in mind that there's no way gas prices won't continue to increase. You can argue about peak oil or carbon emissions until the cows come home, but that's not the issue. The already huge demand for gas across the world is growing steadily, and only those places that have many different transportation options will be able to handle the increasing prices without huge disruptions to their way of life.

This sounds like a classic case of the "fundamental attribution error". http://psystenance.com/2010/03/15/the-fundamental-attribution-error-in-transportation-choice/

I think the examples I gave before are pretty relevant. It may not be the maximum, but that stretch of Arlington Avenue in Pittsburgh is very steep. That's basically the same slope as Stanley, Kroger, or Heekin in Mt. Lookout. According to http://pghbridges.com/pittsburghW/0584-4475/mtwashingtonPAT_tun.htm the Mt. Washington Transit Tunnel has a grade of 6.8% Wikipedia reports it as 6% The line up Arlington Avenue averages 6.3% between the Liberty Bridge and E. Warrington, though from the bridge to Hartford Street it's 8.3%.

I doubt it's something that's easily quantifiable. Steeper grades might mean more wear on the traction motors and brakes, and perhaps even more wear on the tracks and wheels. It would require more electricity to climb, but less when descending, so maybe that's a wash. The cars might need more powerful motors than otherwise, but I don't buy that such a thing is a big problem as suggested. The extra power would help acceleration along the rest of the route, for instance. Most of those are things that don't really show up until after years of operation though. The fact that standees might be a little uncomfortable, bikes might need an extra restraining strap, or luggage (is that really a big factor?) might need a slightly reconfigured rack is very minor and subjective.

It's no less of a problem on buses though. The advantage to the streetcars is that they can be longer, so can hold more people with fewer standees. There's no getting around the fact that Cincinnati is a very hilly city, and it's one of the things that makes this such a fascinating place. Hills certainly can be problems, but you just have to buck up and deal with it. Fortunately the climbs aren't all that long.

According to http://pghbridges.com/pittsburghW/0584-4475/mtwashingtonPAT_tun.htm the Mt. Washington Transit Tunnel has a grade of 6.8% Wikipedia reports it as 6% The line up Arlington Avenue averages 6.3% between the Liberty Bridge and E. Warrington, though from the bridge to Hartford Street it's 8.3%.

There's gotta be some hilly cities in Europe that use streetcars. I can't imagine there isn't already some market for lightweight or otherwise hill climbing cars. Of course, the Cincinnati Car Company was a big innovator in lightweight cars in the 1920s and into the 30s, both for the street railway system as well as interurbans. The lightweight cars built for the Cincinnati & Lake Erie made extensive use of aluminum to reduce weight for instance.

I always figured it was to "gently encourage" people to use the pay lot. As to the 3-C traffic and facilities, etc., it really doesn't need to be all that elaborate, especially at this point in time. If you assume 500,000 passengers per year, that's 1,370 people per day. Divide that only by the three major cities, and that's 457 passengers per city per day. Even if everybody drove to the station, that's not a particularly huge parking lot. It's not small, and it wouldn't be good for an urban area, but in an industrial suburb like Sharonville, it's very doable.

It's unfortunate that there's such a big divide between east and west, but quite frankly, the east side is where most of the population is. The bulk of industrial and commercial development is on the east side as well, while the west side is mostly residential. This is assuming you make I-75 or the Mill Creek Valley the dividing line, instead of Vine Street. The west side was historically too rugged and difficult to get to for intensive urban and industrial development. It's interesting how the problems of linking various parts of the city together are coming back into the forefront with "modern" public transit technology. Historic streetcar corridors like Elberon or Glenway/Wilder/Warsaw are quite steep. The shallowest climb to that area of town seems to be Quebec or Sunset/Rapid Run. Unfortunately, those routes don't really serve East Price Hill, and either way, having to go through South Fairmount to get downtown from West Price Hill is pretty silly. Harrison Avenue is pretty tame, but that only serves Westwood. I'm still not satisfied at the recurring notion that modern streetcars are so much less capable than their historic counterparts. Ok, they're bigger and thus heavier. Why? They can't be that much wider, and in fact should be narrower. There's no point in them being taller, so they must be longer, right? Well, a single car can't be much longer than they used to be otherwise tight corners become a problem, so we must be looking at articulated or multiple unit "trains". Ok, so more cars means more trucks (wheel assemblies) and thus more traction motors. More motors means more power, so maybe what we need to be asking is not how much the cars weigh, but what sort of power/weight/length ratio they have. If a modern streetcar weighs twice as much as an old one, but it's twice as long with twice as much horsepower, then shouldn't it be just as good, if not better, since it has better braking technology and torque control, etc.? The numbers have been thrown around that Skoda cars weigh 61,000 lbs, PCC cars from the 1930s weighed 35,000 lbs, and (to add some of my own) early 20th century Cincinnati Traction Company cars weighed in below 20,000 lbs (still double-truck cars though). If the weight/length factor isn't enough to reconcile the difference, then maybe Skoda cars are simply too heavy for Cincinnati. What about Alston or Bombardier, or maybe someone else? If they say they can do a 9% slope then why shouldn't we believe that? Vine Street averages 6.5% between Clifton and Calhoun, and it's pretty consistent, so it seems pretty doable.

It is for those of us who are cheapskates and park on Kenner Street. :)

I noticed yesterday coming south on I-75 between Sharon Road and Glendale-Milford Road I could see the QCS poking up over the hills way in the distance. Previously only Carew Tower was tall enough to be visible from there.

Well if the opposition can do it, then so can the supporters.

Even if it's not possible to upgrade all the 3-C quick start trackage to high speed, we still need to build the 3-C quick start line to establish traffic patterns and get the ball rolling. As has been said over and over and over, we can't go from zero to 200 (or even 100) mph service in one move. The feds won't fund it, and the state can't afford it, so we need to activate the corridor first to get the project going. If we say "high speed or nothing" then we get NOTHING. There seems to be conflicting information about how much of the 3-C quick start trackage would be usable (whether physically or contractually) for high speed rail. An earlier response suggested that only about 10% of the tracks would have to be bypassed for future high speed operations. Even if that number balloons to 30 or 50%, what other choice do we have? We can't say screw it, because then we get NO PASSENGER RAIL SERVICE AT ALL. If we stick with the current 3-C plan and it doesn't live up to expectations, then at least we still have lower speed service instead of no service. The fright railroads also get upgraded facilities, which is a good thing too. If the 3-C plan does live up to or exceeds expectations, then we start bypassing the slowest sections and upgrading the rest. If we have to bypass large amounts of track, or build a lot of new adjacent trackage, then the freight railroads still get upgraded facilities. Depending on how things work out, we should end up with a multi-layered system. High speed passenger rail serves Cincinnati, Dayton, Columbus, and Cleveland, while lower speed, less expensive regional rail would serve those cities as well as more intermediate stops on the upgraded freight tracks. Again, the 3-C quick start plan is a stepping stone to future high speed rail. There's no getting around the need for it. People can whine and complain about its faults all they want, but without a real alternative (and "just build high speed rail now" isn't a choice) then the whining is pointless. Even if we never get to high speed rail, I'd still rather have the 3-C stepping stone service than nothing at all.

Museum day trips make some sense, and people going to various cities for college sports and otherwise. Commuting however, would be extremely expensive. That's probably as it should be too.

Is it set in stone that the viaduct is going to be replaced? It would be a shame to lose it. Of the three proposals linked by Neville, the single roundabout diamond and the SPUI look pretty tidy and low-impact. Ideally, they could keep the great arch over Spring Grove Avenue, which would be that much better without the existing ramps to the lower deck on either side of it.

You don't carry an extra tube and a frame pump or CO2 with you? With the way the roads are around here it's silly not to. The worst I can see happening is your chain breaking, which just means you'll have to Fred Flinstone your way home. A gashed tire (like from hitting a big rock or a sharp metal strap or something) can usually be remedied temporarily with a candy bar wrapper to keep your replacement tube from squeezing out. A broken spoke or two usually won't be an immediate problem either if you open up the brakes a bit and tie the busted spokes to their neighbors with a piece of tape or a twist tie so they don't flop around.

I agree that moving to a form-based code is a good thing, but I have to say that Cincinnati's current zoning code is really pretty good compared to a lot of other cities. They tried to account for as many variations in the built fabric of the city as they could, so that they didn't have to give whole neighborhoods exemptions or be grandfathered in. Basically, if you look at most areas of the city, you can still build today the kind of things that are already there. That's no small achievement. For instance, they have separate designations for pedestrian vs. auto-oriented commercial districts, mixed use, and many levels of density for residential construction. In single-family residential zones for instance, you have much smaller required setbacks for accessory buildings than for the main building. Thus, if you build a detached garage, it can be within 3 feet of the property line instead of the 10, 15, 20 foot or greater setback for the main house. That's a great way to keep garages from coming front and center in new houses where they can be kept in the back. I'm sure there's some exceptions, but overall it's pretty accommodating. It says something that they based it on what's already here, using real examples and photographs of neighborhoods that are typical examples. Many cities just buy their copy of the Municode and are done with it. Indianapolis has awful zoning, it's straight out of the 1960s. It's nice to see Cincinnati taking a more progressive approach, especially when they already have a pretty good foundation to build on in the first place.

Exactly. While the residential parts of streetcar suburbs can function ok without them, their commercial corridors get hit hard. Those commercial streets depended on pedestrian traffic, and they were mangled to provide parking and better visibility for speeding cars, ultimately left behind for larger and flashier digs. When the commercial streets get grungy and run down, it's difficult to keep that blight from spreading into the residential neighborhoods too. Was Portland all that much better in the past? Yes it's improved itself a lot in the past 20 or 30 years, but they had a lot of "bad" to undo in the first place. This brings me to a point many people bring up, that National City Lines didn't own THAT many systems, so why did all the others get abandoned? National City Lines sold the idea of new shiny "modern" buses that other cities copied, because that's what all the cool kids were doing. After WWII most of the streetcar systems in the country were seriously worn down from heavy wartime use, and rebuilding them was an expensive proposition. Instead, they could "modernize" the system with cheap flexible buses, without realizing they were throwing away the advantages of streetcars. Whether still independently or municipally owned, the streetcar systems simply didn't have the money for capital improvements, especially with so much government money being poured into road building. It's really sad to see how completely one-sided the situation was, and remains to this day.

We're doing what we can with the funds we were given. High speed rail is the interstate highway of railroad travel, but we were only given the funds to upgrade the equivalent of existing 2-lane rural highways by repaving, adding traffic signals, and expanding a few sections to 4-lane divided highways. The speed on roads is not "your speed" anyway, it's the speed that's determined by engineers based on what the geometry can handle. You can't go 80 mph on a 2-lane highway running through Podunkville's business district just because you want to. You're bringing up the same tired argument that's come up on nearly every page of this thread, that it's too slow so it's not worth it. That's been proven false any number of times, because we simply can't build something faster with the money, nor would we be able to get the funding for something faster without an already established corridor. The same is true for roads. They wouldn't have built I-75 or I-71 if there weren't already surface streets and rural highways connecting those areas, if there wasn't already traffic. We've already established that the money spent now on the 3-C corridor is building the foundation of future higher speed rail. It's not building a different system that will be thrown away and wasted.