jjakucyk

This is fantastic...2 foot contours :D

It would probably be supported if they got it to the Boathouse, but that would cost even more money, and the East End NIMBYs have already made their feeling clear on the situation. I wonder what they think about the commuter rail plans for that corridor. It would be a shame if that ends up getting killed because of them, though is it even progressing at all at this point?

I find it interesting that the current 3-C plan and future high speed rail seem to be presented (at least in this discussion) as mutually exclusive things. While that certainly can be the case, it doesn't have to be. Think about it in the way many US and State highways have evolved over the years. Many started out as simple rural 2-lane roads that went through the middle of every town, sometimes having painful jogs or other obstructions. As time went on, those trouble areas were fixed or bypassed, thus improving travel time. As traffic increased, some sections were widened, or maybe made into limited access freeways. All the while, most of the original route remains in use in some way or another, whether still part of the highway or as a business spur or whatever. The 3-C project is very similar. This first step fixes bad tracks, adds a second track or sidings if necessary, unties certain bottlenecks, and gets through traffic going. As time goes on, the other bottlenecks will be ironed out, maybe excessive curves will be bypassed with new cuts and fills, more double-track will be added, and crossings will be grade separated. When there's a push for real high speed, some sections may need to be bypassed completely, either abandoning the old route or leaving it only for lower speed local service. I would imagine, however, that outside of areas with difficult terrain, much of the existing right-of-way will be used for high speed rail without the need for something entirely new. So the $400 million isn't wasted on something that won't be used in the future, it's building the framework for future infrastructure expansion.

That first picture got me thinking...what about a simple under-truss of sorts? The pale yellow bridge above is reminiscent of the 5th Street/Columbia Parkway viaduct, which is pretty cool. With nothing above you to block the view of the skyline, it's a nice way to finish off the glorious approach to Cincinnati from the south. Oh but wait, the old Brent Spence ruins that idea just like everything else. Grrrr.

That's a good point Robert. About a year and a half ago I needed to go to Washington DC for my brother's wedding. I really wanted to take the Cardinal. Yes it would take a lot longer than driving, but driving 8+ hours sucks anyway. I couldn't do it though, because the service is so infrequent I'd have needed to take extra vacation days to work around it. If there was even one train per day I could make it work, but they can't even do that. The frequent delays on the Cardinal (and other Amtrak) lines is also a huge problem. If it's going to take so much longer than driving, then damn it, the trains better be on time all the time, with no exceptions.

Eighth and State is right. Rail in the median would be much better, because usually the bridges span those and they follow the established grade of the highway. Unfortunately, they're not usually wide enough, and the grade of the highway may still be too steep for trains.

Stops at stations don't really add a whole lot of time, since they usually only stand at stations for 3-5 minutes. It's really more a case of poor track conditions (not always track geometry, but just poor maintenance, lightweight rail, deteriorating ties, etc.) and conflicting freight trains. Even if you fixed all that, the problem then becomes track geometry and crossings. I could be wrong about this, but I think operating over 79 mph requires fencing off the tracks and no at-grade crossings with roads or other railroads. That's where costs really start escalating, since bridges and viaducts and the associated digging and filling eats up money like there's no tomorrow. Also, if there's any switch/siding, the train has to slow down when moving through it, even if they're just going straight. One question I can't answer, but would love to know, is what would the average speed be for the proposed service on the same physical plant, but with zero conflicting traffic. So if there were no freight trains causing delays, what is the theoretical maximum average speed that could be obtained?

Waiting at stations, waiting for freight trains to get out of the way, waiting for switches to clear. There's also slower zones through busy areas, tight curves that require slowing, all sorts of things. Compare it to highway travel, what is your actual door to door speed there? Most people assume that if they drive 80 mph (even if the speed limit is 65 or 70) then that's their speed. But take in to account the non-interstate portion of the route on either end, maybe a traffic jam or two, stopping for gas, snacks, or to go potty, and suddenly your road trip is down to an average below 60 mph.

That's a nice idea though. Bookend the downtown riverfront with arch bridges, but two completely different types of them. Unfortunately, a sexy design like the Sydney bridge (and all of the proposals in fact) is wasted with the original Brent Spence remaining right next to it.

No, they were planned but never installed. It's really a shame too.

CWB would be good for light rail and/or streetcars. It doesn't land in the best area on the Cincinnati side, but it's still just a block or two from the edge of downtown. On the Covington side it dumps perfectly on to Main Street. With the bridge being 3 lanes wide, you could take two lanes for rail traffic and leave the third for pedestrians and bicycles. Right now this is the only bridge that's usable for bicycles to get to Covington, so that would need to be considered. If the Brent Spence is retooled for local traffic, I'm sure bikes and pedestrians could be accommodated there too, but it's farther into no-man's land than the CWB so I doubt there'd be as much use for non-car facilities there.

What would be an example of a modern urban industrial area? I don't disagree that the suburban industrial park mode isn't good for an inner city development, and Queensgate is an example of that sort of thing. Still, how else would it be done? Many of the most interesting warehouse/industrial districts get redeveloped into mixed commercial/residential areas, but they're decidedly no longer industrial. Unfortunately, it seems even industries that utilize rail transportation heavily are still single-story operations that require many loading docks for trucks and a large footprint. Many industrial processes have been so highly automated and specified that it seems almost impossible for them to adapt to multi-story buildings. It's sort of like fast food chains, if they can't build to their standard plan on a clean slate, they won't do it because it might cost 5% more. All that said, it would certainly be valuable to have streetcar connections from a neighborhood like Over-the-Rhine to a neighborhood like Queensgate, Brighton, and Camp Washington. The Spring Grove Avenue corridor for instance has a lot of abandoned sites that are ripe for industrial redevelopment, but at the same time there's also a lot of great old industrial buildings, whether occupied or not, and it's still a surprisingly busy place. I personally feel that Spring Grove Avenue between the Western Hills Viaduct and I-74 is one of the most interesting parts of the city. It's so old-school, with some great architecture, and yet it's almost 100% industrial. Anyway, not to digress further, if a streetcar connection to 3-C trains at CUT does happen, I wouldn't expect much of anything other than industrial use west of I-75. There's virtually no historic fabric left to build upon, and it simply doesn't have any appeal as a place for people to live. Even if the industrial uses are fairly low-key, which many of the newer places in Queensgate are, as it gets quite dead in the evening, the fact remains that railroad yards are very noisy places. Being hemmed between a major interstate highway and busy railroad yards with freight cars banging into each other all day and night isn't going to get many people wanting to live there. The rest of Ezzard Charles east of I-75 on the other hand would definitely benefit.

Well, also, anyone using a long-distance passenger train is likely to be carrying some luggage too. That's not something easily hauled by foot, even if it has wheels.

Exactly. It's a fantastic book that gives a great account of how the railroad terminal pattern of the city developed. Some of the earlier union station plans were quite ambitious, but one of the best proposals had the station being basically where the transit center is now. It's interesting how history sometimes comes full circle.

Of course, having a streetcar connection to Union Terminal would be great. It's pathetic that it never got that connection when it was built in the first place, despite the close proximity to several routes on Western Avenue.

I-75 doesn't help the situation (although it does actually make a quick drive by taxi or bus from CUT to downtown easier than it would've been in the past), but highway or not, CUT just as far away from downtown as when it was built. Union Terminal is really the first of the urban renewal projects that started clearing out the West End. It was already on the border of a slum and a grungy industrial area. Now it's just a slightly less grungy but still industrial area. It was not particularly vibrant, and it was always too far away from downtown to really have a meaningful dialogue with the center of the city. If Cincinnati was 3 or 4 times bigger than it is, then the distance might not matter, but as it is, it can't participate in the urban environment.

You're right, but it's a lot better than Sharonville. While it would likely not be a short-term project, reopening the former CH&D on the west side of the Mill Creek Valley would allow passenger trains to bypass all the freight yards completely. They could take a route to the downtown transit center over tracks that are right now, for all intents and purposes, abandoned. The only downside is that while the necessary tracks all exist to within a few hundred feet of the transit center, they'd need to be significantly rebuilt. I have no idea what sort of a price tag that would entail.

Are the Superliners really the likely option for the 3-C trains though? It seems a bit like overkill to me. IF trains could make it to the transit center, then they would be well served by the phase 1 streetcar. That's a great connection, if it can be done.

On page 65 JYP mentioned alternative funding for the 4th main as it relates to getting trains into CUT. One thing I'm curious about, is the 4th main something that is technically independent of the 3-C plans? I want to say it is, that CSX/NS interests are pushing for it due to the congestion impacting their own freight operations. If that's the case, then is it possible for it to get Federal and/or State funding through some other program, or (heaven forbid) from CSX and NS themselves? It seems like the 4th main is going to have to happen at some point, whether there's passenger trains or not, and that seems like a good thing.

Wait, how did my name get in there?

Actually, those are all great reasons FOR passenger rail.

You just made my point with your last sentence though. Right now the situation is entirely in the favor of the hosting railroads, to the detriment of Amtrak. It's very one-sided, and I hope that the lease terms Amtrak pays to use those rails is very cheap, because it's a ripoff otherwise. They basically say, "ok, you can use our rails, but you get whatever table scraps are left in the schedule." I think some smart planning could be done to give passenger trains priority without causing delays for the freight trains. For example, a lot of the freight trains waiting to get into Queensgate are held up in the Sharon yard (at least the ones coming from that direction). So even though the yards may be tangled up with freight cars, the approach down the Mill Creek Valley is still clear. Since passenger trains aren't destined for the yards, they should be able to go through anyway. Again, I did say that any schedule should be worked out with CSX and/or NS. I bet it could be done, it just needs a bit of a different mindset. I am not a railroad operations expert, but it seems to me this is an avenue that should be pursued in the face of the funding shortfall. We need some creative solutions. I don't know if this would work, but it should still be looked into! If it doesn't pan out as expected, then all the more reason to push for funding for the 4th main. They can go to the State, or even back to the Feds and say, "look, we tried everything we could to wring out the last bit of capacity from this corridor, and we're out of options."

One thing that might help get trains to CUT is addressing in a different way the fundamental operating problems that require the additional capital outlay between Sharonville and CUT in the first place. The issue is congestion of southbound freight trains waiting to get into and through the Queensgate and Gest Street yards. There are two aspects to this problem, actual physical capacity, and operational efficiency and priority. The money required to add the 4th main addresses the physical capacity issue only, because operations are supposedly sacrosanct. The problem with the Cardinal and the 3-C corridor and pretty much all Amtrak operations is that freight trains have priority. This is an absurd situation. Ok, so freight trains don't necessarily have schedules, but the passenger trains do. So why can't CSX and Norfolk Southern work their freight trains around the schedule of the passenger trains? It seems to me they simply don't want to be bothered. Mainline railroads managed to schedule fast passenger trains along with freight trains 100 years ago, there's no reason we can't do it today, especially with the advanced centralized control and signaling systems we have today on freight routes. It's sad to see passenger travel subjugated so severely for freight. It's similar to how light rail and streetcar proposals (including Cincinnati's) are hindered for fear of adversely impacting automobile traffic. If we really believe in these projects, we need to stop making concessions that are so out of line with their goals, even if it means stepping on a few toes to make sure they are done right. Now, I'm not saying that the 4th main won't still be necessary. But I'll bet in the meantime passenger trains could be at least tolerably accommodated at CUT without one if some simple procedural changes were made. Set a definite schedule, work with the parent railroads to get it figured out, and give priority to the passenger trains in this particular corridor. I find it very difficult to believe that a 3-track approach doesn't have enough capacity to let passenger trains that aren't 100 cars long and don't need to be split apart upon entering the yards squeeze through. As busy as it may be, I rarely see more than one train on the tracks either coming or going. Since the passenger trains aren't destined for the yards anyway, and the bypass tracks are the ones that skirt CUT, it seems that if they can just get them past the yard throat then it's smooth sailing. They say a little planning goes a long way, well here a little scheduling and coordination could probably do the same until that 4th track is built.

I'm pretty sure the design phase is well past implementing anything like that. They are preserving a light rail ROW along side the highway, but that's about it. You do bring up a good point though. The impending nightmare of I-75 construction would be a good bargaining point for completing the passenger line to CUT. A commuter rail line could use the same tracks as the intercity to take people between CUT (or preferably Longworth Hall) and a park-and-ride station in Sharonville. At the very least, it makes the argument for terminating intercity trains in Sharonville that much harder to swallow with the road connection to downtown being messed up.

It's too bad that ideologues like Husted really oppose this because it's a Strickland/Democrat/Obama led initiative. Pure politics. He's making a "prediction" with out any evidence on which to base it. The partisan division that's choking Congress and our state legislatures is one of the things that's destroying America. Some of these guys don't care about anything except political power and trying to win elections. Which was a big point in the state of the union address last night. In one ear and out the other.