natininja

I'm just joshing bro

Unless the legislation specifically allows it (this is certainly possible), I still believe no stations would be allowed between downtown and the airport if PFCs pay for the track, without a legislative act.

I'm not sure that something that happened in China is really relevant. The standards are different there and the corruption is an order of magnitude worse. Um, this is Obama's America we're living in, in case you forgot. It's pretty much Red China.

^ I'm pretty sure Duke had a say in not burying wires. Sherman, streetcars have a greater capacity per driver (so lower labor costs), and the rolling stock lasts much longer than buses. Over time, they save money.

^ Awesome. Especially the Chinese characters for the city names.

^^ I agree about Newport/Covington...they should really get on top of that. Would be interesting to see opinion polls for support within those two cities and their counties.

I appreciate people throwing ideas around. Any criticism I offer is intended to be constructive, so I hope it comes across that way. I also realize the ideas that come out are sometimes off the top of the head and not thought out thoroughly before pen hits paper, fingers hit keys, or MS Paint brush hits Google Map. Thus is the nature of a casual forum such as this one. If Kroger really is intending to break ground on a new store at UP later this year or early next year, I'm afraid it's likely Short Vine will have to be scrapped as a possible route. There would likely be too much winding and loss of speed/time without using the UP site. A tragic loss of opportunity, IMO. A streetcar on Jefferson will not provide nearly the same impact. I hope council hurries up and approves the Uptown study, and whoever does the study takes a look at these UP/Short Vine possibilities.

If you could describe what you like about your current location, and/or what you would like to have in a new place, we can tell you if it's available in the Cincinnati area. Being that this is UrbanOhio, most of us are interested in city life and what that has to offer. So we're pretty well versed in the attributes of urban neighborhoods, and how they measure up in Cincinnati versus other cities. General positives: Attractive historic architecture, variety from dense urban to large lawns (even within the city), strong cultural identity, lots of high-quality cultural amenities (museums, zoo, theater, symphony, etc.), high degree of economic (class) diversity, city center that's on a strong upwards trajectory Neutral: Laid-back, quasi-European vibe; unique blend of Midwest, South, Northeast cultures General negatives: Many people have an insular outlook, the metro (not so much the city) is very conservative (to me this is a negative), there is a strong city-suburb cultural/political divide, some people find it hard to get into a social group because there are so many natives with life-long friend groups (not everyone has this problem), not much ethnic diversity

^ That study is very interesting. Development in OTR probably couldn't explain Cincinnati's numbers, as it examined how the census tracts of the city compare with the census tracts of the metro. I doubt a shift in the couple tracts that make up OTR could have such a big effect. So what's going on here? I suspect the suburbs are getting poorer. But it seems like other city neighborhoods must be getting wealthier, too.

The thing that stood out the most to me in that article was the episode about bike legislation. It showed Cranley's slimy dirty style, and that there's a council majority who will be complicit in the sliminess -- even when it explicitly involves tricking them.

Anyone have any comments or insights regarding Garcia-Crews stepping down?

Yes, I basically agree with this, except I don't necessarily think "as far from downtown as possible" is important. But low land value, yes. And definitely not on a major street corner. If it were going to go on the UP site, which is likely a bad site due to high land values, it should be tucked into the center of the block. When I sai "It's not like purchasing some property (for another car barn) isn't inevitable," I meant that use of eminent domain is inevitable. So while use of ED adds costs, it's not like the suggestion is earth-shattering compared to the inevitable status quo. Taking (a) strip(s) of land should be cheap relative to taking a whole block. When I did mention possibly placing the car barn on the site, I mentioned tucking it into the center of the block. But I think taestell is right that it's probably a bad location. As much of the site that can be put to economic use should be. thebillshark, I think in your maps you're not leaving enough room for buildings fronting streets.

"157%" -- exactly, relative. Sorry. It's good news, but I can't get excited about it. The "big expansion[!!!11!!!!1]" headline is a bit sensational, and only technically true because of low numbers increasing by low numbers creating big percentages. Yay, Phoenix! Again, I apologize. I'll shelve my cynicism for a while now. I'm sure I'd be ecstatic if I regularly did business in Phoenix.

I'm aware of that, but you still need to do some special configuring to get it to work. Like having stations in the median, as pictured in Seattle. The design gymnastics are simplified and more flexible in a dedicated space. I'm not really sure what the downsides are that you see to a transit center; your assertion was merely that it's not needed. I'm unaware of anyone saying it is "needed," just that it would be a good idea. The only credible negative I've heard is that Short Vine business owners apparently don't want the streetcar on Short Vine, but I'm not convinced that's in itself reason to abandon the idea, especially since they might be persuaded otherwise by facts, data, and flashy renderings. There will be a large cost to the city to acquire a parcel and develop it into a transit center. It would not be cheap for the city to buy University Plaza. On the other hand, the city already owns the streets and the sidewalks. Why complicate things when the system can be so much simpler and cheaper? I also see it as the difference between a streetcar system and a light rail system. The streetcar primarily runs in the streets and doesn't need much more infrastructure than relatively basic stops. Light rail can have more dedicated right-of-way and/or tunnels, and true "stations" as opposed to "stops", which could include a transit center where multiple lines branch off or cross each other. It's not like purchasing some property (for another car barn) isn't inevitable. I wish I had a dollar amount to attach to various UP eminent domain proposals, but unfortunately I wouldn't know where to start. I also don't know what's legal. (e.g. Can the city take more than just a Vine-to-Short Vine strip of UP and use 3CDC, PGCDA, or other PPP money to create a mixed-use development?) Reconnecting Vine to Short Vine, even if exclusively for transit and pedestrians, certainly has a high value by itself. Using Short Vine for streetcars certainly also has value. As you want to emphasize the streetcar/LRT distinction, Jefferson is a far inferior street (vs. Short Vine) for streetcar functionality and TOD. We should also consider ROI and not just capital costs. And we should have an eye to dual-use of track for LRT, as in the basin. Especially if the forest route is chosen for the Vine Street ascent, we need to have some foresight for integrating streetcar and LRT precisely in the vicinity we're talking about. And there's no better time than the present, when UP is destined to be but not yet rebuilt, to consider possibilities of using that site. 10-15 years down the road, when the LRT ball is rolling and there are 5-10 year old buildings on the site would be a horrible time to entertain using eminent domain for light rail facilities. I definitely remember Swallens, but not at that location!

Significant is relative. A daily direct R/T to Europe or Asia? Now that would be significant.

I'm aware of that, but you still need to do some special configuring to get it to work. Like having stations in the median, as pictured in Seattle. The design gymnastics are simplified and more flexible in a dedicated space. I'm not really sure what the downsides are that you see to a transit center; your assertion was merely that it's not needed. I'm unaware of anyone saying it is "needed," just that it would be a good idea. The only credible negative I've heard is that Short Vine business owners apparently don't want the streetcar on Short Vine, but I'm not convinced that's in itself reason to abandon the idea, especially since they might be persuaded otherwise by facts, data, and flashy renderings.

^^ A "transit center" would give streetcars a place to turn around, a place for riders to transfer without navigating across busy and/or large streets/intersections (e.g. Jefferson & Corry), and a center for development to branch out from. It's not so much that it is "necessary," but that it's convenient considering the circumstances surrounding University Plaza, and its need to be redeveloped and urbanized, and the bonus of connecting Vine to Short Vine. It would also offer a place to have a second streetcar barn tucked away from street frontage. As you mention idling, it would indeed offer a place where railcars or buses could idle and make sure intended connections can be made, which gets harder to accomplish as streetcar, BRT, and LRT lines become more plentiful. Making strong nodes is important in a city where Jarrett Walker-style transit grids are a physical impossibility. The disjointed Uptown Transit District plan is nice considering the upgrade to the status quo, but creating a transit center would do wonders for making more trips possible with only one transfer, which is extremely important for attracting choice riders. As the system grows, I'm afraid a single busy intersection wouldn't be so flexible in accommodating creative solutions. More immediately, giving the city greater control of the University Plaza site would help ensure it becomes an asset to Uptown instead of remaining more or less a blackhole for urbanity (as Kroger, until recently, was pushing very hard for).

I was wondering how they were going to make the shelters look like they fit in w/ the Music Hall stop. I hadn't imagined the "solution" would be to simply not put them in. Not really a solution at all. Would be nice if Music Hall would install boards showing streetcar arrival times in the lobby. (I'm not suggesting that as a substitute for a display at the stop.)

Glad King James came to his senses. This always made me laugh: Your downtown's savior is back ;)

I feel about drop bars the way Jake feels about chain guards and fenders.

Thanks, OCtoCincy, that was very informative.

Wow. Good find, Cygnus.

Could you guys plz add a feature so I can PM Quimbob my toenails?

Why not? Because it's an Amtrak train, and if a private car were profitable, I would just expect Amtrak to offer the service.

Cranley seems to operate on the idea that everything good that happened under Mallory in the city center would have happened anyway on auto-pilot, perhaps at a somewhat slower pace (but without money or energy spent by city leadership). This might be one of the fruits of that theory put into action.