thebillshark

Re: the Grammer's plan: I'm gonna go ahead and say I'm not a fan in general of plans for new construction that would completely envelop or consume old buildings in OTR. I'd rather see each building come back on its own (or in a group like Westfalen.) I'd also like to see new construction to fill in every surface parking lot in the neighborhood. Small additions to structures to make this work would be OK too. Basically I think they got the neighborhood right the first time around. I understand the appeal to the builder of a super block like this though- economies of scale, especially for including things like elevators and parking garages. But I don't think I would like for it to become the preferred style of development. On the other hand, I also really really want the pace of redevelopment to greatly accelerate.

On second thought the Mt Airy location location is pretty residential in nature as well as having the transportation issues Jake mentioned... May not be a good site for a new jail. Might make a good nursing or retirement home location if the county doesn't move there.

What about instead of a move of county offices to the old Mercy Mt. Airy campus we did this… It really stinks having the jail where it is. I walking downtown around the 8th and Sycamore area today checking out the project at that site, and noticed there were a lot of other surface lots in the area that could be redeveloped, but they all would have a view of the jail. That's not an attractive feature to potential developers, I'm sure. Plus, inmates beat on the windows during outdoor concerts at the casino. That's just a bizarre situation. Wreck the jail down and build a new building/tower at the site for county administration offices. The county would already own the land. Assuming there is a need for a small detention holding facility adjacent to the courthouse, that could be built in to the new building and you could even keep the skywalk into the courthouse. Sell all the county administration buildings in the surrounding area for redevelopment into residential thus avoiding the maintenance on those older buildings that are more attractive for residential anyways. This way you can keep the Board of Elections and Jobs and Family Services downtown and serviced by transit. The jail site has often been discussed as a potential area for the casino hotel. You could try to fit it in where the south tower of the jail is. But I think the better solution would be to have Greyhound move into the Riverfront Transit Center with Megabus and build the hotel on the Greyhound site. You might be able to do a public private partnership with the casino and have Dan Gilbert chip in. Then you raze the old hospital building on Mt. Airy property and build a modern jail there. Since the site is so big, 68 acres, it could be far enough removed from the road so as to have minimal impact on the neighborhood. Perhaps you could also build a new park on the site to appease the community.

I'm sorry, I will not be able to hear the name "Aqua on the Levee" without thinking of this:

Council is discussing naming Third Street after Carl Lindner this week. I think they should rename it if the Lindner family offers to put the caps in over Fort Washington Way. Otherwise keep it 3rd Street.

You know what would help that and serve these new townhomes well... https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/70250228/The%20Uptown%20Four%2011012014.pdf

That goes for a lot more stuff than just the streetcar though. And with a gerrymandered General Assembly not much is going to change until past 2020 anyways. The best they can do is just stay out of the way.

New version of the Uptown Four presentation: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/70250228/The%20Uptown%20Four%2011012014.pdf What's updated since my last post: 1. cleaned up Why the Uptown Four? 2. corrected # of stops mistake on Line Lengths and Times 3. Added a section on Northside extension to Clifton route 4. Added a section on Goals

They should use them to connect to the Uptown Four: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/70250228/The%20Uptown%20Four%2010282014.pdf This presentation reflects my latest thoughts on the uptown streetcar. This version adds vehicles to increase frequency. It adds length to the Clifton and Avondale lines. It combines two lines (That's why it's the Uptown Four instead of the Uptown Five from my previous posts.) But by far the biggest difference is I don't think the Uptown Four lines described in the presentation even have to be, or should be, streetcar lines anymore. In other words, I would rather have the Downtown streetcar go up the hill and then tie into a useful transit bus system instead of fighting for 10-15 years over where to run a single Uptown streetcar line. You could always convert the Uptown lines into streetcar as ridership demands and the politics become more favorable over time.

P&G is spinning off Duracell batteries http://www.cincinnati.com/story/money/2014/10/24/pg-reports-results/17822103/ At first I got really excited thinking a new Duracell HQ would be a great candidate for the remaining office pad at the Banks. Then they updated this story with info that Duracell is actually HQ'ed in Bethel, Connecticut near NYC and they have few employees here. Still... CT is expensive... from Google earth it looks like they are in a standard suburban office park... we could probably offer some tax breaks...and Cincy would be closer to the US factories listed in the article.

I think those neighborhoods (except maybe for Corryville) need stronger connections to campus & Clifton Heights for that to happen. Take Mt Auburn and the streets around Auburn Ave. for example. The area feels completely cut off from campus. This is because McMillan and Taft are high traffic, high speed one way streets that have a moat effect. Then the University Plaza lot forms another barrier separating it from Corryville. And there is a steep up and down dip in elevation right around Vine St. to further the effect. It may not take the Uptown Five https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/70250228/The%20Uptown%20Five%2009302014.pdf to reconnect Mt Auburn; I think there's other things you could do (more pedestrian friendly two way streets, get University Plaza right) to reconnect it. (I see lots of potential down Auburn Ave around Jackson Hill Park. I really like the flatiron style currently abandoned building down by the Sycamore St. intersection.) Strong connections are so important- I think it's telling that now demolished Glencoe-Auburn Place was known as the Glencoe "Hole"- limited access in and out, tucked away in the corner and forgotten. To go completely off topic you have an analogous situation where Betts-Longworth and the lower West End is cut off from OTR by Central Parkway, the electric substation, and Channel 48 studio/parking garage superblock. Although that area is doing well and has more of a "quiet oasis" feel which I really, really like, it would probably have more buzz and be a candidate for more infill if it were better connected.

You don't think that one day we'll treasure our historic EIFs from the late Obamian period?

Is this because there isn't enough time to make it happen and no entity (DCI) has stepped up to coordinate the implementation? Would it be fair to future phase properties if phase 1 properties are not in a taxing district for streetcar operation but future phase properties would be? If we don't have a SID to pay for streetcar operations in the CBD and OTR, I suspect it will be because: * SID's are very difficult to set up. I was involved in setting up the DCI SID, and I estimated for someone who asked that it would cost $200,000 to $300,000 to do the same thing for the streetcar ... * And it would probably take a year or more to do it ... * And many commercial landlords in the CBD won't sign the petition to increase their taxes ... * And unless 3CDC really got behind it in OTR, it would take forever to getting signatures from all the other OTR property owners, assuming the land records for OTR are in really good shape ... * And then you have to repeat the whole process every four or five years. Other than those things and maybe a dozen more obstacles, I see no problem creating, adopting and maintaining a SID in place to pay for streetcar operations. And yet the mayor seems to taunt the OTR steetcar supporters for not getting one set up and going. Well, I am a private citizen with a full time job and no legal expertise, so I wouldn't know where to start.

^ this mentions a UC study re: lead http://m.motherjones.com/environment/2013/01/lead-crime-link-gasoline

Is the statistic that 47% of sales tax revenue comes from non-county residents a relatively new development? What was the ratio ten years ago? Is that why we are willing to consider multiple sales tax proposals now when in 2002 Metro Moves was considered a huge deal?

I've seen those (but never ridden one,) but I don’t think that's quite what I was thinking… I was thinking something exactly like our Urbos 3 streetcars only not running on track. Something with low floors, huge side doors, and no steps inside the vehicle so you can take your bike or wheelchair right on. It may require some automation mode that takes over from the driver to be able to line up precisely with a stop, not having the benefit of the track. Something with a lithium ion battery to eliminate the overhead wires and make them as quiet as a Prius or golf cart. The batteries could be swapped out to keep vehicles in service. And also fare machines located off board at the stops. I would submit that a system like this would be effective in spurring development, if a significant investment was made into vehicles, substantial stops (like our streetcar stops) and off board fare machines, and the vehicles were run at high frequency. (I also acknowledge I am arguing for a theoretical here.) The reason I pose this question at all is that it is my opinion that University Plaza is a natural stopping place for the Downtown streetcar route. • At University Plaza, you have a decision point where you have to choose which neighborhoods and institutions to serve. ○ A branch in the line there, with half the streetcars coming from downtown and going in one direction and half going in another, would halve the frequency with which you are serving those Uptown destinations. ○ For this reason I argue a connection to new lines with dedicated streetcars is best. • University Plaza provides a natural endpoint to the Downtown loop, where streetcars can pause between loops (recovery time) in order to maintain schedule. • Ending the Downtown route at University Plaza would protect against problems spreading to affect the whole streetcar system. If Downtown and Uptown were one really long route, this increases the possibility of there being a problem in some portion of the route that delays or bunches up the streetcars, throwing off your frequency and reliability. However, I recognize the reality that to completely build out my "Uptown Five" system ( https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/70250228/The%20Uptown%20Five%2009302014.pdf ) would take many years and many dollars. That's why would be in favor of with the downtown streetcar feeding into some kind of high tech neighborhood circulator shuttle system with the same fare mechanism as the streetcar to get started serving Uptown. You could convert your highest capacity Uptown routes to streetcar as funds became available, and easily move the extra shuttles to serve Price Hill or Westwood or something. The Downtown trunk line would be still be the heart of the system with the highest capacity vehicles worthy of downtown, and light rail connections could be still be made into that system.

There is quite a lot of room for development in that area. That is one positive if it is built up Vine St. as planned as opposed to the forest route or another alignment. I'm not sure why that would make any difference. Both routes follow the same corridor. They're 50 ft apart from each other. It's not the track that matters but the stops. I think the Forest Route as proposed includes a stop on the Polk St. Steps which is significantly uphill from this area. (As an aside, I wouldn't be brave enough to use those stairs at night, but I guess I could have said the same thing about large parts of OTR several years ago.)

There is quite a lot of room for development in that area. That is one positive if it is built up Vine St. as planned as opposed to the forest route or another alignment.

This University Plaza design is completely awful. It's absolutely blowing a golden opportunity, putting any streetcar or transit of any sort aside. When we talk about connectivity, a place can connect or disconnect two neighborhoods in terms of walkability as well. This site sits where three neighborhoods meet: Clifton Heights, Mt. Auburn and Corryville. This plan creates a huge barrier for pedestrians traveling between them. Someone coming from Calhoun would have to cross a huge sea of asphalt to get to the business district on Short Vine; someone coming from Auburn Ave. would have to walk around the blank side wall of the Kroger. That's after crossing the 45 mph speedway that is WH Taft Rd. In contrast, the Clancy plan from 2007 would have created a gateway for pedestrians coming from Calhoun or Auburn into the business district of Short Vine. The Auburn Ave. corridor in particular could really use a game changer like that. This plan might has well been designed for a cornfield way out in the country for all the respect it gives to its surroundings. Can UrbanCincy do an editorial about this one?

^^2008 is the worst design! They got successively worse as time went on!

Well I'd be interested to see the drawings to see if it would still accomodate my Uptown Five idea... https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/70250228/The%20Uptown%20Five%2009302014.pdf If not, oh well I guess.

This quote sounds like an ill informed 700 WLW listening relative at a family party. Glad he's on board though.

I'd say the Uptown Five has some elements that are grid like and also some hub and spoke (radial connection) elements. The quarter mile walksheds line up in a grid like fashion so that it is no more than a quarter mile walk to a streetcar line for much of Uptown. However, there is no line going across the top of the map that would complete the grid. It's true that all the lines come together radially into a hub and spoke single connection point. However, the important thing to remember is, these are primarily neighborhood circulators. Given the typical streetcar trip (I think 1 mile) a lot travel would be within the routes themselves, for example for the Gaslight District to Clifton Heights, or from Xavier to Walnut Hills. This would especially be true if the development around the Uptown Transit Center turned into a real activity center. But in regards to the hub and spoke configuration, the total distance and travel time of each Uptown Five line is not great. I think the hub and spoke has a bad reputation in Cincinnati because you have these huge, infrequent lines out to the suburbs and to travel from one suburb to another by transferring downtown can take 90 minutes or more. In contrast you could get from one end of an Uptown Five Route to the end of another within 30 minutes. Chapters 12 and 13 of Walker's Human Transit really validated the Uptown Transit Center idea in my eyes. In Chapter 12 he lays out a simple city with 3 residential areas and 3 activity centers to connect. This immediately reminded me of the situation Uptown with the hospitals, UC, the Zoo, neighborhood centers etc. Keeping the number of vehicles constant, using a connection could actually decrease the total trip time over using many direct routes because there is a higher frequency of vehicles going in your specific direction of travel via the connection point. (Sorry if I'm not explaining this well, but there's a diagram in the book that will make some light bulbs turn on.) Chapter 13 discusses the connection point, asking if it is a safe and pleasant place to wait and if the vehicles can access it free of obstacles and congestion. That's why I think the connection point would be better off-road at University Plaza then it would be in the middle of the road (in the middle of Corry St. or Taft or something.) I really hope we can at least partially utilize University Plaza for transit is some form and that we don’t blow this opportunity to think big regarding development there. Could be a real plus for the owners as well as Kroger and Walgreens to take into account when considering renovation plans.

^Those are some advantages a streetcar would still have. Definitely lasting longer and easily providing a smooth ride although I was thinking perhaps technology could help with the latter. Also I agree that providing power through the caternary would probably be more energy efficient than charging onboard batteries and also there's more friction between rubber and road.