shawk

I'm fairly confident it's sourcing from this site and it's just lagging data based on their methodology. https://transitrecovery.com/agency/?id=50012 I can't tell if I'm misremembering or if the site's appearance has just changed significantly but I seem to remember screenshots from that site, or a very similar one, being presented at board meetings in past months.

The renovation of 630 Main, also within the CBD and directly on transit and streetcar lines, was also supposedly being proposed as affordable senior living (71 units). I'm sure both would fill up quickly but I am not sure I want it to be the trend.

Lot of dramatics about signal priority, again based on a screenshot and a negativity bias toward BRT here. Members from Metro and one of the lead engineers on the project, along with a city DOTE staff member tagging on, presented at Downtown Resident's Council and spoke a bit about plans for signal priority. This was a fairly high-level conversation about how it could work and what signal priority is in general, but it's clear that signal priority is still part of the project. They also shared that an MOU between the city and Metro is currently being developed to prevent something like Cleveland turning it off. This was in response to another resident specifically asking about it, using the term BRT-creep - shoutout to him. There will be an explicit MOU based on who owns, is responsible for, and pays for each component of signal priority. They talked about integration with the streetcar, possibly emergency services, and lead pedestrian intervals as part of implementation but stressed that everything is still in the design and procurement process on that end and the city and Metro are working together on it. I forget if it's been posted here already among the negativity, but the possible BRT fleet vehicles will be present at a few engagement sessions this month. They currently have the possible buses in the area and being tested by operators, mechanics, etc. so it's fairly decent timing on the cold and winter weather this week for realistic conditions. I am admittedly fairly worried about an Indianapolis-type scenario, where the initial rollout of my service is negative or service is eventually cut due to the reliability of batteries or an unrealistic plan for charging. https://metrobrtproject.com/participate has the times/dates, the next being Fountain Square on Thursday, but also Mittenfest, Heart of Northside, and at the library later in the month. Just to reiterate - even at a place like Downtown Residents Council, there was pseudo-heckling about how the buses are actually one of the biggest causes of a lack of pedestrian safety downtown. Community councils, primarily run and attended by single family homeowners who do not take the bus, will broadly not be supportive of BRT. If you want an effective system, be prepared to counter those voices when decisions outside of Metro's hands, like parking, come to council.

A good chunk of the more recent decline is also likely the implementation of the #36 to further reduce the need to connect downtown. But with Glenway not being chosen for any specific treatments (until maybe after BRT along with Montgomery? Still never seen any details on that) I still think the point remains that the city should start applying for projects that actually impact trip times for bus riders. They're not bad projects, they just haven't ever revolved around transit.

Thanks for sharing this, helpful and interesting info. The #33 continuing a downward trend would be very bad news for overall system ridership. The Glenway diet has been a positive for pedestrian and roadway safety but I know they've talked in board meetings about the impact on trip times. The city/DOTE should explore submitting something in that corridor for the next round of the Transit Infrastructure Fund to actually benefit bus riders, it would be a shoo-in with the formula being so rooted in ridership.

As far as I can tell, Metro*Plus is from an era that tried to rely strictly on branding, a slightly better stop experience (i.e. actually providing shelters in places they're needed either way), and specific (though now dated) buses to try and appeal to 'choice' riders. Any gains in ridership were likely actually due to improvements in underlying frequency and regardless haven't maintained over time as local service has started to trend back in the right direction. Limited stops in isolation don't really provide all that much speed benefit depending on your destination, and I believe Metro*Plus was also before FASTops happened throughout the system (which could likely use another round IMO). I think it's a fair argument to say that if BRT is not meaningfully faster and more frequent than underlying local service, it will not be effective. However, I don't think Metro*Plus is much of a comparison just because it's limited-stop service. My hope and belief would be that through the capital spending on infrastructure to support level, all-door boarding, prepayment, and priority along the ROW through lanes and signals, BRT will actually create a cycle of improved frequency, and thus service and trip times, through that improved infrastructure. That was never the goal of Metro*Plus and I don't think that service will be missed much if/when it is deprioritized along with other express routes.

Metro*Plus is also one of the few routes that has seen substantial service drops over those same five years. 2024 vs. 2019 is jarring - it went from a solid every-15-minutes route to every 30 currently. Reduced service with no improvements in speed or reliability (if anything I think it's likely a longer trip, as Montgomery was narrowed), plus a general drop in express-type demand post-COVID, etc. makes that much less surprising than the #6 drop (which has increased over that window). If anything, that ridership drop shows the importance of execution and frequency to the eventual ridership on the BRT routes. If it gets watered down, it will disappoint, which means it needs support for priority and not death by a thousand cuts (or a lack of support from the community that should be rooting for BRT to be as successful as possible).

I guess I will just wait for whatever the original source is, because I don't think Jeffreys is the type to just throw out numbers without basis. My experience on the #43 is that there are a good amount of wheelchair users and cash payers, so as I've stated before, level-boarding and off-fare payment feel likely to make a difference as well. Very fun that one complaint is not being reasonable enough and another is that the agency is uninspired! I regularly hear Darryl Haley stating the desire to have one of the best BRT and bus systems in the country and that'd be my goal as well, so let's see what they end up with and push for the best result we can possibly get for transit users.

I'd guess Mark Jeffreys' comments about time saving are probably repeating what he was told (is that supposed to be an own?), but that it's not about strictly miles per hour of travel. It's likely based on a measure that combines travel speed improvements via BRT with frequency improvements that are expected to occur as part of the BRT project (which, in theory, would be increasingly possible at a similar budget because of those speed improvements) for an overall improvement for the average trip in the corridor. If you think that's a disingenuous way to represent it, that's fair, but travel times from point to point are what matters at the end of the day if you're a transit rider and what you're comparing to when you're competing with driving. Jeffreys has been staunchly on the side of a well-executed BRT project. I'd agree that the fairly tepid quotes are uninspiring, but watching the video it's pretty clear that she's still just trying to explain what BRT is for the average FOX19 viewer who have never heard of it, likely will never take it, and is concerned about congestion or change because that's always the concern. I'd certainly rather her advocate for the best possible project but I'm willing to guess that a 30-second clip is not representative of her full views and plans to make it better, or her competency to run the project more generally. I went to the session and made sure to write in comments about the need for more priority and removing parking - I hope others did too.

The current map that's posted on the FTA website has the attached mumbo-jumbo between Government Square and RTC, so I hardly think that's a big indicator. It'd be a fair criticism that the design isn't exact or transparent enough, but calling it bad choices when those choices literally haven't been made yet is a pretty big leap. I'm choosing to assume the folks doing detailed service analysis and making eventual decisions about routing aren't the ones submitting graphics and are aware of the pros and cons of a route pattern they're already running. Doing some back of the envelope math is fine, but again if we are assuming competency as I prefer, there will be a lot of moving parts in the next 5 years. Other service changes will be not only appropriate, but essential, once these lines are operational - a 5-10 minute trunk from uptown to downtown will allow for frequent transfers and a lot of flexibility in other routes, as you've acknowledged with your constant BRT-lite suggestion. We are already seeing operational changes and experimentation in routing adjustments, such as the #24 now crossing to Northside instead of going downtown, the #36 Price Hill to Uptown, and changes to the #12 Madisonville express. The biggest concern right now is operator staffing across the board - having an efficient BRT core route can and should help alleviate that throughout the system, and hopefully that improves over the next few years. @taestell's question is a fair one. When Metro recently presented to city council committee, Mark Jeffreys pointedly asked Metro's chief of staff what the agency needs from the city in response to concerns about it becoming watered down and the city wanting to do things right and be bold. A high-level summary of the response was for the city to remain engaged with the trade-offs and pushback but that Metro is hoping to do sufficient engagement on the front end, and that the FTA benchmarks including speed of travel, ROW dedication, and overall travel time and ridership models will make sure it's a substantial improvement overall and not just fancy shelters. Not as specific a response as I would have wanted, but at least it shows that (at least some) city leaders are aware of the concerns and willing to be bold on their end. Personally, urban core enforcement is much less my concern than elsewhere on the routes. GSq to Court to OTR south to Findlay should be fairly efficient hops with signal priority and prepayment alone, but making Main 24hr and adding Walnut should happen sooner rather than later.

You're putting an awful lot of stock in screenshots of graphics that are essentially an overview for laypeople who haven't even heard of the concept of BRT. I don't see a scenario where any BRT alignments needs to, or wants to, move eastbound through Government Square unless the RTC/2nd St. component is completely removed. I'm sure they're initially proposing using the underground Riverfront Transit Center because it's an agency asset that has been underutilized as long as it has been in existence. There could be benefits to using the RTC that warrant its use - operator layover at end of line that isn't possible at GSq comes to mind - but if those trade-offs don't make sense from a service and operations perspective (added time, possible added need for security and operational cost, etc.), I'd imagine they could use surface streets to 2nd street or elsewhere for terminus. As @Dev mentioned, none of this is finalized - but there's probably no way around adding time in that segment if they use the underground RTC and those trade-offs should certainly be considered. Of course there will be a reduction to local service on the the 17 and 43 if there's a faster, limited-stop, higher capacity route that will be coming every 10-15 minutes - what exactly do you find questionable about corresponding cuts to local service on those segments? Doomerism about BRT aside, the board is set to vote on Tuesday about taking over the Queen City Wine & Spirits space for their Sales Office, which I think would be an unequivocal positive for Government Square. Some discussion in committee about how it's a bigger space and cost than they currently need, but some obvious opportunity as well - especially paired with the coming facelift to Government Square as a whole.

Just a follow up on this, Tony Birkla was just on 'Thats so Cincinnati.' He used the words "effectively done" and "just about complete" about the conversion itself (which honestly kind of surprised me based on walking by) and talked a bit about the restaurant in the bank building being a steakhouse. In the context of the parking lot, he talked about it as still aspirational and the intent but not there yet with current costs and rates for new construction vs. the viability of conversions. Conversation jumps around a lot, but gist was that Terraces is a bigger priority and there's some coming news for further 580 conversion of some sort.

This is wrong on pretty much every count, except for maybe the price and the plethora of cheaply made bikes (battery being the larger concern moving forward). There are class-3 ebikes, which are more like dirt bikes or mopeds (throttle-based, not pedal assist like class 1 or 2), but as the guest on the same show discussed, those are not allowed on bike paths. Red Bikes are nowhere near that category and as @ryanlammi said,pedal assist typically stops at either 30km or 20mph depending on the manufacturer. RedBikes, specifically, are so heavy that even with the pedal assist, you can't go all that fast. It does, however, make going up hills like Gilbert or into uptown much more feasible without sweating for the average person and could definitely limit car trips within the RedBike radius. It's not as environmentally friendly as traditional biking, but much moreso than driving, and exercise is the same comparison. As for the "relatively dangerous" comment, I feel absolutely safer on an e-bike riding in mixed traffic. The pedal assist helps you acclimate to the speed of traffic from a red light or slowdown much faster. My ~10 mile commute is possible on a bike, but it's reasonable with the pedal assist to the point that I do it multiple times a week. The biggest issue right now with ebikes continues to be that there is still no dedicated infrastructure in much of downtown and, similar to scooters, folks ride on sidewalks as a result of feeling most comfortable away from the real danger, cars. This exact commentary is why I was thrilled to hear dedicated bike advocates say that we don't judge between the two.

Good analysis! Probably worth pointing out the 43 hasn't hit even 80% on-time performance in months and was as low as <70% as recently as December 2022. From a cursory check, it looks like it's typically upper 70s and the most recent (January 2023) was ~73%. #17 looks to be squarely between 75% and 80% with most recent ~80%. Metro was less consistent about posting local route performance for a period of time in the KPI reports during the pandemic - and the new format as of January 2023 is much more aesthetically pleasing, but doesn't give a specific data point for each route. The quality of my screenshots is always bad from this device so I'm hesitant to post directly, but slides 143 and 144 in the January packet may be relevant to this as well. Reading's highest delay was "Highest delay: from Rockdale Avenue to Beachwood Avenue. Additional locations: MLK Jr Drive from Highland Avenue to Reading Road; Vine Street from Hollister to Thill Street; Reading Road from Clinton Springs Avenue to Fred Shuttlesworth Circle." Hamilton's was "Highest delay: from Dooley Bypass to Chase Avenue Additional locations: south of SR 126; Ludlow Ave north of E Clifton Avenue."

The most recent Planning & Ops packet has a decent amount of preliminary info - p. 90 and 101 have maps. Mixed traffic near Findlay Market, between Government Square and the RTC, and the densest part of Northside pre- and post- transit center. A lot is going to hinge on the execution of signal priority on Main and Walnut as the routes run through downtown, and enforcement/treatment of the BAT as the lanes leave the core. I'd be more optimistic on the former than the latter, but we'll see where bus-mounted cameras get by 2027 (both politically and technologically). The uptown and Clifton segments look the most solid.