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.

Am I off-base in thinking that the east-west streets generally feel more dangerous and high-speed in this respect than north-south? I am all for these conversions and look forward to more, but personally have the most close-calls nearest the highways. Speeding cars either rushing to hit the light to get onto the highway, or speeding off the highway and speeding to hit the last light before entering downtown. Thinking specifically of 7th & Broadway eastbound, 6th & Broadway westbound, and the 'poles' of 5th farthest from fountain and gov't square, but those are admittedly colored by my personal experience.

The Red Line in Indy kind of out kicks its coverage. Indy isn't a transit-first city, they haven't yet improved the network around the Red Line as planned, and the Red Line itself isn't built in a corridor anywhere near the ridership potential of any of our top routes. But their roads are wide and the priority is fairly well-executed, and they're doing pretty well with steps for infill/zoning reform now along the line. There are a lot of lessons to be taken from Indy - be careful with unproven technology/batteries, don't have an awful payment system, systems > lines in isolation, prioritize operators - but our BRT if well-executed should be leaps and bounds beyond Indy's in ridership.

Is there another choice right now? Seems to me with operator hiring being as challenging as it is, a frequency model is tough to implement and they still have to add or at least maintain coverage to meet the political promises from the levy. Improved frequency in this climate is likely going to come from priority and efficiency gains like the bus bumpouts mentioned, and continued move toward tap cards and apps over cash. Was glad to see Jeffreys' response to your transit lane on Walnut proposal - hopefully the new streetcar director can provide some help with integration on Walnut and around Government Square. (Removing some express routes would also help frequency and reliability without sacrificing coverage but that doesn't seem likely). Walnut will also be a solid test for this council and current administration. That said, in my read of it, these changes could make it easier to ramp up frequency in the long-term as they seem to be consolidating branches and focusing on transfers at current or future hubs.

I don't think it exists by default but they are generally very accommodating of record requests or just contact attempts. I called and asked about data for the #1 specifically a couple years back and got a .xls of total boardings and alightings from each stop for a year. I was mostly just curious so I didn't pursue more specific formats or data but kinda remember them asking. The new shelter going in today looks great aesthetically, I'm glad we are getting more - and they're not black metal.

The good news is that pedestrian safety remains constant and politically salient - if the city/council/administration choose to message it as part of pedestrian safety, which it should be, there's a better chance of fighting against parking and giving priority. If leaders frame it as buses speeding vs. traffic calming benefits of 24/7 parked cars, as Cranley chose to do back in 2020, it could get uglier. It'll also make it more important that the eventual BRT relies on infrastructure and design, not enforcement and paint, which I'm very worried about on a corridor like Reading. @10albersaI don't know that it's worth completely re-litigating why Reading didn't move forward, because it's an almost entirely different cast of characters today and unfortunately became a political proxy battle at the time. The short of it is council eventually passed that 6-3-1 resolution but this was before SORTA even set rules for their infrastructure fund. Not a lawyer but the resolution was worded as asking for money from SORTA ('entities with spending authorization') but once the Transit Infrastructure Fund process was established, the city never applied for money for Reading and thus SORTA/the integrating committee didn't provide any. The city definitely ignored the "City Council will support the expansion of the project through necessary legislative and administrative processes" part of the resolution and never did much of a 'study' at all. Now it seems to just pass the buck to 'BRT is coming' without acknowledging the reality that ROW decisions won't be entirely up to Metro. The disconnect between political leaders, city staff across departments, and Metro at the time was frustrating from the outside looking in. My hope would be that would be less of the case now and that having consultants deciding the routes will give a clear direction and remove some of the politics (i.e. east vs. west side, "I live in this corridor," parking, past streetcar battles, etc.) so it can focus on actual logistics. It's going to take a lot of attention from urbanists for the city to get BRT resembling what the city needs and bus riders deserve.

They just signed off on the contract last month for WSP to conduct the "Alternatives Analysis" and evaluate corridors to figure out the Locally Preferred Alternative, but those are the general recommendations. Bit more info here: https://www.go-metro.com/uploads/Board Documents/2022/Board Packet (6-22).pdf p 7-26 I generally agree that blue line seems least likely when you consider ridership and the multiple munis involved - unless WSP can somehow show that all those municipalities would be 100% on board, which would turn that negative into a positive. The #33 Glenway is a workhorse and was approaching 25 passengers per hour as of April, well above most other routes including the #32 Delhi (hasn't been above 14 post-pandemic). I'd really like to see it and the west side get some love, but not sure how the ROW would look.

Looks like Hyde Park and College Hill will be the newest DORA areas in the city of Cincinnati.

I'm going to put a reply to this from the OTR thread re: Main St over here. I'm not sure that making it harder for people to drive in the core and making transit less efficient are working toward the same end goal. For example, this ignores that Sycamore is only two-way north of Central. In this type of scenario, the #17 would go up Main from Gov't Sq, turn right onto Central, almost immediately turn left onto Sycamore, turn left onto Liberty, turn right onto McMicken. That's a lot of turns on streets with lengthy signals and substantial traffic. Sure, you could convert all of Sycamore to two-way and proceed there from Gov't Sq, but that means missing the bus only lane in favor of travelling essentially through the justice center and surface lots. Others suggested that a two-way Walnut conversion would cover it, but in isolation it would still slow things down - maybe if Walnut is two-way and there is a bus-only east-west segment to get back to Walnut from Main after Government Square, or other priority added, but turns and additional lights in downtown traffic can really slow buses down and make it harder to transition to the narrower curb radii we want. Could Main become a transit, bike, delivery, and pedestrian-only corridor instead of closure? I wonder if some elements of the Telegraph for People proposal in Berkeley could be used for Main: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1YAn-HzsJAl0ui60eZNt-bE1B0VJgvJ9z/view

I just want there to be an actual plan with all of the major changes coming soon to the core. It would theoretically be fine to close Main and reroute buses, but adding even more turns to some of our most frequent routes, after the effort it took to get an already-mostly not-enforced bus lane, seems like a waste of operating and travel efficiency and reduces clarity of the routes if it's weekend-only. I'm not saying we should delay any pedestrian improvements until BRT is rolled out but it would be nice to know there was collaboration between DOTE and Metro to say hey, here's the streets we're actually changing to two-way, here's the ones we're not, here's some options we can close to create a plaza, here would be a great bus-priority route, and here's where we're putting bike infrastructure. IIRC that was sort of the purpose of the Downtown Pedestrian Task Force but it would be nice to have buses be at the forefront of the conversation, not an afterthought, for once.

I've been records'ing it periodically but don't have March. 33's been hovering in the 17-25 range, 43 in the 11-14, 17 in the 12-15 range.