shawk

Were there ever better plans for this quadrant? I only remember seeing the plans for north of MLK. (Link to WVXU story here.)

I took this the other day from the Purple People bridge, doesn't really cover the parking well at this point.

It was awhile ago that I looked into it in more depth but the pilot areas all seemed to be 'coverage' service so I'm not as worried about scaling. I'm skeptical to some extent, but in low-density areas, some purely coverage demand-responsive routes could still be appropriate, likely meeting a political purpose more than a ridership experience purpose. I'd much rather be "more flexible and aims to cater more closely to customers' individual needs" by providing a lot more frequency to current routes, but recognize that we have some sprawlly parts of the county, including some that may be at-risk as aging suburbs. Flex-route - seems to make the most sense, but seems useful only if existing stops aren't ever skipped and I'm not sure how much time that would add. Seems could take away from of the gains from FASTops balancing if implemented in too dense an area. First/last connector - seems ok, but other than providing union jobs to replace Uber/Lyft trips, I'd think public dollars would be better spent making that first/last mile infrastructure safer and less sprawled. Also doesn't work well unless there's frequent service on the existing fixed-route which generally isn't the case. Point-to-point - waste, I genuinely think ACCESS is the only circumstance I can understand it as a public transit responsibility. The biggest issue to me is that there's a lot more that could be prioritized - as worded in Better Buses, Better Cities, "When existing bus routes are unreliable and slow, focusing attention on microtransit is like trying to perfect dessert at a restaurant that routinely burns the entrees."

I'm pretty sure the funding for that is now coming from the Metro fund and they went with the option with a parking lane. Warsaw (Glenway to Grand) was awarded $2.125m of $4.250m total cost and the doc describes 4 to 3 conversion with parking. Specifically says "No" to "does the project include pedestrian and biking facilities?" I don't have a lot of feedback on the bike plan specifically because I've admittedly never ridden my bike on the west side, but I am glad they chose that part of the city after downtown, and hope we see the results of the downtown survey soon. It looks like the plan is to release a draft Bicycle Plan of the entire city by the end of the year, but if downtown/OTR area is able to be funded by savings from doing the right thing on Central Parkway, it'd be great to see that happen sooner rather than later.

BANANA unless it's literally 100% permanent supportive housing, she was recently advocating for an OTRCH project at HCB. Not sure what the outcome of that was, but it's been frustrating to watch the 'progressive' opinion become "if a project is not >50% affordable housing it's not enough and should not be built and anything else is a developer handout."

This section from the budget document regarding FTEs has always stood out to me along a similar vein. I'm not sure there is ever a perfect ratio of public safety to population to other city staff but this is a tough tide to turn.

Indianapolis has a bidirectional lane as well on their Red Line for a similar option. That makes sense for longer stretches with minimal lights and straightaways. But if the Vine proposal is designed as an open system to feed essentially every major route in the system rapidly and constantly from uptown to downtown, a peak only lane, peak only times (which would be a huge neuter/useless) or a system that is too reliant on light timing won't be that much of an improvement over status quo for routes via Vine.

Yeah, I agree on the upzoning potential as well but didn't want to emphasize that because I believe the transportation potential needs to be the forefront over development. It also would directly service multiple social service agencies in addition to the commuter potential. We shouldn't settle for anything less than Indy's, IMO. Realistically I don't think we should settle for less than a Bronze rating on the ITDP standard (50+ pts). We could get that with: - 6 points for color-separated, dedicated lanes - 8 points for two-way median-aligned busway in the central verge of two-way - 4 points for all-door onboard fare validation - 2 points for signal priority at intersections - 6/7 points for level-boarding at all stations - 2 points for top-ten demand corridors for bus ridership and another point for being a trunk to downtown/uptown - 2 points for late-night and weekend service - 2 points for stations away from intersections - 2 points for high-quality repaved roads - 2 points for spacing ~.5 mile apart on average - 1/2 points for stations that are weather-protected, have cameras & well-lit, and aesthetically pleasing - 5 points for branding and real-time passenger information - 2 points for physical accessibility provided - 2 points for integration if integrated with close proximity to the transit center and the streetcar - 2 points for 'good, safe pedestrian access at every station and no other improvements along corridor' (this could get 3-4). - 1 point for standard bike racks in most stations - 1 point for bicycle sharing at 50% of stations along the corridor with RedBike This puts us right at Bronze and is what I would consider realistic possibilities for the various ratings, though we'd be at risk for some penalties to take us back below 50 points.

I appreciate that you publicly post and talk through the potential issues, @thomasbw! I am wondering if I am missing something - why do you believe using Vine would be preferred over using Reading as planned, just more route consolidation and a more open BRT system? The hill up Vine is the most direct route and would hit more of UC than Reading, and has the queue jump/shelter infrastructure in place if priority was activated. But much of CUF wouldn't/couldn't cross to Vine, and having the high-ridership 17 avert that area leaves a gap in an area that likely still needs frequent transit. The traffic on Vine isn't substantial enough to spend too much money on road widening and/or building a new parking structure to accommodate the loss of on-street parking [related to @ryanlammi's comments/concerns]. Choosing a location for an ADA compliant station could be a challenge - and if not level-boarding would lead to delay comparable to current local routes - but if you don't make a station, nearby residents will push back harder on the loss of parking. I'm also operating under the assumption that you would have to do curb lanes which means they're slowed by anyone turning. Through OTR, it's hard to politically envision substantial bus priority, so you're not gaining a ton of value in that segment. I would think much of the CBD part of your BRT loop [and the lights requiring signal priority] should be covered by the existing streetcar. I'm also unclear if those west side routes would actually save any time via McMicken to Vine. Whereas with Reading, there is currently traffic that's too fast, a road that's too wide, areas where traffic builds up that the bus could breeze by, and drops you off in the center of downtown without needing to spend a ton of money solely on uptown/downtown, which is better politically. Approximate stops going north from downtown could be Casino, ~McGregor, ~United Way, ~WH Taft, and ~MLK&Reading where you could walk a block to the Uptown Transit Center [going between Harvey & Burnet] but the bus wouldn't have to turn multiple times. Then it continues up Reading into Avondale and beyond. From a WH Taft stop, frequent routes split east to the Walnut Hills transit center and west to U-Square. That'd be 5 stops over 2 miles, which is about right considering the grade and you could cut one. Not as much route consolidation, but possible that the 11, 4, and the X highway routes could merge at Elsinore/71 as well if an open system, and still includes the 24 from your map. Signal priority at Liberty, Dorchester, and MLK would be a must, though. It's wide enough that you could do center-running and wouldn't need to widen anywhere, but narrow enough that center-running stops would be safe to cross to.

My understanding from public meetings was that as of November 2020, the uptown transit center is planned to be part of the UC Health garage, north of MLK between Burnet & Harvey. I'm not sure it will be centrally located enough to move the needle for students, but could for the uptown area more broadly if given some level of priority - and it is better than the originally proposed location for a transit center.

Completely agree and that whole corridor could really use a lot more trees. Especially if they're branding the Wasson Way Ault Park extension to Murray as part of a desirable bike path, it's still very desolate and unpleasant along RedBank. Unless they've been added since I've been that way, some trees between the shared-use path (sidewalk) and RedBank would go a long way, but there's probably some line of sight rule why they can't.

@thomasbwam I missing where you got the June Metro numbers or did you request them? If the #85 isn't discussed as a potential cut/removal, that's a shame, especially with a newly free streetcar and reported issues with staffing/missed routes. I previously graphed the 85 ridership pre-pandemic and it was decent, but does not show signs of improvement this year. Edit: graph doesn't have a legend. Black is 2019 KPI data. Red is 2020. I don't have 2021 data by route.

I'm not sure if I'm geographically challenged or what, but I have a tough time with the different lots at the Banks. But@wjh2, I think it's evolved a bit from what @jwulsinsaid if you're talking about Lot 28. via https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2021/06/13/banks-music-venue-finished-so-whats-next-cincinnatis-riverfront/7609093002/ [Subscriber only] This was funded through HamCo ARPA money: (via WVXU)

Big caveat being that it CAN be valid, but usually it's used in the context of "we had flooding run-off one time 4 years ago during a 100 year rain 3 miles away from the site" when adding a complex wouldn't have done anything to prevent that. And of course it's not "inherently" racist but there was a fairly explicit connection at one point in our history. Now, its just antiquated and limits the very types of buildings that give neighborhoods like Hyde Park much of the charm and living dwelling diversity. I am not in the industry but would think that a good chunk of the future residents of this complex would be long-time HP or nearby homeowners looking to downsize or limit their property taxes. I don't know many young people who look to rent a place with an eye for chef's stoves and 2k/month.

Western Hills Viaduct was not listed among the first round of recipients of INFRA grants, though DOTE applied for them. From the outside looking in, this result doesn't seem overly surprising given that pedestrian/bike or transit aren't prioritized in the design. However, it's not like the chosen projects seem to meet the purported focus on climate change/equity - the 465 project near Indy is a sprawlly capacity project with expansion, though Columbus got more money for their 70/71 split and downtown ramp changes. A draft list of projects funded through the TRAC fund listed above in the Biz Courier article is due July 21. WHV was also listed among priorities to be scored for the new issue 7 funds, for which the deadline was yesterday. Projects along with the WHV included projects along River, Beekman, Paxton, Warsaw, Glenway, Edwards, 8th St, W. North Bend, Madison, Whetsel, and Art Museum Dr. This is the first go-round of those, so we'll see how Cincinnati fares relative to other jurisdictions in the county. I took a cursory glance at the criteria and would think it would fare pretty well, but I'd be less confident about some of the others. Only the Warsaw and 8th St projects seem to reference bus/bike or pedestrian improvements.

I don't have any problem with just cause evictions and I typically don't believe the one-sided narrative as presented in the news, but I want residents to have access to legal representation and to have and know their rights in the process. I understand that eviction is typically a last resort and don't think any well-meaning landlord would have any issues with any of these reforms if well-designed. At least last I read and wrote down, <5% of tenants had legal representation while >80% of landlords do, and <5% of hearings were in tenant favor. Transparency around voluntary buyouts would be in reference to condo conversions primarily. If the housing affordability crunch gets worse, reforms will be needed. I'm just listing some that could exist and would need to be worked out. Given that the only recent 'reform' I was able to list from memory is apparently problematic, that's not a great track record, and we can't only focus on increasing supply.

Right, this is what I mean by right to return or some other tenant protections - which may or may not be applicable here but as a city I do think some structural changes would be helpful not only with tenant protections but some of the developer 'extortion' that Brutus references and Sycamore seems to have been unfairly treated by. The only structural renter protection I can remember within the last few years are P.G.'s 'renter's choice' (which I believe has essentially been revealed as a scam) and the rental registry and inspection pilot. There's a lot more that can be done that I don't think we have in place, such as right to counsel (Legal Aid somewhat fills this void), right to return, pay to stay (currently temporarily in place for COVID but was not enabled permanently), displacement compensation or requiring transparency around voluntary buyouts, etc. Weren't they trying to start a housing court for Cincinnati? All of this in addition to reforming zoning and subsidizing affordable housing units and allowing new construction. And @taestellfor the record I completely agree with your response and that state- or wider reform would be better than just Cincinnati and that some of the discourse has gotten out of control, quoting you wasn't intended as a slight.

Fine, let's remove the word 'poor' from my entire post, I'm sure it's all a misinterpretation on my part. You still don't seem to want anyone to do anything you don't like where you don't like it, policing everyone else's activities and ensuring they aren't visible in locations you like to visit. That seems like the very definition of having respect for your environment and the people around you, and I'm sure that fining and arresting everyone will solve that issue. As you said, parks are meant for everyone, not just your list of approved activities, and I think you're exaggerating massively as tends to happen with the discourse around the Overlook. I'm not excusing the litter, or even the alcohol drinking to some extent, but when I go to Eden Park, I see a lot of smiles, a lot of community, the parks being used, kids playing, and adults able to enjoy themselves at the end of a long day or on the weekend. To each their own - I'll go back to lurking and won't be offended if this gets removed.

Can you just go ahead and admit on record that you don't want poor people to ever leave their living situation? According to your history, all of which I can recall specifically because it's always coded language of some sort that I try to ignore and continue lurking but can't anymore, they can't hang out at the Shell in OTR. They can't go to the Eden Park overlook. They absolutely can't go to OTR Live/Treehouse or loiter on the street. You seem to want them to be priced out of OTR and the CBD entirely, so even if they have a place to host parties, it won't be anywhere near a place you want to be, and they certainly can't do any activities other than those which you've approved. Everyone seems to support marijuana legalization and everyone loves the DORA districts but if you have a bunch of 'poor' people in one spot doing those activities without an approved cup and with a different style of music than plays at the Banks, it may as well be the end of the world. The Overlook isn't always being used how I would personally like it to be used, but Parks has been spending a lot of time and effort on the litter control and frankly navigating a challenging issue in a time where public space is being privatized left and right. I run or walk my dog there at least 3x a week and it's usually spotless by the time I arrive. I don't particularly love that Parks has to use their resources on litter control rather than honeysuckle maintenance or other invasive species but they do a darn good job and I'm glad we have parks and great public spaces that people of all different incomes can use. If you want something to change, maybe go and try and talk to someone who is different from you and learn something new and how you may be able to play a role in that situation. Parks has litter cleanup and beautification/volunteering opportunities with plenty of chances to be involved. If you don't want to have to talk to your kids once in awhile about how other people may prefer different activities during their recreation time, then I'm sorry for your kids. For the record, I'm going with 'poor' here as my 'they' because you repeatedly emphasize that this has nothing to do with race, but if we are being intellectually honest here, there's a racial component to many of your posts and if you're not willing to reflect on that, I'm not sure if it's appropriate for you to be on a forum about city living.

This seems like a scenario where 'right to return' (either as a law or simply ethical practice) would be applicable and appropriate. V&B looks to have offered other properties to transfer, I think it's only right that the current residents be offered the chance to return when renovations are done and preferably at a discounted rate if they've been long-term tenants. I'm a bit disappointed that there's not more sympathy, both here and elsewhere - I get it, they had a steal - but 30 days to leave a place you've lived 15-20 years, when it's pretty clear there's an affordable housing shortage and tough if not impossible to find alternatives, is rough.

@thebillsharkyou talk about the grade at J but would the grade nearest the casino work? I don't know anything about the limitations of grade on modern streetcar but that would be a fairly substantial downhill followed almost immediately by an uphill. I'm guessing it could be filled in or would be more manageable if it cut across the parking lot but just curious if you looked at that. That whole area is just a pedestrian nightmare and I don't see that changing unless something is done about Gilbert and its many up/downs/overpasses/width/fly routes into downtown, which is for another thread.

I haven't seen an updated design or know if it changed, but this was what the proposed design was in Aug 2020 when I records requested it.

Do you know what the proposed $5.1m for "Parks | Mt. Airy Trails Expansion" would be used for? Is that for mountain biking or the trainer course area? Considering how much has been done with volunteer only, $5.1m seems like a lot.

This was prescient. Seems to be well within the works at Uptown per this map and discussion at Park Board in February. I'd expect to see more details coming soon. Usual players involved as @jmecklenborg alluded to.

I think it's just budget more money? They made the fairly reasonable request for one more city planner in the next budget cycle. https://cincinnatioh.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4816755&GUID=D2151946-8DA9-478A-8745-1313E29FFAB0