shawk

I'll be honest I was expecting fake news, but it's true.

What's the issue here? The parking lot sea looks to be mostly in the less desirable part of the lot closest to the highway or railroad, or circled by buildings. Hard to imagine that being used in any other way. It at least partially restores a street grid, adds a lot of units to a desirable area including single-family and senior living, and repurposes an old factory site in an exponentially better way than the other parts of Oakley have come together lately. I'd take a development like this this every time as far as mega-developments go.

Gotcha, this makes sense. I think the year 1 improvements overall seem great - I was glad to see the #51 added as a 24/7 route though I know the future frequency improvements are what will really make the difference. The move to free transfers also makes the execution of future transit centers crucial as more and more people transfer in a location other than downtown. It'll be really interesting to see what ends up being proposed for BRT and how it is framed among the 4 choices, not to mention the factors discussed by others here (narrow business districts, need for priority, removal of parking) and the context of other decisions and transportation projects as a city (WHV, infrastructure projects chosen, bike infrastructure, etc.). I hope this becomes more of a priority in the mayoral/council races going forward.

Sorry if I'm missing something, but what does this do better than say two lines of the current proposal? It misses two of the bigger population density and high current & potential ridership areas (CUF, Walnut Hills) without the circle. The circle itself would rarely be useful because you'd never want to travel more than half of it, and if you run it at the frequency that would be needed for it to be useful, by then you might as well have kept the current routes/proposals. The core uptown-downtown trunk with extremely high frequency itself makes sense and definitely should be the biggest priority as far as spending and ROW, and I get that a 'true-BRT' line should be chosen over 4 watered down lines. Editing again to add a bit more/strike-through my misread/confusion. I think what's really throwing me is the circle and misreading the MetroPlus as the #4. This doesn't otherwise seem all that different than what I anticipate happening/being planned. We know from public meetings that Metro is planning an uptown transit center on MLK between Harvey & Burnet. So it strikes me as likely that the first two routes will be the 17 and 43 and they'll use that transit center to do so and merge down the trunk into downtown.

https://www.go-metro.com/reinventing-metro-2021/transit-infrastructure-fund-intro Metro announced the process for Transit funding. I looked at the weighting and it seems pretty solid to me - heavily weighted toward roads that take a high volume of bus routes - but will be interesting to see it in practice as localities apply.

The 8 mile intersection looks pretty good I think. That area, between the grade and the visibility, is an unsafe turn/drive - especially as people are turning left on 8 mile and someone on 8 mile is trying to turn left onto 32. Turning right onto 32 from 8 mile is also rough if you have weak acceleration going up that hill to 275 so, again, a light seems like a good solution just based on my user experience. Throughout Newtown doesn't strike me as needing to be widened - especially at the cost of an existing commercial business/buying ROW but I honestly can't make heads or tails of what it will actually look like from this or which business it is, it's too much back and forth between visuals for my dumb self. I definitely would not mid-block cross 32 as a bike/pedestrian without a signal, but I've never really ran or biked in that general area.

I agree completely with you, especially in the neighborhoods with the most wealth. As for reform, to his credit, Greg Landsman seems to be introducing some smart motions which might be leading to action related to parking minimums and density waivers, and maybe this Liberty & Elm and corruption discussions can push the issues on affordable housing and reform. A broad report/plan by City Planning looks to be in the works as their next major project, specifically related to the transit corridors, though my fear is that nothing would happen until there's a lot of turnover on council - but maybe it would be a good thing to implement with a new mayor? Should be some positive opportunities for

They are currently working on the "Tom Jones Commons" area by the Reservoir wall. This photo has the latest: https://www.cincinnatiparksfoundation.org/tom-jones-commons-will-open-this-spring/ and it says it'll open this spring, though there seemed to be a large gap between 'groundbreaking' in fall 2019 and anything actually happening. They're doing some sewer/road work on/under Martin Dr. as well right now so I think it's all coordinated effort.

125k was the amount reportedly raised by nearby residents to make a backup offer on the land if the 'young family with a child' falls through. The lot is probably 30% green space and 70% dog poop - it's an incredible waste of resources to just throw money at and incredible example of NIMBYism. Doesn't block any views, large lot, no hillside impact, close to a currently-being-renovated area of Eden Park - the four SFH lots originally proposed by StarOne should have been the minimum use.

It's all park board as far as I can tell. Funding was allocated for the design by the park board but I'm not sure if the budget was allocated for the final implementation. The RFP references a budget between 250-400k. Attached is a relevant screenshot.

This is getting away from Norwood quickly, but any idea where you saw/heard that? Last thing I had seen was a board report to Parks in August that said DOTE "designed a trail alignment in the park which would connect the Wasson Way trail, in the vicinity of the trestle over the park's Valley Trail, with the park and the existing bike trail system connecting to the Murray Road trail (Attachment C)."

I saw responses from @taestellin the other thread which led to the Cincinnati-area content in that list, but I can't help but think that if this funding happens as described, it would be much better suited for funding capital projects related to Metro over those listed along the streetcar route - other than maybe the library site. We still have so far to go, so anything to accelerate ReinventingMetro and beyond would be preferred IMO. Projects like the rumored Walnut Hills or Glenway Crossing Transit Centers would likely be more politically desirable (i.e. avoid Cranley) and would spur investment in areas other than the core. Additional capital could accelerate those projects in the short term and help improve access to "15 minute city" amenities and get construction moving in those communities well before BRT or BRT-lite comes to fruition in those corridors. On an unrelated note to @KJPs post but tied to the topic at hand, something I missed in the Pastor and P.G. shuffle and canceled council meetings was Landsman's motion to study zoning and parking minimums along the 24-hour route corridors. It's just requesting a report from admin and in many ways is an obvious/overdue step, but he seems to already have some of the legwork as far as starting the process of gaining buy-in. https://cincinnatioh.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4690245&GUID=FAF67DED-96FE-41A1-8663-03BB5600251A&Options=Advanced&Search=

Sorry - the contract will last 6 months, meaning that we should be getting a report this summer. @thomasbwhave you gotten ridership by route? It hasn't been on the slides how it used to. @ryanlammiyour response is definitely an accurate portrayal and part of the myth behind choice riders. If I'm reading the past reports right, their KPI goal is $9/passenger/route but it tended to be $12-14 pre-COVID from a quick glance at the public reports.

The SORTA operations committee authorized contracting a 6-month study of how to use SORTA-owned ROW going forward (still needs full board consent but seems like a formality). Discussion (mostly background) centered around OASIS and areas near the Wasson Way. Probably would have been nice to see this before the Issue 7/22 votes, but I digress - at least it'll be something recent and an analysis to talk about/debate and to see where the new board composition stand. Have the members/changes been announced? I haven't seen anything about that other than the agreed upon composition between city and county. Also wondering if anyone else saw the detailed Cincinnati Metro Redesign Proposal shared to Reddit. Pretty detailed to say the least.

Not sure if this is the appropriate thread/place but appreciate your recent episodes on the CincyShirts podcast @jmecklenborgand @jjakucyk!

^ @Dev good catch on that one's location, but I think it's well-deserved - it's a natural mid-block crossing point that already has bumpouts (sort of) and will hopefully slow traffic entering the square. Not that anecdotes are worth anything but I almost got somebody killed at that spot because I had the audacity of stopping for a pedestrian while in the right lane. Someone blew around me going way above the speed limit - luckily the lady saw the truck in time but it was really scary. Also interesting that the motion re: 8th seems to have come from a tweet? Was the CC or were others pushing this?

You could cite a random 10 year old video from not-Cincinnati or you could cite the city Page that says: "Does a cyclist have to ride in a bike lane if one is present? NO." I agree with your latter point that it's usually where they are least needed, especially in Cincinnati, but for some reason bike lanes become this pissing match where experienced cyclists hate bike lanes but then act surprised that more casual families don't just jump from their weekend rides on the LMST to riding through the city for everyday trips or using on-road infrastructure to get to those longer paths. Protected infrastructure, even short stretches like this, is much better than the usual paint (or nothing at all?) for more casual riders. Just like transit, there should be different infrastructure for different types of trips and needs.

That's my point, though - you wouldn't be the demographic of this. You and other experienced riders can continue to ride up/down Clifton in mixed traffic as you already are, no harm no foul, and can save your advocacy for the tougher stretches when there's another mayor. The demographic of this would primarily seem to be leisure between places like Nippert or Burnett Woods and the Ludlow business district, a continuation of the current shared-use path, or students taking casual 1-3 mile trips - which is why they proposed the east side of Clifton.

This just shows how much effort it takes to get anything bike-related in this city. They got letters of support from Clifton, CUF, and Parks, and it's not even permanent. The stated goal was to try as a "pilot" until ~November to measure and then consider permanence, which also seems to have support - Young stated so clearly in committee, and the video cut out from full council but voted unanimously and I'm glad Chris Wetterich was at least able to get quotes from Cranley. A two-way protected lane isn't designed for experienced riders on this stretch, so I don't agree with the cynicism - nor Cranley's stated need for more expensive build-out. Ironic seeing him propose over-engineering when criticizing the exact same thing about the Walnut Hills two-way project.

https://www.ourmadisonville.com/madison-and-whetsel-development has links to renderings including Phase 3 @Cincinnatus There's not as much on the Jameson (Madison & Steawart) but it's also on the CC site here: https://www.ourmadisonville.com/madison-and-stewart-development

CROWN is a rebranding from Cincinnati Connects (which still has a lot more detail than CROWN if you haven't seen it @ucgrady). Ir uses the Gilbert link added instead of Torrence, I'd assume due to lack of OASIS movement and to align with the WHRF plan. ^ @BigDipper 80 when I asked around a bit earlier this year I didn't necessarily get the impression that the Gilbert link is a top priority but I would think it would be one of the cheaper sections since unless I'm mistaken there's no great route other than using exiting road infrastructure. Other considerations are that the Park Board is looking to redo "Johnston Park" at the foot of the Ballet site and mentioned using the old rail bridge in the design. Don't know if there's been movement since then other than ongoing Art Climb and Ballet development. Lot of money in that corridor, maybe it'll happen - Gilbert with an eBike is more than doable.

^ which are some of the highest subsidy routes per passenger, whereas the 71X is one of the least. Butler Co has not resumed their 42X service.

I honestly can't believe they brought it back at all, has to have been due to drivers more than need. It already is known to serve a wealthier demographic, ridership fell precipitously right away and won't come back as quickly as local.

RIP to the oddly-spaced "Smile You're On Our Camera" door sign. Based on GoogleStreetview, it looks like it was last in use in late 2008, glad work is starting!

@Cygnus Darryl Haley said in the SORTA board meeting that Metro ordered 19 new buses and they have made their way downtown to prep. I'm guessing that would be one of those 19? Edit to add more detail: The report says "Most of the 19 newest buses ordered have arrived and are being prepped for service. We expect to have them on the road in August for customers to add that new bus smell." He said "We've started receiving the new fleet for this year. We have received 19 of the 29 buses we are going to get this year. They're going to look a little different from the other buses... We've got 10 more coming, you'll be able to see the new fleet." ~46:30 here.