John Schneider

The other thing about the Liberty Hill/Highland alignment is that it is mostly built out and served now by pretty good bus service that goes to UC. On the former point, if an extension will be in part financed by VTICA contributions from developers, there's not much left to develop on those streets. Better, I think, to follow a "hit 'em where they ain't" strategy (to use an old baseball term). Pick routes with lots of vacant buildings and sites, especially large sites, with the objective of repopulation. That's not Liberty Hill and Highland.

I believe Cincinnati's engineers view 7% as the max slope modern streetcars can reliably do. Ice, wet leaves can be problems. Can anyone calc. Liberty Hill's slope? The turn @ Liberty Hill and Highland could be problematic.

Liberty Hill was considered for light rail in the early-2000's, and it failed. Dunno a modern streetcar can do i

I was heavily involved in city transportation issues in the late 1990's, and I am unaware of anyone proposing a freeway along the alignment of the current MLK. There was, however, a short-lived proposal advanced by OKI which would have converted Liberty Street into a freeway connector between I-71 and I-75. This would have enabled the conversion of Fort Washington Way into a parkway-like grand boulevard entrance into downtown. OKI later suggested the freeway could be in a tunnel under Liberty. It didn't go anywhere.

When I first met with Cam Hardy and Mark Samaan to discuss transit advocacy, they brought up the subject of Bus Rapid Transit. I told them there is nothing especially rapid about BRT. I told them they should think of it a "better bus" -- something transit agencies should have been doing years ago. A week or so later, they branded themselves the "Better Bus Company."

The five-minute headways for BRT which I spoke about at the Forum will only exist at peak and only within the segment between the RTC and MLK because both lines co-exist on that segment. North, east, west of MLK, and off-peak, the headways will be longer.

I wouldn't be so pessimistic if about getting the streetcar to Newport. That's quite possible. Newport streetcar supporters have told me the Taylor Southgate Bridge is suitable to add a streetcar. Covington is another story. I think the Newport line should start in the Riverfront Transit Center. There, you'd have an all-weather interchange with frequent BRT's on two routes into Cincinnati. Sure, it would require a transfer, to get on the streetcar to downtown and OTR, but consider the alternative -- tying the Newport route into the existing route on 2nd and 3rd. Sounds simple, right? Consider: you would need to total rebuild four intersections at 2nd and 3rd and Walnut and Main. Would cost many millions and close the downtown loop for a month or two. I understand the desire for a one-seat ride, but if a Newport to OTR line is going to have the same frequency as the current line it will need many, many vehicles -- probably as many as ten. And then there's this: would Newport want to beholden to Cincinnati. What if we get another Cranley someday who decides, for some reason, that Cincinnati should close its line. Newport is then kinda screwed. It would be better for Newport to control its own destiny and operate from the RTC. Plus, look to the future. When the Brent Spence replacement is finished, the Clay Wade Bailey is available for an extension to Covington using the RTC.

These are fat lines on a map. Just like the existing streetcar, they may morph over time.

I agree, it's just that protected lanes can be costly and may be fought by businesses and residents along the line.

Text from the PPT show you'll see Thursday night: DOWNTOWN TO THE UNVIERSITY OF CINCINNATI · Starting at the existing streetcar route on Central Parkway, this route would travel north along Reading Road to Burnet to University Avenue and then west on University to Vine, near the UC campus. · PROS: Achieves the highly desired Downtown/Uptown connection. Serves Hard Rock Casino, residential and commercial development along Reading Road and Gilbert Avenue, Eden Park, and densifying residential areas in Corryville. More residents and more development potential along this route than on any other path to UC. Could be extended north along Vine Street to the Cincinnati Zoo and from there into the UC Medical Center. · CONS: The section of Reading Road between Liberty Street and Reading Road’s intersection with Burnet Avenue may require some dedicated and/or protected transit travel lanes shared by streetcars and buses. Could become part of a traffic calming strategy for this dangerous section of Reading Road.

Suggest that you attend the Streetcar Forum on February 1st. Go to the Devou Good website to register.

The West Clifton alignment was studied extensively during the streetcar planning period. Everyone wanted to use it. But it's too steep and, as I recall, the turn below the cliff was too sharp even for an articulated vehicle. Sure, earlier streetcars used this route, but they were much shorter in length, weighed much less and carried maybe a fourth as many pax. I'm certain a standalone Uptown streetcar route would have tremendous benefits. Remember, there will be frequent BRT's pulsing up and down Vine Street to make the Downtown/OTR/Uptown connection. And eventually, a direct streetcar route. Brad Thomas has the best (and only feasible) idea for an OTR/Clifton Heights connection -- an aerial tram.

I really wouldn't worry about Adam Koehler here. Guy's a lost ball in high weeds.

Two problems with getting the streetcar to Covington or making a connection between Newport and Covington. First, the Covington mayor, Joe Meyer, has had no interest in it, so there is no momentum for it. He's retiring, so that might change. Second and more fundamental, KYTC is not planning to make the new Fourth Street Bridge ready for rail with the construction of a sacrificial slab like we built on Walnut and Main over FWW knowing that rail was coming someday. So, even if there is future interest in a connection, it may require substantial alterations to the bridge structures. I think if the streetcar goes to KY, it only goes to Newport, at least for many years.

There's an active prostreetcar group in Newport.

Realistically, I think new commuter rail is probably dead for a while until the main reason for building it -- the suburb-to-downtown commute -- remains suspect. If WFH reverses and fulltime downtown employment starts growing again, I'm guessing the light rail discussion will resume in some places. Cincinnati needs new leadership at OKI for this to happen.

A streetcar line to Newport (or Covington which hasn't wanted it) should use the Riverfront Transit Center. Otherwise, it will get stuck in game-day traffic on 2nd and 3rd like the current streetcar does. It would be even more affected because it would have to travel more blocks on 2nd and 3rd. Plus, the Feds, who financed much of the RTC, would like to see it used more. And there would be less track construction. It would be a speedy route to NKY. However, it would be disconnected from the existing line and the MOF. You could put a tail track on Ramp LL that connects Second Street with Riverside Drive, but all things considered, I think NKY should have its own MOF. We'd need to think through the vertical transfer from the RTC to Stop #1 on Second Street, but stairs and elevators exist, so I don't see a problem. After all, if we built multiple routes over time. there will be transfers.

One problem with making the next extension to CUT is that it can't be completed until the new bridges for Ezzard Charles Drive over the widened I-75 are completed late this decade.

Travis is spot-on here. Even before the pandemic, commute trips were only about 20% of total trips in most regions. Some feel the highway lobby has steered the discussion to this measure because it necessarily leads to more and wider highways designed for peak demand. The pandemic has sort of reasserted the primacy of neighborhoods in the scheme of things, where more people work from home and do other things closer to home. Over time, this probably means fewer cars will be bought and fewer miles driven. In dense, mixed-use neighborhoods, streetcars can fill a lot of the demand for travel.

A tunnel from the Main/Walnut pair through Mt. Auburn to UC would be terrific, but with Metro's installing two BRT's in the Vine/Jefferson corridor, it will now be hard to justify. The Corryville side of UC is out for streetcar. The Cilfton side of campus is a much more of a transit-oriented neighborhood. A tunnel or aerial tram from near Rhinegeist to Clifton and Calhoun would be terrific. Brad's done a lot of thinking on this.

The four-minute bus headways on the Vine/Jefferson corridor is why there will never be a Downtown > Uptown streetcar. Sad to say, but that's the reality.

Streetcar managers have concluded that the installed real-time arrival system is too unreliable, and so they are using this message while they shop around for a new system. It's unfortunate.