Eigth and State

^The real world doesn't necessarily make sense. In any construction project, the more people that have a say, the more difficult the project becomes. Now, in a round about way, we have the FAA involved. The City of Cincinnati could have avoided the whole issue by coming up with the money in some other way besides selling the Blue Ash airport.

^Note that the aviation lobby is not necessary opposed to the streetcar. Therefore, I wouldn't label them "opponents". The airport issue is analagous to the City of Cincinnati selling any other asset that is appreciated by someone. Say, for example, that the City of Cincinnati decided to sell Burnet Woods park to the University of Cincinnati to raise revenue for the streetcar. Is it legal? I don't know, but it will definitely upset the Clifton neighborhood, and they will resist it. "If you want to make enemies, try to change something." - Woodrow Wilson

^There are three sections of the Lunken Airport Levee: 1. The north side of the Levee was built as an embankment to carry Beechmont Avenue over the Little Miami River floodplain. It was apparently not designed to hold water. 2. The south side of the Levee was built to carry the Cincinnati, Georgetown, and Portsmouth Railroad over the Little Miaim River floodplain. It was apparently not designed to hold water. 3. The east side of the Levee was intially built prior to 1920, and was subtaintially upgraded about 1938. The only purpose of this section was to protect against flooding, but it was NOT designed by the Army Corps of Engineers. Today, the Army Corps of Engineers has to approve any kind of flood control works along rivers in it's jurisdiction, of which the Ohio is one. However, this wasn't always the case, and there are works out there that were not approved. After hurricane Katrina, FEMA reviewed all of it's flood maps and wrote a letter to the City of Cincinnati asking to provide certifacation that the Lunken Airport levee system will protect the airport from flooding. The City of Cincinnati was not able to do so. The Lunken airport main runway was flooded during the 1997 flood. It is still vulnerable to flooding. By contrast, the levees protecting the Mill Creek valley in Cincinnati, Covington, and Newport were built under the jurisdiction of the Army Corps of Engineers. The flood control works in Hamilton and Dayton were built by the Miami Conservancy District, which is separate from the ACOE. The City of Cincinnati wants to sell the Blue Ash Airport. The City of Blue Ash wants to purchase it. So what's the hangup? The aviation lobby wants to keep access to it, they have done all they can to protect it, and they have the FAA to back them up. I'm not saying it's fair, but that's the way it is.

^ This was not my premise. I'm passing along what the airport manager told me. The aviation lobby does not want to lose the Blue Ash airport, and they are prepared to fight it in court. They have (according to the airport manager) some kind of paper (grant restrictions) that tie the land to the improvements. Don't hold me to this because I'm going by memory, but if I remember correctly the grants in question date from 1985. The Lunken Airport Levee is not part of any work by the Army Corps of Engineers so I doubt that the ACOE had any money in it.

This quote is telling.

I wasn't aware that the city still intends to use airport money for the streetcar. I know they did at one time, but I thought this issue had been resolved. If there's anything fishy, it is that the City of Cincinnati knew about this issue and continues to count on airport money. Here's the story: At one time, it was thought that private aviation would be much more popular than it is now, and that cities should invest in airports. The 1948 Metropolitan Master Plan called for 9 airports, either new or upgrades. As it turned out, the City of Cincinnati ended up owning and operating two airports, Lunken and Blue Ash, of which Blue Ash of course isn't even located within the city limits. Aviation is controlled by the FAA, a branch of the federal government. Not only does the FAA write rules concerning air safety, but they also provide funding for airport improvements in the form of grants. The City of Cincinnati took advantage of these grants to fund improvements at Lunken and Blue Ash. (The city is seeking grants for the streetcar too!) Well, a condition of these grants was that they could only be used for aviation. The grants specifically say that if the property is ever sold, the proceeds have to go to aviation. The City of Cincinnati could, for example, sell the Blue Ash Airport and use the proceeds to expand Lunken Airport. Over the years, the City of Cincinnati has considered selling Blue Ash airport to raise revenue for other projects. (Another piece of real estate that the City owns is French Park in Amberly Village, but that's another story.) At the same time, the City of Blue Ash has been eyeing that airport property for other projects. It seems an easy deal, since both parties get what they want, with the only issue being the price. Because of this talk many years ago, the FAA has made it explicity clear in the terms of the grants that if the property is ever sold, the proceeds have to go to aviation. The City of Cincinnati could have chosen to forgo the grant and pay for it some other way, but they chose to accept the grant. If you drive by the Blue Ash airport, you might notice that it is not particularly well developed as an airport. It is used mostly by private pilots who fly small planes. You can take flying lessons there. But if you happen to be one of those private pilots, it is great because it is conveniently located, and not crowded. Private pilots probably can't afford to fly from CVG (or would rather spend their money on flight time instead of landing fees,) and Lunken has always been a challenging airport due to topography and fog from the river, and there's not much room at Lunken to park planes. In 2007 or 2008 (I can't remember exactly when,) the Enquirer published a story about the proposed streetcar, and mentioned that the city was counting on money from sale of the Blue Ash Airport. The city airport manager (he has an office at Lunken) saw this in the paper and called City Hall, and told them of the FAA requirement. There was also a concept plan that may or may not have related to the streetcar which showed sale and development for other uses of the a portion of the property. The concept plan did not take aviation into account, because it developed the property in such a way that it was no longer useful for aviation. Although they saved the runway, they did not take into account fueling, maintenance, etc. The Blue Ash airport it is used by few people, but the aviation lobby is a strong one, and they intend to enforce the terms of the grant. What is surprising to me is that airport issue has come up again at all, because I thought it was settled years ago. Another interesting piece of information is that operation of Cincinnati's two airports is self-supporting. The source of all of this information is a conversation I had with the airport manager at Lunken in 2009.

^As long as there is a T-shirt vendor to go with it, it might just work! :banger:

One of the piers in the L&N bridge has moved about 1 foot. This makes bridge inspectors nervous. On the other hand, the east side of the bridge was built for railroad locomotives. The west side, which is the pedestrian walkway now, was built for automobiles and probably won't take the load of a modern streetcar; it used to have a wooden deck. The L&N bridge is an unusual one. It carried steam trains, streetcars, automobiles, and pedestrians at one time or another. I've often toyed with the idea of combining Saratogo Street, the L&N bridge, and the former CL&N through Walnut Hills as a light rail line. A connection would have to be made from the L&N to Broadway Commons under all the interstate bridges, which actually works out well since the grade is already separated, provided that a path can be found between the bridge piers. Of course, the casino put a damper on that idea. For that matter, a short, single-track streetcar line using one small streetcars with just two stops between Newport on the Levee and P&G headquarters might even pay for itself based on the weekday lunch crowd. The distance is only 4000 feet. I think the best and easiest way to improve the bridge is to improve pedestrian connections on the Ohio side. It is possible to walk from the Purple People bridge to Lytle Park by the Taft Museum, and the distance is only about 800 feet, which is less than the Ohio River crossing itself, but the walk isn't very inviting. A well designed pedestrian corridor with no motorway crossings that is simple to use would invite pedestrian traffic between Cincinnati and Newport.

^Don't get me wrong. I like it. :-)

Very little capacity is misleading in this context. It will have the highest capacity per sq. ft. of street area used of any form of transport that'll be down there (aside from pedestrians just walking in a lane) Sorry, didn't mean to mislead. The streetcar would obviously have a tremendous capacity - but relative to the capacity of the gates discharging people, it will carry only a small percentage. Stadiums are designed to discharge people in a hurry in the event of a fire or accident, and there should be enough space outside the stadium to accomodate a sellout crowd. Placing the streetcar too close could actually hinder an evacuation. Even in normal times without an accident, the crowd can be intense. To see how NOT to design a facility, read the story of the Beverly Hills Supper Club fire. The evacuation was hindered not only by a constriction at the exits, but also by lack of space outside the building. I rode the subway in Paris and by own measurement, about 100 people got on the subway train and 100 people got off, all in 20 seconds when the doors were open. They can do this because they have long trains with multiple wide doors, and the seating is designed for fast entrances and exits. The streetcar won't have anywhere near this capacity for loading and unloading unless the trains are similar to the Paris subway trains. On Metro buses it can take several minutes to load or unload about 50 people, especially when they have to pay at the door. For emptying a stadium, a streetcar is not the best vehicle. Still, that doesn't mean that a streetcar won't be useful in a stadium application, especially if the crowd is dispersed by hanging around at other attractions in the neighborhood. Stadium employees could also use it hours before and after games. Where are the people? Nice rendering, by the way. I like the very clear background image and the vehicle color scheme. I'm not trying to be critical, but just pointing out that the rendering makes a pretty picture but doesn't represent game-day reality.

^Historically, the streetcar operators sent spotters to Crosley Field to estimate the size of the crowd, and then they would order an appropriate number of streetcars to Crosley Field after a game. A common theme in this thread has been streetcar service to the stadiums, the casino, Findley Market, Music Hall, etc. It's fun to imagine taking the streetcar to an entertainment attraction. However, in most transit systems, the ridership split is something like 60% home to work, 30% home to shopping, and 10% everything else put together. The entertainment component is a small percentage of the total. In the case of stadiums, like John said, the streetcar will have very limited capacity. It will do better on the way to the game because a lot of people get there early, but when the crowd lets out at the end of the game, it will be swamped.

^I know a man who has demolished several houses, but salvaged what materials he could for sale, and actually turned a profit. That is, the materials were worth more than the asking price for the house and land. There is a market for that stuff. Congratulations and I hope it goes well for you.

I have walked from my job in Mt. Auburn to Riverfront Stadium and back during my lunch hour, and that included the hill climb. Of course, that didn't leave any time to eat, and I was walking hard, not strolling, but it is possible.

I checked an old map in my collection from abut 1900 and found no reference to any kind of road in the area of Victory Parkway named "Bloody Run."

^Not necessarily. Granted, there are certain projects where widening of a road was used as an excuse for a demolition, but highways designers are not necessarily anti-density. After a century or more of pre-automobile development, the automobile came on the scene, along with the desire for highways. In 1950, they didn't demo a highway for urban development because there were no highways to demolish. We are starting to see a few highway demo projects around the country, and we have examples in Cincinnati of railroad demolition for development (Glenway Crossings).

^Thanks for that.

^I should add that part of the problem may be the way that road projects are funded. If the State or Feds grants funding for a new road, but not for new buildings, then the designer has no choice but to demo the buildings that are in the way without any provision for replacing them.

After seeing enough road projects, it's easier to pick out things that have changed over the years. For example, houses that don't have a proper relationship with the street may have been there first. If the front door faces a different street or some other direction other than the side it where it should be, that's a hint that something has changed. If every building has a retaining wall of the same material, that's a hint that the wall was built as part of the road project, as the road was widened or cut, not by individual property owners. McMillan street, along with it's extensions, is a good example of this. As old as it may be (1920's,) there are houses along the road that are even older. Before McMillan street near Central Parkway was built, McMicken was the dominant street in that area, and one can see how the new road was built to cut through the streetwall on the older street. Another good example is Liberty Street, where the entire streetwall was demolished on the south side, leaving views into the sides of buildings. In Paris, it seems that when the grand boulevards were cut through the medieval fabric that was there before, the designers not only built the street but also rebuilt the buildings on either side, creating a NEW streetwall. I can't think of a project in America that did the same. On 12th street in Covington they at least addressed it, but I haven't been there recently to see how it turned out. In my humble opinion the lack of attention to the remaining properties on either side of a new street or a widened one has been a major oversight of road projects in America. Not only did the original property owners get displaced, but the adjoining property owners were left with spaces that were unusable, belonging to no one and abused by everyone.

KJP, could you clarify something please? How does the FRA refer to the lines they regulate? Do they use the word "railroad," or something else?

^I only saw Civvik's chart. Plus, I just had to mention the zoo train. :angel: And once again, the Delta Train, though not a long route, goes to show that people WILL ride the train if it is clean, safe, convenient, and fast. It is an example of mass transit that works. I like to bring that up every once in a while for those who say that no one will ride transit in Cincinnati. Sorry for the rambling. Carry on.

Who said anything about transit? Civvik's chart says heavy rail. Cincinnati also has the Delta Train and the Zoo Train, plus a railroad that runs passenger excursions. You have to count the zoo train; it even shows up on JJacucyk's rail map :)

The typical Wal*mart parking lot has a minimum of traffic controls and healthy pedestrian traffic, but you don't often hear of pedestrians being struck by automobiles. Drivers are watching out for pedestrians. Maybe it helps that the typical Wal*mart customer drives to the parking lot and then becomes a pedestrian himself.

^There are new wooden covered bridges too, notably in Ashtabula County, Ohio. There are a few new stone arch bridges as well.

I like how steel truss bridges are getting a lot more attention. So many of them have disappeared.

Gordon, I must compliment you on that long rant. I enjoyed reading it.