Eigth and State

Got any data that goes farther back? Projecting forward, it looks like the net movement is still from core to suburbs, but the pace is slowing and the net movement will be toward the core starting in 2012 or 2013.

That's assuming that you even SEE the boxer. In Houston, the drivers that were hit probably didn't see the light rail train, or at least didn't expect it to cross their path. In Cincinnati, there was an accident a few years ago where a train crashed into an ambulance. The ambulance driver apparently thought that he had the right-of-way, and that the train was going to stop. Wrong answer! Clearly, there was a problem in Houston that the operators didn't design for, or didn't account for. In Ohio, Railroad operators have spent millions on public education, grade separation, and grade crossing signals. In theory, crashes between a train and an automobile are the automobile driver's fault, 100% of the time, no questions asked. Yet, it is not good practice for railroads to ignore crossing accidents, because it is the driver's fault. Accidents at the very least cause delays on the part of the railroad, which costs money. Fortunately, railroad accidents in Ohio are down, largely because of efforts by the railroads and the State of Ohio. Sometimes if you want something done right, you have to do it yourself.

There are lots of examples of historic streetcars swerving into traffic and doing all kinds of other crazy movements. In Cincinnati, the two tracks of the the Mt. Healthy line crossed each other, and proceeded to travel in the left-hand lane. On Warsaw at Glenway, streetcars did the same around a curve. Here's a photo of a streetcar going the wrong way on a one-way street. Of course, the streetcar was there first, and one could say that traffic engineers made the street go the wrong way. Note the warning sign saying "Cable Car Coming."

Drivers do not run into trees or telephone poles on purpose. They do so because they are incapable of properly assessing the situation and adjusting for it. If you plot on a map traffic accidents as reported by police, you will quickly notice that traffic accidents do not happen randomly. They happen mostly at places with a lot of conflicting movements, principally at intersections. Highways with a lot of frantic lane-changing are also high on the accident list. Yes, there are some people who are not capable of driving safely. They should not be driving. When the traffic situation is too complicated for the AVERAGE driver, there tend to be a lot of accidents. Adding streetcars to an area that is already too complicated will only make accidents worse, unless something is done to compensate. In the Houston example, I don't think blaming drivers is an effective solution. Instead, the situation should be made less complicated, by making the light rail line an exclusive right-of-way, or prohibiting left turns across the rail line. Alternatively, a driver education program or marketing effort could make drivers more aware of the light rail. It seems that media coverage of the accidents plus some effort in education has reduced the number of accidents. As for the streetcars being there first, that's ancient history. The present driving population, except for a few elderly, has never seen a streetcar in Cincinnati. Historic streetcars may have been there first, but the proposed Cincinnati Streetcar that we are talking about WILL NOT have been there first. (The same argument applies to existing utilities.) The proposed Cincinnati Streetcar is the newcomer, and it is the responsibility of the streetcar operators to make the necessary adjustments to existing utilities and existing traffic patterns. Downtown Cincinnati has a traffic system where all the signals are coordinated with each other to facilitate traffic movement, and all of the pavement markings are designed to match. This system has been in place for over 30 years. The streetcar is going to have to either conform to this traffic system, or adjustments will have to be made. There are many places downtown where there are two lanes that turn left or right. If the streetcar is in the curb lane, then the streetcar will conflict with the turning lane away from the curb. If the streetcar is in the second lane away from the curb, then passengers will have to cross one lane of traffic to board the streetcar. If the streetcar picks up passengers from the curb lane and then switches lanes (on a fixed track, at that) then the lane switching presents a potential conflict. I believe that these conflicts can be resolved, but not without some difficulty. Some possible solutions are to put the track in the curb lane, and prohibit a left or right turn from the second lane. Or, put the streetcar in the second lane from the curb, and place a "bump out" in the curb lane at stops, to keep automobiles out of the curb lane. I would not even be opposed to prohibiting automobile traffic alltogether, or at least restricting it, in order to decrease the volume of automobiles on the streets with the streetcar. Best of all, put the streetcar in an exclusive right-of-way. Of course, then it wouldn't be a streetcar, but the users don't know the difference. 1. <br> 2.<br> 3.<br>

Um, like, every day? Digest of Ohio Motor Vehicle Laws: A driver must yield the right of way to a pedestrian in a marked crosswalk, or at an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection. This one is consistently ignored, and not enforced. The pedestrian is the one that suffers for it.

My mistake. Still, it's a conflicting movement, and automobiles were being hit from behind. They are not stupid. The following comes from Traffic Accidents and Congestion, Maxwell Halsey, 1941. "Present operating conditions are too complex for average drivers. The major portion of the accident situation is not cause by incompetence or malice upon the part of the driver, but results from the inability of the driver to make safe adjustments... The answer to improved transportation does not lie in blaming the motorist. Experience shows that, whenever a situation has become too complex for human beings, costly human failures result. The answer cannot lie with changing human beings. It must, therefore, lie in simplifying the situation to a point where the individual can handle it safely and expeditiously. If it is assumed that there is no malice on the part of the motorist, the very occurrence of accidents becomes concrete proof that that present operating conditions are too complex for him to handle. ...Therefore, it appears that ultimate success will come only through the provision of facilities which are as automatic as possible, which require few critical decisions, and upon which critical acts are pratically impossible." I'm not saying it can't be done in Cincinnati. I'm just saying that I think the situation is more complicated than it's given credit for. I don't want Cincinnati's streetcar to have a bunch of accidents in the first year, like Houston's light rail. Neither do I want the streetcar to get stuck in traffic so badly that it's useless. Careful traffic engineering should solve the problem. But to build the streetcar without any consideration of existing traffic patterns, and then blame accidents on motorists is NOT the solution. And by the way, streetcars in Ohio do not legally have right-of-way over other vehicles. If a streetcar hits another vehicle from behind, it is the fault of the streetcar operator: Ohio Revised Code 4511.34 Space between moving vehicles. (A) The operator of a motor vehicle, streetcar, or trackless trolley shall not follow another vehicle, streetcar, or trackless trolley more closely than is reasonable and prudent, having due regard for the speed of such vehicle, streetcar, or trackless trolley, and the traffic upon and the condition of the highway.

Back when Houston's line opened there was an article in one of the railroad magazines about the accidents. About the same time, Judi Craig in Cincinnati was pushing for the Kingsport Corridor from Kings Island to the Airport through downtown. I mentioned the Houston issue to her. The issue in Houston seems to be a traffic flow problem that could be avoided by careful design. Namely, automobiles were turning right across the light rail, which ran in the curb lane, and getting hit from behind when the light rail vehicle didn't stop. Automobile drivers are NOT used to looking behind them before making a right turn. The same thing happens with bicycles, except that usually the bicycleist stops before crashing into the car. When riding a bike, I have probably had more near-misses from this movement than any other. Basicly, I'm riding along the curb at say 15 miles per hour and a car passes me at 30. The car slows down to 10 to make a right turn. I catch up with the car and slam on the brakes to keep from hitting it as it makes the turn. The way to address this problem it to prohibit cars from crossing the light rail to make the turn, either by prohibiting the right turn altogether, or making the light rail and the automobile share the turning lane. In downtown Cincinnati, there are lots of intersections with dual left and right turning lanes. The engineering required to make it work safely is no small task. Streetcars or light rail running in the street is NOT simple, especially in places where drivers are not expecting it. Downtown Cincinnati has a system where all the traffic lights are coordinated and optimized for automobiles, and it has been that way for at least 30 years. Ever notice that if you drive on Sixth Street at 25 mph that once you get past the first stoplight all the rest turn green just before you arrive? A streetcar making stops to pick up passengers is NOT going to be able to take advantage of the existing signal timing. The train DID hit the car. Why would you say otherwise? Competition for street space was one of the factors why historic streetcars and interurbans went out of business. Every accident at the minimum causes delays, not to mention possible damage to the vehicle and injuries to the driver and passengers. Accidents cost money to the operator. The ideal solution is to lay out the route and make the proper street improvements to avoid conflicting movements. This is more effective than enforcement of right-of-way laws. Since when do drivers follow laws? A pet peeve of mine is that drivers are supposed to stop at marked crosswalks if someone is trying to cross the street. They rarely do. Of course, I'm not going to step in front of a car to test them, and then sue them in court if I get hit. Chances are I won't survive the accident and won't be able to argue that the pedestrian has the right of way. Finally, Houston is a growing city, and a world-class one at that. The oil industry and the ship canal are mostly responsible for that. It's much easier to add light rail to a growing city than one that is stagnant or declining. Plus, it's flat, and has wide streets.

I took part in something similar at work and had a lot of fun. Basicly, in a training session, over a dozen people each were asked to come up with a project to meet certain goals. It was interesting to compare and contrast the different projects. In another one, I joined an open architectural competition with actual prize money. I didn't win, but still had fun and learned some things. Tell you what: Anyone interested in a friendly competition PM me. If there's enough interest, I'll set it up. Topic will be an urban planning problem in Cincinnati.

^Which is another way to say it has to be funded before it can be built. It's fun to draw lines on a map. It's not quite as much fun to beg for money to build it. Laugh at me if you want, but I think the most likely scenario is to start a "tourest" line that is gradually expanded into a legitimate transportation line. If you think it can't happen, look at the Cuyahoga Valley Railroad near Cleveland. We have three such tourist lines near Cincinnati. The Whitewater Valley is the longest, running between Connersville and Metamora, Indiana. It attracts weekend crowds, and the evening dinner crowd. Coaches are vintage 1920's with real leather seats. Unfortunately, it is too far outside of the urban area. The Turtle Creek railroad runs from Mason to Lebanon, and shares tracks with a lightly used freight railroad on the former CL&N, which incidentally used to go all the way to downtown Cincinnati. The operating railroad, Rail America, petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration to re-open the 3-mile section between Mason and Brecon, but was denied based on NIMBY resistance by adjacent residential property owners, which is a travesty. The Indiana and Ohio railroad operates a dinner train, a jazz train, a Riverfest train, and various other specials on the OASIS line and the line that follows River Road on the west side. Unfortunately for Cincinnati, the existing railroads that are not heavily congested with freight traffic are not well located for passenger traffic. What we could really use is a passenger line on existing track between Cincinnati and Dayton or maybe between Cincinnati and Hamilton but those lines are out of the question for now because of freight traffic. I still say to get something started on the OASIS line by the boathouse as a demonstration. The right-of-way is available, and for $1 million or less it could be extended to Paul Brown Stadium. Maybe there's a way to route it to Union Terminal. If nothing else, it could transport commuters from the parking lot at Union Terminal to football games and Riverfest, and maybe it will grow into something larger. Although it's a circuitous route, the OASIS line goes almost to Sharonville via the East End.

Care to share?

^I like it. :-D

LIG, do you have another version of the transit map based on a real map instead of a schematic? Just wondering.

I don't know the cost specifics, but battery-powered streetcars would likely simplify the design and avoid some of the possible utility conflicts, including the concerns of MSD and CWW about workers accessing the underground utilities under the wire.

Can we get back to discussing utilities, fareboxs, budgets, and overhead wires now? :-D

^ I honestly think that a lot of folks got confused by the "Yes means No" thing and voted the wrong way - and this affected BOTH sides of the issue. Which side was affected more we will probably never know.

Mike Allen (council candidate and former Hamilton County Prosecutor) on WLW saying that he worked ten different polling places today and he thinks a lot of people were confused by the "Yes means No" thing.

^ What if you forget to reload your bank account? Not only do you get turned down and possibley left stranded, but you also share that information with all your neighbors. It wasn't that hard to bring change back when the fare was lower. In a round about way, our federal monetary policy has not been kind to transit. How about minting dollar coins? How does one put money on the farecard?

I'm honored to place in your poem, but you spell Eighth worse than I do! Thanks for the laugh. How long did it take to write that? Happy election day everyone!

"Most bus systems run older equipment." As opposed to a brand new streetcar on a new route. Yes, in cities that already have rail, the rail vehicles are likely to be much older. Thanks for the excellent analysis on bonds.

An analogy between the bus/rail debate could be the steam/diesel debate that happened earlier this century. Diesel has a lot of advantages over steam: lower regular maintenance, lower start-up time, and lower fuel cost (in 1930.) So a lot of railroads switched from diesel to steam. However, many of the steam locomotives were 50 years old, and maintained in shops that were 100 years old. The steam engines were being compared to brand new diesels that were maintained in new shops. It wasn't really a fair comparison. I'm not advocating a return to steam, and neither am I promoting buses over rail. I think that each technology should be evaluated in the application that it may be used. But I agree that the standard line of "passengers prefer rail" is not necessarily a fair comparison, for the same reasons that steam wasn't fairly compared to diesel: Most bus systems run older equipment, often in run-down neighborhoods, with transfer points in high-crime areas. Many bus systems are operated at a loss, "subsidized" by revenue sources not related to transportation, and are treated much like a welfare system. Quite frankly, the controlling boards of some bus systems have as their goal to reduce service. By contrast, most streetcar and light rail systems in cities such as Portland, Seattle, Salt Lake City, etc., are newer, well-funded, and are accomodated by marketing campaigns, excellent signage and stop improvements, etc. I read that in Denver, about 40% of the cost of the light rail system was for "urban design," which included new pavement, street furniture, etc. Of course a new rail system on a well-designed street is going to do better than a dirty old bus on a burned-out street that hasn't had any investment in decades, other things being equal. Look at the Cincinnati-Chicago route. Megabus is gaining in popularity all the time, and attracting the choice riders. Amtrak is pathetic. (No offense to the good people at Amtrak). Clearly, passengers perfer the bus. Why so? Because it is clean, new, well-marketed, simple, fast, non-stop, easy to use, and has convenient schedules.

Those steps look fantastic. Just imagine how many man-hours went into those. Also, I am amazed into how much effort people put into constructing headstones. Does anyone still make monuments like those? Thanks for posting.

No. And buses have a lower capital cost, buses are more flexible, and Cincinnati already has the associated maintenance facilities and 50 years of operation experience. No one choice of technologies is the best for every purpose. Rail is better in some applications, and buses are better in others.

Never send a bus to do a train's job, but a bus is better than nothing at all. Historically, some streetcar lines had manual switches where the conductor had to get out and throw the switch. Some busy lines had manual manual switches where a man was posted to throw the switches. I have also heard of a switch that could be controlled from inside the car by the motorman - it had to do with how much power the car was drawing.

> Don't forget trackless trollies, also known as trolly buses. Seattle, San Francisco, Boston, Philidelphia, and Dayton have them. For lots of material about trolleybuses, see Trolleybuses.net Actually, trolley buses instead of streetcars on rails are starting to grow on me, especially after that discussion of underground utility work required to install rails.

"Trolley" is a corruption of "trawler," which is a device that connects the vehicle to the overhead wire. Sometimes the trawler has a wheel attached to reduce friction. Trawlers are most associated with streetcars, although they were also used on interurbans and electric railroads. Most modern streetcars don't use trawlers, but use pantographs instead. The pole that holds the trawler is called a trawler pole, or a "trolley pole." Not all historic streetcars were electric. There were also horsecars, which were drawn by horses, and cable cars, which were drawn by cables from a stationary power house. There was a period about 1910 when all three were used at the same time. To distinguish, they were called "horsecars", "cable cars," and "trolley cars." Trolley cars lasted the longest, until 1951 in Cincinnati, so "trolley" became synonomous with "streetcar." An electric car on rubber wheels is legally called a "trackless trolley," or unofficially, a "trolley bus." These still exist in Dayton. A motor bus that is decorated to look like a streetcar from the 1910 era is sometimes called a "trolley." This is what Winburn and others want to initiate instead of a streetcar on rails. Louisville has one of these that is marketed as a "trolley."