Eigth and State

^--- So there you have a recommendation from DanB. On another note, I just found some specs for Portland's Street Car. Interestingly, they called it a "Light Rail Streetcar" • System opened: July 2001 • Route length: 3.0 miles (March 2005) • Stations: 44 (March 2005, total, both directions) • Weekday ridership: 5,600 (2003) • Vehicles: 7 • Total cost (original, 2001): $54.6 million for 2.4 route-miles – ca. $23 million/route-mile • Total cost (extension, 2005): $15.8 million for 0.6 route-miles – ca. $26 million/route-mile Vehicles – Skoda-inekon (2001) • Fleet size: 7 (March 2005) • Width: 8 ft 1 in (2460 mm) • Height: 11 ft 3.5 in (3440 mm) • Length: 66 ft (20130 mm) • Weight: 63,500 lb (28800 kg) • Maximum operating speed: 42 mph (70 kph) • Maximum gradient: 9% • Acceleration: 3.0 mphps (1.3 m/s/s) • Deceleration: 3.0 mphps (1.3 m/s/s) • Minimum horizontal curve radius: 60 ft (18 m) • Passenger capacity: 30 seated, 127 standing

Is there any thing preventing the "uptown connector" from being built first?

The basis of these routes is that they are buildable and manageable, hopefully for under $100 million, and will attract a higher number of riders in proportion to construction and operating cost. The Over-the-Rhine loop feasibility study has these numbers: 3.9 miles of track 18 stops 6 vehicles 1 maintenance facility Operating cost $2.0 to $2.8 million annually. 4,600 daily riders at $0.50 fare. Construction cost with inflation to 2010 is $102 million. Using these numbers, the fares will cover about 40% of the operating cost. Now, alternatively, one of these other routes might have these numbers, which I am making up: 1 mile track 3 stops 2 vehicles (one operating, one spare) maintenance facility 2000 daily riders at $0.50 fare Cost $20 million Operating cost $500,000 per year. In this case, the fares would cover 70% of the operating cost, and construction costs would be one fifth as much. It will be much easier to come up with $20 million than $100 million. A short line has a much greater chance of being built, and will provide much needed data to use on any later lines. The boathouse to football stadium route is basicly already there! Just finish the trackwork and put a vehicle on it. What have we got to lose? As for economic development, improved access can only help. There are plenty of parking lots pretty much everywhere.

Here they are again: A route from the Broadway Commons parking lot to some point downtown. A route from the boathouse to the football stadium, on existing right-of-way. A circulator from one end of Fourth Street to the other. A circulator between the U.C. east and west campus. A circulator along the Riverfront in Covington. A circulator between Downtown and Newport over the L&N bridge.

DanB said: "I like some of the ideas proposed by "8th and State". Something smaller to start, where the cars would be packed and people would be screaming for it to be expanded." Sounds specific enough to me. Plus, I like the fact that he appreciated my ideas. Thanks, DanB.

It is easier to risk other people's money than one's own. Certainly we live in a society that is part socialist. Government provides a lot of services where the cost is spread among all. Our government is less socialist than the governments of many European countries. The Over-the-Rhine streetcar is a socialist concept. That is not necessarily bad. If it truly works, providing a net benefit to all, then it should be built. Many infrastructure projects have a positive net benefit. It is a calculated risk, and the feasibilty study has attempted to estimate the cost and benefit. What it comes down to is the assumption that new residents will move to Over-the-Rhine because of the streetcar. The feasibilty study states this assumption. If you believe this assumption, then you will support the streetcar. If you don't belive this assumption, that doesn't necessarily mean that the entire study is bad. It just means that you think that the assumptions used in the study are not valid, and therefore, the results of the study are not valid. If you believe this assumption, you should be willing to risk your own money, not someone else's. Asking someone who does not believe that the streetcar will provide a net social benefit to participate in a plan to fund the streetcar is a tough sell. Please do not fault them for their beliefs.

The feasibility study assumes a number of NEW residents that will be drawn to Over-the-Rhine because of the streetcar. This is a weak point in the study. It is an assumption that cannot be verified prior to construction. I do not have any problem with the study. The assumptions are clearly stated. If you support the streetcar, what you are saying is that you believe that new residents will move to Over-the-Rhine because of the streetcar. For those who do not believe this, it is difficult to support the streetcar, even though streetcars are effective in other places.

"What else could be done to better study the matter at this point?" Just build it, or build a smaller project. Build a streetcar from the Broadway Commons parking lot to some point downtown. Build just a few blocks. Cut the cost down from $100 million to $20 million or less. See if it works. Build a streetcar from the Boathouse to the football stadium. There is already a right-of-way available. Think of it as a parking shuttle. Certainly people will pay $2.00 to ride the streetcar if they can save $12 on parking. Build a circulator from one end of Fourth Street to the other. Build a circulator from downtown to Newport over the L&N bridge. Build a circulator along the Riverfront in Covington. Build a short line from U.C. east to west campus. Save costs by towing a diesel generator. Upgrade to overhead electric wires later. There are lots of opportunities for short routes. Maybe the Over-the-Rhine loop is already to large to build as a first step. If it is successful then everyone will want one. If it's not successful, then we aren't out $100 million.

In my humble opinion, the argument about the Over-the-Rhine streetcar loop is this: Over-the-Rhine does not presently have the population base to support a streetcar. The feasibility study has shown that IF Over-the-Rhine were re-developed, then Over-the-Rhine WOULD have the population base to support a streetcar. Furthermore, the streetcar would be a factor in helping the development of Over-the-Rhine. Assuming that the streetcar were built, and Over-the-Rhine is simulataneously re-developed, then everyone would be happy, and the residents of Over-the-Rhine would support the streetcar. But these future residents are not there NOW to support the streetcar. You can't build something on the assumption of future support, unless someone with cash on hand is willing to take the risk. So far, no one has come up with the cash; not the City of Cincinnati, not the streetcar fans, not the property owners, not the feds or any other government jurisdiction, not the University of Cincinnati, and not some corporate sponsor. Maybe a route in some other area might get more support, or maybe the Over-the-Rhine loop, as short as it is, is still too long. The ideal route from a construction cost, operations, and maintenance standpoint is one of ultimate simplicity. The airport didn't try to build a route from the airport to downtown. They didn't even try to build a route connecting their terminal to their parking lots. They built a route connecting their concourses. It is straight-line simple. It is automated. It is free. People use it. The feasibility study for the Over-the-Rhine loop is founded on the assumption that if you build it, they will come. Maybe they will, and maybe they won't. I don't know. We won't know unless we build it. But at least we can assume that the streetcar will be a success if the assumptions are met. I can't say the same for the U.C. extention. Correct me if I'm wrong, but we don't even have a feasibility study. If there is one, I haven't seen it. Tying the Over-the-Rhine loop to the U.C. extension made the project enormously more complicated, not just in technical details but in the nature of the political support. U.C. may, in fact, be willing to spend some cash to improve access to their campus; U.C. is probably less likely to spend some cash to subsidize improvements in Over-the-Rhine. Why don't the Urban Ohio forumers do it the old fashioned way and form a corporation, raise funds, and build the streetcar? There is enough talent on this board to get the job done. Equipment manufacturers will help you with the technical challenges. That's the easy part. The hard part is getting the support. A plan without funding is just a dream.

"Phrases like "dreamers" to describe rail advocates." A plan without funding is just a dream. Portland was able to come up with the funding. So far, Cincinnati has not been able to, even though we had plans as far back as 1975, not to mention the uncompleted subway and an extensive streetcar history before 1950. The Eastern Corridor, the Kingsport Light Rail, the Metro Moves, and a number of other plans have all fallen by the wayside. The Over-the-Rhine loop was, in my opinion, the best plan that has been presented in a long time. Why? Because it was small enough to be manageable. It is my opinion that connecting this plan with a plan to expand to the U.C. area made it unmanageable. Cincinnati DOES have an example of rail that does not get much mention: the airport train. Granted, it is a short system, but people DO use it. Why do they use it? It is the best option. It is faster than walking. How did the airport train get built? Well, it was owned by the airport, and the airport board decided to build it. There was no tax levy, no ballot issue, and no advocates or opposition group. There certainly were engineering cost estimates and feasibility studies. In short, there was leadership. A loop in Over-the-Rhine is a tough sell in part because there are many property owners. If those owners could organize, maybe it would happen. Or maybe if U.C. would be the lead advocate, it might happen. For years U.C. has been looking for a way to connect the east campus to the west, and in the 1990's there was talk of a pedestrian tunnel underneath the sprawly mess of motorways at Jefferson and M.L.King. A rail line which just one vehicle that went forward and reverse on a single track with just two stops would probably be viable, and it might even be simple enough to be automated, which will save tremendously on operating cost. Or, a streetcar from U.C. to Knowlton's Corner might be viable. Buses on that route are often overcrowded, and I've seen people turned away. Either of these routes might be better than a route between downtown and U.C., and might get more support than a route through Over-the-Rhine. A neighborhood is either stable, improving, or declining. It is easiest to invest in an improving neighborhood. Investing in a declining neighborhood is a tough sell. Folks on this board will tell you that Over-the-Rhine is improving, but the general opinion is that it is declining. The U.C. area is definintely improving.

Queen City Metro gets about 4% of its revenue from advertising, a small amount of its operating budget. I wonder if it's really worth it at all, especially since those wrapped buses with advertising on the windows cut off part of the view from inside the bus, making the ride less pleasant. Furthermore, the targeted nature of many of the ads only reinforces the stereotype that buses are for poor people.

"The problem with Dusty is he has no clue about investing for future profits." On the contrary, he clearly states that he thinks The Banks is a money loser. The Banks will cost the county more than it earns.

To add to what Jake said, the encounters with the natives make interesting stories but they just don't add up to much. Ohio was mostly empty in 1790, and developed fairly quickly. I recall a story that in 1815 some natives came to Cincinnati, and most settlers at that time had never seen an Indian before! The Indian battles in Ohio and Indiana - Harmar's defeat, the Battle of Fallen Timbers - involved just hundreds of people, not thousands. We say that the Europeans pushed the Indians off of their land, but more realistically the Europeans moved into mostly empty land with some small resistance from the natives. Atrocities were particularly gory on both sides, though. A good book on stories from the 1790's is The Frontiersmen.

I enjoy this discussion as much as anyone, but deep down, I have little confidence that the City of Cincinnati has enough political will to come up with the money to fund the streetcar. I am sorry I do not know about the $800,000 that you speak of. The feasibility study from a few years ago announced that the Over-the-Rhine loop would cost some $100 million dollars, and the next thing you know we are talking about expansion to the University Area, which will probably take another $100 million. It doesn't matter what the economic payback is. It doesn't matter if people ride streetcars in Portland. It doesn't matter if the route to the University area uses Vine Street or Gilbert. What matters is whether or not funding is available to build it. So far, there is no funding, and I find it hard to imagine that changing. It is my humble opinion that we have, in fact, spent the last 206 pages talking about a trolley to nowhere. I still enjoy Jake's maps and photos, though.

A plan without funding is just a dream. It's fun to dream, though. :-)

"As to how smooth or rough the transition will be, I don't claim to know." Automobile ownership doubled from about 1950 to 1960 and no one seemed to notice. Will they notice if it decreases by half from say, 2020 to 2030?

Air conditioners can also be operated with stirling engines. I think some camping refrigerators work this way. In any case, petroleum now provides 40% of our total industrial energy, and 90% of our transportation energy. While it is possible to switch from oil to coal or wood as a heat source, it isn't as easy to switch from gasoline to coal as a transportation fuel. Remember, petroleum is going to peak soon if it hasn't already, and then decline; coal consumption is expected to quadruple before it peaks in about 100 years.

"Then expect oil prices to jump back toward triple digits" Peak oil is not about price. I wish folks would stop making price predictions.

Something that caught my attention was the fact that the Central Parkway Subway, the lower deck of the Western Hills Viaduct, and the former C&O right of way to Western Hills come so close to lining up. The ramp that streetcars used to get out of the west end of the Viaduct is still there. Would it be possible to connect them with light rail to make a continuous corridor from Downtown to near Cheviot? I-75 of course is in the way. It looks like it might be possible to cross, with the light rail below I-75, if the light rail were allowed to cross Spring Grove at grade. If the ramps to I-75 were removed, it would not only solve a safety problem and reduce automobile traffic on the lower deck, but would also open up the view of the arch. I don't expect it to happen; after all, the city was offered the opportunity to purchase the C&O right of way before it was sold to developers and fragmented, but it's fun to dream and draw lines on maps.

-"Good chance the Western Hills Viaduct arch over Spring Grove will be demo'd." Please, make it stop. Have they no shame?

There's some discussion on the other board about putting the station in West Chester, with plenty of parking. There is also some discussion of relocating the Amtrak Cardinal stop away from Cincinnati Union Terminal to the Riverfront Transit Center. The trackwork would be easy, but it would require additional movements. Also, there is apparently a right-of-way or easement between the Riverfront Transit Center and the Oasis line, so the legal aspects of connecting the two have already been worked out.

Should the streetcar be at the top? No.

Ideally, a passenger terminal would be located as close to fountain square as possible. Cincinnati Union Terminal is a long walk from fountain square.

Old Man's Cave State Park in Hocking Hills.

Word on the Cincinnati railroad forum is that the track on the Oasis line to the boathouse is so slow that it will add an hour to the trip. Of course, given enough money it could be rebuilt. According to "The Railroad and the City" by Gary Condut the Cincinnati Union Terminal was sited poorly, so much so that the previous situation was actually superior.