Civvik

You guys who are calling this complicated really should qualify your statement with "relatively." It's just about the least complicated fixed-route transit project there is. "Re-striping projects can get very complicated!" You could be entirely correct. Cutting my toenails could also get very complicated. Many kinds of public projects can get complicated. To make such a declaration is kind of wasting your breath, as I do not estimate road re-striping to be more or less prone to complication relative to other projects. It just requires good planning and management like anything else. It would be wonderful if they buried all the utilities along the route, but I doubt they will. See: Tampa, Portland, etc.

Um, actually if you're not moving the curbs, redistributing lanes via new striping is easy. Trust me, I've worked on plenty of one way conversions, road diets and bike lane retrofitting. We had municipalities do "paint only" projects specifically to avoid the difficulty and cost of curb reconstruction and moving utilities.

My personal feeling is that bike lanes up the hill with the streetcar would complement it rather than be redundant. You can't control where people will bike, but you can provide them "an offer they can't refuse" with bike lanes if they choose for some reason to ride the streetcar route. If someone, even a child, were to coast down Vine and catch the track that's a pretty hard fall going downhill. To me it just seems like a very easy thing to add, especially if you don't have to rebuild the curbs.

Also keep in mind that a bicycle is a vehicle. While not as fast as a car, it is a machine, and can move pretty fast, and pose a danger to pedestrians. The parking lane serves as a buffer for pedestrians first and foremost.

^ Yes the bike lane would ramp up to the station bulb-out. Everything in the section is AASHTO and bike standard. The southbound bike lane is 5', the extra foot helps avoid car doors. It's definitely a lot going on. In fact, it's about the maximum you would WANT going on. Here is an example in Portland: http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=45.530034,-122.684892&spn=0,0.001742&t=k&z=20&layer=c&cbll=45.53003,-122.685014&panoid=2lGRHYEfoXOjpu15IJm2ng&cbp=12,107.11,,0,21.14

It should work now.

Nope, I just linked it wrong lol. I'll fix it.

^ I don't know about separation, but I think bike lanes would be a higher and better use than a lane of parking on the east side of Vine, considering the existing uses. Based on CAGIS, I'm getting a standard 60' ROW on Vine in front of the school, and about 38' curb to curb. You could take out a parking lane and add bike lanes, and be AASHTO compliant, to the inch, without rebuilding the curbs:

For those who are having trouble visualizing what is being proposed (and that's pretty easy to understand considering they've been very shy with their renderings), here is a quick and dirty Google Earth model that fulfills the basic info that we know so far: About 300,000 SF A mix of one and two stories Some kind of entrances along Reading and Broadway Takes into account the topography Avoids existing buildings (not sure if this reflects their plan, but why not) This does not include the parking structure. I also make no claims that this in any way represents their actual plan. http://www.4shared.com/file/hdOu79qA/CincyCasinoStudy.html (PS If the link doesn't work, let me know.)

I think it would be more accurate to say that this is the problem with badly designed classical looking shelters. Bad design is bad design!

I gave you credit for a rational response of bike lanes, I didn't say you opposed it. So don't put words in my mouth. But it sure looks like those bikers in Washington are very much opposed to their route since the case they are making in their lawsuit is that the city "ignored" the planning study when it suggested a different route as one way to address bike safety. I will however point out the discrepancy when you say that many bikers avoid Vine because of leg strength (perfectly understandable) but then jjakucyk claims that most bikers would ignore a free streetcar ride up Vine. I cannot imagine that this would be true. And if bike lanes could not be added to Vine because there simply is not enough space, I would hope the biking community would be rational enough to accept that as a reasonable excuse.

When you see a plain box with brick on it, what you're looking at is the work of a developer, not an architect. Gotta remember that architects are probably the last people in the world who desire to build crap, but developers are often the first. And they hire the architects. What you probably had here were marching orders that said "Value engineer this to X dollars, but I want it to be brick." Because to developers, beauty comes from things they can list on a brochure, not form or creativity. Or just as likely, well-intended but poorly written zoning codes imposed certain requirements that are doing more harm than good.

Whippersnappers? Snarled wires? Really? Sometimes I think he's actually a plant, working for the other side.

If roadways are designed to be multi-use paths, and the city has only a handful of basin-to-uptown routes -- especially ones that are marked to receive a shared lane or dedicated bike lane, then extra consideration must be made for cyclists who are only growing in numbers in this city. To discount them is foolish and backwards -- and it's not "cool or hip" -- it's healthy, safe and efficient. I guess you can say the same about streetcars -- it's "cool or hip" to spend a major amount of money and not think of the cyclists. And no, Casey, it's more than 35 cyclists on Vine. At any speed, especially when you are adding in a mix of automobile traffic and streetcars, you are putting yourself in danger by mixing in the tracks with bikes. Having a dedicated bike lane, both up and downhill, can help remedy this. I hope they are planning on this if the route takes Vine (or Clifton). Actually, do you really think there are more than maybe 50 people who bike up and down Vine on a regular basis? A few people I know attended the "bike and dine" thing recently, and I don't think even 50 people attended. Of the people I know who are avid bike riders, I must respectfully say that I think some of them are "bike people" the same way that some people are "train people" or like the majority of Americans are "car people." They love them so much (and in the case of bike riding, the accompanying endorphin high of exercise) that they become somewhat irrational when defending or justifying their use or their priority in the transportation hierarchy. Anyhow, in my opinion, bike lanes in a Vine Street redesign: rational. Opposing the streetcar route because of bike safety: irrational.

I like!

That sounds quite elitist and inflexible. Let's say Ohio entered some parallel universe where the republican contingent really was interested in rail, but were truly opposed to Amtrack's methods. How would Ohio build a system? Would it even be possible without entirely new ROW?

Unfortunately for this point of view, fun, exercise and a mad rush aren't high on the priority list for transportation planning.

If one were to cycle a significant distance parallel to the track, thus posing a real nuisance to the cyclist, couldn't they just ride the streetcar? As a cyclist I would actually *rather* take the streetcar up the hill and then be on my way when it got to the top. Down, maybe not worth waiting for the next car. I might take a parallel route. There are options. It's not leaving anyone up shit creek. If Clifton is much more steep than Vine and would be a difficult route for someone on a bicycle, where does that leave the streetcar? I think the whole basin should be transit rich and a full two-way grid. It should be the one part of Cincinnati where automobile mobility is last on the list. Ped>Transit>Bike>Auto. But that's just me.

Casino Time Tuesday, May 25, 2010, 12:10 AM EDT Laura Emerson FOX Toledo News anchor TOLEDO, Ohio (WUPW) - Toledo's Hollywood-themed casino will be built just off the I-75 Miami Street exit along the Maumee River on a piece of land that's in East Toledo, but right next to the Rossford city limits. FOX Toledo News would love to show you an artist's rendering of what the casino will look like, but there isn't one yet. It's still in the design phase. But depending on the speed of licensing and putting together the gaming commission to regulate the casinos, groundbreaking could begin as soon as July. If Penn National Gaming gets started that soon, they said Toledo's casino could be the first of the four Ohio casinos to open, which could be a real bonus for drawing attention and customers. Here's what FOX Toledo does know about Toledo's casino. It'll be a one-story structure, about 200,000-square feet, with slots and table games, and probably a heated outdoor smoking area with some shelter (since Ohio law prohibits smoking inside). The Hollywood-themed casino will have restaurants, but no hotel. MORE: http://www.foxtoledo.com/dpp/news/local/Casino-Time-le

Wow. Don't know quite what to say about this. Kinda feel sorry for the guy, unless this was premeditated. But why?

How simple semantics confuses you is beyond me. Luckily, he's gently explained it all for you.

Not sure what you're getting at with this train of thought? Plenty of neighborhoods in America weren't intended for cars. If a YUP buys a place with no parking spot, then he buys it. If he doesn't, he doesn't. Mercer Commons will be the first large-scale project in OTR, and it tucked a garage into the block. Any future large scale project will likely do the same. I see what you're getting at with the whole "OTR is but a fragment of walkability in a non-walkable metro area." I just don't see what any of us can or should do about it other than promote more transit. So, why worry about it?

This is definitely an area where the market will take care of itself. If putting fixed rail transit down and adjusting the zoning doesn't end up being a game-changer, I don't know what else would. There's not much further that I personally would feel comfortable putting tax dollars towards, transportation-wise. Certainly not parking garage subsidy or the like. Luckily there is still quite a bit of on-street capacity even as close as 13th street. People sometimes underestimate on-street capacity, but when I had my car in Lakeview, I could reliably park it on a street within 3 blocks of my house.

I imagine a lot of them probably would have been talking about this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression

I agree with Rogoff in part. If the ultimate goal is retrofitting America for cheaper, denser living, a Curitiba-style busway down Beechmont Avenue with the associated transit-enabling zoning changes would be a better way to do that than a brand new rail line. I rode the bus in Chicago every day. Buses serve density, but they do not make density. Rogoff insists that it is more important to repair the system we have than create new systems. It is so obvious that this statement relies entirely on the belief that our current system isn't a failure, that you almost overlook it. Americans see buses on many occasions in which the bus is a total mismatch to the environment, while rail lives in urban happy land. No wonder the bus is a pariah. But the goal is to live efficiently and that includes density. If in the last 50 years buses have not promoted density but rail has, then investing in the cheaper option isn't going to get the job done at all.