KJP - In addition to the symbolism of getting into the boundaries of Cincinnati, a Bond Hill station is substantially more accessible to the entire region than anything at Sharonville. We already have one mass transit station that has weak connections to the rest of the region and relies on a free-flowing I-75 (the airport). We don't need another which Sharonville would be. With the expected construction on 75, a train requires use of 75 will not be remotely accessible by most Hamilton Cty, and especially Cincinnati residents. (the Lunken concept was doomed for a version of those reasons - there is no good connections to the region from the Lunken area).

 

Bond Hill is one of the most accessible areas of Cincinnati for the same reason Downtown is- the confluence of 71 & 75 as well as the old time major roads of Reading and Montgomery (and Paddock and Vine to a certain extent).  I think that Lunken is actually a better and more accessible site than people give it credit for (close to 275 @ Kellogg and I-71 @ Red Bank, an exit that is also relatively close to the Norwood Lateral) but Downtown should be the preferred site and a temporary Bond Hill station is the still better.  Sometimes you have to take the extra time and spend the extra money to do it right.  That's what Michelangelo told Pope Julius II.

 

Once again, it is an election year. If you want to see passenger trains on the 3C or on any other rail corridor in Ohio, you need to let every candidate and incumbent hear a simple, straightforward message:

 

"If you want my vote, support passenger rail in Ohio."

 

The corollary to this is to tell politicians like Shannon Jones and John Kasich that they are not receiving your vote because of their short-sighted and disingenuous position on 3C rail.

 

Or you could just vote for the Democratic candidates, since they are the ones talking about  implementing 3C rail and the Republicans are using it as an issue to run against.

 

Upcoming at the Columbus Metropolitan Club:

 

Wed. Mar 24 12:00 - 1:15 @ ACC, Regular Wednesday Forum

 

"The Great Train Debate" - Mike Thompson, news director, WOSU will moderate a passionate panel of train advocates and opponents that include on the "for" side; Jack Shaner, Ohio Environmental Council and Gene Krebs, Greater Ohio; on the "against" side: Terry Casey, political consultant and a second to be announced.

Intentionally?? Boy, I'm glad I just spent more than a half-hour yesterday explaining why it is so difficult getting to Cincinnati Union Terminal just to have the explanation ignored. Fortunately your council members aren't so quick to throw up their hands. And their efforts just got noticed by the international rail community in their leading industry publication...

 

Cincinnati quest: Use Union Terminal for 3-C service

 

City council members in Cincinnati are trying to identify and secure a terminal for Ohios proposed Cleveland-Columbus-Cincinnati (3-C) Corridor passenger rail service. In a 6-3 vote, the council has recommended the citys 77-year-old Union Terminal be the site for any such service.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.railwayage.com/breaking-news/cincinnati-quest-use-union-terminal-for-3-c-corridor-service.html

 

Yes, but according to you, this endeavor jeapordizes the entire $400 million and thus the plans very existence for the foreseeable future.

LK, you could vote for Dems, but that would mean if you are outvoted, the GOP doesn't feel remotely invested in the project. On some subjects it makes sense to simply vote for those who agree with you, but on a project that requires long-term support that doesn't waver too much with changing regimes, then it seems to be more important to convert the opponents if you happen to agree with them on other issues than vote with the supporters. I believe rail is important enough to try to convert the GOP.

 

Yes, but according to you, this endeavor jeapordizes the entire $400 million and thus the plans very existence for the foreseeable future.

 

Whoa!!! You totally misunderstood what I said. If anything, access to CUT is a necessary add-on to the $400 million 3C "Quick Start." But it cannot be paid for out of the $400 million unless the FRA gives the OK. Chances are it won't, which is why the port authority needs to press ahead with its planning to get CUT funded as an added project component.

 

We can add components that enhances 3C "Quick Start" to our hearts' content -- as long as there's new funding for it and the planning is reflective of the public input.

I agree with LK -- Lunken is not as bad as people say. It's as close to the CBD as Bond Hill, and it's fairly near I-275. Transit service is pretty sketchy currently, but that could be improved. Heck, a special Metro bus could simply meet the train with outbound travelers and bring arriving travelers back downtown.

 

Having said that, I'd prefer not to spend the money replacing the track between Sharonville and Lunken in order to enable a temporary station when that $15-20 million could be applied to getting a fourth main into Cincinnati Union Terminal.

 

Missing from all this discussion: NSC and CSX have a lot to gain from a fourth main, for the passenger trains would be on it, what? six times a day. Maybe they would (could, should) help with the cost.

 

 

 

Yes, but according to you, this endeavor jeapordizes the entire $400 million and thus the plans very existence for the foreseeable future.

 

Whoa!!! You totally misunderstood what I said. If anything, access to CUT is a necessary add-on to the $400 million 3C "Quick Start." But it cannot be paid for out of the $400 million unless the FRA gives the OK. Chances are it won't, which is why the port authority needs to press ahead with its planning to get CUT funded as an added project component.

 

We can add components that enhances 3C "Quick Start" to our hearts' content -- as long as there's new funding for it and the planning is reflective of the public input.

 

"So Ohio can't just accept the money, make the improvements on the ground and delay the start of the inter-city rail service."

 

"That's correct, John. The 3C project has to be underway by a certain deadline but I don't know what that is."

 

"Again, using the local desire to go to Cincinnati Union Terminal as an example, the NEPA-required preliminary engineering and environmental documentation (such as an environmental assessment or categorical exclusion) needed to do this is estimated to cost $1 million. Final design will add another $2 million. By the time this work is done, it will be likely be 2013 -- then construction can start."

 

"If we don't use it now, it goes back to the feds for them to use on another state's shovel-ready RAIL project. It cannot be used for anything other than rail."

 

***

 

I suppose for the sake of modesty I admit it is possible that I misunderstood the above. Just about anything's possible.

LK, you could vote for Dems, but that would mean if you are outvoted, the GOP doesn't feel remotely invested in the project. On some subjects it makes sense to simply vote for those who agree with you, but on a project that requires long-term support that doesn't waver too much with changing regimes, then it seems to be more important to convert the opponents if you happen to agree with them on other issues than vote with the supporters. I believe rail is important enough to try to convert the GOP.

 

Well good luck with that.  I suggest you read the campaign literature again displayed above and Kasich's quotes on the project and ask yourself if people who willfully misrepresent a project to voters are capable of being "converted".

 

Most people assume that this issue should be one that is voted on the merits rather than politicized, but the Republicans have politicized the issue.  And that's their choice.  But there's no reason to engage with people who have displayed a contempt for objectivity and their responsibility as elected representatives to present to voters truthfully how fed dollars to states are allocated.  Once again, if you think 3C is important for Ohio to implement, even though you swing to the Republicans on other issues, you're still better off voting Democratic in order to prove unequivocally to the Republicans that running against rail is a losing issue.  That is the best and most effective way to "convert" these folks- by showing them that running against passenger rail is a loser at the ballot box.  Nothing could be more definitive than running a campaign against rail and losing because of it.

 

Yes, but according to you, this endeavor jeapordizes the entire $400 million and thus the plans very existence for the foreseeable future.

 

Whoa!!! You totally misunderstood what I said. If anything, access to CUT is a necessary add-on to the $400 million 3C "Quick Start." But it cannot be paid for out of the $400 million unless the FRA gives the OK. Chances are it won't, which is why the port authority needs to press ahead with its planning to get CUT funded as an added project component.

 

We can add components that enhances 3C "Quick Start" to our hearts' content -- as long as there's new funding for it and the planning is reflective of the public input.

 

"So Ohio can't just accept the money, make the improvements on the ground and delay the start of the inter-city rail service."

 

"That's correct, John. The 3C project has to be underway by a certain deadline but I don't know what that is."

 

"Again, using the local desire to go to Cincinnati Union Terminal as an example, the NEPA-required preliminary engineering and environmental documentation (such as an environmental assessment or categorical exclusion) needed to do this is estimated to cost $1 million. Final design will add another $2 million. By the time this work is done, it will be likely be 2013 -- then construction can start."

 

"If we don't use it now, it goes back to the feds for them to use on another state's shovel-ready RAIL project. It cannot be used for anything other than rail."

 

***

 

I suppose for the sake of modesty I admit it is possible that I misunderstood the above. Just about anything's possible.

 

^Too mods go head to head.  Who will be the first to delete the other's posts?

Can we all tone down the rhetoric before this gets out of hand?

 

Don't worry Nooz. I'm not upset at anybody.

 

I suppose for the sake of modesty I admit it is possible that I misunderstood the above. Just about anything's possible.

 

I don't see what could be misunderstood in that. It says exactly what it says. Perhaps you are merging the 3C project with the CUT project in your head. They are separate projects.... 3C construction moves ahead to meet all the deadlines and federal requirements etc. CUT moves ahead on planning and then construction. While CUT is intended to be served by 3C, it is in a totally separate planning pipeline. I hope that clears things up.

 

Would a sample timeline of how all this could play out help clarify?

Toning down... it's hard for people to separate "Cincinnati" proper from anything that bills itself as "3C."  I think that's what's going on there.  And every possible argument about Ohio's inner cities not being 100% rail-ready apply many times over to Sharonville.  Unless Sharonville is a major local transit hub in a sense that I'm not aware of.

Don't worry Nooz. I'm not upset at anybody.

 

I suppose for the sake of modesty I admit it is possible that I misunderstood the above. Just about anything's possible.

 

I don't see what could be misunderstood in that. It says exactly what it says. Perhaps you are merging the 3C project with the CUT project in your head. They are separate projects.... 3C construction moves ahead to meet all the deadlines and federal requirements etc. CUT moves ahead on planning and then construction. While CUT is intended to be served by 3C, it is in a totally separate planning pipeline. I hope that clears things up.

 

Would a sample timeline of how all this could play out help clarify?

 

No, you have made the distinction clear, whereas before you made it sound like the CUT option was simultaneously necessary and jeopardizing the project. But perhaps you've answered this one 50 times already. If 3C spends $15 million to track to a station at Lunken, and if CUT is ultimately critical to the project, why was the extra line at CUT deferred?

 

I'm really asking this to find out what your own feeling is on this is, because surely you have been following the issue as it evolved.

If 3C spends $15 million to track to a station at Lunken, and if CUT is ultimately critical to the project, why was the extra line at CUT deferred?

 

"Extra line"? Please explain a little more. Sounds like a terminology issue.

 

 

  What I think he means is that we have a choice to 1) reconstruct the track from Sharonville to Lunken at about $15 million or to 2) make some improvement to the track between Sharonville and CUT for an unknown cost. If we choose option 1, that's $15 million of sunk cost that cannot be applied to option 2, which is the preferred option.

If 3C spends $15 million to track to a station at Lunken, and if CUT is ultimately critical to the project, why was the extra line at CUT deferred?

 

"Extra line"? Please explain a little more. Sounds like a terminology issue.

 

 

The fourth line. The fourth main. The new line. The extra line. Whatever this is:

 

http://www.dot.state.oh.us/trac/Submitted%20Applications/2009D08-02.pdf

 

It was the opinion of Parsons Brinckerhoff (the 3C "Quick Start" engineering consultant for the Ohio Rail Development Commission) that the total cost the 3C "Quick Start" project was getting too high to ask for everything (including access to CUT) in the same grant. PB estimated that, in order to put 3C trains down the Mill Creek valley and into CUT, would cost $25 million per mile to build an additional mainline track. But PB said the added mainline track would be needed all the way north to Evendale (12 miles, or $300 million). So it was removed from further consideration.

 

However, I do not know if an operational analysis (a computer program that does a SimCity-like simulation of rail traffic patterns based on actual freight schedules and variations of proposed passenger train schedules) was done for the CUT access south of Evendale or if the consultants assumed the worst and didn't bother. If they didn't do the operational analysis, then we really don't know if their fears were justified. Such an analysis will almost certainly be done for the preliminary engineering that the Port of Greater Cincinnati Development Authority wants to do. But based on their TRAC application, they will not look at the corridor north of Winton Place (NA Junction), assumed to be the north end of the proposed fourth main track.

 

 

  What I think he means is that we have a choice to 1) reconstruct the track from Sharonville to Lunken at about $15 million or to 2) make some improvement to the track between Sharonville and CUT for an unknown cost. If we choose option 1, that's $15 million of sunk cost that cannot be applied to option 2, which is the preferred option.

 

That is correct statement. But it poses many questions... If you don't spend the money to go to Lunken, what does that savings get us in the Mill Creek valley? How far south can we go in the Mill Creek valley before the money runs out? Is that where we build the temporary station? What would it take (planning, public hearings, FRA approval) to get that paid for by the $400 million allotted for the 3C "Quick Start"? Would the FRA even allow ODOT to consider it? Would ODOT officials want to try their luck with the FRA and risk losing the $400 million?

 

Those are the kinds of questions that ODOT would have to get answered before it could drop some or all of the Lunken routing south of Evendale.

 

I think I need to use a map!

 

Hopefully these aerial photos help a little.

 

Here is the Bond Hill site:

 

<img src="http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j231/jmecklenborg/winter%202010/Cincinnati%20Aerials/bondhill.jpg">

 

Incidentally, the never-finished subway ran right to this location.  Its surface route can still be traced in the gradually curving line of trees that form the left edge of this property.

 

This is the triple-track mainline that feeds the big downtown rail yards and CUT.  It occupies a strip of land between the Mill Creek and I-75 for about two miles. There is definitely space for another track, but with I-75 being widened starting next year or 2012, the new track will likely require retaining walls and be on the creek side of the strip: 

<img src="http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j231/jmecklenborg/winter%202010/Cincinnati%20Aerials/ludlow.jpg">

 

It raises the specter that the new track will in fact be a freight track and the passenger-only track will be the uphill track, meaning there will be quite a bit of reconfiguration of the yard throat and Ivorydale Junction. 

 

Also, who will own this track?  The State of Ohio? 

 

 

Hopefully these aerial photos help a little.

 

Here is the Bond Hill site:

 

 

I didn't realize that's where the city is proposing to put the Bond Hill station. That's not on the I&O Oasis Line -- which means having to get FRA approval for a pretty significant change. If the city is willing to consider that location (and if the FRA is too), perhaps the station should be put in that area but on the NS mainline north of NA Junction -- such at Beech Street near the Smucker plant off Spring Grove Avenue?

The demolition of the movie theater happened in January (this photo is from early February), so it's likely nobody was thinking along these lines two or however many years ago.

 

I'm not sure how exactly they're thinking of linking up this property with rail.  It could be done with as little as a 1,000ft. spur from the B&O double-track main.  Long freight trains often sit on one of these double tracks for an hour at a time waiting to enter the triple-track main between Ivorydale Junction and the Queensgate Yard. 

 

The problem with specific site in Bond Hill is that it's unclear how it would not operate as a spur if it was kept after service reaches CUT, meaning this could be wasted money.   

 

That said, IF the B&O is used in the future for true high speed between Cincinnati and Columbus, this Bond Hill site could make a great station that would augment CUT.  Many were thinking this line was the one that was going to be used for the 3C's, until Dayton got in on the act. True Acela-type high speed is more easily built parallel to this line out of Cincinnati than the Mill Creek lines. 

 

 

 

 

What would we ever do without Jake?

 

  I don't mean to rain on anyone's parade, but just so you know that area between the railroad and I-75 is a hazardous waste landfill. Nothing is easy...

 

  Also regarding the congestion and comparison to historical data:

 

  Some trains that are assembled in Queensgate are TWO MILES long! One end of the train can be in the hump yard just north of the Western Hills Viaduct and the other end can be north of Ludlow Viaduct, moving forward and reverse to assemble trains.

 

  One more thing: while CSX and NS cooperate and use each other's tracks for directional running, Amtrak uses the CSX track to Hamilton in both directions.

The third approach track was just built within the last 10 years, I think around 2002.  If it was able to be built on polluted ground, the railroads surely dealt with the issue.

 

The larger issue again is who would own this fourth track.  If the 3C's train uses the existing track, would there be a land swap with the railroads?  I doubt this could be an even trade because whoever gets the creek-side track is stuck with the higher maintenance cost of any retaining walls.   

 

Railroad legal teams deal with these kinds of situations all the time, so the state would need to hire one of them to avoid getting snookered.  Railroads and traction companies pulled that kind of crap on cities 100 years ago and it led to a lot of the tension between them and their host cities. 

 

 

 

The third approach track was just built within the last 10 years, I think around 2002. If it was able to be built on polluted ground, the railroads surely dealt with the issue.

 

It was funded in 1994, paid for federal Congestion Mitigation Air Quality funds or CMAQ -- see-mack, with CSX and Conrail providing the non-federal matching dollars. I believe it was built before 2000.

 

The larger issue again is who would own this fourth track.

 

CSX would own it. It will be used by CSX, NS, I&O and Amtrak. All will pay trackage rights fees(except CSX) to maintain it.

I didn't realize that's where the city is proposing to put the Bond Hill station. That's not on the I&O Oasis Line -- which means having to get FRA approval for a pretty significant change. If the city is willing to consider that location (and if the FRA is too), perhaps the station should be put in that area but on the NS mainline north of NA Junction -- such at Beech Street near the Smucker plant off Spring Grove Avenue?

 

I'm not sure if Jake's photo is actually where the City is proposing to build a station in Bond Hill.  I don't think that City has formally proposed any site in Bond Hill.  They definitely want CUT. 

 

The I&O Oaisis Line you speak of runs through Bond Hill slightly north of the Jake's photo (which depicts Reading Road at the Norwood Lateral) on Reading Road and Seymour Avenue.  There is plenty of underutilized space up there for a station between the area north of Swifton Commons Mall and Cincinnati Gardens.  While Jake's photo doesn't depict the exact location, it is effectively the same place.

 

While I still would like to see 3C go to CUT, a 'Swifton Commons' Station would actually be great for the City and that area, and incidentally, in an area of economic opportunity already identified by the GO Cincinnati plan.  In fact a CUT station and a Swifton Commons Station don't seem mutually exclusive but actually strike me as being complemetary.

 

There is definitely space for another track, but with I-75 being widened starting next year or 2012, the new track will likely require retaining walls and be on the creek side of the strip.

 

Too bad this I-75 widening isn't up for debate.  We could save an assload of money (particulary opportunity cost) by killing that stupid project and putting in three new rail lines instead (one freight, two passenger).

ROW is being reserved for light rail north of Ludlow Ave., but I've never seen detailed drawings for this so far as how they're going to build I-75's retaining walls and drainage to facilitate the easy addition of parallel light rail tracks. 

 

Politically, if you had a population who really wanted rail but didn't have the money to build and operate it immediately, you'd leave the space in the median but not build any tracks.  When something's there and not getting utilized, the people get anxious and want a successful resolution.  With this light rail provision next to the highway, there won't be any obvious signs of it.   

 

The real problem with this light rail provision is that instead of creating a low-cost at-grade approach to the unused subway, they're actually planning a one-mile extension of the subway under McMicken Street to Hopple Street.  In other words somebody forced the provision for light rail to be included, but then somebody else (the highway lobby) made sure that provision was so expensive to build there's no way it will be.

 

That's part of why rail is so expensive to build in this country. 

 

Short-staffed agency overseeing high-speed-rail effort draws fire

 

The top Republican on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee called the award process "amateur hour," saying the agency didn't consult closely enough with elected officials and devoted too much money to projects helping increase speeds on existing Amtrak routes. Rep. John Mica of Florida said he's considering subpoenaing agency records to review its decision-making process.

 

"I'm very concerned that FRA's work missed the mark, and maybe hijacked the ability of the country to see some true high-speed rail-operations," Mica said in a telephone interview...

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-03-08-rail-oversight_N.htm

 

 

^Pointless political shots-over-the-bow.

^ A worthy assessment. 

 

Still, not one anti-rail word coming out of that republican's mouth... when he certainly could take that line if he wanted to.  Kasich is.  This guy seems to want a modern system and to disfavor the incremental approach.  This is the kind of attitude we may not want to dismiss right away.  It doesn't seem inimical to our ultimate goal.  And it sure would be nice to have more republicans say things, within earshot of Ohio, that appear to legitimize our goals. 

So what's the deal? Now the Republicans want more government employees to review economic-development projects?

 

The politician may reject the incremental approach, but I'm not sure I trust a politician to do the analysis and planning for something as significant and massively expensive as a modern, high-speed rail system. If he were proposing tens of billions of federal dollars to make it happen, he might have a bit of credibility.

This guy seems to want a modern system and to disfavor the incremental approach.  This is the kind of attitude we may not want to dismiss right away.  It doesn't seem inimical to our ultimate goal.  And it sure would be nice to have more republicans say things, within earshot of Ohio, that appear to legitimize our goals.

 

Fair point about this one politician.  Although, the incremental approach has proven to be a sound one, as KJP and others have explained. 

 

In addition, the Republican Party has never shown any real leadership on HSR or shown itself to be willing to fund the many billions of dollars it would take to build true HSR.  My problem with Mica is that he doesn't understand that the nation needs both HSR (in California, for example and a few states like Illinois that are getting closer to "ready" for that step) and conventional rail. 

Okay, so there are two ways to take this: face value, or underhanded attack.

 

1) Face value: the logical conclusions are that we need (a) more money for HSR, and (b) either more staff on FRA or a whole new organization all together. Now, given that calling for more spending and bigger government aren't very Republican values, it's easier to think he was going for...

 

2) Underhanded attack: he basically made it a political issue and took a jab at the Dems in charge. How far did he expect the $8b to go toward HSR, anyway? It's easy to interpret this as a slick way to make the Democrats look like they are not seriously supporting HSR while opposing HSR himself. All the while, he seems like he is supporting HSR, as he interprets that to be the popular position. (It's the method by which you "support" HSR in principle, but find fault with every specific plan which ever comes to light.)

 

Another interesting issue: at least half of the money is going to non-Amtrak lines. (Florida + Cali + Ohio = $4b ... there may be more.) This, once again, makes me wonder: how much HSR does he expect for $8b? How much would a more comprehensive plan, which is integral to his "incompetence" charge, have actually helped with the rationing? I mean, Florida's HSR plan is going a pretty short distance, at $1.3b. If you scrap all the projects on there but FL and CA (the only true HSR projects), you have $4.4b left over. That funds 3 more HSR projects the (very short) length of Florida's line, plus a 3C-level project.

 

That (a) hardly requires some vast, comprehensive plan (obliterating his whole point: that a competent FRA would have created one), and (b) hardly services any of the country, likely making the result even less popular than the one we have. Until this guy calls for lots more funding, I'm calling shenanigans. He sounds like a "champion for failure" in disguise. (A card-carrying member of the "party of NO".)

 

Still, I must admit it's good to have a Repub publicly giving some lip-service to any rail projects at all. Even if it's disingenuous. If it helps convince other Republicans that rail is to be taken seriously, then it's possibly a net-positive.

So where did this Bond Hill thing come from?  Bond Hill is only barely skirted by railroads on the west and south.  The 3-C corridor down the Mill Creek Valley actually runs through Hartwell, Carthage, Elmwood Place, and St. Bernard, not Bond Hill.  A temporary station in Carthage, near Paddock Road would seem to make some sense.  Paddock could be used by connecting buses to bypass the construction (and congestion) on I-75 to get to the Norwood Lateral and I-71 to downtown, or even just take Paddock/Reading if need be.  Any stop farther east would require new tracks that, like the Lunken idea, would be wasted after progressing farther south.

I think Bond Hill comes from using the OASIS line, but instead of taking it all the way around to Lunken, build the station closer to the 75 corridor.

I am kind of starting to like the idea of a Bond Hill station. It services the east side (the populated parts), it's on a different line so it can complement CUT well logistically, the neighborhood there could use the boost, it's accessible from 71 and 75, and it's not crazy-remote like Lunken (also meaning it does not require a ton of investment on track off the line going to CUT).

Can someone tell me if I have this right? We can't do the station at the riverfront transit center because:

 

-NIMBY's don't want the trains going through the east end

-There isn't much room for intercity-style station amenities

-It would cost millions to connect the transit center to the west

 

Can someone explain to me what the riverfront transit center is for, then? These issues appear to prohibit ANY rail going there.

 

PS:

I don't personally foresee a neighborhood-level benefit from an intercity rail station in Bond Hill. There are no local trips here and the headways are practically non-existent in this context.

I agree with you about Bond Hill, I don't see how it would really benefit the community since the station would still only be temporary, and would most likely be a park-n-ride type situation with some buses and taxis. 

 

The transit center was originally intended to handle commuter and/or light rail trains.  As part of the Metro Moves plan, there were commuter rail corridors heading east and west along the river, as well as north up the Mill Creek Valley.  It would cost millions to connect the transit center on either end, but it's actually not all that difficult.  It was planned for at least in some capacity, so it's just a case that the rails need to be laid.  The other problem is that the transit center ceiling is too low for bi-level coaches that are used on a lot of trains.  In the following map, basically any of the orange lines was expected to use the transit center.

 

http://metro-cincinnati.info/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/metro_moves_plan.jpg

 

You know, I just had a thought.  The Metro Moves plan asked the citizens of Hamilton County to vote on a tax increase to raise $2.6 billion for the project.  Yes it failed, but could it possibly be put to a vote of Cincinnati residents to raise some money to bring the 3-C trains to Union Terminal?  What would it take, $100 million?  I'm not sure if asking the whole county would be worthwhile or not.  Where's the State of Ohio's involvement in all this anyway? 

I wonder if we could build the fourth main and then lease it to CSX and have the lease payments float the bonds.

Kinda like the Cincinnati Southern Railway...only the best thing the city's ever done.  :-D

^

 

I can give some perspective on what the Riverfront Transit Center is (was) intended to do.

 

First, the "Riverfront Transit Center" name is a bit of a misnomer. The "Riverfront Bus Station" would be a more apt name.

 

When Fort Washington Way (I-71) was reconfigured along Cincinnati's central riverfront, thus making the new development now underway there possible, there was a desire to get all the tour buses serving Bengals, Reds, Riverfest and Tall Stacks events off the streets. That's because they are numerous and obnoxious. Since Second Street had to be built along with Third Street as a collector/distributor system serving FWW, and since the fifteen-foot deep "trench" already existed for the old FWW, the city and ODOT elected not to fill the trench and rebuild Second Street on grade but instead use the the southern half of the depressed I-71 ROW for the RTC and put Second Street atop an 85-foot wide span there. The RTC runs from one side of downtown to the other and can handle tens of thousands of people per hour. The marginal cost of solving the problem this way probably added about $20 million to the total cost, but it was a good investment for the future. I mean, who would want to live in a neighborhood with 70 or 80 charter buses hanging out along the streets of your neighborhood some nights and weekends.

 

The RTC doesn't have the vertical clearance to host the double-decked cars that 3C wants to use. But it can easily handle electric light rail, and there has been no objection from neighbors along the Eastern Riverfront to LRT. They just object to diesels because lots of housing there is built right up to the ROW.

 

ROW is available to connect the RTC to CUT if you wanted to, but there is no plan to do this.

 

But the bigger picture is this: Cincinnati Union Terminal is our train station, judged by the American Institute of Architects to be one of the 100 most architecturally significant buildings in the United States. It already hosts (some) Amtrak service to Chicago and Washington. With modifications, the Terminal can handle more business, and the major tenant there, the Cincinnati Museum Center, welcomes more trains. And if we were ever to get trains to the south -- to Louisville and Atlanta, say -- they would have to come out of CUT because there is no rail bridge east of Cincinnati's central riverfront.

 

I think the case for the RTC's handling all sorts of public transportation -- intercity rail, LRT, buses, whatever -- was overhyped from the get-go, by one elected official in particular.

 

The RTC is, at its core, a place for buses to unload and load for special events. Maybe someday it gets LRT, but that's about it. I'd personally favor having LRT penetrate the downtown and not be confined to the riverfront.

I don't think we'd get much for that lease because we don't have an exclusive route.  If 3 tracks handle what they need now, the advantage of a fourth is minimal, especially if it needs to be reserved for much of the day for passenger rail. 

 

 

 

 

But they seem to need the 4th rail even if there's no passenger trains.  The whole problem is that freight congestion is bad NOW, so they still need it.  It may not be exclusive, but I'll bet you could still get something for it.

^

I can answer this:

 

Thanks.

I wonder if we could build the fourth main and then lease it to CSX and have the lease payments float the bonds.

 

You had to buy the right of way from CSX (based on similar sales, $5 million per mile or $25 million total might a good estimate), build the fourth main, then lease it back to them. The numbers don't work.

 

BTW, I don't know I have posted this before, but here are track-chart diagrams I did last year of the Mill Creek valley route, before the fourth main and after....

 

 

 

 

      For discussion, I offer this plan.

 

      1. Terminate the 3-C line at Sharonville, or perhaps Bond Hill. The center of population of the Cincinnati metro is north of downtown anyway, and if the terminal were downtown or at CUT, most people would have to drive some distance in the wrong direction to get to the station.

      2. Forget about connecting to Cincinnati Union Terminal and let bygones be bygones. It's too far from downtown to be practical for walking from the station to downtown.

      3. Forget about the Cincinnati Streetcar uptown connection to the Over-the-Rhine loop. The OTR loop was a working plan until the extention was brought in. The best route, Vine Street, is too steep for modern streetcars.

      4. Construct a light rail line from downtown Cincinnati to the Sharonville (or Bond Hill) station, and make sure that there is a stop at U.C. main campus and one at the University Hospital campus. Portions of the CL&N might be able to be used, but a lot of new right of way will be required. There might be some subway sections.

 

      The disadvantage is that it will take a two-seat ride to get from downtown Cincinnati to downtown Cleveland. The advantage is that it wil get downtown and also serve more stops between downtown and Sharonville, with the light rail portion serving both as an extension / feeder to the 3-C and a commuter / circulator line within the metro area.

 

    Obviously, the light rail will not be part of the Quick plan. 

One of the biggest allures of HSR to me is to be able to get from one urban core to another in one seat. If I knew I was going to do a bit of transferring, I'd just go to the airport, or drive.

 

Your proposal also does not take into consideration the future of HSR, which could go south. Then CUT looks like a more attractive location.

 

My feeling is that if rail really comes back like some people hope and think it will, we're just going to have to sink a bunch of money into our existing main station. Like a lot of cities are probably going to have to do. Like Denver.

 

  Transfering between trains is much more comfortable than one trip through airport security. I don't think that most of the passengers are going to go from one core to the other anyway. A station at CUT would require a transfer to streetcar, bus, or taxi to get downtown anyway.

 

    HSR south is a very expensive proposition. The NS line is only single track in some places, and is very busy. My plan does not eliminate the possibility of HSR south in the future.

8th&State: You neglect northern Kentucky residents.