January 5, 200916 yr City of Cinti SUBWAY CONVERSION STUDY http://www.oki.org/elements/PPT/Transportation/TIP/Cincinnati%20Subway%20Presentation.ppt
January 6, 200916 yr That concept looks so cool Oakie, you can download programs for both PC and mac that can open powerpoints. . . unless that is not the issue, in which case, sorry to butt in.
January 6, 200916 yr That concept looks so cool Oakie, you can download programs for both PC and mac that can open powerpoints. . . unless that is not the issue, in which case, sorry to butt in. I have access to three computers that have it. I just happened to be sitting at one that didn't at the time. Thanks though!
January 8, 200916 yr Some interesting numbers to chew on! Original costs of segments of tunnel. Bump! http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/transeng/pages/-7185-/ Rapid Transit Construction Dates # Origin End Point Cost Contractor Start Date Completion Date 1 Walnut St. Charles St. $500,000 D.P Foley 11/17/19 Dec. 1921 2 CHARLES ST. OLIVER ST. $500,000 HICKEY BROS. FEB. 12, 1920 NOV. 1921 3 OLIVER ST. 350' N. OF MOWAWK ST. $550,000 HICKEY BROS SEPT. 1920 FEB. 1923 4 350' N. OF MOHAWK ST BRIGHTON& $500,000& F. R. JONES JUNE 2, 1921 JAN. 1923 5 BRIGHTON HOPPLE ST $150,000 HICKEY BROS. DEC. 1921 FEB. 1924 6 HOPPLE ST. MITCHELL AVE. $325,000 HICKEY BROS. JUNE 1922 OCT.1924 7,8,9 MITCHELL AVE. OAKLEY $1,100,000 HICKEY BROS. JULY 1924 * *Proposed completion date was early 1925 (about 28%was completed by the end of the Sections 1,2,3 and 4 were of subway construction. Section 4 was the last section year 1924) of subway work in the Canal except for isolated subways under some streets. The contract for Sections 7,8 and 9 was approximately 5 1/2 miles long.
January 9, 200916 yr It seems to me that running LRT on Central Parkway would be much more economical than below grade in the tunnels. The traffic volumes are not that great and there would not be the need for a ventilation system, underground stations etc. Does anyone know what the City's subway study gave for the value of the tunnels that were estimated to be 100M plus by Metro and Parsons ?
January 9, 200916 yr I think it was 30- 40million. Their estimate is that it would cost 115 million to get it up and running.
January 9, 200916 yr It seems to me that running LRT on Central Parkway would be much more economical than below grade in the tunnels. The traffic volumes are not that great and there would not be the need for a ventilation system, underground stations etc. You lose out on efficiency though and waste a massive asset that most urban areas would kill for. Does anyone know what the City's subway study gave for the value of the tunnels that were estimated to be 100M plus by Metro and Parsons ? Cost at filling/abandoning the tunnels is estimated at $35m ($20m to fill, $15m to relocate existing water/communication lines). There would also be the loss of an asset valued between $30-40m. Conversion to light rail use would cost $115m ($85m for construction costs, $15m for water/communication line relocation, $15m in 'soft costs'). This would preserve the $30-40m asset that will be impossible to replace and add a massive new asset for the city (light rail and below grade transit in our center city). Overall the conversion to light rail would be $40m more than the costs of abandoning and filling the tunnels. I would take the option of below grade rail transit in our center city for $40m any day. If nothing is done then the immediate $3m is maintenance costs would be tallied in addition to the roughly $160,000 of annual maintenance costs ($3.2m averaged over 20 years). For all this information and more see: http://www.oki.org/elements/PPT/Transportation/TIP/Cincinnati%20Subway%20Presentation.ppt
January 10, 200916 yr The trains will operate much faster in this tunnel than they could on a surface line, which means you need fewer of them, which means fewer drivers. Waiting passengers are also protected from the heat and snow, and the extreme width of the tunnel around Race St. would allow for extra tracks where trains could be staged for rush hour and events. The big question is what the character of the line north of the tunnel would be. Would it operate as a slow street-running light rail line to Camp Washington, Cincinnati State (which incidentally has more students than Xavier), and Northside, or as a high speed commuter light rail line parallel to I-75? My guess is that the latter is what will happen because the city could never raise the money to make it a city-only line without the county, and the county will never pay for something that doesn't serve suburban parts of the county. This means big spending on an underground station in Northside (involving tunneling under the Mill Creek, etc.) isn't going to happen. Instead I predict there will be a high speed routing parallel to I-75 from the Marshall Ave. portals north to I-275 or however far north they can fund it. Basically everything will be park & ride north of the Cincinnati State station. I could foresee a huge battle over Northside getting a station. In the 1927 report, the Ludlow Ave. surface station was to be scrapped and the line re-routed into Northside, crossing the Mill Creek twice, and running on an EL above Spring Grove Ave. through the Knowlton's Corner intersection with an elevated station at the base of the viaduct. That would be tough to do today given the proximity of the I-74 interchange and impossible to do high speed without a continuous tunnel. The ideal setup would be a continuous bored tunnel in this area of over a mile in length with stations both under Cincinnati State and Knowlton's Corner but that would have to be less of a priority than a downtown subway.
January 10, 200916 yr To add on to the inclusion of Cincinnati State, whatever happens over the next couple decades, I'm pretty confident that plenty of students will need to access Cincinnati State - esp. if we move toward a k-14 system, which I foresee as highly likely if we end with a long term down-turn. It does seem like getting rail line from Cincy State north will be a serious pain in the butt.
January 10, 200916 yr Okay I just figured it out: Rebuild the Ludlow Viaduct wider so that light rail tracks can run down a dedicated center median like the Longfellow Bridge in Boston. Tracks would either enter this median on the surface from the Cincinnati State station or from an underpass ramp similar to the converted streetcar ramp on the South Fairmount side of the Western Hills Viaduct. Roughly where the viaduct crosses the Dooley Bypass on the north side of the Mill Creek, the tracks would stay level as the viaduct continues to drop to the famous 6-way intersection. The tracks would veer northeast over Spring Grove at the base of the viaduct and the station would be located here between Knolton's Corner and Blue Rock St. This would place the station within very easy walking distance of the Knowlton's Corner bus transfers. The line would then either stay on the north side of the Mill Creek near Spring Grove or cross back over and parallel I-75 and the B&O mainline. Obviously, getting back over the creek is not too simple since the B&O tracks would have to be bridged, meaning a very high crossing of the creek.
January 10, 200916 yr ^---- That strip of land between the railroad and 1-75 is a hazardous waste landfill.
January 11, 200916 yr If you had signal priority for the LRT I don't know that it would be that much slower than in the tunnels. I think I read that the average running speed in the tunnels would be just over 20 mph. I also cant imagine that the tunnels would be extended though the CBD given the huge cost and disruption. Also the tunnels would have much larger O&M costs involved than would surface running. I personally would rather wait for a train on the surface along Columbia parkway than below grade at Brighton or Liberty especially at night or on the weekends. It just seems a stretch to me for people to embrace or be willing to pay for such a system even though I wish the subway would have made it to operation in the 20's.
January 11, 200916 yr I don't know what if anything this might mean to you Jake, but here are the plans that I have on stock regarding the reconstruction of I-75 through this stretch. The interstate shifts more to the east cutting into the hillside at the base of Mt. Storm Park. This movement west I guess allows for some widening, but I'm also assuming it might free up some land on the western side of the interstate in between it and the B&O rail lines.
January 11, 200916 yr If you had signal priority for the LRT I don't know that it would be that much slower than in the tunnels. I think I read that the average running speed in the tunnels would be just over 20 mph. I also cant imagine that the tunnels would be extended though the CBD given the huge cost and disruption. Yeah, but the trains would run non-stop between stations. So even if it's only 20 mph, it would be faster than above ground where you would have to stop, wait, and start at the occasional redlight, which would happen even with signal priority. It also provides less disruption above ground for the people who do have to drive. I would never argue for Cincinnati to build a subway from scratch, but since the subway tunnels already exist and can be used as an asset for a federal match on funding, I think it makes sense to try to incorporate them. Otherwise, you lose the money spent to fill them in and the federal match for their value. In fact, even if using the tunnels proves to be slightly less efficient, the cost savings could make rail in Cincinnati more realistic than a totally above ground system. If construction was done right, we could also make it seem like these tunnels have been in operation for a long time, which I think would add character to an otherwise brand new system. By the way, I love that old map, Oakiehigh. Seems like you could have some looong rides on a system like that, though. Would the trains have run in both directions, or would a trip from Eastern to Dana just have taken forever?
January 11, 200916 yr The tunnels were originally designed for trains to maintain 45mph with the exception of the 90 degree Plum St. and Walnut St. turns. However, those sharp turns weren't show stoppers because the trains had to slow for the Race St. station anyway. In fact the rapid transit line deflected from Central Parkway where the canal made a squiggle at Marshall Ave. because the rapid transit line was built to be fast. Also, for light rail to operate on Central Parkway's median, they'd probably have to fill in the tunnels to support the weight. >This movement west I guess allows for some widening, but I'm also assuming it might free up some land on the western side of the interstate in between it and the B&O rail lines. Remember I-75 is not just adding a lane and widening the existing emergency shoulders, but full left-side shoulders as well. This means the ROW will be widened by at least 50ft. even before a rail ROW is added. The section north of I-74 will be rebuilt 4x2 + 4 emergency shoulders (approx 150ft. wide) so there might not be room for rail between here and Mitchell Ave. Rail might have to run on the north side of the Mill Creek, since there isn't much happening between the creek and Spring Grove Ave, although such a line couldn't run on the ground because of flooding threats. An alternative would be to run immediately parallel to the B&O tracks, but that's not as easy as it sounds because the FTA does not allow light rail to operate within a certain distance of freight rail since a freight derailment would win in every confrontation with light rail. More essential is reserved ROW between the north tunnel portals and I-74, because having to go back later to tunnel under the Hopple St. rebuild would be a mess, although if the MLK overpass concept comes to fruition, there might be a way to run on the surface. But if they want a station in Camp Washington, it makes a lot more sense to put that station on the west side of I-75, which would mean either bridges or underpasses to cross over and back.
January 12, 200916 yr This discussion really shows what a barrier I-75 is. Highway and transit modes compete not only for riders but for space. One mode, either highway or transit, makes it difficult for the other. What if I-75 wasn't there? The discussion would be completely different. And, prior to 1950 or so, I-75 was NOT there. In fact, I-75 was built over land already graded for the rapid transit! I don't know if the proposed I-75 widening is ever going to happen, but if it does, transit will likely be even more difficult. The 1948 Metropolitan Master Plan suggested that buses use the freeways, but with stops ON the freeways! (without exiting.) Can you imagine? A simple pull-off lane, with pedestrian connections to the surrounding streets was the idea.
January 12, 200916 yr ^Would that be bad? Many cities such as LA and Chicago already use such a system, and I guess it works well enough for them.
January 19, 200916 yr If you want proof of just how fast travel would be in these tunnels or another hypothetical tunnel route, next time you're out after midnight and the yellow lights are blinking risk a speeding ticket and step on it. There's a big difference between traveling at 25-30mph on city streets in day traffic with countless stop lights and gunning it down Central Parkway at 45-50mph in the middle of the night. In fact if they ever had some higher ups to convince, they could demonstrate the potential of the tunnel by having the police block off the streets and let the movers and shakers ride at 45-50mph in the middle of the day with simulated station stops.
January 20, 200916 yr I believe the presentation said that the average running speed in the tunnels for the LRT would be 22 mph. Another consideration was that they would have to put safety walkways in the tunnels that would restrict geometry and running speed. I don't think you could run LRT at 45-50 mph in the tunnels.
January 20, 200916 yr I believe the presentation said that the average running speed in the tunnels for the LRT would be 22 mph. Another consideration was that they would have to put safety walkways in the tunnels that would restrict geometry and running speed. I don't think you could run LRT at 45-50 mph in the tunnels. Did they mean "average" or "typical?" If it's average, then by the time you factor in station stops, the peaks could well be in the range of 45-50mph. I don't know what the actual was in San Francisco where they ran the PCC cars (pre-Boeing era) through the Twin Peaks Tunnel, but it was damn fast.
January 20, 200916 yr BART trains travel at 70mph through the transbay tunnel. There are many examples of light rail and heavy rail traveling over 50mph in city tunnels. New York's many express lines travel at 45mph+ for several mile stretches hundreds of times every day. Cincinnati's tunnels absolutely were built for running speeds of 45mph and it was perhaps the first subway built with superelevated (banked) curves, just for this purpose. Also the many vents in the tunnel ceilings were built partly to allow air pushed by fast trains to escape. All of the vents in the parkway median south of about Findlay St. have been removed, but the removal of those vents certainly does not prevent trains from running fast. I don't recommend it either unless you really want a speeding ticket, but just for a few blocks speed up to 45-50mph on Walnut or Main once and you'll understand the motivation for extending the tunnel to Fountain Square as opposed to street running. Also I don't know what you're talking about with "safety walkways". There will be no electrified third rail and there are already countless safety coves. The safety coves are spaced about every 10 feet both in the center wall.
February 2, 200916 yr In case anyone is interested, there will be Subway Tours at the upcoming Bockfest. You can find the details here: http://otrfoundation.org/Subway_Tours.php
August 14, 200915 yr It's a shame Cincinnati can't get it's act together and build something like this through the middle of the highways. Perth Australia. A million less people than metro Cincinnati. Goran™ http://www.flickr.com/photos/22766589@N08/
August 14, 200915 yr Cool pics. As I've noted elsewhere, the population of the Washington DC area was around the 2 million mark at the time the Washington Metro master plan was adopted, roughly the same as the Greater Cincinnati area population today. A few European cities have healthy metro systems despite being significantly smaller than Cincinnati. There's a couple spots on the Washington Metro, Chicago's 'L', and Portland's MAX where trains run either alongside or down the median of expressways. It has the advantage of already being grade-separated and designed for high speeds, and any added width to the highway for ROW construction is generally minimal. Worst-case scenario, it would be no different than adding another lane in each direction to the road. (If the highway already has a wide median, or if it's decided to eliminate one lane on each side in favor of rail transit, then so much the better.) The disadvantage is that transit stations in highway medians tend to be isolated from the rest of the surrounding neighborhood, as customers have to walk across at least half the highway on an overpass or underpass to reach the station. Most of Chicago's 'L' stations in highway medians aren't particularly inviting for pedestrians. However, I think those shortcomings can be mitigated with proper design, and with transit-oriented-development occurring at the station. In the Cincinnati area, running transit lines in highway medians would be most effective in the suburbs where people would be more likely to drive to the station and use Park & Ride facilities. Within urban areas, transit works best when it's as close to neighborhood business districts as possible, either in the form of street-running light rail or underground subway lines.
August 14, 200915 yr Where cheaper median-running rail could work is if there were direct high-speed tunnel connections into the uptown area. This would give these lines a big time advantage over cars bound for that same area of town. The I-74 light rail would probably be the worst-performing line in the region if it simply ran downtown. But if it tunnels from about Montana Ave. to stations under northside, Cinti State, and UC, then it becomes a very viable alternative to driving to those same places.
August 14, 200915 yr ^ Word. I looked up some info about the TransPerth regional rail system shown in the two photos above, and it looks like a pretty sweet system that does pretty much as you describe: Runs in expressway medians in low-density suburban areas, and then dives into subway tunnels as it approaches the high-density urban core. The fact that it uses overhead catenary means it wouldn't necessarily need to be fully grade separated. (The trains look too big for street running, but you could still have grade crossings in lower-density areas.) If the rolling stock were made to be FRA-compliant, it could run on mainline tracks with freight traffic. In many ways, it combines the speed and capacity of a heavy-rail system with the upfront cost savings of a light rail or commuter rail system. On top of all that, those trains look pretty cool. Here's a YouTube video of TransPerth in action, possibly along the same stretch of highway as shown above:
August 14, 200915 yr After the Streetcar, I think Cincinnati should focus on building light rail within the city itself. Instead of making it a Hamilton County issue, keep it within the city and I bet it would pass. Then let Hamilton County and surrounding counties vote later on whether they want to extend the system. (This is similar to how the 2002 proposal worked... If Hamilton County passed the issue, only the portions within HamCo would have been built, and surrounding counties would have had to vote separately to extend it into their neighborhoods.) Is there any reason this couldn't work? The only issue I can think of is that the cost of rolling stock would be divided by only the city instead of the whole county.
August 15, 200915 yr That would be one option, and I'm sure Newport and Covington would be eager to play ball, too. In the long term, I think there needs to be a true regional transportation authority modeled after a multi-state port authority such as the Port Authority of NY & NJ. In addition to transit service (including buses, streetcars, light rail, etc.), this agency would also be responsible for CVG and Lunken airports, Union Terminal, and the bridges between Ohio and Kentucky. Highway tolls, airport user fees, rents from airport retail and concessions, and profits from real estate developments at transit nodes would fund regional transit. The agency would be free of petty local politics (COAST, Smitherman, et al), long-term transportation planning would take place with the good of the entire region in mind, and if it's set up properly, its operational budget would be entirely self-sustaining. For example, the Port Authority of NY & NJ manages three major airports, several major bridges and tunnels, and a rapid transit system without receiving a dime of local or state funding. The creation of such an authority would most likely require legislative action in both Frankfort and Columbus (and maybe Indianapolis if southeast Indiana wants to join the party), but I think it's an idea worth considering.
August 15, 200915 yr It would be nice for a regional system to extend up through Warren & Bulter up into Dayton. Then you'd have something like the German "regionalvehrkersverbund', serving a multinucleated urban region.
August 15, 200915 yr France has a similar signage setup, including the "stackable" guide signs that we use, although their background is white with black text. Their "exit" is a "sortie" with a KM reference number, with FHWA-Series E-Modified font. I really like that Ohio is finally switching over to Clearview, like Kentucky and Pennsylvania.
August 15, 200915 yr Carbody-wise, the Transperth trains remind me a lot of the O-Train in Ottawa (which is also deployed on lighter-density railroad lines throughout Germany). The O-train is diesel powered so its start-up costs are less than the Transperth train, but Transperth has a higher passenger capacity. If you haven't ridden the O-Train, I recommend it. You'll want one, too.... "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
August 19, 200915 yr I've mentioned this in passing a couple times, and I've had the link to the project in my sig line for a while now, but now that I actually have some content to share, I thought I'd start a new thread to announce updates, solicit feedback, and foster discussion about my ongoing undergraduate thesis project. In a nutshell, I'm developing a master plan for a heavy-rail mass transit system for the Greater Cincinnati and Northern Kentucky region. Although most of what's currently posted on the project website regards large-scale transportation planning issues, that's merely a foundation for what will become the main focus of the project: the architectural design of the system's infrastructure, particularly the stations and transit hubs. The project is primarily an architectural design project, although issues regarding urban planning and design will play a necessary role and inform the architecture. The project will consist of four main components: 1) A project narrative, including a brief background of transit in general, Cincinnati's transportation issues in particular, and the role good design plays in successful transit systems. This will include a number of case studies of existing systems, particularly the Washington Metro system and the Portland Streetcar. 2) Routes and station locations. This is the part where I've been spending most of my efforts so far. The chosen routes are loosely based upon the 2002 Metro Moves proposal and the OKI Regional Plan, but with some additions and modifications. The proposed system is a two-tiered regional rail system, consisting of heavy-rail lines for fast service between the city and suburbs, and streetcars to serve as neighborhood circulators and feeders for heavy-rail lines. The project takes into account current plans for the streetcar and high-speed intercity rail service, and builds upon those ideas. 3) Station typologies. The role of the station in the neighborhood, passenger and vehicle circulation patterns, and prototypical designs for various station types (elevated, subway, expressway median, etc.). 4) Fountain Square Transit Center. This is the system's primary transit hub, where the proposed Vine Street subway crosses the Fifth Street subway, forming a major transfer point and the main transit gateway to downtown Cincinnati. This project proposes eliminating the below-grade Fountain Square parking garage in favor of a large transit station, while keeping the above-ground portions of Fountain Square largely intact. A couple things to keep in mind: This is an academic design project, and is not an actual proposal by any transit agency or government entity. The idea is to provide a vision of what's possible, not necessarily what's most affordable or what's easiest to build. The website, as it stands now, is still a work in progress. New sections are being added on a regular basis, and existing sections will continue to be revised. The project will be submitted to my academic committee for evaluation in the spring of 2010, but my hope is that it continues to grow beyond that point and take on a life of its own. Today's article in The Urbanophile invokes Burnham's Plan of Chicago and outlines the need for a vision for mass transit, rather than just facts and figures. This project is an effort to provide a vision for Cincinnati. The project website also includes a blog where I announce project updates, and offer my commentary on Cincinnati's current transit issues. (The blog is a less formal portion of the site, and isn't to be considered part of the formal academic thesis that will be submitted.) Your comments, questions, and feedback are appreciated... Have at it. (Note: There are some discrepancies between the line-by-line route descriptions and the current maps; I'm in the process of updating the maps accordingly. I'm also working on a Google Earth version of the map.)
August 19, 200915 yr To get something like that built we need more help from the government. Im guessing that lines above would cost 7 billion at todays cost. 14 billion at 2030 cost. Hell the big dig got 14 billion from the federal government for their project so i guess anything is possible.
August 19, 200915 yr As I mentioned above, this is an academic design project, not an official feasibility study. Cost is no object. That said, my guesstimate is about $10B, based on roughly 100 route miles at $100M per mile. So let's pretend Cincinnati sells the Cincinnati Southern Railroad for a billion dollars, and uses that as a 10% match toward federal funding (the same ratio used to build the interstate highways). The city now has $10B burning a hole in its wallet. Now what?
August 19, 200915 yr I'm looking forward to see the google maps version. 3 bridges over the Ohio? Yep, you are bold. :wink: My initial reaction is that the red, orange, and yellow lines are going to be the most popular by far, and they all meet at Fountain Square. That's going to be one busy station, in an area that doesn't have a lot of room. I wonder about so many lines to the West Side. It seems that the East Side, being more populated, should have a higher concentration of lines. Thanks for sharing.
August 19, 200915 yr The Cincy side looks good. In NKY, I'd attempt to capture more of the Dixie Highway Corridor and probably consider trains out to Independence in Kenton Cty. Even in a perfect world, to get NKY buy-in you've gotta serve Latonia and the KY17, 3L corridor as the best way to get to Independence. TANK has one of its big headquarters and Bus Depots on 17 near Sanfordtown. I'd get it out to Mt.Zion Road off 75 beyond Florence.
August 19, 200915 yr Why dont you extend the Kings Mills line to Lebanon (i especially think this would make sense) and the West Chester line to Mason? It seems your cutting the system short on the northern reaches. By doing that you could set up an opportunity for TOD/neo trad infill in older town centers..even incorporate mixed use into the station design.
August 20, 200915 yr Looking at the locations on the red line in Fairfield near where I grew up, I think you picked good locations. Nilles Rd is a full, stable intersection but the justice center is located just to the southeast of the intersection and may serve as a good station junction. Another idea for some TOD would be to move the station north about 1/4 mi to Patterson where there is a large mostly vacant strip mall that the city is interested in redeveloping. Kemper Rd is heavily traveled but at least 1/4 of the intersection is empty and another 1/4 could easily be obtained.
August 20, 200915 yr 3 bridges over the Ohio? Yep, you are bold. Two bridges and a tunnel. One of those bridges (the L&N Bridge) already exists and can carry rail, and the other (the Brent Spence) will be augmented with a new parallel span in coming years. I'm proceeding under the idea that the new Brent Spence span would be built to carry a transit line. The only river crossing that's completely new is the tunnel that carries the Orange and Gold Lines, which would align with Vine Street and be located a half-block downstream of the Roebling Bridge. My initial reaction is that the red, orange, and yellow lines are going to be the most popular by far, and they all meet at Fountain Square. That's going to be one busy station, in an area that doesn't have a lot of room. Once the parking garage goes away, you've got a 50-foot hole in the ground that measures roughly 240x240 feet, which would be in addition to the platform areas located directly under the adjacent streets... That's a fairly vast concourse space, and much bigger than anything that exists at Times Square or Union Square in NYC. The Vine Street subway tracks and platform would be one level below the main floor of this space, and the Fifth Street subway would be one level above. The main floor would then serve as a huge mezzanine and fare control area, connecting to the two subway lines and to the surface above. Plans are still in flux, but I see the access to the street level happening via two glassy entrance pavilions located on edge of the square itself, one on the west side facing Vine Street (where the existing parking garage ramps and Via Vite are now) and another on the south edge facing Fifth Street, roughly in front of Graeter's. Regarding extending the lines to far northern suburbs, the length of the lines (30-40 miles) is already pushing the upper limits of what's feasible for a rapid transit system. Beyond that, commuter rail operating on mainline tracks would be the more appropriate option, and that could go as far as Dayton or be included as part of the proposed 3C regional rail service. For the purposes of this project, I'm concentrating on the area that's roughly within the I-275 beltway. For Northern Kentucky, I was thinking a surface-running streetcar on Dixie Highway would be good for local traffic and help spur higher-density infill development along that corridor, while the rapid transit line in the median of I-75 would primarily serve commuters heading between CVG airport and downtown Cincy and Covington. The Dixie Highway streetcar would also serve as a feeder to the rapid transit line, which would help negate the need for vast Park & Ride facilities. Highway 17 to Independence might also be worth considering for streetcar/light rail service, but in looking at the satellite photos on Google Earth, it doesn't seem to have the density to justify a full-on heavy rail metro. Although I'm not looking at bus service as part of my plan, I think a strong case could be made for a "Circle Line" of express buses or BRT service that runs on the I-275 beltway and connects some of the intermediate areas to the nearest rapid transit line, in addition to allowing easy access from one transit line to another without having to go all the way downtown for a transfer.
Create an account or sign in to comment