I've heard 2012. This is to coincide with the federal funding cycle.

 

I have also heard that as well.

 

If you look at the original 2002 light rail plan, the first line that would have been constructed was a streetcar running from Uptown to Downtown, with light rail being built after the streetcar line was completed.

I've heard 2012. This is to coincide with the federal funding cycle.

 

I have also heard that as well.

 

If you look at the original 2002 light rail plan, the first line that would have been constructed was a streetcar running from Uptown to Downtown, with light rail being built after the streetcar line was completed.

 

Eh? I thought the first piece was the minimum operable segment from downtown to blue ash?

In 2012 the stadium bonds might be over half paid off (actually the principal could still be well over 50%), but that 1/2 cent tax is scheduled to continue until 2026.  Even if sales tax receipts go through the roof, a scenario where the stadium can be paid off earlier than about 2024 seems unlikely.  This doesn't help when selling a sales tax to the population. 

 

There was a lot of skepticism that the 1/2 cent tax was enough for a complete build-out of the Metro Moves plan, and I concur with that.  As the first lines become active, annual operating costs cut into the agency's ability to pay off bonds and issue new ones. So if the tax is gathering an average of $60 million per year and annual operating costs are $20 million, only enough debt can be accrued that can be paid off without risking a dip into the general fund, so probably something like $35 million per year in bond payments.  How much debt that permits is entirely dependent on conditions at the time the bonds are issued.

 

This is why transit agencies (sometimes) can't be blames when capital projects don't happen, since often there is a perfectly logical reason to not build a 7 mile line instead of 9. Seattle ran into this problem big-time with their light rail line because of all the engineering hurdles -- unknowns way beyond what we have here.  Specifically it was a bad idea to built the line short of University of Washington due to super-high tunneling cost but poor ridership, so they had to wait for a special federal grant before they could proceed with the project to U of W. 

 

I good analogy would be if Cincinnati and Dayton agreed to connect themselves with a high speed rail line, but some condition changed and we only had enough money to build it between downtown Cincinnati and Middletown.  Putting that into operation would lose a ton of money and the line would need to be maintained while waiting around for a new funding source.  The cost of steel and concrete, the strength of the dollar, and the cost of muni bonds all factor into the ability of transit agencies to get stuff built.  This is why you want *huge* contingencies in any budget. 

I've heard 2012.  This is to coincide with the federal funding cycle. 

 

I have also heard that as well.

 

If you look at the original 2002 light rail plan, the first line that would have been constructed was a streetcar running from Uptown to Downtown, with light rail being built after the streetcar line was completed.

 

Eh? I thought the first piece was the minimum operable segment from downtown to blue ash?

 

Nope. Project Phasing in order

 

*Bus Expansion

*Streetcar (Uptown/Downtown; Southbank Loop)

*I-71 Light Rail

*I-75 Light Rail

*Westside Light Rail

*Eastside Light Rail

*I-471 Light Rail

*Crosstown Light Rail

 

Just out of curiosity, how hard would it be to conduct deep-bore tunneling in the Cincinnati area compared to say, Seattle, in geological terms? Seattle, of course, is an active seismic zone with bedrock consisting of (IIRC) very hard granite and/or volcanic basalt.

 

Cincinnati has relatively porous and crumbly limestone and shale, which seems like it would be easier for a tunnel boring machine to eat through, but may also be less stable without proper reinforcing of the underground structures.

 

Inquiring minds want to know...

 

Regarding a new light rail measure, I hope Cincinnati learns from what went wrong with Metro Moves and adapts accordingly. It would be a disaster to trot out the same plan, use the same tactics, and get the same election results. It helps that the overall political climate is much different now than it was in 2002 and that gas is much more expensive (what the climate is like in 2012 remains to be seen), and hopefully the streetcar will be a proven success by then. Having the full backing of the mayor, council, state, and congressional delegation will also be crucial. But we can't afford to be caught off-guard when COAST fights the light rail plan with everything they've got. You know the same cast of characters will be as dishonest then as they were in 2002 and in 2009.

 

In your opinions, what should be done differently in 2012, compared to what was done in 2002 and in 2009? What, if anything, should be different about the light rail plan itself, and what should be different about the process of selling that plan to the public?

My guess is that deep-bore is somewhat easier in Cincinnati for the reasons you mention.  Also, the area is geologically consistent throughout.  They definitely were not anticipating any big problems with the Mt. Auburn Tunnel.

 

The vote would be straight-up and yes would mean yes because the county commissioners would put it on the ballot.  The Bengals and Reds winning along with success with the Banks and riverfront park are essential. 

Just out of curiosity, how hard would it be to conduct deep-bore tunneling in the Cincinnati area compared to say, Seattle, in geological terms? Seattle, of course, is an active seismic zone with bedrock consisting of (IIRC) very hard granite and/or volcanic basalt.

 

Cincinnati has relatively porous and crumbly limestone and shale, which seems like it would be easier for a tunnel boring machine to eat through, but may also be less stable without proper reinforcing of the underground structures.

 

Inquiring minds want to know...

 

Regarding a new light rail measure, I hope Cincinnati learns from what went wrong with Metro Moves and adapts accordingly. It would be a disaster to trot out the same plan, use the same tactics, and get the same election results. It helps that the overall political climate is much different now than it was in 2002 and that gas is much more expensive (what the climate is like in 2012 remains to be seen), and hopefully the streetcar will be a proven success by then. Having the full backing of the mayor, council, state, and congressional delegation will also be crucial. But we can't afford to be caught off-guard when COAST fights the light rail plan with everything they've got. You know the same cast of characters will be as dishonest then as they were in 2002 and in 2009.

 

In your opinions, what should be done differently in 2012, compared to what was done in 2002 and in 2009? What, if anything, should be different about the light rail plan itself, and what should be different about the process of selling that plan to the public?

I would show how were the 2nd largest metro without any form of passenger rail...Then list all the cities around our size or smaller that have rail.  Maybe list the economic impacts.

 

In another commercial I would show an average cost of maintaining an automobile combined with past to projected gas prices. 

 

At the end of both commercials, show modern light rail in various cities.  Show families and all sorts of people from all backgrounds boarding.  Show the interior, how quiet it is, smooth, etc. 

 

People just need to start being introduced to what it really is, not what they perceive it to be.  The majority of arguments I hear against rail can all be dismissed easily:

1) It's not profitable

1a) If it is profitable a private company will invest in it

2) It's ancient technology and outdated

3) Its subsidized and a never ending money pit

4) It will never work here.  We are too small and besides we have highways

 

Just gotta keep spreading the word. 

 

On a side note, I really like the high speed rail they are going to construct in California...I wish that's what they were proposing for Ohio.  Sacramento to LA in 3.5 hours!  Unbelievable. 

 

On a side note, I really like the high speed rail they are going to construct in California...I wish that's what they were proposing for Ohio. Sacramento to LA in 3.5 hours! Unbelievable.

 

All past attempts since the 1970s to build that high-speed system failed. But others decided to incrementally ramp up existing Amtrak services from almost nothing to where there are now a dozen daily San Joaquin valley trains, two dozen Santa Barbara-LA-San Diego trains, and three dozen San Jose-Sacramento trains. They built up ridership, station-area developments, local/regional transit circulation systems and therefore a support system and a political constituency for the scale of investment for high-speed networks we all want.

 

To go from 0 to 220 mph is like going from kindergarten to graduate school in one step. It's why every high-speed rail system built in the world has had a conventional-speed precedent.

 

To bring this discussion back to its topic, a light-rail system can be part of that support network for a high-speed rail line.

The vote would be straight-up and yes would mean yes because the county commissioners would put it on the ballot.  The Bengals and Reds winning along with success with the Banks and riverfront park are essential.

 

Agreed. The city needs to have a few successes under its belt so that Finney, et al can't scream "boondoggle!" as easily. I certainly haven't heard any New Yorkers complaining about the cost of the new Yankee Stadium this morning. (Well, maybe some Mets fans, but they've got their own expensive new ballpark to play around in...)

To go from 0 to 220 mph is like going from kindergarten to graduate school in one step. It's why every high-speed rail system built in the world has had a conventional-speed precedent.

 

To bring this discussion back to its topic, a light-rail system can be part of that support network for a high-speed rail line.

 

True. I'd much rather see 220 MPH high-speed rail than conventional 79 MPH, and I'd much rather see a fully grade-separated heavy rail metro system than surface-running light rail. But conventional passenger rail and light rail are positive steps in the right direction. In the future, if ridership warrants (and I'm confident it eventually will), conventional intercity rail can be upgraded to high-speed rail, and light rail can be upgraded to heavy rail. I just hope that the rail systems being proposed today are built in a manner so that future upgrades can be achieved with a minimum of headaches.

Light Rail ROW is being preserved parallel to I-75 as part of the reconstruction. This is a big difference between 2012 and 2002. I know it will be there north of the Norwood Lateral, but I don't know about between that point and the subway. 

 

It makes an awful lot of sense to have a high speed park & ride commuter light rail line parallel I-75 in the suburbs and use the subway. There are no good stops between Northside and Norwood, and the trains could have 2-3 mile gaps between stations north of Norwood.     

 

The big ? is and always will be a Northside station, which is an engineering nightmare. It's easiest to just skip it, which is what they did with the original subway project. 

I'd put 2 plans on the ballot instead of 1 this time.  Have Plan 1 which handles funding for light rail within the city of Cincinnati itself and Plan 1A which includes light rail service to other parts of the county.  1A could include suburbs near 275 and stops in Norwood.  Plan 1 gets voted on by Cincinnati residents, and Plan 1A gets voted on by Hamilton county residents (contingent, obviously, on the passing of Plan 1).  That way the city's fate isn't tied to the suburbs like it was back in 2002.  If Plan 1A fails, then the city can proceed with Plan 1 and people living in Mason, West Chester, etc can keep driving to downtown.  Oh, and if KY wants extensions, they should fund a Plan 2 themselves.

^^ That's good to hear. It's also being preserved on the Kentucky side of the Brent Spence, correct? Any idea if the new bridge will be built with a provision to carry light rail?

 

Northside is a tough one. My thesis project proposes a tunnel from the existing subway under Mill Creek, a subway station under Harrison Avenue in the Northside business district, and the line continuing north to Harrison. The I-75 corridor north of St. Bernard would be served by another line coming from Vine Street. But then, those are the advantages to designing a hypothetical project with no budget constraints and no NIMBY or COAST opposition.

To go from 0 to 220 mph is like going from kindergarten to graduate school in one step. It's why every high-speed rail system built in the world has had a conventional-speed precedent.

 

To be fair, lots of high-speed networks were preceded by lower speeds because the technology wasn't there yet.

A few thoughts.

 

* Issue 9 failing shows that Cincinnatians support some type of rail, although maybe not the streetcar.  Bring together the people who support high speed rail, light rail, and Streetcars, and unite them by focusing on a comprehensive regional system.

* Once the economy picks up, gas prices will go back up.  Who knows, gas could be $4.50/gallon by 2012.  Focus on the cost of auto transportation compared to the cost of rail.  The Brent Spence Bridge should be in the news, if not under construction, at that point.  Point out the multi-billion dollar boondoggle and the number of people who use it just to get from NKY to Cincy and back.

* Point out other cities, especially the ones SMALLER or less dense than us, that have successful light rail.

* Do everything in our power to have the Streetcar up and running by then.  Some people won't believe the results until they see them.

* Include the public from the very beginning with well-advertised public meetings.  Include the west side in the plan and get them to support it.

* Keep Cincinnatians for Progress, The Phony Coney, and CAAST up and running to shoot down all of the nonsense that COAST puts out there.

* Light rail?  Heavy rail subway!

Here's what I would do.  Run a Streetcar (green lines) from Northside, past Cincninati State up to Ludlow (Clifton Ave is much wider than needed for this section, so you could have a deticated ROW).  Then continue to link up with the initial streetcar line, then use those tracks to get down to the Walnut Hills spur. This not only provides access to Uptown from the I-71 and I-75 lines (and likely the Eastside and Westside Lines as well) without tunneling, you effectively create a crosstown route.

 

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=116909587482079229860.000461ba7bebeb9de19da&ll=39.136851,-84.516792&spn=0.056854,0.110378&z=13

A few thoughts.

 

* Issue 9 failing shows that Cincinnatians support some type of rail, although maybe not the streetcar.  Bring together the people who support high speed rail, light rail, and Streetcars, and unite them by focusing on a comprehensive regional system.

* Once the economy picks up, gas prices will go back up.  Who knows, gas could be $4.50/gallon by 2012.  Focus on the cost of auto transportation compared to the cost of rail.  The Brent Spence Bridge should be in the news, if not under construction, at that point. Point out the multi-billion dollar boondoggle and the number of people who use it just to get from NKY to Cincy and back.

 

And once the bridge and I-75 are ripped apart with construction work, traffic delays through that whole corridor will be a hundred times worse than they are now. That will help our cause.

 

* Do everything in our power to have the Streetcar up and running by then.  Some people won't believe the results until they see them.

* Include the public from the very beginning with well-advertised public meetings.  Include the west side in the plan and get them to support it.

 

Agreed, especially about the streetcar. If the streetcar fails, forget about light rail for another 20 years.

 

* Keep Cincinnatians for Progress, The Phony Coney, and CAAST up and running to shoot down all of the nonsense that COAST puts out there.

 

Absolutely agreed. Now isn't the time for them to fold up their tents, or to rest on their laurels. I have no doubt that Issue 9 would've passed without their efforts. The blogosphere and netroots activism may well be the biggest advantage we have now that we didn't have in 2002.

 

* Light rail?  Heavy rail subway!

 

Yeah, baby! [/Austin Powers voice]

 

Here's what I would do.  Run a Streetcar (green lines) from Northside, past Cincninati State up to Ludlow (Clifton Ave is much wider than needed for this section, so you could have a deticated ROW).  Then continue to link up with the initial streetcar line, then use those tracks to get down to the Walnut Hills spur. This not only provides access to Uptown from the I-71 and I-75 lines (and likely the Eastside and Westside Lines as well) without tunneling, you effectively create a crosstown route.

 

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=116909587482079229860.000461ba7bebeb9de19da&ll=39.136851,-84.516792&spn=0.056854,0.110378&z=13

Phase 3 of the Streetcar could be a casino-to-Union Terminal route using Central Parkway & Ezzard Charles.  Phase 3B could extend this route north on Central Parkway, and over the Ludlow Viaduct to Northside.

Honestly i think it should be a Multi-county vote. I think Hamilton county is being short changed, because the outer ring counties uses it's services. Eg sewer, hospitals, coroner, etc. AND 90% of the congestion. If the three  counties were combined. It would be the size of King county in Washington state. And the taxes would be less to pay for it.

Honestly i think it should be a Multi-county vote. I think Hamilton county is being short changed, because the outer ring counties uses it's services. Eg sewer, hospitals, coroner, etc. AND 90% of the congestion. IF the three were counties combined. It would be the size of King county in Washington state. And the taxes would be less to pay for it.

 

Agreed, and this gets back to my idea for a regional transit authority that includes Northern Kentucky. Something like this will be needed if light rail is to serve NKY and the airport. Precedents to consider would be the Port Authority of NY and NJ, and/or the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, both of which provide transit service that serves multiple states and counties. The Port Authority was created in the 1920's by legislative action in New York and New Jersey, while the WMATA was created in 1967 via referendum in the proposed service area.

 

About Metro:

The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (Metro) was created by an interstate compact in 1967 to plan, develop, build, finance, and operate a balanced regional transportation system in the national capital area. The Authority began building its rail system in 1969, acquired four regional bus systems in 1973, and began operating the first phase of Metrorail in 1976. Today, Metrorail serves 86 stations and has 106 miles of track. Metrobus serves the nation's capital 24 hours a day, seven days a week with 1,500 buses. Metrorail and Metrobus serve a population of 3.4 million within a 1,500-square mile jurisdiction.

 

To be fair, lots of high-speed networks were preceded by lower speeds because the technology wasn't there yet.

 

The U.S. and Europe were running 100+ mph trains more than 80 years ago. While Europe continued to evolve its passenger rail system, we de-evolved ours.

 

Would you, as a politician or businessperson, invest $10 billion to $100 billion for a single rail line when the public's last action involving passenger rail was to abandon it for other modes? That's why a conventional-speed precedent is needed -- to show that people will use it at the level asked of them, even with just a few daily trains traveling at 79 mph. It's happened in 26 other states, so far.

 

This can be done with intercity rail because freight rail corridors exist and passenger trains are sturdy enough to safely mix with freights. It cannot be easily done with light-rail because the technologies and vehicle/weight ratios are incompatible. So with light rail everything has to be built from scratch.

 

How's that for a futile attempt at bringing this back on topic??

Light Rail ROW is being preserved parallel to I-75 as part of the reconstruction. This is a big difference between 2012 and 2002. I know it will be there north of the Norwood Lateral, but I don't know about between that point and the subway. 

 

It makes an awful lot of sense to have a high speed park & ride commuter light rail line parallel I-75 in the suburbs and use the subway. There are no good stops between Northside and Norwood, and the trains could have 2-3 mile gaps between stations north of Norwood.      

 

The big ? is and always will be a Northside station, which is an engineering nightmare. It's easiest to just skip it, which is what they did with the original subway project. 

 

From plans I've seen, ROW is preserved in every future highway construction project.  I've heard from city officials that there consultants have essentially stated that the only way to relieve congestion on I-71 is to add a parrallel light rail. Thus, whatever they do on I-71 will also preserve ROW. 

 

Sadly, the new interchange at McMillan/Taft and MLK will destroy the Oak St. tunnel and instead preserve an at grade ROW parallel to I-71.  I have some PDF's of the plans for 71 and 75 through uptown, that show the ROW's. I'll see if I can find them and post them here, if anyone's interested.

 

I can't seem to locate the I-71 plans, but here's the draft I-75/I-74/Hopple St. plan showing the ROW and Northside station: http://zfein.com/pics/OPT-B LRT at 75 hopple.pdf

I have some PDF's of the plans for 71 and 75 through uptown, that show the ROW's. I'll see if I can find them and post them here, if anyone's interested.

 

Please do. They would also be very helpful for my own thesis project, as long as you include the author's information so I can properly cite the source.

Could you do high level light rail like they are building some of the highways these days - the Powhite in Virginia for instance? For instance, could you run a light line through the Mill Creek Valley along 75 at the height of the top deck of the Western Hills Viaduct?

^ The snippet of plan above calls for a minor extension of the subway, and then an elevated portion through Northside.  Elevated is very expensive in comparison to at grade, though.

That's almost a mile extension of the subway, so not a minor project, and one that would exhaust the federal match.     

 

Every station location in this diagram is terrible.  People wonder why rail underperforms in the US and then we see garbage like this designed by highway guys. The Forum Apartments get their own subway station; a Cincinnati State station is at the base of a hill making it useless for old people and the handicapped; the "Northside" station is over by Spring Grove Cemetery, and the I-74 station is on one side of the berm, creating a bad Cleveland Rapid-type station.   

 

People wonder why the Portland Streetcar is so successful and the Cleveland Rapid has no TOD's, and it has everything to do with station locations, not speed.  What we're looking at here is clearly designed for suburban trains, in which case it would be better to build just one real subway station under Knowlton's Corner and skip the rest of these stations. 

Pittsburgh has a light rail transit system called the T.  From what I recall it's not used very heavily either.  Maybe you can use that system a reference to avoid any pitfalls.

Here's an interior rendering of a typical subway train... I'm basically using this as a guinea pig to teach myself some 3D rendering skills in AutoCAD... I've finally got the light levels about where I want them (or at least close enough to then fudge them in Photoshop), but a couple of the materials still aren't showing up. The seat backs are supposed to be the same stainless steel as the stanchions (although with less of a polish), and the floor is supposed to be a charcoal-gray rubber material with raised squares. I'm told it may have to do with RAM issues on my work computer... There's a dedicated rendering computer upstairs with much more RAM and processing power, so I'll have to try rendering the scene again on that machine.

 

In other news, I've got the Corryville subway station completely modeled in 3D; I just need to add materials and lights. I've also begun modeling the Highland Heights elevated station.

 

Stay tuned...

Light Rail ROW is being preserved parallel to I-75 as part of the reconstruction. This is a big difference between 2012 and 2002. I know it will be there north of the Norwood Lateral, but I don't know about between that point and the subway.

 

It makes an awful lot of sense to have a high speed park & ride commuter light rail line parallel I-75 in the suburbs and use the subway. There are no good stops between Northside and Norwood, and the trains could have 2-3 mile gaps between stations north of Norwood.

 

The big ? is and always will be a Northside station, which is an engineering nightmare. It's easiest to just skip it, which is what they did with the original subway project.

 

From plans I've seen, ROW is preserved in every future highway construction project. I've heard from city officials that there consultants have essentially stated that the only way to relieve congestion on I-71 is to add a parrallel light rail. Thus, whatever they do on I-71 will also preserve ROW.

 

Sadly, the new interchange at McMillan/Taft and MLK will destroy the Oak St. tunnel and instead preserve an at grade ROW parallel to I-71. I have some PDF's of the plans for 71 and 75 through uptown, that show the ROW's. I'll see if I can find them and post them here, if anyone's interested.

 

They should get rid of the interchange at McMillan/Taft when they open up the one at MLK.  Then they could make both McMillan and Taft two way, and run the streetcar east-west on one (Taft would probably be better because it doesn't have a bridge over Reading Road) to connect Clifton Heights and De Sales Corner.

 

There's actually a decent route through Northside- whatever the name of the old rail line that goes through Spring Grove and follows the street called Vandalia near the intersection of Blue Rock and Hamilton where all those storage units are.  It is uninterrupted (or nearly so) from what I can tell all the way to the Transit Center on the Riverfront, and if connected well, could actually hit every four of six neighborhoods designated as areas of opportunity by the GO Cincinnati Plan.  In addition, you could probably add spurs out to the suburbs that follow the Vine Street, Reading Road and Montgomery Road corridors relatively easily, and then bring those folks in from the burbs and back out around the loop.

 

I don't know why you would want to bring grade separated rail into a City next to a highway.  No one lives there and there are no public spaces there.

^ I think the rail itself is to bring commuters in, and then they would transfer to buses or streetcars at local stations.

 

As for the McMillan/Taft & MLK interchange, there are six schemes being debated by the city.  One calls for closing the McMillan/Taft interchange in favor of the MLK interchange, one calls for a new McMillan/Taft and no MLK, and the other four call for various combinations, two of which include collector ramps and a joint interchange for uptown.  The later two schemes seem to be preferred at this point.

In a scenario where the Taft/Mcmillan ramps disappear, the only big employer that will feel some pain will be Christ Hospital.  Bethesda (now a Children's office building) is literally in-between Taft/McMillan and MLK so it will be equally convenient.

 

I think McMillan would be the preferred street for streetcar over Taft, but more likely the two directions would run split between the two then rejoin on Woodburn. 

 

I think the issues with the Northside rail line are that it ran through Spring Grove Cemetery, the ROW is cut off by I-74's fill, and it crosses many Northside streets at grade and at odd angles.  According to my grandfather the trains used to high ball through Northside and people were struck and killed a few times per year. I do think that that ROW could be useful if a line were built under Spring Grove Cemetery and under Northside proper with a station at Hamilton, then a fast run to the Transit Center with a stop at 8th St. in Lower Price Hill and Queensgate.  It's a mess getting a line through Northside, but that line is decently useful and easy to build from that point south.     

 

    That old rail line through Northside is the former Baltimore and Ohio, and before that it was the Cincinnati, Hamilton, and Dayton, the 2nd railroad in Cincinnati.

 

    When the B&O and C&O joined to become CSX, the new railroad found itself with two parallel lines and closed one of them. The section through Northside has been gone for a long time.

 

    The section through Spring Grove Cemetary is nearly intact and could easily be rebuilt, provided that there was no resistance from the Cemetary. The section through Northside is mostly intact and could be rebuilt if we lost the storage units and built some grade crossings. An underpass under I-74 has been filled in. A bridge over the West Fork Channel has been gone for a long time. The tracks are still there at the Western Hills Viaduct, and the railroad is still active, though lightly used, at the very southern end near the Ohio River.

 

    The line crosses another railroad at a place called Oklahoma, which is near U.S. 50, then snakes toward downtown. It would be fairly easy to construct a connection to the transit center.

 

    The only significant traffic generators that I can think of other than downtown are potential transfer points with Metro buses: Northside (though a few hundred feet from Knowlton's Corner), Western Hills Viaduct, and Eighth Street.  Going the other way, toward Winton Place, the original line becomes a very active railroad. It may be possible to use this line as a convential rail connection to downtown for the 3C line. Do you think a light rail line from Northside to Downtown would be viable?

With Northside as the terminus of a line, I think the subway route would have more ridership. With Northside as a stop on a suburban park & ride oriented commuter line, I think a virtually non-stop run between Northside and the transit center could make a lot of sense if the subway route isn't built.  But considering that the city is trying to redevelop a lot of odd parcels along this line, stations could help spur developer interest.  Unfortunately the line does sneak through the flood wall and so faces a service outage every 15 years or so. 

 

I think this route does have a cost advantage if a west side light rail line dips down to join this instead of crossing the railroad yard to the subway via a new viaduct, although such a line would obviously only serve the transit center and so would miss the northern half of downtown and all of OTR.     

The only significant traffic generators that I can think of other than downtown are potential transfer points with Metro buses: Northside (though a few hundred feet from Knowlton's Corner), Western Hills Viaduct, and Eighth Street.  Going the other way, toward Winton Place, the original line becomes a very active railroad. It may be possible to use this line as a convential rail connection to downtown for the 3C line. Do you think a light rail line from Northside to Downtown would be viable?

 

Unfortunately the line does sneak through the flood wall and so faces a service outage every 15 years or so. 

 

I think this route does have a cost advantage if a west side light rail line dips down to join this instead of crossing the railroad yard to the subway via a new viaduct, although such a line would obviously only serve the transit center and so would miss the northern half of downtown and all of OTR.

 

Right, but it would connect to the Streetcar at the Transit Center next to the Reds stadium (may have to build a new access point here up from the transit center) which would take you up to northern downtown, OTR and Clifton.  If you move what's happening at Government Square down to the block between Main, Walnut, 2nd and 3rd you've potentially got a car/light rail/streetcar node (with all that Banks parking to boot).

 

You wouldn't end the thing in Northside.  You'd take it north out of Spring Grove Cemetery, where you've got options.  I'd take it the most efficient way through all that industry and then up Cedar Alley in Elmwood Place (a la the L in most any Chicago neighborhood) and then direct it along Seymour to the Swifton Commons area.  The real difficulty would be figuring out how to bring the line from Swifton Commons through Norwood to the developable sites along the Madison Road corridor/Gold Circle (Ridge Highland). After that  you'd bring it down Red Bank along the Oasis line and  back downtown.  Whatever gives best access to existing population centers and public spaces strikes me as always being the best choice.  However you work it, you've got a Queen City Loop that connects you with four out of six areas of opportunity outlined in the GO Cincinnati plan, as well as the Streetcar route that connects you to the other two (OTR & Clifton).  You've also added developable sites around Lunken Airport and Kellogg.  Later, you could connect the Loop to the former CL&N route which would have been the basis for the I-71 route for MetroMoves; and add a line paralleling Reading Road next to the I&O line, and figure out a route that would take you along the Vine Street corridor as well.  You wouldn't even have to take the right of way from the existing railroads (the east line of the MARTA edges an existing railroad on elevated, grade separated track). 

 

You've got to bring the suburbs on board because that's where the money and the votes are for a County wide light rail system, and you've got to keep these folks connected to the core.  Also, there are good potential sites and existing employment centers along all three of those routes.  Once you show people it could work, in the future they might be willing to add more expense tunneled urban routes to re-densify the core.

 

Anyway, I think a grade separated circle rail route along the path I've described would be the best place to start light rail in Cincinnati/Hamilton County.

The FTA has recently upped safety standards for transit lines paralleling active rail lines.  This of course is not in any response to a real safety issue but is instead a symptom of the auto lobby seeking to make rail transit lines even more expensive to build.  The car lobby damn near killed the Acela by pulling the strings necessary for the FTA to require it to be *twice* as heavy as originally planned.  So instead of buying off-the-shelf trains from France as originally planned the whole thing had to be redesigned from the wheels up.  The Acela is by far the heaviest high speed train in the world and that's the source of its chronic problems with wheels and brakes.  It tears up wheels and brakes at something like 10X the normal rate due to this political nonsense. 

 

The problem with the modified FTA rule is that it forces a much wider right-of-way to be acquired so that a derailed freight train has less chance of running over a light rail train on a parallel track and killing all aboard.  Obviously more right-of-way costs a lot more money, both in land acquisitions and the cost of overpasses and the occasional monsterous retaining wall.  This game has been played for hundreds of years; our own suspension bridge was forced off the street grid in order to force the bridge company to buy expensive waterfront properties for its approaches. 

 

A unified plan would allow for a new two-track mainline for the 3C's *and* commuter rail.  This line through Northside and long the west side of the Mill Creek allows for both types of trains to completely bypass the Queensgate yard and travel unobtrusively into the city.  Northside is on the Ohio River flood plain and was flooded in 1937.  This means that while a tunnel under this ROW through Northside is technically feasible (especially because of the flood walls), the project could be stopped early in the game by a political opponent evoking some kind of obscure flood regulation.  An elevated line would be more difficult since it would have run elevated through Spring Grove Cemetery and either pass over I-74 or through the rebuilt I-75 interchange. 

 

  In all fairness, European freight trains are much lighter than ours. No one builds longer, heavier, and more powerful freight trains than the Americans.

I read somewhere that barrier walls between freight and light rail can't really work because a derailed freight train with any kind of speed will crash through anything short of Ft. Knox. 

 

I guess it depends on the direction from which the wall is being hit. If a train hits it straight-on, then I agree it would need to be built like Fort Knox. However, if the wall runs parallel to the tracks and the derailed train sideswipes it, then it may have the ability to at least keep the adjacent light tracks from being fouled. Sort of like a heavy-duty Jersey barrier, basically.

 

Your point about overly-zealous safety regulations is spot-on, though... IMO, the FTA and FRA have done more to kill passenger rail transit than any other federal agency. No amount of space between rails or amount of amour-plated railcars will ever make train travel 100% risk-free, but you never see the feds mandating that airplanes be built to survive a crash into the side of a mountain, or that every car be built like a Sherman tank.

 

The problems are two-fold. One, no public official will want to go on record in favor of rolling back these regulations, because then they'll face the inevitable criticism that they're trying to sacrifice safety in favor of cheaper construction. You can imagine how well that will play in today's knee-jerk media environment.

 

Secondly, the vast majority of these regulations tend to be reactive rather than proactive. That is, they're so focused on crash survivability that they ignore the much more fundamental issues of trying to avoid crashes in the first place. Acela trains, despite being overloaded with excessive reinforcing, still operate on antiquated tracks with an antiquated signaling system over much of its route. At this rate, they'll continue to ignore that stuff but mandate that all passenger trains be equipped with seat belts and airbags.

 

The French TGV system, by comparison, hasn't had a single passenger fatality due to a wreck in 30+ years of operation, despite the trains being built like tin cans. This is largely thanks to the excellent condition of the infrastructure, as well as the stiff articulated design of the trains themselves that avoids jackknifing.

The problems are two-fold. One, no public official will want to go on record in favor of rolling back these regulations, because then they'll face the inevitable criticism that they're trying to sacrifice safety in favor of cheaper construction. You can imagine how well that will play in today's knee-jerk media environment.

 

This is where the Republican leadership in this country could show some integrity based on their values of the market, deregulation and entrepreneurship, but since they don't actually hold those values, they won't fight absurd regulation that holds freedom in check but will scream bloody murder against worthwhile environmental regulation that will destroy American business just like the Clean Air Act did in the early 70s.

 

    It's safe to say that any light rail will be much easier to get approved if it has an exclusive right of way.

 

 

^All I know is that certain sections of the MARTA I rode paralleled freight rail lines, albeit the MARTA was elevated considerably above the freight line.  I'm thinking specifically of the King Memorial Station.  Whether or not distance requirements have changed or increased since the MARTA was built I don't know, but Red Bank Road is huge now and it is still well separated from the railbed that runs parallel to it.

They know the survivability of a 200mph crash is nill, so they emphasize avoiding crashes. It's a wild feeling when two TGV's pass at a combined 400mph.  You can feel the whole train shift a half inch or so from the wind, and the train is passed in a blink.  You pass another TGV about every 15 minutes because there is so much traffic. 

 

Germany did have a really bad ICE wreck.  This was caused by a wheel that fell off, cut under a concrete track tie, and kicked it up causing the rear half of the train to derail and smash into the pillars of an overpass at 150mph.  Everything that happened in that wreck was a one-in-a-million circumstance.  If the wheel had fallen off anywhere else, the train wouldn't have run into bridge pillars, and somehow they missed the cracking in the wheel on their tests.  The thing had been tested like 4 days earlier and if I remember the story correctly they ordered it replaced but due to human error the wheel wasn't replaced.   

 

In politics, if you want to block something, you do it in a backdoor way.  These needless safety regulations are how they can do it with rail (actually they have multiple weapons).  That's also how they got the Delta Queen off the river to punish the anti-union folks.  They get drug dealers on tax evasion. 

It's safe to say that any light rail will be much easier to get approved if it has an exclusive right of way.

 

The primary cost advantage of light rail vs. heavy rail is that light rail can operate on the surface in shared rights-of-way. If you eliminate that advantage, then you may as well go all-out and build a fully grade separated metro system. Or more likely, unfortunately, build nothing at all.

 

Regarding MARTA, that's a heavy-rail metro system, not light rail. A number of transit systems, such as the CTA and PATH, operate on tracks that run alongside mainline freight/commuter rail lines with no issues. Usually the only physical separation required is a chain-link fence to prevent railroad workers from getting fried on the third rail. (PATH is somewhat unique in that they're FRA-certified, so they don't even need the fence.)

^---- Do you mean light rail can operate in shared rights of way with automobiles, or with freight trains?

^ Both. Keep in mind that shared right-of-way doesn't necessarily mean shared tracks.

That's right, and this nonsense with the safety change will affect light rail as a format in a big way.  A lot of stuff is being grandfathered in but if I remember correctly Denver was ordered to change its plans for some future light rail lines that are already funded. 

 

If you remember the Metromoves plan, the CL&N was still going to operate freight at night.  Several light rail lines around the country do that.  But I bet when it's time to order new equipment they'll be mandated to order much heavier "light" vehicles.  Clevelan's Breda's on the Shaker Heights Rapid are monsters compared to the original PCC cars. 

Agreed... Even without the new regulations, most "light rail" vehicles already have a heavier per-axle load than a typical "heavy-rail" subway train.

 

(I actually wish they'd avoid the whole light-rail / heavy-rail terminology, as it can be incredibly misleading to lay people who aren't experts on the subject. The heavy/light distinction has everything to do with passenger capacity, and nothing to do with the physical weight of the rails or vehicles. And some systems operate as hybrids that incorporate features of both heavy rail and light rail.)

 

    The CL&N let a car run away downhill and smash into a minivan at the Tylersville Road crossing a few years ago. One accident like that with a loaded passenger train will dampen ridership for years.

^ I'm not sure about that. The Washington Metro had a severe crash a few months ago that killed 9 people, but I don't think ridership has suffered much at all. People recognize that shit happens, and your chances of winning the lottery are still greater than being killed in a train accident.

 

That said, if the day comes when Cincinnati opens a new streetcar or light rail system and there's a significant wreck very early in its operation, then it would be a publicity nightmare that could potentially impact ridership.

 

Does I-471 still have the variable message boards that say, "XXX DRIVERS KILLED ON KENTUCKY ROADS IN 2009"? What's the number up to now? When I was in town last month, it was 612 one evening, and then the next morning it was 613. I guess somebody had been killed in a wreck somewhere in Kentucky that night, but I didn't notice a major decrease in traffic.

 

 

    30,000 to 40,000 people die in automobile crashes in the United States each year. That's a whole lot more than we've lost in two wars! Yet if a commercial airline crashes, you hear about it for years on the news.

 

    People who survive automobile crashes get right back in their cars and move on. People who survive train crashes get interviewed by the news.