PS if you mosey on up South Boulevard to the north, there's some pretty sexy infill. Including a Lowe's wrapped on 3 sides with condos.

What to Do With Wasson Way

Bike trail advocates find resistance from light rail supporters

That’s what the “light rail” side wants City Council to do — essentially make the land off-limits until construction to install light rail tracks begins. The theory is that the trail is so valuably situated that it deserves a place as an actual means of transportation, not a product of recreation.

 

But a light rail project is a sizably larger undertaking than paving a bike trail, and, unlike the trail campaigners, light rail advocates don’t seem to have much of a proposal; it’s just an idea at this point.

Response today to my March 6 e-mail, FYI......

 

Thank you for contacting me about the Wasson Way corridor. I appreciate you taking the time to share your perspective, and I will keep it in mind as I continues to learn more and debate this issue in Council. Please feel free to send any additional information you may have. Whichever position I do take will be the one I feel confident is the best for the present and the future of the residents of Cincinnati.

 

My door is always open, so please do not hesitate to contact me with any future concerns or suggestions.

 

Sincerely,

Councilman Wendell Young

Got the same email from Mr. Young.

Response today to my March 6 e-mail, FYI......

 

Thank you for contacting me about the Wasson Way corridor. I appreciate you taking the time to share your perspective, and I will keep it in mind as I continues to learn more and debate this issue in Council. Please feel free to send any additional information you may have. Whichever position I do take will be the one I feel confident is the best for the present and the future of the residents of Cincinnati.

 

My door is always open, so please do not hesitate to contact me with any future concerns or suggestions.

 

Sincerely,

Councilman Wendell Young

 

Waffling/pacifying at its finest, well at least for American municipal politics. 

For people who may not be familiar with the story behind the Cincinnati Subway, this talk be Jake Mecklenborg is a great introduction to the project, why it was cancelled, and many of the urban legends that surround the project today: http://www.urbancincy.com/2012/06/episode-4-cincinnatis-incomplete-subway/

and here's a set of images of the canal/subway/central parkway:

 

http://overtherhine.wordpress.com/2012/06/13/canal-subway-parkway-the-history-of-cincinnatis-central-parkway-in-images/

^Very nice pictorial, OTR.... I love such history even though, in the context of how close Cincy came and still hasn't used these tunnels, it's exremely frustrating.

Saw these photos of the new Washington Metro Dulles Airport extension.  Look at these monstrous, hideous stations and elevated tracks:

 

 

 

Compare those to the new Expo and Gold Line elevated lines in Los Angeles:

 

 

These photos show how obviously lighter light rail is than heavy rail.  Way less material required for these bridges, they're less expensive, and they look better. 

 

And finally, Metro's new elevated route through Reston, VA:

 

If you followed the events leading up to construction, local governments/private industry offered to pay the cost of putting the line underground in this section, but the FTA came back saying doing so would forfeit the entire federal grant.  It illustrates just how stupid the whole system for federal matching is, and why I've suggested that Cincinnati raise a large tax so that it can build what it wants and build it quickly.

 

 

 

 

I remember reading somewhere that the cost per mile of putting it underground isn't much more than building an elevated viaduct. If you're going to build heavy-rail transit, probably best to just run it in a subway and not worry about the visual impact of running it above-ground. Running underground also has the benefit of eliminating weather-related service disruptions. (Trivia fact: the first generation of NYC's IND subway cars weren't even equipped with windshield wipers, since the entire IND system was underground.)

 

That said, the difference in the rolling stock weight between heavy rail and light rail per axle is negligible, and in some cases light rail vehicles actually have a heavier per-axle weight than a traditional heavy rail subway train. If LA's light rail vehicles ran on third rail instead of overhead catenary, they'd barely be distinguishable from Chicago's 'L' trains and NYC's IRT division subway trains in terms of ROW clearances and passenger capacity per car. The big expense with heavy rail comes with A) generally longer trains (a three-car light rail train in LA is the same length as a four-car Washington Metro train), B) the need for separation between paid and unpaid fare zones, and most of all, C) the need for full grade separation. The trade-off is that operational expenses tend to be lower on heavy rail, since turnstiles and fare separation allow for unmanned stations and are easier to manage than proof-of-payment systems, and 8-car subway trains with 10-minute headways have half the labor cost as 3-car light rail trains running every five minutes, even though both scenarios carry roughly the same number of passengers. And don't forget that your biggest complaints about the LA light rail system were the slow street-running portions that aren't grade-separated.

 

I agree the Dulles extension of the Metro probably won't win any awards for beauty based on the photos above (which is a shame given the architectural pedigree of the Washington Metro system), but I'd argue that's more the fault of the designers than of the system itself. The underground portions of the Metro are far more visually stunning than anything in LA, or anywhere else in America for that matter.

 

And finally, Metro's new elevated route through Reston, VA:

 

 

You could not pay me to live there.

 

If you followed the events leading up to construction, local governments/private industry offered to pay the cost of putting the line underground in this section, but the FTA came back saying doing so would forfeit the entire federal grant.  It illustrates just how stupid the whole system for federal matching is, and why I've suggested that Cincinnati raise a large tax so that it can build what it wants and build it quickly.

 

I agree with this. As for local funding, consider an interim step. We're doing a study here in Cleveland to look at how to get more value out of the existing transit system. We targeted the top-10 highest ridership bus routes and the two light-rail lines in Shaker Heights to see how much vehicle-service-hour costs we could save by having traffic signal prioritization and off-vehicle fare payment. Turns out the savings were massive -- about $20 million per year. If you include converting the GCRTA bus fleet to natural gas, you save another $4 million to $6 million per year. The capital cost to convert the fleet is significant, and there are limited federal funds to help with these costs.

 

So if you use the entire $25 million or so to debt-finance transit agency capital improvements, Greater Cleveland could afford up to $500 million in capital construction thanks to interest rates being so low. That's especially true with federal transportation loan programs such as Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/tifia/) or Railroad Rehabilitation & Improvement Financing (RRIF: http://www.fra.dot.gov/rpd/freight/1770.shtml).

 

Cincinnati's SORTA carries about one-third as many riders as Cleveland GCRTA. If that also translates to operating costs (and savings of them), then perhaps SORTA could get a TIFIA loan or issue its own bonds for up to $167 million in capital improvements.

 

However, you don't want to use the entire cost savings for retiring a loan or you don't leave yourself with much left over for paying the operating costs of the capital improvement (assumed to be a service expansion). But if the capital improvement results in a more efficient transit system or the tapping of new revenue sources (such as real estate revenues via Tax-Increment Financing), then perhaps you could use most if not all of the entire cost savings for the capital improvement.

 

So with interest rates so low, this capital funding approach might be worth investigating ASAP.

Since Cincinnati is in the unique position of owning a railroad, I'd be curious to see how that could possibly be leveraged into capital and/or operating funds for transit in Cincinnati. One option would be to simply sell the railroad outright to one of the mainline freight carriers such as Norfolk Southern, which would provide a one-time windfall at the expense of continued lease payments, but I wonder if the city has other options that don't involve selling the railroad.

That's another option. What might make more money for the city -- collecting user fees from Norfolk Southern or selling the rail line and investing the proceeds in something like T-bills? But I'd rather use those proceeds for a railroad project, like developing 110 mph passenger service to Chicago!

 

BTW, more on TIFIA loans.....  http://dc.streetsblog.org/2012/10/16/five-factors-that-will-determine-whether-tifia-benefits-transit/ (I also posted this in the US transportation policy thread).

Cincinnati currently earns just under $20 million annually from the railroad.  There's really no reason to separate that income legally from the rest of the capital budget other than to stop obstructionists from taking the funding away while repaying the capital bonds on transit projects.  However, the terms of how Cincinnati can use the money are dictated by Ohio law and no doubt the legislature would mess with the city's affairs if it attempted to have its entire value used to back capital bonds.  Now, such a thing was actually done in the 1950s when the Southern Railroad-Expressway Bond Act was passed to back expressway construction bonds, but no doubt funding transit would be more controversial. 

 

As for an outright sale, its value is upwards of $1 billion, or roughly 50 years of annual payments.  However, I think the city should keep ownership of the railroad because it's likely that its value will only increase as fossil fuels rise in price, meaning future payments could be much higher than the current $18 or 19 million. 

 

 

Interesting. Good to know.

Also, that income from the railroad *must* be used in the city's capital budget.  To simply section it off and say now it's for transit won't work without raising taxes since it is currently paying for road paving and the like.  The expressway-bond act changed the status of the income -- previously when calculating the city's bonding limit the income could only back interest.  After the law passed the value and income from the railroad could back the principal of muni bonds.  So from 1880-1950 the state of Ohio was protecting itself from liability should Cincinnati default and need a state takeover/bailout.  But after 1950 Cincinnati had paid off all railroad bonds and was earning $1-2 million annually and was a stable asset.  The earnings did not rise dramatically until Cincinnati won a lawsuit with the lesee in 1987.  Earnings went up from about $2 million to $8 million overnight and have risen steadily since. 

 

One idea I have discussed with people is a 30 year buy back of the railroad, whereby the railroad would be sold and the $1 billion pocketed but the city would make annual payments to buy it back.  However, I don't think this makes much sense at this point because interest rates are so low.  It would make sense if muni bonds were getting 5% and by the above scheme Cincinnati could get, say, 3% on buying back the railroad. 

 

The streetcar bonds are being paid for out of the unrestricted capital fund.  Going forward, we will want a restricted fund for rail construction and it should be funded by its own revenue stream.  Raising the earnings tax by .1% will bring in a little over $10 million.  This could pay for a modest expansion of the streetcar system. 

 

 

 

^Toll the interstates!

 

Yes, I know that the feds will prevent it. I would prefer that over some other new tax, though. I think increasing the earnings tax would be counter-productive, because it will tend to push businesses out of the city.

Earnings tax increase would need to go to the voters and stands virtually 0 chance.

 

The ADMISSIONS tax on the other hand, could be raised if there was political will and the voters approved it.  Supposedly the city gets $1.6 million per % increase.  It's currently at 5%.  So an increase to 8% could bring in $4.8 million. 

 

^Toll the interstates!

 

I actually wouldn't be opposed to that idea. Create a regional transportation and/or port authority that spans state lines (along the likes of WMATA or PANYNJ), and put them in charge of long-term planning, finance, and construction of regional transportation projects in Greater Cincinnati. Under their jurisdiction:

 

- The interstate highway river crossings within and including the I-275 loop, which would be tolled.

- CVG  and Lunken airports

- Intermodal shipping facilities on the Ohio River

- Union Terminal

- The Cincinnati Southern Railroad

- Regional rail transit

 

This entity would collect revenue from the airports, tolls, railroad, and shipping facilities to finance regional rail transit construction, and also invest in transit-oriented development at transit nodes (in a similar role as 3CDC but on a regional level) and use those revenues as well.

I think you would pretty much only need to toll I-275 between I-75 and I-71, specifically between Mosteller and Rt. 42.  There is no way around that for most people.  100,000 vehicles/workday x $1 x 52 weeks = $26 million per year. 

PANYNJ has raised tolls and fares to help finance the Freedom Tower/WTC construction, which could marginally be considered TOD, but to me is an example of problems with the PA acting as a developer instead of dealing explicitly with transportation.

 

On the other hand, I know TOD is largely where the revenue comes in from building transit projects, and being able to capture that revenue makes such an entity more self-contained (and theoretically more efficient) and less reliant on general funds.

Prior to 9/11, the World Trade Center was a giant cash cow for the Port Authority. I'm guessing the circumstances of its destruction and rebuilding probably wouldn't be applicable to anything in Cincinnati.

According to this document, Washington, DC is estimating that its 22-mile streetcar system, including the procurement of 50 streetcars, will cost $1.2 billion.

http/://dc.gov/DC/DDOT/Publication%20Files/About%20DDOT/News%20Room/2012/06/DCKA-2012-I-0083_DCStreetcar_RFI_06-2012.pdf

 

With that figure as a baseline, what is the highest ROI 22 miles of streetcar in Cincinnati? Assume 22 miles in addition to the 2 under construction presently.  The following add up to more than 22 miles, the idea is to try and guess what have the highest ROI. 

 

Crosstown Route:

Here is my idea for a 10-mile line that connects many important points and provides a base for other lines.

Start point: Hamilton Ave. at Chase in Northside

End point: Seymour at Reading in Bond Hill

 

Starting in Northside, cross Ludlow Viaduct, follow Ludlow to Clifton, Clifton south to McMillan/Calhoun, east to Woodward, north on Woodward to Montgomery, on Montgomery north through Norwood to Seymour, end at Reading.  This line is part of the #17, 31, and 4.

 

 

#17 connector:

1-mile Tunnel between existing streetcar line at McMicken St. and Clifton Ave. near Deaconess Hospital

 

 

#78 Vine St.

-4 miles from Schwartz's Point north to St. Bernard

 

 

#43

-7 miles north from Central Parkway on Reading Rd. to Seymour Ave.

 

 

MLK Streetcar

-2.5 miles from Clifton Ave. to Woodburn

 

 

W. 8th/Price Hill

-probably has to wait until the 8th St. Viaduct is rebuilt

 

 

Harrison Ave.

-probably has to wait until the Western Hills Viaduct is rebuilt

-6 miles from Findlay Market to Cheviot via Harrison Ave.

+1 mile for McMillan St. hill connector from viaduct to Hughes Corner

 

 

 

8th st Viaduct was just rebuilt in 2008, right??

I would argue for a spur that goes from Vine through East Walnut Hills via McMillan. Cutting through Walnut Hills and maybe extending to O'Bryonville.

 

Walnut Hills could use the redevelopment like OTR is getting now from the streetcar and East Walnut Hills could use the additional foot traffic and population (though the NBD is in really good shape aesthetically)

I think a streetcar spur across the Western Hills Viaduct should be a top priority right now before we miss the opportunity in the viaduct rebuild a couple of years from now. South Fairmount is on the rise and it would give the West Siders some political love.

 

I also agree with a crosstown connector from Northside to Uptown.  I'd consider running the route down MLK though, just because there's more room on the street. However, I think we should plan ahead for a light rail connection at I-71. That might be easier on McMillan than in the new MLK interchange.

 

I'd also like to see a route from Union Terminal down Ezzard Charles and Central Parkway, then up Gilbert to Walnut Hills.

 

Will Cincinnati find better ways to move people around — regionally and nationally?

Chris Wetterich Staff reporter- Cincinnati Business Courier

 

 

Greater Cincinnati’s system of public transportation is severely lacking. The community has no rail service, only buses. Bus service is limited outside of the city because Hamilton County voters have refused to tax themselves to pay for light rail and expanded routes. The lack of routes to growing employment centers hampers our economy and prevents people without reliable personal transportation from taking jobs they could otherwise get.

 

But what are the people running for office willing to do about it?

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/blog/2013/10/will-cincinnati-find-better-ways-to.html

The sad thing is that this is the only time the candidates have had to confront these core issues during the entire campaign season. 

John Schneider: Those “streetcar” rails going down on Elm Street are actually light rail tracks

 

What Cincinnati is building on Elm Street today could easily become the light rail spine through the heart of the region, slicing diagonally across the downtown basin with seven Fortune 500 corporations, two-thirds of our region’s cultural institutions and thousands of potential new homes within a few blocks of the line.

John Schneider: Those “streetcar” rails going down on Elm Street are actually light rail tracks

 

What Cincinnati is building on Elm Street today could easily become the light rail spine through the heart of the region, slicing diagonally across the downtown basin with seven Fortune 500 corporations, two-thirds of our region’s cultural institutions and thousands of potential new homes within a few blocks of the line.

 

Why one of the most vocal proponents of the streetcar project (and transit project in general) did not know this about the streetcar tracks previously? To me this should be a huge selling point of the streetcar and an effective means of leveraging the infrastructure we are constructing now for the future use --- I think we could use our local cost of the current project as a local match for  a future light rail project. This would assuage the negativity of the "streetcar goes nowhere" crowd.

Who did not know this? The streetcar IS in fact light rail, in the most technical sense. So of course the tracks are light rail tracks.

From the tone of the piece, it seems like John was not aware of the fact that the streetcar was planned to be a part of a larger light rail system, or did not think much of it. This fact should be broadcast more --- all I am saying

The way I understand it, while streetcars are technically light rail the majority of American systems to date have been built using tracks that only support one rail vehicle at a time. Cincinnati however got heavy rail gauge steel because it was cheap and local. These rails required the additional support and turning radii to handle multiple streetcars (LRVs) to be operated as full regional light rail vehicles.

 

I am by no means certain this is what happened, but that's the way I'm interpreting it. I am curious if that means we might some day be able to operate three car trains up 75 and single car streetcars up Vine St from these tracks simultaneously.

The takeaway from John's article is that, thanks largely to the Buy America requirements that came attached to the federal funding, our tracks will be able to support longer light rail trains. This question had been asked several times over the past few years and the answer was always "maybe." Now, we know for sure that it's "yes."

Sorry, I somehow missed that taestell posted a new article, and I responded w/o reading it first. The new info seems to be that the track is capable of handling much higher capacity vehicles than the streetcars intended to run in the initial phase. Mr Sparkle is right that this should have been known previously, but I guess it fell through the crack between the engineers/contractors and the planning/policy people working on the project.

 

Now that it's known, let's shout it from the mountaintops. And certainly bring it up when people say they favor LRT but oppose the streetcar -- that's now more clearly a contradiction than ever. "The streetcar" is in fact Downtown's north-south portion of the light rail system these people say they want.

 

I have a hard time picturing five- and seven-section vehicles running in mixed traffic, but I'm sure there is a solution (perhaps barring personal autos from the LRT lane and phasing intersections so LR vehicles have their own time to move).

The significant section from an LRT standpoint is south of Central Parkway.  The subway could emerge and run on the surface tracks into downtown.  Also, the Main/Walnut tracks could continue north to the Mt. Auburn Tunnel. 

 

The need for more robust tracks for LRT is the higher axle weight, not the length of train.

So...if I am reading this right...we are talking about diesel powered light rail operation, similar to the River LINE in New Jersey operating into downtown Cincinnati and using the streetcar tracks to access the CBD? Sounds like a good idea to me. This would be a quantum leap at a very affordable price and could be paid for by a TIF as is being proposed for the current system.

 

Anyone have a map of how this all fits together? And maybe throw in the subway for good measure?

diesel? Prob not. Most modern streetcar is electric

diesel? Prob not. Most modern streetcar is electric

 

And here is the "yeah, but"...using diesel powered LRV's saves the considerable cost of installing catenary. Electric LRV's are good also, tho...

From the tone of the piece, it seems like John was not aware of the fact that the streetcar was planned to be a part of a larger light rail system, or did not think much of it. This fact should be broadcast more --- all I am saying

 

Not at all. I chaired the MetroMoves campaign, and I know exactly what the rails would have looked like on Walnut and Main through the CBD, where I live. But I was used to seeing girder rail used for streetcars. Hence my surprise.

 

The story is, a few years ago I was talking with this engineer -- he's one of those engineers who over-promises yet somehow always manages to over-deliver -- I was talking with him when he told me we couldn't use girder rail, but that he was thinking of something better, something that would host light rail trains. I thought, yeah, right.

 

I was just surprised to see that it turned out that way. Plus the construction quality is exquisite, and Mike Prus leaves me with the impression that we are going to be amazed at how fast they clip along. This is the most-watched rail project in the United States, and the Cincinnati Streetcar is really going to impress.

 

So what we've got under construction now is the first 1.8 miles of the I-75 light rail line and about 1.0 miles of the I-71/Wasson light rail line, which line needs to go through a mile-long Mt. Auburn tunnel to UC at Jefferson and Corry with an underground station at Christ Hospital.

 

A few years from now, some of those delegations going to Portland will be coming to Cincinnati.

 

Have a nice holiday.

What are the chances the CAF vehicles Cincinnati is getting fit in the existing subway tunnels? Aside from the fact that the existing platforms would have to be lowered, are the dimensions and radii large enough? Gut instinct tells me the dimensions are big enough but I'm not sure about the radius of the southernmost turn under Central Parkway...

 

Theoretically the stops at Brighton, Linn, and Liberty could be ignored to save money, with a terminal station at Race and Central Parkway providing transfer to the streetcar. The central platforms at Race would seemingly be the cheapest to lower and rebuild.

The significant section from an LRT standpoint is south of Central Parkway.  The subway could emerge and run on the surface tracks into downtown.

 

Would it possibly make sense not to use the Central Parkway tunnel immediately, but save it for a future phase? I'm thinking something that would get to 75 from Elm but also be good to continue as streetcar service later, like on Ezzard Charles to Union Terminal. Or something else activating TOD in the West End, like on Findlay (yeah, it's narrow) or maybe McMicken>Mohawk>Bank St (yeah, it's kinda indirect). Another possibility: With minimal eminent domain trickery, it would be possible to get from Elm&Henry to Stark>Central Ave>75 (could ultimately become a streetcar over the Western Hills Viaduct to the west side). Just throwing stuff out there...

 

The tunnel will be expensive to update (especially bringing stations to code), and may not be the most prudent way to get LRT off the ground.

What are the chances the CAF vehicles Cincinnati is getting fit in the existing subway tunnels? Aside from the fact that the existing platforms would have to be lowered, are the dimensions and radii large enough? Gut instinct tells me the dimensions are big enough but I'm not sure about the radius of the southernmost turn under Central Parkway...

 

Theoretically the stops at Brighton, Linn, and Liberty could be ignored to save money, with a terminal station at Race and Central Parkway providing transfer to the streetcar. The central platforms at Race would seemingly be the cheapest to lower and rebuild.

 

Yes, this would absolutely be possible. As you mentioned, the challenge would be that the CAF streetcars are low-floor so the stations would need to be entirely rebuilt.

 

I have heard that one of the interurban railroads did have trains manufactured with doors at two different heights -- low floor in the front for boarding from the street, and high ones in the back for boarding when in the subway tunnels.

The plan with the subway has always been to rebuild the stations as low-floor stations.  This is not a complicated project since the station roofs form the base of Central Parkway.  This also lets us install elevators for ADA compliance. 

 

The Metromoves I-74 line was going to have stations at Rybolt/Harrison, North Bend, and Northside at Hoffner, on the east side of the I-74 berm.  I always thought that was an absolutely horrible place for a station would prefer an express run of more than four miles from North Bend to Hopple.  Northside would be served by streetcar/light rail on Ludlow that would travel down the viaduct to Knowlton's Corner, then turn west on Blue Rock St. where it would travel onto a berm on the cemetery property bordering Colerain and travel over the new interchange to join the I-74 line near West Fork Rd. 

 

The real problem with the Hoffner station was that it was going to force trains traveling at 60mph to stop for a very minor station.  Remember that stations on high speed sections hurt average time more than stations on lower-speed sections.

 

The recent BART east bay extensions approaching San Jose are placing stations five miles apart from on another so that the system can maintain 70mph speeds. 

^Yeah, and it's important to note that outside San Francisco, Oakland, and Berkeley, BART is really just a suburban commuter rail system with park-n-ride garages. It only has the ideal 1/2 mile station spacing in subway portions of downtown San Francisco and downtown Oakland. It stays subway in San Francisco past the urban core but jumps to 1-mile spacing in the the Mission District (still doable for walkability), and even is 2-miles between 24th Street and Glen Park (talk of an infill station at Mission and 30th has happened). Speed is faster on BART than most other heavy rail systems in the country. It can really do 70 mph. That's much faster than Muni's light rail maximum of 30 mph or Muni's bus average of 8 mph.

 

In urban areas, BART is more of a typical big city heavy rail system with decent station spacing and short headways. Outside these dense areas, headways are longer and stations grow further apart. In East Bay suburbs, BART is similar to Caltrain or Metrolink in LA. It serves multiple purposes, but gets people off the freeways at every station it serves.

 

*I think there also was talk back in the day of connecting the Peninsula suburbs to San Jose on BART (BART ends at Millbrae just south of SFO), which Caltrain currently does. Obviously that's not a big priority since there is already Caltrain service along that route. It's very fast and reliable, but needs more mid-day and late night trains. The real dream of everybody in the metro area is late-night BART service on weekends...

 

Minneapolis has chosen to build two rail tunnels through a park beneath an existing bike trail.  The line will have to surface briefly from one tunnel in order to cross a creek that connects two lakes, then it will immediately go back underground:

http://kstp.com/article/stories/s3149392.shtml

 

This option to build the tunnel under the bike trail is adding $150 million to the project cost, an absolutely ridiculous sum.  The problem is that this doesn't bode well for our Wasson Rd. project...given this figure it appears that building the LRT totally below ground between I-71 and Erie Ave. could cost $200 million more than simply running it on the surface.  This means the bike trail will literally cost $100 million per mile. 

Christ Hospital continues its monstrous expansion in and around the spot where the Mt. Auburn Tunnel subway station was planned in the 90s:

 

 

Minneapolis has chosen to build two rail tunnels through a park beneath an existing bike trail.  The line will have to surface briefly from one tunnel in order to cross a creek that connects two lakes, then it will immediately go back underground:

http://kstp.com/article/stories/s3149392.shtml

 

This option to build the tunnel under the bike trail is adding $150 million to the project cost, an absolutely ridiculous sum.  The problem is that this doesn't bode well for our Wasson Rd. project...given this figure it appears that building the LRT totally below ground between I-71 and Erie Ave. could cost $200 million more than simply running it on the surface.  This means the bike trail will literally cost $100 million per mile.

 

From your analysis, it seems like tunneling to create a bike trail on top is completely rediculous. Of course I would have guessed that. Tunneling techniques have definitely improved, but the cost is still near the stratosphere.

 

But I feel the damaging show currently going on with the new mayor and council in Cincinnati will have a far more negative effect on rail in Greater Cincinnati. I know people contend it is not a city project. But what would the Wasson Rd project do, dump people off at the top of Walnut Hills? Then what do they do? If they could just jump on a streetcar, OK could be workable. But to get those trains downtown requires at least the cooperation of the City and somehow I just do not see that coming in the near future.

 

Perhaps the focus should be shifted to going along the river. At least some existing right-of-way may get to the underused Transit Center.

 

But frankly I feel the damage is currently being done. If Council is successful in stopping the streetcar, which they seem Hell-bent on doing, the public taste for rail in this area is going to drop considerably. OK, we are the ridicule of the nation as the only city to have TWO failed rail transit projects - the Subway AND the Streetcar. Spmehow I just don't see anyone in Cincinnati itself or the Metro willing to gamble on a THIRD one anytime soon.

 

On top of it all, there is NO MONEY out there to do any of it.

 

Of coure this is just my opinion. Feel free to jump in an declare how all of this construction is going to get done.

Wouldn't a line connecting to the casino - up Gilbert - and connecting to the current Wasson line be conceivable? I know there's not a ton of room on the Wasson line, but the S-Line streetcar here in Salt Lake City is linear with passing sidings. What I'm imagining is being able to board somewhere around Oakley and ride past Rookwood commons, past Xavier, then connect to a line down the middle of Gilbert Ave to go down hill.

I think it comes down to the ultimate goal for transit in Cincinnati. Do we want to dedicated-ROW light-rail system with the streetcar serving as a pedestrian circulator? Or do we want more of a hybrid approach, with the streetcar serving as the core of the system, with higher speed lines radiating away from the city? Some of the recent press that described the streetcar as "built to light-rail specification" seemed to favor this idea.

 

The hybrid approach would essentially be rebuilding the interurban system, with all the pitfalls it had . Slow running on surface streets in the city increased trip times significantly. Part of the rational for the subway was to get the interurbans into downtown quicker. But it would probably be a lot more cheaper, possibly with a better ROI than a larger light-rail system.