Yes this video is an awesome illustration of how you can create a flexible transit line with multi-modal connections. Baltimore has a pretty impressive transit system for a city of its size, and Ohio cities should take note of how their transit has impacted the economic health of areas connected to it. (Granted, Baltimore is part of the NE Corridor where almost every city from Norfolk to Boston has some sort of rail transit). West and East Baltimore are two of the most economically distressed areas in that region, so this should provide a world of options for residents in these communities to seek job opportunities that are currently inaccessible to them.

 

Awesome video. But I'm surprised they're building the downtown portion in subway. They could afford adding a station or two downtown by providing an at-grade, dedicated alignment and keep it speedy with signal preemption for trains.

 

I agree with street-running in downtown if all other options are too costly (utility relocation, topological obstacles, tunneling, etc.), however cities like Baltimore and Cincinnati, with their already narrow and congested downtown streets, can not really afford to reduce the amount of street space available for traffic without further disrupting flow. Pittsburgh did it the right way, burying their light rail in subway tunnels downtown while having extensive street-running outside of the immediate urban core. With the Cincinnati streetcar running on Walnut and Main, I don't see the "improved speed and access" of light rail being attained if it shares the same tracks or is subject to the same "street-weaving" operations/limitations. Tunnels (like the proposed Mt. Auburn Tunnel) would cut travel times in half by avoiding all surface interaction (pedestrians/bicycles/street maintenance crews/etc.) and providing an uninterrupted route through the core. I do agree, in Cincinnati's case, that cost is a big issue though. Hell, the 4C alternative Red Line proposed in the video will have a price tag from $800 million to $1.6 Billion! Luckily for them, Maryland's Department of Transportation has no issue funding drastically expensive projects like this. Cincinnatians can not have these sort of serious discussions without either a large infuse of Federal, tax or (cough) ODOT dollars. Good luck.

 

The problem for Baltimore, like Atlanta and Miami, is that they have the 1970s-era heavy rail which is insanely expensive to extend.  It must be completely grade-separated, and those grade separations are much more expensive to build than light rail bridges, overpasses, and even retaining walls.  Compare the new Dulles Airpot aerials in Tyson's Corner, VA to contemporary light rail aerial sections in Los Angeles or anywhere building light rail lines right now.  Quite obviously much more concrete and steel, maybe twice as much.  Plus the rail itself is larger, again using twice or more than twice as much steel. 

 

Jake, you raise a great point here. I used to envy such place for having "advanced" rail options that weren't available to me while living in Cincinnati. However, after becoming a frequent DC Metro rider, I see how the associated costs (and fares) can be astronomical. My preference is to have a system like St. Louis or Pittsburgh which utilizes light rail, but operates in a hybrid light-heavy rail fashion. BTW I am just about finished reading your Cincinnati's Incomplete Subway: The Complete History book I bought and must say, it is "light years" ahead of the Images of America version in terms of information and regional context. One of my buddies out here in Maryland wants to borrow it when I'm finished. I am curious...have you been collecting notes on the whole Cincinnati Streetcar saga to write that book next? You should!

>So, it's not crazy to suggest that heavy-rail lines be converted to light-rail if there are sufficient cost savings to be had. It may be a matter of ordering a rail car that can serve both types of stations -- high and low-floor. Pittsburgh's light-rail fleet does that. And even if an all low-floor fleet is preferred, tracks can be re-tamped and raised up alongside high-level platforms to ensure level boarding exists at all stations to comply with ADA. This is not an insurmountable problem. Nor does it need to break the bank either.

 

Actually in Baltimore's case the conversion of its single heavy rail line to light rail is a pretty intriguing idea.  The line is basically a single radial with a short extension to the east of downtown.  If the whole line were converted, surface branch lines could enter the existing tunnel at any point.  Right now no street-running line can operate in that tunnel. 

 

 

>Jake, you raise a great point here. I used to envy such place for having "advanced" rail options that weren't available to me while living in Cincinnati. However, after becoming a frequent DC Metro rider, I see how the associated costs (and fares) can be astronomical. My preference is to have a system like St. Louis or Pittsburgh which utilizes light rail, but operates in a hybrid light-heavy rail fashion. BTW I am just about finished reading your Cincinnati's Incomplete Subway: The Complete History book I bought and must say, it is "light years" ahead of the Images of America version in terms of information and regional context. One of my buddies out here in Maryland wants to borrow it when I'm finished. I am curious...have you been collecting notes on the whole Cincinnati Streetcar saga to write that book next? You should!

 

Yeah I have thought about taking a week off of work and getting as much done as possible on a self-published book. 

 

A transit line I experienced in Germany had a subway section in the downtown area, an exclusive right of way in the median of a motorway, and a looped section of street running in the outskirts, which by the way are much denser than our suburbs. In the subway section, the cars were made into high-platform cars by covering the steps with a plank of sorts. At the other stops, the plank retracted to reveal steps. So, it acted like heavy rail on some parts of the line, light rail on other parts, and a streetcar on others. As I've said before, the users don't really care about the technology.

But they do care about the lack of technology when it seems oh, pre-70s. And phone people want to know where the train or bus is these days.

Not to look a gift horse in the mouth, but why has Mayor Cranley agreed to host this event? A pleasant surprise....

 

Regional Summit on Rail and Transit Integration

Thursday, February 20, 2014  -  9:30 AM - 4:30 PM

Union Terminal  -  1301 Western Avenue, Cincinnati, OH 45203

http://us3.campaign-archive1.com/?u=f0c36439ee810e82f21d2761a&id=c69a922de1&e=010453208d

My guess would be this and this from that link:

 

1. The impact of transit service on the regional freight service;

5. Express passenger rail and freight service to the Cincinnati Northern Kentucky International Airport.

 

Either he is going to claim that transit service would adversely affect regional freight service, or he's trying to prop up the flailing airport (which is out of his jurisdiction so he can suggest whatever he wants and throw stones with impunity).  He might also tie that in with the Brent Spence Bridge replacement.

Or he's just trying to not look like an anti-rail zealot whilst being an anti-rail zealot.

Note that Todd Portune is involved. Hence this is likely intended to promote his baby -- commuter rail in the Eastern Corridor as the introductory route in a regional rail network that links Cincy to Milford, Dayton, CVG, Lawrenceburg, etc.

 

I would hope that this event discusses a lower-hanging fruit, the extension of Amtrak's Hoosier State service on a faster, daily route to Cincinnati.

Here's Portune's associated puff piece in the Enquirer:

 

Transit plan key to the future

http://news.cincinnati.com/comments/article/20140211/EDIT02/302110016/OPINION-Transit-plan-key-future

 

I hope MetroMoves is part of the regional plan he's referring to. At least he wasn't too aggressive with his subtle jabs at the streetcar.

 

I don't understand the guy. I don't get why he's so gung-ho about the Eastern Corridor. I don't know what to take seriously.

 

My (short-term) wishlist for things they should address at the summit:

- Mt. Auburn tunnel

- Hoosier State extension (probably including a 4th main into Union Terminal)

- Preserving transit right-of-way on Brent Spence and Western Hills Viaduct

Don't need a fourth main into CUT for adding a daily RT Amtrak train. There's a couple of pinch points that could be addressed for much less. The big is the loss of a through track below Hopple Street.

I believe the City looked at needed improvements to rail access for CUT in its Railroad Improvement and Safety Plan developed as part of the Plan Cincinnati comp plan update.

The future of Amtrak in Cincinnati is not "transit".  Nor, hopefully, is traditional commuter rail given any attention.  There is too much freight traffic on the Mill Creek lines and the capital costs to overcome those can't be justified to pick up at most 5,000 riders from northern Hamilton and Butler and Warren Counties.  We already have very fast express buses leaving each morning on 3 or 4 points in those counties.  I ride one of them (42X) and no commuter rail line will match those speeds since there are 0 stops between Government Square and the county line.  Commuter rail would inevitably have 5-10 stops in Hamilton County, but few of those stops could serve large employers. 

 

Only 20% of all "trips" are commutes.  Scarce public dollars should be spent building transit lines that can serve commuters and the other 80% of trips.  Cincinnati > Dayton rail that operates 20 hours a day is another issue entirely. 

 

 

^ The summit is on "rail and transit integration" and will also address things like barges. Granted, that's beyond the scope of this thread.

 

I think the only rail transit Portune is interested in is commuter rail, and Cranley is not interested in passenger rail at all so far as I can tell. They probably just want to address freight issues and pay some lip-service to commuter lines. (God knows why. Maybe Portune thinks it's good to have some "shovel-ready" projects to snatch up federal grants that might materialize. Maybe he just wants make-work for planners at OKI.)

I believe the City looked at needed improvements to rail access for CUT in its Railroad Improvement and Safety Plan developed as part of the Plan Cincinnati comp plan update.

 

That's correct. There is a comprehensive plan just on the CUT track-level improvements available from the city. They also have it on a CD in case you don't want a big binder cluttering up your home office.

The problem for Baltimore, like Atlanta and Miami, is that they have the 1970s-era heavy rail which is insanely expensive to extend.  It must be completely grade-separated, and those grade separations are much more expensive to build than light rail bridges, overpasses, and even retaining walls.  Compare the new Dulles Airpot aerials in Tyson's Corner, VA to contemporary light rail aerial sections in Los Angeles or anywhere building light rail lines right now.  Quite obviously much more concrete and steel, maybe twice as much.  Plus the rail itself is larger, again using twice or more than twice as much steel.  Compare the new light rail tracks being installed in Cincinnati to any nearby freight railroad and the difference is obvious. 

 

So they're unable to re-use the existing downtown subway in Baltimore for this new light rail line.  Think about that for a moment -- it's cheaper for them to build this brand-new 3-mile subway than it is for them to interline the existing subway and build extensions as heavy rail.  Granted, the new light rail subway will hit a few parts of town that are currently not served, but in the 30 years since that subway went into service the technology has advanced so much as to make such a radical departure from their original 1970s-era plan a sound move. 

 

Light Rail use overhead line, while most heavy rail uses Third rail electrified at 700VDC.

 

then there are different platform heights, and vehicle widths.

 

a heavy Rail vehicle can be up to 16in narrower than a conventional light rial Vehicle. 

 

Cleveland is an exception to all of these rules, we could benifit from moving to a 100% light rial system.

 

^ The summit is on "rail and transit integration" and will also address things like barges. Granted, that's beyond the scope of this thread.

 

I think the only rail transit Portune is interested in is commuter rail, and Cranley is not interested in passenger rail at all so far as I can tell. They probably just want to address freight issues and pay some lip-service to commuter lines. (God knows why. Maybe Portune thinks it's good to have some "shovel-ready" projects to snatch up federal grants that might materialize. Maybe he just wants make-work for planners at OKI.)

 

Barges?  Seriously?  Cranley and Portune are probably shilling for that bad intermodal freight terminal plan.  My dad is a lobbyist for the industry and he hadn't even heard about that proposal even after it was 5 years old.  That's because it's not a real proposal -- he basically made up his plan for that intermodal terminal in order to get rail improvements up in Warren County or wherever his precious cargo was originating. 

 

I'm really going based off Portune's editorial, in which he touted the submit as a way for the public to review the regional transpo plan. It's possible I misinterpreted or he misrepresented what will actually be discussed. But judging by the "hosts," I don't think the discussion is going to be much about what the title would imply.

 

I think I read that the Port Authority is looking at the intermodal river freight hub as part of their plan for Queensgate.

After re-reading Portune's editorial, it is indeed an open question whether Portune and Cranley know what the word 'transit' means.

Are they advocating a city transit tax hike, an all-new county tax, or a multi-county tax?  If not, they're just wasting everybody's time because nothing other than tiny incremental improvements to bus and streetcar service can happen until then. 

 

Our state, unlike civilized parts of our country, contributes virtually nothing to local transit, and that's not going to change until Kasich is out, which could be five more years.  With the Republicans hanging onto their razor-thin majority in the house, the situation at the federal level isn't going to change either, even if a Democrat succeeds Obama. 

 

This is a little off-topic but it has a common theme.

 

I just finished reading a book titled "railroad or canal" which discusses the decision that the State of Pennsylvania made to build a canal over the mountains between Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. To us today, the "main line of public works" looks like a ridiculous failure, but the author shows that given the information available at the time, it was actually a rational decision. The canal, which included railway inclines over the mountains, operated for about 20 years and was an economic failure, but technologically fascinating.

 

Like so many projects, the Pennsylvania line came down to funding. The state, which was ultimately controlled by voters, attempted to build a system that would please everyone, with little branch lines all over. A system that only covered a small part of the state would never have gotten approved by the electorate. We can talk about technology all day, but in the end, the project isn't going to be built unless it is funded, and in order to get funded, the electorate has to see some potential benefit in it.

 

Sadly, the places in Hamilton County with the highest voter turnout are not the places with infrastructure most conductive to transit.

Since more Cincinnatians probably check this thread than the Midwest rail thread, I wanted to give you a head's up on the graphics I posted at:

 

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,1414.msg696857.html#msg696857

The other day I was sitting on Brent Spence and was thinking about the new bridge ideas, and according to what I have seen they are planning on keeping the old bridge to be used for local traffic. Does anyone know if there has been any talk about (or if it's even possible) to use the upper deck for local traffic ala the Clay Wade, while reserving the lower level for light rail, BRT, or other transit right of way? It is so close to the existing transit center under 2nd it just seems like an easy choice, especially because I haven't heard anything about the new bridge having any sort of accommodations for rail.

The other day I was sitting on Brent Spence and was thinking about the new bridge ideas, and according to what I have seen they are planning on keeping the old bridge to be used for local traffic. Does anyone know if there has been any talk about (or if it's even possible) to use the upper deck for local traffic ala the Clay Wade, while reserving the lower level for light rail, BRT, or other transit right of way? It is so close to the existing transit center under 2nd it just seems like an easy choice, especially because I haven't heard anything about the new bridge having any sort of accommodations for rail.

 

That makes too much sense.  But they are too deep into the planning to even consider that.

 

In the late 90s OKI studied putting light rail on both the Clay Wade Bailey Bridge and the Taylor-Southgate Bridge.  It was going to be single-track on the Clay Wade Bailey.  But ultimately they settled on construction of a new double-track bridge immediately west of the Clay Wade Bailey Bridge.  This is what motivated construction of Fort Washington Way with concrete on 2nd, 3rd, and Main and Walnut overpasses that can have a light rail line installed without rebuilding the street.  The streetcar project is taking advantage of this foresight on the Main/Walnut bridges. 

 

Not to look a gift horse in the mouth, but why has Mayor Cranley agreed to host this event? A pleasant surprise....

 

Regional Summit on Rail and Transit Integration

Thursday, February 20, 2014  -  9:30 AM - 4:30 PM

Union Terminal  -  1301 Western Avenue, Cincinnati, OH 45203

http://us3.campaign-archive1.com/?u=f0c36439ee810e82f21d2761a&id=c69a922de1&e=010453208d

 

Anyone attend this thing today?

No, but this article talked about it some. http://m.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/blog/2014/02/will-oasis-line-hours-be-extended.html

Some good things, but some worries too.  Point made about needing extended hours could maybe help with financial feasability or payback.  I don't know how economic development was supposed to be achieved if the whole point is to move people from milford to downtown in rush hours, but no other time or flexibility of back and forth travel.

I'm appalled that the oki director feels oasis is more important than the streetcar, that there is basically no pursuit of 71 or 75 lines, and that he has no idea how to pay for any of it.  I especially don't understand that part, isn't that his job to figure out those kinds of things?  Happy that they want to work on extending streetcar though.

^ Only 20% of total trips are commute trips. Except in principal cities of the United States -- all on the coasts plus Chicago, commuter rail lines carry maybe 2,000 to 5,000 trips a day. That's 1,000 to 2,500 commuters.

 

With only two stops inside the city limits and few, flat, non-floodable sites adjacent to the line, there is limited potential for economic development.

 

They have been flogging the Oasis Line for twenty years. It's an idea whose time has come. And gone.

 

 

It must be engineer logic that comes up with this crap, 'cause it ain't planners or anyone versed in economics.

Incidentally I went out for a bike ride Thursday night around 10pm on Riverside Dr.  The largest freight train I've ever seen on the Oasis line dragged about 30 cars to the barge transfer operation.  Two diesel engines were involved in the somewhat complicated switching operation near Ted Berry Park by which the 30 cars were cued into the facility on the 3-track section.  One engine idled a half mile east for 30 minutes while the other did the work.  The moving train was much louder than you'd expect as was the idling engine. 

It must be engineer logic that comes up with this crap, 'cause it ain't planners or anyone versed in economics.

 

It's politicians.

^ True. Though, unless Portune is planning to challenge Wenstrup, I don't know why he would be championing this Eastern Corridor nonsense. There's no population center over there, especially not in HamCo. And it has the potential to p!ss off anti-transit folks. Not to mention the pro-transit folks don't really like it, so who does that leave? I guess campaign donors. Is that it? Maybe it's a kickback thing. I'm not accusing, just trying to explain something that seems totally irrational. Earlier, I suggested it might be make-work for OKI, which could also explain the silly transit summit, which was pretty much a parody of a transit summit.

The other day I was sitting on Brent Spence and was thinking about the new bridge ideas, and according to what I have seen they are planning on keeping the old bridge to be used for local traffic.

 

According to all released documents, the existing bridge will continue to carry Interstate traffic (6 lanes) in addition to the new bridge (8 lanes).

 

Of course, until there is funding for the project, anything could happen.

^ True. Though, unless Portune is planning to challenge Wenstrup, I don't know why he would be championing this Eastern Corridor nonsense. There's no population center over there, especially not in HamCo. And it has the potential to p!ss off anti-transit folks. Not to mention the pro-transit folks don't really like it, so who does that leave? I guess campaign donors. Is that it? Maybe it's a kickback thing. I'm not accusing, just trying to explain something that seems totally irrational. Earlier, I suggested it might be make-work for OKI, which could also explain the silly transit summit, which was pretty much a parody of a transit summit.

 

Maybe I'm wrong here, but I'm thinking more and more that a huge number of "anti-rail" folks aren't actually anti-rail.  I think there may be a psychological component at work here.  The same people that oppose the streetcar often tout the Oasis Line as the direction we should be moving in.  I think it's because they see rails where the Oasis Line would run, so somehow that makes sense to them.  They're not actually interested enough to find out whether those rails would need to be replaced, what type of trains would utilize them, where the stops would be, ridership estimates, etc., so they never get to the point where they strongly oppose it.  They think of it rightly or wrongly as something that's already there and could be put to use.  Whereas other lines including the streetcar represent additional spending, which gets a bigger rise out of them.  Rail proponents, on the other hand, actually are interested in the specifics of each project, so they hold Oasis to far higher scrutiny. 

 

Rails in the ground have a powerful effect on people.  We already know that they make pedestrians more comfortable boarding a train than a bus, as well as more comfortable venturing from a stop in a city they've never been to before.  I think they are also making the Oasis Line seem more compelling than it actually is.

^The OASIS line is an exclusive right-of-way, that is, not in a street or shared with other traffic. I have a feeling that there are some opposed to streetcars because they see streetcars as a hindrance to automobile traffic, and vice-versa, automobiles as a hindrance to streetcars.

 

If the costs and routes were the same, which would you rather have, a street railway or a grade-separated exclusive right of way?

^The OASIS line is an exclusive right-of-way, that is, not in a street or shared with other traffic. I have a feeling that there are some opposed to streetcars because they see streetcars as a hindrance to automobile traffic, and vice-versa, automobiles as a hindrance to streetcars.

 

If the costs and routes were the same, which would you rather have, a street railway or a grade-separated exclusive right of way?

 

If the costs are route were the same - I'm still not sure. There are trade-offs either way. A street-running system would have a traffic calming effect, slowing cars/trucks, and making the environment more ped friendly. A fully separated system would be faster, but then you have fast cars/trucks, and a fast train, thus making the environment less ped friendly.

 

I'd prefer mixed traffic in a downtown/urban setting. Unless you meant underground. Then, if it were subway'd AND you implemented other traffic calming measures to slow traffic on the streets, this would be an optimal system because you'd have speed and greater safety. Plus the traffic calming might encourage more people to take transit.

I'd say grade-separated, hands down. But it's a totally useless hypothetical.

 

I do think there are some values the streetcar has that a subway or el wouldn't. Traffic calming not really being high on the list. The big ones are 1) ease of hopping-on and -off -- there are no stairs or elevators; 2) visibility of the tracks in the road make navigating the system easy (although split one-ways counteract this to a high degree). Those two things combine to make for a sort of coziness and feeling of accessibility, like the whole of downtown is more compact and at your fingertips. Plus I think they are visually appealing and command a presence.

 

BUT all these things could be achieved with dedicated right-of-way. I don't think there's a compelling reason to prefer mixed-traffic streetcars. Even with dedicated ROW you get traffic calming, by removing a travel lane or two, maybe narrowing the ones that are left, increasing pedestrian presence, etc. Plus, if traffic calming is what you are after, there are more direct ways that do not have a trade-off such as slower transit: two-way conversions, curb bulbouts, pedestrian islands/medians, bike lanes/boulevards, elevated intersections, the list goes on...

 

We should totally be doing all of these things in CBD/OTR. Bundle a subsidized parking/transit(/bikeshare) combo with the garages on the periphery of downtown and focus on accessibility over mobility in the street network. Residents' parking passes for most OTR/Pendleton street parking. Fountain Square garage should be at least 50% more expensive than Washington Park or the Banks garages.

I do think there are some values the streetcar has that a subway or el wouldn't. Traffic calming not really being high on the list. The big ones are 1) ease of hopping-on and -off -- there are no stairs or elevators;

 

Yes, agreed that's probably the main point. If there were a streetcar and subway running the same route then many people would choose the streetcar for its overall convenience even if it took longer. The longer it takes relative to the subway, however, the more people will choose to pay the fixed costs of entering and leaving the subway system. Not to mention of course that even with the same route, the streetcar will have more stops cause they're less expensive.

 

We should be vigilant in assuring people that there is not one unique best transportation mode, but a healthy city has multiple modes for different uses. Crawl, walk, jog, run, skateboard, bike, scooter, motorcycle, streetcar, auto, surface light rail, subway...

 

This sort of thing must be codified in the standard language of experienced transportation engineers (of the railway variety anyway). There must be a useful theory or framework that explains why certain modes or mixtures of modes serve people best in certain situations and scales of movement.

Yeah - I guess my point was that there is no 'best' solution. Every probable solution has different trade-offs, benefits, and costs. A healthy mix of many modes should be the goal.

The station locations matter more than anything else.  A grade separated system like Cleveland's Red Line is ineffective when it's station locations are in obscure gullies, a 1/4 mile or more away from any established commercial node. 

 

I'm not convinced that rail transit of any kind is worthwhile on Oasis or on Riverside Drive.  The station locations can NEVER be that good, there just isn't a traditional area with mixed uses to serve with the exception of Delta Ave.  And the #28/#28X is already an exceptionally fast bus service. 

 

There are fixed costs associated with every mile of track.  The cost of the track, the electrical, and a certain X cost for preparation of the roadbed are constant.  These expenses are best spent in the highest ROI corridors, and Oasis isn't one of them, probably not even top 10 conceivable light rail corridors in the area. 

This sort of thing must be codified in the standard language of experienced transportation engineers (of the railway variety anyway). There must be a useful theory or framework that explains why certain modes or mixtures of modes serve people best in certain situations and scales of movement.

 

But engineers don't make the decisions. Politicians do.

http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/gallery?Avis=AB&Dato=20140225&Kategori=NEWS06&Lopenr=225001&Ref=PH

 

So today's Metro moves would cost the same as the Brent Spence bridge.

Well this story is pretty abysmal in terms of showing how he feels about rail in general.  I love how they fact checked him on his statements about rail not being as popular as buses in NYC.

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/blog/2014/03/regional-rail-system-in-cincinnati-cranley-says.html

It appears that the old Hopple St. subway tunnel is not being affected at all by construction of the new Hopple St. overpass.

 

In this photo we're pointed directly in line with the western wall of the tunnel, which surfaced in this area until 1961 or 1962.  As you can see the piers do not block either of the two tracks leading into the tunnel, keeping the dim hope of their future use for transit alive. 

 

I-75 work in 2013 and early 2014 bulldozed the small office building opposite Cincinnati State, clearing the old rapid transit ROW for use for a bike trail or, gasp, a transit line:

 

 

 

 

There will be hardly any traffic on Central Parkway after the I-75 reconstruction.  The ramps from I-74 and to I-75 north will be eliminated, and Hopple St. traffic will soon be funneled onto MLK without the easy option of turning south on Central Parkway. 

Hope.  Dim.  But there is hope. 

Even if the subway tunnels downtown don't get utilized, the short stretch under Hopple would make perfect sense so the rail lines would avoid the spaghetti mess of ramps being built there.

Actually there won't be an at-grade intersection at that point anymore.  The original subway routing crossed Bates Ave. on a bridge then traveled through what is now the city maintenance garage property on a berm.  That fill was located where the gap between the buildings are today.  It's probably going to be possible, after the dust settles on this project, to run a transit line all the way between Marshall Ave. and Cincinnati State with zero grade crossings or grade separations.  In other words, aside from building an overpass over Marshall Ave., a transit line could be built from the subway tunnel portals near Straight St. two miles north for very, very cheap. 

In other words, aside from building an overpass over Marshall Ave., a transit line could be built from the subway tunnel portals near Straight St. two miles north for very, very cheap. 

 

From there, it's just a matter of getting up to about Hamilton & Chase (could run in the street/mixed-traffic, at least temporarily) and you have a reasonable first phase of an LRT line. Would there be anything preventing the Ludlow Viaduct from carrying LRT-grade streetcar tracks?

I would imagine that the deck of the viaduct would have to be rebuilt, which would be a huge expense.  Probably in excess of $10 million.  A new purpose-built bridge could combine transit and a bike path.  Look at the terrifying cost of each of those flyover ramps in a big spaghetti interchange -- so probably $20 million to build a new purpose-built bridge.  But a new bridge could set the line down onto Spring Grove by the tire-rolling Indian and then the line could smoothly turn north onto Hamilton. 

 

I agree, the line needs to get to Chase Ave. at the very least. 

We know that the Canal/Central Parkway lines curve toward a dead-end wall heading south toward an unbuilt tunnel under Walnut Street.  I was in Cincy not to long ago and marveled what a tight, dense, beautiful and exciting street Walnut is (esp. on a warm Sat night) particularly in/around Fountain Sq.  It’s a dead knockoff for a number of downtown streets in Boston, which of course is served by the outstanding T.  In other words, the Cincinnati subway planners had it right 100 years ago.  A stacked 2-track LRT tunnel could fit right under Walnut, stopping at Fountain Sq. with tracks rising to an elevated viaduct south of 4th Street where Walnut slopes down towards I-71 and the River – I would close Walnut to autos from 4th to 2nd because it would be too tight to accommodate them at the train incline.  Trains could traverse the old and new tunnels and also connect with the bustling stadium area—then head south over the river to Covington and the airport.

 

I know it would be expensive and, yes, there’d be a fight but, is this at all doable?  What would it take, now that the streetcars are coming?  Does this fact make such a project more or less possible/likely?

 

[quote author=clvlndr link=topic=7694.msg705159#msg705159 date=1398223869I know it would be expensive and, yes, there’d be a fight but, is this at all doable?  What would it take, now that the streetcars are coming?  Does this fact make such a project more or less possible/likely?

 

In my opinion, until the downtown phase of the streetcar is completed, in operation, and shown not to be a financial drain on the City, further talk of rail expansion is futile. And this includes completion of the uptown section of the streetcar (and start of). There is still a sizable segment of the City population which is anti-rail.