Perhaps a built and operational successful Streetcar system should be the first target. Then once that is completed the construction of the Uptown phase. Can't see it happening until the downtown Phase I is completed and running. I believe people are less gullible now, they want to see progress built upon results, not just projections.

 

From what I have read concerning the type of rail being installed, the streetcars themselves, the system could easily be extended to as far as Kenwood. That is about as far as I see rail going in Cincinnati for a very long time.

But that's a huge issue. You can't "wait and see" with these types of things. Every month that passes without transit improvements is another month we don't compete with similar sized cities and another month that the cost of a system increases. That and the naysayers will just look at the operations of hte streetcar and say "it operates in the red" and dismiss it as a failure despite the revenue never being a huge part of the benefit of the system. If you're looking for streetcar specific development, it has already begun happening and is increasingly listed as a reason for development. That alone should be proof we can't stop the momentum by "waiting and seeing" results since we already know they're occurring the way planned.

 

The streetcar will likely only ever operate within the city's dense corridors and connect to light rail in order to get out to places like Kenwood and beyond. There's a lot of pent up demand for a large system out into the suburbs and we should be consistently working towards that.

But that's a huge issue. You can't "wait and see" with these types of things. Every month that passes without transit improvements is another month we don't compete with similar sized cities and another month that the cost of a system increases. That and the naysayers will just look at the operations of hte streetcar and say "it operates in the red" and dismiss it as a failure despite the revenue never being a huge part of the benefit of the system. If you're looking for streetcar specific development, it has already begun happening and is increasingly listed as a reason for development. That alone should be proof we can't stop the momentum by "waiting and seeing" results since we already know they're occurring the way planned.

 

The streetcar will likely only ever operate within the city's dense corridors and connect to light rail in order to get out to places like Kenwood and beyond. There's a lot of pent up demand for a large system out into the suburbs and we should be consistently working towards that.

 

Please cite your data on the pent up demand for a large system into the suburbs. I just don't see that. On one hand I read about how all of the youth desire to move back into the urban core. Then you say there is this huge pent up demand for rail transport from the suburbs to the City. Somebody has their wires crossed. Please explain.

No I don't. Those two things aren't mutually exclusive. 2 million people live in the suburbs. Hundreds of thousands of those work in the core. Just because young people are moving back closer to downtown doesn't mean there's going to be nobody left further out who would want rail.

 

There's not just one source, it comes from literally dozens of places. Support for rail is growing in a large variety of places, not just the core. Just because you, in Mason, surrounded by Mason residents, don't see it doesn't mean it isn't there.

 

Also, I think part of the problem is you view suburban life as one that can't be in support of rail. Just because someone wants a lawn and space doesn't mean they want to use a car for every little thing, especially commuting. There are plenty of people who want to move slightly out from the core for more space but don't really want the hassle that comes with a car. Options are important.

 

Agreed.  But if they can find funding for it, I'd be happy to see it be the first line of (hopefully) many. 

 

I flew into CVG during a snowstorm this year.  The buses weren't showing up because of the traffic and the taxis were refusing to take anyone anywhere but a hotel in Florence.  I finally found a taxi that took myself and three others to downtown for $60 a piece, cash only.  Believe me, I was happy to pay it because my other option was to sleep in the airport.  If there had been a train, it would have been $3 and no issue.  I was the only one from Cincy in the cab, and everyone (including the driver) commented about how it's crazy that there's no rail line to downtown.  Ideal or not, sometimes it's just about having options.

 

I agree.  Given rapid transit’s huge expense – it’s usually THE most expensive public works project in the history of any city’s – it behooves Cincy, Pittsburgh (where airport improvement’s surcharge congressional amendment possibility has also been discussed for their LRT’s extension) or any similar city to exploit any viable means necessary to underwrite capital costs and get a rail line built…

 

Airport-to-downtown rail seriously enhances a city’s convention viability.  Here in Cleveland, we haven’t always taken advantage of our pioneering air/rail connection, although it is a factor convention planners seriously consider Exhibits A and B: both the Democratic and Republican site selection committees for their 2016 conventions have mentioned our airport Rapid as key.

 

The other major advantage, of course, is that new rail almost always begets more rail.  Once the CVG LRT is green lighted, the child-like “I want one too” mentality manifests in other neighborhoods and suburbs.

 

Perhaps a built and operational successful Streetcar system should be the first target.

 

"Beyond the Streetcar" is literally the title of this thread.

Brad, seriously, no one is ever going to know the true economic impact of the first phase of the streetcar until 100 years from now. :-P

While drawing the theoretical maps of the uptown streetcar, I thought of this hybrid light rail/streetcar idea.  The Wasson Way light rail line is in red going to Xavier.  Then, it uses the Walnut Hills branch of the uptown streetcar tracks to travel down Woodburn Ave. to Taft.  (Tracks where light rail would run on the street are in purple.  It would share Woodburn Ave. with the streetcar.)  It takes a left onto Taft and goes to Collins Ave., where it can pass under Columbia Parkway and use the Oasis light rail tracks to get downtown to the Riverfront Transit Center.  (Please note that the Eastern Corridor or Oasis Line don't have to be complete under this scenario, the tracks just have to make it downtown from this point.)  Once at the Riverfront Transit Center someone could transfer to the downtown streetcar if desired. 

 

A Wasson Way commuter could also transfer to an uptown streetcar at Xavier to proceed to UC and the hospitals if desired (streetcar-only tracks in blue.)

 

The previous debates about the uptown streetcar route on the streetcar thread apply to this map as well, especially the Taft vs. McMillan one (assuming both are reconfigured two-way), as I wonder if the track geometry at Woodburn and Taft in this scenario might affect that decision.  (Note:  In this scenario I wasn't planning on an eastbound uptown streetcar to be able to take the Oasis tracks downtown, only the vehicles coming down from Wasson.)

 

Issues with this proposal?  Is this an inferior solution to just building I-71 light rail?  Is that too tight of a turn at Woodburn and Taft for a light rail vehicle to make?  Would this be too long of a commute?  In my head, I am thinking of a light rail vehicle as just a longer variation of a CAF Urbos 3 streetcar that could be used on the existing Wasson and Oasis tracks.  Is that true or would the existing Wasson and Oasis tracks have to be replaced in these areas for a CAF vehicle to use them?

 

I think to justify building Wasson, you need a speedy connection to downtown. Slowing way down as you arrive at the urban core cripes it too much.

 

Connecting Wasson to Oasis is an interesting idea, though (due to the odd political support for Oasis). I'm not sure Woodburn would be the best way to do it.

 

Also, yes, I believe that turn is too sharp.

I don't believe that that can be done legally since the FTA requires either a 30~ foot buffer or an insanely thick and expensive concrete barrier wall between active freight and light rail lines. 

 

The best way to do this is to create express and local service from Xavier to DT by constructing a deep 4-mile tunnel directly between Xavier and DT, with no stations excepting one deep beneath Peeble's Corner.  All three of the suburban lines that are planned to converge at Xavier could alternately head straight downtown via this tunnel or travel on slower lines through the UC/Hospitals area. 

 

Without doing this the travel times between the suburbs and DT will simply be too long and easily halved by existing express bus service on the interstates.

Here's my ideas:

 

Sorry for the crudeness/blurriness of my map. Microsoft paint was all I had to work with. As such, it is pretty sloppy and out of scale, but I think it conveys the gist of my ideas.

 

It consists of two light rail lines (blue and orange: shown by thick lines) and three streetcar lines (red, green, and black: shown by narrow lines). Main nodes and line terminuses are shown by black tick marks and labels. All five lines would converge at Central Parkway, which would become the main hub/transfer point of the system.

 

 

Red Line:

-This is the current streetcar route and the extension to uptown. After Findlay Market the line would head North using John Schneider's forest route and follow Jefferson Avenue to the Zoo. The downtown portion of the red line will become the main trunk line for all three streetcar routes.

 

Green Line:

-This is a streetcar line running from Union Terminal to the Banks and across the river to Newport. It would run in the median of Ezzard Charles, turn onto Central Parkway and follow the median to the trunk line pair on Walnut and Main. After travelling to the Banks it would cross the river to NOTL and continue further South into Newport (perhaps using the Monmouth/York Street pair).

 

Black Line:

-This is the third streetcar line which would run out to the Eastern neighborhoods. It would follow the same path as the red line from the Banks all the way up the hill to the intersection of Jefferson and MLK. It would turn right onto MLK/Madison and follow it through DeSales Corner and O'Bryonville. It could then continue on to Oakley or turn right onto Erie/Observatory to Hyde Park.

 

Blue Line:

-This is an East/West running light rail line using primarily dedicated right of way. It would follow the Wasson right of way from Newtown through Hyde Park and onto Xavier. It would then cross a bridge over I-71 and continue onto Gilbert Avenue. The line would run along Gilbert in the median all the way to Downtown. A short tunnel would need to be built connecting Gilbert to the existing subway tunnels. It would travel through the tunnels to the Central Parkway hub and continue to Cincinnati State and Northside. It would then follow a dedicated right of way near I-74 through the Western suburbs.

 

Orange Line:

-This is a North/South light rail line running between Mason/Kings Island to CVG. It would follow the I-71 corridor from Mason to Kenwood, and then merge with the Blue line on Gilbert. It would continue along Gilbert to the Central Parkway hub. After this it would take an unidentified route across the river to Covington and CVG.

 

Rolling Stock:

-The streetcar would use CAF Urbos 3 rolling stock. Since the streetcar lines would mostly run in the streets/medians of the densest areas of the city, the trains would only be three sections long so as to be more maneuverable and less disruptive of traffic.

-The light rail lines would also use CAF Urbos 3 rolling stock. Since the lines run mostly along dedicated right of way and in the subway tunnels, they would use longer trains, probably seven or more articulated sections in length.

 

 

That pretty much sums it up.

 

 

Here is my idea for streetcar extension (I bet you can't tell which side of the river I live on). The options shown include a 2.4 mile loop in Covington (home to ~16,000 urban), a 1.7 mile loop in Newport (home to ~10,000 urban) and a 2.0 mile loop on the Cincinnati waterfront which connects to phase 1A of the existing streetcar (home to ~13,000 urban). The total loop would 8.6 miles including the bridges. I would like it to two complete loops heading opposite directions which are shown in the dashed lines. The smaller full loop would be only 7.6 miles, but wouldn't travel nearly as deep into Covington and Newport and therefore would affect far less area/residents and therefore I don't like that idea as much. Plus the 4th street bridge over the Licking is ancient and has one of the worst structural ratings in the tristate. The larger loop is a whopping 10.6 miles of track, a 5.3 mile loop and would be hugely expensive, but would would utilize the newer 12th St. bridge and would fully connect the southern ends of Covington and Newport.

 

While I understand the need/desire to start connecting phase 1B to the east/west, I think connecting the three basin downtown areas is the most important thing for the area as a whole. Obviously this would be difficult to work with because there are 3 cities, 2 states etc. but hey lets spend the Brent Spence money on this instead of building more highways (that won't help traffic anyway as long as the cut-in-the-hill still exists to slow everyone down).

If we could work out the details politically, I agree that an extension to Northern Kentucky makes as much sense, if not more sense, than an extension to Uptown. The big advantage of extending the system into Northern Kentucky is that Covington and/or Newport would start to pay for a portion of the overhead costs (maintenance and operations facility costs, SORTA staff, etc.).

 

Is there another example of a streetcar system crossing state lines like this? Obviously there are examples of heavy/light rail crossing state lines.

The graphic that UCgrady provided really illustrates how many streetcar stops there are in the CBD.  They could probably take out about half of the stops without much impact on accessibility or ridership.  Removing stops would reduce costs and increase the speed of the streetcar, which I think would be extremely advantageous.  People keep referring to how there is a segment of the population who would ride rail but not a bus.  I think one of the major reasons this is true is because of how often busses stop and how slow they are.  Conversely, rail should have less stops and higher speeds.  People will walk 3 blocks to a rail stop over waiting for a bus a block away because of the advantages of rail.  If we design our rail system with many of the same problems that busses have, will it really be much different?

The graphic that UCgrady provided really illustrates how many streetcar stops there are in the CBD.  They could probably take out about half of the stops without much impact on accessibility or ridership.  Removing stops would reduce costs and increase the speed of the streetcar, which I think would be extremely advantageous.  People keep referring to how there is a segment of the population who would ride rail but not a bus.  I think one of the major reasons this is true is because of how often busses stop and how slow they are.  Conversely, rail should have less stops and higher speeds.  People will walk 3 blocks to a rail stop over waiting for a bus a block away because of the advantages of rail.  If we design our rail system with many of the same problems that busses have, will it really be much different?

]

 

True, but unlike buses, our streetcar stops at curb-height and won't spend more than probably 10 seconds at each stop, unless there is a red light. Will still move much faster than buses.

The graphic that UCgrady provided really illustrates how many streetcar stops there are in the CBD.  They could probably take out about half of the stops without much impact on accessibility or ridership.  Removing stops would reduce costs and increase the speed of the streetcar, which I think would be extremely advantageous.  People keep referring to how there is a segment of the population who would ride rail but not a bus.  I think one of the major reasons this is true is because of how often busses stop and how slow they are.  Conversely, rail should have less stops and higher speeds.  People will walk 3 blocks to a rail stop over waiting for a bus a block away because of the advantages of rail.  If we design our rail system with many of the same problems that busses have, will it really be much different?

 

I think you are overestimating how far the average person is willing to walk to a streetcar stop. John Schneider has posted earlier in this thread that he thinks more stops will actually be added over time.

Does anyone know how exactly passenger rail will be brought into the riverfront transit center? Is the plan for the Eastern Corridor to use the tracks through Sawyer Point and Yeatman's Cove?  (How would that work with the heavier grade trains they have planned for that project?) Then what happens when those tracks end?  Will they put tracks in the road and use that small section of Broadway St. underneath the plaza between the stadium and arena to access the center?

 

How about light rail to the airport, which I assume would enter from the west?

Does anyone know how exactly passenger rail will be brought into the riverfront transit center? Is the plan for the Eastern Corridor to use the tracks through Sawyer Point and Yeatman's Cove?  (How would that work with the heavier grade trains they have planned for that project?) Then what happens when those tracks end?  Will they put tracks in the road and use that small section of Broadway St. underneath the plaza between the stadium and arena to access the center?

 

How about light rail to the airport, which I assume would enter from the west?

 

Oasis Rail is uneconomic and unlikely ever to happen, so I doubt any rail enters from the east. Airport's perhaps another story, although I think you'd want to get that up into town near the hotels.

 

I doubt I'll see rail in the RTC in my lifetime, and I don't plan on dying anytime soon.

Haha that's good to hear John!  I'm sure you'll be around to drive in the golden spike on our regional rail system and beyond.  :-)

 

Regardless if the Eastern Corridor/Oasis Line is a good idea or should be built or not, isn't the Oasis Line the line that has the most engineering studies complete out of all the proposed rail lines?  I've looked at the documentation on their website and it was unclear to me how they plan on the approach to and actually entering the RTC.  Surely they have a plan for that though.  Also wasn't rail considered when they built the RTC?  What was the plan then?

 

 

Regardless if the Eastern Corridor/Oasis Line is a good idea or should be built or not, isn't the Oasis Line the line that has the most engineering studies complete out of all the proposed rail lines?  I've looked at the documentation on their website and it was unclear to me how they plan on the approach to and actually entering the RTC.  Surely they have a plan for that though.  Also wasn't rail considered when they built the RTC?  What was the plan then?

 

Actually, even though Todd Portune says so, there Eastern Corridor is not the most engineered -- I-71 LRT is, to 30% design including the Mt. Auburn Tunnel. Oasis doesn't even have an alignment selected yet.

 

When planning was done for the RTC in the late-Nineties, SORTA never thought the RTC was a good place for rail, but Portune insisted on it, and that's why it's so over-built. SORTA just went along with Portune, never really believing rail would ever be built there or anywhere along the Eastern riverfront. And even to this day, SORTA has never endorsed Oasis Rail. It's a pipe dream of Todd's, and most people in the know understand that.

 

The magic of light rail is that you can get a one-seat ride into the heart of the city, closer than driving and parking cheaply. That's why Main and Walnut, which pierce the heart of the office center, were selected as the rail streets. Bringing people to the RTC and making them walk or transfer to the streetcar is not great.

 

Back to the RTC, its true purpose is a bus barn, reflecting the desires of all of us who work on the new riverfront to get the buses off the streets (remember, they all used to park in Cinergy Field's plaza?).

I remember people were talking on here about this a month or two ago.  Who knows how far off it could be, but good to know someone is working on the pre-planning stages.

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/morning_call/2014/07/how-cvg-downtown-train-could-become-a-reality.html

If we could work out the details politically, I agree that an extension to Northern Kentucky makes as much sense, if not more sense, than an extension to Uptown. The big advantage of extending the system into Northern Kentucky is that Covington and/or Newport would start to pay for a portion of the overhead costs (maintenance and operations facility costs, SORTA staff, etc.).

 

Is there another example of a streetcar system crossing state lines like this? Obviously there are examples of heavy/light rail crossing state lines.

 

1) Why do you think Newport Covington would have a bigger system impact than Uptown? I don't see nearly as big of a development opportunity or ridership opportunity.

 

2) This looks like a pretty big loop, could these two small cities really afford to add more to the operating costs than the extension would take away?

 

Not opposed to NKY, just not any time soon.

I remember people were talking on here about this a month or two ago.  Who knows how far off it could be, but good to know someone is working on the pre-planning stages.

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/morning_call/2014/07/how-cvg-downtown-train-could-become-a-reality.html

 

Here's my proposed alignment for Cincinnati to CVG rail.  It involves building a new road/rail bridge where the Anderson Ferry is.  Call it the Westside Access Project to make the focus all about connecting the Westside to the airport which would appease the roadbuilders and make the bridge rail ready.  Then when we go to build rail to CVG, the proposed alignment should be relatively easy to build.  Not only is it the most direct route to the airport, but it maximizes redevelopment potential in Cincinnati, injects some life into some pretty poor neighborhoods, and gives access to transit to the Westside.  I picture a park and Ride at Anderson Ferry to be pretty popular for downtown workers.  There's plenty of room for a park & ride in Sedamsville as well.

 

^Pretty genius.  Avoids the Brent Spence bridge mess.  Draws in more stakeholders (gives Hamilton County more political will to fight, because by benefiting Delhi Township it is not perceived as just another City of Cincinnati project.)  Draws in interest groups from across the political spectrum by including a road component.  IMHO, solves the problem of Delhi seemingly being an extra twenty minutes from almost everywhere.  Plus, as you mentioned, it's a direct route that would benefit some of Cincinnati's grittier riverside neighborhoods. 

Looks like it would suffer from the same issues as the Eastern Corridor Oasis Line. It does not touch enough job creation areas.

Looks like it would suffer from the same issues as the Eastern Corridor Oasis Line. It does not touch enough job creation areas.

 

Yep. The majority of walkshed is eaten up by the river, hilly areas (where people are less willing to walk and development is hard here in Landslide USA), and possibly floodplain. I like it better than the Eastern Corridor because it goes to a significant place (symbolically, if not significant for ridership) and has the novelty of a road bridge which actually makes some decent sense. But I would prefer CVG rail that has a Mainstrasse stop (and I believe it would carry more passengers and yield a far better ROI).

That's also an incredibly steep climb from the bank of the river to CVG, I doubt even streetcars let alone LRVs or any sort of mainline passenger rail equipment could make that unless it was done in a tunnel with a deep underground terminal at the airport.  The Southern Railway tracks take about 10x as long a route to climb to the same elevation, going from the river at Ludlow to Erlanger.

Incline is a concern anywhere we'd place a line.  One of the perks of this route is the ability to travel laterally for 1000ft to climb the hill.  As far as ROI, there is definitely more development opportunity in NKY, but if you're fighting for Right of Way from I-71/75 and I-275 to get there, we've got some pretty major political battle to fight along the way.  Most of this route is already rail ROW.  As much as I love Mainstrasse, they're already connected to the 2X and we're already talking about connecting the streetcar and bikeshare systems over there, and there are countless local buses that cross the river to the RTC.  The West side is REALLY hurting for connectivity and we could get some serious political backing from the conservative Ohio side as opposed to the Kentucky side taking charge and then sending a bill with a Mainstrasse route.

While I agree this route makes a lot of sense, especially politically to not cross the river until across from the airport, as a kid who grew up in Villa Hills and rode my bike across the Anderson ferry to get ice cream I would be very sad to see the ferry go extinct.

Portune is doing this to undermine expansion of the streetcar or construction of a comprehensive light rail network.  He knows this sounds good to suburban ears, but this will struggle to get the same ridership as the current phase of the streetcar. 

I worked out a similar route years ago. Mine crossed the river a little farther west, and made up some of the elevation by climbing a long ramp on the Ohio Side to a high bridge which itself was sloped. I found that a route crossing the river a little west of Anderson Ferry was an entire mile shorter than a route through Covington. I was thinking more along the lines of a rapid transit, with stops downtown and at the airport, and continuing south to Florence.

 

Incidentally, this is nearly the same route that Cincinnati Water Works took to build a water main to Florence. (yes, CWW serves Florence!)

 

Of course, airport traffic has declined, and probably will continue to decline, so a route from downtown to the airport isn't as important as it was once thought to be.

Northern Kentucky Leaders: It's Time to Talk About a Streetcar

 

http://www.rcnky.com/articles/2014/08/22/northern-kentucky-leaders-its-time-talk-about-streetcar

 

Not to stir up this thread, but there is some very positive pro-rail discussion and thoughts going on here. I especially like when Covington mayor Carran calls out tea partiers saying "They want the federal government to pay for it (Brent Spence Bridge) but yet they're the ones who advocate less government and no new taxes."

 

Anyways, its good to see that the people on this forum aren't the only ones thinking about expanding rail throughout the Basin.

 

 

Ah RCN! My friend helped start that paper. He's an awesome guy. I wouldn't quite say that RCN represents the sentiment of all of Northern Kentucky, it's pretty pro-urban and progressive, but it's a solid operation.

Yes! Northern Kentucky leaders had been silent about the streetcar since 2009.

 

This may not be the popular opinion, but I'll go ahead and say it: Northern Kentucky is the next logical place to extend the streetcar. Think of all the destinations along that route in OTR, Downtown Cincinnati, Covington, and Newport. It's a very long list and it has something that appeals to everyone. Families can go to Newport on the Levee and ride over to catch a Reds game. Adults can start at MainStrasse and end their night at Rhinegeist. And it massively expands the number of places where you can live and be able to commute to Downtown Cincinnati for work without using a car.

 

Additionally, the costs of the streetcar system would be split among the participating cities (or counties). So with a NKY extension, Cincinnati's operating expenses would stay about the same, as opposed to an Uptown extension.

A route in Newport is very straightforward...across the Taylor-Southgate Bridge to York and Monmouth St. south to 11th. 

 

In Covington it's more complicated.  Ideally a line travels on both Main St. and Madison, however I'd bet that Madison would benefit much more from it.  The problem is that use of the Clay Wade Bailey Bridge only works well for Main St.  That means we return to the mid-1990s proposal for a bridge in line with Race St. south to Madison Ave.  Could make a lot of sense to build a TANK-only bridge for the buses and streetcar. 

Yes! Northern Kentucky leaders had been silent about the streetcar since 2009.

 

This may not be the popular opinion, but I'll go ahead and say it: Northern Kentucky is the next logical place to extend the streetcar. Think of all the destinations along that route in OTR, Downtown Cincinnati, Covington, and Newport. It's a very long list and it has something that appeals to everyone. Families can go to Newport on the Levee and ride over to catch a Reds game. Adults can start at MainStrasse and end their night at Rhinegeist. And it massively expands the number of places where you can live and be able to commute to Downtown Cincinnati for work without using a car.

 

Additionally, the costs of the streetcar system would be split among the participating cities (or counties). So with a NKY extension, Cincinnati's operating expenses would stay about the same, as opposed to an Uptown extension.

 

I agree there are a lot of things that make a NKY streetcar expansion very attractive.  First, the terrain is flat, making it easy for the streetcar but also for pedestrians walking to stops as well.  Second, the grid street design (as opposed to uptown) means there would be less disruption during construction of the streetcar, and also during operation if there were a problem on the tracks.  Could you imagine traffic on Calhoun and McMillan during streetcar construction?  Or construction crossing MLK, or passing by a hospital ER entrance?  Third, the housing stock there is dense, but it was never completely abandoned like OTR was.  This means it's more of a normal housing market with individual owners involved, and there are affordable prices and rents there because developers aren't going in having to perform complete rehabs on whole buildings.  This makes it really attractive for service industry folks and others that work in or at least want to be close to downtown Cincinnati.  Fourth, there is lots of potential for infill development. 

 

The issues I see with it are actually getting over the Ohio River, and also the Licking if desired.  Also if Covington and Newport, being much smaller municipalities than the City of Cincinnati, can work with everyone else involved to pull this off.  The impression I have is that while Kentucky may be more culturally conservative than Ohio (because somehow the streetcar has become a culture war symbol, at least here) they may be more inclined to do whatever it takes to achieve economic development.

 

So as far as Uptown vs. NKY for the next expansion goes, Uptown has the advantage in terms of connecting landmarks, college students, and job clusters.  But NKY may have the advantage in terms of achieving neighborhood development and being physically laid out to let a modern streetcar do what it's supposed to do (act as a neighborhood circulator.)

It seems like both the Uptown and NKY expansions are immediately necessary as they open up the most future expansion potential. Getting up the hill to Uptown allows for connections to dozens of neighborhoods with a lot of potential and the NKY expansion would help spread costs of operating the system and allow for future east-west expansion along the Kentucky side of the river. That would be a system that could really change the whole central region.

Wasn't the point of connecting uptown to downtown first being that these were the two biggest job centers, and connecting them as the first phase(s) created both the highest demand for development along the route and created the strongest backbone upon which future lines would connect?

 

In my opinion both are big deals, but if you think of the redevelopment of OTR Specifically, a fast connection to the hospitals and university area is probably the most important, because then all of the sudden all those doctors, nurses, professors, etc. can live in a true car free, urban setting of OTR.  How much would that help their recruitment of potential new nurses, etc.  Not only that, I think it would double up the redevelopment potential, speed it up x2 or maybe even more.  Not sure of the statistics, put I wonder what the average income is of workers in the Uptown area, i.e. Christ Hospital, VA, Children's, University of Cincinnati, vs. the average income in the CBD. 

 

Anyways, that is just my opinion.  And I think a lot of the opposition knows this, and they want to kill it because they don't want OTR to succeed and develop fully, probably for reasons thinking that the crime and poor folk will spread out to their neighborhood. 

^ I think it's more a fear that these reviving neighborhoods represent serious competition for the prevailing housing solutions out there.

At some point soon, our leader need to be thinking about how true light rail plays into our transportation network. Expanding the streetcar multiple times is great, but the average person is not going to take the streetcar between Avondale and Covington. The streetcar is the "local" and light rail is the "express".

Wasn't the point of connecting uptown to downtown first being that these were the two biggest job centers, and connecting them as the first phase(s) created both the highest demand for development along the route and created the strongest backbone upon which future lines would connect?

 

That was a significant part of it, though perhaps more significant was political viability. It is a connection between two big clusters of undeniable destinations which are near each other (but separated by a hill). Think about all the loonies that were arguing "there is nothing on the streetcar line," and think of how many more people would've been swayed by this argument with a different proposal.

^And the political climate in Cincy has changed tremendously since that was floated.  If Newport and Covington are interested, get them on board while we wait out Cranley.

Speaking of which, I haven't seen this article from the Business Courier posted yet:

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/morning_call/2014/08/northern-kentucky-begins-streetcar-conversation.html

 

 

Judging by this quote and the timing, it's possible that this is just Channel 12 rehashing The River City News' article from 8/22, but who knows:

 

City leaders in Northern Kentucky are discussing the possibility of connecting Newport and Covington to Cincinnati’s streetcar system, Local 12 reports.

 

This post will spark some debate I think…

 

In regards to recent events in Ferguson many urbanists online have been interpreting events through a spectrum of the nature of the inner suburb.  The consensus is that many inner suburbs, with their aging infrastructure and lack of appeal to gentrifiers,  will continue their decline into poverty with no easy answers in sight. 

 

That being said, when we talk about light rail in Cincinnati, we talk about going up 1-71 into Warren County to Kings Island and the exurbs, and possibly going up 1-75 to West Chester.  By doing this, aren’t we mitigating one of the few selling points of city neighborhoods and inner ring suburbs, which is closeness and short travel times to the urban core? 

 

While light rail with park and rides in the exurbs would make it easier for people to live in those communities and work in the city, people living in the city and inner suburbs would have difficult accessing jobs in the exurbs via the same system due to the last mile problem.  Jobs are out there, but they are spread out and the "stroads" are not walkable.  I also think many companies located in the exurbs would be reluctant to offer shuttles to light rail stops because they moved out there, sometimes to unincorporated areas, to cut costs in the first place vs. "attracting talent."  And their older workforce is just fine with that. 

 

My question is, would it be better to have a close-in transit system of very high frequency between the inner suburbs, city neighborhoods, and urban core (incorporating options like BRT and streetcar,)  or a light rail system that extends all the way to the exurbs?  Which option is best for the city?  The metro region?  The planet? 

 

Or, am I presenting a false choice?

 

I had a dream the other night that we somehow got a council that decided to find transit like crazy. They wanted less than 10 minute headways on all routes 18 hours/day...but the only stipulation of the funding was that it had to be used in the city. What followed was a crisis in the burbs as they suddenly had absolutely no transit service, while all of the round energy moved into the city. Then in a domino effect, all of the suburbs started voting themselves into the city.

 

One can dream.

This post will spark some debate I think…

 

My question is, would it be better to have a close-in transit system of very high frequency between the inner suburbs, city neighborhoods, and urban core (incorporating options like BRT and streetcar,)  or a light rail system that extends all the way to the exurbs?  Which option is best for the city?  The metro region?  The planet? 

 

Or, am I presenting a false choice?

 

 

If roads to exurbia facilitate sprawl, wouldn't rail do the same?  I'm for rail closer in -- it's sad to see older, closer-in suburbs decline, and sad to see infrastructure like sidewalks, sewers, etc. (that aren't always available in exurbia) go to waste.  It's my hope and dream that more people will choose to preserve, renovate and/or adapt older homes instead of opting for cheaply-built brand-new homes in exurbia.

What you guys are missing is the difference in land use patterns encouraged by roads vs. rail. Would light rail encourage development in the exurbs it reaches? Yes, but concentrated within a short distance of the station. In fact, it may even encourage some of the jobs already located in these areas to relocate near the rail stations -- these companies would like to have access to young talent that doesn't want to drive.

 

The exurbs exist and are here to stay, so why not encourage them to build more densely? The region benefits if they do this. Retrofitting the suburbs to be more sustainable is not a threat to the city. Enforcing a monopoly on sustainable development for the city is another type of zero-sum thinking.

 

aren’t we mitigating one of the few selling points of city neighborhoods and inner ring suburbs, which is closeness and short travel times to the urban core? 

 

It's not like you are erasing that distance by putting in light rail. There's quite a difference between 5-minute train access and 30-minute train access. And when you consider using LRT for purposes other than commuting (i.e. during non-peak hours), you have to worry a lot about frequency or often what time the service ends at night (are you going to pay for a cab from OTR to Mason?). People and businesses will still be attracted to the walkability, sense of place, much wider net of transit access, etc., of the city, which Mason will never be able to compete with.

I guess what's frustrating is that it DOES seem like a zero sum game in our metro region.  We have a relatively slowly, mostly organically growing population leading to "sprawl without growth."  But maybe that's because we've been complacent and avoided making big investments like light rail...

The thing is that putting transit into already low density areas requires some fairly heroic actions to get upzoing approved, even just around the stations.  Look at many of the new (and old!) railroad suburbs of Chicago to see how many stations are right up against large-lot single-family development that is frozen in its current state due to zoning.  Even along the highly developed lakefront suburbs of the North Shore, there's abysmally underdeveloped stations like Kenilworth, Indian Hill, Braeside, Ft. Sheridan, Lake Bluff, Zion, and Winthrop Harbor, several of which are next to nature preserves.  Alternatively, newer suburbs have bigger park-and-ride lots or garages, but it's still more of a Kenwood or Tyson's Corner type development pattern that's not particularly walkable.  So at least in my opinion, transit shouldn't be extended to places that don't intend to use it to their advantage and want to just keep their low-density sprawl patterns intact.