Glad to see some people outside of our circle talking about this, even though an airport-to-downtown link should be one of our lowest priority lines.

He's talking commuter rail to Lunken. Take an Uber.

 

Would like to see business people to line up behind streetcar/light rail to Uptown where there is density to support ridership.

Our subway tunnels getting some national attention: http://www.theverge.com/2016/8/10/12411632/public-transportation-failures-america-cincinnati-subway

 

 

I saw that too. I like how they took the Union Terminal is currently closed for repairs to mean that it is 'so in shambles that it is closed and has a crumbling I-max' with no mention for the reason it is closed. Kinda lazy and seems to make it so the whole article reinforces the narrative of a city that coulda been a contender or something like that. Looks like they put a lot of work into it otherwise traveling here and interviewing, though i doubt the high pressure watermain is "leaking". Props to Jake for putting the time in to keeping them informed as best as possible as i know people who make up subway "facts" are near the top of his annoyance list. BTY rumor is that the subway tunnels are part of the old underground railroad to help escaped slaves (I kid).

 

Here is a crude sketch of how the streetcar could be extended as a fully grade-separated line into the uptown area.  By using the area currently occupied by a strip of trees along Jefferson and the north side of MLK, which is all clear with the exception of the Piedmont Apts, it is possible to avoid rebuilding those streets or interfering with utilities with every foot of track.  Also, it quite obviously enables very fast speed for the vehicles, and so reduces the number of vehicles necessary to provide a given level of service.

 

1. line emerges from 1.1-mile bored tunnel just north of Corry St. into a cut.  The floor of the cut would be about 18 feet below the level of Jefferson Ave. and formed by concrete retaining walls

2. line might pass under access drive for sports bubble or this access will be eliminated.

3. line passes beneath Daniels St., station located in this area could have ADA without an elevator thanks to the length of the cut. 

4. line enters a cut-and-cover tunnel just south of University Ave. and emerges 1,500 feet later on the slope between MLK and the Vontz Center.

5. line emerges from tunnel and immediately transitions to a bridge

6. line crosses 20 feet above Eden Ave. -- station might be located here if budget permits.

7. Piedmont Apartments are demolished.  Line could be built elevated in space between building and MLK, but is not ideal.

8. I skipped #8 but line also passes over Bellevue Ave. and main entrance to UC Hospital.

9. line is level but meets rising MLK slope just west of Highland Ave. then enters block-long cut-and-cover tunnel.

10. line surfaces east of Burnett and continues at-grade to Reading Rd.

11. line can probably cross Harvey at-grade without causing much trouble.

12. line terminates on undeveloped land at the corner of MLK and Reading.

 

*the cut-and-cover tunnel between 4 and 5 could instead be built as an elevated viaduct if utility and disruption issues are too great in that area, but pillars might obstruct sight lines in what is already a very unusual and confusing area. This viaduct would probably require slower operation and would put more wear on the vehicles. 

 

** yet another option would be building elevated along Jefferson between the Corry St. portal and MLK.  Might be cheaper than building the cut.

Glad to see some people outside of our circle talking about this, even though an airport-to-downtown link should be one of our lowest priority lines.

 

Although from this angle, a 5 mile steel cable direct to a penthouse level 'arrival station' on the Carew Tower via Wire Mobile seems like a practical method of travel. Perhaps a zip line option for the adventure traveler?

Here is a crude sketch of how the streetcar could be extended as a fully grade-separated line into the uptown area.  By using the area currently occupied by a strip of trees along Jefferson and the north side of MLK, which is all clear with the exception of the Piedmont Apts, it is possible to avoid rebuilding those streets or interfering with utilities with every foot of track.  Also, it quite obviously enables very fast speed for the vehicles, and so reduces the number of vehicles necessary to provide a given level of service.

 

1. line emerges from 1.1-mile bored tunnel just north of Corry St. into a cut.  The floor of the cut would be about 18 feet below the level of Jefferson Ave. and formed by concrete retaining walls

2. line might pass under access drive for sports bubble or this access will be eliminated.

3. line passes beneath Daniels St., station located in this area could have ADA without an elevator thanks to the length of the cut. 

4. line enters a cut-and-cover tunnel just south of University Ave. and emerges 1,500 feet later on the slope between MLK and the Vontz Center.

5. line emerges from tunnel and immediately transitions to a bridge

6. line crosses 20 feet above Eden Ave. -- station might be located here if budget permits.

7. Piedmont Apartments are demolished.  Line could be built elevated in space between building and MLK, but is not ideal.

8. I skipped #8 but line also passes over Bellevue Ave. and main entrance to UC Hospital.

9. line is level but meets rising MLK slope just west of Highland Ave. then enters block-long cut-and-cover tunnel.

10. line surfaces east of Burnett and continues at-grade to Reading Rd.

11. line can probably cross Harvey at-grade without causing much trouble.

12. line terminates on undeveloped land at the corner of MLK and Reading.

 

*the cut-and-cover tunnel between 4 and 5 could instead be built as an elevated viaduct if utility and disruption issues are too great in that area, but pillars might obstruct sight lines in what is already a very unusual and confusing area. This viaduct would probably require slower operation and would put more wear on the vehicles. 

 

** yet another option would be building elevated along Jefferson between the Corry St. portal and MLK.  Might be cheaper than building the cut.

 

 

^ Good, Jake. I've lately been wondering if we could daylight the Mt. Auburn Tunnel a little sooner, say between Calhoun and Corry

 

As on FYI, the Piedmont Apartments are scheduled to be torn down.  That site is where UC will be building its new Neuroscience Institute building.

It passes right by UC's utility plant - I suspect it's a mess of underground crap right there, but that's just raw suspicion.

 

Should it go on the north side of the Jefferson/MLK intersection for a stop at the EPA?  I feel like having pedestrians cross that intersection twice to walk to/from a station is a big ask - so pedestrian-unfriendly...

It would also be good to see it connect to the Zoo somehow. Maybe it can loop UCMC/CCHMC/VAMC super block and pass by the Zoo that way (turning onto Erkenbrecher).

It passes right by UC's utility plant - I suspect it's a mess of underground crap right there, but that's just raw suspicion.

 

Should it go on the north side of the Jefferson/MLK intersection for a stop at the EPA?  I feel like having pedestrians cross that intersection twice to walk to/from a station is a big ask - so pedestrian-unfriendly...

 

Maybe it's time for UC to fund that pedestrian bridge that would cross that entire intersection and partner with the city for it to be a multimodal transit bridge that allows for pedestrians to enter at many points and cross above traffic while also offering a connection to an elevated rail platform that would probably be cheaper to build than a cut and cover tunnel that requires a major intersection to be closed for a long period.

 

Just a thought. Maybe someone has better numbers to go off and can offer insight.

^ Good, Jake. I've late been wondering if we could daylight the Mt. Auburn tunnel a little sooner, say between Calhoun and Corry

 

 

Well if the utilities are as complicated in that area as they might be, it could be necessary to build that whole section parallel to Jefferson elevated from the Edwards Center north and over MLK.  The width between Jefferson and the buildings (sports bubble, Turner Hall) is 40 feet, which is probably not wide enough for an elevated route built on fill.  It briefly narrows to about 25 feet next to the 3 sisters parking garage.  I assume that this is where most of the utilities from the UC power plant cross Jefferson.  I don't think that the power plant is linked at all to the hospital complex (which of course has its own power plant), but I could be wrong. 

 

That slope from Calhoun down to the level of Daniels is pretty significant, so if the tunnel could daylight in a cut between Corry and Daniels, the whole tunnel could rise at a somewhat more comfortable grade as compared to daylighting in the never-used park space next to St. George. 

 

As on FYI, the Piedmont Apartments are scheduled to be torn down.  That site is where UC will be building its new Neuroscience Institute building.

 

Hopefully the street setback is being maintained.  If not, it throws a major wrench in a plan like this.  All of this could be built, of course, as a deep subway and would avoid all aesthetic and most utility issues, but it would probably cost 2x-3x. 

^From the renderings shown in the past, the setback is indeed being maintained.

 

An elevated section along Jefferson with retail space built underneath it as happens all over the world would make for an interesting addition to the streetscape and might help make that street less sucky from a pedestrian standpoint.

 

But that has no chance of happening because money.

This might be a dumb question... but could you use the "cut and cover" approach with a tunnel inside the current street ROW? And then, when the tracks daylight, they could occupy a lane (or two) of traffic.  The reason I ask is because Jefferson and MLK already are - IMHO - too wide. Jefferson is 7 lanes wide. I'd much rather see new buildings situated so that they "squeeze" the street as much as possible. With Jake's plan, that would basically ensure Jefferson would always be at least 135' wide (95' current width + 40' feet for tracks). Similar situation on MLK.

Technically speaking, sure. But that would require ODOT approving the removal of traffic lanes on those streets which is, frankly, near impossible unfortunately. MLK is getting additional lanes by the new highway interchange and trying to squeeze it down west of that is basically a nonstarter. We all know that it would be fine, but ODOT wants all through roads to the highway to basically operate as mini highways and removing lanes won't work with that plan.

^Ugh. It's frustrating that ODOT is so short sighted about how they design roads. With the right design, this feels like the kind of opportunity that could actually win <a href="https://www.transportation.gov/tiger">TIGER funds</a> and be truly transformational for Uptown and the region.

 

Making Uptown more walkable will require rethinking how MLK and Jefferson are designed. Folks at the Uptown Consortium need to get their heads out of the sand on this.

This might be a dumb question... but could you use the "cut and cover" approach with a tunnel inside the current street ROW? And then, when the tracks daylight, they could occupy a lane (or two) of traffic.  The reason I ask is because Jefferson and MLK already are - IMHO - too wide. Jefferson is 7 lanes wide. I'd much rather see new buildings situated so that they "squeeze" the street as much as possible. With Jake's plan, that would basically ensure Jefferson would always be at least 135' wide (95' current width + 40' feet for tracks). Similar situation on MLK.

 

It isn't "my" plan, it was the plan that Parsons-Brinkerhoff was hired to study by OKI back in the late 90s.  The big thing that has changed since then is that UC shut down its old power plant next to Nippert Stadium (where the CRC is now) and built a new one between Jefferson and Vine.  Also, the big intersection was rebuilt into its current configuration around 2002-03.  Turner Hall opened around 2003 and preserved the setback.  MLK was rebuilt into its current configuration 1997-98.  Before that the "highway" section between Vine and Eden was just four lanes total, if I remember correctly, but with no center median or big highway-style lamps.  I can't remember the guy's name but the person who did this study back in the 90s still works for PB's Cincinnati office.  I chatted with him once for about five minutes and he confirmed that what you're seeing here was basically the plan -- a series of short underpasses and bridges. 

 

UC also had a plan to put the big intersection underground and connect the two sections of campus with a park.  There was a scale model of this plan in a storefront up on McMillan for awhile back in the early 2000s.  This makes me optimistic that the utilities that connect the power plant with the main campus are more in line with University Ave., meaning a tunnel could be built under the big intersection.  If you go to this area and picture an elevated line turning east, you will laugh at loud and how high the thing could potentially cross Eden Ave. if it stays on a level course.  An elevated line right by the nursing school is at just about the level of Highland and Burnett, meaning the line would cross 75~ feet above Eden Ave.  Funny to think about for a second, but it would prevent construction of a cheap station. 

 

Same thing with cut-and-cover under Jefferson -- you don't want a subway station if it can be avoided.  Much more expensive to build and more expensive to run. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I found this map online awhile back which I think is pretty much based on the MetroMoves plan.

 

 

View it full screen.

The topography around the MLK/Jefferson intersection just beg for a tunnel (ideally with cars and rail) to fix the wonky geometry, and make it possible/desirable for pedestrians to walk between main campus and the hospitals.

jmecklenborg[/member] why would you need to have a "Sky bridge" at Eden Avenue? Why couldn't you have an elevated track that stays a near constant 16' feet above gound?

 

Would these cut and cover tunnels underneath streets be more cost effective than an elevated track? What would have lower maintenance costs?

Maybe I'm just extra cynical today, but this whole discussion seems so disconnected from reality. The Mt. Auburn tunnel could be in the realm of possibilities, especially if people see how slow the streetcar moves, and recognize that a surface running streetcar up Vine or Clifton Ave would be totally inefficient an impractical as a way to move between downtown and uptown.  Beyond that, however, I just don't see anything other than surface running rail occurring in Uptown or other parts of the city.  All this talk of elevated tracks, cut and cover tunnels on MLK and what not is pure fantasy, IMO. This is one of the most conservative metros in the country, and while I think there is growing appetite for transit here, I can't see Hamilton County voters supporting a project that spends so much money in Clifton alone. Any sort of county-wide proposal would need to cover most parts of the county so that voters can see a direct benefit to their own lives.  That means the transit system is going to have to be done as cheaply as possible so that it can reach the most amount of directions out from downtown, thus making proposals like the one upthread entirely unfeasible.

^From the renderings shown in the past, the setback is indeed being maintained.

 

An elevated section along Jefferson with retail space built underneath it as happens all over the world would make for an interesting addition to the streetscape and might help make that street less sucky from a pedestrian standpoint.

 

But that has no chance of happening because money.

 

I can confirm this is the case.  The city has requested additional R/W on the north side of MLK along this property to save room to eventually add another lane of traffic on MLK if it is ever needed.

Maybe I'm just extra cynical today, but this whole discussion seems so disconnected from reality. The Mt. Auburn tunnel could be in the realm of possibilities, especially if people see how slow the streetcar moves, and recognize that a surface running streetcar up Vine or Clifton Ave would be totally inefficient an impractical as a way to move between downtown and uptown.  Beyond that, however, I just don't see anything other than surface running rail occurring in Uptown or other parts of the city.  All this talk of elevated tracks, cut and cover tunnels on MLK and what not is pure fantasy, IMO. This is one of the most conservative metros in the country, and while I think there is growing appetite for transit here, I can't see Hamilton County voters supporting a project that spends so much money in Clifton alone. Any sort of county-wide proposal would need to cover most parts of the county so that voters can see a direct benefit to their own lives.  That means the transit system is going to have to be done as cheaply as possible so that it can reach the most amount of directions out from downtown, thus making proposals like the one upthread entirely unfeasible.

 

They need something like this so that a rail line isn't slower than molasses. It gets more important the further out you want the rail line to go. So we have to spend the money in these Uptown neighborhoods if we want any longer distance line to be worth a damn.

 

I'm also ok with not involving the county at all and not having 5 rail lines in every direction. Transit does better in dense areas. It's ok with me if it just goes to Xavier and links up to the Wasson way trail. And then after that a separate line to Northside.

That's why you have to come up with a full regional plan and take it to the voters. The only way that the cost of the tunnel makes sense is if you can use it for a longer light rail line that links more neighborhoods to Downtown. And I agree with John Schneider that a county-wide issue is probably not the best way to approach this. I think our best bet is a city-only issue that includes maybe 2 light rail lines -- one taking the streetcar uptown and along the Wasson Way corridor, and another to the West Side somewhere.

Honestly I wouldn't support any other way to get Uptown except with a scheme very similar to this

jmecklenborg[/member] why would you need to have a "Sky bridge" at Eden Avenue? Why couldn't you have an elevated track that stays a near constant 16' feet above gound?

 

Would these cut and cover tunnels underneath streets be more cost effective than an elevated track? What would have lower maintenance costs?

 

That's all way above my abilities...I have zero expertise in construction estimating.  We don't know what utilities, soil conditions, etc. are lurking in this area, aside from what specs are necessary for retaining walls, pillars, drainage, etc.  The good thing is that light rail is lighter than legacy heavy rail systems, so elevated sections are significantly less expensive to build and can look better.  The new elevated sections in Los Angeles look a lot nicer than the new elevated Metro line in Redmond, VA in large part because there's a lot less material.     

 

That's why you have to come up with a full regional plan and take it to the voters. The only way that the cost of the tunnel makes sense is if you can use it for a longer light rail line that links more neighborhoods to Downtown. And I agree with John Schneider that a county-wide issue is probably not the best way to approach this. I think our best bet is a city-only issue that includes maybe 2 light rail lines -- one taking the streetcar uptown and along the Wasson Way corridor, and another to the West Side somewhere.

 

Yeah I think the general strategy, outside of linking the #1 and #2 job centers, should be construction in the poorest areas.  So by that metric, Wasson is a low priority.  In the uptown area I think extending the graphic you see above on Reading Rd. north to the Paddock split is reasonable.  I think W 8th to Glenway via a tunnel through Price Hill should be the other priority.  The highest ROI potential exists in turning around neighborhoods that are currently the worst.  Billshark made a great point several months ago when he recognized that too much job growth is happening far from the west side.  Encouraging jobs and residential in Queensgate and linking that directly to Price Hill creates a feature that area does not currently enjoy. 

 

 

 

 

 

That's why you have to come up with a full regional plan and take it to the voters. The only way that the cost of the tunnel makes sense is if you can use it for a longer light rail line that links more neighborhoods to Downtown. And I agree with John Schneider that a county-wide issue is probably not the best way to approach this. I think our best bet is a city-only issue that includes maybe 2 light rail lines -- one taking the streetcar uptown and along the Wasson Way corridor, and another to the West Side somewhere.

 

I completely agree that the tunnel only makes sense if you can use it for a longer light rail line, and I like the idea of a city-only tax to build a smaller system aimed at connecting Cincinnati neighborhoods to downtown.  If the suburbs want it expanded from there, they can figure out a way to pay for it.  I just don't know if the city has the the ability to raise enough money to build such a system on its own, though with state and federal assistance, it could probably be worked out.

 

 

They need something like this so that a rail line isn't slower than molasses. It gets more important the further out you want the rail line to go. So we have to spend the money in these Uptown neighborhoods if we want any longer distance line to be worth a damn.

 

I'm also ok with not involving the county at all and not having 5 rail lines in every direction. Transit does better in dense areas. It's ok with me if it just goes to Xavier and links up to the Wasson way trail. And then after that a separate line to Northside.

 

I mostly agree with you, but I think you can achieve fast speeds through grade separation or dedicated lanes for transit. When we start talking about additional tunnels, property acquisition, bridges, etc. the costs increase exponentially.  Spend the money on the tunnel to connect downtown and uptown, and then use some of the wide streets that exist uptown to do surface running rail in dedicated lanes from there.  Eventually, we would need to link up with existing railroad ROW (Wasson Way) which obviously makes things much easier from there.

 

Yeah I think the general strategy, outside of linking the #1 and #2 job centers, should be construction in the poorest areas.  So by that metric, Wasson is a low priority.  In the uptown area I think extending the graphic you see above on Reading Rd. north to the Paddock split is reasonable.  I think W 8th to Glenway via a tunnel through Price Hill should be the other priority.  The highest ROI potential exists in turning around neighborhoods that are currently the worst.  Billshark made a great point several months ago when he recognized that too much job growth is happening far from the west side.  Encouraging jobs and residential in Queensgate and linking that directly to Price Hill creates a feature that area does not currently enjoy.

 

Two tunnels seems like a big ask, even if it's sold as "one tunnel for each side of the city!" What about running trains over a new WW Viaduct and along the old Westwood and Cincinnati Interurban ROW?

 

 

In my opinion you offer two lines in Cincinnati city limits on a ballot, one going north and east through Mt. Auburn tunnel to Wasson Way all the way to Madisonville (~10 miles). The other using either the old subway tunnels, or the Mt. Auburn tunnel and going north and west to Northside and College Hill (~8 miles). I think you could get some pretty good support, while simultaneously freaking out many east-siders who would think that it would "bring poor people to the neighborhood". Those people are always going to exist however, so I say you keep it out of the county and to the city itself. You could add a streetcar extension in uptown traveling east/west which has been discussed extensively in this thread to the ballot as well, but from a light rail non-street running standpoint those two lines seem like the logical places to start.

 

That being said, I like the idea of a westside/Price Hill line as well. That way just is seems more complicated once you get on top of the hill, and I don't know where it would want to go.

I don't think that linking the old subway and South Fairmount via a new viaduct or as part of a new Western Hills Viaduct is a transformative project to the degree that rail on W. 8th and into Price Hill would be.  Redeveloping Queensgate into something much better than it is now is dependent on a number of big things happening, and rebuilding W. 8th as an attractive boulevard with a rail link to Downtown is one of those things.  The viaduct can't do anything for the cheap real estate below, and I'm not confident that investment would follow a light rail extension through South Fairmount.  Also, the park-and-ride + TOD at Western Hills Plaza would be nice, but again, doesn't have the potential along with significant streetscape improvements to Glenway/Warsaw to really transform anything beyond its immediate boundaries.

 

 

 

 

I don't think that linking the old subway and South Fairmount via a new viaduct or as part of a new Western Hills Viaduct is a transformative project to the degree that rail on W. 8th and into Price Hill would be.  Redeveloping Queensgate into something much better than it is now is dependent on a number of big things happening, and rebuilding W. 8th as an attractive boulevard with a rail link to Downtown is one of those things.  The viaduct can't do anything for the cheap real estate below, and I'm not confident that investment would follow a light rail extension through South Fairmount.  Also, the park-and-ride + TOD at Western Hills Plaza would be nice, but again, doesn't have the potential along with significant streetscape improvements to Glenway/Warsaw to really transform anything beyond its immediate boundaries.

 

Any thoughts on what would be the best way to get up the steep grade to the top of Price Hill? Tunnel? Follow Glenway Ave?

I don't think that linking the old subway and South Fairmount via a new viaduct or as part of a new Western Hills Viaduct is a transformative project to the degree that rail on W. 8th and into Price Hill would be.  Redeveloping Queensgate into something much better than it is now is dependent on a number of big things happening, and rebuilding W. 8th as an attractive boulevard with a rail link to Downtown is one of those things.  The viaduct can't do anything for the cheap real estate below, and I'm not confident that investment would follow a light rail extension through South Fairmount.  Also, the park-and-ride + TOD at Western Hills Plaza would be nice, but again, doesn't have the potential along with significant streetscape improvements to Glenway/Warsaw to really transform anything beyond its immediate boundaries.

 

Any thoughts on what would be the best way to get up the steep grade to the top of Price Hill? Tunnel? Follow Glenway Ave?

 

I think the best option is to go from Glenway to Wilder to Warsaw.  The potential for development on Glenway Ave from W 8th. to Warsaw is not nearly as high as taking it on Warsaw due to Glenway being on the edge of the neighborhood.  Plus, on Warsaw you go right by Kroger. 

I'm curious, I thought I remembered hearing that the railroad track going through pleasant ridge and Kennedy heights or least part of it was bought by metro in preparation for metro moves. Is that true? If so I think somehow bringing rail up to connect to that row would beneficial. A lot of the residents here in Kennedy heights walk, ride the bus or ride bikes and I could see them and people in pleasant ridge being supportive of an additional mode of transportation.

I found this recently. Dated 2001. There's a stop at Ridge and one in Silverton.

 

https://www.uc.edu/cdc/urban_database/subregional/I-71_Light_Rail_Drawings.pdf

 

 

I found this recently. Dated 2001. There's a stop at Ridge and one in Silverton.

 

https://www.uc.edu/cdc/urban_database/subregional/I-71_Light_Rail_Drawings.pdf

 

 

 

^ Just FYI, some of the loudest opposition to MetroMoves came from Pleasant Ridge. For no good reason.

I found this recently. Dated 2001. There's a stop at Ridge and one in Silverton.

 

https://www.uc.edu/cdc/urban_database/subregional/I-71_Light_Rail_Drawings.pdf

 

 

 

^ Just FYI, some of the loudest opposition to MetroMoves came from Pleasant Ridge. For no good reason.

 

Oh wow that sucks. That was something in the back of my mind i hoped would happen eventually when I bought my house in Kennedy heights 5 yrs ago. I'm literally 3 blocks from where that Silverton station was planned.

I think going into East Price Hill would be fabulous along 8th Street.  I really have no idea what route in EPH would be best, but this could really lift up the neighborhood with a fast, easy track to downtown.  It could also drum up a ton of interest for a city wide tax vote, along with possibly some real BRT through Westwood to downtown, Northside to downtown, and maybe down Madison Avenue towards downtown?

I found this recently. Dated 2001. There's a stop at Ridge and one in Silverton.

 

https://www.uc.edu/cdc/urban_database/subregional/I-71_Light_Rail_Drawings.pdf

 

 

 

^ Just FYI, some of the loudest opposition to MetroMoves came from Pleasant Ridge. For no good reason.

 

John - do you think that would be true today. Pleasant Ridge has changed a ton since 2001. I think the younger population that is there today would embrace it much more than 15 years ago, don't you?

Historically the only routes for streetcars into Price Hill were the incline, Glenway/Wilder/Warsaw, and Elberon.  I wouldn't consider any of those to be easy climbs, but that doesn't mean they're not doable.

I found this recently. Dated 2001. There's a stop at Ridge and one in Silverton.

 

https://www.uc.edu/cdc/urban_database/subregional/I-71_Light_Rail_Drawings.pdf

 

 

 

^ Just FYI, some of the loudest opposition to MetroMoves came from Pleasant Ridge. For no good reason.

 

John - do you think that would be true today. Pleasant Ridge has changed a ton since 2001. I think the younger population that is there today would embrace it much more than 15 years ago, don't you?

 

Maybe, maybe not. One good thing though. Stephan Louis, who lives in Pleasant Ridge and led the opposition to MetroMoves, has been thoroughly discredited since that campaign, so he's no longer a factor

In regards to the hypothetical Mt Auburn tunnel plan to Uptown...What's the plan in terms of bringing this to fruition? I understand more than likely we have to wait for Cranley to be out of office (and hopefully Yvette Simpson will be our new mayor) in order for this to really start churning..But how do we get this conceptual plan that Mr. Schneider is proposing, and have it become something that we can start working towards? Does this plan have to be presented to city council? Do they have to approve this? I guess, I'm just wondering how do we transition from brainstorming, to actually get the wheels turning.

 

I know it's early, and the street car has only been working for a week or so, but at the same time I don't want to have to wait another 10-15 years just so I can travel to Uptown from say OTR or the CBD via this proposal :/

Hypothetically speaking, how crazy would it be to have an incline again?

Hypothetically speaking, how crazy would it be to have an incline again?

 

If you want to put streetcars on it? Very crazy.

 

If you want it to be more like an elevator with a view that would just take pedestrians and maybe cyclists up and down a hill? That's doable. Could also be done with an aerial cable lift.

Very. The benefit of the old school trolley and streetcar systems was short, single car trains that could easily fit on an incline platform. Even if we utilized the same length streetcars as we have now that would need to be a significantly larger platform with seriously heavy duty equipment to lift that train up and down the hillside.

 

And if we're talking light rail with longer configurations of the CAF Urbos 3 trains like are used elsewhere well...that becomes a near impossibility. The CAF Urbos 3 can be configured to be up to around 180' long. I can't even imagine what a system would look like capable of carrying that up the hillside. It would be badass though!

Fair enough. I think having a stop at the bottom of the old Price Hill Incline for real transportation (either climbing the hill or tunnel or whatever) so tourists can get off. Then there could be a sightseeing funicular (even a reproduction of the old incline with an old car on board) for tourists to ride up and down. Something like that could really help the incline district. But obviously this will never happen for many reasons.

In regards to the hypothetical Mt Auburn tunnel plan to Uptown...What's the plan in terms of bringing this to fruition? I understand more than likely we have to wait for Cranley to be out of office (and hopefully Yvette Simpson will be our new mayor) in order for this to really start churning..But how do we get this conceptual plan that Mr. Schneider is proposing, and have it become something that we can start working towards? Does this plan have to be presented to city council? Do they have to approve this? I guess, I'm just wondering how do we transition from brainstorming, to actually get the wheels turning.

 

I know it's early, and the street car has only been working for a week or so, but at the same time I don't want to have to wait another 10-15 years just so I can travel to Uptown from say OTR or the CBD via this proposal :/

 

First of all, the idea is 20 years old and was studied in some detail by Parsons-Brinkerhoff in the late 1990s.  A physical copy of the study is in the main library.  The study included drilling soil samples into the hillside.  They had very early digital photos of these samples on OKI's website back in the late 1990s - I wish I had saved them.  People out there keep acting like this is some fairy tail idea when it was a real thing. 

 

Second, several tunnels of this scale or larger have been built in mid-sized cities since this study with federal grants:

-Portland...3 mile MAX tunnel with one deep station

-Seattle...1-mile Capitol Hill tunnel with one deep station

-Seattle...3-mile University Link tunnel with two deep stations

-Seattle...2~-mile extension of University Link Tunnel (under construction)

-Pittsburgh...1/2 mile Northshore Connector tunnel under the river

-Minneapolis...1-mile bored tunnel under airport airfield

 

So what's the steps in that case? Devise a solid, physical plan with blue prints and sketches? Then propose this idea to the city council? And from their, if city council deems in feasible, then apply for a federal grant for this project?

 

I'm just trying to sketch out an outline of the steps. I know John Schneider is the god father so to speak when it comes to transit, and alot of people listen and respect him when it comes to his ideas and proposals. I'm just curious of John has a plan set out to bring this forward in the coming months/year(s) ahead.

Hypothetically speaking, how crazy would it be to have an incline again?

 

Studied it in MetroMoves. A non-starter

So where would the station be located to enter the uptown route? Are we essentially having this tunnel route, be connected from OTR to Uptown? So essentially if I'm at the Banks, I would have to take the street car up to OTR first, and once I arrive to OTR, jump off to the corresponding station, that will take me to Uptown and back. So basically it's a dedicated transit light rail line that only connects OTR and Uptown.

 

What street would this take place under? Sycamore Street I'm guessing?

So where would the station be located to enter the uptown route? Are we essentially having this tunnel route, be connected from OTR to Uptown? So essentially if I'm at the Banks, I would have to take the street car up to OTR first, and once I arrive to OTR, jump off to the corresponding station, that will take me to Uptown and back. So basically it's a dedicated transit light rail line that only connects OTR and Uptown.

 

What street would this take place under? Sycamore Street I'm guessing?

 

Extend the tracks on Walnut and Main from where they now end at Central Parkway and 12th. Enter tunnel somewhere between Liberty and the Main Street steps. Daylight the tunnel just north of TCH on a city-owned vacant street. Enter second tunnel under Inwood Park to somewhere on Jefferson, daylighting as soon as we can once we're past Calhoun. Might not be able to daylight until Daniels. Bottom line; it would be a fast one-seat ride from the Banks to UC