^Are there any details of their plans available online? 

 

I worked quite a bit at a warehouse in that industrial park, several guys complained about the lack of bus service to that area, there was even a guy who commuted from Florence, KY all the way up there.  And there is still tons of land in that area to be developed, and in fact most of the businesses have not built-out entirely on their own property.  For example the company I worked for outgrew its original location near Spring Grove Cemetery and bought 5 acres up there and is presently using only half of its property.  They are typical of the operations up there in that they could easily add 100 more employees to that site.  Take a particular one mile square in that area an the number of commuters could easily rise by 1,000 over ten years, unlike a similar built-out residential area.           

They need to build it ASAP. Get the funding from where ever you can.  Traffic this past week was horrendous.

Being a resident for only 3 years, I agree with unusualfire that traffic is getting worse. We need safety improvements on I-75 and light rail lines/commuter trains in Cincinnati and in the Cincinnati/Dayton corridor.

They need to build it ASAP. Get the funding from where ever you can.  Traffic this past week was horrendous.

 

Being a resident for only 3 years, I agree with unusualfire that traffic is getting worse. We need safety improvements on I-75 and light rail lines/commuter trains in Cincinnati and in the Cincinnati/Dayton corridor.

 

Write your Congressman.

I assume this is public knowledge by now as the City did hire an consultanting firm as part of the RFQ.  Today I walked from the Race Street Station to Brighton Corner Station . . and back. ;)

Hmm; I saw you all parking on the median this morning and going down at Race and CP.  Race to Brighton, quite a walk underground.

Being a resident for only 3 years, I agree with unusualfire that traffic is getting worse. We need safety improvements on I-75 and light rail lines/commuter trains in Cincinnati and in the Cincinnati/Dayton corridor.

 

They want to take out an exit that would cut off access to northside, cincinnati state, Ludlow etc. and history has shown that that kills a district. I don't support it...Im hoping they can come up with a better solution as far as safety.

Since it failed in 2003 (year?), I was under the impression that there had to be so many years gone by before it can be put back on the ballot, is this true?

Good question. I think it can go back as soon as supporters can get the signatures. I'd imagine they're waiting on a good plan and more favorable circumstances. Remember, it failed almost 2 to 1.

 

People I've talked with at OKI seemed to think it was a non-starter to try a sales tax on a similar plan. I believe it has been removed from their long range plans, since they are fiscally constrained. I think the only way to go is a small start program. Then people can see for themselves and pay for additions to the lines.

I believe they can put it on the ballot at any time, it is the cycle of federal grant funding that caused them to put it on the ballot in 2002.  The 1/2 cent tax would generate roughly $60 million in today's dollars given the present amount of commerce in Hamilton County.  Obviously receipts go up or down with local economic growth or decline.  And remember that due to the limited amount of federal money allocated for rail transit, all communities seeking grants compete with the plans determined by the feds as having the best cost-benefit getting the awards.  So there is the chance for a dollar-for-dollar match and there is the chance for no money at all, in which case the county has only the state to help with construction until the next funding cycle. 

 

The Metro Moves plan was a vague although sound plan, there is no reason to suspect that the I-71 light rail alignment identified in the late 90's as the one promising the best cost-benefit in the region will change in the next 20 years.  This line should still be the priority.         

I went to a speech last fall that included John Schneider, who ran the campaign in '02, and he said then that there was no definate date on when to place it back on the ballot.  I know the light rail line that was just approved Tuesday by the voters in Kansas City finally passed on the 7th try in the last 9 years. 

 

As much as it needs to be passed today, or before construction starts on I75, that's when I think it will finally pass.  Once those commuters are sitting in their cars for an hour or two just to commute downtown, that's when I think the lights will go off in the heads of most voters.  Just my two cents worth.

KC occupies a unique spot in US urban history because it had an explosive but very brief period of growth around 1900-1930.  There wasn't much there before that and not much has happened since.  As a result its central 7X7 miles developed at that particular medium-density level that's seen around Cincinnati in North Avondale, Oakley, College Hill, etc.  The downtown of course is denser but there are no old row house neighborhoods and the primary secondary employment area equivalent to Cincinnati's UC area is 4 miles from downtown, not 2, and that secondary area is neither as large or as dense as what exists in Cincinnati.  I'd estimate there are nearly twice as many residents and jobs in the Downtown-UC-Xavier 4 mile stretch as compared to the core Downtown-Westport-Plaza-UMKC stretch.  As tough as it is to justify extensive tunneling from downtown Cincinnati to UC to Xavier, the potential ridership simply is not there in KC and so any line is doomed to street running due to the lack of any railroad ROW's.

 

And the Kansas City plan is not really a plan at all, it vaguely diverts an existing 3/8 cent tax from the bus system to light rail.  The line itself is ill-conceived as outlined above, and in addition its suburban routing is through even less dense suburbs than what exist in Cincinnati. 

    "Once those commuters are sitting in their cars for an hour or two just to commute downtown,"

 

    But those commuters aren't going downtown!

 

  Yes, downtown is still important. According to the Hamilton County Data Book, we had 80,167 jobs downtown in 1999. But that's only 14% of the jobs in Hamilton County. So, is it safe to assume that at most, only 14% of commuters on I-75 are going downtown? Furthermore, how many of those 14% actually live in Hamilton County and would get to vote on it?

 

   

 

   

Who knows when it will go back on - I agree that it will when we reach gridlock.  The I-71 line could not only be used to get people downtown, but the employment centers around UC (about 60,000) and Blue Ash ( I can't remember the estimate).  Unfortunately, we have a populace that does not understand how a line improves the entire region if it does not affect them directly.  I remember many calls on talk radio about people living closer to I-75 who would not vote for it because it did not help them.  This myopic view generally hurts our ability to pass big picture initiatives, and unfortunately I do not think it has a chance until it literally hits people in the face.  I am guessing around 2020 it would finally start to get some serious consideration.  Of course, we will already be way behind the problem by then and by the way constructions costs for light rail seem to grow exponentially I do not think the odds are good.

 

If there is some way to build a small, impactive portion that would indeed help sell the larger project.

I don't see anyone in the near future putting their balls on the table for light rail.  The people that I have talked to at OKI seem to think that highway projects are better investments than light rail (don't take my word for...talk to Stephan Louis).  The Hamilton County voters also seem to have a kneejerk anti-salestax reaction now after the stadium(s) fiasco.

 

I want/hope/really love it to happen, but I just haven't seen the leadership that would be willing to do it  :|

I don't see anyone in the near future putting their balls on the table

 

You must go to the wrong bars.

 

Best. Simile(?). Ever.

For reference I superimposed the route of the partially abandoned CL&N ROW over these Google Earth images.  The CL&N route was to have comprised the majority of the "I-71" light rail line.  The CL&N (Cincinnati, Lebanon, & Northern) throughout its inglorious history operated as a small-time spur due to its precipitous 3% grade approaching the Cincinnati basin and the failure of its northern terminus to grow to much more than a wide spot in the road.  The scarcity of grade separation through first generation auto suburbs testifies to the light amount of activity seen on this line as the metro area grew around it.

The light rail line would have little at all to do with I-71 (the line was not envisioned to run in the expressway median, for example), so the title was both a mistake from a descriptive and marketing perspective, causing most people to think it would only serve people who commute on I-71.  In fact its four mile stretch between downtown and Xavier would have been the trunk into which at least two other lines were to feed, the I-75 and Wasson Rd. lines.  I suppose it could have been much better promoted by calling it the "Central Light Rail Line", or pretty much anything other than "I-71 Light Rail".     

 

The CL&N ROW is drawn in red.  South of Xavier University this ROW was abandoned around 1985, two single-track overpasses over I-71 and a single-track tunnel still exist in Walnut Hills.  This line was originally double-track narrow gague, I don't know if it was ever rebuilt as double-track standard.  If this routing were used for light rail, only a single line could fit throug the tunnel.  It is short so it doesn't present too severe of an impediment from an operational standpoint, the larger problem is that this routing avoids the region's #2 employment area and 100,000~ residents and students.   

 

In yellow is the Mt. Auburn Tunnel and Martin Luther King Dr. routing studied as part of the I-71 Light Rail study in the late 90's.  The Google Earth "path" measure tool allowed me to mark the distance from Fountain Sqaure with white numbers, a huge improvement over guessing from map legends.  

 

This shows the routing of the I-75 and Wasson Rd. lines into the "I-71" line at Xavier University.  Unfortunately the CL&N travels on the surface through Norwood, this stretch would almost certainly need to be built either in a tunnel or cut in order to reduce noise and improve speed and safety.  That said, tunnels built in these situations are much simpler and so cheaper than traditional cut-and-cover subway tunnels under city streets.  They tend to not require as much utility reconstruction, aren't as disruptive to vehicular traffic or businesses, don't need to support a street above, and obviously a streetscape itself doesn't have to be reconstructed.

 

Miles 9-12 run abreast the west side of Blue Ash Rd.  Like the Norwood situation this stretch is not grade separated for several contiguous miles, so while much better than street running, it's hardly ideal.  A few dozen underpasses and short tunnels would likely be required here, it's unlikely that area residents would tolerate an elevated route built on fill with overpasses.  Obviously speed here is critical for travel times from more distant points to be at all reasonable.

 

 

At I-275 the line was imagined to divert from the CL&N ROW east to run alongside I-71 north to King's Island. 

 

The CL&N ROW approaching Mason.  As can be seen at Mile 19 a new subdivision has been built over the ROW, greatly complicating any rail or even bicycle path potential. 

 

So as can be seen, this line is remarkable for having a fairly consistant amount of residences and commercial activity around it for nearly its entire 15 mile length between downtown and I-275.  The only significant "dry spots" are the mile approaching Xavier, 6-8 north of Norwood, and the approach to downtown, depending on how it would be built.  This line would remove most buses from Montgomery Rd. and I-71, saving SORTA a ton in vechicle wear, gas, and especially wages and giving passengers a more comfortable and probably faster ride. 

 

 

CL&N (Cincinnati, Lebanon, & Northern) has throughout its inglorious history operated as a small-time spur due to its precipitous 3% grade approaching the Cincinnati basin and the failure of its northern terminus to grow to much more than a wide spot in the road.

 

The northern terminus was Dayton...and interestingly there was a light rail proposal for the Dayton end of the line back in the early/mid 1970 (I posted on that a few months ago).

 

I think the line converted to standard gauge sometime in the 1890s, or at least when it was taken over by the Pennsy.

 

 

 

 

Instead of northern terminus I should have written that Lebanon and the eastern half of Butler County and western half of Warren county weren't home to any cities the size of Middletown or Hamilton.  And actually there is an abandoned branch of the CL&N just north of Mason which runs west to Middletown. 

Excellent, Jake.

 

I've recently been looking at the possibility of using Gilbert between downtown and the existing SORTA alignment west of Victory Parkway instead of using the old rail ROW or Reading Road. And building a streetcar west from Gilbert and MLK connecting to UC and Clifton Heights or Ludlow or both.

 

Lots of room on Gilbert. Lots of building sides.

Would be lovely!  How would you envision it connecting once it gets downtown?

Would be lovely!  How would you envision it connecting once it gets downtown?

 

Use a Walnut/Main or Main/Sycamore pair through downtown to Central Parkway which could be extended east through Broadway Commons to Gilbert -- providing a more direct auto connection to I-71 (the Gilbert on-ramp lines up with Central Parkway exactly).

 

Run the rail on this eastern extension of Central Parkway, finally connecting BC seamlessly to downtown so that it can be developed better than the potential that exists there today. Start building a new street grid in BC north and south of the extended Central Parkway and begin taking down these new blocks for development over a period of ten to twenty years.

 

Imagine eight new block faces on the new section of Central Parkway, together with real neighborhoods behind them.

I don't see anyone in the near future putting their balls on the table for light rail. The people that I have talked to at OKI seem to think that highway projects are better investments than light rail (don't take my word for...talk to Stephan Louis). The Hamilton County voters also seem to have a kneejerk anti-salestax reaction now after the stadium(s) fiasco.

 

I want/hope/really love it to happen, but I just haven't seen the leadership that would be willing to do it :|

 

Stephan Louis is a soul-less, brain-dead idiot. He has no concept of the interrelationship between transit and the greatness of cities. Bus transit is a great social safety net, but rarely is a place-shaping force. Highways do shape place, but not in ways that enhance the urban setting. The speed and geometry of the car requires everything to be spread out and the city to be experienced through the windshield, not by the wonderful socialibility of a sidewalk in a transit-oriented neighborhood.

 

Rail transit, on the other hand, can be employed as a unifying tool to promote vibrant, sustainable urban land uses, promote accessibility and participation in the local economy and therefore enhance social justice. Rail transit has an easily identifiable route, which is key to helping customers understanding where the line goes and provides confidence to developers that the rail line isn't going to be changed for a long time. Rail carries with it the assumption among prospective riders of frequent service. And that density allows equally dense, supportive development patterns that promote walking and less vehicular traffic. The transit city becomes a place for people, not fast-moving cars. In short, when utilized as part of a regional land use vision, rail transit fosters vibrant core cities that uplifts the human spirit and creates a sense of connectedness to the physical landscape.

 

I have never met a highway that is capable of accomplishing any of these things. And I have never met a great city which completely lacks rail transit.

 

I doubt folks like Stephan Louis will ever understand this. Keeping people like him on SORTA's board, or at OKI, will prevent Cincinnati from becoming the city it could and should be.

 

Pictures speak louder than words.....

 

http://www.sflcv.org/density/transformations.html

Amen KJP.

 

For a city that could really flourish with the introduction of rail-based transit (LRT, streetcars), Cincinnati sure has it's share of twits among the decision-makers.

 

 

Amen KJP.

 

For a city that could really flourish with the introduction of rail-based transit (LRT, streetcars), Cincinnati sure has it's share of twits among the decision-makers.

 

 

 

Yeah, you aren't the only one that finds this completely ironic ... one of the first "Big 4", streetcars covering downtown and the vicinity (hell you can still see tracks on many streets), and a city that shows no sign of LRT in the near future ...

 

I won't say that we will not ever see LRT, only because pretty much everyone of our city elected officials are checking out Portland to see how LRT can be such a huge benefit.

 

I wonder how a public rally would effect the momentum? Hell, we see them for marijuana legalization, abortion rights, Public School wages, why not Light Rail?

 

KJP, do you know if this is effective? Has there been any cities that have exorcised this type of free speech?

 

Personally, I know a lot of people that want to see light rail in Cincinnati a reality.

People usually only rally in anger, and often in opposition to something.

 

I would suggest following the lead of Denver, San Diego, Albuquerque or Austin which built a "starter line" using local/state funding or St. Louis, Portland or Nashville which found a creative way to tap federal funds. In many cases, cities started their rail systems without going to ballot box to ask for money for something which the electorate has little or no experience.

 

Even if they are interested in rail, many voters aren't willing to part with their hard-earned tax dollars without knowing if rail will succeed in their town. So find a creative way to pay for a starter line to test the local market, build a constituency for more rail and then ask voters for expanded service. Denver is the poster-child on how to do this. Columbus is starting to follow this smart path.

Bus transit is a great social safety net, but rarely is a place-shaping force...And I have never met a great city which completely lacks rail transit.

 

Now, when you say rail transit, do you mean intra-city? In Europe, there are cities that rely on buses and they're great, but they don't have sprawl like we do and they're not large cities either which is why they can do that and succeed. Well, some are up to around 500,000 or so at which point they may already be looking into rail. One would hope. They do have trains that go to other cities, but I'm assuming you're talking about rail-transit within the city itself.

Yes, I'm talking intra-city rail. Europe is very different because cities, regions and nations have restrictions on development that might be unconstitutional in the U.S. Here, we tend to value the individual more than the community.

Well, it may also be because our Supreme Court somehow felt that corporations are "individuals" just like you and me. I think it's ironic that Americans are suposedly so individualistic, but at the same time live in cookie-cutter houses and want to eat & shop at the exact same reataurants & stores from coast to coast. I wonder, though...sure some of those restrictions might be unconstitutional, but then they might not be. Since I'm not familiar with the specifics, perhaps if you or anyone else knows of any that may be possible to enact here that would be of interest. Although they would probably have to be in another thread unless related to rail, unless they can be applied to Cincinnati. A fine city, I might add that isn't so bad off when it comes to mass transit...and I say that of my own volition...I swear.

  According to "Narrow Gauge in Ohio" by John Hauck, the CL&N was converted to standard gauge in parts over a decade, finishing with double track standard gauge the full 5.5 miles from downtown Cincinnati to Norwood in 1904.

 

  The Walnut Hills Tunnel was laid as double track standard gauge, controlled by signals, until 1916, when two trains sideswiped each other. After the accident, the line laid as guantlet track, a rare situation in which the two sets of rails overlapped each other. Only one train could pass at a time, but the need for switching was eliminated.

KC occupies a unique spot in US urban history because it had an explosive but very brief period of growth around 1900-1930.  There wasn't much there before that and not much has happened since.  As a result its central 7X7 miles developed at that particular medium-density level that's seen around Cincinnati in North Avondale, Oakley, College Hill, etc.  The downtown of course is denser but there are no old row house neighborhoods and the primary secondary employment area equivalent to Cincinnati's UC area is 4 miles from downtown, not 2, and that secondary area is neither as large or as dense as what exists in Cincinnati.  I'd estimate there are nearly twice as many residents and jobs in the Downtown-UC-Xavier 4 mile stretch as compared to the core Downtown-Westport-Plaza-UMKC stretch.  As tough as it is to justify extensive tunneling from downtown Cincinnati to UC to Xavier, the potential ridership simply is not there in KC and so any line is doomed to street running due to the lack of any railroad ROW's.

 

And the Kansas City plan is not really a plan at all, it vaguely diverts an existing 3/8 cent tax from the bus system to light rail.  The line itself is ill-conceived as outlined above, and in addition its suburban routing is through even less dense suburbs than what exist in Cincinnati. 

 

I tend to disagree.  I lived in KC for 4 years near the plaza.  The number of residents in the plaza area of KC is subtantial with its number 10-20 story apartment and condo towers. Downtown KC continues to gain in residents with new condo towers.  The plaza are continues to be a very strong business district that would rival if not surpass the uptown business district with the number of residents and employeees.  The land area for the plaza is larger and more dense than uptown cincinnati .  In between downtown and the plaza are numerous 10 story apartment buildings being renovated and numerous six-plex brownstones. None of the apartment buildings were vacant before the revonvations.  KC may not have rowhouses but it does have dense housing in its core.  The biggest difference between KC and Cincinnati is that the area between downtown and the second business district in KC is not full of vacant buildings like OTR. My hope is that recient efforts change this for OTR.  I think both cities can and should have light rail transit. 

I went to school outside of KC in Warrensburg and spent a lot of time there as well.  The Plaza was one of my favorite places, but one thing a lot of people don't realize is that one of the things that helped build the Country Club Plaza was a "streetcar" line.  It went the way of many such operations, which were displaced by buses and the car, but it was first and foremost a streetcar neighborhood.

>I tend to disagree.  I lived in KC for 4 years near the plaza.  The number of residents in the plaza area of KC is subtantial with its number 10-20 story apartment and condo towers.

 

I lived there too, I went to KCAI for one year.  I haven't visited at all since 1998.  Whatever that new expressway is that is east of Troost was under construction when I was there.  The area between Westport and Hallmark was bombed out, very similar to OTR, and downtown was absolutely dead after work hours.  The Bottoms was completely unoccupied, a few times we drove there and walked around all the empty warehouses that apparently are all renovated now.  The medium density areas I'm talking about are the neighborhoods south of the Plaza, and the area north of there seemed to be mostly chopped-up rentals.     

 

 

 

 

I tend to disagree.  I lived in KC for 4 years near the plaza.  The number of residents in the plaza area of KC is subtantial with its number 10-20 story apartment and condo towers. Downtown KC continues to gain in residents with new condo towers.  The plaza are continues to be a very strong business district that would rival if not surpass the uptown business district with the number of residents and employeees.  The land area for the plaza is larger and more dense than uptown cincinnati .  In between downtown and the plaza are numerous 10 story apartment buildings being renovated and numerous six-plex brownstones. None of the apartment buildings were vacant before the revonvations.  KC may not have rowhouses but it does have dense housing in its core.  The biggest difference between KC and Cincinnati is that the area between downtown and the second business district in KC is not full of vacant buildings like OTR. My hope is that recient efforts change this for OTR.  I think both cities can and should have light rail transit. 

 

The Plaza itself is a 1920's Easton.  The neighborhood surround it IS mid-level density (found in, say, Norwood or Ft. Thomas).  And there is no way in hell the Plaza area is more "dense" than Uptown Cincinnati.  Kansas City has blockish apartment buildings with parking lots, grass strips, and spatial disclosure compared to the more "dense, eastern-ish" Uptown, which in some cases has a parking problem to begin with (thus the need for LRT).

 

And trust me, condo towers do not equate with more "urbanity."  Otherwise, Myrtle Beach and Montrose Houston are the capitals of urbanity in this country.

Pictures speak louder than words.....

 

http://www.sflcv.org/density/transformations.html

 

Thx for the great link...I have seen some of those from urbanadvantage.com as well, awesome though...shows a great process of improvement!

Is this actually going to happen, we need this in our city.

It's not a question of whether it's going to happen, but when. Higher fuel prices, an aging population, growing high congestion and a re-densifying core city will all be drivers over time. I'm guessing we'll start with a downtown streetcar that is cheap enough to build without having a regional vote and that in some not-so-distant presidential election year, a proposal for Cincinnati's first light rail line will reappear on the ballot. Looking at the votes from 2002, there is solid sentiment for rail in downtown, uptown and from uptown east through Hyde Park. Wyoming and Mariemont almost voted for it in 2002.

 

Don't be discouraged by the 2:1 vote against light rail on the first try in 2002. Only twice has light rail won on the on the first try - Dallas in 1986 and Charlotte in 1998. Plus, over time, elected officials and voters travel and talk to people in other cities, and they get more comfortable with the idea.

 

A wise person once said about the effort to build rail in Cincinnati, "We're running a marathon here, not a sprint."

^or just make an issue on the city (exclude the rest of the county) ballot and it will win the next time we go to the polls.

I'm a map/air photo geek and didn't realize there was an abanonded rail ROW near the Butler Warren County line SW of Mason!

 

(There is a very noticable hump on Dimmick Road just west of Butler Warren Road that I now know was the old grade x-ing)

>or just make an issue on the city (exclude the rest of the county) ballot and it will win the next time we go to the polls.

 

The city's population is less than half of the county's, meaning there is much less potential to raise money through any form of taxation.  Typically a project is funded with bonds and then payments are made with increased revenue from a new or increased tax, however estimating just how much will be raised and how much a particular project will cost are inexact sciences.  Also, due to interest payments on bonds, the final cost of any project is much higher than if taxes were simply allowed to accumulate for five or ten years before construction begins.  The inability of the county to fund construction of parking garages on the riverfront has everything to do with fluctuations in sales tax revenue and the particulars of the rushed construction timetable caused by Mike Brown's tyranny.  For example, if construction of PBS could have been delayed by just one season, there would have been at least $10 million less in overtime pay as well as millions saved in interest from that year alone.  The stadium project's finances were so tight it required everything to work out perfectly and due to the PBS overruns and the short 2001-2002 recession it was thrown well off-course.  Unlike a similar amount of money spend on mass transit, there has been virtually zero economic effect from construction of the new stadiums, it's likely by the time the Banks is built-out another wave of teams will play the same game they just played demanding outrageous leases and new stadiums and we'll be back where we were in 1995.

 

But what's truly absurd about mass transit in the United States is that new projects don't necessarily reflect need -- it's all politics and the ability of a grassroots organization to mobilize and run an effective campaign.  Then in the actual design phase, budgetary restrictions and political incompetence routinely cause crippling compromises in design, Seattle's current project is an example of this.

<i>Some very interesting gossip from CityBeat regarding a member of the SORTA board.</i>

 

SORTA Troubling

 

Revealing messages from or elaborate smear of transit board member?

 

<i>By Kevin Osborne</i>

 

Stephan Louis was quickly reappointed last month to the board overseeing the Metro bus system, just before computer messages were made public that indicate he might have a hidden agenda on transportation issues.

 

In one of his final actions before leaving office, Hamilton County Commission President Phil Heimlich worked with his fellow Republican to reappoint Louis, a controversial critic of light rail, before the GOP loses its majority on the county commission.

 

Click on link for article.

 

http://www.citybeat.com/current/news.shtml

Very interesting, and a great job by Citybeat for covering this.

 

I did a search for "Transport Policy Discussion Group" and guess who's in charge??

 

That's right, it's our old buddy Wendell Cox!  I can only imagine the kind of discourse that takes place on that listserv. 

Have a look. http://www.publicpurpose.com/ut-group.htm

 

I really hope there is enough outrage from the public and officials to get this guy out before he even gets in.

I dunno, that sure sounds like the Stephan Louis I know of. If he made those remarks or even if he didn't but still agrees with them, then why not own up to them? If he believes he is right, then he should stand up for himself. But if he's afraid of a backlash, then maybe he should sit down and take a hard look at his beliefs to measure who benefits from public policies that would result from them -- the privileged or the many.

 

Stop hiding in the shadows, you discriminatory seclusionists of privilege!

From what I know, no one need doubt that Stephan Louis wrote these emails.

Is there anything I can do as a normal citizen to help make light rail in Cincinnati a reality?

The best thing is, whenever you have an opportunity to write a 100-word letter to a local paper or call in to talk-radio in support of a more balanced transportation system -- do it. They're tired of hearing from me. New voices are needed.

 

And in another vein, I'd love to come to talk to any group that you're a member of.

All of this is becoming a good idea. We need light rail or subway, Cincinnati has been around longer then Chicago, and they seem to have a great transit througout their city. It's just a great start, I'm glad to see people are excited about this project. I'm sure it's going to take about 5 more years in the making, but hey we've waited this long.

I think Cincinnati would be better served to focus on an at grade light rail system, not an underground heavy rail.  I have a very difficult time seeing the Cincinnati voters approving the kind of bonds that would be necessary to finance that sort of system.  I also feel an at grade LRT would be more than sufficient to meet Cincy's needs.  It would be especially nice if it could be leveraged to connect people to new TOD in OTR, Fountain Square, and the sports venues/eventual Banks development. 

Here I have (crudely) drawn a fully grade separated 5.5 mile route from downtown Cincinnati to Xavier utilizing part of the existing subway tunnel and a 3-mile deep tunnel under the Uptown area.  The line would emerge from the hillside east of Victory Parkway, cross it on a bridge and continue on the surface along the CL&N alignment to Xavier University.  In orange I drew an alternate tunnel path that would add a 5th station at Eden & MLK and move the UC Med station to the corner of Burnett & Erkenbrecher. 

 

     

This route from Fountain Square to Xavier is approximately 3,000ft. longer than the proposed Mt. Auburn Tunnel and MLK surface route.  I wrote the distance between stations on here, in shrinking the image for the web they became a bit tough to read.  As can be seen there is quite a gap in between UC Med & Reading, assuming a station on Eden Ave. versus Burnett.

 

Obviously these stations would be very deep, especially the Deaconess Hospital/Clifton Ave., probably 120ft. below the surface.  These stations would all cost more than $100 million apiece.  With the Clifton Ave. and Sigma Sigma Commons stations, it serves UC much better than any other proposal and the orange alternative provides great access to both UC Med and the surrounding neighborhoods.  The zoo is within walking distance, although it is a long walk for a family with small kids. 

 

I also don't know if it's wise to tunnel under a hospital where delicate proceedures and equipment are operating around the clock, no matter how deep the tunnel, and obviously the deeper the stations, the more expensive they become and more time-consuming to reach.  Alternately the line could be routed under MLK but this prevents station locations in Avondale, especially the Reading Rd./Forest Ave. location which would do much to encourage redevelopment of that area.  Also by using the existing subway south of Linn St., it would impede any furthuer west side line feeding into the upper third of the existing tunnel.

 

Also I don't think a station at Warner St. in Farview is warrented, the population in that area is dense but a station there would be quite expensive and prevent the tunnel from climbing more between Linn St. and Clifton Ave., meaning an even deeper station there.  The Mt. Auburn Tunnel route has the advanatage of bringing traffic through the east half of Over-the-Rhine, this route would bring a lot of traffic to the OTR/West End border.  The existing Liberty St. station could be abandoned and replaced by stations at Findlay and Ezzard Charles.