^Thanks for that.

 

No one will ride a train that goes nowhere, don't connect any major attractions, and is barely faster than walking. The airport tram is a boondoggle!

I doubt that. There is no other way for the public to get from concourse to concourse.

 

??  You can walk instead of ride the train at CVG.  If you come down the stairs from Concourse B just as the train is leaving and there is only one running (as seems normally to be the case), it is only the tiniest bit slower to go ahead and walk all the way to the terminal instead of waiting for the train. 

My new book considers the future of transit in Cincinnati:

 

 

 

www.facebook.com/iaqbook

 

^ You should aim to tell more about what's new that the book offers. What sort of analysis has not been offerec before? Maybe give a little preview of some insights you've had that let us know what might be in the book.

 

I'm sure you don't have Jake's budget, but considering his book is probably your number one "competition" right now, take note of his video:

Cincinnati's Incomplete Subway: The Complete History

The book compares modern transportation investments to the historic investment in the Cincinnati Southern Railroad (another expensive rail project, although with different aims). I have also compared Cincinnati to other cities to explain the feasibility of light rail. My book is primarily intended as an introduction to these issues and to Cincinnati railroad history.

Modern transportation investments refers to the streetcar and light rail.

What I meant was, put more info in your video. Make a better sales pitch. ;)

 

The book sounds interesting. And it's impressive someone your age followed through with such an endeavor! :clap:

Thank you! Thanks for the feedback! I appreciate it.

 

I'm sure you don't have Jake's budget, but considering his book is probably your number one "competition" right now, take note of his video:

 

 

Um, not many do have Jake's budget.... Frickin' 1-percenters!

Boy, you people must be figuring on living a long time. The Streetcar still has virtually no physical commitments in the ground and an even hazier date for actual operation. Yet you want to extrapolate that into a mandate to construct lite rail throughout the region. Guess everybody missed the opposition to the streetcar. I will not lament that, I would just like to see it move forward at more than a snails pace so we call all see the result.

 

But to think lite rail will be realistic in this locality, maybe 2030, 2040 or later. Frankly I am not planning on being around then. But I would like to ask where the financing will come from - another stadium tax? You had all better gear up for Federal Financing making the 1960s Federal Interstate Highway Bill look like a bunch of  pikers. I just do not see this happening.

 

As far as the growth potential of the City, once TIF is realized to benefit only the developers, with basically nothing in the coffers of the City, that will come to an abrupt halt. You can only defer costs so long, and once you bridge where the City itself is in trouble they cannot any longer support you.

The point of planning is to think in the long term. So, yes, we do that. Perhaps if your generation had been better at doing that, we wouldn't currently face so many problems.

 

Many of us here recognize that the current and historical way of funding infrastructure is unsustainable and therefore must be replaced with a new, sustainable model. We hope and suspect that as roads which are too expensive to maintain and access to cheap gasoline disappears people will begin to see the inherent value in rail transit. If people didn't think of such things, there would currently be no streetcar coming to fruition, and there never would have been a Metro Moves ballot initiative.

 

You can deride Metro Moves as being akin to a stadium tax, but others do not see the comparison. In fact, there are many municipalities which have passed such measures with much success and satisfaction.

 

I don't think any of us fall to recognize there are great obstacles to funding any of the projects we discuss. Many of the funding problems rail projects face are also becoming problems for road projects. I'll leave you with this article which is food for thought on funding problems which relate to all our infrastructure in this country:

http://www.governing.com/columns/eco-engines/gov-why-does-our-infrastructure-resemble-third-world.html

 

Reflect on what these issues mean for our collective pocketbooks when dollars are spent to build new infrastructure to serve greenfield suburbs instead of repairing preexisting infrastructure or upgrading the preexisting built environment. Note the extent to which socialist policy and subsidy have been integral to the establishment of such communities.

Boy, you people must be figuring on living a long time.

 

 

I think you need to visit Europe or Asia where you will find building projects -- cathedrals, abbeys, fortresses, bridges, tunnels -- that have taken hundreds of years to fully realize. Did you know they started digging the Channel Tunnel before the start of the Napoleonic Wars before advancing it again during Queen Victoria's reign? Or that Japan's Shinkansen (Bullet Train) started construction in the 1930s and the network is still being built?

 

Just because we may not live to see something materialize, does not make it less valuable. In fact, I will argue that the things that take so long to bring to life are usually the most valuable projects. Therefore those are the projects most worthy of our investment of time and resources. They may last for centuries and be there for our great grandchildren to admire and point to with pride. Sadly, most Americans do not have such personal "ownerships" and therefore do not value their built environment. It is one reason why our cities lack a soul.

Boy, you people must be figuring on living a long time. The Streetcar still has virtually no physical commitments in the ground and an even hazier date for actual operation. Yet you want to extrapolate that into a mandate to construct lite rail throughout the region. Guess everybody missed the opposition to the streetcar. I will not lament that, I would just like to see it move forward at more than a snails pace so we call all see the result.

 

But to think lite rail will be realistic in this locality, maybe 2030, 2040 or later. Frankly I am not planning on being around then. But I would like to ask where the financing will come from - another stadium tax? You had all better gear up for Federal Financing making the 1960s Federal Interstate Highway Bill look like a bunch of  pikers. I just do not see this happening.

 

As far as the growth potential of the City, once TIF is realized to benefit only the developers, with basically nothing in the coffers of the City, that will come to an abrupt halt. You can only defer costs so long, and once you bridge where the City itself is in trouble they cannot any longer support you.

 

Not sure what you mean by "opposition to the streetcar".  City voters indirectly approved the streetcar plan by rejecting Issue 9 in 2009 and Issue 48 in 2011.  They also re-elected a pro-Streetcar mayor in 2009 and voted a majority pro-streetcar city council (7 support, 2 oppose) in 2011.  The opposition is largely coming from people who don't live in the city (therefore can't vote on it) and the local media that refuses to accurately cover the issue.

 

As for light rail... I have no doubt that when gas hits $5 or $6 a gallon, people that commute from West Chester to Downtown for work everyday will be looking to move closer to the city or support a light rail plan that saves them money.  We already saw some suburbanites making pro-rail comments after ODOT announced the construction of I-75 was being delayed 15 years.

 

Yes... rail plans take a long time to build. But you plan for a something that will connect the whole region, and then you start building one part of the plan at a time.  I-75 or I-71 light rail could be up and running in a few years, with additional light rail, streetcar, and commuter routes added every few years, in addition to new bus routes and neighborhood bus hubs.  In 30 or 40 years, you have a region that's well-connected by mass transit.

Boy, you people must be figuring on living a long time. The Streetcar still has virtually no physical commitments in the ground and an even hazier date for actual operation. Yet you want to extrapolate that into a mandate to construct lite rail throughout the region. Guess everybody missed the opposition to the streetcar. I will not lament that, I would just like to see it move forward at more than a snails pace so we call all see the result.

 

But to think lite rail will be realistic in this locality, maybe 2030, 2040 or later. Frankly I am not planning on being around then. But I would like to ask where the financing will come from - another stadium tax? You had all better gear up for Federal Financing making the 1960s Federal Interstate Highway Bill look like a bunch of  pikers. I just do not see this happening.

 

As far as the growth potential of the City, once TIF is realized to benefit only the developers, with basically nothing in the coffers of the City, that will come to an abrupt halt. You can only defer costs so long, and once you bridge where the City itself is in trouble they cannot any longer support you.

 

Not sure what you mean by "opposition to the streetcar".  City voters indirectly approved the streetcar plan by rejecting Issue 9 in 2009 and Issue 48 in 2011.  They also re-elected a pro-Streetcar mayor in 2009 and voted a majority pro-streetcar city council (7 support, 2 oppose) in 2011.  The opposition is largely coming from people who don't live in the city (therefore can't vote on it) and the local media that refuses to accurately cover the issue.

 

As for light rail... I have no doubt that when gas hits $5 or $6 a gallon, people that commute from West Chester to Downtown for work everyday will be looking to move closer to the city or support a light rail plan that saves them money.  We already saw some suburbanites making pro-rail comments after ODOT announced the construction of I-75 was being delayed 15 years.

 

Yes... rail plans take a long time to build. But you plan for a something that will connect the whole region, and then you start building one part of the plan at a time.  I-75 or I-71 light rail could be up and running in a few years, with additional light rail, streetcar, and commuter routes added every few years, in addition to new bus routes and neighborhood bus hubs.  In 30 or 40 years, you have a region that's well-connected by mass transit.

 

OK, maybe you need to research your history a little more. At one point, SouthWestern Ohio had rail lines everywhere, that was the primary means of travel. And the majority of them were privately owned. So over a relatively short period of years they all decided to throw in the towel - Why? The horseless carriage had not taken over yet, and the Interstate Highway System was a distant vision. But they still folded in large numbers. So give me the reason for this.

Another challenge!

Good grief.  Some of them went out of business due speculative investment in railroads (overbuilding, not unlike the recent housing bubble), the rest were put out of business by the car and trucking industry lobbying the government to remake the United States in such a way as to make us an oil junkie. 

Good grief.  Some of them went out of business due speculative investment in railroads (overbuilding, not unlike the recent housing bubble), the rest were put out of business by the car and trucking industry lobbying the government to remake the United States in such a way as to make us an oil junkie. 

 

Yeah, some rail lines failed and consolidated because that's what companies do.  The first major decline was clearly due to the rise of the automobile and the government investment in roads and highways, and the final straw was the proliferation of air travel and the huge government investment in airports.  Those are all fairly direct correlations.

He will want to see "evidence", then when presented with links to books and articles, will dismiss it all as "elitist".

I probably have little to add to this discussion, however I have an observation: this area has a little over half the population of the metro area that I am from. Many times the traffic here is worse than there. I don't know how that's possible seeing as how there are more people up there.

 

Doesn't only 20% of the total budget for federal transportation go to mass transit?

 

 

I probably have little to add to this discussion, however I have an observation: this area has a little over half the population of the metro area that I am from. Many times the traffic here is worse than there. I don't know how that's possible seeing as how there are more people up there.

 

Doesn't only 20% of the total budget for federal transportation go to mass transit?

 

I am assuming Detroit?  Maybe that is because a majority of the metro area has no jobs...  :wink:  I kid.  Detroit's freeway system as big of a mess and terrible quality as it is in, seems much more extensive than Cincinnati's.  That would probably be a given due to Detroit having twice as many people as Cincinnati.  Also, Cincinnati's topography can be hell when it comes to traffic and the way a freeways are built around that topography.

 

I am assuming Detroit?  Maybe that is because a majority of the metro area has no jobs...  :wink:  I kid.  Detroit's freeway system as big of a mess and terrible quality as it is in, seems much more extensive than Cincinnati's.  That would probably be a given due to Detroit having twice as many people as Cincinnati.  Also, Cincinnati's topography can be hell when it comes to traffic and the way a freeways are built around that topography.

 

I didn't think about the topography effect on the roads, but that interchange from 75 south to 74 west is a pretty good example.

 

There are way too many freeways to maintain in the Detroit area. It seems that 696 ( a bigger version of Reagan Hwy) has been constantly under construction since it was built. Then you have some sections of freeway (like I 96 and I 94) that have needed reconstruction for decades that just keep getting band aids. At least the pothole patrol makes the rounds much more often and quickly here.

 

 

I am assuming Detroit?  Maybe that is because a majority of the metro area has no jobs...  :wink:  I kid.  Detroit's freeway system as big of a mess and terrible quality as it is in, seems much more extensive than Cincinnati's.  That would probably be a given due to Detroit having twice as many people as Cincinnati.  Also, Cincinnati's topography can be hell when it comes to traffic and the way a freeways are built around that topography.

 

I didn't think about the topography effect on the roads, but that interchange from 75 south to 74 west is a pretty good example.

 

There are way too many freeways to maintain in the Detroit area. It seems that 696 ( a bigger version of Reagan Hwy) has been constantly under construction since it was built. Then you have some sections of freeway (like I 96 and I 94) that have needed reconstruction for decades that just keep getting band aids. At least the pothole patrol makes the rounds much more often and quickly here.

 

Sounds like Pennsylvania.  PennDot takes forever and constantly seems to be building/rebuilding anything they work on.  Cincinnati reminds me a lot of Pittsburgh.  The topography really can make it a challenge in some areas to drive in, and in turn, will make rush hour 20 times worse because of it.  I think Cincinnati is a better built city than Pittsburgh, and the topography isn't as challenging, but it still makes traffic worse than in cities that are flat like Detroit.  Plus, having been to Detroit many times, the freeway system up there is plenty more extensive.

So, the groundbreaking is over for the Streetcar.  I noticed that toward the start of the thread there was discussion about using the already-existing subway tunnels to leverage federal rail funding and work on light rail.  Any idea if the city is actively considering anything like that?  Any word on whether local transit authorities are thinking of going back to the voters on light rail for the county/region?  It seems like now is the time to move on to the next battle--obviously focusing on making the streetcar successful, but laying the groundwork for the next phase of transit development. 

Maybe we should see if the streetcar can actually produce a positive benefit. And that seems to me to be a few years off. I believe to think there will be an explosion of any kind of rail traffic around here until the results of the strretcar are realized is a little more than wishful thinking.

Maybe we should see if the streetcar can actually produce a positive benefit. And that seems to me to be a few years off. I believe to think there will be an explosion of any kind of rail traffic around here until the results of the strretcar are realized is a little more than wishful thinking.

 

Ya-- I'm glad they didn't plan any more of the Interstate Highway System until they had built one small portion of it and let that exist for several years.  Surely just because the Interstate Highway System had small sections built earlier in some states, it would never work all over.

 

 

Maybe you should just stop commenting on this forum if all your comments are going to be negative and add nothing to the conversation.  What does that comment add?  You are saying-- "Stop all planning and discussion of anything regarding to rail for the next 4-5 years."  Why?  What is the downside in looking ahead and planning-  Just like what we did with a total "boondoggle" plan to replace all of our good functioning state routes and local highways with massive expensive roads connecting the SAME areas but at an unimaginable expense.  (I'm pointing out the popular criticism of the time).

 

^Actually, the key to successful mass transt is to keep building.  Once one project is started, planning should be well underway as to the next project.  In places as diverse as Washington, Boston, Chicago and Dallas, this has happened... Even though Cleveland has a pretty good transit system, it didn't develop normally like this.  Cleveland's rail system has been developed a piece at a time over nearly 100 years... About the closest thing to perpetual develpment happened with the CTS Rapid (the RTA Red Line), where a few small extensions were developed in the years after the 1955 line went on line... The last Red Line extension was the 4-mile airport extension in 1968... The 2.2 mile Waterfront line (deemed a failure by some), was built 28 years after this... Nothing more is pending (save a .3 mile Blue extension and a rough plan for a 6 mile northeast expansion of the Red Line to Euclid)...

 

Cincinnati shouldn't let this type of lethargy happen.  Aggressive planning and movement should be underway -- don't give the naysayers a chance to launch any effective blocking effort, which obviously, they've been doing to hold back the reccent groundbreaking for decades.

Maybe we should see if the streetcar can actually produce a positive benefit. And that seems to me to be a few years off. I believe to think there will be an explosion of any kind of rail traffic around here until the results of the strretcar are realized is a little more than wishful thinking.

 

I think the goals of the streetcar vs. light rail would be quite different.  The streetcar is as much an economic development tool as it is a transit tool.  You don't build streetcars to move people over long distances.

 

With gas prices apparently rising, and the streetcar showing that projects like this can be done, now is the time to thing about actual commuter-style rail for the region.  I'm sure such thinking is already going on--just wondering what is actually happening to move the ball forward (if anything). 

Just to be clear I was being sarcastic.

>thing about actual commuter-style rail for the region.

 

Nothing can happen until the fourth mainline is built south of Ivorydale Junction (near Mitchell Ave.) to Union Terminal, which is a $100 million project.  If commuter rail is to terminate at the transit center, it still has to pass right next to Union Terminal, unless it either tunnels directly beneath I-75 (like in Dallas, and woudl be easily doable during I-75 reconstruction, if that ever happens) or uses the abandoned CH&D line on the west side of the Mill Creek.  Doing that woudl mean the line woudl have to travel through Spring Grove Cemetery and require self-storage and other small structures to be demo'd, but a station could be built in Northside where riders could transfer to buses to UC/hospitals, a big advantage over the UT approach.

 

^What is the likelihood of that happening?  Forgive my ignorance, but what entity would be overseeing something like that?  OKI?  The city or state?

Tough to say.  The 4th mainline was the whole reason why the 3C's couldn't enter the city proper and was tentatively planned to terminate at the old Showcase Cinemas property in Bond Hill.  The first commuter rail service will likely be on whichever track is chosen for the 3C's route, but the rest of the northern lines could funnel into the 4th main pretty easiliy.  I think we're going to end up with a situation where The Cardinal continues to serve Union Terminal while the 3C's and commuter rail terminate at the Riverfront Transit Center. 

Have they ever considered using both union terminal and the riverfront transit center for commuter trains?

 

For example, all the lines coming from the North would stop at union terminal and then cross over to the transit center, and then all the lines from the East side would run through the transit center and then over to union terminal. A lot of cities in Europe seem to do this. Dresden, for example has two main stations. The Hauptbahnhof serves both inter-city trains and s-bahn trains, while the Neustadt bahnhof is mostly s-bahn, but the same s-bahn lines run through both.

Maybe we should see if the streetcar can actually produce a positive benefit. And that seems to me to be a few years off. I believe to think there will be an explosion of any kind of rail traffic around here until the results of the strretcar are realized is a little more than wishful thinking.

 

They already have seen positive benefits along its route even before construction started.  Look up a little development called Mercer Commons, and that's just a start.  Nice try though.

^Please be nice.

 

Kjbrill, welcome to UO.

 

 

 

 

Nothing can happen until the fourth mainline is built south of Ivorydale Junction (near Mitchell Ave.) to Union Terminal, which is a $100 million project.  If commuter rail is to terminate at the transit center, it still has to pass right next to Union Terminal, unless it either tunnels directly beneath I-75 (like in Dallas, and woudl be easily doable during I-75 reconstruction, if that ever happens) or uses the abandoned CH&D line on the west side of the Mill Creek.  Doing that woudl mean the line woudl have to travel through Spring Grove Cemetery and require self-storage and other small structures to be demo'd, but a station could be built in Northside where riders could transfer to buses to UC/hospitals, a big advantage over the UT approach.

 

 

I've been toying with this idea:

 

1. Split the Cardinal into two halves at Cincinnati. The Chicago route would use the abandoned route through Spring Grove Cemetary and Northside to connect to the former CH&D, and terminate at the transit center. The Washington D.C. route would terminate in Newport. I'm not sure how the train would be turned around at either terminal.

2. Terminate the 3C at Sharonville, as previously proposed. (Sorry to those that wanted it to terminate in Downtown Cincinnati.)

3. Construct a new light rail line from Newport down Saratoga Street, crossing the L&N bridge, passing alongside downtown and continuing out the former CL&N to a new right of way connecting to the former Pennsylvania all the way to Sharonville, connecting all three passenger train stations. Instead of the 3C line between Cincinnati and Sharonville without any intermediate stops, why not build something with more local ridership potential?

 

Most passengers going to Chicago, Washington D.C. (very few) or Columbus will drive to the station anyway, but the light rail offers connections. There is really no reason to have all passenger railroads terminate at the same station. Paris has 6 stations serving 6 lines in different directions, connected by the RER as well as the Paris Metro. Before Cincinnati Union Terminal was built, Cincinnati had what, 7 stations? Carl Condit argues in his book that the situation was better for the user prior to construction of CUT, which was built to facilitate connections instead of serving passengers terminating in Cincinnati.

 

Diverting the Cardinal to the CH&D would not only avoid the need for a 4th main, but would also clear up a little capacity on the freight lines.

 

So, the groundbreaking is over for the Streetcar.  I noticed that toward the start of the thread there was discussion about using the already-existing subway tunnels to leverage federal rail funding and work on light rail.  Any idea if the city is actively considering anything like that?  Any word on whether local transit authorities are thinking of going back to the voters on light rail for the county/region?  It seems like now is the time to move on to the next battle--obviously focusing on making the streetcar successful, but laying the groundwork for the next phase of transit development. 

 

From my experiences speaking with folks, I don't see the subway as a useful option for future light rail or commuter rail. With MetroMoves, a line would've terminated at the Central Parkway island station while the I-71 line passed through the Riverfront Transit Center. The two would've been conjoined by a modern streetcar. When the I-75 line would've exited the tunnels (for example, say you're boarding a train at the CPKWY station and heading North), it would've followed I-75 I think?

 

Personally, I think the RTC is the best bet for downtown connections of light rail and commuter rail. Making it a transit hub, with the streetcar on top - sounds golden.

 

What's the latest on the Oasis line? Everyone here seems to oppose it, Portune talks as if it's going to happen soon.

^ Map please... You Cincy folks know your city so well these references crystalize in your minds... Not so for us folks in NEO... thanks much.

Here is the definitive map:

http://jjakucyk.com/transit/index.html#map

 

The basic issue is that there are three railroads that parallel I-75, two veer northwest to Hamilton and one heads straight north to Middletown.  Any of the three would make good commuter rail routes, and there is no clear standout.  In fact commuter rail on all three wouldn't cause too much redundancy. 

 

They all join into a common three-track approach which has zero turnouts for three miles between the Ivorydale Junction and the Queensgate Yard.  A fourth track is necessary here because the trains often wait to enter the yard.  Also, a flyover might be needed to permit commuter trains to cross the existing 3-track main. 

 

Cincinnati Union Terminal is the current stop for The Cardinal, but CUT is too far from downtown for effective commuter rail.  The underground Riverfront Transit Center was built in the early 2000's next to downtown but is currently unused.  Commuter trains and the 3C's could use this station, but not The Cardinal, since it is not in line with the Ohio River Bridge that The Cardinal must use.  Meanwhile, trains using the new 4th mainline would travel through CUT on their way to the Transit Center.  But if the old city section of the CH&D were rebuilt, trains could bypass CUT and head directly to the Riverfront Transit Center. 

 

 

 

This is the monorail in sydny australia and it looks like it would be so easy to setup here.  This does not look like something that would take a lot of capital to get into operation.  Something like this could run along existing right of ways along the interstate.  The picture shows it well above street level to travel over top of traffic, but it also can run along at ground level.  Start a route going to the airport first (bridge would be the largest obstacle here), then spread out going along other areas like 75 and 71.  There is plenty of right-of-way space along any interstate in the metro area.  Just use the new transit center as its hub.

ODOT's policy regarding railroad crossings is that they don't want any new crossings. If the CH&D were reused, there would at the minimum be a crossing of U.S. 127, Hamilton Avenue. If not sure if there is enough room for an elevated line that would cross over U.S. 127 yet also cross under I-74. So, putting the Cardinal on the CH&D is a long shot unless ODOT makes an exception.

 

I really like the idea of a passenger train sneaking around the back way and avoiding all the congestion in the Mill Creek Valley. It should improve travel time for both the Cardinal and the freight traffic. Dividing the present Cardinal route in half would avoid the need for it to cross the river, and also provide the option to increase frequency on the Chicago route but not the Washington D.C. route. It's a shame that Cincinnati has rail service to Chicago and hardly anyone uses it, mainly because of the poor schedule.

 

Incidently, the very rough crossing of the CH&D, which is now called the "Cincinnati Industrial Track," and Gest Street has recently been rebuilt. That section of the CH&D is still in service at least weekly, serving one customer near Gest Street.

From my experiences speaking with folks, I don't see the subway as a useful option for future light rail or commuter rail.

 

One major advantage of incorporating the tunnels is that they qualify for a federal match.  This could make such a system more likely to become a reality.  Also, the tunnels offer a way for a train to cut quickly into the city, skipping several intersections before surfacing onto Central Parkway.

The subway tunnel absolutely was going to be used as part of the Metro Moves plan.  The match is worth much more, somewhere between $50 and $100 million. 

 

It could not be used with diesel commuter rail unless ventilation was installed, the cost of which I cannot begin to estimate.  The whole tunnel was lined with vents when it was built in order to permit the use of steam locomotives, with space for fans to be installed. 

 

 

^Thanks for the clarification.  Even more reason to consider working the tunnels into a future light rail system, if at all possible.  I've edited my post for clarity.

^Thanks for the map, jmecklenborg.

Yeah it's a very complicated situation.  As for commuter rail, there are no easy answers.  Again, whichever line is used for daily 3C-type intercity rail will be the easiest to implement commuter rail. 

 

KJP has shown a map of the early 1980s high speed rail plan for Ohio which overcame all of these problems in the Cincinnati approach with a tunnel immediately north of Union Terminal and a 10-mile viaduct built directly above one of these lines, I think the Norfolk-Southern.  In today's money I don't know how much such a solution would cost, but surely at least $1 billion.

 

The ideal solution, where money is no object, would be a tunnel 4.5 miles in length between Ivorydale Junction and Downtown, with deep stations beneath UC Medical/Children's/Veteran's, UC main campus, and downtown.  An extension of this tunnel beneath the river would permit The Cardinal to travel straight through and have commuter service of some kind to the NKY suburbs (although a diesel train would require ventilation in the tunnel or being towed by an electric locomotive).  Obviously building a 4-6 track station deep under downtown would be something akin to the East Side Access project currently underway in NYC, so it's not going to happen.  The UC and hospitals stations would be about 300 feet below the surface. 

 

 

 

 

A deep tunnel under the river would probably be more like 600 feet below uptown and 300 feet below downtown because of geologic factors, and it would cost something on the order of $15 million per mile for a single track tunnel, not including accessories. Not only would deep elevators add to the cost, but they would also add to commuting times, reducing the utility of the system.

 

Tunnel under construction in northern Kentucky

^ Where on earth did you get those figures, and what "geological factors" are you referring to? Cincinnati is in a relatively stable seismic area with consistent bedrock. In many cases deep-bore tunneling is much cheaper than cut-and-cover, since there's little need to relocate utilities or tear up the surface streets.

 

As part of my Metro Cincinnati project, I mapped out a subway line running under Vine Street using elevation data from Google Earth. With the tunnel to Kentucky about 50 feet under the bed of the Ohio River, it would slope upwards as it goes north, with no more than a 5% grade (the maximum allowable grade for most heavy-rail subway cars such as the Washington Metro 7000-series cars, which were the basis of my design). It would be about 60 feet below street level at Fountain Square (about roughly the lowest level of the existing parking garage), and then be less than 30 feet under street level at Central Parkway, primarily to pass under the existing subway tunnels and allow room for a transfer concourse. It would then stay roughly horizontal going northward from there, with a station at McMillan/Vine/Calhoun at about 180 feet below street level. A deep station, to be sure, but nothing that hasn't already been done many times before elsewhere in the US, in far more challenging geological conditions. Due to the topography, stations at MLK or the Zoo would be a couple dozen feet shallower.

The subway tunnel absolutely was going to be used as part of the Metro Moves plan.  The match is worth much more, somewhere between $50 and $100 million. 

 

It could not be used with diesel commuter rail unless ventilation was installed, the cost of which I cannot begin to estimate.  The whole tunnel was lined with vents when it was built in order to permit the use of steam locomotives, with space for fans to be installed. 

 

 

 

In addition to the matching funds, I have to think that the psychic benefits of using the previously built subway tunnels would be incalcuable.  Imagine some folks not having the ability to point to the subway failure in their arguments about Cincinnati. 

^correct; also it would just be cool. Central Parkway has lanes to spare, I wonder if it would be possible to daylight the trains and take them to the transit center via Eggleston (also has lanes to spare)

^ I'd rather see one curb lane in each direction on Central Parkway eliminated in favor of additional sidewalk space, large trees, and grassy areas (and where subway stations occur, entrance kiosks into the subway). Make Central Parkway into a true parkway instead of merely a really wide city street.

 

Having trains run at-grade along Eggleston makes a lot more sense, since Eggleston is downhill from Central Parkway and the trains could simply emerge from a portal somewhere in the vicinity of the casino and continue into the RTC, with minimal change in grade. If it were up to me, I'd narrow Eggleston and run the tracks between the street and I-471, so as to minimize grade crossings.