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

 

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

 

Yes, and would probably never return the ROI the bridge will. People seem to forget all the traffic on the highway and bridge is either moving goods for sale from one section of the country to another, including Cincinnati, or moving people who stop, spend money, and otherwise enjoy themselves along the way. A far greater impact than MetroMoves.

^What evidence do you have of this? Just curious if you are using "common sense" or actual studies.

Have you ever seen just how little traffic there really is north of Dayton our south of the I-71/75 split in Kentucky?  The amount of actual through traffic on this supposed spine of economic vitality is barely a rounding error in the suburban commuter traffic that swamps the bridge and adjacent interstate highways. 

 

You are repeating the oft-cited but discredited notion that it's worth spending billions of dollars for highway and other road infrastructure to subsidize a few trucking companies, gas stations, and fast food joints that don't return even single-digit percentages to the government to pay for that infrastructure because...reasons. 

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

 

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

 

Yes, and would probably never return the ROI the bridge will. People seem to forget all the traffic on the highway and bridge is either moving goods for sale from one section of the country to another, including Cincinnati, or moving people who stop, spend money, and otherwise enjoy themselves along the way. A far greater impact than MetroMoves.

 

Nope, the BSB would have a far lesser impact than MetroMoves.

I used to live in Tennessee and drove I-75 and I-71 often through Kentucky.  Except around holidays, when many people are traveling, there is often hardly any traffic on either, especially at night.  Where are all of these trucks we hear about that are driving all the way from Florida to Michigan?  They hardly exist, just a few hundred of them per day, maybe 2,000. 

 

 

^Yeah, you're probably right.  Hey, winning the war over the (let's be polite) highly misguided to get the streetcar built was heroic imho.  I do think the subway thing will have to be addressed at some point, though, esp with the tunnels being kept intact.  Walnut Street screams for a subway beneath it.

Have you ever seen just how little traffic there really is north of Dayton our south of the I-71/75 split in Kentucky?  The amount of actual through traffic on this supposed spine of economic vitality is barely a rounding error in the suburban commuter traffic that swamps the bridge and adjacent interstate highways. 

 

You are repeating the oft-cited but discredited notion that it's worth spending billions of dollars for highway and other road infrastructure to subsidize a few trucking companies, gas stations, and fast food joints that don't return even single-digit percentages to the government to pay for that infrastructure because...reasons. 

Recent projects I was involved with had the following traffic and truck counts:

I-75 @ Wapak (Auglaize County) 2015 Average Daily Traffic=45,000 Average Daily Truck traffic =about 18,500 (41% of total traffic)

I-71 @ Wilmington (Clinton County)  2015 Average Daily Traffic=45,430 Average Daily Truck traffic =about 15,400 (34% of total traffic)

Kjbrill, the facts of the cost of the streetcar's debt service and operations costs are less than 1% of the city's annual budget and those figures have been known for the past 6-7 years.  I've also posted them online in direct response to your comments like the one above for the past 6-7 years, but it never sinks in. 

Did they break down local vs. long-haul trucking?  I drive I-75 every day and it's exceptionally rare to see a Florida or Ontario license plate. 

Interstate traffic is very busy in Ohio. But those counts Mr. Sparkle posted are confusing. Is that a 2015 projection? OKI published count in Warren county in that area is 19,000 "on I71 east of Rt 123" in 2009. But then they published 30,000 "north of Wilmington road" in 2005.

 

I don't see substantially less traffic on the interstates connecting Cincy, Columbus and Dayton than I do while I'm actually in those metros. It's actually pretty annoying.

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

 

Even if you're correct, there is a ton of prep work and forethought required before a larger system can become a reality. Building a transit network isn't like putting an addition on your house. You can't just say "Now's the right time, let's start taking bids!", because the time to apply for funding and preserve the right-of-way was years earlier.  If now isn't the right time to expand, it certainly is the right time for planning and discussion.

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

 

Even if you're correct, there is a ton of prep work and forethought required before a larger system can become a reality. Building a transit network isn't like putting an addition on your house. You can't just say "Now's the right time, let's start taking bids!", because the time to apply for funding and preserve the right-of-way was years earlier.  If now isn't the right time to expand, it certainly is the right time for planning and discussion.

 

Exactly. We have to be planning one or two phases ahead at all times. That way we can start construction any time funding becomes available. You never know when the federal government is going to provide additional funding for urban circulators, give grants to "shovel-ready projects", etc.

Kjbrill, the facts of the cost of the streetcar's debt service and operations costs are less than 1% of the city's annual budget and those figures have been known for the past 6-7 years.  I've also posted them online in direct response to your comments like the one above for the past 6-7 years, but it never sinks in.

 

I will give you credit for at least one thing, you are consistent. Yes, you have put forth your evaluations based on the same 6-7 year old tired set of numbers. I doubted them then as they were the speculations of the streetcar advocates, and I doubt them now. If so accurate in their determination, why has the projected cost of Phase I of the streetcar more than doubled?

 

Pardon me if I am waiting to see real life results from real life conditions. Let's just see how fast the populace votes to begin construction on the uptown phase of just the streetcar. My bet is it will not even see a ballot until Phase I is completed and operational.

 

Not saying the streetcar is a bad deal. Just saying it benefits a far too small percentage of the citizens. If I were a citizen of Cincinnati, I would be standing in line asking where is my piece of this pie?

 

But the subway tunnels, they can stay buried for another 50 years.

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

 

Even if you're correct, there is a ton of prep work and forethought required before a larger system can become a reality. Building a transit network isn't like putting an addition on your house. You can't just say "Now's the right time, let's start taking bids!", because the time to apply for funding and preserve the right-of-way was years earlier.  If now isn't the right time to expand, it certainly is the right time for planning and discussion.

 

Exactly. We have to be planning one or two phases ahead at all times. That way we can start construction any time funding becomes available. You never know when the federal government is going to provide additional funding for urban circulators, give grants to "shovel-ready projects", etc.

 

My comments exactly. Everyone is waiting on the Federal Government to fund these projects. So in the meantime we have to continue to pay for engineers, planners, and others to continually update the plans. What a waste of public money. Spend money on pure speculation with no actual results. And this benefits who?

Did they break down local vs. long-haul trucking?  I drive I-75 every day and it's exceptionally rare to see a Florida or Ontario license plate. 

The license plate is from the one state where the trailer is registered, no? Not necessarily where its trip has started...

Just because a tractor trailer may not drive the whole length of I-75 does not make the BSB less important to regional, intrastate and interstate national freight movement.

Interstate traffic is very busy in Ohio. But those counts Mr. Sparkle posted are confusing. Is that a 2015 projection? OKI published count in Warren county in that area is 19,000 "on I71 east of Rt 123" in 2009. But then they published 30,000 "north of Wilmington road" in 2005.

 

I don't see substantially less traffic on the interstates connecting Cincy, Columbus and Dayton than I do while I'm actually in those metros. It's actually pretty annoying.

2015 Projections ("Opening Day") for interstate rehab projects.  The OKI ADT 19,000 "on I71 east of Rt 123" in 2009 seems like an anomaly.

As a businessman I'd rather have 100 people out of their cars spending money in my neighborhood than 100,000 driving by spending it on gas instead. Remember that most money spent on gas leaves the area. High traffic counts mean nothing if the people never get out of the car.

Did they break down local vs. long-haul trucking?  I drive I-75 every day and it's exceptionally rare to see a Florida or Ontario license plate. 

The license plate is from the one state where the trailer is registered, no? Not necessarily where its trip has started...

Just because a tractor trailer may not drive the whole length of I-75 does not make the BSB less important to regional, intrastate and interstate national freight movement.

 

The "interstates" in and near the cities serve primarily local traffic.  If there is a growth in traffic on the "interstates", that region should pay for it, since it's mostly an increase in commuters, local truck deliveries, and frivolous trips. 

 

People don't get it.  Cities are barely in control of their own destinies because the federal government controls local transportation (highways and capital grants for rail projects) AND housing loans.  The federal government has massively distorted each for upwards of 100 years, that's why most stuff in the United States feels so fake.  Stuff wouldn't be the way it is if it weren't for top-down policy.  There wouldn't be beachfront property, there wouldn't be suburbs, there wouldn't be vast abandoned swaths of old city neighborhoods, and there wouldn't be traffic jams on bypasses and empty lots on the old arterials.

 

With the recent talk of a streetcar extension to the west side, in conjunction with rebuilding the Western Hills Viaduct, I was thinking...

 

Phase 1 (1a?): Activate the subway tunnels, build the new viaduct with dedicated rail ROW, run track on the one-way pair of Queen City Blvd. and Westwood Ave., with a turnaround near Quebec. There's a fair bit of density there already and a lot of room for development.

 

Phase 2 (1b?): Continue the original subway route north, onto its surface segment, and built a new bicycle/rail bridge across the Mill Creek to Knowlton's Corner and run track in the street up Hamilton to Chase.

With the recent talk of a streetcar extension to the west side, in conjunction with rebuilding the Western Hills Viaduct, I was thinking...

 

Phase 1 (1a?): Activate the subway tunnels, build the new viaduct with dedicated rail ROW, run track on the one-way pair of Queen City Blvd. and Westwood-Northern Blvd., with a turnaround near Quebec. There's a fair bit of density there already and a lot of room for development.

 

Phase 2 (1b?): Continue the original subway route north, onto its surface segment, and built a new bicycle/rail bridge across the Mill Creek to Knowlton's Corner and run track in the street up Hamilton to Chase.

 

Its going to be tough with our current political makeup.  Smitherman & winburn will never vote for any funds for an extension under any circumstances.  Murray, Cranley, Mann & Flynn are all in the 'lets wait & see before doing anything' approach.

 

On the positive side, Murray has state she would support light rail as has David Mann.  Cranley of course is against it along with Smitherman & Winburn

Flynn is all about the West Side, so maybe a plan like that would appease him. If westsiders are interested, I say we make them a priority. As long as terrain and (potential) density are suitable, it makes a great deal of sense politically and from an access/mobility & development perspective.

I wouldn't count Winburn out.

I wouldn't count Winburn out.

 

He is another Westsider.

 

If the west side gets a taste of TOD and ceases its opposition to transit, I think it's game-set-match for local rail opposition.

If the Windbag notes the wind shifting direction, he'll be all over it.

That'd be nice, but not something to count on necessarily.  I can see the west side acting like many of the suburbs of Atlanta that have fought transit extensions because it would bring "those people" to their neighborhood.  Of course it's basically already happening, but I dunno, people can make very irrational decisions when it comes to such situations.

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

 

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

 

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

 

Jake, are you saying you’d rather have Cincy’s no rapid transit to Cleveland’s imperfect one?  I sure wouldn’t.  Yes, the Cleveland Red Line has been the whipping boy for transit purest for decades.  But the fact is, almost no medium-size, moderately dense American city has built an up-the-gut subway or elevated rapid transit line: not Cleveland, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, Denver or Baltimore, to name a few – and as we know, many others have decided to build little or no rapid transit at all… They saw the subway and then they blinked: too expensive, they said …  It’s a fact of life the places like Cleveland, that at least got off their collective arses and actually built mass transit, almost always chose the least expensive option – for Cleveland that meant using a fast ROW next to freight/passenger rail lines undulating through city proper.  Even the Cincy subway tunnels we wish were/will be developed, took the path of least resistance: they were built in a drained canal bed.  This means the tunnel route itself skirts OTR and goes nowhere near UC and its dense Clifton Heights neighborhood where a huge chunk of Cincinnatians live… and at the other end, money dried up and the tunnels point toward, but don’t extend under narrow/dense Walnut Street to the core Fountain Square area… And the fact that the portion that was built wasn’t placed into operation… chalk it up to life in not-so-transit-friendly America…

 

And btw, Cleveland’s Red Line is not entirely built in “obscure gullies 1/4 mile or more away from any established commercial node” -- W. 25-Ohio City isn’t, nor are Tower City,  or the 2 new U. Circle Stops … and at one end, it does terminate nearly directly below the baggage claim of its major international airport… not bad, I say… Fact is, the Red Line is bouncing back/getting stronger and even spawning TOD at places like Tower City/E. 4th St, Ohio City and University Circle/Uptown… also, the relocating UC-Little Italy station will put a station (elevated btw, and not in a ‘gulley’) a mere steps from the heart of Little Italy, an old, thriving neighborhood with Brooklyn, NY-like density… and on the station’s other flank, UC-Little Italy passengers will be one block from the massive new Uptown mixed-use development --- and if that isn’t good enough, it now appears that the dense, mixed-use (office/apartment/street retail) Intesa project may begin rising soon directly adjacent to this rail station… No, the Red Line isn’t perfect, but it’s pretty darn good; and it looks even better when I look around at Cleveland’s peers.

 

 

Train to CVG? Panel looks at how to fund it

Chris Wetterich Staff reporter- Cincinnati Business Courier

 

If you want to get from Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport to downtown today without renting a car or driving your own, you’ve got two options: Hop on a Transit Authority of Northern Kentucky bus or take a cab.

 

A train that would whisk visitors from the airport to downtown has long been on the region’s wish list, but Hamilton County Commissioner Todd Portune and Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional Council of Governments executive director Mark Policinski believe they have a way to pay for it.

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2014/05/21/train-to-cvg-panel-looks-at-how-to-fund-it.html

The problem with using PFCs is that any infrastructure paid for with them may only serve the airport. So, for example, if they were used to pay for the rail segment from the riverfront transit center to CVG, there could be no stops serving NKY neighborhoods.

But wouldn't additional stops in NKY help serve the airport? I think an argument could be made for that.

 

Also, is it possible for these types of funds to contribute to a larger regional plan? Only paying a portion of the costs while a regional transit authority, county, or city pays the remainder?

But wouldn't additional stops in NKY help serve the airport? I think an argument could be made for that.

 

It doesn't matter; they must exclusively serve the airport. The EWR station was built using PFCs, and -- despite being next to a residential neighborhood -- it's illegal to create access from the street to the station. Even though that wouldn't hurt service to the airport/flyers at all (and people arriving from the street might even be flyers just looking to hop on the monorail to the terminals).

 

Also, is it possible for these types of funds to contribute to a larger regional plan? Only paying a portion of the costs while a regional transit authority, county, or city pays the remainder?

 

This should certainly be possible, but I believe it would have to be done in discrete segments. So maybe OKI cobbles together funds to get from the RTC to a couple stops in Covington and Florence. Then the PFCs cover from Florence to CVG. That should be how it's done, if it's done.

But wouldn't additional stops in NKY help serve the airport? I think an argument could be made for that.

 

It doesn't matter; they must exclusively serve the airport. The EWR station was built using PFCs, and -- despite being next to a residential neighborhood -- it's illegal to create access from the street to the station. Even though that wouldn't hurt service to the airport/flyers at all (and people arriving from the street might even be flyers just looking to hop on the monorail to the terminals).

 

But if you're talking about a transit line, how can you have a destination from CVG without serving something else?  Suppose you only have one stop downtown and one at CVG, you're still serving that stop downtown, right?

But wouldn't additional stops in NKY help serve the airport? I think an argument could be made for that.

 

It doesn't matter; they must exclusively serve the airport. The EWR station was built using PFCs, and -- despite being next to a residential neighborhood -- it's illegal to create access from the street to the station. Even though that wouldn't hurt service to the airport/flyers at all (and people arriving from the street might even be flyers just looking to hop on the monorail to the terminals).

 

But if you're talking about a transit line, how can you have a destination from CVG without serving something else?  Suppose you only have one stop downtown and one at CVG, you're still serving that stop downtown, right?

 

In that case, everyone using the track/stations the PFCs paid for is either going to or coming from the airport. So that is allowed.

Maybe the Creation Museum wants a stop. They have deep pockets!

But wouldn't additional stops in NKY help serve the airport? I think an argument could be made for that.

 

It doesn't matter; they must exclusively serve the airport. The EWR station was built using PFCs, and -- despite being next to a residential neighborhood -- it's illegal to create access from the street to the station. Even though that wouldn't hurt service to the airport/flyers at all (and people arriving from the street might even be flyers just looking to hop on the monorail to the terminals).

 

But if you're talking about a transit line, how can you have a destination from CVG without serving something else?  Suppose you only have one stop downtown and one at CVG, you're still serving that stop downtown, right?

 

In that case, everyone using the track/stations the PFCs paid for is either going to or coming from the airport. So that is allowed.

 

Ah.  I see what you mean now.  Thanks.

  ^ When all the shooting's over, look for light rail to go south of the airport before doubling back north to the terminals, where there is surprisingly little demand.

^ Makes sense, as I have to think CVG will be the end of the line if PFCs are in play for anything more than a station (i.e. if they pay for track). Won't be any other way of getting to Florence.

 

I still think it would be hilarious if the Creation Museum gets on board. They'd have to foot the bill for track thru CVG, most likely. But it's not out of the realm of possibility for them to tap their fundraisers in a quest for prominence. Though I guess they could have chosen a closer-in location if they were at all concerned about accessibility.

I'm not sure if there is more desire for light rail in KY, though.  Covington and Newport would love to have something, but south of there I haven't heard many people express interest (although many claim to want it to CVG).  That's not to say that it wouldn't be a good idea, but most people in Boone County seem to think a wider Brent Spence bridge with no tolls is their ticket to reduced traffic.  :roll:

Rail from the airport to the Riverfront Transit Center at the Banks would certainly be a positive for the potential GE offices there! 

 

If this does take an act of Congress to set up as Portune lays out in the Business Courier article, maybe Steve Chabot can help out his own district for a change?  I did a cursory check on his weekly blog. The last entry dealing with Cincinnati issues (apart from a reference to Opening Day) was one all the way back from September of last year about passing an exception to the Safety of Life at Sea Act so the Delta Queen steamboat could operate on inland rivers.  That aside, if it is up to Congress, it's likely to not to happen for a mix of petty partisan reasons, identity politics equally ludicrous and insidious, special interest groups, and billionaire donors weighing in on issues that don't affect them.  Our level of national discourse has really sunk to that of a sixth grade school cafeteria table.

 

And what exactly does rail from the airport to the downtown transit center buy you? Are air passengers to be expected to park their car in the downtown garage at horrendous weekly rates, lug their baggage onto a train, and ride out to the airport? Then once there, where is the proposed station? Lug their baggage once again? And how about the return arrival if late at night? Lug your baggage through a parking garage trying to find your car?

 

Some ideas look good on the surface, but upon close inspection need a lot of study, planning, and cost projection. And I believe this is one of them. I also believe it will not affect GE's decision one iota.

^Lets thinks about those who would benefit... 1. Those who live downtown 2. Those who work downtown with a parking spot heading out on a business trip 3. Those coming into town on a business trip staying downtown. More?

 

This is the same type of thinking the naysayers with the streetcar had. Why would I drive downtown to park and ride the streetcar. You need to think outside of your own patterns and habits.

Almost all cities I fly to have a rail connection between the airport and the city center. Funny how most of the world seems to find it useful. I guess they're all idiots.

^Well if you only have rail from the airport to downtown, I don't see where that would be very useful.  It works in most cities because once you're downtown, you're in the hub of the rail transit system and can easily move throughout the city/region.  If we just built rail from Downtown to the airport, how would the average traveler get around once they're in the city? Is a business man with a meeting in Blue Ash going to take the 4 bus to Blue Ash? Doubtful. Our airport has no where near the traffic to justify it being the first/only rail line in the region.  71 or 75 north is far and away the greatest transit need.  Navigating either of these freeways between 4-7 pm or 7-9 am is truly horrendous, and even non rush hour traffic is pretty thick until pretty late at night.

^Well if you only have rail from the airport to downtown, I don't see where that would be very useful.  It works in most cities because once you're downtown, you're in the hub of the rail transit system and can easily move throughout the city/region.  If we just built rail from Downtown to the airport, how would the average traveler get around once they're in the city? Is a business man with a meeting in Blue Ash going to take the 4 bus to Blue Ash? Doubtful. Our airport has no where near the traffic to justify it being the first/only rail line in the region.  71 or 75 north is far and away the greatest transit need.  Navigating either of these freeways between 4-7 pm or 7-9 am is truly horrendous, and even non rush hour traffic is pretty thick until pretty late at night.

 

I agree that a line to the airport should not be the top LRT priority. Though it's worth noting Downtown is the city's main transit hub, so there's that. I've ridden buses to train stations to catch a train to an airport countless times. Never felt I was carrying my luggage for any distance close to how much I have to carry it at the actual airport, so that concern is mostly bogus.

Every city I've ever flown into with rail, that's precisely what I do. Get off the plane, "lug" my luggage (which, you know, is the root of the word) to the station, ride the train with said luggage, then get off wherever I'm going and walk the rest of the way to my destination. Just look at the NQR line heading into Manhattan from the Astoria stop in Queens. Luggage galore. I've done that exact thing all five of my trips to NYC in the last year. It's no big deal.

^ The wife is in PHX this week and is doing exactly this.

I would have done that in San Francisco last October, but BART workers were on strike.  :x

The BART is a great example of rail that's a decent distance/number of stops away from a more local form of transportation. When I flew to SF I got off and didn't have any knowledge of their system and figured out how to get to the first shared BART/MUNI station and then took the MUNI to the Sunset where my friend lived. If I was flying home to Cincy with rail in existence I would basically do exactly that. Take the train from CVG to the Transit Center, go up a flight of stairs to the streetcar, and take it to Race Street where I live. It would be SO much nicer to be able to do that than put my car in a lot at CVG and have to pay some obnoxious price just because the airport is disconnected from the core.

In theory, if we did everything Portune is trying to put in the pipeline, you could have a one-seat ride from Newtown and other points east to the airport. So even if you had to drive to a train station, it wouldn't be Downtown parking rates. In fact, you'd probably save as opposed to parking at the airport, since suburban park & rides would most likely be free. Then if they actually make nice access to the terminals from the train (the US doesn't tend to do this well), you'd likely have less walking w/ luggage than if you parked in one of the airport lots.

^Well if you only have rail from the airport to downtown, I don't see where that would be very useful.  It works in most cities because once you're downtown, you're in the hub of the rail transit system and can easily move throughout the city/region.  If we just built rail from Downtown to the airport, how would the average traveler get around once they're in the city? Is a business man with a meeting in Blue Ash going to take the 4 bus to Blue Ash? Doubtful. Our airport has no where near the traffic to justify it being the first/only rail line in the region.  71 or 75 north is far and away the greatest transit need.  Navigating either of these freeways between 4-7 pm or 7-9 am is truly horrendous, and even non rush hour traffic is pretty thick until pretty late at night.

 

I agree that a line to the airport should not be the top LRT priority. Though it's worth noting Downtown is the city's main transit hub, so there's that. I've ridden buses to train stations to catch a train to an airport countless times. Never felt I was carrying my luggage for any distance close to how much I have to carry it at the actual airport, so that concern is mostly bogus.

 

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

 

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

It's probably impossible for trains passing through the Transit Center to cross the river on either the C&O or Southern RR bridges.  They would have to do a backing move up into the Queensgate or Nolfolk-Southern yards that might not be permitted by the FRA.