44 minutes ago, ryanlammi said:

 

If you need dedicated lanes going up and down vine, you're going to have to demolish all of the buildings on one side of the Vine Street Hill.

The Vine RoW is 60 feet wide. 2 bus lanes, 2 vehicle lanes, and 2 sidewalks would take up at least 55, depending on width of the travel lanes. I assume DOTE would want wider than normal vehicle lanes due to the slope and curvature of the road and to maintain commercial truck traffic. That leaves no room for a proper station. They could widen the road at the stations, kind of like how the old streetcar stops were. There are some vacant lots that could be used to do this, I just don't know if they are in the right spot for a useful station.

43 minutes ago, Dev said:

The Vine RoW is 60 feet wide. 2 bus lanes, 2 vehicle lanes, and 2 sidewalks would take up at least 55, depending on width of the travel lanes. I assume DOTE would want wider than normal vehicle lanes due to the slope and curvature of the road and to maintain commercial truck traffic. That leaves no room for a proper station. They could widen the road at the stations, kind of like how the old streetcar stops were. There are some vacant lots that could be used to do this, I just don't know if they are in the right spot for a useful station.

Narrowest spot on CAGIS I could find was 58 feet, but most was 60. 

1 hour ago, JYP said:

Curb to curb widths vary widely on Vine between McMicken and McMillan. Anywhere between 35-40ft. Some parts of the sidewalk are more than 12ft wide. Its doable without building demo but there will have to be some serious street reconstruction at some parts. Also dedicated bus lanes average around 12ft but can be as narrow as 10ft.

 

On a straight road with minimal intersections, I think you could get away with 10' if you had to. Impossible with the hills and bending of Vine Street. It simply will not be safe.

 

Cars already park on the sidewalk right now because traffic come barreling down Vine Street at 45mph instead of the 25 or 30mph speed limit. Now you're also going to tell people living in the area that they are going to have their sidewalks reduced, and parking eliminated (the barrier between pedestrians and moving traffic) and have 400 buses running 5' from their front door every day. Also, without the parked cars, I imagine traffic coming down Vine is only going to pick up speed because suddenly they have their entire lane and the buffer of the bus lane between them and the sidewalk. Most cars are probably going to straddle the line when there isn't a bus directly in front of them and go even faster. Do we create a physical barrier between the bus lane and the traffic lane? Add another 2-3' in the right of way, and expect cars flying down the street to accidentally hit the obstruction and cause a dangerous situation for everyone.

 

I live right next to Vine Street, and see these traffic (EDIT: not traffic as in congestion, but traffic as in issues with drivers) problems all the time. I just don't see how a bus lane is 1) feasible and 2) actually necessary. Give the buses some added benefits at the top and bottom of the hill, but they really don't need their own lanes for the entire stretch. It simply doesn't back up like that. And an extra couple hundred buses aren't going to do that either IMO.

 

Northbound Red and Southbound Blue. This should be plenty for the Vine Street Hill. The ROW is so wide on Jefferson, that it would be perfectly fine to have a BRT route going through that portion with dedicated lanes. It could also help prevent bunching during UC sporting events and such. Vine Street never backs up past Hollister going north and past Mulberry going south unless there's an accident or something. There's no need to completely redo the entire street when traffic isn't a problem.

3 hours ago, thomasbw said:

Eliminate the on-street parking, create bus only lanes, replace that parking with neighborhood permitted lots (there's plenty of space to do that) and give everyone effected a free bus pass. 

 

Just saw this map. No thanks. I would rather my neighborhood not be a giant parking lot. There is finally some infill development happening on Loth after decades of nothing, and this would completely ruin the little neighborhood.

1 hour ago, ryanlammi said:

 

Just saw this map. No thanks. I would rather my neighborhood not be a giant parking lot. There is finally some infill development happening on Loth after decades of nothing, and this would completely ruin the little neighborhood.

You wouldn't need to turn all of those locations into parking lots. You might be able to provide adequate parking for the area with a single lot or parking structure.  

18 hours ago, thomasbw said:

You wouldn't need to turn all of those locations into parking lots. You might be able to provide adequate parking for the area with a single lot or parking structure.  

 

In the screenshot, it looks like most of the buildings on the east side of Vine already have off street parking. There's one full lot and one empty lot. On the west side of Vine, between the attached row houses, there's an empty lot that could probably serve those homes. If the lot at the old school could be converted to public parking, you could likely lose street parking on Vine without having to add any new lots at all.

5 minutes ago, Ram23 said:

If the lot at the old school could be converted to public parking, you could likely lose street parking on Vine without having to add any new lots at all.

 

That's still an active school

 

I appreciate that you publicly post and talk through the potential issues, @thomasbw! I am wondering if I am missing something - why do you believe using Vine would be preferred over using Reading as planned, just more route consolidation and a more open BRT system? 

 

The hill up Vine is the most direct route and would hit more of UC than Reading, and has the queue jump/shelter infrastructure in place if priority was activated. But much of CUF wouldn't/couldn't cross to Vine, and having the high-ridership 17 avert that area leaves a gap in an area that likely still needs frequent transit. 

 

The traffic on Vine isn't substantial enough to spend too much money on road widening and/or building a new parking structure to accommodate the loss of on-street parking [related to @ryanlammi's comments/concerns]. Choosing a location for an ADA compliant station could be a challenge - and if not level-boarding would lead to delay comparable to current local routes - but if you don't make a station, nearby residents will push back harder on the loss of parking. I'm also operating under the assumption that you would have to do curb lanes which means they're slowed by anyone turning. Through OTR, it's hard to politically envision substantial bus priority, so you're not gaining a ton of value in that segment. I would think much of the CBD part of your BRT loop [and the lights requiring signal priority] should be covered by the existing streetcar. I'm also unclear if those west side routes would actually save any time via McMicken to Vine. 

 

Whereas with Reading, there is currently traffic that's too fast, a road that's too wide, areas where traffic builds up that the bus could breeze by, and drops you off in the center of downtown without needing to spend a ton of money solely on uptown/downtown, which is better politically. Approximate stops going north from downtown could be Casino, ~McGregor, ~United Way, ~WH Taft, and ~MLK&Reading where you could walk a block to the Uptown Transit Center [going between Harvey & Burnet] but the bus wouldn't have to turn multiple times. Then it continues up Reading into Avondale and beyond. From a WH Taft stop, frequent routes split east to the Walnut Hills transit center and west to U-Square. 

 

That'd be 5 stops over 2 miles, which is about right considering the grade and you could cut one. Not as much route consolidation, but possible that the 11, 4, and the X highway routes could merge at Elsinore/71 as well if an open system, and still includes the 24 from your map. 

 

Signal priority at Liberty, Dorchester, and MLK would be a must, though. It's wide enough that you could do center-running and wouldn't need to widen anywhere, but narrow enough that center-running stops would be safe to cross to. 

I'll take a run up Vine and maybe down Reading and take a look this weekend. 

I've ridden BRT systems, but I've never been on one when a wheelchair user was boarding. Do they still deploy ramps even at the locations with level boarding? And does the bus operator have to put on the restraints like on a normal bus?

 

If the answers are no to both, then that would be a large difference in boarding time, but if the answers are yes, you could sacrifice level boarding platforms at a few stops if they wouldn't fit in the ROW. 

13 minutes ago, thomasbw said:

I've ridden BRT systems, but I've never been on one when a wheelchair user was boarding. Do they still deploy ramps even at the locations with level boarding? And does the bus operator have to put on the restraints like on a normal bus?

 

In Mexico City, they have "true" BRT that they call "Metrobús" and it operates mostly like you'd expect a subway or train. The operators never leave their seats. All stations have ticketed turnstiles and level boarding platforms. I have taken my kids on a stroller on Metrobús, and it worked fine. But that being said, the metro is so busy that you don't frequently see wheel chairs on any of the metro lines (subway or BRT).

 

Candidly, I don't have any expectation that Cincinnati has the political will to build something on par with Mexico City's "BRT". But I'd love to be proven wrong! I like the idea of BRT along Reading for the reasons that @shawkoutlined, and I'll add that I think there's a lot more "upzozing" potential along Reading than along Vine (which is mostly "built out").

18 minutes ago, jwulsin said:

 

 

Candidly, I don't have any expectation that Cincinnati has the political will to build something on par with Mexico City's "BRT". But I'd love to be proven wrong! I like the idea of BRT along Reading for the reasons that @shawkoutlined, and I'll add that I think there's a lot more "upzozing" potential along Reading than along Vine (which is mostly "built out").

We absolutely  don't have to the will to do that. It's entirely possible that we're going to end up with a $100m Metro*Plus line

On 10/15/2021 at 10:46 AM, jwulsin said:

Candidly, I don't have any expectation that Cincinnati has the political will to build something on par with Mexico City's "BRT". But I'd love to be proven wrong! I like the idea of BRT along Reading for the reasons that @shawkoutlined, and I'll add that I think there's a lot more "upzozing" potential along Reading than along Vine (which is mostly "built out").

Yeah, I agree on the upzoning potential as well but didn't want to emphasize that because I believe the transportation potential needs to be the forefront over development. It also would directly service multiple social service agencies in addition to the commuter potential. 

 

We shouldn't settle for anything less than Indy's, IMO. Realistically I don't think we should settle for less than a Bronze rating on the ITDP standard (50+ pts). 

 

We could get that with:

- 6 points for color-separated, dedicated lanes

- 8 points for two-way median-aligned busway in the central verge of two-way

- 4 points for all-door onboard fare validation

- 2 points for signal priority at intersections

- 6/7 points for level-boarding at all stations

- 2 points for top-ten demand corridors for bus ridership and another point for being a trunk to downtown/uptown

- 2 points for late-night and weekend service

- 2 points for stations away from intersections

- 2 points for high-quality repaved roads

- 2 points for spacing ~.5 mile apart on average

- 1/2 points for stations that are weather-protected, have cameras & well-lit, and aesthetically pleasing

- 5 points for branding and real-time passenger information

- 2 points for physical accessibility provided

- 2 points for integration if integrated with close proximity to the transit center and the streetcar

- 2 points for 'good, safe pedestrian access at every station and no other improvements along corridor' (this could get 3-4). 

- 1 point for standard bike racks in most stations

- 1 point for bicycle sharing at 50% of stations along the corridor with RedBike

 

This puts us right at Bronze and is what I would consider realistic possibilities for the various ratings, though we'd be at risk for some penalties to take us back below 50 points. 

Ran up Vine Street hill today. Looks like you can fit the bus lanes in there with only one or two pinch points around the curves in the road. 

 

I think you could find one or two locations to do level boarding and still have useable sidewalks.

 

There were 44 cars parked on-street from Mulberry to Calhoun, with 18 of them at the top near UC and 26 south of Inwood Park. 

When I drove by last night around 10pm, I counted 68 cars between Hollister and Mulberry alone. I didn't start counting until I got to Hollister, but both sides of the street north of Hollister were filled with cars. So probably another 30+ vehicles

On 10/13/2021 at 11:27 AM, JYP said:

Curb to curb widths vary widely on Vine between McMicken and McMillan. Anywhere between 35-40ft. Some parts of the sidewalk are more than 12ft wide. Its doable without building demo but there will have to be some serious street reconstruction at some parts. Also dedicated bus lanes average around 12ft but can be as narrow as 10ft.

 

Another option to consider would be a single reversible bus lane that is used for peak direction. Busses traveling in the off-peak direction would use the regular travel lane. This is what Albuquerque has implemented along narrower parts of their BRT route.

7 hours ago, ryanlammi said:

When I drove by last night around 10pm, I counted 68 cars between Hollister and Mulberry alone. I didn't start counting until I got to Hollister, but both sides of the street north of Hollister were filled with cars. So probably another 30+ vehicles

51 (16 north of Inwood Park) today coming back from Avon Fields at 4pm. 

 

If the parking demand is primarily overnight, 6am to 6pm bus only lanes might be a compromise. (or just build one or two parking structures) 

7 hours ago, taestell said:

 

Another option to consider would be a single reversible bus lane that is used for peak direction. Busses traveling in the off-peak direction would use the regular travel lane. This is what Albuquerque has implemented along narrower parts of their BRT route.

Indianapolis has a bidirectional lane as well on their Red Line for a similar option. That makes sense for longer stretches with minimal lights and straightaways. 

 

But if the Vine proposal is designed as an open system to feed essentially every major route in the system rapidly and constantly from uptown to downtown, a peak only lane, peak only times (which would be a huge neuter/useless) or a system that is too reliant on light timing won't be that much of an improvement over status quo for routes via Vine. 

 

Cincinnati transit routes using the same route and number as they did in 1911.

 

 

In the $1.5 trillion Federal appropriations bill that was passed yesterday, SORTA is receiving $3.3 million for a "Bus Stop Infrastructure Enhancement Project." It was sponsored by Senator Brown.

Edited March 11, 20223 yr by Dev

Metro's planning an on-demand service. I'm skeptical. Is anyone familiar with a system that's held up as the gold-standard for demand-response?

 

 

I'm hoping this test pilot will show that this isn't going to work large scale. I assume it might work where there's some unique conditions, like higher density auto sprawl with no rectangular grid, but that's probably it.

I feel like on-demand services only makes sense if it allows the bus routes to focus on a smaller geographic area. In other words, I don't mind if the the on-demand services are used to address the areas that have *very low scale*, but I wouldn't like to see this encroach on the "core" of the city where bus ridership should be encouraged.

It was awhile ago that I looked into it in more depth but the pilot areas all seemed to be 'coverage' service so I'm not as worried about scaling. I'm skeptical to some extent, but in low-density areas, some purely coverage demand-responsive routes could still be appropriate, likely meeting a political purpose more than a ridership experience purpose. I'd much rather be "more flexible and aims to cater more closely to customers' individual needs" by providing a lot more frequency to current routes, but recognize that we have some sprawlly parts of the county, including some that may be at-risk as aging suburbs. 

 

Flex-route - seems to make the most sense, but seems useful only if existing stops aren't ever skipped and I'm not sure how much time that would add. Seems could take away from of the gains from FASTops balancing if implemented in too dense an area. 

First/last connector - seems ok, but other than providing union jobs to replace Uber/Lyft trips, I'd think public dollars would be better spent making that first/last mile infrastructure safer and less sprawled. Also doesn't work well unless there's frequent service on the existing fixed-route which generally isn't the case. 

Point-to-point - waste, I genuinely think ACCESS is the only circumstance I can understand it as a public transit responsibility. 

 

The biggest issue to me is that there's a lot more that could be prioritized - as worded in Better Buses, Better Cities, "When existing bus routes are unreliable and slow, focusing attention on microtransit is like trying to perfect dessert at a restaurant that routinely burns the entrees." 

I wonder how a new fixed local route across the top of Hamilton County (perhaps crossing over into Butler & Warren at points) would do. Roughly following 275 and connecting the northern endpoints of the radial arterial bus routes from Colerain Ave to Montgomery Rd. Maybe even go up to Kings Island in the east. The idea being you could for example take a bus north on Hamilton or Winton and transfer to the new route which would go by lots of jobs  

Metro's fixed-route ridership has rebounded considerably faster than its express ridership

Cincinnati transit agency eliminates fares amid high gas prices

 

Metro’s buses will be free to ride for a week as the agency pitches its expanded service offerings as an alternative to driving amid rising gas prices.

 

All Metro buses will be free from Sunday, March 20 through Saturday, March 26.

 

“Long before the pandemic and current fuel-price challenges, Metro has always been there as an alternative to the costs and stresses of relying on a car,” said Metro CEO Darryl Haley. “While other systems across the country have faced the difficult decision to cut service throughout the pandemic, we have actually added service, and now our customers can get more places throughout their community than ever before.”

 

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2022/03/18/cincinnati-transit-agency-eliminates-fares-amid-hi.html

 

The FTA recognizes 15* Bus Rapid Transit systems in the USA (*KC's system is recognized but hasn't reported data in months). 

 

I looked at how the passengers per hour and operational speeds compared between the BRT lines and regular bus routes in each of the 14 cities that operate BRT. The takeaway? BRT is great for increasing ridership (12 of 14 systems have higher ridership) but not great for increasing speed (3 of 14 systems are faster than their regular bus counterparts). 

 

Also Orlando's system shouldn't really be considered BRT. 

 

 

Why are Pittsburgh's busways never on these lists?

1 hour ago, BigDipper 80 said:

Why are Pittsburgh's busways never on these lists?

They don't report the data on the buses that use the busways separately from everything else, so I can't parse it out in the data. 

 

Fun Fact, Pittsburgh's transit system directly operated one of their inclines but contracted out the other until 2012. I'm sure there's some bizarre story as to why that's the case. 

 

This seems like a relatively easy and low cost way to help with navigation and wayfinding for new transit riders or people from out of town. If you see the C~~ logo, you know it's transportation. The Icon in the C tells you what kind and there's a little bit of text for more info. Now, if you're not from here (or even if you are) you might not know that CTC is Clermont County's transit system, but you're also unlikely to get on a bus to Amelia. And along those lines Redbike might make more sense as "bike share" 

On BRT speeds, is it comparing the BRT line speeds to the other bus lines in the system? I could see how the BRT lines would be slower because they are probably in higher density areas, whereas the full system might be skewed by some long distance lines that travel on high-speed roadways. What would be interesting is to see average speed on a bus line vs. the BRT that replaces it. 

15 minutes ago, DEPACincy said:

On BRT speeds, is it comparing the BRT line speeds to the other bus lines in the system? I could see how the BRT lines would be slower because they are probably in higher density areas, whereas the full system might be skewed by some long distance lines that travel on high-speed roadways. What would be interesting is to see average speed on a bus line vs. the BRT that replaces it. 

It's comparing it to all the other bus lines in the system. They don't break the data out by line, but you're correct that if you have a large number of express buses, that could skew the data.

 

(FTA does break out explicitly commuter bus services for some jurisdictions though)

I really wish the data also included on-time performance and reliability to see how much dwell time was impacted. I'm also curious how much the boarding dwell time was reduced from having no fares vs the increasing expansion to digital payments.

When the Southbank Shuttle resumes operations, it should be marketed as a fare-free circulator service that works with the streetcar & have clearly marked transfer points between the two systems, making for easy transit from Over-the-Rhine to Newport and Covington.

 

Edited March 31, 20223 yr by thomasbw
removed a line break caused by copying and pasting

Brad,

As always great insight on our regional transit systems.

One opportunity I think the city missed out on was having the streetcar platforms act as bus loading platforms as well.

The street car enjoys nice stops, and yet most bus boarding zones, outside of Govt Square are pretty pathetic.

I just think it would have been nice to consolidate and give bus riders a few more amenities

15 hours ago, NsideProp said:

Brad,

As always great insight on our regional transit systems.

One opportunity I think the city missed out on was having the streetcar platforms act as bus loading platforms as well.

The street car enjoys nice stops, and yet most bus boarding zones, outside of Govt Square are pretty pathetic.

I just think it would have been nice to consolidate and give bus riders a few more amenities

The reason for that one is in order to have level floor boarding at all four streetcar doors, the curb would be too high for buses to use their wheelchair ramps. You could have a situation where the center of the streetcar platform is high enough for level boarding but you'd have to step up or down from the streetcar at the front and back door. 

 

 

Now that the Roebling Bridge is open again, has anyone hear anything about the Southbank Shuttle coming back? I haven't seen a single news story or announcement that references it at all. 

On 4/11/2022 at 11:08 AM, ucgrady said:

Now that the Roebling Bridge is open again, has anyone hear anything about the Southbank Shuttle coming back? I haven't seen a single news story or announcement that references it at all. 

It's not coming back right now because they can't hire enough people to staff it.

I mapped SORTA's proposed BRT lines over a jurisdiction map of the county. The green line is 100% within the City of Cincinnati and red and orange basically are within the City. Blue line will have some issues. 

 

In order for real BRT to work, the local government has to agree to all of the improvements, which will either remove parking or travel lanes. I think that puts the blue line last for construction.

 

 

30 minutes ago, thomasbw said:

I mapped SORTA's proposed BRT lines over a jurisdiction map of the county. The green line is 100% within the City of Cincinnati and red and orange basically are within the City. Blue line will have some issues. 

 

In order for real BRT to work, the local government has to agree to all of the improvements, which will either remove parking or travel lanes. I think that puts the blue line last for construction.

 

 

Are these the lines reccomended by SORTA? What goes into how the routes are developed? Would it have been possible or feasible to route a BRT through Delhi too/instead? It seems as if that area is on an island and cut off. Plus it would be a benefit of some sort to have some connection to Mount St. Joe

These are the corridors recommend by SORTA

 

Route 32 (Dehli) ridership in 2021- 230,988

Route 33 (Glenway) rideship in 2022- 686,169

22 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

What goes into how the routes are developed? 

Those are the 4 highest ridership routes.

 

Silverton recently reached an agreement with SORTA to develop TOD at their current office/park & ride. They also have a pretty strong commitment to sustainable development in general, so I would image they would be supportive of the BRT route. Norwood seems to be getting onboard with the Strong Towns messaging so I also think they would be supportive of BRT. Sycamore TWP could be an issue though. In any case, I still think it's last of the 4.

 

I assume Reading and Glenway will be the first pair built that are expected in 2027.

Edited July 12, 20222 yr by Dev

23 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Are these the lines reccomended by SORTA? What goes into how the routes are developed? Would it have been possible or feasible to route a BRT through Delhi too/instead? It seems as if that area is on an island and cut off. Plus it would be a benefit of some sort to have some connection to Mount St. Joe

They just signed off on the contract last month for WSP to conduct the "Alternatives Analysis" and evaluate corridors to figure out the Locally Preferred Alternative, but those are the general recommendations. 

 

Bit more info here: https://www.go-metro.com/uploads/Board Documents/2022/Board Packet (6-22).pdf p 7-26

 

I generally agree that blue line seems least likely when you consider ridership and the multiple munis involved - unless WSP can somehow show that all those municipalities would be 100% on board, which would turn that negative into a positive.

 

The #33 Glenway is a workhorse and was approaching 25 passengers per hour as of April, well above most other routes including the #32 Delhi (hasn't been above 14 post-pandemic). I'd really like to see it and the west side get some love, but not sure how the ROW would look. 

On 7/12/2022 at 11:16 AM, shawk said:

They just signed off on the contract last month for WSP to conduct the "Alternatives Analysis" and evaluate corridors to figure out the Locally Preferred Alternative, but those are the general recommendations. 

 

Bit more info here: https://www.go-metro.com/uploads/Board Documents/2022/Board Packet (6-22).pdf p 7-26

 

I generally agree that blue line seems least likely when you consider ridership and the multiple munis involved - unless WSP can somehow show that all those municipalities would be 100% on board, which would turn that negative into a positive.

 

The #33 Glenway is a workhorse and was approaching 25 passengers per hour as of April, well above most other routes including the #32 Delhi (hasn't been above 14 post-pandemic). I'd really like to see it and the west side get some love, but not sure how the ROW would look. 

This entire BRT project is operating under the assumption that the City of Cincinnati (and Norwood, Silverton, Mt. Healthy, North College Hill) are going to approve the removal of most (if not all) street parking along Glenway, Hamilton, Reading and Montgomery AND grant signal priority at intersections.

 

I don't know if this is a correct assumption. Cincinnati DOTE won't even change the signal sequence to speed up the streetcar, even under the new administration. 

1 hour ago, thomasbw said:

This entire BRT project is operating under the assumption that the City of Cincinnati (and Norwood, Silverton, Mt. Healthy, North College Hill) are going to approve the removal of most (if not all) street parking along Glenway, Hamilton, Reading and Montgomery AND grant signal priority at intersections.

 

I don't know if this is a correct assumption. Cincinnati DOTE won't even change the signal sequence to speed up the streetcar, even under the new administration. 

I don't think DOTE is going to be the biggest hurdle to be concerned about. It will be local opposition from neighborhood groups and businesses.

 

We saw that when the idea was floated to put in bus lanes on Reading a few years ago. As I recall, there was pushback about losing on-street parking for the businesses in one of the neighborhoods and concerns of overflow traffic onto side streets. Cranley, Smitherman and Mann all amplified this of course, instead of offering solutions. I'm cautiously optimistic that the current political leadership wouldn't back down but of course we have at least 2 more election cycles before this starts.

 

We all know that truly good BRT will be better for local businesses and traffic calming, but it seems like too many people only think that easy, cheap parking is good for business and that safety only comes from speed humps and traffic enforcement.