1 hour ago, jwulsin said:

Why are you so sure of this? I'm not a traffic engineer, but is there some reason you say signal prioritization can't work at these intersections?

 

There's zero reason why signal prioritization won't work at those intersections. I don't understand why that is being claimed.

On 11/2/2022 at 8:28 PM, shawk said:

There are a lot of lessons to be taken from Indy - be careful with unproven technology/batteries, don't have an awful payment system, systems > lines in isolation, prioritize operators - but our BRT if well-executed should be leaps and bounds beyond Indy's in ridership

I rode the Indy Red Line to the Colts/Eagles game a few weeks ago.  Payment system was confusing (and I didn't want to miss a bus).  No mention of how much a one-way trip or round-trip would have costed.  I just bought $10 worth of money on a ticket and once the bus got there, there was no place in the middle of the bus (where we boarded) to have those validated.  So technically i didn't even use it.   It goes through Mass Ave (similar to our OTR Vine St in width and activity).  No dedicated lanes and no signal priority, so we we're sitting at red lights where no other cars were waiting.  It all felt very similar to our early streetcar troubles. 

 

On the way back, there was no mention that a station is closed immediately after the football games as traffic is let out, so we waited in the cold for 20 minutes until we saw buses turning before our station, so we walked 30 minutes over to the transit center and eventually caught a bus that was 30 minutes late to that stop.

 

We've already learned some good lessons from the streetcar.  I don't think we need a ton of dedicated lanes (the most expensive part), but signal priority, ticketing ease-of-use, and timeliness need to be the top 3 priorities for this.

These are all very complicated intersections with very different setups.  In short - there's a reason why there isn't already signal prioritization.   They might be able to do partial signal prioritization but there is no way to achieve full prioritization that will work during heavy traffic periods - which is exactly when it is needed most.  

 

I do think that a short busway could be built on two sides of the UC Law School that would travel between the top of W. Clifton and Clifton Ave. at the UC entrance booth opposite Straight St.  This would allow southbound #17 buses to skip the congested block of McMillan between Clifton and W. Clifton along with the oft-blocked turn onto the W. Clifton hill.  But this is a poor-man's solution to the problem, as it would require Corbett Drive to be blocked off to work well since cars often cue on that hill trying to get onto gridlocked Calhoun St.   

 

 

 

 

 

Metro adds 2 routes aiming to connect jobs and residents

 

Cincinnati Metro has added two routes between job centers as a part of its expansion funded by the 2020 Hamilton County sales tax increase.

 

The two routes are the first time Metro has run local routes north of the University of Cincinnati’s Blue Ash campus.

 

Cincinnati’s business community got behind the 0.8% sales tax increase because employers complained of transportation challenges faced by their current and potential employees, who either could not or will not drive to work.

 

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2022/12/05/metro-adds-routes.html

 

On 12/5/2022 at 5:14 PM, Lazarus said:

These are all very complicated intersections with very different setups.  In short - there's a reason why there isn't already signal prioritization.   They might be able to do partial signal prioritization but there is no way to achieve full prioritization that will work during heavy traffic periods - which is exactly when it is needed most.  

 

 

Well that's, like, your opinion man. And it's not really based on anything other than your gut. There are cities with BRT signal priority on intersections that are just as complex. 

 

Now let’s see if it’s going to be real rapid transit or just PR fodder.

Bus rapid transit: Cincinnati corridors selected

 

Cincinnati Metro has picked two corridors for the region’s first rapid transit lines.

 

The bus agency plans to run bus rapid transit along Reading Road and Hamilton Avenue.

 

Bus rapid transit (BRT) is essentially a bus line that acts like a rail line, with frequent service. True BRT has dedicated bus lanes along at least part of each route, traffic signals that give buses priority over cars, stations, fewer stops and a fare system where a rider pays before boarding the bus.

 

“We are excited to see the positive impact this new and innovative transportation option will bring, not only in terms of faster travel times through these corridors, but as a new economic growth driver for our region for decades to come,” Metro CEO Darryl Haley said. “BRT will be a game-changer.”

 

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2023/01/17/bus-rapid-transit-cincinnati-corridors-selected.html

 

This is really exciting for Cincinnati. It’ll be a great compliment to the streetcar and hopefully an Uptown Expansion in the near future. Hamilton and Reading Avenues make great sense, one for west and one for east side with both pretty centrally located.

Now I’ll keep hoping for my BRT lines up in Dayton on Far Hills, Salem and Third lol.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

1 hour ago, ColDayMan said:

Bus rapid transit: Cincinnati corridors selected

 

 

 

 

Yeah, the business owners along Hamilton Ave. in Northside and Ludlow Ave. in Clifton are going to roll over and let Metro claim the curb parking lanes for buses...

 

 

11 hours ago, SWOH said:

It’ll be a great compliment to the streetcar and hopefully an Uptown Expansion in the near future.

With both lines sharing the route up Vine street / Jefferson up to MLK, there is a potential to really add dedicated transit lanes going up the hill and along Jefferson and provide very frequent service to connect Uptown and Downtown. Has any of that been proposed or is this just a glorified bus route? I agree that transferring from the streetcar to one of these busses to get up the hill could prove very important, it just needs to be made extremely simple and easy or people won't do it. 

41 minutes ago, ucgrady said:

With both lines sharing the route up Vine street / Jefferson up to MLK, there is a potential to really add dedicated transit lanes going up the hill and along Jefferson and provide very frequent service to connect Uptown and Downtown. Has any of that been proposed or is this just a glorified bus route? I agree that transferring from the streetcar to one of these buses to get up the hill could prove very important, it just needs to be made extremely simple and easy or people won't do it. 

It seems the design study will be finalized "Spring 2023," so we're left to our own devices until then.  In a perfect world, we'd add a "transit lane" including streetcar tracks going up the hill, but once they do add a bus lane, I imagine tearing it up again to put in tracks would be an even bigger hurdle with construction getting in the way of the new bus service. Bus-only lanes on Vine effectively kills on Vine St streetcar connections to Uptown.  So the alternatives would be tunnel or around McMicken.

 

My money is on a Streetcar extension going to Union Terminal first anyway.  It's cheaper and development is moving that direction. Especially if we get 3C+D and more Indy-Chicago service.

Edited January 18, 20232 yr by 10albersa

17 minutes ago, 10albersa said:

It seems the design study will be finalized "Spring 2023," so we're left to our own devices until then.  In a perfect world, we'd add a "transit lane" including streetcar tracks going up the hill, but once they do add a bus lane, I imagine tearing it up again to put in tracks would be an even bigger hurdle with construction getting in the way of the new bus service. Bus-only lanes on Vine effectively kills on Vine St streetcar connections to Uptown.  So the alternatives would be tunnel or around McMicken.

 

My money is on a Streetcar extension going to Union Terminal first anyway.  It's cheaper and development is moving that direction. Especially if we get 3C+D and more Indy-Chicago service.

Are you suggesting an East - West route from the casino to Union terminal? The route would follow Central parkway and Ezzard Charles I'd imagine...

 

I think an uptown link along Vine paired with BRT is truly going to be a challenge to do both.

Edited January 18, 20232 yr by Dcs3939

There is no reason to build a bus-only land on the Vine St. hill as traffic almost always flows continuously between Clifton Ave. and Hollister.  

 

All of this money is just going to add up to a bunch of jack squat.  Only incremental gains are possible with signaling and line jumping.  The big gains require big capital investment.

 

The biggest single improvement to bus service in the region would be a Seattle-type bus tunnel stretching from the TANK terminal in Covington, under the river, under downtown, and emerging on Jefferson Ave. at Corry.  Stations under Walnut St. at Gov Square, Court St., Liberty St.   This would allow the Hamilton Ave., Vine St., and Reading Rd. buses to all converge and enjoy a fast ride to Downtown.  Meanwhile, TANK could serve UC and the hospitals direction.  

Design and engineering is not scheduled to be completed until 2025. The report that is to be released isn't going to be giving any super specific recommendations, it was just to recommend which 2 corridors to go with. There is plenty of time for all the details to get flushed out, and plenty of time for the city to pursue, or at least study, any expansion of the streetcar that could go along this routing. IIRC Jeffreys and Owens passed a motion asking the city to look into streetcar expansion.

Good to know, I figured design had to be complete a lot sooner if they are going to hit a 2027 launch date. That likely does mean there is time to incorporate a Streetcar extension into designs and seek grant funding.

13 hours ago, Lazarus said:

 

Yeah, the business owners along Hamilton Ave. in Northside and Ludlow Ave. in Clifton are going to roll over and let Metro claim the curb parking lanes for buses...

 

 

 

If there are any business districts in the city that would embrace it, it would be those two. Also, up until recently they gave up that parking for car lanes for 4 hours each day anyway. 

 

5 hours ago, Lazarus said:

The biggest single improvement to bus service in the region would be a Seattle-type bus tunnel stretching from the TANK terminal in Covington, under the river, under downtown, and emerging on Jefferson Ave. at Corry.

 

But we know this doesn’t have any chance of happening.

 

What SORTA/METRO does have is some more investment in the form of the recent levy. As…interesting…as that set up is, there is a chance to make a big jump in transit access beyond what they’ve been doing so far (24 hour service, more frequency, a few new routes, etc).

 

My fear is that local advocates might continue to say the words “Bus Rapid Transit,” but citizens won’t end up with anything actually like the BRT lines in Indy and Cleveland (which themselves have their own concessions and drawbacks from real rapid transit).

I see things like the “bus only lane” on Main (which was only partially painted, isn’t enforced, and isn’t even really used by buses heading north) and remember a certain politician calling the 3X “BRT LITE”…. and that’s where I bristle at announcements like these regarding the Reading and Hamilton corridors.

 

I have a sense of trepidation right now that in the end, all of these improvements will look good in a press release for job recruiters and business folks, but won’t actually make much of a difference in terms of our local bus service being rapid transit.

 

I mean, the Metro+ is still to this day hardly any different (or faster) than the Route 4. 

Edited January 18, 20232 yr by Gordon Bombay

The whole problem with "BRT" is a)the term doesn't mean anything to the average person because the average person can't define "rapid transit" and b)because the public doesn't know what "rapid transit" means, "BRT" can mean anything.  

 

The term "Metro +" is useful, since it makes no allusion to fully grade-separated rapid transit systems.   

What's with all the doomerism???

If there will be any hang-ups over this project, it's certainly not going to come from SORTA. They hired the 2 co-founders of the Better Bus Coalition, as well as the most anti-auto infrastructure journalist in our region. Their planning staff was expanded from like 2 people to a dozen. They also have some senior staff that they poached from other regions to make sure they had folks with experience. They have all the right people in place to make this work.

For the city's part, the current city council is extremely pro-transit and I don't see that changing later this year.

I hear ya, @Devand I’ve had the privilege to work with many of those people. They’re all fantastic and I love using Metro. I’m hopeful, but I’m also a Cincinnatian. 

 

*gestures at abandoned subway and winks at the riverfront transit center from the platform of a streetcar station where the real-time arrival sign isn’t accurate*

Cincinnati has a long, long history of transit projects that have been left incomplete (subway, riverfront transit center, uptown streetcar) or in the case of MetroMoves complete political failure. Its perfectly reasonable to be skeptical of Cincinnati's ability to implement effective BRT. 

With both lines sharing the route up Vine street / Jefferson up to MLK, there is a potential to really add dedicated transit lanes going up the hill and along Jefferson and provide very frequent service to connect Uptown and Downtown. Has any of that been proposed or is this just a glorified bus route? I agree that transferring from the streetcar to one of these busses to get up the hill could prove very important, it just needs to be made extremely simple and easy or people won't do it. 

That is the real question here. I’m hoping when they say “BRT” they mean something like the HealthLine in Cleveland. Or even the Flyer Express in Dayton, it’s kinda dumb but it carries a LOT of traffic for what it’s worth. But both of those lines rely on consistent service, Flyer Express is once every 10 minutes for instance. If they did a line that’s once every 10 minutes up Reading especially it seems hard to imagine it not doing well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Right now my guess is we'll get a "bronze" level BRT line on Reading and somehow we'll spend $100m on a Metro*Plus line on Hamilton. 

How about instead of automatically assuming this is going to be a disappointment, maybe we get organized to make sure it's a success? It's just a thought.

Apparently this was the slide at the stakeholder presentation that defined what Glenway and Montgomery would get. It's a tad vague still but a great starting point for all the major routes.

13 hours ago, RustyBFall said:

Cincinnati has a long, long history of transit projects that have been left incomplete (subway, riverfront transit center, uptown streetcar) or in the case of MetroMoves complete political failure. Its perfectly reasonable to be skeptical of Cincinnati's ability to implement effective BRT. 

 

Every one of those failures were due to funding issues outside of the city/SORTA's control. We're past that. We had the political fight. The funding is there. We are now in the implementation phase of Reinventing Metro and it's been going great. No reason to believe that would change. 

Here's a presentation I made for Council last year that illustrates the problems that we're going to have in implementing "True BRT" 

 

My concern is that the political will won't be there to remove parking in the places where it's needed for bus lanes, so we'll end up with a very expensive BRT system that has bus lanes where it doesn't need them and gets stuck in traffic in congested areas. 

 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Iz8jtY4TYYg0wAb-g2IV7qHPNUWDVE10/view?usp=sharing

1 hour ago, Dev said:

How about instead of automatically assuming this is going to be a disappointment, maybe we get organized to make sure it's a success? It's just a thought.

Apparently this was the slide at the stakeholder presentation that defined what Glenway and Montgomery would get. It's a tad vague still but a great starting point for all the major routes.

If those are the "asked" improvements for the Non-BRT routes, I am hopeful about the designs for the BRT routes. Signal priority would be huge, and the fact that they're thinking about TOD is great too. 

 

There are so many great opportunities for TOD on the Reading route in particular; so many empty lots north of the lateral. There already was a housing development proposed at the MidPointe Crossing area.

TBH, signal priority is probably the number one most important improvement. More important than the bus-only lanes.

36 minutes ago, DEPACincy said:

TBH, signal priority is probably the number one most important improvement. More important than the bus-only lanes.

That's my sense as well (just as a lay-person). If the intersections can get signal priority and give bus-only lanes/areas so that buses can "jump to the front"... then I don't know how critical it is if buses have to share a lane with cars between intersections. 

1 hour ago, 10albersa said:

If those are the "asked" improvements for the Non-BRT routes, I am hopeful about the designs for the BRT routes. Signal priority would be huge, and the fact that they're thinking about TOD is great too. 

 

There are so many great opportunities for TOD on the Reading route in particular; so many empty lots north of the lateral. There already was a housing development proposed at the MidPointe Crossing area.

SORTA and Silverton are working on turning the office/Park & Ride on Montgomery. I don't know the current status but that would be the first example in our region and help pave the way for more, hopefully. That MidPointe Crossing development is disappointing but maybe there is still time for them to pivot.

19 minutes ago, Dev said:

first example in our region

There was also the proposed Anderson Park & Ride mixed use building. No idea what happened with that one.

1 hour ago, jwulsin said:

That's my sense as well (just as a lay-person). If the intersections can get signal priority and give bus-only lanes/areas so that buses can "jump to the front"... then I don't know how critical it is if buses have to share a lane with cars between intersections. 

The streetcar doesn't have signal priority at 15th and Race (where cross traffic does not exist because 15th has been permanently closed). If they're not willing to give the streetcar signal priority in a location where it would affect zero automobile traffic, I'm extremely skeptical that they'll give buses signal priority on major thoroughfares. 

34 minutes ago, thomasbw said:

The streetcar doesn't have signal priority at 15th and Race (where cross traffic does not exist because 15th has been permanently closed). If they're not willing to give the streetcar signal priority in a location where it would affect zero automobile traffic, I'm extremely skeptical that they'll give buses signal priority on major thoroughfares. 

 

I don't think it's unwillingness. I just don't think they've prioritized (punny yes) making the change. I would imagine they'd want to make all the priority signal changes at once to streamline the process. Maybe that doesn't make sense, but it's the mentality in big organizations, including city government.

1 hour ago, 10albersa said:

There was also the proposed Anderson Park & Ride mixed use building. No idea what happened with that one.

Oh yeah. SORTA does want to turn that into a hub. It is being built but I don't know what the final plans are.

Signal prioritization could be done in a few hours. This isn't a new or difficult thing. It's political will. 

14 hours ago, Dcs3939 said:

Signal prioritization could be done in a few hours. This isn't a new or difficult thing. It's political will. 

That's true for the lights downtown, but I don't know if, for example, these lights here on Ludlow are capable of having vehicle activated signal priority without an tech upgrade.   for example, these 

1 hour ago, thomasbw said:

That's true for the lights downtown, but I don't know if, for example, these lights here on Ludlow are capable of having vehicle activated signal priority without an tech upgrade.

There are plenty of funding opportunities for any necessary upgrades, the SORTA infrastructure grant being the obvious one. There is also a compelling argument that using TIF funds could not only cover costs for any signal equipment but to pay a consultant to take the time to do the programming.

 

As stated previously, the issue is political will.

I work in this space and there are ongoing projects in Ohio with just this technology. It is not complex or difficult. The frustration is that cities want to pilot something that works really well everywhere its implemented and there are dozens of examples. Towns and cities. It's an entirely customized, dynamic solution.

Edited January 20, 20232 yr by Dcs3939

Pretty decent work from a robot. 

 

The Benefits of Replacing On-Street Parking with Bus Rapid Transit Lanes on Hamilton Avenue in Cincinnati's Northside Neighborhood

By: Chat GPT

 

Hamilton Avenue is a vital thoroughfare in Cincinnati's Northside neighborhood and is home to a thriving business district. However, traffic congestion and limited public transportation options have been a persistent problem for the residents and businesses of the Northside. To address these issues, the city has proposed a solution that may seem controversial at first glance: replacing on-street parking with Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) lanes on Hamilton Avenue.

 

The implementation of BRT lanes on Hamilton Avenue will bring numerous benefits to the Northside community. For one, it will greatly improve the speed and reliability of public transportation in the area. BRT systems use dedicated lanes, signal prioritization, and efficient boarding processes to provide fast and reliable service, reducing travel time and making public transportation a more appealing option for residents and commuters.

 

In addition to improving public transportation, the conversion of on-street parking to BRT lanes will also reduce traffic congestion on Hamilton Avenue. With dedicated lanes for buses, there will be fewer vehicles vying for road space, resulting in smoother and faster traffic flow. This, in turn, will make the road safer for all users, including pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers.

 

Another significant benefit of this proposal is the potential for economic growth in the Northside business district. The improved public transportation system will make it easier for residents to access the business district, and for businesses to attract customers from other parts of the city. The increased foot traffic and accessibility will create a more vibrant and economically thriving community.

 

Finally, the conversion of on-street parking to BRT lanes will also have a positive impact on the environment. With more people choosing public transportation over single-occupancy vehicles, there will be fewer cars on the road, reducing emissions and helping to improve air quality in the Northside neighborhood.

 

In conclusion, the replacement of on-street parking with Bus Rapid Transit lanes on Hamilton Avenue in Cincinnati's Northside neighborhood has the potential to bring numerous benefits to the community, including improved public transportation, reduced traffic congestion, economic growth, and a healthier environment. While the loss of on-street parking may seem daunting at first, the long-term benefits of this proposal make it an investment worth making.

I was not able to make it to the first design meeting SORTA is hosting but I did notice that they have this new image on the Reinventing Metro website:

5 hours ago, Dev said:

I was not able to make it to the first design meeting SORTA is hosting but I did notice that they have this new image on the Reinventing Metro website:

So this means the Riverfront Transit Center would be utilized on a daily basis?

11 hours ago, Cincy_Travels said:

So this means the Riverfront Transit Center would be utilized on a daily basis?

That's my interpretation!

^Awesome news on that!

 

How long will this roll out take and what are the actual plans as far as infrastructure build out for these BRT?

 

I read a lot about Indy's lines and these seemed to have some good infrastructure with them. Will this be the case in Cincinnati too? Level boarding, etc. on these stations?

 

Also, what are the plans for other corridors. I realize they are using these corridors probably first as they are highest ridership (looking @thomasbw map from above) but then Glenway Avenue has to get built at some point too right, then a more east side route?

 

It would be good too to eventually build out a Westwood line and another east side line to get 2 north, 2 west, 2 east. Especially thinking on the westside to help the areas poverty by making jobs more accessible.

3 hours ago, IAGuy39 said:

^Awesome news on that!

 

How long will this roll out take and what are the actual plans as far as infrastructure build out for these BRT?

 

I read a lot about Indy's lines and these seemed to have some good infrastructure with them. Will this be the case in Cincinnati too? Level boarding, etc. on these stations?

 

Also, what are the plans for other corridors. I realize they are using these corridors probably first as they are highest ridership (looking @thomasbw map from above) but then Glenway Avenue has to get built at some point too right, then a more east side route?

 

It would be good too to eventually build out a Westwood line and another east side line to get 2 north, 2 west, 2 east. Especially thinking on the westside to help the areas poverty by making jobs more accessible.

IIRC they should be up and running in 2027. There are required reviews with the FTA that delay things.

Right now, the meetings this week and next week are mostly for the broad strokes, but that does include what the stations could look like. It's still really early on but it seems like SORTA is being really aggressive in designing the best possible system so any roadblocks would likely come from the city, not them.

Glenway and Montgomery will also get improvements, like better stations, sidewalks and some signal priority, but it doesn't sound like there will be bus lanes. They are referring to them as "enhanced service corridors." More information on their website: https://www.metrobrtstudy.com/the-study

There isn't anything specifically planned other than just those 4 highest ridership corridors, although I'm sure they will adjust the network to take advantage of the infrastructure that will be built, particularly the transit centers.

This proposal is pretty underwhelming. Very little center running. Lots of mixed traffic. 

38 minutes ago, thomasbw said:

This proposal is pretty underwhelming. Very little center running. Lots of mixed traffic. 

 

Do you have inside info? I haven't seen anything public about what percentage will be center running and what percentage will be mixed. 

8 hours ago, DEPACincy said:

 

Do you have inside info? I haven't seen anything public about what percentage will be center running and what percentage will be mixed. 

The most recent Planning & Ops packet has a decent amount of preliminary info - p. 90 and 101 have maps.

 

Mixed traffic near Findlay Market, between Government Square and the RTC, and the densest part of Northside pre- and post- transit center.

Quote

Dedicated bus only lanes comprise 22% of the alignment while BAT lanes comprise 54%, resulting in bus priority lanes along 76% of the corridor. (p.86 - Hamilton)

 

Quote

Dedicated bus only lanes comprise 14% of the alignment while BAT lanes comprise 68%, resulting in bus priority lanes along 82% of the corridor. (p.97 - Reading)

A lot is going to hinge on the execution of signal priority on Main and Walnut as the routes run through downtown, and enforcement/treatment of the BAT as the lanes leave the core. I'd be more optimistic on the former than the latter, but we'll see where bus-mounted cameras get by 2027 (both politically and technologically). The uptown and Clifton segments look the most solid.