February 28, 20232 yr 1 hour ago, shawk said: The uptown and Clifton segments look the most solid Agreed. The uptown improvements are a game-changer for transit mobility there. North of that though, it's all on executing signal priority. Which is probably fine most of the time (there's rarely gridlock traffic north of UC on arterials), but does introduce higher probability of disruptions.
February 28, 20232 yr For the Over-the-Rhine routing, SORTA should really consider doing a two-way conversion on Walnut and having curb running bus lanes (then also have those on McMicken). Main and Vine both have curb bump outs and raised crosswalks. Make Walnut into the 'transit street'
February 28, 20232 yr 9 hours ago, 10albersa said: Agreed. The uptown improvements are a game-changer for transit mobility there. North of that though, it's all on executing signal priority. Which is probably fine most of the time (there's rarely gridlock traffic north of UC on arterials), but does introduce higher probability of disruptions. There will certainly be benefits from having bus only lanes on Jefferson, but because they're center-running, routes 19, 24, 38, 78 and Metro*Plus which all run that route can't use them. I wonder if it would be better to use curb-running lanes throughout.
February 28, 20232 yr The other issue is signal prioritization. Right now there are zero Metro routes with signal prioritization, and the City's DOTE has been extremely reluctant to give priority to the streetcar, even in places like at 15th and Race where the cross street is permanently closed to traffic.
February 28, 20232 yr 36 minutes ago, thomasbw said: The other issue is signal prioritization. Right now there are zero Metro routes with signal prioritization, and the City's DOTE has been extremely reluctant to give priority to the streetcar, even in places like at 15th and Race where the cross street is permanently closed to traffic. I don't think this is going to be an issue. It seems like DOTE doesn't like touching traffic lights at all due to limited staff time, not because of some ideological reason. The implementation of the BRT projects will be done by someone else so I really, really doubt they are going to go out of their way to block it.
February 28, 20232 yr 11 hours ago, shawk said: The most recent Planning & Ops packet has a decent amount of preliminary info - p. 90 and 101 have maps. Thanks for sharing! This is the first time I've heard the term "BAT" which the document defines as "curbside Bus and Turn aka Business Access and Transit." Does anybody have examples from other cities of what that looks like in practice?
February 28, 20232 yr 34 minutes ago, jwulsin said: Thanks for sharing! This is the first time I've heard the term "BAT" which the document defines as "curbside Bus and Turn aka Business Access and Transit." Does anybody have examples from other cities of what that looks like in practice? Aurora Avenue in Seattle
February 28, 20232 yr 42 minutes ago, jwulsin said: Thanks for sharing! This is the first time I've heard the term "BAT" which the document defines as "curbside Bus and Turn aka Business Access and Transit." Does anybody have examples from other cities of what that looks like in practice? https://www.psta.net/about-psta/projects/sunrunner/
February 28, 20232 yr To make things a little easier to read, I've combined the two maps into one thin
February 28, 20232 yr Not counting the cost of the vehicles, I'm going to guess probably 2/3rds of the cost of this system is located in the black circle. Everything red or blue on the map is "paint the curb lane red" Everything yellow is "do nothing" The center-running lanes on Ludlow could probably be removed entirely (or converted to curb running lanes) and there would likely be no impact. Center-running on MLK west of Vine probably isn't a huge impact either. Also very curious about the design decisions that has a single curb running bus lane on Vine St. Hill and a single center running lane on MLK east of Vine.
February 28, 20232 yr 5 hours ago, thomasbw said: For the Over-the-Rhine routing, SORTA should really consider doing a two-way conversion on Walnut and having curb running bus lanes (then also have those on McMicken). Main and Vine both have curb bump outs and raised crosswalks. Make Walnut into the 'transit street' One downside would be the inability to add these same traffic calming features to Walnut, unless there is some way to enhance pedestrian crossings that would be compatible with bus traffic?
February 28, 20232 yr 16 minutes ago, mcmicken said: One downside would be the inability to add these same traffic calming features to Walnut, unless there is some way to enhance pedestrian crossings that would be compatible with bus traffic? If properly implemented, the bus only lanes themselves would be traffic calming, as would the two way conversion.
February 28, 20232 yr 1 hour ago, mcmicken said: One downside would be the inability to add these same traffic calming features to Walnut, unless there is some way to enhance pedestrian crossings that would be compatible with bus traffic? Speed cushions could be installed that are designed to fit the buss' wheelbase
February 28, 20232 yr 2 hours ago, thomasbw said: If properly implemented, the bus only lanes themselves would be traffic calming, as would the two way conversion. Thinking more about the curb bump outs for pedestrians, but you're right about the traffic calming.
March 1, 20232 yr If the transit only lanes are located along the curb lane, that somewhat reduces the need for the bumpouts for pedestrians since cars won't be parked there. That increases the sightlines for pedestrians and it's not like Walnut is that wide of a street, it's fairly easy for pedestrians to cross already. When I'm walking in that area, my biggest concern is being worried about seeing around those large SUVs that are parked too close to an intersection.
March 18, 20232 yr With the BRT routes announced, I broke down the relative speeds for the current service on the 17 & 43 and also Metro*Plus (the "Trunk" section of the BRT line basically covers the same route as Metro*Plus). I was kind of surprised to find out the 17 and 43 average exactly the same speed on their respective routes. Note- All times are the outbound departure closest to noon using Weekday Schedule and assuming 100% on time performance
March 23, 20232 yr On 3/18/2023 at 1:51 PM, thomasbw said: Note- All times are the outbound departure closest to noon using Weekday Schedule and assuming 100% on time performance Good analysis! Probably worth pointing out the 43 hasn't hit even 80% on-time performance in months and was as low as <70% as recently as December 2022. From a cursory check, it looks like it's typically upper 70s and the most recent (January 2023) was ~73%. #17 looks to be squarely between 75% and 80% with most recent ~80%. Metro was less consistent about posting local route performance for a period of time in the KPI reports during the pandemic - and the new format as of January 2023 is much more aesthetically pleasing, but doesn't give a specific data point for each route. The quality of my screenshots is always bad from this device so I'm hesitant to post directly, but slides 143 and 144 in the January packet may be relevant to this as well. Reading's highest delay was "Highest delay: from Rockdale Avenue to Beachwood Avenue. Additional locations: MLK Jr Drive from Highland Avenue to Reading Road; Vine Street from Hollister to Thill Street; Reading Road from Clinton Springs Avenue to Fred Shuttlesworth Circle." Hamilton's was "Highest delay: from Dooley Bypass to Chase Avenue Additional locations: south of SR 126; Ludlow Ave north of E Clifton Avenue."
March 23, 20232 yr That's pretty amazing. The solution for the biggest delay location is "run the bus in mixed traffic" For the second biggest delay they proposed curb running bus lanes (shared with turning automobiles) and for the third they proposed "run the bus in mixed traffic"
April 7, 20232 yr More on that... METRO'S $300M RAPID BUS BET Cincinnati Metro, the region’s largest transit agency, is taking the first steps to building a $300 million rapid-transit system aimed at moving riders in a manner more akin to a train, even though the two proposed lines will use buses. The project’s lofty goals: move people faster and make buses more competitive with car travel. But Metro and business community leaders say it also will have major economic development benefits, as the region looks to attract more employers to areas with robust transit and companies try to land new talent that doesn’t necessarily want to rely on a car to get everywhere. Known as bus rapid transit, or BRT, a similar line in Cleveland has seen at least $10 billion in economic development along the route since it opened in 2008. In Cincinnati, the two lines will connect the region’s largest employment centers – downtown and traffic-choked Uptown – and, along with Metro’s regular bus lines, blanket that part of the corridor with so much transit that a bus could arrive at each stop as frequently as every five minutes. To increase speed, traffic signals in the corridor will be modified to favor buses, the lines will have bus-only lanes for stretches and new stations will allow riders to board faster. The lines will have fewer stops, spaced between a half mile and three-quarters of a mile, compared with local routes whose stops can be less than a quarter mile apart. More below: https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2023/04/07/metro-rapid-bus-expansion.html "You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers
April 11, 20232 yr Where exactly would the "Uptown Multimodal Center" be? Looks like it's on Burnet, perhaps around the intersection with Albert Sabin Way. Previously, I thought Metro was pushing for a transit center around the NE corner of Reading/MLK. Would the one on Burnet replace that? Or would this be an additional transit center?
April 11, 20232 yr 2 hours ago, jwulsin said: Where exactly would the "Uptown Multimodal Center" be? Looks like it's on Burnet, perhaps around the intersection with Albert Sabin Way. Previously, I thought Metro was pushing for a transit center around the NE corner of Reading/MLK. Would the one on Burnet replace that? Or would this be an additional transit center? It's going to be on Ridgeway, next to the City Park operations building, it appears. It would make more sense to find a place that both the Hamilton and Reading routes can use, but I have no idea if the Reading MLK one is still on the table. Edited April 11, 20232 yr by 10albersa
April 11, 20232 yr ^if that’s meant to be the primary stop for people going to the hospitals, I hope it means there will be major investments in the walkability of that area. It’ll be a roughly half-mile walk to Children‘s from there. Not many people will want to make that distance of walk if the environment is so car-centric and hostile to pedestrians (as it is currently).
April 11, 20232 yr Someone at the last Northside Community Council meeting made a good point, in my opinion, about the location of the 2nd Northside BRT stop. They suggested that what is ambiguously labeled" Northside-Pullan" to actually be built either in front of the CAIN building just south of Pullan and north of Chase or in front of the Cincinnati Bell sub station building between Westmoreland and Bruce. Both of these feel like good locations to me and I feel like between Pullan and Chase is the better option for its proximity to the library, business district, CAIN, Northside Farmer's Market, and North Church which is becoming a bit of a community hub.
April 11, 20232 yr Is the other Northside BRT stop going to be at the existing (new) transit center? Unfortunately, this is a bit far from the center of Northside. The location of the uptown one is terrible. The establishment of the "innovation corridor" or whatever has created a situation where BRT is being made to serve two masters, and its not within easy walking distance of either.
April 11, 20232 yr Yes. The other stop is the transit center. Places change. The transit center is definitely located where I think the future center of the neighborhood will be... further south and closer to the Mill Creek and much more dense than the rest of Northside. Edited April 11, 20232 yr by Chas Wiederhold
April 11, 20232 yr Why one of Metro’s proposed rapid transit lines stops at the city of Cincinnati's limits In Friday’s Weekly Edition cover story, we wrote about Metro’s $300 million plan for two bus-rapid transit corridors, one along Hamilton Avenue and another along Reading Road. BRT is a bus line that is supposed to act like a rail line: It has more distance between stops, stations with level board, its own right of way for at least part of the route and no waiting for people to pay fares because they’ve done so before boarding. The goal is to make transit more competitive with driving a car timing wise. Of note in Metro’s plan is that the Hamilton Avenue line extends beyond the city of Cincinnati’s limits to North College Hill and Mount Healthy, two independent municipalities most people would not know were not city neighborhoods by simply walking down the street. But the Reading Road line stops in Roselawn before it reaches Hamilton County communities like Reading, Evendale and Sharonville. More below: https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2023/04/11/metro-brt-stopping-points.html "You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers
April 12, 20232 yr On 4/11/2023 at 1:19 PM, 10albersa said: It's going to be on Ridgeway, next to the City Park operations building, it appears. It would make more sense to find a place that both the Hamilton and Reading routes can use, but I have no idea if the Reading MLK one is still on the table. I don't think it can be there anymore. The city just gave away the Park building to the Feds for the new NIOSH building and are vacating Hickman Avenue. Previously, The Port got money for UC to demolish a building at Hickman and Harvey. Their stated plan is to build a parking garage with a bus station on the fist floor.
April 17, 20232 yr Metro CEO Darryl Haley talks BRT, Uber-like Metro Now When Darryl Haley's dad died in the early 2000s, he moved back to Cincinnati after a 25-year career in the medical supply distribution industry. In 2006, he took a job in customer relations with the Southwest Ohio Regional Transit Authority and Metro. "I was looking for something I could kind of do with my eyes closed so I could spend enough time with my mom," he joked. Today, Haley is the organization's CEO and he has audacious, $300 million plans to build what he calls "rail on rubber tire," or bus rapid transit (BRT). Those plans, which call for two major corridors running from Mount Healthy and Roselawn to downtown, were the subject of the Business Courier's April 7 cover story. That story's author, Chris Wetterich, joins as guest host for the interview segment of "Above the Fold," the Courier's podcast, to talk with Haley about BRT. One of the promises of BRT, Haley said, is that you won't need a bus schedule: one comes every five minutes. More below: https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2023/04/17/courier-podcast-metro-ceo-darryl-haley-talks-brt.html "You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers
May 2, 20232 yr I think SORTA needs to make some changes to its downtown routing for BRT (going north to south) *Findlay Area- Having BRT and just running it in mixed traffic is a terrible idea. Instead of going Vine to Liberty in mixed traffic, they should go McMicken to Walnut and have curb running bus lanes. This will eliminate more parking, but if you're not going have the political will to at least eliminate some parking to improve the system, there's no reason to build BRT in the first place. Just do a limited stop Metro*Plus style route with signal priority and level boarding and get 85% of the benefit for 15% of the cost. *Over-the-Rhine- Running BRT on Main with bump outs and raised curbs seems like a bad idea. Also it makes closing Main for events an issue. We can make Walnut a two-way "transit street" and have curb running BRT on both sides. *Court Street to Government Square- No Changes *Downtown- Keep the streetcar/bus only lane on Walnut all the way down to 3rd street. This is the route Metro Plus already takes. No clue why they added the 5th street/race mixed traffic section. *3rd Street- There are plenty of lanes here, so give the BRT a curb running bus lane. Also if we're going to take the time to go all the way out of the way to use the Riverfront Transit Center, put a stop at 3rd and Elm. It would be one block away from the Convention Center and Paycor Stadium/Western Banks. Cost wise, extending the BAT lanes shouldn't cost much at all (it's just red paint). The only expensive items are a new station and a two-way conversion of Walnut, but I think the benefits would far outweigh the costs. Any thoughts? Edited May 2, 20232 yr by thomasbw updated graphic, forgot to change Walnut south of liberty from BAT one side to BAT both sides
May 2, 20232 yr Would a BRT route along McMicken need its own lane? I think adding a bumpout to the stop at Elder Street so the bus doesn't have to exit/enter traffic would get 98% of the benefit of a BRT route along McMicken without costing so many parking spaces. I just don't know that traffic volume is high enough to cause delays in mixed traffic along McMicken.
May 3, 20232 yr 6 hours ago, thomasbw said: I think SORTA needs to make some changes to its downtown routing for BRT (going north to south) *Findlay Area- Having BRT and just running it in mixed traffic is a terrible idea. Instead of going Vine to Liberty in mixed traffic, they should go McMicken to Walnut and have curb running bus lanes. This will eliminate more parking, but if you're not going have the political will to at least eliminate some parking to improve the system, there's no reason to build BRT in the first place. Just do a limited stop Metro*Plus style route with signal priority and level boarding and get 85% of the benefit for 15% of the cost. *Over-the-Rhine- Running BRT on Main with bump outs and raised curbs seems like a bad idea. Also it makes closing Main for events an issue. We can make Walnut a two-way "transit street" and have curb running BRT on both sides. *Court Street to Government Square- No Changes *Downtown- Keep the streetcar/bus only lane on Walnut all the way down to 3rd street. This is the route Metro Plus already takes. No clue why they added the 5th street/race mixed traffic section. *3rd Street- There are plenty of lanes here, so give the BRT a curb running bus lane. Also if we're going to take the time to go all the way out of the way to use the Riverfront Transit Center, put a stop at 3rd and Elm. It would be one block away from the Convention Center and Paycor Stadium/Western Banks. Cost wise, extending the BAT lanes shouldn't cost much at all (it's just red paint). The only expensive items are a new station and a two-way conversion of Walnut, but I think the benefits would far outweigh the costs. Any thoughts? Love the idea to make Walnut 2 way. Certainly more efficient than the Vine-Liberty route. I am fine with removing street parking but how does loading/deliveries happen on a transit street for both for businesses and residences? Especially on my block north of Liberty there really aren't side streets to use as loading zones.
May 3, 20232 yr 17 hours ago, ryanlammi said: Would a BRT route along McMicken need its own lane? I think adding a bumpout to the stop at Elder Street so the bus doesn't have to exit/enter traffic would get 98% of the benefit of a BRT route along McMicken without costing so many parking spaces. I just don't know that traffic volume is high enough to cause delays in mixed traffic along McMicken. I think we have to decide if we want to build a BRT system or not. If you start asking yourself "do we really need a BRT lane because we don't want to upset motorists?" for every single segment, you end up making cut after cut after cut and you end up with this system. If the answer is, in fact, that we don't want to build a BRT system, we could still do limited stop service on all four corridors with signal priority and improved platforms for a fraction of the capital cost.
May 3, 20232 yr 11 hours ago, mcmicken said: Love the idea to make Walnut 2 way. Certainly more efficient than the Vine-Liberty route. I am fine with removing street parking but how does loading/deliveries happen on a transit street for both for businesses and residences? Especially on my block north of Liberty there really aren't side streets to use as loading zones. One option would be to allow loading only from say 930-1130am or some other time when the impact to the both the BRT system and businesses would be minimized (you could allow loading at 4am, but that's not actually useful to anyone)
May 3, 20232 yr 11 minutes ago, thomasbw said: I think we have to decide if we want to build a BRT system or not. If you start asking yourself "do we really need a BRT lane because we don't want to upset motorists?" for every single segment, you end up making cut after cut after cut and you end up with this system. If the answer is, in fact, that we don't want to build a BRT system, we could still do limited stop service on all four corridors with signal priority and improved platforms for a fraction of the capital cost. I brought all of this up 10+ years ago. Cincinnati is simply not well-configured for anything resembling BRT because the streets are narrow and there are many complex intersections where signal priority is unrealistic. As I mentioned more recently, the area where service improvements can be attained through bus-only infrastructure is the congested area near UC between McMillan St. and MLK, but that would involve rebuilding Jefferson Ave. and at minimum digging a short bus-only tunnel between Hollister St. and Corry St. The other obvious spot for a bus underpass is the MLK/Vine/Jefferson mess, but there was a plan for a full grade separation there 20~ years ago, so then the dilemma becomes the high cost of bus-only underpasses vs. the incremental increase above that sum necessary to allow all traffic to use it.
May 3, 20232 yr 59 minutes ago, thomasbw said: I think we have to decide if we want to build a BRT system or not. If you start asking yourself "do we really need a BRT lane because we don't want to upset motorists?" I'm not suggesting eliminating the BAT lane on McMicken just for the cars. I just don't see this stretch of road receiving a coat of paint and "please stay out of this lane" signs as particularly beneficial. A jump lane at Walnut to essentially allow unrestricted right turns for buses onto Walnut seems really helpful. A bumped out bus stop at Elder would be essential. But I don't see how eliminating all on street parking here to add a lane for transit is going to speed up the busses much more. If traffic on a given road isn't slowing down buses, why should we inconvenience everyone AND spend the extra money building out additional infrastructure? I'm not saying it's absolutely not worth it, I'm just asking the question because this road doesn't feel like it's a problem for buses. If we did eliminate parking on this road for buses I see a few things happening. 1) cars will go much faster down McMicken since there aren't parked cars and the roadway essentially doubled in width. 2) people will park in the BAT lane all the time and buses will then have to merge back into mixed traffic anyway 3) allowing loading in this lane will hurt the ability of buses to meet the curb and actually reach the bus stop (especially detrimental for people with limited mobility) 4) drastically reduced the availability of parking for no significant bus speeds So I'm suggesting if we just add bump outs to the bus stops, we might get all of the benefits and potentially avoid the negatives. And to be clear, I'm only talking about McMicken here. There are plenty of places where mixed traffic slows down buses (Ludlow, Race/Elm, Jefferson, etc etc)
May 3, 20232 yr ^This is a $300m system That we're building to, presumably, last for decades. It will most likely never be cheaper to build that it is now (especially with federal infrastructure money). We should build this system planning for a 2058 when the population of the basin might be double what it is right now.
May 3, 20232 yr I get that, but we don't have any idea what the traffic volumes are right now (in this discussion), it's practically impossible to determine what they will be in 20-30 years, and if it doesn't provide any benefit to a BRT system in 10-15 years, we should seriously look at the negative consequences of each scenario. Bump outs and a bypass lane at Walnut might not be as sexy as a full-fledged transit lane, but it might be more effective, less disruptive, and cheaper (as I outlined above). You seem to have made up your mind that there is only one acceptable scenario. I personally think we should see if huge spending on specific portions of a route like McMicken is necessary, and maybe we could prioritize more spending at the biggest choke points on each route. ETA: and to be clear, I'm not 100% convinced that at BAT lane isn't the best option. I just don't think it passes the smell test, and we should prioritize our spending where it has the greatest impact and least disruption (a delicate balance).
May 3, 20232 yr 1 hour ago, ryanlammi said: I get that, but we don't have any idea what the traffic volumes are right now (in this discussion), it's practically impossible to determine what they will be in 20-30 years, and if it doesn't provide any benefit to a BRT system in 10-15 years, we should seriously look at the negative consequences of each scenario. Bump outs and a bypass lane at Walnut might not be as sexy as a full-fledged transit lane, but it might be more effective, less disruptive, and cheaper (as I outlined above). You seem to have made up your mind that there is only one acceptable scenario. I personally think we should see if huge spending on specific portions of a route like McMicken is necessary, and maybe we could prioritize more spending at the biggest choke points on each route. ETA: and to be clear, I'm not 100% convinced that at BAT lane isn't the best option. I just don't think it passes the smell test, and we should prioritize our spending where it has the greatest impact and least disruption (a delicate balance). In my mind there are two different scenarios that we could go with and I think we really haven't had a public conversation about what we actually want which might result in us getting the worst of both worlds. Option 1- We actually build a Bus Rapid Transit System. This would be more expensive and 'disruptive' but you're actually building a real BRT system and you should approach the entire exercise from the position that we're building real BRT system. This involves going through the entire FTA process. Option 2- We decide to invest in the most cost effective improvements along our busiest bus corridors. In this scenario we basically decide to put really nice Metro*Plus routes on Hamilton & Reading. Limited stop service, signal priority where we can get it, improved stations and throw in a few bus lanes where they would make the most impact. This could be funded with SORTA's cash on hand. Either option would work, but my fear is we are going to start with Option 1 and public opposition will involve us cutting bus infrastructure in places where we need it and building gold-plated infrastructure in places we don't (we'll have a set of center running BRT lanes on Ludlow going from Cincinnati State to Whitfield which will have close to zero impact on travel times then absolutely no bus facilities in the Gaslight business district). The result ends up being a $250m glorified Metro*Plus line that took 6 years to build because we went through the federal process.
May 3, 20232 yr 16 minutes ago, thomasbw said: my fear is we are going to start with Option 1 and public opposition will involve us cutting bus infrastructure in places where we need it and building gold-plated infrastructure in places we don't (we'll have a set of center running BRT lanes on Ludlow going from Cincinnati State to Whitfield which will have close to zero impact on travel times then absolutely no bus facilities in the Gaslight business district). The result ends up being a $250m glorified Metro*Plus line that took 6 years to build because we went through the federal process. I agree with this assessment. I don't think Metro or City Council have the political will to actually do the right thing and make this thing successful. Running buses in mixed traffic at Ludlow is a key example of them aiming low. The level of service is not going to be noticeably better when the bus is in the same standstill as the rest of the traffic, and we're going to spend a lot of money where it isn't needed like the low traffic zones of Ludlow (west of Whitfield) and McMicken. This is really just one place where I don't think we would need to create a separate lane because traffic volumes are fairly low. I really do believe the pedestrian experience on McMicken would suffer a great deal from implementing a bus only lane at this location, and I don't expect a transit lane here to be effective. I personally have very little faith in the BRT plan from Metro. In my regular use of the system, we can get a much improved system overall by adding bump outs along the busiest routes, which improves ADA boarding, travel times, and pedestrian infrastructure. If the city isn't willing to eliminate parking in Ludlow, I don't see the point of spending $300M.
May 8, 20232 yr On 5/2/2023 at 3:12 PM, thomasbw said: *Over-the-Rhine- Running BRT on Main with bump outs and raised curbs seems like a bad idea. Also it makes closing Main for events an issue. We can make Walnut a two-way "transit street" and have curb running BRT on both sides. Great idea. Walnut is a perfect "spine" between the Main and Vine districts which really should be more pedestrian - preferably pedestrian only far more often than they currently are.
June 9, 20232 yr Does anyone know why Pittsburgh's Busways are never included on BRT lists like this? The ridership is pretty big (around 17k daily riders) on the East Busway there.
July 24, 20231 yr METRO TO INTRODUCE NEW CONNECTION TO GREYHOUND STATION IN ARLINGTON HEIGHTS Jul 24, 2023 The new connection will go into effect with routine, quarterly service improvements planned to go into effect Sunday, Aug. 13. CINCINNATI – Multiple Metro fixed routes will see minor time changes and increased frequency as part of the transit agency’s routine, quarterly service enhancements. In addition to annual service increases to accommodate the new Cincinnati Public Schools (CPS) academic year, Metro will add new service along Rt. 43 serving the new Greyhound/Barons Bus station on Galbraith Road. “Since its relocation from Downtown to Arlington Heights last fall, Metro has been in discussions with Greyhound on how best to continue providing this critical connection for Hamilton County residents to access this inter-regional transportation service,” said Metro Sr. Vice President of External Affairs Brandy Jones. “Thanks to those residents’ continued support of our mission, we are pleased to provide this new service.” The new, enhanced Rt. 43 will provide 24-hour service to the Galbraith Rd. Greyhound/Barons Bus station seven days a week, as frequently as every 30 minutes during peak travel times.
July 24, 20231 yr 10 minutes ago, ryanlammi said: METRO TO INTRODUCE NEW CONNECTION TO GREYHOUND STATION IN ARLINGTON HEIGHTS Jul 24, 2023 The new connection will go into effect with routine, quarterly service improvements planned to go into effect Sunday, Aug. 13. CINCINNATI – Multiple Metro fixed routes will see minor time changes and increased frequency as part of the transit agency’s routine, quarterly service enhancements. In addition to annual service increases to accommodate the new Cincinnati Public Schools (CPS) academic year, Metro will add new service along Rt. 43 serving the new Greyhound/Barons Bus station on Galbraith Road. “Since its relocation from Downtown to Arlington Heights last fall, Metro has been in discussions with Greyhound on how best to continue providing this critical connection for Hamilton County residents to access this inter-regional transportation service,” said Metro Sr. Vice President of External Affairs Brandy Jones. “Thanks to those residents’ continued support of our mission, we are pleased to provide this new service.” The new, enhanced Rt. 43 will provide 24-hour service to the Galbraith Rd. Greyhound/Barons Bus station seven days a week, as frequently as every 30 minutes during peak travel times. Doesn't surprise me at all, Ive heard from a friend of mine who is Cincy based greyhound driver that the move to the new location has been a absolute disaster.
July 24, 20231 yr Just now, 646empire said: Doesn't surprise me at all, Ive heard from a friend of mine who is Cincy based greyhound driver that the move to the new location has been a absolute disaster. I don't have a car, and the move essentially made the Greyhound stop unusable unless I spent $40 roundtrip to take an uber/lyft. Also, Greyhound prices have anecdotally increased a lot since a few years ago. You used to be able to get tickets for like $15 or so if you booked early enough. Now every ticket is like $50-60 minimum one way to Pittsburgh, Detroit, or Chicago even if you're booking as far out as possible. At the rates they're charging you may as well rent a car if you're going roundtrip within a week.
August 25, 20231 yr Also large increase in crosstown routes coming in December and again in March. Apparently one is a Glenway and Madison crosstown through FWW. They should really help with CPS students.
Create an account or sign in to comment