I saw responses from @taestellin the other thread which led to the Cincinnati-area content in that list, but I can't help but think that if this funding happens as described, it would be much better suited for funding capital projects related to Metro over those listed along the streetcar route - other than maybe the library site. We still have so far to go, so anything to accelerate ReinventingMetro and beyond would be preferred IMO. 

 

Projects like the rumored Walnut Hills or Glenway Crossing Transit Centers would likely be more politically desirable (i.e. avoid Cranley) and would spur investment in areas other than the core. Additional capital could accelerate those projects in the short term and help improve access to "15 minute city" amenities and get construction moving in those communities well before BRT or BRT-lite comes to fruition in those corridors. 

 

On an unrelated note to @KJPs post but tied to the topic at hand, something I missed in the Pastor and P.G. shuffle and canceled council meetings was Landsman's motion to study zoning and parking minimums along the 24-hour route corridors. It's just requesting a report from admin and in many ways is an obvious/overdue step, but he seems to already have some of the legwork as far as starting the process of gaining buy-in.

 

https://cincinnatioh.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4690245&GUID=FAF67DED-96FE-41A1-8663-03BB5600251A&Options=Advanced&Search=

15 hours ago, KJP said:

 

Sorry, I don’t think this would be a good use of the transit funds headed for Cincinnati. Transit funding in our region is won through steel cage wrestling matches and back alley knife fights, in contrast there is nearly an infinite variety of programs already in place for developers to add to their “capital stack.” 

34 minutes ago, thebillshark said:

Sorry, I don’t think this would be a good use of the transit funds headed for Cincinnati. Transit funding in our region is won through steel cage wrestling matches and back alley knife fights, in contrast there is nearly an infinite variety of programs already in place for developers to add to their “capital stack.” 

 

Do the incentives encourage development near high-frequency transit or just "wherever"? Do they fully overcome Ohio's high construction costs and low rents? The answer is no on both. Fact is, Ohio civic leaders and developers need a kick in the pants to get them to pay attention to transit as an economic development magnet, not a social program for people who aren't a high priority for them.

1 minute ago, KJP said:

 

Do the incentives encourage development near high-frequency transit or just "wherever"? Do they fully overcome Ohio's high construction costs and low rents? The answer is no on both. Fact is, Ohio civic leaders and developers need a kick in the pants to get them to pay attention to transit as an economic development magnet, not a social program for people who aren't a high priority for them.

 

It's hardly unique to Ohio.  I shake my head when I look at the lack of TOD's in California along the BART system or the new light rail lines in Los Angeles.  The zoning needs to be changed within a radius of stations to make these huge capital investments worth it.  Instead, BART and LA transit stations are surrounded by park-and-ride lots (not garages with apartments above them) or 1950s-era single-family homes.  

 

 

 

15 minutes ago, KJP said:

 

Do the incentives encourage development near high-frequency transit or just "wherever"? Do they fully overcome Ohio's high construction costs and low rents? The answer is no on both. Fact is, Ohio civic leaders and developers need a kick in the pants to get them to pay attention to transit as an economic development magnet, not a social program for people who aren't a high priority for them.

i would be all for a separate program that extended grants or credits to transit oriented development. But in terms of using this emergency stimulus money for transit to stray from the core mission and pivot into development, the idea would play terribly across the political spectrum from left to right, and erode support for additional funding. Even if the everything goes 100% right with the development (which it won’t.) 

 

Use the money to run a good transit system and development will follow. 

Edited December 29, 20204 yr by thebillshark

27 minutes ago, jmecklenborg said:

 

It's hardly unique to Ohio.  I shake my head when I look at the lack of TOD's in California along the BART system or the new light rail lines in Los Angeles.  The zoning needs to be changed within a radius of stations to make these huge capital investments worth it.  Instead, BART and LA transit stations are surrounded by park-and-ride lots (not garages with apartments above them) or 1950s-era single-family homes.  

 

 

 

 

 

TOD naturally developed before zoning existed. The interurbans led to TOD in tons of places people wouldn't expect. Sometimes you'll see a bunch of older buildings clustered together for seemingly no reason since the interurban ROW is no longer visible.

20 minutes ago, thebillshark said:

i would be all for a separate program that extended grants or credits to transit oriented development. But in terms of using this emergency stimulus money for transit to stray from the core mission and pivot into development, the idea would play terribly across the political spectrum from left to right, and erode support for additional funding. Even if the everything goes 100% right with the development (which it won’t.) 

 

Use the money to run a good transit system and development will follow. 

 

The money isn't being allocated to transit agencies, especially since most of Ohio's biggest transit agencies don't need it to survive. It's being allocated to MPOs (most likely). And transit agencies are increasingly getting into supporting development, just as their private sector predecessors did. If you aren't pursuing transit-supportive development patterns, the transit utility, the benefits of transit, and return on taxpayer investment is greatly diminished.

Multiple transit agencies across the US just received federal funding to upgrade to contactless fare payment systems. Did SORTA even apply for one of these grants?

From the national transit database-

 

Popular suburban express route to Cincinnati to resume bus service

 

 A popular suburban bus service that was grounded by the pandemic will resume service next month, the Journal-News reports.

 

The West Chester Township Express bus (Route 42X), which took about 9,000 riders a month to Cincinnati, will relaunch beginning March 8.

 

The Butler County Regional Transit Authority pays for the service and contracts with the Southwest Ohio Regional Transit Authority to run the bus route. Ridership nearly ground to a halt when the pandemic descended so the service was suspended.

 

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2021/02/24/west-chester-express-route-restarting.html

 

https://www.go-metro.com/reinventing-metro-2021/transit-infrastructure-fund-intro

 

Metro announced the process for Transit funding. I looked at the weighting and it seems pretty solid to me - heavily weighted toward roads that take a high volume of bus routes - but will be interesting to see it in practice as localities apply. 

Now that SORTA actually has funding and the Biden administration is in office. I was thinking what if SORTA built some true BRT infrastructure (red) and then used it as a trunk for the 17, 78, 43 and Metro*Plus?

 

Like really built a BRT corridor for $100 million? You would have service every 3 minutes from Downtown to Uptown. 

 

 

You'd probably want to run some service that would cover W. Clifton south of MLK to Reading south of MLK, could even be a circle route (purple) 

https://www.wvxu.org/post/amenities-24-hour-routes-metro-discusses-major-overhauls-during-town-hall

 

FYI ...

On 3/1/2021 at 3:33 PM, thomasbw said:

Now that SORTA actually has funding and the Biden administration is in office. I was thinking what if SORTA built some true BRT infrastructure (red) and then used it as a trunk for the 17, 78, 43 and Metro*Plus?

 

Like really built a BRT corridor for $100 million? You would have service every 3 minutes from Downtown to Uptown. 

 

 

You'd probably want to run some service that would cover W. Clifton south of MLK to Reading south of MLK, could even be a circle route (purple) 

 

Light rail would probably be cheaper in the long run but I'd take BRT if that's all we can get.

On 3/1/2021 at 5:33 PM, thomasbw said:

Now that SORTA actually has funding and the Biden administration is in office. I was thinking what if SORTA built some true BRT infrastructure (red) and then used it as a trunk for the 17, 78, 43 and Metro*Plus?

 

Like really built a BRT corridor for $100 million? You would have service every 3 minutes from Downtown to Uptown. 

 

 

You'd probably want to run some service that would cover W. Clifton south of MLK to Reading south of MLK, could even be a circle route (purple) 

Sorry if I'm missing something, but what does this do better than say two lines of the current proposal?

 

It misses two of the bigger population density and high current & potential ridership areas (CUF, Walnut Hills) without the circle. The circle itself would rarely be useful because you'd never want to travel more than half of it, and if you run it at the frequency that would be needed for it to be useful, by then you might as well have kept the current routes/proposals. 

 

The core uptown-downtown trunk with extremely high frequency itself makes sense and definitely should be the biggest priority as far as spending and ROW, and I get that a 'true-BRT' line should be chosen over 4 watered down lines. 

 

Editing again to add a bit more/strike-through my misread/confusion. I think what's really throwing me is the circle and misreading the MetroPlus as the #4. This doesn't otherwise seem all that different than what I anticipate happening/being planned. We know from public meetings that Metro is planning an uptown transit center on MLK between Harvey & Burnet. So it strikes me as likely that the first two routes will be the 17 and 43 and they'll use that transit center to do so and merge down the trunk into downtown. 

Edited March 4, 20214 yr by shawk
Posted too soon.

Here's Metro's actual proposal. I was pretty close- 

 

8 hours ago, shawk said:

Sorry if I'm missing something, but what does this do better than say two lines of the current proposal?

 

It misses two of the bigger population density and high current & potential ridership areas (CUF, Walnut Hills) without the circle. The circle itself would rarely be useful because you'd never want to travel more than half of it, and if you run it at the frequency that would be needed for it to be useful, by then you might as well have kept the current routes/proposals. 

 

The core uptown-downtown trunk with extremely high frequency itself makes sense and definitely should be the biggest priority as far as spending and ROW, and I get that a 'true-BRT' line should be chosen over 4 watered down lines. 

 

Editing again to add a bit more/strike-through my misread/confusion. I think what's really throwing me is the circle and misreading the MetroPlus as the #4. This doesn't otherwise seem all that different than what I anticipate happening/being planned. We know from public meetings that Metro is planning an uptown transit center on MLK between Harvey & Burnet. So it strikes me as likely that the first two routes will be the 17 and 43 and they'll use that transit center to do so and merge down the trunk into downtown. 

You wouldn't have to do a circle, but it give you sort of (SORTA) an uptown Circulator as well if you do it that way. With multiple routes using the red section and transfers now being free, transferring wouldn't be a big issue. The average wait time for a bus headed downtown would be 90-120 seconds.

 

And yes the orange would be Metro*Plus (Route 90) not route 4. If you threw in a high frequency 31 you'd have phenomenal Uptown coverage. 

1 hour ago, thomasbw said:

You wouldn't have to do a circle, but it give you sort of (SORTA) an uptown Circulator as well if you do it that way. With multiple routes using the red section and transfers now being free, transferring wouldn't be a big issue. The average wait time for a bus headed downtown would be 90-120 seconds.

 

And yes the orange would be Metro*Plus (Route 90) not route 4. If you threw in a high frequency 31 you'd have phenomenal Uptown coverage. 

I agree. Making the #31 and #51 more efficient and frequent here will go a long way for connectivity through Uptown.

2 hours ago, thomasbw said:

Here's Metro's actual proposal. I was pretty close- 

 

 

 

For my own benefit I'd like Hamilton to be the first line but pretty sure it's going to be Reading and/or Glenway first.

9 hours ago, thomasbw said:

You wouldn't have to do a circle, but it give you sort of (SORTA) an uptown Circulator as well if you do it that way. With multiple routes using the red section and transfers now being free, transferring wouldn't be a big issue. The average wait time for a bus headed downtown would be 90-120 seconds.

 

And yes the orange would be Metro*Plus (Route 90) not route 4. If you threw in a high frequency 31 you'd have phenomenal Uptown coverage. 

Gotcha, this makes sense. I think the year 1 improvements overall seem great - I was glad to see the #51 added as a 24/7 route though I know the future frequency improvements are what will really make the difference. The move to free transfers also makes the execution of future transit centers crucial as more and more people transfer in a location other than downtown. 

 

It'll be really interesting to see what ends up being proposed for BRT and how it is framed among the 4 choices, not to mention the factors discussed by others here (narrow business districts, need for priority, removal of parking) and the context of other decisions and transportation projects as a city (WHV, infrastructure projects chosen, bike infrastructure, etc.). I hope this becomes more of a priority in the mayoral/council races going forward. 

21 hours ago, DEPACincy said:

 

 

For my own benefit I'd like Hamilton to be the first line but pretty sure it's going to be Reading and/or Glenway first.

It's interesting they made the Trunk line the same color as Hamilton. To me that would indicate that would be first, but I it could also indicate that was an accident that happened in map making or the layers on the image are in the wrong order

Dollar for dollar, the Central BRT infrastructure (red) would help Metro out more than any other investment along an individual line by building a world-class bus rapid transit "trunk line" to speed up multiple routes.

 

Quote

In five years, our public transportation system will be transformed: more crosstown routes, demand-response services, two Bus Rapid Transit corridors under construction, and more.

 

The Biz Courier's article this morning mentions that the Reinventing Metro Year 1 plans were expanded 20% from what was promised and they recommitted to two BRT corridors, which I know most of us were skeptical they would provide.

 

Regular Link

Library Link

27 minutes ago, 10albersa said:

 

The Biz Courier's article this morning mentions that the Reinventing Metro Year 1 plans were expanded 20% from what was promised and they recommitted to two BRT corridors, which I know most of us were skeptical they would provide.

 

Regular Link

Library Link

 

It was really good to read that on a Monday morning. I rode from the new Northside transit center to downtown the other day and it was awesome. The arrival screens are great. The Transit app works great. Had out of town guests and they were very impressed with the smoothness and ease of the whole trip. I really hope Hamilton Avenue is one of the first BRT corridors.

The picture below is from today's feature story in the CBC.  If the Hamilton or Reading BRT corridors use MLK, then Vine to get downtown, does that leave any room for the streetcar on an already narrow street? Would a BRT route essentially kill any notion that we need to extend the streetcar to uptown?  I like that the route cuts through campus more than it just making a pit stop at the Uptown Gateway (or not at all along a Hamilton Ave corridor).

 

Library Link

Regular Link

Edited May 28, 20214 yr by 10albersa

58 minutes ago, 10albersa said:

The picture below is from today's feature story in the CBC.  If the Hamilton or Reading BRT corridors use MLK, then Vine to get downtown, does that leave any room for the streetcar on an already narrow street? Would a BRT route essentially kill any notion that we need to extend the streetcar to uptown?  I like that the route cuts through campus more than it just making a pit stop at the Uptown Gateway (or not at all along a Hamilton Ave corridor).

 

Library Link

Regular Link

 

 

I would think that the streetcar and BRT could use the same lane. Also, with the Reading and Hamilton Ave lines sharing ROW for part of their routes I hope that means they'll be first. Quicker, easier, cheaper implementation.

1 hour ago, DEPACincy said:

 

I would think that the streetcar and BRT could use the same lane. Also, with the Reading and Hamilton Ave lines sharing ROW for part of their routes I hope that means they'll be first. Quicker, easier, cheaper implementation.

Yeah that's true, and having the feds chip in on moving Duke utilities does remove a hurdle to getting  the streetcar up the hill.  but if they aren't done in conjunction, the streetcar extension could shut down that transit-only lane for a year.

Edited May 28, 20214 yr by 10albersa

5 hours ago, 10albersa said:

but if they aren't done in conjunction, the streetcar extension could shut down that transit-only lane for a year.

This is actually the real limiting factor to be worried about. It still feels like there is not enough political willpower to extend the streetcar up the hill anytime soon. If Biden's infrastructure plan passes with light rail in it, it seems like the most likely outcome would be an extension into NKY instead.

Buses could share a tunnel to Uptown with the streetcar if ventilation is worked out. Then we'd be talking something more authentically BRT and the streetcar tracks would get closer to hosting LRT. It would be a mistake to think small when there is so much money for transit on the table.

On 5/28/2021 at 8:38 AM, 10albersa said:

The picture below is from today's feature story in the CBC.  If the Hamilton or Reading BRT corridors use MLK, then Vine to get downtown, does that leave any room for the streetcar on an already narrow street? Would a BRT route essentially kill any notion that we need to extend the streetcar to uptown?  I like that the route cuts through campus more than it just making a pit stop at the Uptown Gateway (or not at all along a Hamilton Ave corridor).

 

Library Link

Regular Link

Build Vine street BRT first and hang as much transit as you can. You can get political support for this. 

 

It's going to be very difficult to sell the elimination of all on street parking on Glenway, Reading, Hamilton and Montgomery. 

Also Happy Pride Month

This guy really "took" the bus:

 

https://www.wcpo.com/news/local-news/campbell-county/woodlawn/metro-bus-stolen-by-passenger-in-woodlawn

The minutes from SORTA's last planning meeting include a report recommending the disposition of it's rail assets:

 

https://www.go-metro.com/uploads/Infrastructure%2C Bike and ROW Packet (7-20).pdf

It’s hard to follow all the technical details of that presentation. I can’t tell if there’s anything to be concerned about or not.

 

But right of way is nearly impossible to assemble or re-assemble in the present and as time goes forward.
 

The right of way for the old railroad near Glenway on the west side could have made a great bike trail or transit corridor but is broken up now.

On 8/14/2021 at 7:23 AM, thebillshark said:

It’s hard to follow all the technical details of that presentation. I can’t tell if there’s anything to be concerned about or not.

 

But right of way is nearly impossible to assemble or re-assemble in the present and as time goes forward.
 

The right of way for the old railroad near Glenway on the west side could have made a great bike trail or transit corridor but is broken up now.

The gist is that the report is recommending to keep the sections needed for the Oasis Trail and Wasson Way then get rid of the rest

On 8/31/2021 at 12:54 PM, ryanlammi said:

UC simply needs to renegotiate a deal with Metro that gives all students, faculty, and staff free unlimited rides on Metro via an opt-in procedure. UC pays $X for each person who opts in to the system at a discounted per semester rate. The student/staff sees no direct costs.

 

Simply link up to the Transit app to give students/staff passes they can show on their phone. The incentive for Metro to work with UC to establish regular ridership from students to get them accustomed to riding transit should not be underestimated.

 

Unfortunately everyone is looking out for the current budget, and not their long term benefit. We could drastically reduce car ownership around campus if we leaned into this.

 

This discussion started in the CUF development thread because of a complaint about the number of parking spaces a new development was creating for students. It just so happens that Wayne State University in Detroit has done exactly the thing I was suggesting. It is starting an opt-in process to get free transit rides throughout the region.

 

Sign up now: Free transportation options available for students, employees

 

Quote

Wayne State University students and employees can now take advantage of free transportation options throughout campus, thanks to partnerships with  DDOT, SMART, the QLine and MoGo.

 

The university will subsidize four-hour Dart and annual MoGo passes for all enrolled students, as well as full- and part-time employees, allowing them to ride DDOT and SMART buses, the QLine streetcar, and MoGo bikes at no cost. To participate, users will need to download the Dart app and enter an eligibility code, or sign up using their Wayne State email address on a customized MoGo webpage. To request a Dart eligibility code and sign up for a free annual MoGo pass, visit go.wayne.edu/waynerides or the Parking and Transportation website.

 

By investing now, the university hopes to help ease pandemic-induced financial stress on students and employees. Navigating campus — including destinations in Midtown and downtown Detroit — involves the movement of approximately 30,000 students and employees, who are vying for one of 12,000 parking spaces scattered across eight structures and 26 surface lots on a daily basis. After arriving on campus, pedestrians rely on various modes of transportation including walking, scooters and cycling. To reach farther points, a number of other options are available.

 

Dart is Detroit's new regional bus network app that allows people to pay for rides on the various bus networks in the suburbs, the city bus system, and the streetcar. MoGo is the bike share.

 

They are opting for an option that gives you 4 hours of free rides via a code you input into the app. I imagine that you can get a new code the next time you need to ride. This probably gives the University and the regional transit agencies a better idea of how often they are utilized, and how much reimbursement is needed.

With the increase in technology, I think this is a great option that other large employers and universities should utilize (like UC and Metro).

It makes me sad to read that about the recommendation to get rid of the properties.  When I bought my house in Kennedy Heights, I was really hoping there would eventually be a train station right down the road.

There's been a lot of talk about Cincinnati building a bus rapid transit system (BRT).

 

My suggestion, build this "Central Line" BRT route first and get it right. 100% dedicated lanes, signal priority- true BRT. Then use this busway for as much service as possible and extensions.

 

For the downtown section, you've got some options as to the routing. 1. Walnut/Main to Liberty 2. Walnut/Main to McMicken 3. Walnut two-way conversion to McMicken 4. Walnut two-way conversion to Liberty.

 

If you build this route first, you can immediately speed up half a dozen Metro routes, and you have a great jumping off point for almost any conceivable BRT Line (except Glenway Ave BRT which is the only proposed line that wouldn't use this infrastructure).

 

You also would have a strong transit connection between Uptown and Downtown with service every 5-10 minutes between the two largest job centers in our region. Adding in an airport connection at Government Square would connect CVG and another large job center.

 

The Central BRT line would be a great demonstration of bus rapid transit for our region and the backbone of a future system connecting our neighborhoods and job centers.

 

*cross post from twitter, everyone on here knows what BRT means*

 

Edited October 13, 20213 yr by thomasbw

Downtown routings 

 

44 minutes ago, thomasbw said:

There's been a lot of talk about Cincinnati building a bus rapid transit system (BRT).

 

My suggestion, build this "Central Line" BRT route first and get it right. 100% dedicated lanes, signal priority- true BRT. Then use this busway for as much service as possible and extensions.

 

For the downtown section, you've got some options as to the routing. 1. Walnut/Main to Liberty 2. Walnut/Main to McMicken 3. Walnut two-way conversion to McMicken 4. Walnut two-way conversion to Liberty.

 

If you build this route first, you can immediately speed up half a dozen Metro routes, and you have a great jumping off point for almost any conceivable BRT Line (except Glenway Ave BRT which is the only proposed line that wouldn't use this infrastructure).

 

You also would have a strong transit connection between Uptown and Downtown with service every 5-10 minutes between the two largest job centers in our region. Adding in an airport connection at Government Square would connect CVG and another large job center.

 

The Central BRT line would be a great demonstration of bus rapid transit for our region and the backbone of a future system connecting our neighborhoods and job centers.

 

*cross post from twitter, everyone on here knows what BRT means*

 

Excellent idea.  This is how BRT SHOULD be designed.  Have multiple routes combine into a central busway.  Have the outlying routes continue to the downtown area.  Don't force riders to change buses.  No matter what time is gained by the BRT, it is all lost when riders have to get off of one bus and board another.

What would this physically look like going up the Vine St. hill?

I'm going to be honest, there is almost never traffic on the Vine Street Hill. I don't think a BRT route needs its own lane going up and down the street. If they have a queue jump or something at the top and bottom of the hill that gives buses priority through intersections that should be plenty.

10 hours ago, thomasbw said:

3. Walnut two-way conversion to McMicken 4. Walnut two-way conversion to Liberty.

Hasn't there been recent talk about making Vine Street two-way all the way from the river up to OTR? If it does become two-way, would you recommend using Vine through the CBD and OTR?

Edited October 13, 20213 yr by jwulsin

Using Walnut/Main ties into the Government Square transit center better than using Vine all the way into the CBD. Also, the number of streateries on Vine Street will make it more difficult to build out true BRT infrastructure. I could see the restaurants throwing an absolute fit about it with 3CDC, who could easily throw their weight behind opposing it.

2 hours ago, thebillshark said:

What would this physically look like going up the Vine St. hill?

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. 

52 minutes ago, ryanlammi said:

I'm going to be honest, there is almost never traffic on the Vine Street Hill. I don't think a BRT route needs its own lane going up and down the street. If they have a queue jump or something at the top and bottom of the hill that gives buses priority through intersections that should be plenty.

If we do this right, you're going to have 300-400 buses per day using this corridor. Dedicated lanes are the way to go. 

49 minutes ago, jwulsin said:

Hasn't there been recent talk about making Vine Street two-way all the way from the river up to OTR? If it does become two-way, would you recommend using Vine through the CBD and OTR?

No, you'd want to use this to get dedicated bus lanes serving Government Square (even if we don't build this, we should have those anyways). Main and Walnut should be our "transit streets"

36 minutes ago, thomasbw said:

If we do this right, you're going to have 300-400 buses per day using this corridor. Dedicated lanes are the way to go. 

 

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.

50 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.

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.