In the November 2002 vote for better public transportation, Downtown supported Issue 7 by a 2:1 margin. Over-the-Rhine and Uptown neighborhoods voted in the 55 - 60% range. There was good support in Evanston, Hyde Park, Oakley and Mt. Lookout, but it still lost in those neighborhoods. It did pretty well in Mariemont and Wyoming.

 

As for the Eastern Corridor rail project -- the one that runs along the river to Lunken and from there to Eastgate -- it's a real loser. The cost/benefit ratio is about 26:1, it has only 6,000 or so riders a day, and it costs a half-billion dollars. It's been sold as cheap way to introduce rail to Cincinnati, but it's not. No rail advocate I know supports it.

 

A much better project would extend rail from downtown to Uptown and from there to Xavier, Rookwood, Hyde Park/Oakley and to Mariemont ending somewhere west of Terrace Park. You'd really connect a lot of dots with that line, which was part of the 2002 ballot issue and which was estimated to attract 20,000 riders a day.

 

The Eastern Corridor project is all about extending I-74 from where it ends near Cincinnati State through the middle of Cincinnati and on to North Carolina. Don't believe it? Pick up a new Rand McNally Atlas and you'll see where they are already building sections of I-74 in North Carolina. Does it seem like they would be building it there but not eventually bring it through Cicninnati?

The Eastern Corridor project is all about extending I-74 from where it ends near Cincinnati State through the middle of Cincinnati and on to North Carolina. Don't believe it? Pick up a new Rand McNally Atlas and you'll see where they are already building sections of I-74 in North Carolina. Does it seem like they would be building it there but not eventually bring it through Cicninnati?

 

Or for more sedentary types, just look up I-74 on Wikipedia, and you'll see the same proposal there.

 

Here it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-74#Proposesd_I-74_Midwest_extension

If I-74 does not goto DC it would be a waste.

Isn't there enough people complaining about the East side being favored? If we install rail it should be something that connects downtown to Clifton before anything else. Those two areas have the greatest economic impact.

 

I believe (please don't quote me if I'm wrong...) one of the main reasons for focusing on the east corridor now was that the ballot results were much more favorable in the east side communities (hyde park, mt. lookout) than other areas of the city.

 

Of course I agree the downtown/clifton connection would be the most important  - and I can't see any feasible proposal ignoring that (at least for very long).

 

Oh well, let's all keep our fingers crossed...

Coincidentally the East side happens to be where people drive more cars and have more disposable income. :wtf:

 

I think we need to strengthen the core of the city and what better way to invest in OTR by having a CBD-Clifton connection with a stop in OTR. The East side is the one side of town that is great economically. Maybe the peope that voted in opposition just need to be educated more on all of the benefits of rail transit.

Back when the Queen City Soapbox blog was still around, Chris Anderson had this post on the Eastern Corridor...it sounds like what John is saying:

 

Railroad to Nowhere

by Chris Anderson

Wednesday, June 11th, 2003

 

Rail transit is far from dead in Cincinnati. The Business Courer reports that momentum is building for an eastern rail line using existing tracks. It would use diesel locomotives rather than electric vehicles. That combined with the current freight line, would dramatically reduce the capital costs.

 

All well and good. This proposal has been favored for a number of years by Commissioner Todd Portune, back to his days on City Council. It also has the support of John Dowlin, who knows more about east side transportation issues than any other politician. The line is part of the Eastern Corridor Study, the exhaustive (and exhausting, if you've participated in the planning sessions) study of transportation alternatives for the east side. During my time in Milford, we even twisted the arm of a developer to reserve property for a future terminal station.

 

Ironically, the Milford experience points to the biggest problem with this proposal. The land set aside is in the Milford Commerce Park, far removed from Milford's concentrated population, in the midst of office buildings, a car dealership, and a Target store. Not a walkable environment at all.

 

Unfortunately, that's largely true for about 95% of the line. The picture shows a corridor of 1/4 mile on each side of the proposed line. A quarter-mile is the accepted rule of thumb for how far an average person will walk to a transit stop. The brown spots are buildings of all types: houses, stores, factories...but mostly houses.

 

What's striking to me about the picture is how much of the rail line goes through areas where buildings are absent or lower in density. Simply put, there aren't many people in proximity to this line, and few people means fewer riders. The only areas approaching urban densities are Columbia-Tusculum (near the sharp curve) and Fairfax & Mariemont (the barbell area). In the latter case, the distance to the rail line is frustrated by a steep bluff between the houses and the railroad. Overall, this is a mature area, so the land not already built upon is unlikely to ever be developed (the Little Miami floodplain is a big reason).

 

Light rail in Cincinnati has been criticized as a pipe dream, a way for urban dilettantes to spend other people's money imitating Portland. I'm not convinced that's the case in general, but I'm also not sold on this proposal. I'd hate to see Cincinnati implement a rail line in an area with so little urban population, only to have it starve for riders. Tim Reynolds, director of Strategic Planning at SORTS, hints at that:

 

"DMUs are essentially as expensive as (overhead electric) light rail vehicles," he said. "You don't need the infrastructure or the wires, but it's all expensive."

The unspoken companion to that thought is the fewer riders, the bigger the subsidy.

 

Proving that rail transit works with a demonstration project may be the best way to build support for an expanded system. My fear is that if the eastern line flops, it will queer the deal permanently. With so little population in the corridor, a flop is all too likely.

 

From the column a couple posts above:

What's striking to me about the picture is how much of the rail line goes through areas where buildings are absent or lower in density.

 

The experience in other cities is that density follows rail investment.  There's even a name for it, "transit-oriented development."  Rail is much more expensive and permanent than houses and office buildings, therefore houses and office buildings follow rail.  Just as they follow freeway exits.  It's such a painfully simple concept, you'd think more people would grasp it.  I spent last weekend in D.C. and the transit-oriented development there (around Metro stops) is through the roof.  I mean, absolutely unbelievable.  Especially in Northern VA which was very low density twenty years ago.

 

So even though the areas that the eastern corridor train will go through are low-density now, it will not stay that way once the line is built.

Kendall's point on transit-oriented development is well put.  In California, the City of Emeryville didn't even exist. It was a brownfield site.

 

When the Capital Corridors built a station and began running intercity commuter trains, the city literally grew up around the station.  Today, it is a thriving and dense mix of commercial, residential and retail.  No reason the same could not happen in Cincy or any other city in Ohio.

The funny thing is we have TODs all around and don't even realize it. Most were built from the 1890s into the 1930s. Most of you have heard their names -- Shaker Heights, Cleveland Heights, East Cleveland, Glenville, Collinwood, Slavic Village, Old Brooklyn, Edgewater, Cudell, West Park, Lakewood, ...or Short North, Clintonville, parts of Bexley, Upper Arlington, Grandview Heights, ...or Oakwood, parts of Kettering, Northridge, ...or Clifton, Mt. Auburn, Walnut Hills, Evanston, Norwood, Reading, Lockland, Elmwood Place, Cumminsville, Fairmount...

 

And, of course, the most well known TODs but long since damaged: Downtown Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton, Cincinnati, Toledo, Akron, Youngstown, Canton...

 

There are several threads here dealing specifically with TOD:

 

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php?topic=4859.0

 

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php?topic=1666.0

 

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php?topic=3885.0

 

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php?topic=1789.0

 

Plus a couple of articles I wrote on TOD for Sun are here:

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php?topic=1977.0

 

That should keep you busy!

Eastern Corridor transportation project gets approval to speed up its planning

BY BARRETT J. BRUNSMAN | ENQUIRER STAFF WRITER

 

Greater Cincinnati has gotten approval to speed up planning for a proposed $1.4 billion road and rail system that could change the way people commute and, perhaps, where some live.

 

By satisfying environmental concerns about the scenic Little Miami River, the Eastern Corridor transportation project received approval from the Federal Highway Administration to proceed with detailed planning and engineering studies.

 

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060611/NEWS01/606110353/1056

Groups fight Eastern Corridor project

Environmentalists say it would harm wildlife, limit recreation

BY DAN HORN | ENQUIRER STAFF WRITER

 

Environmental groups are suing to stop a $1.4 billion project that would expand highway connections between downtown Cincinnati and its eastern suburbs.

 

The groups say the Eastern Corridor project, which calls for a multilane bridge over the Little Miami River, would harm wildlife and limit recreational opportunities in and around the federally protected river.

 

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061020/NEWS01/610200340/1056/COL02

Where are we with the "Eastern Corridor" rail line?

Showdown over a river

Ohio 32 bridge at Little Miami hinges on court ruling

BY STEVE KEMME | ENQUIRER STAFF WRITER

 

Link to Development PDF: http://news.enquirer.com/assets/AB498651112.PDF

 

 

What is the project?

The $1.4 billion Eastern Corridor project includes 13.5 miles of highway reconstruction and improvements to Ohio 32 with a new bridge over the Little Miami River, a 17-mile rail line running from downtown Cincinnati to Lunken Airport and on to Milford, new bus stops and bike trails, a reconfigured interchange at Ohio 32 and I-275, and altered interchanges and local roads to keep local traffic off Ohio 32.

 

For 105 miles, the Little Miami River snakes through five counties in southwestern Ohio before emptying into the Ohio River in Cincinnati.

 

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061112/NEWS01/611120348/1077/COL02

Think the trucks on Eastern Avenue are bad now? Just wait until this bridge gets built. The Eastern Corridor project will have a negative effect on property values in eastern Cincinnati and suburbs inside I-275.

How does this bridge put more trucks onto Eastern Avenue?  I'm not arguing, I'm just confused!

 

Trucks coming from western Hamilton County and wanting to go to Clermont County now use I-471/275 to Ohio 32. Once the bridge opens just east of Lunken Airport, a lot of those trucks will use Eastern to Kellogg to Wilmer to the bridge approach.

 

You'll also have a lot more cars on Columbia Parkway. Now a lot of Clermont County traffic uses I-471/275 too. Many will use the shortcut over the Little Miami Valley that the bridge provides.

 

The bridge will facilitate sprawl, doing for the eastside what I-74 has done for the westside. I think Mt. Washington, Fairfax, Mariemont, even Mt. Lookout, Oakley and Hyde Park are  at risk because of this project. The Little Miami River flood plain has acted as a natural urban growth boundary that has kept eastern Cincinnati intact over the years. This project changes all that.

 

I'm sure Clermont County developers are salivating at the prospect.

That does make sense...if I'm going from Cincinnati to Eastgate and points east, I already always take 50 to 125 to 32, but you're right, just about everyone I know does 471-275.  This would make my preferred route much more attractive...hmm...

 

Although this would open another route up for accessing the east side - 71N to Red Bank to the new 32...mostly non-city-street, none of the lights of Eastern et al...and from the west side, coming in 74E - 75N - 562E - Red Bank - 32: it sounds nuts, but would actually end up a pretty direct route.

 

Of course, that adds a whole lot of trucks merging and exiting and whatnot, where now they're more likely to use 471-275, or even just 275 all the way around...

 

Anyway, yeah, while I'm not immediately anti-Eastern Corridor, and the anti-bridge argument does little to sway me, your posts certainly make me want to lean that way...

 

I think the thing is ... the Eastern Corridor project will bring more traffic in general, and more truck traffic in particular, through Cincinnati instead of shedding it to the beltway. Anyone in favor of that prospect?

 

And forget about the diesel rail line. It's a real loser with about $26 in costs for every $1 in benefits. It's just a stalking horse for Superbridge. We'll get the bridge and the truck traffic, and the rail will never happen.

I've always sensed with this that the rail component was meant to distract people from the highway component, which was probably initiated by real estate interests and obviously benefits them the most if this thing is built. I fear that the large flood plain could be overtaken by big-box retail, surely township trustees could be bribed like Norwood's city council was rumored to have been.  Wal-Mart did this exact thing in Athens, where they negotiated a lease on Ohio University land on the Hocking River flood plain under highly suspicious circumstances.  And the city of course paid for major upgrades to nearby streets in order to keep Wal-Mart from locating in another nearby town.     

 

Wal-Mart built its store behind an existing levee, but actually raised the store itself I'd guess 5 more feet above the level of the levee, illustrating that they know something about the work of the Army Corps of Engineers that the rest of us don't.  As some sort of concession, they were forced to build a replacement wetland (not sure of the exact name for it) on the inland side of the levee which had a drain pipe to the river.  As is made obvious by the second photo from the Jan 2005 flood, if it had a valve, nobody bothered to close it because the river throughout the day slowly filled up the lower section of their parking lot.  Incredibly, the place stayed open despite having river water mixed with raw sewage stewing in its front yard.  My point is these developers will come in and say whatever flood plain plan they have will be safe and wonderful and they'll bribe officials and take advantage of people's trust and then they'll leave town as soon as the check clears.  They don't have any obligation after they sell the property and residents with a ruined neighborhood will work themselves in a knot looking to place blame somewhere. 

 

The Hocking River is a notch or two smaller than the Little Miami but as can be seen here it can cause a lot of damage.  Early in the day:

 

Later that night, this photo was taken from atop the levee seen in the top photo:

I've always sensed with this that the rail component was meant to distract people from the highway ...

 

So true.

Using Photoshop I drew the alignments of the competing proposed rail routes.  The Oasis line is in green, the line prefered by John Schneider and The Sierra Club is in red.  The way I drew it here utilizes the Mt. Auburn Tunnel routing studied 10 years ago and the Wasson Rd. freight line between Xavier University and its junction with the Oasis line near Red Bank Rd.  In white I placed the distance from Fountain Square on the red line and the distance from the existing Riverfront Transit Center on the Oasis line.  As can be seen they are virtually the exact same distance but the red line obviously travels past hundreds of thousands more residents and jobs, many within walking distance of stations.  The Oasis routing has only a few hundred residents and jobs within walking distance of its potential stations locations. 

 

 

The riverfront line is almost fully grade seperated between miles 2 and 5 on fill and overpasses built around 1910. 

 

At mile 6 there is potential for all Anderson Twp buses to transfer their passengers onto the rail line and at 8 there is potential for all Fairfax, Merriemont, and other area neighborhoods to similarly dump off passengers.

 

The line more or less leaves civilization for its final five miles.  If the new expressway weren't part of this proposal, it would be a good opportunity for transit-oriented development with the rail line providing the easiest and fastest route downtown.

 

John, what is the plan so far as single versus double tracking this line?  It seems as though it could get by with a single track and passing sidings until ridership increases.  And to get a sense for just how far 16.5 miles is, it is virtually the same distance as the I-71 line between downtown and Mason.  In either case, the cost of track, cantenary, and other costs are roughly the same, so obviously it's in the public's best interest to get the most for its money.  And any federal match is not free money -- it's still money that is coming out of each person's income tax and embedded in the costs of goods and services that we buy.   

 

 

 

And here is an overall view of the city, with the I-75, I-71, and Milford lines all converging on the key segment between Downtown, UC, and Xavier.  The Oasis line is in green again.

 

Look at the map above -- with all the red lines converging on the area near Xavier. Isn't that starting to look like a system?  When you look at the photos of the green line (the "Oasis Line"), what do you see adjacent to it? A river, steep hills, lots of trees. Truly a beautiful environment, but hardly anyone lives there. There are no universities, no hospitals, no retail, not much density in housing, hardly any employment. Sure, it would be a pretty train trip, but it will serve maybe 6,000 riders (3,000 individuals) a day. That's a good bus route. Or a streetcar route. Not trains.

 

Now scroll up two maps. The only thing I'd change about the red line route going east/west is that I wouldn't cross the Little Miami River at Point 9. I'd keep the line north of the river and south of Wooster Pike. There's room. I've walked all of it. It's only tight behind the Kroger Store east of Mariemont. And I'd end the red line somewhere between Mariemont and Terrace Park east of the new bridge that goes south to Newtown. That way you could intercept a lot of the Wooster Pike traffic that clogs up Mariemont every morning. And those big park and ride lots could be used by soccer teams at nights and on weekends.

 

To me, this is about as clear a choice as you'll ever get to make in transit planning: Shall we plow across a greenfield flood plain on a path to more sprawl? Or shall be build transit to serve institutions that Cincinnatians have been building for generations - our universities, our hospitals, places like Evanston, Hyde Park, Oakley and Mariemont.

 

So why has the red line been dropped in favor of the green line in the Eastern Corridor planning process? Simple. The green line requires the eight lane Superbridge over the Little Miami to (supposedly) carry trains and buses and, oh yeah, some cars and trucks too. The red line doesn't require a new bridge because it never crosses the river. It just carries three times the number of passengers as the green line, passes more destinations over a shorter route and gets people to the heart of downtown instead of dropping them off under Second Street. But the highway guys don't get their Interstate-ready bridge by building the red line.

 

People are starting to figure this out. The Eastern Corridor Project is a long-term plan to bring I-74 through Cincinnati, cloaked in a touchy-feeling aura of greenspace planning, transit-friendliness and recreational development.

This has been a great thread.  Question:  Since the Mt. Auburn tunnel is currently a moot point, what would be the costs of running the light rail line in a cut and cover subway up Gilbert via Montgomery to the Xavier node?  I realize that you end up bypassing the UC area.  It seems to me that the streetcar and the light rail can be complementary: streetcars for the more compact central city (Clifton/Mt. Auburn/Mt. Adams/Dowtown) resident and light rail for the commuter.  I also feel that using traditional transit routes (i.e. subways under traditional streets or closely paralleling them, like Montgomery or Reading Roads) is preferable.

 

The only thing I'd change about the red line route going east/west is that I wouldn't cross the Little Miami River at Point 9. I'd keep the line north of the river and south of Wooster Pike. There's room. I've walked all of it. It's only tight behind the Kroger Store east of Mariemont. And I'd end the red line somewhere between Mariemont and Terrace Park east of the new bridge that goes south to Newtown. That way you could intercept a lot of the Wooster Pike traffic that clogs up Mariemont every morning.

 

John, one issue with this is that the route you descibe is down a very steep incline from Mariemont, not terribly accessible to the average commuter.  Wouldn't it make more sense to bite the bullet and try and put that portion of the route under Wooster Pike through Fairfax and Mariemont, bringing it back above ground when you get to Plainville/Columbia Township?

I think you want to avoid anything other than surface alignments for rail if you can avoid it.

 

Think of it this way: if a mile of rail costs $1.00, elevating it costs $2.00 and burying it in a subway costs $3.00. Then there are the operating costs of elevators, underground ventilation, security and everything else that occurs when you take mobility out of its more-natural at-grade environment.

 

But even if the costs are equal, in a city the size of Cincinnati, I think you want to concentrate whatever economic activity you have at one level rather than dispersing it. Make adjacent business visible to the people on the train, put more transit-users on the sidewalks and make transit more friendly and less intimidating.

 

The grade difference between the village of Mariemont and the tracks below might have to be overcome by some sort of hill-climber like an inclined elevator. Or this: much of the old inter-urban ROW through Mariemont is still there north of Wooster Pike. Maybe it could be recovered.

I completely agree that the Red Line looks like a no brainer (aside from any minor modifications).  It is far superior to the Oasis Line...even if the costs are higher...I would have to think that you will get more in return for your investment with the Red Line as opposed to the Oasis Line...and that should make up for the higher costs.

 

On a side note...are you spearheading this effort John?  If so do you have some plan of action with linking this/focusing efforts with this and the streetcar effort.  I see that you have combined the two with the Red lines on the maps.  But, do you plan on pushing streetcar...then turning attention to focus on this other rail component of the overall system?

I'm kind of waiting for the Oasis Line (the green line on the map) to die of its own weight before talking a whole lot more about the Wasson Line (the east-west running red line on the map). From what I hear, the Eastern Corridor project is pretty much dead in the water, with few advocates. It's one of those things that the more you know about, the less you like it.

 

I really appreciate Todd Portune's advocacy of rail. However, on this issue, he's in the right church but in the wrong pew. No one I know who understands rail transit can fathom spending $500 Million to move 7,000 people a day in petroleum-fueled diesel trains running next to new housing. Maybe we're stupid.

 

But using the Oasis Line for streetcars while spending much, much less to accomplish the same result, sure, I could see that.

^do streetcar run on the same gauge rail as a normal train?

The

^do streetcar run on the same gauge rail as a normal train?

 

They do, but you'd probably be replacing all the track on the Oasis Line for whatever's going to run there. It's not suitable for daily passenger service.

so the reason they are picking the oasis line is simply for the right of way?

so the reason they are picking the oasis line is simply for the right of way?

 

That, and a few structures.

Think of it this way: if a mile of rail costs $1.00, elevating it costs $2.00 and burying it in a subway costs $3.00. Then there are the operating costs of elevators, underground ventilation, security and everything else that occurs when you take mobility out of its more-natural at-grade environment.

 

But even if the costs are equal, in a city the size of Cincinnati, I think you want to concentrate whatever economic activity you have at one level rather than dispersing it. Make adjacent business visible to the people on the train, put more transit-users on the sidewalks and make transit more friendly and less intimidating.

 

I guess my feeling is that it is important to strenghthen the current business districts.

 

While the old Streetcar ROW still exists in Mariemont, I can't think of anything that's going to get the NIMBY's more riled up than turning that ROW back to light rail, except perhaps putting a major avenue for transit at the end of their cul-de-sacs on the south edge of town.  My feeling is that by tunnelizing a portion of it, you avoid the areas of strongest resistance while at the same time strenghthening Wooster Pike as an economic corridor.  Certainly the eyesore that is Wooster Pike through Fairfax could be induced to become a more pedestrian friendly place with transit.

I added the Little Miami RR ROW to the maps I made awhile ago:

 

I put a dotted street running route down Erie Ave. to connect to the ROW...this is one of the problems with using this route, there is no straightforward way to connect Fairfax and Mariemont with the Wasson Rd. line.     

 

The route out toward Terrace Park I believe is now part of the Loveland Bike Trail, I put crossings of the Little Miami in dots.

 

Last but not least a proposal for a 6,500ft. Walnut Hills subway with stations at Peeble's Corner and the intersection of MLK & Victory Parkway.  The I-71 Light Rail route is in red and the CL&N in cyan.  The line would climb the hill on Gilbert and then head underground at Florence Ave. and surface on the lightly traveled stretch of Victory Parkway north of whatever cemetary that is.

 

I don't see much need for a station under Woodburn or Montgomery north of DeSale's Corner, obviously a tunnel here would cut about 2,000ft. off the trip to Xavier but add another 4,000+ feet of tunnel including a pass under interstate 71.  I think the overall time savings would be about 2 minutes.  Also the Victory Parkway/MLK intersection has a lot of extra space for construction staging whereas any station under Woodburn would be tough.     

What sort of safety issues arise with these shifts from on-street ROW to tunnels, as you have suggested for the line in yellow?

So far as I know there is nothing keeping people from walking into tunnels and I suppose you could even drive your car into a few of the streetcar tunnels and certainly the Seattle bus tunnel.  Where the green line trolleys surface in Boston the lines then run down the center of the streets in medians that tend to be fenced off and push cross auto traffic from the side streets to major cross streets. 

 

I just checked and was surprised to see that Gilbert is not was wide as it seems, only about 60ft. between sidewalks and 80ft. between property lines.  I would have guessed 100 between property lines.  Either way, plenty of room for surface running (downtown streets are 66ft. between property lines).  This route has the advantage of running directly through Broadway Commons and a station there spurring development and reducing parking, however there is not as much potential ridership in Walnut Hills as compared to UC.  The Walnut Hills area also has the disadvantage of those two cemeteries, if not for them there'd be a lot more land available for redevelopment and need for a third station around Blair Ave. 

Portune talks about rail plans

 

by Joe Wessels, Cincinnati Post

http://news.cincypost.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070505/EDIT/705050342/1003

 

If Todd Portune gets his way, there will be several changes in the way citizens in and around Hamilton County use public transit.

 

At a Hamilton County Democratic forum Tuesday, Portune said a "major announcement" was about 30 days away.

 

Then he saw me in the crowd and said he couldn't talk about it more.

 

Later, though, he offered a few tantalizing details.

A rail line from downtown to Milford perplexes me every time I hear it...especially along this given route.

 

Meeting set for rail line feedback

June 25, 2007 | CINCINNATI BUSINESS COURIER

 

CINCINNATI - The Hamilton County Transportation Improvement District is seeking public feedback on the first link of a potential rail transit line that would run from downtown Cincinnati to Milford.

 

The first segment of the proposed Oasis Riverfront Rail Transit line would extend from the Riverfront Transit Center to the Montgomery Inn Boathouse area. Officials are seeking the public's opinion on the alignment alternatives for the segment.

Wake me when it's over.

The first segment of the proposed Oasis Riverfront Rail Transit line would extend from the Riverfront Transit Center to the Montgomery Inn Boathouse area. Officials are seeking the public's opinion on the alignment alternatives for the segment.

Is the Riverfront Transit Center the area by the stadia?  If so this is an extremely short segment.

"The first segment of the proposed Oasis Riverfront Rail Transit line would extend from the Riverfront Transit Center to the Montgomery Inn Boathouse area."

 

Is this accurate?  The first phase is from a transit center surrounded by nothing...to a single restaurant within walking distance!

Ain't gonna happen.

Whatever Cincinnati decides on for it's streetcar and light rail systems, they had better make it with durable materials.  No penny pinching allowed.  St. Louis Metro is already regretting it.  http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/stlouiscitycounty/story/DB8517581D94582586257313000F9EDD?OpenDocument

 

The 14-year old original St. Louis Metro heavy-rail track is showing signs of wear-and-tear already due to cheap building materials.  The wood ties are chipping and the steel rails are loose.  The second phase of the track was added last year and was built with higher-quality, more durable materials, thus making a smoother ride and a better investment.

I think they also bought used rails for the airport to downtown line. To me, that section seems to ride rough compared to other systems. Keep this in mind as you read about the proposal to use the existing rails along the Oasis Line for passenger service.

I don't think the intent is to use "existing rails" on the proposed Oasis Line, but rather use the existing rail corridor.  It's a fine distinction , but an important one, as the rail corridor can be rebuilt with better ballast, ties and rails and (in all likelihood) such will be the case if and when passenger service (be it intercity or LRT) is ever introcudced on to the Oasis Line.

 

But the observation on the St. Louis Metro's original airport line is a good one.  I rode it last November and once the trainb left the airport and got into the original rail corridor (the former Wabash Railroad), the ride got noticeably rougher, though still fast.  I think it's worth keeping in mind that when this line was built, the interest back then was simply to get it up and running.  The line has more than proven it's worth and the case can now be made for upgrading the track and materials.

 

Cincy and other Ohio cities can learn a great lesson from the successes in cities that pioneered light-rail like St. Louis.

It says in an article that there would be a branch off the Oasis line going to Norwood, Hyde Park, and Xavier.  I was initially against the Oasis line because it doesnt seem like Milford is the place the line needs to go to the most, but if this spur was created, I'm all for it.

Is the meeting tonight just about the Oasis line or is it about the streetcar as well?

It says in an article that there would be a branch off the Oasis line going to Norwood, Hyde Park, and Xavier.  I was initially against the Oasis line because it doesnt seem like Milford is the place the line needs to go to the most, but if this spur was created, I'm all for it.

 

will the spur be from milford to norwood, or from downtown to norwood. One is good and on is not so good.

The meeting tonight is mainly about the diesel trains on the Oasis line, not the streetcar on the Oasis Line - although it ought to be.

 

There are two rail lines in the Eastern Corridor plan. First and foremost is the diesel line from the Central Riverfront to Milford. The second is a electric light rail line from Milford to Xavier but not continuing on to UC and downtown. So, the former is $450 million to yield 6,000 commuter rides per day (3,000 people), and the latter misses the region's two largest employment centers entirely.

 

Go figure.

 

This is really not about rail serving the Eastern Corridor. It's about building an Interstate-ready bridge over the Little Miami River near Newtown that will someday carry I-74 from Red Bank Road to an improved SR 32 through southern Ohio. This project will accomplish in eastern Cincinnati what I-74 has accomplished in western Cincinnati -- a major disinvestment in close-in eastside neighborhoods and more sprawl into outlying counties. I'm amazed that the city of Cincinnati continues to favor this project.

While I agree with John that the main focus on the Eastern Corridor was obviously to build the Red Bank connector to S.R. 32, but I don't think I-74 will continue on this "freeway".  As far as diesel trains, it does seem silly to use this option and I would prefer smaller, light rail, electric trains, if it is what gets built, I will hardly complain.

 

What I really want to know and hear everyone's opinion on is what will get built first or at all among this options:

 

1.  Downtown-OTR-UC streetcar project.  Most likely as a 2-3 phase project.

2.  Downtown-Milford Commuter rail. Using diesel trains. Future expansion lines to the north and west.

3.  Downtown-Blue Ash light rail project.  (Should have been passed 5 years ago, but we decided that Mike Brown needed a new stadium to put the county in debt).  I personally loved this project because it would connect all the major business centers and help redevelop the neighborhoods along the line.

The downtown streetcar system from OTR to the riverfront will happen first...unfortunately it appears that this crap Oasis Line proposal will also happen,  but shortly after the 1st phase of the streetcar system.  It is possible (with some major private funding support) that an Uptown connection and/or a Nky streetcar connection could happen within a few years after the initial phase.  I personally don't think it's a stretch when you have some major private entities drooling over a potential streetcar link (University of Cincinnati, University Hospital, Cincinnati Zoo, Corporex, Nky Convention Center, NOTL).

 

I don't think you'll see the downtown - Blue Ash route any time soon.  A more likely route that may pop up after the Oasis line could be a CVG - Downtown Cincinnati line (at the hub where Oasis will run to on 2nd Street).

^ I doubt NKY will ever build a rail system. Read back the beginning of the thread. No local option tax for transportation. So it would take a large initiative to build a link to the airport.