What's that body of water in the photo above?

 

It's the Ohio River. I took that spring 2008 when the river was flooding. THat ramp leads down to the public landing.

Gotcha... I wonder if the Google Earth images were taken around the same time.

A significant issue to resolve for the Eastern Corridor is the potential sharing the of the corridor between transit vehicles whatever they may be and potential intercity passenger rail equipment if the 3C Corridor would use the line as well at least in the near term.

ODOT has indicated it will still fund planning and design for the project despite the loss of stimulus funding but there has been little news since that announcement.

 

Estimated daily ridership and annual cost to operate the Eastern Corridor Rail Project: 6,000 riders, $18.9 million (2003 dollars).

Estimated daily ridership and annual cost to operate the Eastern Corridor Rail Project: 6,000 riders, $18.9 million (2003 dollars).

 

According to Agenda 360 the cost of the Eastern Corridor is $410 million.  http://www.cincinnati360.com/report/transportation.asp

 

 

 

^ This capital cost may not include the cost of building "the hardest mile" from the Boathouse to the Transit Center -- probably because no one has ever been able to figure out how to do it without going through the riverfront park.

 

 

^ This capital cost may not include the cost of building "the hardest mile" from the Boathouse to the Transit Center -- probably because no one has ever been able to figure out how to do it without going through the riverfront park.

 

 

 

I think it does include the 'hardest mile'.  The OKI 2030 plan had the cost of the Eastern Corridor at $355 million.  Almost exactly $50 million less and the same amount as the planned request for TIGER II funds that they wanted to use for the last mile.

^ This capital cost may not include the cost of building "the hardest mile" from the Boathouse to the Transit Center -- probably because no one has ever been able to figure out how to do it without going through the riverfront park.

 

 

 

I would operate on East Pete Rose Way west of the Boathouse to the arena, in a manner similar to the RiverLine in/near Camden, NJ... as a streetcar:

 

 

Or in a narrow center reservation which the RiverLine also does in other sections of its 30-mile route:

 

 

Of course it also operates as a regular railroad train and even shares tracks with Norfolk Southern Corp. freight trains using a temporal separation:

 

I think it does include the 'hardest mile'. The OKI 2030 plan had the cost of the Eastern Corridor at $355 million. Almost exactly $50 million less and the same amount as the planned request for TIGER II funds that they wanted to use for the last mile.

 

It seems like the right-of-way along the south side of Mehring Way still exists and seems like it would work, if one didn't want to take it through the RCC and Pete Rose Way/lower 2nd Street.

 

Of course it also operates as a regular railroad train and even shares tracks with Norfolk Southern Corp. freight trains using a temporal separation.

 

Does 'temporal separation' simply mean running the freight and passenger at different times?

 

Here are some comparisons between the Eastern Corridor and the 2002 light rail lines

 

I 71- 34,000 riders, 44 miles, $1,800 million

I 75- 23,000 riders, 15 miles*, $610 million*

Eastside- 20,000 riders, 12 miles*, $450 million*

Westside- 18,000 riders, 12 miles, $490 million

Crosstown- 11,000 riders, 11 miles'', $110 million''

I 471- 10,000 riders, 10 miles, $360 million

Eastern Corridor- 6,000 riders^, 17 miles, $355-410 million

 

*Shares track line with I-71 line.

''Shares track with Westside and Eastside lines

^Based on the posts above

Of course it also operates as a regular railroad train and even shares tracks with Norfolk Southern Corp. freight trains using a temporal separation.

 

Does 'temporal separation' simply mean running the freight and passenger at different times?

 

 

Yes. My reasoning for using that term was two-fold.....

 

1. It will make the FRA rules regarding temporal separation easier to find when initiating Google searches, and

 

2. It's a really cool reference to one of the best movies of the 80s: Back to the Future I ("Good evening, my name is Doctor Emmitt Brown and this is temporal experiment number one....")

 

BTTF - temporal experiment nr.1

Brad, do we have numbers for "I-71" just between downtown and Xavier University?

 

Obviously, the Mt. Auburn Tunnel alignment was much more expensive than the Gilbert Avenue route. 

Brad, do we have numbers for "I-71" just between downtown and Xavier University?

 

Obviously, the Mt. Auburn Tunnel alignment was much more expensive than the Gilbert Avenue route.

 

Unfortunately I don't have them in this report.  If anyone would have them they would be in the Schneider Family Archives.

Ridership was estimated for the Mt. Auburn Tunnel routing using OKI's model. Ridership was guessed at for Gilbert, and the network effects of having I-75, I-71 and Wasson run together between Downtown and Xavier was only talked about. I know they would be substantial. I mean, a train every three minutes at rush hour.

 

Lately I've been wondering if light rail could climb the slope of a tunnel between the top of Main at Dorsey to Auburn and McGregor and from there on a surface alignment to University and Jefferson. The ought to be a serious "University" stop on LRT going to UC -- it's one of the largest employers in the State -- and this is one of the few flat spots where you could do this and integrate it with a mini-Government Square on Jefferson.

^Metro is building a University Hub that will be multi modal bike/bus/rail

Urban Cincy has a very informative article on this project- http://www.urbancincy.com/2010/08/breaking-down-cincinnatis-eastern-corridor-passenger-rail-plan/

^Metro is building a University Hub that will be multi modal bike/bus/rail

 

Where? When? Maybe I missed it, but is there a thread on this with info?

From: http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20100802/NEWS0108/8030336/Council-looks-at-extending-streetcar-into-Clifton-

 

"Michael Moore, Cincinnati’s interim director of transportation and engineering, told council’s Budget and Finance Committee that even as planning for the streetcar’s first phase is continuing, City Hall already is seeking more state and federal money, some of which would be used to create 'a university transit hub' around the University of Cincinnati."

 

So the streetcar that connects two job centers is a boondoggle but the train to nowhere is salvation? Only in Ohio:

 

One rail project may still be a go

Both the proposed high-speed rail between major cities in Ohio and the streetcar project in Cincinnati have faltered, but the $411 million commuter rail for eastern Greater Cincinnati is moving forward.

 

Residents in the eastern suburbs are being asked this week where they want 10 future rail stations to be located for a commuter rail system from downtown Cincinnati to Milford that is designed to ease traffic congestion.

 

The setbacks dealt to higher-profile rail projects occurred when Ohio yanked pivotal funding. But the proposed Oasis Commuter Rail differs from those projects in one critical way: The project has bipartisan backing.

But the proposed Oasis Commuter Rail differs from those projects in one critical way: The project has bipartisan backing.

 

Newsflash, Enquirer: no, it doesn't.  COAST and the teabaggers will be opposed to this from a purely ideological standpoint, simply because it's rail, whether or not there is a strong case for it.

 

And, I think the Eastern Corridor will be successful if they use the Wasson line.  If they use the Oasis line, it won't make as much sense.

I'm pretty sure they are sticking with the Oasis Line.

 

Edit: See below for some excellent analysis of this project from Urban Cincy

 

Breaking down Cincinnati’s Eastern Corridor passenger rail plan

 

By: Jake Mecklenborg

August 11, 2010 – 7:00 am

 

The Eastern Corridor project, a multi-modal highway and commuter rail plan for eastern Hamilton County, is back in the news. Two weeks ago Cincinnati City Council voted against endorsing a TIGER II grant application seeking funds for the plan’s 17-mile commuter rail component.

 

The local media predictably turned this event into another city-county dispute, and insinuated that the TIGER II grant might alone fund construction of the entire Milford commuter rail line, which in 2003 was estimated to cost $420 million. There is no possibility of this happening, as Milford commuter rail would need to be awarded approximately two-thirds of the entire $600 million sum to be dispersed nationwide by the TIGER II program.

 

The media also ignored the Eastern Corridor plan’s central feature – four miles of the Milford commuter rail line is planned to be built parallel to a new $500 million U.S. 32 expressway between Red Bank Road and a point east of Newtown. The 1990’s cost estimate for Milford commuter rail included the savings associated with building a combined highway and rail project, including a new shared eight-lane bridge over the Little Miami River. The cost of building the commuter line first without provision for the future highway has not been studied.

 

$809M identified for extension of I-74 through Hamilton County

 

By: Jake Mecklenborg

January 3, 2011 – 7:30 am

 

The Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) published its 2011-2015 Major New Construction Program List on December 9. The list included six funding allocations totaling more than $809 million of expressway work that will set the stage for the long-envisioned extension of I-74 through Cincinnati.

 

The money is being allocated through the veil of the controversial Eastern Corridor Project. $115 million has been budgeted for reconstruction of the US 32 – I-275 cloverleaf, grade separation of US 32 near this interchange, and modifications to Red Bank Road that anticipate its reconstruction as a fully grade separated expressway. Another $13.8 million has also been budgeted for the long-planned $366 million US 32 bypass and Little Miami River bridge between Red Bank Road and Interstate 275.

 

This partial funding of all segments of the Eastern Corridor Project on ODOT’s current Program List illustrates that the project is still very much on the table, and that ODOT will likely turn its full attention and funding toward the project after the reconstruction and widening of Interstate 75 is completed later this decade.

The SR 32 reconstruction and extension will feature:

 

*Traffic signals at Madison Avenue and Brotherton Road along what is now Red Bank.

*At-grade intersection with minor improvements at Columbia Parkway's interchange.

*Traffic signal at Newtown Road.

*At-grade intersection for Round Bottom Road.

*At-grade intersection for Main Street.

*At-grade intersection for Eight Mile Road.

*Traffic signal at Mt. Carmel Road.

*Traffic signal at Mt. Carmel-Tobasco Road, Old SR 74 and the Aicholtz Road Connector.

*Reconstructed interchange at Interstate 275.

 

No Interstate 74.

 

From the Clermont County Transportation Improvement District for SR 32 east of the beltway:

*Reconstructed Eastgate Road interchange. Say goodbye to Max & Erma's.

*Closure of the service road access at Jackson Square Drive.

*Overpass at Gleneste-Withamsville Road with no interchange.

*Closure of Payard Drive.

*Construction of an interchange at Bach-Buxton, which will connect old SR 74 to Elick Lane. It also connects to Aicholtz Road Extension, which will be a good east-west local traffic relief for SR 32.

*Closure of Elick Lane at SR 32.

*Closure of Newberry Drive at SR 32.

*Overpass at Old SR 74. Extension of Heitman Lane to Stonelick interchange.

This is one of the weakest commuter rail corridors in the Unites States, with a cliff on one side, a floodplain on the other, and a terminus that is not a job center and offers zero short-term development potential. For comparison, even a worst-case-scenario for the streetcar plan would have a better return-on-investment.

 

Please show solidarity by supporting the right projects.

 

No Interstate 74.

 

 

For now, but it's coming.

I support the Oasis line despite its numerous flaws because 1.) I believe the Wasson Line will emerge as the better option once the project is studied and 2.) even if Oasis comes to fruition, it makes even more sense for county leadership to seek funds for the I-71 corridor.  To justify the 71 LRT corridor as anything more than the rail version of the interstate, the Wasson line would have to be built.

What was quite telling about the "I-74" article is that UrbanCincy.com did not receive an order to cease & desist. 

 

Oasis versus Wasson Rd. line is a complicated situation, since use of the Oasis line would have to be heavy rail and use of the Wasson line would have to be light rail, if it is to connect directly into a future light rail network. I have seen drawings where the Wasson line remains diesel commuter rail and riders would have to transfer at Xavier. 

 

No Interstate 74.

 

 

For now, but it's coming.

 

Which is why it is being built and designed as a standard four-lane expressway with at-grade intersections. From the project plan:

 

"The specific goal for Segment II-III, in support of the overall purpose and need for the Eastern Corridor, is to establish relocated SR 32 as a controlled-access roadway west of I-275, coordinated with a new rail transit corridor that provides a transportation alternative to driving."

 

Controlled access does not necessarily mean interstate. Controlled access refers to a higher quality road, where there are intersections at key locations and no driveway entrances and exits - for residences, businesses or industry. Along the existing SR 32 alignment, from the beginning of the four-lane east of Eight Mile to Interstate 275, numerous intersections are being closed off to give the road greater access control and to eliminate conflict points, and west, where the road is being built on an entirely new alignment to Red Bank, the road features a handful of intersections with traffic signals at a few of those.

 

The preliminary layout of the roadway for Red Bank includes two lanes in each direction with a center turn lane, and dual turn lanes at Madison. It is similar in scope to the reconstruction portions that were completed in 2010 in the vicinity of the Wal-Mart.

 

If you are skeptical, John, please show me the proof that Interstate 74 is being planned as a replacement for SR 32.

From Wikipedia:

 

"The unbuilt portion of Interstate 74 in Ohio is expected to be routed along Ohio State Route 32, U.S. Route 23, and U.S. Route 52 for most of its length. However, the routing for the segment through Cincinnati, connecting Interstate 75 to Ohio State Route 32, remains a matter of dispute. A likely scenario has Interstate 74 running with northbound Interstate 75 from Exit 4 to Exit 7, then turning east along short Ohio State Route 562, known as the Norwood Lateral Expressway, for the three miles (5 km) to Interstate 71. However, building a connection between Interstate 71 and the western terminus of Ohio State Route 32 at U.S. Route 50 would pose some difficulty: the most direct route, two-lane Ohio State Route 561, runs through several densely populated neighborhoods. Another idea pitched is to re-route Interstate 74 around Interstate 275 all the way to State Route 32, and resigning the stretch of Interstate 74 from Exit 9 into downtown Cincinnati as US 52. Another possible route would follow Interstate 75 south to the Fort Washington Way segment of Interstate 71 to Interstate 471 in Kentucky to Interstate 275 to meet up with Ohio State Route 32. This is currently the most direct route along existing interstate highways from the current terminus of Interstate 74 to Ohio State Route 32."

 

 

Entirely unreferenced and will be removed. Wikipedia is hardly a source of reliable information.

 

ODOT District 8 has some extensive maps they have developed for the project. An overview can be found at http://www.easterncorridor.org/relocated-sr-32, which is for Segments II and III. Their office has better maps, which I requested be posted to the site. Maybe they will show it at the open houses.

 

The Clermont County Transportation Improvement District also has extensive documentation of the project at their office. You can also find a brief run-down at:

http://tid.clermontcountyohio.gov/sr32.aspx (SR 32 East Corridor study)

http://tid.clermontcountyohio.gov/Aicholtz.aspx (Aicholtz Connector)

http://tid.clermontcountyohio.gov/EasternCorridorSegmentIVa.aspx (Eastern Corridor/SR 32 Segment IV)

 

Early proposals, which are not shown on their site but can be found at the office, show that the project was proposed as fully limited-access with interchanges, but that it was dropped out of consideration very early due to the very high cost of reconstructing Red Bank. There was also environmental issues with constructing interchanges along the Little Miami corridor, in the Newtown area.

 

There were also early articles that I recall reading in the Portsmouth Daily Times toting the Interstate 74 project back in 2000, but the idea never gained traction. The state couldn't afford to upgrade a functional US 23 and SR 32 - the latter of which was not that old, and a secondary proposal - to toll that and Interstate 73 (along the US 23 corridor) never made it out of the discussion phase.

 

Look for spot improvements and widening in Clermont County, including the proposed interchanges and intersection closures, but nothing is planned east of there. And it is entirely dependent on funding. The Eastern Corridor project has much more traction and funding than the East Corridor project.

So how many state routes were built/rebuilt to Interstate standards and later given Interstate designations?

Entirely unreferenced and will be removed.

 

Listen, ye, to the voice of God!

^Nice.

Record of Decision (ROD) for the EC project (Bold Emphasis mine). The document is legally binding for project(s) that encompass the Eastern Corridor. Non-interstate facility is a definable engineering standard, and the SR32 project is going to be "controlled-access" not "limited access" as Sherman pointed out. Not saying that it cannot be upgraded to interstate standards (with great costs) in the future.

 

http://www.easterncorridor.org/pdfs/ROD_06_07_06.pdf

 

edit: http://www.easterncorridor.org/pdf%20milestones%20archive/Eastern%20Corridor%20Tier%201%20ROD%202006.pdf

 

Page 25:

 

Type of facility proposed for the new roadway.

 

Highway improvements

along Red bank Road and SR-32 will not result in an interstate-type facility

between 1-71 and 1-275. At the LMR crossing, the bridge will

accommodate four through lanes of highway, rail transit, bikers, and

pedestrians. See Figures 3.8a and 3.8b of the DEIS.

As we've seen with the Streetcar, ODOT never changes its plans.  If they are saying no I-74, it will never happen. 

^If ODOT wants it to be I-74, then a lot more than $809 million needs to be found. They also cannot go against the ROD, its legally binding to the project per NEPA. If they change it to a limited access freeway they will have to re-do the environmental clearance for the project. Little Miami Inc will never sign off on a freeway.

Agreed. Thanks for the snarkiness, John. It seems that you seem stuck with the notion of an interstate, despite the Record of Decision, studies, proposals, et. al. that all resolve to a no Interstate 74 build in the foreseeable future. It's not that it could not be upgraded, but that it is not going to happen with this project. And if it was to be an interstate, how is that any worse than the existing conditions along Red Bank?

Sherman, I apoolgize. But for you to flatly state, with respect to the Wikipedia entry about  I-74's following the path of S.R. 32, that "it [the entry] shall be removed" is presumptuous. I don't know who wrote that entry, but it or something very similar to it has been there for a long time, unchallenged, so apparently a lot of people believe I-74 is coming through Cincinnati.

 

I do know that they are building I-74 through North Carolina right now. And a friend of mine forwarded an article from a small town in West Virginia about something called the "Coal Highway" and its possible links to a future I-73/74, but I didn't think the link was that clear.

 

An eight-lane bridge over the Little Miami River for "cars, pedestrians, cyclists, buses and trains" -- where today there appears to be very little transit, cycling and hiking demand -- looks very much like an Interstate-ready structure for whenever the time is right to post the I-74 shields on it. And other interchange modifications now programmed -- I-74 to I-75 and I-75 to Norwood Lateral -- suggest a larger agenda that's underway. At a City Planning Commission meeting two years ago, Cincinnati traffic engineers let it slip that land was being reserved for a grade-separated interchange at Madison Road and the renamed Red Bank Expessway, formerly Red Bank Road. Finally, anyone notice how all the new buildings on the east side of the Red Bank Expressway are being held at quite a distance from where the roadway is now? It sure looks like a much-wider highway is in the works to me, regardless of what is written in the plan right now.

 

 

I am unlocking this thread in the hopes that you all can play nice again in the same sandbox. While Sherman cannot remove postings (nor is it his place to say what postings should or not be removed), it is a moderator's place to say it and to do it. By the way, that is called a HINT.

I believe he was referring to removing content from the Wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_74

John, The bridge over the L.M river is 4 lanes (2 each direction)

 

Red Bank Expressway has been called that for some time, perhaps since the relocated road was built. Old Red Bank still exists (Behind Gorilla Glue, dead-ending into UDF; and thence north of Duck Creek Road). I think it was named Red Bank Expressway to not confuse with the old road.

 

I do think there is an interchange of some sorts proposed @ Madison Road with access road. Its associated with the re-dev. of the Nutone Plant. I cannot speak for what that is.

 

The 75 improvements are part of separate project. Norwood Lateral would be a PITA to expand to interstate status. The I-74 project in NC is separate and will end in that state for the foreseeable future. The WvA projects were supposed to be part of I-74, but are scaled back to be WVa-style corridor roads (Think divided 4 lanes with minimal at-grade access).

 

What has happened is embellished information in a blog post @ Urban Cincy has been taken for fact

 

 

I am unlocking this thread in the hopes that you all can play nice again in the same sandbox. While Sherman cannot remove postings (nor is it his place to say what postings should or not be removed), it is a moderator's place to say it and to do it. By the way, that is called a HINT.

 

I was referring to the Wikipedia entry, which I removed the disputed content of, since it was unsourced. It was put up there quite a bit back by an anonymous IP address. Not sure why the thread was locked since the discussion was civil and engaging.

Open Houses for East Side Commuter Rail

 

The first of three open houses for the Oasis Commuter Rail study will be held this evening from 5 P.M.-8 P.M. at the LeBlond Recreation Center, 2335 Riverside Drive in the East End.

 

The Ohio Department of Transportation study will explore the feasibility of incorporating commuter rail service along a 17-mile-long line from Downtown's Riverfront Transit Center to the I-275/U.S. 50 interchange in Milford.

 

The idea emerged in 2006 from the Eastern Corridor Study's Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Record of Decision (ROD) as one of four long-term solutions to address mobility and connectivity concerns in a 165-square-mile area from approximately Downtown Cincinnati eastward to the I-275 corridor in Clermont County.

 

"Our goal right now is to take an in-depth look at the commuter rail option and determine its feasibility in terms of function, constructability and affordability," said ODOT project manager Andy Fluegemann. "We will examine possible alignments and station locations, and evaluate which rail technologies would best meet the region's needs. We also will be looking at estimated costs and the projected return on investment for the region."

Blah, I say none of this needs done except the reconstruction at Eastgate. Columbia Parkway is what is most congested from what I've seen, and there seems to be no interest in changes there. I suppose rail would help Columbia's traffic count, but the further east you go the less receptive people seem to be to rail. It's like building Washington Metro in Alexandria and Arlington first.

Went to the meeting today.  All 12 or so people who spoke during the Q&A opposed the project and are deeply suspicious of what the greater plan is. 

"Our goal right now is to take an in-depth look at the commuter rail option and determine its feasibility in terms of function, constructability and affordability," said ODOT project manager Andy Fluegemann. "We will examine possible alignments and station locations, and evaluate which rail technologies would best meet the region's needs. We also will be looking at estimated costs and the projected return on investment for the region."

 

Hasn't this been what they've been saying for years? In a day and age when Kasich and ODOT went out of their way to try and muck up the streetcar, does anyone really think they'll pursue commuter rail on the East end?

 

I'm all for it and really wish it had been done a long time ago. The Transit Center is a nice facility and the ROW for rail is just sitting there.

 

I was at a Reds-Cubs game last year and was walking out of GABP with some nice (seriously, not kidding) Cubs fans. As we exited the park and crossed 2nd they saw the Transit Center entrances and asked: "Is that where your subway is?" All I said was: "Don't even get me started."

This whole thing smells really, really funny. It's like a bizarro universe, where people who hate rail are advocates and people who love rail are like "What? Why? And why this?".

Hey I'm working on editing the video I took from the meeting.  Again, most people weren't opposed to some form of rail on this line.  They were mostly opposed to it being a diesel train due to the noise and because it could enable increased freight use. 

 

Someone in the audience really hit the bulls eye -- that this benefits those way out by 275 to the detriment of the neighborhoods that it travels through. 

^It does benefit the county (and other counties) more than the city, which probably means it will come to fruition.  I don't think there is a city in the world that hates itself more than Cincinnati, I'm dead serious.

Here is a write-up I did about the meeting last night:

 

http://www.urbancincy.com/2011/04/first-eastern-corridor-open-house-raises-additional-questions-about-plan

 

I'll try and post a video here eventually.  The sound quality, unfortunately, is bad because the event was held in a gym with boomy acoustics.

John, The bridge over the L.M river is 4 lanes (2 each direction)

 

 

The plans for the bridge nominally show two auto/truck lanes, one dedicated bus lane, and one dedicated lane for rail in each direction.

 

Today, there are about 1,000 transit trips per day coming from Clermont County. So I'm suggesting that the bridge's bus lane will, after construction, be found to be unnecessary and will soon be converted to a third general auto/truck/bus lane. The train will never be built, and so there will eventually be four general auto/truck/bus lanes in each direction on the bridge over the Little Miami River Valley.

 

That's equal to the capacity of the Brent Spence.

 

The 74/75 and 75/Norwood Lateral interchanges may now be "part of a separate project." But viewed in context with the new Little Miami River bridge, the interchange at I-275, the new interchange at Madison and Red Bank Expressway, these, in the aggregate, appear to be the major set-pieces of new cross-regional interstate highway, I-74. When all of these major pieces are in place, it's just a matter of time and political will before Federal Interstate Highway shields go up on sections of I-75, Norwood Lateral, I-71, Red Bank Expressway, and re-aligned S.R. 32 designating them as the new shared/exclusive I-74 freeway.

 

I see a lot in the physical plans which tends to confirm this and nothing to deny it won't happen.