---Should this discussion be spun off into a Red bank Road/Relocated SR 32 thread under "highways"?---

 

Agreed. Maybe one thread for Eastern Corridor: Oasis Line and another for Eastern Corridor: I-74  ;-)

More public involvement and displays posted here:

 

http://www.easterncorridor.org/red-bank-corridor/segment-i-public-involvement

 

City of Cincinnati Livable Community Committee Meeting ODOT Presentation Slides 8-3-2011

 

Eastern Corridor Segment 1 Continuous Flow Intersection Alternatives North 2006

 

Eastern Corridor Segment 1 Continuous Flow Intersection Alternatives South 2006

 

Eastern Corridor Segment 1 Grade Separated Alternative South 2006

 

Eastern Corridor Segment 1 Grade Separated Alternative North 2006

So they just rehashed the stuff the developed back in 2006?  A lot has happened in the last 5 years.  Above all else, I can't believe they intend to completely rebuild/relocate the stretch of Red Bank between Erie and Colbank through Fairfax, which was just rebuilt (in concrete no less!) a few years ago.  And people wonder why our society is bankrupt? 

Heads up, for anyone who may miss it, Cheeseburgers in Paradise has closed at Eastgate. The property will be demolished as part of the OH 32/Eastgate Drive-Interstate 275 reconfiguration project that will involve the closing of the Eastgate Square intersection, the extension of Aicholtz Road to act as a southern frontage road (taking local traffic off of OH 32), the addition of C/D lanes and a general revamping of the Interstate 275 interchange.

 

General map:

http://ftp.co.clermont.oh.us/TID/OverviewMaps/27532_INTERCHANGE.pdf

 

Future improvements:

http://ftp.co.clermont.oh.us/TID/EastgateAreaImprovements.pdf

Copying some commentary I posted on Tumblr a few weeks ago:

 

 

 

The lack of curiosity from our local media is astonishing.

 

Several years ago, I was browsing the Eastern Corridor project website and came across the map above. It shows that the widening of OH-32 in Eastgate will require several businesses and homes to be demolished. As most of the businesses are chains like Starbucks, Blockbuster, Perkin’s, and Jimmy Buffet’s Cheeseburger in Paradise, I considered writing an Onion-style article to the effect of, Route 32 Widening To Destroy Eastgate Cultural Landmarks.

 

Now, The Enquirer has learned of the project by way of the closing of Cheeseburger in Paradise. They mention the restaurant “has closed its doors to make way for an ODOT highway project – a new westbound exit ramp for Ohio 32.” But not a drop of curiosity beyond that. (What is this highway project? Will other business have to close? What is the cost of this project?)

 

UrbanCincy published an article in January exposing what’s really going on: an $809 million extension of I-74 through Cincinnati’s eastern suburbs. Nine months later, the Enquirer has yet to make a peep about this.

No extension of I-74 is planned. Ohio backed of that long ago.

 

With the Eastern Corridor Project, SR32/Red Bank Road will have at-grade intersections at Mt Carmel/Tobasco; Old 74, and 2 of the I-275 off ramps, and various locations along Red Bank Road.  No new interstate can have at-grade intersections.  The environmental impact statement approved for the project specifically forbids the new road to be an interstate.

^Seconded, and one that has been reiterated several times in this specific thread alone. Interstate 74, at least inside the loop, will not happen. The current drawings, conforming to the EIS that was approved, show at-grade intersections with an interchange at the high accident-rate intersection with Madison that will consume the UDF, Rally's and oil change center. South of that will be more intersections, and not much in the way of roadway configuration modifications.

 

The Clermont County projects have been years in the making. There have been plans for the Interstate 275 interchange rebuild for at least a decade, and pleas to install interchanges going eastward along SR 32 for quite a while - namely for safety and traffic flow reasons. There are 0 plans to convert the entire stretch of OH 32 into an interstate, or US 23, or OH 74.

No extension of I-74 is planned.

 

For now.

I-74 or not, that doesn't mean it's a worthwhile project.  It's still a major highway either way. 

Sherman, at the Eastern Corridor meeting I attended back in July, they absolutely had drawings that showed full grade separation for Red Bank Rd., with overpasses at Madison and numerous cross streets.  I was stunned. 

Sherman, at the Eastern Corridor meeting I attended back in July, they absolutely had drawings that showed full grade separation for Red Bank Rd., with overpasses at Madison and numerous cross streets.  I was stunned.

 

+1

Sherman, at the Eastern Corridor meeting I attended back in July, they absolutely had drawings that showed full grade separation for Red Bank Rd., with overpasses at Madison and numerous cross streets.  I was stunned. 

 

There are multiple degrees between "fully grade separated" and "fully at-grade"... and the remaining at-grade crossings could be eliminated if ODOT had the urge to upgrade the whole corridor to Interstate status.

 

If you really want to get in a debate about whether or not I-74 is going to be extended, just go read the 55 comments on the UrbanCincy article I linked to above.

Here are the drawings:

 

 

That is such a wasteful highway design.  Whether it is ODOT's standards or just a poor quality of civil engineering, I don't know.  I do know it's extremely wasteful and overly expensive to demolish so many properties in the name of making a straighter, marginally safer road with 12 foot shoulders and 200 foot radii onramps.

@Ram23, agreed with the ramp design for the Red Bank Road segment, it could/should be a lot tighter to conserve land.

 

@Others: even though the Red Bank Drawings show grade separations at Madison and Erie, many other at-grades and signals are proposed, not appropriate for an interstate. I also believe the posted speed for Red Bank will be 45mph, but can confirm that at the moment. Further along the new road, towards I-275, other at grades are proposed as I noted above and can be seen on the exhibits that have been posted up-thread.

 

yes the facility could be upgraded in the future, but no provisions are being introduced in the plans to make that happen. If ODOT had the urge to upgrade the whole corridor to Interstate status, then many grade crossings will have to be eliminated, more right of way purchased, shoulders widened and horizontal curves straightened, etc.

 

The proposed road will be somewhat less than a freeway, but a little more than an arterial like Reed Hartman. Implying that the $809 million is for the extension of I-74 as done on the UrbanCincy article is disingenuous, or, flat out wrong. An interstate along that stretch could easily be double that amount, furthermore an interstate facility is prohibited by the EIS that was approved for the project

 

Not an interstate:

 

 

It doesn't matter if it's not an interstate!  It's still a very large very expensive highway.  8 lanes!!!  The ramps and grade separation at Madison and Duck Creek are bad enough, but note also that they don't plan to reuse the stretch of recently rebuilt road between Erie and Colbank.  That whole corridor is very wide and built of concrete with some large sidewalks and a multi-use path as well.  Along with all the businesses on the west side of Red Bank near the Wal Mart that they'd have to demolish, that's some very expensive brand new roadway that they plan to just throw in the garbage. 

Major new roads in a world with ever more online working and shopping, permanently expensive gas and declining tax income is just so misguided. What a waste of money we don't have.

@Ram23: I agree, a tight urban diamond variant or a single point urban interchange would work great at Madison, with a frontage road serving Duck Creek. But a SPUI is very costly, namely because of the bridge that has to be constructed presumably over Red Bank, which is why an urban diamond interchange is being built at Mitchell and Interstate 75. A SPUI was ruled out at that location strictly because of cost.

 

@Jake/Etc.: Thanks for confirming what I already mentioned earlier and above, that an interchange is to be built at Madison. I already confirmed that, and have been to many of the Eastern Corridor meetings - so I'm not out of the loop.

 

But here is a list of interchanges and intersections between Interstate 71 and Interstate 275 (segment I, II, III), just so you know. For segment I, the roadway definition is called a controlled access arterial roadway, not a freeway or expressway or interstate. That is from the EIS, which is sitting in my lap.

 

And in 1.8.2 of the EIS is this gem:

"SR 32 is not to be established as an interstate highway."

 

It's pretty clear that John has never been to an Eastern Corridor meeting. That specific line - "SR 32 is not to be established as an interstate highway," was made specific in several of the meetings and open houses.

 

And under 3.2.2:

"Relocated SR 32 would be a multi-lane controlled access parkway facility, and would not serve as any part of the interstate highway system."

 

That was a general provision that came out of a task force in relation to the segment that involves a bridge over the Little Miami River. Here are the segments broken down:

 

Segment I (Red Bank Corridor, I-71 to US 50),

Segment II (US 50/Little Miami River River Crossing to Newtown Road),

Segment III (Newtown Road to Mt. Carmel-Tobasco Road), and

Segment IV (Mt. Carmel-Tobasco Road to Olive Branch-Stonelick Road).

 

Segment I

Improved intersection or urban interchange at Madison Road and Erie Avenue

Major modifications to US 50 interchange with tie-in to Wooster Road

Controlled access throughout

Modified access at Duck Creek Road

 

Segment II

No access points along river bottom area, except for potential recreational

purposes

All alternatives include rail transit tie-in, with potential rail transit lines following

along the new roadway alignment to maximize right-of-way efficiency and

minimize number of new LMR crossings

New signalized intersection at Newtown Road to be coordinated with rail transit

station and access to park and rides

 

Segment III

At-grade intersection for tie-in to Round Bottom, Edwards and Little Dry Run

roads

At-grade intersection for tie-in of Ancor access connector to Broadwell Road

area

Grade-separated intersection for tie-in of Mount Carmel Road and possibly

Eight Mile Road

 

Segment IV

This is part of the SR 32 East Corridor Study, which I've already posted about. Clermont County has a great site that I've already posted links to with diagrams of the proposed and engineered East Corridor improvements.

 

 

 

And here is 3.4.1 with specific details. But hey, if UrbanCincy comments somehow weigh in more than the EIS that has been under work for several years through task forces and workshops (that probably none of you have attended)...

 

Segment I

Roadway improvements in Segment I involve consolidation and management of access points

along existing Red Bank Road and Red Bank Expressway in order to establish a controlled

access arterial roadway of improved capacity and safety from I-71 to US 50. This segment

has a total length is about 2.5 miles, and would expand or closely follow the existing roadway

alignment.

 

Establish controlled access throughout mainline Red Bank Road.

• Typical mainline section for improved Red Bank Road should consist of:

o Four to eight 12-foot lanes (two to four in either direction) with a 14-foot wide raised median.

o Travel lanes bordered by a 2-foot curb and gutter, an 8-foot wide greenspace, a 10-foot wide

bike/pedestrian facility on the east side and a 6-foot wide sidewalk on the west, and an

outside 4-foot wide greenspace.

• Adequate storage lanes for turn movements approaching at-grade intersections.

• Design speed of 50 mph (actual posted legal speeds to be established locally).

• Landscaping along median (low plantings) and shoulders (treelawn).

• Provision for 4 to 5 bus stops (in-lane or pullouts) in either direction to be developed along mainline

Red Bank Road.

• Red Bank/US 50 interchange to be multi-modal convergence point for:

o The Wasson Rail transit corridor from the west and Oasis Rail transit corridor from the south,

o Dedicated bike paths along Wasson Road (following proposed rail line), Red Bank Road (on

east side of proposed Red Bank improvement), and along south edge of Mariemont (along

Little Miami River), and

o Bus transit routes using improved Red Bank Road, Wooster Pike and US 50.

 

Segment II

Roadway improvements in Segment II involve consolidation and management of access points

for establishing relocated SR 32 as a controlled access arterial roadway west of I-275, with a

shared roadway/rail clear span crossing of the Little Miami River; total length is about 2.6

miles.

 

Typical mainline section for relocated SR 32 consists of:

o Four 12-foot lanes (two in either direction) with a 14-foot wide raised median.

o Travel lanes bordered by 10-foot wide shoulders, a 2-foot curb, and, on the north side, an 8-

foot wide greenspace, 10-foot wide bike/pedestrian facility and an outside 4-foot wide

greenspace, and, to the south, a 40-foot wide transitway (for future rail).

o Total typical section width is 148 feet (excluding slopes).

• A clear span crossing of the Little Miami River (a shared roadway/rail crossing), with no in-stream

piers or other in-stream structures.

• Controlled access along Little Miami River bottom (except for recreational purposes).

• Left turn storage lanes for at-grade intersections.

• Closed/surface drainage systems.

• Design speed 60 mph (actual posted legal speed to be established locally).

• Parallel rail transitway along south side of relocated SR 32 (for Wasson and Oasis Lines), including

sharing of Little Miami River clear span crossing.

• Provision along north side of relocated SR 32 for dedicated bike path extending from modal

convergence point at proposed Red Bank/US 50 interchange east to existing bike paths along

Newtown Road/Little Miami River.

• New at-grade intersection or possible grade separation at Newtown Road to be coordinated with

bus/rail transit hub location, access to parks and bike trail, and crossing of existing rail (Norfolk

Southern).

• Consideration of floodplain issues in Newtown area during further SR 32 alignment development.

• Access control may require development of new local access roads paralleling improved SR 32.

 

Segment III

Similar to Segment II, roadway improvements in Segment III involve consolidation and

management of access points for establishing relocated SR 32 as a controlled access arterial

roadway west of I-275; total length is about 3.4 miles.

 

Typical mainline section for relocated SR 32 in the Round Bottom/Ancor Sub-Segment (generally

Newtown Road to base of Mt. Carmel hill) is the same as for Segment II (incorporates

bike/pedestrian facility on north side and transitway on south).

• Typical mainline section for relocated SR 32 in the Mt. Carmel Hill Sub-Segment drops the

bikeway/pedestrian facility, with only a 4-foot wide greenspace adjacent to the 2-foot curb on the

north side.

• Other general design parameters are the same as Segment II, including parallel rail transit line on

the south side.

• Mainline relocated SR 32 not to exceed an approximately 5% grade in order to accommodate

parallel rail transitway (particularly an issue in the vicinity of Mt. Carmel hill).

• At-grade intersections at Round Bottom Road/Little Dry Run Road, and tie-in to proposed Ancor

Connector. Proposed by others, the Ancor Connector will tie existing SR 32 from about the east

Newtown village limits north to Broadwell Road).

• At-grade intersection at Eight Mile Road (may not be feasible due to grade and terrain issues; to be

further evaluated in Tier 2).

• Urban interchange at tie-in to Mt. Carmel Road and possibly Eight Mile Road.

• Urban interchange at Mt. Carmel-Tobasco Road/Bells Lane.

• Access control may require development of new local access roads paralleling improved SR 32.

Ohio 32 has evolved throughout the years from a two-lane road to its current status (semi-grade separated limited-access highway), and many of the proposed alternatives show even more at-grade crossings being eliminated.  Just because Red Bank Road and US-32 currently have stoplights, and the current environmental report says, "SR 32 is not to be established as an interstate highway," that doesn't mean that someone with the necessary political will couldn't come in and change that in the future.  Especially when each round of upgrades is bringing these roads closer and closer to interstate status.

But with that analogy, you can say that US 23 between Columbus and Portsmouth could eventually become an interstate highway, despite that it was widened to four lanes between 1955 and 1970 (and there was a proposal to upgrade that to Interstate 73 but it was very cost prohibitive).

 

Sure, there could be political will 30 years from now, but the process to even get to that stage is 10 years at best. It requires essentially a restart - a new EIS to begin with, which takes 3 years at a minimum. And finding funding is another battle.

 

Look at how OH 32 (not US 32) was built east of Cincinnati: interchanges at key locations, such as at Williamsburg, Mt. Orab, and OH 93 in Jackson, and intersections at nearly every intersecting roadway. It was only fairly recently that interchanges were built for the Ford Transmission Plant at Batavia and Stonelick Road (I can pull up those specific years if anyone is interested). But even with the SR 32 East Corridor project for Clermont County (not to be confused with the Eastern Corridor study), it only calls for interchanges out towards Williamsburg and there is 0 funding for even that. And traffic counts are far too low going eastward to consider converting the remainder of OH 32 into a full interstate highway with controlled access and interchanges.

 

That said, ODOT is studying interchanges and/or overpasses for the intersections that are traffic lighted and those that have high accident rates, such as US 68, OH 122 and so forth. Those traffic lights are in rural areas and require stops from 60 MPH and have higher than usual accident rates. Average speeds on OH 32 for the most part exceed 70 MPH due to the design of the highway. (In Texas, OH 32 would be signed for 70 MPH.)

You'd think Red Bank was the Rubicon Trail or Zane's Trace in 1843 with all this proposed work.

Major new roads in a world with ever more online working and shopping, permanently expensive gas and declining tax income is just so misguided. What a waste of money we don't have.

 

This is key. Our current building pattern of widening and straightening our roads to increase speed and capacity, and well as our insatiable desire to constantly build more retail space (while fewer goods are bought in brick and mortar stores), is completely unrealistic. I can't imagine that there will ever be enough growth in Clermont or Brown county to justify full-Interstate status for OH-32. Is new development going to spring up around Red Bank Road just because we spend millions to upgrade it? If so, why haven't Kenwood Towne Place, Rookwood Pavilion, Millworks, Linden Pointe at the Lateral, and Keystone Parke filled up with new development?

 

Jake has made some great points in the past about how differently engineers and planners think. The engineers drawing up the Red Bank Expressway plans don't really care about how many homes will have to be taken via imminent domain, they just want to make sure the roads have 12" shoulders, 200"-radius onramps, and a speed limit of 45 MPH. A planner would balance the needs for faster highway travel, minimizing eminent domain acquisitions, maximizing economic development potential, and an overall future vision for the area.

Just because a EIS says "no highway" does it mean that there won't be one. Those studies are typically done to support whatever ODOT wants them to say. They could be saying that for political cover but actually be secretly planning an expanded I-74 as the next step. It probably comes down to how the next transportation bill is laid out. If the formula's the same, ODOT can use the reconstructed road as a match.

Anyway, the point of my post yesterday was not to bring up the "is ODOT extending I-74" debate again, it was to point out that our media is completely clueless on this issue. They found out that Cheeseburger in Paradise is closing because ODOT bought it for "some highway realignment" and they did not spend 30 seconds investigating what's going on. And they will be just as clueless when they run the next story about an Eastgate business being closed. No "Don't Waste Your Money" report from John Matarese about how many hundreds of millions are being spent to rebuild some interchanges for easier access to the Eastgate Mall. And yet they run a story about the 10-year old Transit Center containing no new information because they want to convince their viewers that rail is a boondoggle.

@Travis: Red Bank Expessway/Road is a major arterial in a suburban landscape, not Central Parkway or Liberty in OTR. I would agree that not every road needs to be given a highway-esque treatment, with standard 12' lanes, 10' shoulders, 20' median with jersey barrier and a 20' urban buffer zone, but understand that there is no good east-west route. In the EIS, other alternatives were explored, such as widening Interstate 275 to -eight- lanes from Interstate 471 to OH 32 and widening Interstate 471 to eight lanes from Interstate 275 north to downtown. That idea was ruled out because it would require not only a major rebuilding of both interstates, but the construction of a two arch spans over the Ohio River between Newport and Cincinnati to even realistically handle the LOS, and rebuilding sections of highway that would be cost prohibitive.

 

In my opinion, the cross county highway should have been completed east of Montgomery, which would have likely solved much of the debate over the Eastern Corridor, but that idea was scrapped due to opposition from politically strong and wealthy Indian Hill.

 

That said, there is no good east-west route.

 

My main concern is how Interstate 71 will be able to handle increased traffic. Since it is assumed that there will be major east-west movements from Interstate 74 to Red Bank via OH 562 and Interstate 75 and 71, that there may be upgrades programmed to rebuild the awful Interstate 71/OH 562 interchange. At the least, eliminate the left-hand merge and complete three through lanes through the interchange.

 

@JYP: You really don't understand how an EIS is formed or works. An EIS is required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and an EIS is just one tool that is formed for NEPA. In addition, because of the Little Miami River, there were more stringent guidelines imposed via the Clean Water and Clean Air Acts that ODOT had to submit a Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA) for the project. Also, an environmental mitigation plan, while not required, was submitted to the EPA.

 

Because this is a multi step process, and can take over a decade to complete just an EIS that involves stakeholders from over a dozen environmental groups, many townships, cities and towns along the Eastern Corridor Path, a university, and two state governments (Kentucky and Ohio), there is little to no influence to ODOT in the sense that they will "support whatever ODOT wants them to say." I was involved in the process and have been actively involved in the project for 2 years, and have worked with over 50 fine folks that did not work for ODOT - but for various organizations, causes and for their own welfare. To say that we were all influenced by ODOT, or were convinced to push a highway-only project is dense.

Sherman, I've been involved with several studies on transportation projects in Northern Kentucky and from my experience as someone who serves on some of these committees is that adherence to those regulations is pretty much going through the motions. In most cases, the consultants already have a pretty good idea of what the impacts are and can figure out ways to address it.

 

Also my argument is based on the long term plan featured prominently in the development of the international highway system spanning over several decades. Could the study have been done to take into consideration the possibility of upgrading the road to highway standards? It's definitely possible. I've seen consultants do studies "on the side" for agencies for similar things. When you add politics to the picture (i.e. involvement of state reps & congressman), things can get fast tracked to the point where a FONSI is just as good as a rubber stamp.

 

I guess it all just comes down to the integrity of the consultants and the political will. Honestly, I think the next highway bill will include some major revisions making it harder to convert this type of project into a highway down the line.

 

And that's really all I have to say on the matter.

Please, please, please take the time to read the EIS. It answers your curiosities and questions, and puts it in no clearer terms that this road is not being designed as an interstate, nor is it being designed with the capability of being upgraded in the near future (30 years).

^ And as I've said many times before, it doesn't matter.  This is still a 20th century project that's way over-designed and isn't appropriate, especially in the face of declining VMT.  It's a response to the flawed assumption that more roads will solve congestion problems.  The price tag is unfathomable in this day and age, yet somehow it keeps marching on like some zombie attack.  Is there ANY support for this project from the residents or businesses in Oakley, Madisonville, Fairfax, Newtown, Mt. Carmel, or Eastgate?  I can see some support coming from Eastgate or farther out areas, but that's because they'd be the ones who get most of the benefits, while the aforementioned neighborhoods and municipalities will be saddled with most of the burdens.

Madisonville is starting to fight it....

Sherman, this was your post:

 

show at-grade intersections with an interchange at the high accident-rate intersection with Madison that will consume the UDF, Rally's and oil change center. South of that will be more intersections, and not much in the way of roadway configuration modifications.

Then I posted the drawings that were shown at the August meeting in Madisonville, and you responded with:

 

@Jake/Etc.: Thanks for confirming what I already mentioned earlier and above, that an interchange is to be built at Madison. I already confirmed that, and have been to many of the Eastern Corridor meetings - so I'm not out of the loop.

 

 

No, you clearly didn't know about this drawing, and no doubt the sight of it here blew your mind.

 

Here are the facts:

 

-ODOT has made drawings that show Red Bank Rd. rebuilt as a fully grade-separated expressway and exhibited them publicly. 

 

-Clearly somebody, somewhere, really wants this expressway -- not for the benefit of those with property along it, but for those in eastern Hamilton County and Clermont County. 

 

-If these drawing show an expressway that is just a hair below interstate standards, it doesn't take an engineer more than a week of work on AutoCad to widen the lanes, radii, and other features necessary to make it so. 

 

-A huge project like this has a much higher likelihood to be funded suddenly in our current economic climate than it did before the collapse, with the federal government looking for "shovel ready" road projects to fund (why, again, did project planning suddenly resume last year?).  With political pressure, whatever waivers are necessary to speed a project along can be made quickly and quietly.  With our non-functioning media, no one will be there to investigate.  If a republican beats out Obama, look for major infrastructure spending to be channeled to republican-controlled states.

 

 

 

 

 

Whoa! You just confirmed what I posted way back then and 2 days ago.

 

"...show at-grade intersections with an interchange at the high accident-rate intersection with Madison..."

 

and

 

"Thanks for confirming what I already mentioned earlier and above, that an interchange is to be built at Madison."

 

The exact same comment. The Red Bank and Madison intersection has a much higher accident rate than other intersections on Red Bank Road and in the city, due to the high rate of traffic and turning traffic that occur at that intersection. To preserve capacity and improve safety, several ideas were passed: keeping the existing configuration and do nothing, add dual turn lanes in all directions, add dual turn lanes on Red Bank for Madison, build frontage roads to tie in with Madison (a really convoluted proposal) and several interchange proposals.

 

If you actually read more of the comment, you'd have seen that not all of the Eastern Corridor proposal consists of interchanges. It's access controlled, but that does not mean that intersections cannot exist - access control removes driveways, business access, et. al.

http://www.local12.com/news/local/story/Oasis-Rail-Line-in-the-Eastern-Corridor-is-On/0A2bS7igHkenTiVO4D38dQ.cspx#.Tsrw3jCMDQo.twitter

 

Construction of a long-awaited commuter rail line in Cincinnati could begin late next year. That word came today as transportation planners met to talk about the proposed train. It could bring new life to an under-utilized facility- the Downtown Cincinnati Riverfront Transit Center, which sits empty much of the time. It was designed more than a decade ago for rail transit which never materialized.

 

"We are on track, forgive the choice of words but we are on track for construction to happen," said Todd Portune, Hamilton County Commissioner. The project is called the Oasis Line. It's supposed to go from the Transit Center to the Boathouse to Fairfax and then longer term out to Newtown and Milford.  The tracks from the Montgomery Inn Boathouse out to the suburbs already exist. You don't have to build or buy them.  But heading from the Boathouse to the Transit Center, that's where there's an issue. A set of tracks disappears under dirt and then ends.

Nice. I like how Portune talks about the streetcar connection. It helps to illustrate the point that the streetcar is not intended to operate in a vacuum.

 

Too bad the newscasters don't bother to mention buses using the transit center, and they act like it's just for non-existent rail.

http://www.fox19.com/story/16096897/plans-go-forward-on-eastern-corridor-commuter-rail-gets-closer-to-reality

^ Nice footage of modern lightrail rolling stock. I like the shot of the guy walking his bike on board. Wait for the Enquirer to pull out the stock vintage photos of rail from 100 years ago.

Well the shady Eastern Corridor takes another twist.  12 misreports that the line can use the existing tracks, when that is only partly the case.  At least 6 miles would have to be completely reconstructed, meaning the ROI on this will be horrible. 

 

I think this rail line could really help people view the streetcar more favorably. It gets people excited about passenger rail in Cincinnati, and I think if people see that the streetcar would connect to the rail line, they will view it as a project with more merit.  If people see that they potentially could have an entirely rail commute from Mariemont to all parts of downtown and UC/the hospitals, that would surely garner a lot of support from the eastern suburbs.

No, this project is going to have a horrible ROI, at least as proposed currently, meaning it will be used as an argument against rail expansion.  We're 15 years into this and this is the first I've heard of using the lines that go to Loveland and Sharonville for rail feeding into the Oasis line. 

 

Is it too late to get the Wasson Line seriously considered? I have some concerns about operating the Eastern Corridor over the Oasis Line.

No, this project is going to have a horrible ROI, at least as proposed currently, meaning it will be used as an argument against rail expansion.  We're 15 years into this and this is the first I've heard of using the lines that go to Loveland and Sharonville for rail feeding into the Oasis line. 

 

Are you thinking Nashville?

The merits of the project aside, Portune says that no new tracks are required east of the boathouse. It's my understanding that the existing tracks are in very poor condition, and will need to be replaced in order to accommodate any sort of passenger rail service. Maybe he meant that no new right-of-way is required east of the boathouse.

What could you really do with the Wasson line though?  It's been gone west of Montgomery Road for decades, and it's only a single track right-of-way.  I suppose you could do a Gilbert/Montgomery light rail line that connected near Dana, but that's light rail and a different ballgame than commuter rail with DMU's. 

 

Aside from that, this rail project scares me specifically because of its relation to the Eastern Corridor highway.  It's like a distraction that isn't really meant to be a serious project on its own.  The whole Oasis line is in miserable shape, so all the tracks would need to be replaced.  One track has been abandoned for years, and the remaining one is limited to very low speeds due to its condition.  Portune is flat out lying.  Plus, the connection from the Boathouse to the Transit Center, while a short distance, is not so easy that it can be just hand waved away like they've been doing.  The whole project just seems backwards too.  These low-density commuter lines to the suburbs are the LAST transit projects that should be done.  This is after we already have a decent network of streetcars, light rail, and busways.  Doing it at the beginning, and trying to serve areas that are mostly transit-hostile, or at least aren't naturally conducive to transit, smells like a trap to me.  Plus there's the problem that this is an entirely east side project, which is going to get the west siders all in a huff and raise yet more controversy. 

Here is an article I wrote 18 months ago listing the problems with this project:

 

http://www.urbancincy.com/2010/08/breaking-down-cincinnatis-eastern-corridor-passenger-rail-plan/

 

Oddly, a twitter account called "Eastern Corridor" started following me a week ago, even though I never say anything on twitter.

Oddly, a twitter account called "Eastern Corridor" started following me a week ago, even though I never say anything on twitter.

 

They're following me too and I rarely post to Twitter at all about anything.

They're on Facebook too.

Well I guess it's safe to say they've got somebody watching who the people on the internet are who discuss and/or oppose this. 

 

If this thing cost $40 million to get running, ala the Nashville line, I don't think you'd see any opposition.  But this proposal is 10X that much, with virtually no chance for TOD's.  The big plus would be utiliziation of the transit center, which no doubt would help ridership as compared to Nashville's lonely little station on the edge of their downtown.

Unfortunately, this project doesnt make much sense.  The main problem in my mind is that the rail doesnt cross many densely populated areas or areas that could reasnably be developed around a rail station.  The one exception is the Delta/Eastern Ave. intersection.  That station would totally work.  But stations along Riverside drive would access an area that is constrained from development by the steepness of the valley leading up to Columbia Parkway.  Stations near Lunken and Beechmont Levy get close to big population centers in Mt. Lookout and Anderson, but not close enough to imagine anyone walking from those areas to a station.

Is there even enough room for park and ride stations?