People pooh-poohed UrbanCincy's assertion that the whole Eastern Corridor project is just a guise for plowing I-74 all the way through to Clermont County, but this article would seem to indicate that's exactly what ODOT has in mind. Perhaps transit advocates should join with Mariemont in having an old-fashioned freeway revolt.

It's going to hurt property values in Mariemont, no doubt about it. 

People pooh-poohed UrbanCincy's assertion that the whole Eastern Corridor project is just a guise for plowing I-74 all the way through to Clermont County, but this article would seem to indicate that's exactly what ODOT has in mind.

 

While looking at a SR 32 relocation information board at the Aug 1st LeBlond session, I was asked by a representative if I had any questions. I had only one, when will this be renamed I-74? She responded that I-74 is on the west side and that it's a highway; the SR 32 relocation plan is a limited access roadway that will provide transportation options for cyclists and pedestrians. Having already had an extended "conversation" about DMU's, I moved on.

I haven't read everything written about the project but this is the first time that I have seen the inclusion of rail and bike paths being an option by the use of the word if. Can't say I am really surprised, I have been waiting for ODOT to drop the rail/bike part since I first saw it. 

 

Smigielski said the study corridor is about 400 feet wide, and the actual roadway, if built, would be much smaller. It would likely include four, 12-foot travel lanes and a 10-foot shoulder on each side of the road, she said. The width could change if a pedestrian/bike path or a rail line is also included along the roadway, she said.

 

As far as the I-74 extension, I think it will happen. I am not sure I believe in a back room deal being concocted but everything being built is leading to the point that will make it easier to justify. 

The road will not be I-74 or a Freeway, and that restriction is legislated by being included in the NEPA documents (In the Record of Decision)

FYI - Relocated SR32 Typical:

I posted two lengthy replies with snippets from the EIS (http://www.easterncorridor.org/pdf%20milestones%20archive/Eastern%20Corridor%20Tier%201%20DEIS%202004.pdf) on specifics that the new SR 32 relocation project / Eastern Corridor will not be Interstate 74. If you believe otherwise, then you either haven't read the ROD or the studies, or you'll believe anything you read on the Internet.

 

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,2517.msg585145.html#msg585145

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,2517.msg585148.html#msg585148

 

And here is a snippet from the Record of Decision (http://www.easterncorridor.org/seg%20II-III%20files/SR32RelocationFeasibilityStudyMarch2012/AppendixA-ROD/Appendix%20A%20-%20EC%20Tier%201%20ROD.pdf):

"The purpose of the major new highwy capacity improvements in the Eastern Corridor is to implement, in logical segments, an efficient highwy corridor between I-71 and I-275 with controlled access and non-Interstate design standards employing both intersections and interchanges."

 

From the July 2012 FAQ (http://www.easterncorridor.org/seg%20II-III%20files/August2012/SR%2032%20Relocation%20FAQs%20July%202012.pdf):

"I’ve heard the SR 32 Relocation referred to both as a roadway project and a highway project.  Which is it?"

 

"The vision for the relocated SR 32 is a road that looks and feels like a boulevard or parkway – two lanes traveling in each

direction, a grassy or landscaped median in the middle, and possibly trees or other aesthetic treatments lining the road. 

Stoplights placed at key intervals along the road’s corridor would manage access on and off the roadway.  It will not be a

highway like I-71 or I-75."

 

From the Tier 1 Final Environmental Impact Statement (http://www.easterncorridor.org/pdf%20milestones%20archive/Eastern%20Corridor%20Tier%201%20FEIS%202005.pdf), someone voiced this comment and received this reply (Table 4, Page 5):

 

"Is association of SR 32 with the Appalachian Highway Development System a conflict with the city’s interest in SR 32 not becoming an interstate highway?"

 

"Relocated SR 32 is not intended or planned, nor will be designed and constructed, as an interstate highway. Relocated SR 32 will be designed as a controlled-access major arterial facility with parkway-type elements, and will not meet design standards for interstate systems."

 

You can't just issue a EIS/FEIS and then a ROD, and suddenly build something that is completely out of scope from what is defined within those documents without having to go back through the entire process of conducting research for an interstate highway, issuing a new EIS, FEIS and ROD.

Sherman, I don't doubt the authenticity of any of the documents you've found. But if there is enough political will to do so in the future, OH-32 could easily be resigned as I-74 and connect the two existing segments of I-74. Even so, the designation isn't really that important -- US-32 will be closer to Interstate standards than the Norwood Lateral or eastern portion of the Ronald Reagan Highway when this work is completed.

Political will isn't enough, unless you want to go through a five to ten year process, which would be very expensive, to reissue a new EIS, FEIS and a ROD. While it is possible, the will isn't there. And if the will was there, we would be seeing plans for a completely upgraded OH 32 and US 23 as part of Interstate 74, or a completely upgraded AA Highway as part of Interstate 74, neither of which are in any long-range planning documents. I previously posted links to the Clermont County Transportation Improvement District (CCTID) that include some potential upgrades to OH 32 within their county, that includes the closure of several at-grade intersections that carry high accident rates and the construction of several interchanges, but that's not an interstate project, that's a state development.

 

It's the same as when US 35 was upgraded between Washington Court House and Jamestown - no one came out and said that the limited-access freeway was part of some mythical interstate, even though that segment has no intersections. Across Ohio, many state and US routes are limited-access expressways and freeways, such as US 52 between Sciotoville and Chesapeake, or OH 32, or US 35 from Drexel to the West Virginia state line. If there were political movements to designate all of those freeways and expressways as interstates, it would have been happening decades ago when these routes began to be developed.

 

So I forwarded the comments above to the local ODOT district and this is their reply:

 

"There is not any plan now, nor in the future, to upgrade the Eastern Corridor and SR 32 alignment to an interstate standard facility. Constructing such a roadway would require reissuing an Environmental Impact Study that would require a new Record of Decision and would delay the project indefinitely. While there could always be plans 30, 40 or 50 years from now to upgrade the facility to an interstate highway, that plan is not being developed now. To elaborate, the only plans include spot improvements to SR 32 with potential intersection closures and interchange construction due to heavy cross traffic and turning movements in Clermont County to alleviate growing safety concerns, but it is not part of any interstate highway project.

 

The rumors to develop Interstate 73 and 74 within Ohio were dropped several years ago, and those were only preliminary studies that found that such routes were not needed. SR 32 was found to be well underutilized, and US 23 to be in sufficient capacity. Of course, spot improvements and some bypasses are needed with the US 23 corridor, such as the South Bloomfield eastern bypass and the Portsmouth-Lucasville bypass projects. Those preliminary studies were requested on behalf of local politicians, and once the feasibility study concluded that the two interstates were not needed, the plans were dropped."

Regardless of any official designations or cutesy marketing terms, this is a highway.  Whether it has a "landscaped median" or "possibly trees or other aesthetic treatments lining the road" it's not a parkway or a boulevard (which are very different things to begin with), it's a highway.  12 foot lanes and 10 foot shoulders means speeds of at least 60 mph even if it's signed for "only" 45.  It doesn't matter if it's not up to interstate standards or if there's no plans to ever make it part of I-74, it's bad on its own merits. 

 

ODOT basically wants to turn Madisonville, Fairfax, Mariemont, and Newtown into Eastgate, Landen, or West Chester.  Seriously, the road cross-section they're proposing is the same one they used on the recently widened Montgomery Road north of I-275 to the Little Miami River.  Drive through that area sometime and try not to be horrified by it.  Just because they install curbs doesn't mean it's an urban boulevard. 

So...funds for the Rt. 32 interchange have magically appeared and this $40 million project has been moved from 2019 to 2013.  We have to wonder why and how this obscure project has been given priority over unbuilt phases of I-75.

I think because it's relatively cheap. The 270/315/23 interchange project up here also got moved up. I wouldn't be surprised if it's because it's "only" $90 million.

I'm not sure what Hyde Park, Fairfax, and others are doing about it but I know Mariemont isn't taking this lightly and are strongly opposed to it.

So...funds for the Rt. 32 interchange have magically appeared and this $40 million project has been moved from 2019 to 2013.  We have to wonder why and how this obscure project has been given priority over unbuilt phases of I-75.

 

ODOT: "We'll build this road now, and use gas taxes from the induced demand to pay for it in the future."

 

REALITY: "The days of growing gas tax revenues, let alone those able to keep up with rising costs of construction, are over."

 

RESULT: "A bankrupt ODOT."

$200K OK'd for Eastern Corridor project

 

The Ohio Department of Transportation has awarded $200,000 to be used for the Downtown portion of the Eastern Corridor transit rail project, Hamilton County commissioner Todd Portune said.

 

Project leaders plan to use the funding to help secure right-of-way access for the proposed rail line between The Banks transit center and the Montgomery Inn Boathouse.

I shocked and amazed that ODOT has awarded this money...

Maybe some at ODOT thought this was for a guard"rail" project when they approved it? In all seriousness, the funding is greatly appreciated by All Aboard Ohio and will hopefully lead to the investment of rail construction dollars.

 

A surprise to us Wednesday night; train cars can still proceed past Montgomery Inn entrance, even after a ton of gravel was dumped on the tracks in 2011!

They expect it to open 2016? That's kind of ambitious.

I don't understand why state funding comes for a bad rail project, but gets pulled for a good one.

^ Because the suburbs are involved in this one?

Bad because it's a starter or bad all the way around even if it was the last line built?

Bad because it's a starter or bad all the way around even if it was the last line built?

 

Look at the route. It serves probably the lowest density area possible for a line heading out of Downtown. To the south is the river for most of the way, to the north is a hill which is a pedestrian obstacle. Much of the land it would serve is in a floodplain, and therefore undevelopable.

 

It doesn't have the characteristics of a successful commuter rail route, which should be built to serve as many people as possible and serve areas which are transit-oriented development-ready.

Bad because it's a starter or bad all the way around even if it was the last line built?

 

Look at the route. It serves probably the lowest density area possible for a line heading out of Downtown. To the south is the river for most of the way, to the north is a hill which is a pedestrian obstacle. Much of the land it would serve is in a floodplain, and therefore undevelopable.

 

It doesn't have the characteristics of a successful commuter rail route, which should be built to serve as many people as possible and serve areas which are transit-oriented development-ready.

 

Have you ever been on Columbia Parkway or 471 during rush hour? People hate on this project all the time, but I'm pretty sure thousands of commuters from the far out east suburbs will park and ride in a heartbeat.  It will be a good way to warm up the average anti-rail crowd to how nice rail transit can be.

Jmeck had an analysis on UrbanCincy stating the annual operating costs would be about the same as for 3C. Hard to imagine people who thought that was too much money for a cross-state line will ever warm up to this. I guess time will tell. My feeling is it would make more sense to invest in a line which has more potential nodes for TOD and more existing residential and commercial destinations along the entire line.

If you have political support, and few political enemies, then any project can move forward. Often, the project that's least threatening to the status quo can get traction. And yes, that sentence is intended to have multiple meanings.

Have you ever been on Columbia Parkway or 471 during rush hour? People hate on this project all the time, but I'm pretty sure thousands of commuters from the far out east suburbs will park and ride in a heartbeat.  It will be a good way to warm up the average anti-rail crowd to how nice rail transit can be.

 

The entire east side is just gridlocked, isn't it?

 

Jmeck had an analysis on UrbanCincy stating the annual operating costs would be about the same as for 3C. Hard to imagine people who thought that was too much money for a cross-state line will ever warm up to this. I guess time will tell. My feeling is it would make more sense to invest in a line which has more potential nodes for TOD and more existing residential and commercial destinations along the entire line.

 

This project has support from a lot of Republicans (which is secretly why I think so many here hate it, but that's a debate for another day) who were anti 3C.  Wihle I agree it would make more sense to invest in alternate routes, or routes through other parts of the city, I'm not going to stand in the way of a project like this that is ultimately a compromise. 

 

The argument against the streetcar being too small and serving too few areas is that the city has to start somewhere small, and build up to something bigger in light of the MetroMoves failure at the polls.  I view the eastern corridor as another piece of that small start. 

I just worry that this project is being pushed in part to make the highway portion of it more palatable, and so they can point to the rail portion's lackluster performance to say further transit projects are unwarranted or won't work here, etc.  That's almost always the case anyway when you build new rail AND highways in the same corridor, as there's just not enough traffic to support both.  It also inflates the project cost because there's no way the DOT will skimp on the highway even when they're building perfectly good transit as well.  I can see a situation where they have some funding issues and leave the rail corridor unbuilt after they squashed the opposition to the project.

 

The real issue with this rail proposal is that it's least useful within the city due to the terrain and pattern of development along its corridor, but that's still many miles of track that needs to be rebuilt and maintained.  Even the suburbs that will benefit are few and far between, and then only with park-and-ride situations, so commuter traffic will be heaviest, leading to inefficient use of the infrastructure. 

Well put Jjakucyk. You're exactly right. It's like a a committed carnivore suddenly announcing that he will become a vegetarian to see 'what all the fuss is about'. He then eats nothing but raw carrots for weeks becoming weak and then ill. His intentions was always to show that vegetarianism doesn't work. We'd be better off rejecting this money and working on real projects that have a chance and will help Cincinnati, instead of Clermont County.

^^ Your point about using "the rail portion's lackluster performance to say further transit projects are unwarranted or won't work here, etc." is why I don't like the project. Not because Republicans support it. I'm afraid it will not succeed and it will serve as a political barrier for projects that would succeed.

 

^ I don't know if the conspiracy aspect is correct. They may think it's a good idea, because they don't have a good understanding of rail and what makes it successful. But whether they support it because they want it to fail or they support it because they think it will succeed, the possibility is real that it will serve as an example of failure for rail opponents to exploit.

 

This project has support from a lot of Republicans (which is secretly why I think so many here hate it, but that's a debate for another day) who were anti 3C.  Wihle I agree it would make more sense to invest in alternate routes, or routes through other parts of the city, I'm not going to stand in the way of a project like this that is ultimately a compromise. 

 

The argument against the streetcar being too small and serving too few areas is that the city has to start somewhere small, and build up to something bigger in light of the MetroMoves failure at the polls.  I view the eastern corridor as another piece of that small start. 

 

I don't think that has anything to do with it. It has to do with the fact that, out of all the possible routes we could choose for our first commuter rail line, this is probably the worst option. There is almost no opportunity for new development along the line; meanwhile, there are other routes that would connect the same two endpoints in addition to traveling through other neighborhoods, providing higher ridership and development opportunities.

 

Now, I think the Eastern Corridor rail will still be a success, because it will take cars off the road and warm some people up to the concept of rail transit. But I also expect the COAST crowd to point to it and say, "There was no new development! See! Rail doesn't cause development!" Well, yeah, because there's nowhere to develop along this particular route.

 

If a bunch of politicians (and I don't care what party they belong to) are able to make this happen, great. It they can do it without it becoming a "controversial" project that 700 WLW bashes on a daily basis, awesome.

The projected ridership of the streetcar on operating year 1 is higher than the projected ridership of the Eastern Corridor in year 20.

 

This project has support from a lot of Republicans (which is secretly why I think so many here hate it, but that's a debate for another day) who were anti 3C. 

 

Todd Portune is Republican? And hated 3C?

 

My concern is the projected rail ridership for the Oasis Line (riverfront routing) is too small. I doubt it will win FTA funding because of that. My hope is that this will cause the compromise necessary to embrace the Wasson Line. If it doesn't, then rail probably won't be built in the Eastern Corridor. And by then the highway elements will be well under construction if not completed -- which of course there is no stringent economic criteria they have to meet, unlike rail/transit, in order to get federal funding.

Todd Portune is a Democrat.

 

The quicker Cincinnati gets started on its regional rail network, the better.  I don't buy the conspiracies being tossed around, this is a pet project of the Eastside and it's the first domino in making the riverfront transit center the reason corporations want to build towers on Third.  High-rise residential is feasible along the Oasis line.  Every city with regional rail or even city transit has lines that have lukewarm ridership.  I won't get caught up in the fact that Cincinnati's lesser-used line was built first. This project has long-term win all over it for transit supporters and metropolitan Cincinnati.

 

This project has support from a lot of Republicans (which is secretly why I think so many here hate it, but that's a debate for another day) who were anti 3C. 

 

Todd Portune is Republican? And hated 3C?

 

No. I was stating that this project hasn't had opposition from Republicans that most rail projects unfortunately seem to have.  The fact that it serves heavily republican suburbs may have something to do with that.

 

My concern is the projected rail ridership for the Oasis Line (riverfront routing) is too small. I doubt it will win FTA funding because of that. My hope is that this will cause the compromise necessary to embrace the Wasson Line. If it doesn't, then rail probably won't be built in the Eastern Corridor. And by then the highway elements will be well under construction if not completed -- which of course there is no stringent economic criteria they have to meet, unlike rail/transit, in order to get federal funding.

 

The ridership is small but not insignificant.  I think the Wasson line is a fine alternative, or even supplement, that could be built at a later date.  However I think the amount of undevelopable land along the Oasis is being exaggerated.  There are several areas of the East End, Columbia Tusculum, etc. that could undergo densification.

 

My stance is that the highway is likely going to be built no matter what, we might as well take what we can get on the rail portion. This rail money could be better spent on a line elsewhere, but I have absolutely no faith it would be should this project be stopped.

It's not that there isn't developable land in the East End or around Newtown, Roundbottom, etc., but they're all in floodplains which complicates redevelopment a lot.  The trouble with the East End specifically is that it's very narrow and linear, which is great for streetcar or light rail transit with close stops and frequent service, but isn't so good for commuter rail with its wider stop spacing and less frequent service geared mainly to commuters going in one direction.   

I think the real secret here is that "they" want this built as heavy commuter rail so that in the long-term, when trucking is reduced by gasoline prices in favor of rail, freight trains can once again traverse the Cincinnati riverfront via the Transit Center.  Speaking of which, a string of about 50 coal cars was parked on the future Transit Center approach track in the Bengals tailgating lot yesterday, compressing the tailgating into a Manhattanesque density. 

Todd Portune is a Democrat.

 

No. I was stating that this project hasn't had opposition from Republicans that most rail projects unfortunately seem to have.  The fact that it serves heavily republican suburbs may have something to do with that.

 

I know. It's called sarcasm. He didn't hate 3C either.

 

My point is that not all the supporters of this project are GOPers. Or hated 3C.

 

Laugh a little folks. If you can't laugh at the silliness of politics, then can I suggest some Maalox?

I think the real secret here is that "they" want this built as heavy commuter rail so that in the long-term, when trucking is reduced by gasoline prices in favor of rail, freight trains can once again traverse the Cincinnati riverfront via the Transit Center.  Speaking of which, a string of about 50 coal cars was parked on the future Transit Center approach track in the Bengals tailgating lot yesterday, compressing the tailgating into a Manhattanesque density. 

 

I think the real secret here is that "they" want this built as heavy commuter rail so that in the long-term, when trucking is reduced by gasoline prices in favor of rail, freight trains can once again traverse the Cincinnati riverfront via the Transit Center.  Speaking of which, a string of about 50 coal cars was parked on the future Transit Center approach track in the Bengals tailgating lot yesterday, compressing the tailgating into a Manhattanesque density.

 

That doesn't really make sense from a railroad operations perspective. With the abandonment of the L&N, PRR, and the mothballing of the peavine, there are no real east-side railroads to speak of. That's the whole reason they let the connecting railway on the riverfront be abandoned in the first place. It may be somewhat useful to the I&O to have the Oasis line reconnect with the ditch track, but I doubt it would be worth a grand conspiracy.

I agree that it's hard to see how it would be useful given current conditions for freight.  But I'll add that the Oasis line is also the "back door" for Amtrak/3C's to get to the Transit Center.  Lunken Airport was of course one of the proposed terminal stations for the 3C's.  We have also seen, as part of the Oasis hype, indications that commuter rail from that line that meets the B&O near Norwood Waterworks Park could use this approach. 

But again, commuter rail from the north is where the big ridership will be, not from the eastern suburbs.  The true high speed rail line between the 3c's proposed back in the 80's had a dedicated double track traveling in a tunnel under Camp Washington then on a 10-mile viaduct above the B&O and one of the lines up to Dayton, as far north as around Cross County Highway.  I'd imagine trains could travel over this approach at around 50mph.  Instead, the back door approach into the Transit Center via the Oasis Line from northern suburbs would probably be limited to around 30mph. 

 

 

I can think of two good reasons to extend the OASIS line westward from the boathouse:

 

1. If the 3-C line is ever built through the "back door" route over the OASIS line, it would allow a connection to the transit center. Furthermore, if the 3-C line is ever built in a loop including the OASIS line, the transit center, and one of the Mill Creek Valley lines, it would allow a train to return to Cleveland without a complicating turning movement.

 

2. Rail America controls the OASIS line and the ditch track, which are only a couple thousand feet apart across the riverfront. They connect the two via trackage rights over the Mill Creek Valley lines. While it may not be a great advantage for Rail America to connect the OASIS with the ditch track across the riverfront for their own freight operations, any traffic that can be removed from the Mill Creek Valley lines will benefit CSX and NS, because the throat of the yard near Ludlow Viaduct is a system bottleneck. It is not necessary, and may not even be possible, to connect through the transit center, though. A route south of the stadiums may be better.

 

For commuter rail, extending the OASIS line to the transit center will only benefit if the commuter rail actually gets built. It seems that there is some money to connect to the transit center while we are still awaiting a decision on whether the rest of the project will ever get built.

 

 

I hope you're sharing this input at the public meeting tonight at the Museum Center. It's underway right now.....

 

http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/cityofcincinnati/city-events/open-house-railroad-improvement-safety-plan/

 

^Didn't know about the public meeting. Thanks for the plan, though. There's some good data in there.

 

^The plan mentions the possibility of re-activating the old B&O Toledo line on the west side of the Mill Creek as a way to bypass the Mill Creek Valley lines, an idea that I first heard from Jake on this site. I didn't see any mention of use of the transit center for passenger rail, however.

 

I am still not clear if the transit center will support heavy rail or not.

 

^Didn't know about the public meeting. Thanks for the plan, though. There's some good data in there.

 

It was in All Aboard Ohio's newsletter! ;-) If you aren't getting it, then you aren't getting it. Join at allaboardohio.org  :speech:

Furthermore, if the 3-C line is ever built in a loop including the OASIS line, the transit center, and one of the Mill Creek Valley lines, it would allow a train to return to Cleveland without a complicating turning movement.

 

Almost all commuter trains and many regional intercity trains utilize push-pull operation, with an operators cab at each end of the consist. The only "complicated turning movement" involved for a push-pull train is for the engineer and brakeman to walk down to the other end of the train at the terminal, and for the crew to flip the seats around so they're facing the opposite direction.