^ You need to look at everything they are doing through the lens of "Is this consistent with a long-term plan to bring Interstate Highway 74 through the Red Bank corridor?"

 

Urban Cincy (actually D. Cole) produced this graphic:

 

"One picture is worth a thousand words."

 

And understand, some of this - I-74 @ I-75 and future I-74 @ I-275 - is in the works already. Not much of a stretch to see where this is going. Nice work, David.

How could this not be tolled? 

Think there's not a grand plan here?

 

Very well, read on: http://portsmouth-dailytimes.com/news/news/2581098/Portsmouth-Bypass-Clears-Final-Hurdle

I grew up in Georgetown, Ohio and SR-32 is a big corridor through our county (Brown). I can remember when I was in high school in the late 1990s and all of the expansion was going on in Eastgate. Around this time all of us out in the boonies would hear people talking about how SR-32 was going to become an interstate and how great that would be. Just an a story I thought I'd share.

 

 

Ohio State Route 32 was previously called... Ohio State Route 74. (It was renamed when I-74 was built, because Ohio does not allow route numbers to be re-used, even if one is an Interstate and the other is a state highway.)

 

Coincidence? Or has this always been planned to be the "74" corridor?

Meaning a concerted effort to bypass all cities big and small? An utopia of connecting podunk towns and suburbia?

I grew up in Georgetown, Ohio and SR-32 is a big corridor through our county (Brown). I can remember when I was in high school in the late 1990s and all of the expansion was going on in Eastgate. Around this time all of us out in the boonies would hear people talking about how SR-32 was going to become an interstate and how great that would be. Just an a story I thought I'd share.

 

 

Ohio State Route 32 was previously called... Ohio State Route 74. (It was renamed when I-74 was built, because Ohio does not allow route numbers to be re-used, even if one is an Interstate and the other is a state highway.)

 

Coincidence? Or has this always been planned to be the "74" corridor?

 

It's a coincidence.  A segment or two of "Old 74" is still over there. 

 

Compared to the current highway options, slicing across the east side with I-74 would (at best) reduce cross city travel by only 2-3 miles than taking 75-471-275. That would be a total waste of money and land, with no significant benefit. Is there anybody at ODOT who realizes that there are better uses for their budget?

If they want to finish i74 wouldn't using 52 make more sense then using 32?

Then connect it up to 64 in KY

^^You would need 2 new bridges with that scenario.

were is the 2nd bridge I only can think of 1 new one around huntington ky (to go from 2 lanes to 4 or 5 )

I was talking about the route of I-275/I-471.

 

You would need a new I-275 bridge and a new I-471 bridge.

I was talking about the route of I-275/I-471.

 

You would need a new I-275 bridge and a new I-471 bridge.

 

Why would you need new ones?

Those bridges would not be able to handle the extra traffic  of a new interstate coming through the region. If anything They want to reduce traffic on I-471 to begin with.

An extended I-74 is more about industrial development in southern Ohio and better connecting more of Ohio with markets in the West and Southeast and the I-75 Corridor. And that's a good thing, although I'd prefer to have that bypass the city and not serve to depopulate it.

 

This isn't really much about regional commuting, although that is how they are framing it.

Those bridges would not be able to handle the extra traffic  of a new interstate coming through the region. If anything They want to reduce traffic on I-471 to begin with.

 

Isn't 471-275 already the preferred route for Midwestern traffic bound for southern OH (and vice-versa)?  I know all about induced traffic demand, but you make it sound like there will suddenly be thousands and thousands of extra cars crossing those bridges.

 

The 471 bridge is heavy at rush hour, yeah, but any other time of day it's fine.  And the Combs-Hehl bridge can't be anywhere near capacity.

There's not going to be much new long-range traffic on 32 when and if it becomes I-74.  It'll be an increase in people commuting from Clermont County and points east.  The projected traffic counts on the Portsmouth Bypass and the new combined I-73/74 in West Virginia are comically low, like under 10,000 cars per day. 

I thought it odd that "highways-uber-alles" ODOT would care one whit about the Eastern Corridor, but now I see it's just a stalking horse for I-74 and they will steer things in that direction. Oh, we may get a few trinkets thrown our way, but that's the real goal.

 

Assuming that's true, which I think it is, we should really push hard for the Oasis Line, regardless of how uneconomical it might be.  If they're going to force an interstate through there one way or another, then make them pay for the privilege by supplying a rail line for those that want it.

 

Yep, that will be key. I'm willing to bet the Oasis line is a front so ODOT can claim they "considered alternatives". And they have the perfect opportunity to swoop in after the Streetcar dust settled.

 

So... probably the best course of action is to fill out that survey in favor of responsible transit. And get others to do it too. Especially people in Madisonville, Mariemont, and Newtown. If the Oasis line gets enough popular support, then ODOT will have to eat their tactic and build the line. If not... they win.

It's rare when pro rail and anti rail forces agree on transit.  The eastern corridor is one of those issues. Both sides seem firmly against the road and rail proposals

Compared to the current highway options, slicing across the east side with I-74 would (at best) reduce cross city travel by only 2-3 miles than taking 75-471-275. That would be a total waste of money and land, with no significant benefit. Is there anybody at ODOT who realizes that there are better uses for their budget?

 

Whatever ODOT's original purpose was, today it exists as the Highway Contractors Full Employment Program. It is a public sector feeding trough for road contractors. They believe that if you add more pavement, more driving will be induced and more gas taxes will result to add more pavement. This "Black Hole Theory Of Highway Investment" was in fact the model for many decades.....

 

 

However, this model is increasingly no longer applicable as miles-driven has declined per capita as a national average, and in some Ohio metros. So now the more lane-miles of pavement the highwaymen add, the less vehicle-miles of traffic (and gas tax revenues) per lane-mile there are to financially sustain it. That's why the highway contractors are strongly pushing for a $1.9 billion general taxpayer-subsidized bond issue (Ohio Senate Joint Resolution 6) [ http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/res.cfm?ID=130_SJR_6 ] to build more roads, bridges and sewers. Yet there this no revenue stream identified to maintain and sustain this mammoth expansion of infrastructure. It would be like asking for the money to build a Cincinnati Streetcar without knowing what, if any fares, advertising or corporate sponsors will ever be available to sustain it. But we don't ask those kinds of questions for roads, only for rail and transit.

 

The highway-transit double-standard is alive and well and living in Ohio!

 

The connection of the two 74s in Ohio and NC just isn't going to happen. Blasting through WV and western VA to interstate standards these days requires megabux that were around in the '70-'90s for this kind of stuff but not now. Anyone over 30 familiar with Appalachia remembers what feats dualizing the WV turnpike, opening 64 through SE WV, finishing I-68 and even getting 77/81 through Wythevile VA were.

There's not going to be much new long-range traffic on 32 when and if it becomes I-74.  It'll be an increase in people commuting from Clermont County and points east.  The projected traffic counts on the Portsmouth Bypass and the new combined I-73/74 in West Virginia are comically low, like under 10,000 cars per day. 

 

Oh so less than the 11,000 people that drive on Northwest Blvd. here in Columbus. And 1/3rd the amount that drive on 5th. Perhaps they should be turned into Interstates.

There's not going to be much new long-range traffic on 32 when and if it becomes I-74.  It'll be an increase in people commuting from Clermont County and points east.  The projected traffic counts on the Portsmouth Bypass and the new combined I-73/74 in West Virginia are comically low, like under 10,000 cars per day. 

 

Oh so less than the 11,000 people that drive on Northwest Blvd. here in Columbus. And 1/3rd the amount that drive on 5th. Perhaps they should be turned into Interstates.

 

Shhhh...don't wake up the contractors...

There's not going to be much new long-range traffic on 32 when and if it becomes I-74.  It'll be an increase in people commuting from Clermont County and points east.  The projected traffic counts on the Portsmouth Bypass and the new combined I-73/74 in West Virginia are comically low, like under 10,000 cars per day. 

 

I think that's kind of the point here. Southeast Ohio is the Empty Quarter of our state. I suspect they think this highway will bring more business there. And they're probably right. I mean, would Honda have built that huge plant in Greensburg if I-74 weren't there?

The connection of the two 74s in Ohio and NC just isn't going to happen. Blasting through WV and western VA to interstate standards these days requires megabux that were around in the '70-'90s for this kind of stuff but not now. Anyone over 30 familiar with Appalachia remembers what feats dualizing the WV turnpike, opening 64 through SE WV, finishing I-68 and even getting 77/81 through Wythevile VA were.

 

It's actually under construction in West Virginia as we speak:

 

It was authorized by the federal government in 1991 but there was no funding until 1997, when West Virginia created the "King Coal Highway Authority", which set up an elaborate public/private partnership whereby the coal companies are doing the earthmoving, mining coal out of the hills as they do so, then WVDOT is paying to have I-74 paved on the grading prepared by the coal companies.  It's a slow process, but West Virginia is getting a spectacular road built for them for pennies relative to the cost of the WV Turnpike.  I-73/74 is being built across the hilltops, hundreds of feet above the valley floors, with almost no bridges and zero tunnels because the coal companies are filling in the valleys. 

 

 

 

 

There you go. A line on the map.

Do we need all of this when we are driving less and will be further into the future? Of course unless there is efficient electric or solar powered cars driving all over the place.

The connection of the two 74s in Ohio and NC just isn't going to happen. Blasting through WV and western VA to interstate standards these days requires megabux that were around in the '70-'90s for this kind of stuff but not now. Anyone over 30 familiar with Appalachia remembers what feats dualizing the WV turnpike, opening 64 through SE WV, finishing I-68 and even getting 77/81 through Wythevile VA were.

 

It's actually under construction in West Virginia as we speak:

 

It was authorized by the federal government in 1991 but there was no funding until 1997, when West Virginia created the "King Coal Highway Authority", which set up an elaborate public/private partnership whereby the coal companies are doing the earthmoving, mining coal out of the hills as they do so, then WVDOT is paying to have I-74 paved on the grading prepared by the coal companies.  It's a slow process, but West Virginia is getting a spectacular road built for them for pennies relative to the cost of the WV Turnpike.  I-73/74 is being built across the hilltops, hundreds of feet above the valley floors, with almost no bridges and zero tunnels because the coal companies are filling in the valleys. 

 

 

 

 

 

But it is not being built to interstate grade; rather ARC corridor grade.

"interstate grade" is a term used by highway engineers and politicians. The users - commuters, other motorists, truckers, etc - don't care about the designation. They only care about how many minutes it will take to get there.

There's not going to be much new long-range traffic on 32 when and if it becomes I-74.  It'll be an increase in people commuting from Clermont County and points east.  The projected traffic counts on the Portsmouth Bypass and the new combined I-73/74 in West Virginia are comically low, like under 10,000 cars per day. 

 

I think that's kind of the point here. Southeast Ohio is the Empty Quarter of our state. I suspect they think this highway will bring more business there. And they're probably right. I mean, would Honda have built that huge plant in Greensburg if I-74 weren't there?

 

Here's where we get into the unpleasant part of Japanese culture. There's certain "types" of Americans that they don't want working for them. They are OK with Americans from farming areas such as Indiana, Marysville, Ada and Lincoln NE, but they don't like employing too many "destitute" Americans such as ones that suffer from deep poverty.

"interstate grade" is a term used by highway engineers and politicians. The users - commuters, other motorists, truckers, etc - don't care about the designation. They only care about how many minutes it will take to get there.

 

Outsiders do.

I've driven every section that is completed so far in W Virginia.  There are about 8 of them, some of which are just upgrades to 52 and others that are all-new roads.  The entire "King Coal" section is all-new roads.  In all operational sections they have graded for a 4-lane divided highway but have only paved one side, meaning currently traffic is 2-way on one half.  It's pretty easy to see how they'll do diamond interchanges when and if that day arrives. 

 

The crazy thing is how little traffic is on these completed sections.  Minutes go by without a single vehicle coming along.  I parked my car on the shoulder to take photos and at one point the silence was broken, and from each direction came pizza delivery drivers, who passed one another at a combined 120mph 700 feet above the valley floor.  Now that's economic development!

 

I think that's kind of the point here. Southeast Ohio is the Empty Quarter of our state. I suspect they think this highway will bring more business there. And they're probably right. I mean, would Honda have built that huge plant in Greensburg if I-74 weren't there?

 

And a rail corridor -- the Cincinnati-Indianapolis rail corridor was upgraded with heavier rail and a new yard built at the Honda plant.

 

BTW automakers prefer to not build new manufacturing plants in urbanized areas close to labor pools because most urbanized areas are in non-compliance with EPA air quality standards, so the EPA permitting process for these auto plants takes too long and costs too much for most automakers to put up with. And where does a significant amount of air pollution come from?? Yep, cars. So if you want to attract an auto plant to your metro area, reduce the driving in it first to be in compliance with EPA air quality standards -- as Portland, OR recently came into compliance with!

I think that's kind of the point here. Southeast Ohio is the Empty Quarter of our state. I suspect they think this highway will bring more business there. And they're probably right. I mean, would Honda have built that huge plant in Greensburg if I-74 weren't there?

 

And a rail corridor -- the Cincinnati-Indianapolis rail corridor was upgraded with heavier rail and a new yard built at the Honda plant.

 

BTW automakers prefer to not build new manufacturing plants in urbanized areas close to labor pools because most urbanized areas are in non-compliance with EPA air quality standards, so the EPA permitting process for these auto plants takes too long and costs too much for most automakers to put up with. And where does a significant amount of air pollution come from?? Yep, cars. So if you want to attract an auto plant to your metro area, reduce the driving in it first to be in compliance with EPA air quality standards -- as Portland, OR recently came into compliance with!

 

So maybe if 32 was upgraded between Batavia and Portsmouth, along with the NS line that runs parallel to the road for quite a ways, maybe we could get an auto plant in Brown or Adams County? :)

 

Compared to the current highway options, slicing across the east side with I-74 would (at best) reduce cross city travel by only 2-3 miles than taking 75-471-275. That would be a total waste of money and land, with no significant benefit. Is there anybody at ODOT who realizes that there are better uses for their budget?

 

Have a hard time seeing this happen. First, an affluent community of Mariemont would not allow an interstate to go through their town square let alone their backyard. If it does happen, I imagine the route would be tweaked a bit.  Second, there does not seem to be much need for it anyway, After all, I64 in KY goes E/W from Lexington and covers most of the NE part of KY. This is a sparsely populated area. Is there really a need for another interstate to go 40 miles north for the same route.

It will not save interstate truckers much time with this route which is the impetus for such a highway. They just don't need it.

So maybe if 32 was upgraded between Batavia and Portsmouth, along with the NS line that runs parallel to the road for quite a ways, maybe we could get an auto plant in Brown or Adams County? :)

 

Sure. Then we can all commute 50 miles each way to our autoworker jobs until we grow tired of the commute. It's little wonder that industrial jobs are often the forward edge of urban sprawl.

 

Have a hard time seeing this happen. First, an affluent community of Mariemont would not allow an interstate to go through their town square let alone their backyard. If it does happen, I imagine the route would be tweaked a bit.  Second, there does not seem to be much need for it anyway, After all, I64 in KY goes E/W from Lexington and covers most of the NE part of KY. This is a sparsely populated area. Is there really a need for another interstate to go 40 miles north for the same route.

It will not save interstate truckers much time with this route which is the impetus for such a highway. They just don't need it.

 

That's why they're building it one little harmless segment at a time. That can be done with superhighways, rather than rails which has to be built over the entire route but with a low-level of service first and then with added frequencies and higher speeds later.

I think that's kind of the point here. Southeast Ohio is the Empty Quarter of our state. I suspect they think this highway will bring more business there. And they're probably right. I mean, would Honda have built that huge plant in Greensburg if I-74 weren't there?

 

And a rail corridor -- the Cincinnati-Indianapolis rail corridor was upgraded with heavier rail and a new yard built at the Honda plant.

 

BTW automakers prefer to not build new manufacturing plants in urbanized areas close to labor pools because most urbanized areas are in non-compliance with EPA air quality standards, so the EPA permitting process for these auto plants takes too long and costs too much for most automakers to put up with. And where does a significant amount of air pollution come from?? Yep, cars. So if you want to attract an auto plant to your metro area, reduce the driving in it first to be in compliance with EPA air quality standards -- as Portland, OR recently came into compliance with!

 

So maybe if 32 was upgraded between Batavia and Portsmouth, along with the NS line that runs parallel to the road for quite a ways, maybe we could get an auto plant in Brown or Adams County? :)

 

 

We already have a closed one just outside of Batavia

I think that's kind of the point here. Southeast Ohio is the Empty Quarter of our state. I suspect they think this highway will bring more business there. And they're probably right. I mean, would Honda have built that huge plant in Greensburg if I-74 weren't there?

 

And a rail corridor -- the Cincinnati-Indianapolis rail corridor was upgraded with heavier rail and a new yard built at the Honda plant.

 

BTW automakers prefer to not build new manufacturing plants in urbanized areas close to labor pools because most urbanized areas are in non-compliance with EPA air quality standards, so the EPA permitting process for these auto plants takes too long and costs too much for most automakers to put up with. And where does a significant amount of air pollution come from?? Yep, cars. So if you want to attract an auto plant to your metro area, reduce the driving in it first to be in compliance with EPA air quality standards -- as Portland, OR recently came into compliance with!

My thoughts are that they also require a heckuva lot of contiguous area too; and I suspect the just in time delivery required of their suppliers support fast transportation access and ancillary development of supplier plants that can't be accommodated in dense areas.

 

Are rural areas generally anti Labor or pro-Labor?

What also really hurts Appalachian automaking fantasies is terrain. Brown and Adams Counties aren't too bad with them lying in the extended Kentucky Bluegrass area between eastern Clermont and NW Scioto counties which is much flatter than what is seen to the east. But why would they spend the extra money on blasting, grading and draining a site (and put up with the delays) in a mountain range when they can open up in a cornfield?  Why push diesel-gobbling semis over those mountains when they don't have to? The Toyota plant in WV lies in the almost flat Teays River valley -- an ancient river that lies deep underground but left a flat channel right in the middle of a state with almost no significant flat areas outside of the extreme tip of the eastern panhandle. And freight rail right through the middle. These plants definitely don't happen without freight rail.

 

And the Chemical Valley along the Kanawah is probably out for the reasons KJP cited. US 33 has served Honda well outside of Marysville.

I think that's kind of the point here. Southeast Ohio is the Empty Quarter of our state. I suspect they think this highway will bring more business there. And they're probably right. I mean, would Honda have built that huge plant in Greensburg if I-74 weren't there?

 

And a rail corridor -- the Cincinnati-Indianapolis rail corridor was upgraded with heavier rail and a new yard built at the Honda plant.

 

BTW automakers prefer to not build new manufacturing plants in urbanized areas close to labor pools because most urbanized areas are in non-compliance with EPA air quality standards, so the EPA permitting process for these auto plants takes too long and costs too much for most automakers to put up with. And where does a significant amount of air pollution come from?? Yep, cars. So if you want to attract an auto plant to your metro area, reduce the driving in it first to be in compliance with EPA air quality standards -- as Portland, OR recently came into compliance with!

 

So maybe if 32 was upgraded between Batavia and Portsmouth, along with the NS line that runs parallel to the road for quite a ways, maybe we could get an auto plant in Brown or Adams County? :)

 

 

We already have a closed one just outside of Batavia

 

It was a joke. Trust me. I had a lot of friends whose fathers worked at the Ford plant in Batavia and the Milacron place in Mt. Orab.

 

I'm against an expansion of I-74 as it's currently planned. I am for commuter rail and I see some benefit to the Oasis line as I think the Wasson line makes more sense for a light rail project. I can see why some are against the Oasis line and I have some misgivings about it myself but I can also see a chance for success.

Look at the new Oasis report, people...we're 14 years into this and they still don't know if they want this thing to run on the existing freight tracks east of Red Bank and terminate at the Milford Parkway or to follow the new SR 32 and terminate at SR 32 & I-275.  That's a huge difference! 

 

Then, they still don't know if they're going to completely rebuild the Oasis line from DT to Lunken as a single track or double track railroad -- one track kept for freight use and the other for commuter rail, or combined use on a single rebuilt track, AND they don't know if they have to rebuild all of the overpasses or not. 

 

Why does the service have to be brand-new DMU's?  Can't they buy some old commuter passenger cars like Nashville did?

 

So the cost estimates being thrown around will vary by at least $100 million!

 

 

Look at the new Oasis report, people...we're 14 years into this and they still don't know if they want this thing to run on the existing freight tracks east of Red Bank and terminate at the Milford Parkway or to follow the new SR 32 and terminate at SR 32 & I-275.  That's a huge difference! 

 

Then, they still don't know if they're going to completely rebuild the Oasis line from DT to Lunken as a single track or double track railroad -- one track kept for freight use and the other for commuter rail, or combined use on a single rebuilt track, AND they don't know if they have to rebuild all of the overpasses or not. 

 

Why does the service have to be brand-new DMU's?  Can't they buy some old commuter passenger cars like Nashville did?

 

So the cost estimates being thrown around will vary by at least $100 million!

 

 

 

You raise a good point concerning new DMU's vs rebuilt cars. The latter can be had and rebuilt at much lower cost and are readily available.

http://citybeat.com/cincinnati/blog-5412-streetcar_supporters_oppose_oasis_rail_line.html

 

Thought this was a pretty good article.  Here's a question I'm not aware of the answer of.  According to the plan so far, how much of this would be city responsibility and how much county?  I really agree with the people quoted in the article, that we need to work on a metromoves type plan again, but am curious on how the costs will be split between city/county.

http://citybeat.com/cincinnati/blog-5412-streetcar_supporters_oppose_oasis_rail_line.html

 

Thought this was a pretty good article.  Here's a question I'm not aware of the answer of.  According to the plan so far, how much of this would be city responsibility and how much county?  I really agree with the people quoted in the article, that we need to work on a metromoves type plan again, but am curious on how the costs will be split between city/county.

 

There is no freaking plan.  There is no money to build or operate this thing. 

 

The most common way to fund a regional transit system is through a multi-county taxing district.  Right now the outer counties pay Metro to operate the suburban express buses that go to Clermont, Warren and Butler Counties.  I don't think you're getting Butler and Warren Counties to even consider this without at least two lines serving each of those counties, and the problem is that the express bus service that exists now is so fast it would be almost impossible to beat with a rail system. 

 

Keep in mind that DT Cincinnati is on the extreme edge of its county, meaning commuter rail on existing tracks or a new rail network has to cross the totality of Hamilton County, about 15 miles, before it even reaches the other counties in a multi-county district.  That means these 15 miles of track have to be very fast, with few stations. 

 

I think the way you get Warren and Butler Counties on board is to include Montgomery County, and to plan for multiple routes that will connect Cincinnati and Dayton.  For example one express service that roughly follows I-75, with high speeds and very few stops,  then at least one additional line in Butler and Warren that provide a local service.  So a local that connects Cincinnati with Hamilton and Middletown on its way to Dayton, then another which travels through Mason and perhaps Lebanon on its way to Dayton. 

 

What's interesting is that some of the ROW still exists from the Miami-Erie canal (some of it is a rarely-used bike trail) to build a link between I-75 and Hamilton, as well as the old interurban ROW paralleling Hamilton Ave. north to Hamilton.  In Warren County the old CL&X ROW can still be traced into downtown Mason, and I've spotted some other ways rail could travel through those subdivisions. 

 

Meanwhile, Clermont County is the lowest ROI because there is no "Dayton" in Brown or Adams County.  There can never be two-way traffic. 

 

 

Good points.  That's why really I think we should focus on the metro plus routes, as well as starting to do light rail within the city and Hamilton county.  We should establish a plan in general, and start as quick as we can on the beginning spurs of the I-71, I-75, and Wasson Way light rail.  This way we can start seeing the benefits of improved transit within 5-10 yrs, instead of waiting for all the counties to O.K. a bigger, more sprawling system.  I agree with you Jake, that the Oasis line should be scrapped, or at least shorten it so it stops around Delta, or maybe at the next stop up by Red Bank.  I wonder why there has been so much hype around this project though since it isn't funded.

Has All Aboard Ohio announced a position on this yet?

 

A collaboration between them and Ryan Messer to articulate a good alternative transit strategy to this could be really powerful.

Has All Aboard Ohio announced a position on this yet?

 

A collaboration between them and Ryan Messer to articulate a good alternative transit strategy to this could be really powerful.

 

All Aboard Ohio supports the Eastern Corridor via the Wasson Line. If the service is to start on the Oasis Line into downtown, the ridership projections strongly suggest starting it with second-hand, rebuilt trains and basic stations (ala Nashville) while work progresses on developing the Wasson Line, including the acquisition of new equipment -- preferably new DMU technologies are very clean (low emission) and quiet. The Eastern Corridor via the Wasson Line could be operated as a diesel light rail service, with high frequency (every 15 minutes) service operating over roughly the western half of the line, and hourly on the eastern half (except every 30 mins during rush hours).

 

 

 

Note how narrow the right of way is on single-track sections, even with stations, with street traffic immediately adjacent. That's an important issue for the Wasson Line portion. And also note near the end that an active industrial siding comes off the River Line, as freight trains share the River Line track. Although freight is currently limited to the overnight hours (midnight to 6 am), this could change with the FRA ruling allow more mixed traffic where there is a Positive Train Control (an advanced signal system that interacts with the trains' controls)....

 

DMU's on the Wasson Rd. line won't work because the link between Xavier and downtown on the abandoned CL&N is too severely severed.  Even if it was still intact, the travel time won't compete with buses, let alone be car-competitive, and the CL&N line has ZERO good station locations.   

If it's not viable for DMUs than how is it viable for light-rail, time-wise with buses?