Neither can significantly improve upon the travel time of the 29X bus, which is 38 minutes.  The CL&N RR is not usable now and will be even less usable after the MLK interchange is built.  The CL&N ROW doesn't travel near enough to the hospitals or UC to gain that additional ridership.  The "I-71" light rail alignment OKI studied in the late 1990s would have used about a half mile of the CL&N ROW, then diverged west along MLK, then south on Jefferson, then through a new tunnel to OTR.  Way more ridership than the either the Oasis line or the CL&N.

I think the point is that any sort of diesel equipment would not be viable on a Wasson alignment because the CL&N right-of-way between Xavier and downtown is unusable.  The simplest and likely highest ridership route to downtown would be to use the existing rail bed along Wasson through Ault Park, Hyde Park, and Norwood to Xavier, then go to street running at Montgomery or preferably Woodburn, follow Woodburn to Taft/McMillan, then take Gilbert downtown, or maybe Gilbert/Elsinore/Reading.  Because of street running it wouldn't be feasible to use diesel equipment.  Plus, whether on Gilbert Avenue or the CL&N right-of-way, there's grades approaching 3.5%.  Can diesel equipment safely handle anything like that?  The CL&N routinely needed pusher locomotives to get trains up the hill, and runaways were a problem too.

How long ago was that? I don't think those things would be problems with modern equipment. I'm no rolling stock expert, though.

Yeah I don't think the grade is a technical problem anymore, but the long-term wear on the equipment would be.  That was part of the advantage of the Mt. Auburn Tunnel -- much easier grade out of the weather. 

 

The whole problem again with the Oasis service is that the corridor is already served by perhaps Metro's best bus routes, the 28 and the 29X.  Extremely fast service on Columbia Parkway and Wooster Pike.  And in fact commuter rail anywhere in this area would be competing with existing express bus routes that are already very fast. 

DMUs can and do run in the streets, and newer low-emission technologies will make this practice even more common. I am not aware of the maximum gradients they can tackle however.

 

Do the 28 and 29X make enroute stops in populous neighborhoods like those along the Wasson Line?

It's an apples and oranges thing because on Wooster Pike the bus routes travel through Fairfax, Marriemont, and Terrace Park on their way to Milford.  The Oasis line would miss all of that action east of Red Bank but possibly hit Newtown.  There is already the #24 bus which goes up into Hyde Park, then travels to the hospitals and UC, but it is definitely slower than the Wasson Line could be. 

Which is why we like the Wasson Line, even as a feeder into more frequent/substantial rail transit as is done in Portland with the Westside Express Service or the River Line. DMUs will increasingly be used in this manner -- with East Cleveland-Euclid-Lake County as a possible next example.

They're wasting their time trying to get rail to go right through Mariemont and their South 80 land.  I don't see any way this happens.

^ All together now:

 

"Because they need to build a giant eight-lane bridge through the Little Miami River Valley, with four lanes supposedly dedicated to buses and trains. The train will never get built, the buses will never come, but I-74 sure will."

^ All together now:

 

"Because they need to build a giant eight-lane bridge through the Little Miami River Valley, with four lanes supposedly dedicated to buses and trains. The train will never get built, the buses will never come, but I-74 sure will."

 

The Eastern Corridor is a Trojan Horse for I-74. Don't chase your tails. Concentrate on the next step for the streetcar. Maybe it could be extended east on some of these alignments instead?

Everybody here knows that the reason the East Side lacks significant congestion, especially off-peak, is because it has little in the way of freeways.

Except that opposition to the highway and the rail line will mean that only I-74 will get built. Seen it happen too many times.

How loud are DMU's? I doubt people along Wasson will like it very much.

I saw some DMUs in Denmark 10 years ago (they use them for regional trains that go beyond Copenhagen's electrified rail service area) and they weren't any louder than a cruising semi tractor trailer.  In fact I'd say they had a more muffled and lower pitch sound, and this was when running pretty fast.  I suspect today they're even quieter. 

This is the Austin, TX DMU line that opened a few years ago:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oa1xMLDTu-Y

 

 

The big problem with DMU's is that they appear to be required to blow a freight train-type horn and have that annoying bell going.  That if anything is significantly louder than a light rail train.

 

 

Yeah, Hyde Park's going to welcome this monster horn to Wasson's many grade crossings:

^ Blowing a horn will be an issue by Friendship Park and the houses/condos near there and the Boathouse, not to mention Sawyer Point, but fortunately for the East End there's no other grade crossings until you get nearly to Lunken Airport (Tennyson Street) and none in Linwood. 

I saw some DMUs in Denmark 10 years ago (they use them for regional trains that go beyond Copenhagen's electrified rail service area) and they weren't any louder than a cruising semi tractor trailer.  In fact I'd say they had a more muffled and lower pitch sound, and this was when running pretty fast.  I suspect today they're even quieter. 

 

They are quieter. And each new series is quieter and has fewer emissions than those before, with European railcar orders driving the innovation -- even among U.S. engine suppliers: http://cumminsengines.com/news-press-details.aspx?id=21&title=CUMMINS+REVEALS+NEW+QSK19-R+UNDERFLOOR+RAIL+ENGINE+MEETING+TIER+4+FINAL%2FSTAGE+IIIB+LOW+EMISSIONS+AT+INNOTRANS

 

 

The big problem with DMU's is that they appear to be required to blow a freight train-type horn and have that annoying bell going.  That if anything is significantly louder than a light rail train.

 

 

As with any rail crossing, the need to use horns/bells is as dependent on the supplemental safety measures available at those crossings such as a median barrier to prevent people from driving around one gate per direction of roadway, or the installation of four-quad (full closure) gates, additional signals/signage as well as intensified education programming in the community will increase the FRA's score of a crossing, or multiple crossings that will win an FRA Quiet Zone designation....

 

 

Note that the DMU is a streetcar in Camden and doesn't blow its horn at intersections....

 

^ Blowing a horn will be an issue by Friendship Park and the houses/condos near there and the Boathouse, not to mention Sawyer Point, but fortunately for the East End there's no other grade crossings until you get nearly to Lunken Airport (Tennyson Street) and none in Linwood.

 

There is one at St. Andrews in the East End.

^ Ah touche, good call. 

^ All together now:

 

"Because they need to build a giant eight-lane bridge through the Little Miami River Valley, with four lanes supposedly dedicated to buses and trains. The train will never get built, the buses will never come, but I-74 sure will."

 

What I meant was good lucking getting any rail, road, highway, bus system, etc through Mariemont's South 80 properties.  And rightfully so.

so last week I posed the question about whatever happened to the city renaming Red Bank Road Expressway to Dunbar Parkway in an effort to use the parkway designation to block it becoming a full blown highway.  Didn't seem to get a response on it, so I did some digging.  Here is the last mention of it I could find in the news in 2011

 

http://www.wcpo.com/web/wcpo/news/local-news/hamilton-county/cincinnati/madisonville/hearing-on-future-of-red-bank-corridor-has-competing-visions

 

Does anyone know what happened to this, and if it really was going to be able to block the state from turning it into a highway?

 

 

I recognize that the CL&N line has its problems, particularly the broken-up right-of-way, but it seems like there are some positives about it, namely the fact that because there is very little around it it has decent potential for development.  In addition, there are some spots where it could link up with an expanded streetcar line.

 

If the Eastern Avenue route is used, I wonder if it would be possible to redevelop that area along Eastern between Wilmer from Airport Road to Red Bank in a way to add housing/office space that is quite dense and focused entirely on the commuter line.

 

It seems to me that the only way to avoid the highway is to get the commuter rail line going first.  And I'm not sure that any commuter rail line in Cincinnati is going to be that viable, unless the route is redeveloped for higher densities.

If and only if they can get a low cost carrier and do some major upgrades at Lunken  airport this corridor would be awesome.

What is the Oasis Line? 10 things Cincinnatians need to know

Chris Wetterich Staff reporter- Cincinnati Business Courier

 

The next big fight in Cincinnati over rail transit could be about the Oasis Line, a potential commuter railroad line running parallel to the Ohio River from the Banks until it cuts eastward at Lunken Airport and heads to Milford through Newtown.

 

I plan to write more this week about the surprising potential dispute coming over the line, but here are the top 10 things to know about the line:

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/morning_call/2014/01/what-is-the-oasis-line-heres-what.html

http://www.wcpo.com/news/local-news/hamilton-county/cincinnati/metromoves-map-michael-tyznik-draws-out-cincinnati-transit-plan-that-could-have-been

I've seen that map before, its a good one.  I wonder why it's getting into the news now though, when his project has been around at least 2-3 yrs.

The next big fight in Cincinnati over rail transit could be about the Oasis Line, a potential commuter railroad line running parallel to the Ohio River from the Banks until it cuts eastward at Lunken Airport and heads to Milford through Newtown.

 

The OASIS line doesn't go to Milford. The Eastern Corridor line is a proposed commuter railroad that will use part of the OASIS line on the way to Milford. The OASIS line is an existing railroad that goes from the boathouse past Lunken Airport, loops through Norwood and ends in Reading.

 

https://maps.google.com/?ll=39.226028,-84.439057&spn=0.000012,0.006539&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=39.226119,-84.439004&panoid=tnV1ZBobLiBD0cQutaFp5Q&cbp=12,33.54,,0,0

Really good point!  Following the line on the map, it goes through some really interesting spots.  Some examples are it crosses over Losantiville a couple of blocks away from Reading and Seymour, where all the redevelopment is planned and where a lot of density already exists in small apartment buildings in Bond Hill and Golf Manor.  It also crosses through parts of Hyde Park and Oakley near Madisonville and follows along next to part of Red Bank.  If the future commuter/light rail went up along this ROW, it could potentially really increase the ridership and effectiveness of the line because it would basically hit or be close to Madisonville, Hyde Park, Oakley, Norwood, Pleasant Ridge, Golf Manor, Bond Hill, Rose Lawn and Reading.  Too bad this is not in the plan at all.

^Yeah, it's a a shame that the rail plan isn't to go from the Riverfront Transit Center out east via the Oasis line, then rather branch east at Fairfax, continue north along Red Bank, through Highland Ridge Plaza to Bond Hill, then head west across Seymour all the way through Elmwood Place to Este Road, follow Este to the abandoned rail line that goes through Spring Grove and then crosses Hamilton in Northside around Hoffner Park and follows the west side of the Mill Creek through Lower Price Hill and then back to the Riverfront Transit Center.  While I admit that some of these areas aren't terribly important, that's a plus in some way because they are developable.  In fact, if a lot of the adjacent land was aquired and developed by the rail authority itself (like is done in Hong Kong, for example) it would be a great thing.  In addition, there are enough residential areas and business centers (run down, to be sure, but at least pre-existing as business centers, and P&G's Center Hill campus and Ivorydale would be adjacent to this line) along this route to make it feasible. Also hits east and west sides and enough black areas to make it politically more attractive, and SORTA basically already owns most of the right-of-way.

Agreed.  Even though they might not be "important", a lot of those areas are ready or near ready for redevelopment, which would cause large gains in terms of increased tax revenue if these areas were developed with TOD in mind.  Plus all of those areas are more dense than Newtown or Milford, leading to more potential ridership which equals more $.

Basically straight propoganda focusing on travel times.  Doesn't address the very low ridership rates projected and how that will help congestion.  Shows pics of buses and trains even though what their plan to reduce congestion realy is is a highway.  Also no projection on how project will mitigate or reduce travel times.

Who is "they"?

I am so sick of OKI using scare tactics to try and shove these highway projects down our throats. 

It's disgusting that OKI is nothing more than a highway lobby. They continue to use outdated traffic projections to push for the Eastern Corridor and the new Brent Spence Bridge. Imagine if OKI was using their power to push for a real solution to our traffic problems (better transit) instead of more highways which lead to more traffic and more congestion.

Potentially bad news for the Wasson Way alternative to the Eastern Corridor:

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2014/03/31/cincinnati-tries-to-buy-rail-line-for-east-side.html

 

 

I'm thinking Cranley wants I-74. Badly.

Oh goody, Cranley trying to turn bicyclists and rail advocates against each other.

Oh goody, Cranley trying to turn bicyclists and rail advocates against each other.

 

Divide and conquer

Oh goody, Cranley trying to turn bicyclists and rail advocates against each other.

 

The COAST boys started this two years ago.  Some of the bicycle people have been spreading bad information for years. 

^It's pretty obviously stupid to use that right-of-way as a bike path, but so long as we keep working to show how rail works, there's no reason that the Wasson route couldn't be used for rail even if it is turned into a bike path in the meantime.  The reason why bike paths don't turn into rail isn't because of the creation of some bike lobby- it's because we still have this crazy generation of older adults who think rail is a scam to help those people or young lazy kids who don't want to drive to work both ways up hill and in the rain.  Not everyone from that generation, but that is the core constituency.  Once the streetcar is implemented and immediately begins to prove it's worth, the rail constituency will grow in strength.

In many cases both bike trails and rail can be put in the same R/W as long as there is an effective separation.

Cranley has caved to the all powerful bike lobby.....

My only problem with the bike trail idea is that it's just more recreation infrastructure to maintain. How many swimming pools will this cost? Where's the money going to come from for something that will see no return on the investment?

heh - pit the cyclists against the swimmers.....

You do know that this process was begun by Mayor Mark Mallory, and that discussions with Norfolk Southern began more than two years ago when the line was effectively abandoned? NS did not want to continue to maintain a costly line for one customer. It's speed was regulated to 10 MPH due to poor track conditions, the bridge over Red Bank needs major rehab. to support loaded locomotives, and the line is essentially dead-ended since it's never going to connect to downtown via the CL&N or to the Belt Line via the partially covered line by Xavier.

In the 80s it was a traffic nightmare when the trains crossed Paxton. There's more traffic there now, I can't imagine it.

I thought my nephew was going to have a stroke when I told him folks were talking about reintroducing rail service there.

Neither "side" has a particularly strong argument.  Last year I went on a group bike ride and one of the champions of the Wasson Way project was part of the group.  We got to talking about the Eastern Corridor highway and how stubborn and backward-thinking ODOT is being about it.  It didn't take long for Wasson Way to come up, and I said I didn't want to be involved because the rhetoric on both sides is so toxic, and because I'm somewhat a proponent of both sides.  Of course whether transit or a bike path is built, what's most important is that the right-of-way isn't sold off and built over.  We still ended up arguing for most of the ride. 

 

Here's the issues on both camps that I see. 

 

For one, anybody who says we can fit double-track light rail and a bike path in the existing corridor is either blatantly lying in order to advance their own agenda, or they haven't bothered to actually examine the situation with the right-of-way.  This goes for the bike advocates and the transit advocates.  As best as I can determine, the absolute bare minimum allowable width for a double-track right-of-way is just over 25 feet.  Preferably it's closer to 27 or 28 feet, but these are still minimums.  The right-of-way between Withrow High School and Paxton Avenue is only 30 feet wide.  So there's not even enough room to build stations without buying some adjacent property, let alone to fit in a generous 10 foot wide bike path and accommodate fencing between the two, retaining walls, drainage, and berms.  East of Paxton the right-of-way is quite a bit bigger, but most of it is taken up with steep grading as the roadbed dives down below the surrounding terrain.  There's also the bridges at Marburg and Erie that were only built to allow the single-track railroad to fit.

 

The bike advocates are hand waving away several issues relating to bridges and street crossings.  Madison and Edwards are traffic nightmares, and doing grade crossings would be a very tough sell, if not downright impossible when the traffic engineers get involved.  A tunnel or bridge is equally unlikely due to cost.  Speaking of which, while I suspect the bridge over I-71 is easy enough to retrofit, since it's fairly wide, the large trestle over Red Bank Road will need a major overhaul and a completely new deck to make it workable and safe just for a bike path.  Nobody has any real idea for how to handle these obstacles.  It's just "they'll be dealt with."  Sure, with leprechaun gold and happy rainbow unicorn farts. 

 

On the transit side, how it would get from Xavier to downtown also tends to be hand waved as well.  The CL&N right-of-way is pretty well obliterated south of Florence Avenue, and it's quite chopped up north of there as well, which will only get worse with the I-71 MLK interchange.  I'd personally be fine with a Montgomery/Gilbert or Woodburn/Gilbert route, but either way it's a lot of street running which again increases expense and reduces running time.  I think it'd be a boon for Walnut Hills though.  The bridges, trestles, and grade crossings also become a much bigger issue with transit since all the structures would need to be replaced or expanded somehow to accommodate two tracks.  Could a single-track setup with multiple passing sidings work?  Probably, but it would be difficult at best and very restricting.  The narrow right-of-way is also a problem by itself as I mentioned earlier. 

I actually like this guide: http://www.dot.state.il.us/blr/manuals/chapter%2042.pdf

 

You need at least a 2' berm or gravel area on both sides of the path for a clear zone, and if you have a fence, it's 3'. Page 42-3(8) has some good cross-sections for guidance. If you are along Wasson Way, you need a minimum 5' separation from the roadway - which even the Ohio River Trail along Eastern Avenue doesn't have when it squeezes by one of those businesses.

 

For 300 users at peak per hour, it's a 12' path at a minimum, but we'd really look at a 8' path since we should have less than 100 users at peak per hour.

 

As for the Red Bank crossing - one of the Wasson Way supporters told me they would look at reusing the existing deck and filling it in - which is absurd. Those ties are not structural members and at a minimum, you'd need a concrete deck with proper drainage, barriers and all that which is far from cheap. You can't expect to use a wood deck either - they don't last more than a few years. Thankfully, those along the Little Miami are being replaced.

Jeffrey, you're correct, there is not enough width at several points for double-track rail and a trail to be built side-by-side.  The transit line would have to be underground with the bike trail built above.  Along Wasson Rd. itself between Edwards and Paxton, the trail can be built in place of the freight tracks and the light rail line can be built in the street.  There is actually excess space along most of the route. 

 

At least one new bridge would need to be built over I-71.  Also the rail line most likely would divert onto Erie and head to Fairfax that way. 

 

 

Regardless, Wasson way bike Trail has unanimous support on council and from Cranley.  They are fast tracking this.

 

So if there's any option to salvage it for rail, it better happen fast.  Otherwise you can kiss that right of way goodbye for light rail

Not true. The rails will need to be pulled regardless - they are in very poor condition and was one of the reasons NS opted to move the transfer facility down to the Claire yard at Mariemont. As this is a rail-trail, the contract clearly stipulates that if the rail line is to be reused (i.e. put back in service), that the bike path would need to be removed or mitigated for the railroad.

 

But no light rail proposal is even seriously credible for that corridor for at least the next decade or more.